Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 32

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Why I hate Speedy Deleters

Into the Lions Den I go... I just wrote an essay Why I hate Speedy Deleters. Would love to get feedback/input on it.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)PS, I'm going to bed, so I won't be able to respond until tomorrow.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You fell into the trap of conflating notability with an indication of importance. --NE2 08:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

He hasn't really. A7 currently says to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable. See the first thread on this talk page. (A7 needs to be changed back) As I pointed out in that thread, it's now difficult to determine if someone using the phrase "asserts notability" knows the difference between "notability" and "IoS". (my new shorthand for "Importance or Significance") Something worth knowing when evaluating an RFA candidate. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I know what you are talking about, but could you elaborate... I think you are referring to what I am trying to get out with my "credible claim?" It was the part of the essay I liked the least, but couldn't think of a better way to frame it... and I think you have it... I just need help pontificating upon it.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 08:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Tsk, tsk. You're supposed to be in bed! Protonk (talk) 08:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

No kidding, I am... only an hour after I said I was... my son will probably be waking up in an hour or two... he's been getting up at 3:30 every morning lately!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 08:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)My son is throwing a tantrum, we've been caving in and letting him sleep in our room this past weekend, but decided to break that over the weekend... now I don't get to sleep.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 10:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)Final edit of the night??? He sounds like after 80 minutes of crying and coming out of his room to have finally gone back to sleep... hopefully he sleeps in today... otherwise, he'll be waking up in 2 more hours!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 10:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I really hope your son is an infant and not a 32 year old still living in the basement. ;-P --Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm cashing out myself. I'll take a look at it later. First thought is that it has too many sections. But I like the idea of the essay. Basically fits my view of speedies. Protonk (talk) 08:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that you mention notability at all. --NE2 08:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you should rename your essay to "Why I hate users who abuse speedy deletion". After all, you are not disputing the fact that SD is necessary - you are just sick with users mis-tagging and admins being over-eager to delete. But I think most people here agree with that... Regards So Why 10:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I like the title---it's part of the marketting strategy... people are more likely to read it than they would with "Why I hate users who abuse speedy deletion" ;-)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 10:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I like the title too - caught my eye! DuncanHill (talk) 10:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It's needlessly inflammatory. Something like "Speedy deletion considered harmful" would have had the same impact without the issue of seeming personal. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

In a way, the title works well. I went there ready to be pissed off and wound up agreeing with just about everything on the page. I probably wouldn't have read it if the title were "Ways CSD is being misused." Still, the title probably should be toned down a bit. :) And I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who thinks that CSD is essential and way overused. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

←I agree that the title is inflammatory; it's divisive. I'm all for halting CSD abuse. It's an issue for me, as well. But there are many good CSDers out there, and lumping them in with the abusive ones isn't fair to them. Plus it seems to me to promote us/themism: non-CSDers, CSDers. The better bet would be to get the good CSDers on the side of "us." A couple of specifics: "How many people, upon arriving at WP knew to read WP:YFA? Most newbies couldn't even find it if they had to." This is true up to the minute that they try to create a new page. The minute you try to create Garblopolock, you see in a box at the top of the page "* Before creating an article, please read Wikipedia:Your first article, or search for an existing article to which you can redirect this title", plus some other useful information. True enough it may be hard to find before you start creating articles. Once you do, it's hard to miss. :) I agree with this: "Plus, let's be frank, too many CSD'ers do not adhere to the policies and guidelines surrounding CSD—and this includes Admins!" You say, "Even if, on the outside chance that the admin is taken to AN/ANI..." I'm surprised that you don't mention DRV, since this is where most CSD abuses (and even some CSD non-abuses :)) are brought to light. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

My experience is that even when clear misuse of CSD is brought to light, the poor sap who has discovered it gets a very raw deal from CSD-fanatics (including certain admins). The instructions at DRV are hideously written, and certainly impossible for most new editors to follow. Even many experienced editors find starting DRV to be a needlessly complex process, apparently designed to discourage both attempts to get a review, and any overturning of a deletion. DuncanHill (talk) 11:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that DRV could stand some major work. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

If you've got any suggestions, feel free to give 'em out. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's a question: is there a specific protocol for addressing WP:SALT issues at DRV? This seems to be a multi-page issue. When I go to a protected page, like Virtual Family Kingdom, the notice that I see doesn't give instructions for dealing with a salted page. It links to the protection policy, but not to the salt section. And the salt section only says, "Contributors wishing to re-create a salted title with more-appropriate content should contact an administrator. As with deletions in general, the matter can also be resolved through the deletion review process" (formatting not carried over by reason of user laziness.) I don't see any mention of how to address salted articles at DRV. Is that solely for cases where the admin approached does not agree that the proposed article addresses concerns? If so, should that be made explicit at WP:SALT and WP:DRV? Do non-admins see a different, more specific message there? And in terms of overturning speedy deletions, why does this require extensive discussion? I rather think speedy deletions should be handled somewhat like contested PRODs, except that with PRODs even the creator can request restoration. At the very least, unless it's a policy violation of a copyright or attack or some such, I would think material could be temporarily restored if evaluation is requested (which I think should mean automatically if it's up at DRV, until the DRV is resolved). For example, on today's listings we have Wikipedia:DRV#Scripps Health. While the suggested concern about copyright infringement is worth checking into first, I don't know why such an article would not be restored during the discussion period so that any interest contributors can way in. (AfDs are, obviously, different.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

(@ top) I'm afraid, Balloonman, that your essay may very well be preaching to the choir here. From my experience, most of the regulars at this talk page are fairly into narrow interpretation and implementation, myself included. I would suggest that you'd have better luck getting change at WT:NPP, as it feels like a lot of the essay is more directed at them, but considering the number of people active there I doubt it would come to much. What'd be really nice is some better way to have oversight of speedy deletions, though still most would go unchecked simply due to the vast number of them each day. But, as many people above have already said, I pretty much agree with everything in the essay. It probably needs a little section on spam, as it's also another oft-misused criterion. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting thought... I had expected more of a reaction here ;-) ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting and revealing discovery in the reaction at WP:NPP... silence. This makes me wonder how many of the people who are on NPP actually read the talk page?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It might be a bit early to call it total silence, but... Yeah, pretty much no one's active there. I must've missed it somewhere in the ton of WT:RFA stuff in my watchlist... Cheers, though. lifebaka++ 05:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

But you pay attention to the other two pages where I posted it.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

much of NPP is done by beginners with a minimal grasp of policy. sometimes I'm surprised they don't get even more of it wrong. I think the solution there is to urge them to go much more slowly, and for shorter periods until they see they are getting it right. Perhaps the automated tools many of them use can be designed to force a break after 25 articles. thats 1/3 of the problem. The 2/nd third is the admin who insist on deleting in defiance of policy, often knowing well that they are doing so, not just out of forgetfulness. Not mentioning names, since some are my friends. The last 3rd, & connected to that, is the method of working at DRV, where the usual result is that any speedy however wrong of a low quality article will be upheld. DGG (talk) 04:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

G1 and A1 reviews

One of the things I've been looking at lately are the way in which our CSD system is being abused and misused. I've already looked at G1 abuse and A1 abuse. I have to say, based upon these two short reviews, I am very disenheartened by the lack of care people put into CSD. I should note that the A1 abuse is worse than represented there---two admins are going around wontonly deleting articles per A1 that don't meet the criteria. I have 5 examples from those two in the A1 Abuse log---they should be easy to identify, they are the 5 most egregious cases! I would love your feedback on why my reviews are right/wrong.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 21:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

CSD R4

I'm proposing that CSD R4 be: A page that redirects to itself. Anyone agree? -- IRP ☎ 01:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a solid idea, though I'm not sure how often this would come up. Do you remember any times where it has in your Wikicareer? - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It used to be covered in R1 (see old version here), which was merged with G8. I went ahead and made this change to explicitly allow for it in G8, which should be all that's necessary. I don't believe the intent of the merger was ever to remove this functionality. I've personally seen a few in the time I spent doing WP:NPP earlier in my Wikicareer. {{db|reason=Redirects to itself.}} should work as well. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC) Late sig!

That change should cover it, though frankly I think we're being over-legalistic if anyone really thinks we need to explicitly cover the case of deleting a redirect that points to itself. --Cyde Weys 19:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably, but I figure better safe than sorry. lifebaka++ 19:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for modification of templates

As a new editor, having one's first (or nearly first) page flagged for consideration of Speedy Deletion is an unhappy welcome to Wikipedia. Usually the speedy deletion warning template is the first thing that they see on their talk page because many register, and fire an article off as their first, excited activity. And then get what looks like a slap in the face.

We don't want trashy articles here, that is a given.

We want enthusiastic new editors here, that is also a given.

What we do when we put a speedy warning as the only item on their talk page is to antagonise them when all we really want to do, assuming good faith at all times, is to encourage them to get it right.

My suggestion is to add a conditional element to the CSD warning templates that takes the following actions:

Checks to see if the user talk page is otherwise empty
If there is other content present, whatever that content is, to proceed by simply making the CSD warning
If the page is empty, to deploy above the CSD warning a modified version of (eg) {{welcomeg}} or {{welcome}}, modified to reflect the sad fact that an article they have submitted has been proposed for speedy, and personalised in some manner to make them feel that "We still like them"

I'd be interested in thoughts on this with a view to reaching a consensus. I regret that, if a consensus should build to do this, I am technically challenged, and cannot implement my suggestion! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting idea. At first I thought that it can only be done in Twuggle, but of course you can use {{#ifexist:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|exists|doesn't exist}} to check if the page already exists, which is good enough.
Well, I'm all for it. It should use a welcome message that discerns between registered and anons, like {{Wel}}. --Amalthea^Talk 12:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Or not, since anons don't create articles that much. :\ --Amalthea^Talk 16:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm also technically challenged, but I like the concept if its feasible. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

As to #3, we have an existing template which fills that need. See Template:Firstarticle, which is also part of the Friendly arsenal. FWIW, when I work on NPP, I try to choose the pages where the creator's talk pages is a red link. That way I can either give them a welcome that has a bunch of useful links, or give them the sad news in a welcome before the speedy template shows up.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 12:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

We may have it, but my feeling is that this functionality ought to be designed in to ALL such templates. I use Twinkle (for example) to flag for speedy deletion and it doesn't use it. My thoughts are that this ought to be an automatic courtesy rather than an "If I remember to use it then I can" facility. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I think either I misunderstood you or you misunderstood me. {{Firstarticle}} appears to me to be a pleasant welcome template, but has no reference that I can see to speedy deletion? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

"Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted (if it hasn't already)." Older versions linked to the CSD themselves.

As for the suggestions, I'm game for them, assuming they can actually be implemented. I'll go test if a substituted #ifexist works the way we want. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

By my test (at a typo'd location...), it works. lifebaka++ 16:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

If it is agreed that this be implemented, I'd very much like to see it implemented on every CSD template. This will mean that no-one has to consider the welcome note when letting them know that their first born is about to be slain, and it may encourage better citizenship. And yes, I do know that there is nothing we can do about half baked silly little kids :) I'm nervous of suggesting being bold with such a set of important templates, but that is something I would suggest for a less widely used set. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW it took me so long to see the "unfortunately" part that I think it is too well hidden in {{firstarticle}}. There is gentle and "missed it!" Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

See {{User:Amalthea/test1}}. I had to use a small hack to get rid of a superfluous linebreak if the page already exists right above the section header, not sure if there's a cleaner way to do it.
I'd rather wait another day before adding it to {{db-notice}} since it is quite a big change: Lots of patrollers will suddenly start leaving welcome messages without knowing it. --Amalthea^Talk 17:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

So "proof of concept" looks good. I guess the main thing is to determine when it ought to be implemented (on the basis that no-one seems to say "Bad idea" so far) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

If this is implemented, we shouldn't do it on every speedy deletion criterion. Otherwise we could end up giving welcome notices to vandals. It might be an idea to customise the template depending on the CSD criterion, for example people creating advertising articles could be directed to WP:COI. Hut 8.5 07:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

With regard solely to vandalism I see no inherent harm in "welcoming a vandal" in this way. I can understand why one might say "but this is a vandal, why welcome them?" but first it takes no time, and second, what might happen if a vandal actually felt "Gosh, I could be a part of this community?" and became a decent editor. There is nothing to be lost by issuing a welcome message, certainly not time or trouble, and everything to be gained, despite the low probability of a gain.

Even with a vandal our role is to assume good faith until such time as it is proven to be a lost cause. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I certainly hope this is being done, as speedying is an area where it's particularly easy to bite, even unintentionally. Articles which appear to be clear vandalism might just be testing, articles which appear to be spamming might just be unfamiliarity with the style of prose we expect, and a welcome and a gentle pointer to the sandbox as well as relevant policy might be all that's needed. If the gentler advice is not heeded we can always proceed to sterner warnings later. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I've turned the welcome template into a parameter so that it can be switched to a more specific version of {{firstarticle}}, or be turned off altogether in the specific notices. I personally wouldn't turn it off even for attack pages though: It's only added with the very first speedy deletion notice, by default we should AGF even there. {{Uw-npa1}} starts with "welcome to Wikipedia", too. --Amalthea^Talk 12:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I will implement this this evening, if there are no strong objections until then. --Amalthea^Talk 12:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds very good. Now, just to confirm: You will change it so this is the new standard, but we can turn it OFF with the parameter, I hope? I'm thinking of folk like me who use scripts like Twinkle that just takes the standard stuff. Lordy I hope no scripts like that will need an edit! That would suck a lot, BUT should not be a gating factor. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea and nice work on the coding. I would like to suggest you notify Ioeth (talk · contribs) (the developer/programmer of Twinkle) and/or write a note on the Wikipedia talk:Twinkle talk page, as I am nearly certain someone will notice and comment about it there. Also, if there are any problems, they will probably be reported there first. (Consider watching that page for the next day.) Good luck and thanks for being so bold! (EhJJ)^TALK 14:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I was already watching it, and will leave a short note there. Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 14:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

That's right, Fiddle. --Amalthea^Talk 14:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Fingers well crossed. Good and bold step. We'll never know if it "turned" any potentially lost souls around, but we can be confident that we are not slapping them in the face. I'm not going to tempt providence by any form of congratulations yet. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Done [1]. I'll wait a while to see how it goes before I add it to Huggle's notification templates. --Amalthea^Talk 21:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Now I think congratulations are in order. Hence the horizontal line. It works. We have made a difference, albeit unquantifiable. Newbies are not bitten now by speedy deletions. Vandals will always be vandals, but one or two may get turned around. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Changes

Could it be changed so that it doesn't say "Thank you for your contributions" at least when it's a G3 or G10? Sure, we can welcome them and hope that a vandal may turn productive, but we certainly don't have to thank them for their vandalism or attacks. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 03:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That seems sensible, in particular since {{Db-g3-notice}} and {{Db-g10-notice}} are also pretty explicit that such pages are not welcome here. You want only that one sentence taken out from {{firstarticle}}, or other changes as well? --Amalthea 12:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Done for those two ([2]). Huggle might take a bit until it picks it up, will need a restart from the Hugglers. --Amalthea 23:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I was glad to see that my most recent speedy deletion notification didn't end up thanking the vandal (Bigbuttbigbutt) for their contribution. That contribution, by the way, was about a tribe of people who walk on their hands and eat slugs and feces with their feet, watch videos on "paper view", and create fake Wikipedia articles. — MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Expansion of A2

What should be done with articles that are introduced in a foreign language that already exist (in much better form) in English? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Redirect it to the English title? Hut 8.5 16:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

If there is no article on the appropriate foreign language WP, and the content is at least a good stub, then move the text there before changing it to a redirect here. You probably knew that and were just asking whether it should be deleted or made into a redirect, but figure it's best to spell that out. (EhJJ)^TALK 21:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Nooooo!! The GFDL will eat you alive if you do that... such pages need to be transwikied. Happy‑melon 19:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion tags

Would there be any opposition to changing the wording of the "your page has been tagged for deletion" messages to make it clear that copy-and-pasting those messages to the article/talkpage will not help? Ironholds (talk) 10:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

What did you have in mind? :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

well the db-spam warning would become:

A tag has been placed on [[:{{{1}}}]], requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of [[:{{{1}}}]] and leave a note on [[Talk:{{{1}}}|the article's talk page]] explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself or copy this message on to the article, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

... or something. I'm not sure on the wording/placing but I've seen a lot of new users who seem to sign up to some kind of cargo cult mentality and assume that because the big shiny message made the article go all funny, posting it again might make the article go all un-funny.Ironholds (talk) 12:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this happening a whole lot? I worry about confusing some of our new contributors, some of whom seem to find it difficult enough to follow the directions as it is. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd say one in thirty CSD's, maybe. Ironholds (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, It seems to happen quite often to me--Jac16888 (talk) 23:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Strange. Maybe you could ask one of the authors why they thought that would help? I'd be interested to know what gave them the idea (besides blind panic that their work might be deleted). Can "please add {{hangon}} on the top" be misinterpreated to copy the whole message there? --Amalthea 23:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll try and remember to do that next time I come across one--Jac16888 (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

What happened to autofill?

Hi, are any other admins having the problem where the deletion reason stays blank when you try to delete? It used to be that if a page was tagged for deletion, and I clicked the "delete" tab, that the delete reason (A7, G9, etc.) was automatically filled in to the deletion box, so I just needed to doublecheck it and confirm the delete. Now, it's always blank, so I have to manually choose the reason again. I'm not even sure where to look to find out why this happened, so any pointers on how we can get it fixed? --El on ka 17:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

This is certainly related to this discussion, but I'm not sure exactly how. Happy‑melon 18:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I see it's also being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#CSD automatic dropdown broken. --El on ka 18:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

New CSD i9 proposal

NOTE: The beginning of this proposal was removed and archived: Archive - "Important I9 add needed". Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Based on various comment I must be way off with my 30 plus years of dealing with copyrights and I.P in the real world. Stifle explained it the most clear - "From WP:CSD: CSD I9 "does not include images used under a claim of fair use". No mention of credible, valid, or otherwise. Therefore the tagging was incorrect. It's there in black and white." So here:

CSD I9: Blatant copyright infringement. Images that are not used under a claim of fair use and where a URL, or other indication of where the image originated, can be found. Blatant infringements should be tagged with the {{db-imgcopyvio}} template. Non-blatant copyright infringements should be discussed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images.

Discussion

More clear, Direct and to the point. Not in any way confusing. No mention of the fair use claim having to be credible. No mention of any sort of "Stock" or "press" photos being excluded as long they have a FUR attached they are fine. Cheers. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Aside from removing the "stock photo" sentence, I don't think this is an improvement. I9 is written so that users don't have to know how our fair use regime works in order to upload material or so that some presumption of good faith remains (in the "credible claim of license" bit) for the uploader. We want to be able to accept a fair use claim that is a sentence or a sentence fragment, so long as it is accurate and made in good faith. I think the language of I9 can be clarified but that the meaning shouldn't be altered. Protonk (talk) 21:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- (ec with the comment below) I'd agree to remove the stock photo part, mostly because I think the disagreement in the section above came from the interpretation of that sentence ("This includes ...") as an explicit inclusion which extends the actual criterion "Images that are claimed by the uploader to be images with free licenses when this is obviously not the case". I don't see how the "stock photo" sentence adds or clarifies the criterion. They can still be speedily deleted if they have an obviously incorrect free license.
  It should also be made more clear which part is the actual criterion, and which part is clarification/explanation, if only by a line break. --Amalthea 13:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

comment:I have not see anyone (in three locations now) make any mention of Photo agencies as they are currently included in this criteria. All that has come out is that any image tagged with a FUR does not ever get tagged with an i9, which changes the meaning without being written. The meaning of i9, to me, has always seems very clear - if an image is a blatant copyvio is should be tagged as such with only one exception - if the image is a legit NFCC image and tagged as such. How this all came about is because of three images that were not legit NFCC images. Because i9 says it can be used on images images of this sort it was used. There has been quite the backlash against my use based on how the policy is currently written it did not alter anything. However the comments and indication that my use of the tags was wrong "the meaning shouldn't be altered" becomes a somewhat null point as it has already been altered. According to a high percentage of comments the one thing that can prevent any image from being considered a blatant cxopyvio is to slap a FUR on it. But for the sake of really breaking this down:

Define what makes an image a copy vio. If an editor takes an image created by someone other than their selves and uploads it under the guise of being a "self published work" is that a copyvio? I would think that it is. Does i9 cover this? Because it is claimed to be for "Blatant copyright infringement" I feel it can be used.
Define what makes an image not a copy vio. If an editor takes an image created by someone other than their selves, has received permission to use it via some means (release form, email,source listing image as PD or allowable CCL) and uploads it is that a copyvio? At face value I would say no. as long as the upload process is done correctly there should not be any issue and it should pass any sort of review if the sources are clearly laid out. Does i9 cover this? Yes it does but there would be no need to ever use it as long as the permissions were in place and can be verified.
Define what what makes an image a copy vio but safe from being deleted as a copy vio. If an editor takes an image created by someone other than their selves and uploads it under the guise of "fair use" is that a copy vio? My real world experience says "It depends". For example in real world if a picture of Times Square ran in a newspaper most everything you see in that image, that may be under a copyright, would fall under "fair use". The image itself could be used under "fair use" if it were part of something in itself. Such as an article on the newspaper that it ran in where the page the image was used on was being used an an example of the paper. If that image were taken from some other location than the direct from the copyright holder for "featured" use it becomes more clear it is a copy vio. However as real world is not wiki-world I must look at existing policy. A good place to start in this case would be the Licensing policy of the Wikimedia Foundation. It is short and to the point but does not offer a lot of specifics but one could safely deduct that, in my given example, the image itself would not fall under any "Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP)" because, with an image of Times Square, "we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose". But would it be an i9? The core purpose of i9 is to deal with images that are a "Blatant copyright infringement" so I would say yes. But if you read it this would seem to not be the case because the image would have a FUR attached thusly making it exempt for being deleted for "Blatant copyright infringement". However, the full criteria defines at least one genre of images that fall under i9 - "This includes images from stock photo libraries such as Getty Images or Corbis". So now, if my example image was being reped by a photo agency it could be removed as "Blatant copyright infringement", irregardless of any FUR. An editor can also look at Non-free content - Unacceptable use and they will find a lits of 12 items, one of which is number 6 which says "A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article."

So where do this leave us? Well we have editor comments such as "The source is irrelevant - the images you tagged are clearly labeled as Fair use, and therefore not covered by I9", "There are many press agency images used with a claim of fair use here", "It may be that we should not be using some specific fair use image due to copyright, but it isn't a situation for speedy deletion, it's a situation for IfD..." and of course Stifles one line reading of i9 that really prompted this proposal. So, as I have stated already, if the consensus is that, as long as any image has a fur attached, it does not qualify as a copyvio and if images from photo agencies are included, rather than excluded as the current wording implies, in this blanket FUR exemption than I say just remove that wording all together from i9 because it is irrelevant to the criteria. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

1. Yes, if the image created by that third person does not also have a free license, per I9: Images that are claimed by the uploader to be images with free licenses when this is obviously not the case"
2. See I11. I9 does not cover it, because it's not obviously incorrect if it is (credibly ;)) claimed that the creator has released it under a free license.
3. ~~tl;dr~~ See my comment above yours for what I think might be a reason for this disagreement. Also, please understand that many images can be copyright violations and still not be speedily deletable, simply because they are not blatant enough. Those follow-up processes (WP:PUI, WP:IfD) are there for a reason. Also, I5 and I7.

Yes, if an image has FUR, it's not an I9. It might be I5 or I7 though. If it isn't any, it should go through IfD.
Amalthea 13:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's kind of strange to say that having a fair use rationale means something is fair use. It clearly does not. Fair use is defined by US law, and the inclusion of this image in our article is clearly against US law as well as against Wikipedia policy. I'm not sure how something like this could be captured in a CSD, but maybe it is an IAR issue where there is no reason to keep an image on WP where it is clearly illegal. I almost speedied this image myself rather than nominating it at IFD. In any event, I think the notion that a FUR negates I9 makes I9 kind of worthless. The whole point is to delete blatant copyright violations. To anyone who knows anything about copyright law, our use of this image was a blatant copyright violation. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well, it makes I9 the wrong tag, it should be I7. If it's a "clearly invalid fair-use tag" then it can be deleted right away, otherwise after 7 days.
  I realize now that the gory details of fair use seem to be far more eluding to me than I thought: to me it's not clear cut at all that the embassy image doesn't pass WP:NFCC. But I'll swing by at the IfD page for that. :) --Amalthea 13:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- I agree w/ Amalthea here and I'd like to add something I've mentioned above. Our image deletion policies are written to give the benefit of the doubt to good faith attempts to tag something. Bad faith fair use tags or obviously improper fair use tags (like placing the logo fur on a stock photo so it doesn't trigger the bot) can be speedied. Images without any fair use tags can be speedied (Assuming we know they are non-free). For the rest of the images out there, we can use the pseudo-speedy deletion (the timed specific categories) process and the discussion process (which usually results in 99% of the images deleted without discussion and 1% garnering lots of participants). Wikipedia has a standing policy about coyprighted images that it follows pretty well. What we should understand as long term editors is that new users don't understand that policy at the start and their first introduction to it can be a rough one. Our guidelines and CSD criteria should be written to grant them some leeway for good faith attempts and I think the current image criteria do a passable job of that. Protonk (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the stock photo sentence, per my first comment here. There was no crystal clear consensus for that change here, but Protonk, Soundvisions and myself seem to think that it was more confusing than explanatory. --Amalthea 21:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and, using the same wording already included, made it "blatantly" clear this criteria is not mean to be used on images already tagged as fair use. I also added a line about seeing CSD i7 if the image is tagged as fair use. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

What the criterion said after your change is this: "Images that are claimed by the uploader to be images with free licenses and are not used under a claim of fair use". So basically, all free images. :) --Amalthea 14:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be clear from the discussion that any image in the self published category that is not marked as fair use is allowed to be an i9. However if any image, in any category, has a FUR attached it is not considered copyvio and should be not be tagged i9. In other words, yes, as you said, "all free images." But rather than revert, in the spirit of "assume good faith", lets go back to how the entire criteria was before this discussion and leave everything alone until we get a clear consensus about new wording. This means I am requesting that you self-revert your edits from December 7 that were done without any "crystal clear consensus for that change". (And for the record I am opposed to that specific change. My indication was not of support, but rather of possible confusion between the term "stock photo agency" and "press agency" or the general term "photo agency". As discussion progressed the indication, as I said above, seemed to be that images from any photo agency were exempt/excluded from being a copyvio, in which case these types of image should be excluded from being i9's and have their own set of criteria) Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Done.
Which parts of the discussion are you referring to when you say that any image in the self published category without FUR is to be regarded a "blatant copyright violation"? It's certainly not in any comment by Protonk, Calliopejen1 or myself. While I said "If an image has FUR, it's not an I9", the reverse "It's an I9 if it has no FUR" is certainly not true. How could it be non-controversial to delete an image I create, upload, and release into the public domain? --Amalthea 16:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Not those exact words - I did say "So, as I have stated already, if the consensus is that, as long as any image has a fur attached, it does not qualify as a copyvio and if images from photo agencies are included, rather than excluded as the current wording implies, in this blanket FUR exemption than I say just remove that wording all together from i9 because it is irrelevant to the criteria." And others have said like statements - that, if a FUR is placed an on image it exempts it from being a copyvio. Protonk said "Images without any fair use tags can be speedied (Assuming we know they are non-free)." but also said "Bad faith fair use tags or obviously improper fair use tags (like placing the logo fur on a stock photo so it doesn't trigger the bot) can be speedied." and while it does not says that 19 can not be used it is because they said they agreed with your comments, one of which which was "Yes, if an image has FUR, it's not an I9. It might be I5 or I7 though". There was never any deduction on my part that all free images are to be removed as copyvios unless they have a FUR attached. Not even close. But rather than discuss here - look below at the 2nd proposal and lets comment on that wording. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

New CSD i9 wording (2nd proposal)

(Changes in red)

CSD i9. Blatant copyright infringement. Images that are claimed by the uploader to be images with free licenses , but are not sourced to the uploader, and do not include images used under a claim of fair use. ~~when this is obviously not the case~~. A URL or other indication of where the image originated should be mentioned in the nom. This does (MOVED THIS LINE EARLIER = "not include images used under a claim of fair use") ~~nor does it~~ not include images with a credible claim that the owner has released them under a Wikipedia-compatible free license. ~~This includes most images from stock photo libraries such as Getty Images or Corbis.~~ Blatant infringements should be tagged with the {{db-imgcopyvio}} template. Non-blatant copyright infringements should be discussed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. For any images tagged as fair use please see CSD i7.

2nd proposal discussion

Support with an "if": I will support this, with the removal of the line about photo agency's, provided there is a new criteria established that directly deals with these types of images, fair use tagged or not. Outside if this talk page there have been, and continue to be, discussions about images that originate from A.P, Corbis, Getty, Reuters and other like photo agency's and how they should be dealt with. If consensus shows they are not to be dealt with as copyvios via use of i9 than the specific mention of them needs to be removed from this criteria. If, however, these types of images should be dealt with as copyvios via use of i9 than the wording needs to be made clear that "stock photo agency's" can also be "news agency's" such as A.P or Reuters. A better all around wording might be "photo agency's". Either way the issue needs to be dealt with. Also the proposed removal of "when this is obviously not the case" wording has been done as the use of "obviously not the case" as a rationale goes against the concept of "assume good faith", but more directly it borders on the whole "fair use" argument. If an image has been uploaded and is found in the "self-published work" category and it clearly indicate its source is someone other than the uploader and if it was taken from a listed source that does not have a free use license, would that qualify as "obviously not the case"? What about if the image has a url or photo credit on it that is not the same as the uploader? If these are the only images allowed to be nominated under i9 we must find a better wording than "obviously not the case". How it borders on fair use arises from two scenarios - an image is tagged as a potential copyvio and 1> the uploader or 2> another editor, places a FUR on the image. Based on the discussion above when this happens the image is no longer considered a blatant copyvio and therefor not eligible for i9. If that is the case than the wording should be along th elines of, as has been proposed, "Images that are claimed by the uploader to be images with free licenses, but are not sourced to the uploader, and do not include images used under a claim of fair use." It is plain, direct, simple and would not be open for discussion. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

This would make Image:Nuvola apps edu languages.png an I9 CSD. Uploader claims it's a free image (LGPL), but it's not "sourced to the uploader" (it's from [3]), and of course it has no fair use claim.
I don't see why the source of the image should get into this at all, other than as an evidence or indication for a copyright violation, we have I4 for that. The meaning of I9 should not be changed, IMO, and the basic I9 criterion currently is:

“

Images that are claimed by the uploader to be images with free licenses when this is obviously not the case.

”

That's it, and it is good. It excludes images with a fair use claim (not a free license), and unacceptable licenses are already covered by I3. The rest are bells and ribbons, and need rewording, but the criterion should remain as it is. --Amalthea 19:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Well aside from the image being at Commons, you said it comes from [[http://www.icon-king.com/projects/nuvola/ which states "Nuvola (from Italian “cloud”) is a free software icon set under the GNU LGPL 2.1." So there is not any issue with that at all. The most confusing thing in all of what you said was this comment: "I don't see why the source of the image should get into this at all, other than as an evidence or indication for a copyright violation, we have I4 for that." First of all how can we determine if an image is a copyvio unless we have a source? If we can not consider any image tagged with a FUR to be a copyvio and if we are not allowed to consider the source of an image it negats i9 all together. And if we can only seek out a source "as an evidence or indication for a copyright violation" in relation to i4, it makes less sense. As currently written, i4 has nothing to do with copyvios. i4 says it is for "Lack of licensing information" which would seem to cover any image that did not have any licensing information. I have no idea what you are really saying now other than perhaps combine i9 and i4, saying that if an image has no licensing information an editor is allowed to seek out a source and if one is found, and it does not have a license compatible with WP you either add a FUR or claim is as a copyvio. Which, if that is the case, I am against. I feel that i4 should not be used in place of i9. We need an i9 and there needs to be zero quesiton if it is to be used for all copyvios or only those without any FUR attached. Secondary is to determine if photo agency image are copyvios in your eyes or if they fall outside of the scope of i9. (P.S - one the other hand you said "The meaning of I9 should not be changed, IMO, and the basic I9 criterion currently is: “Images that are claimed by the uploader to be images with free licenses when this is obviously not the case.” That's it, and it is good." So if this all we need than make a proposal where all else is removed. But I would oppose that as well because, as I said, the phrase "obviously not the case" is too vague and wide in scope. Where would we draw the line? At this: Image:IMG 2945.jpg? or this: Image:BRITNEY SPEARS VMA08.JPG? Image:Britney Spears Belive.png? Maybe Image:Rumors - CD Cover.jpg which says "A self-made cover of my own CD" or Image:Albert-hall-cd-cover.jpg which is from Rhino Records but is sourced to Christina Lynn Johnson, MagnetLoft - Vistadeck ID 4507523 because that user took the cover photo. Or how about this one: Image:Cheap trick.jpg? That last one is from an uploader who has uploaded many other images form gving credit to the same photographer, however in this one case the uploader claims "sourced from Vicious Kitten fanzine - photo gallery www.viciouskitten.net". Are these all "obviously not the case" of being the uploaders work or being claimed under a legit free license? Of do we just tag all of these with an i4 per the suggestion that covers the license issue?) Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

A10

How about adding "A.10 Non-article material, such as essays, rants, tributes, link repertories, etc...". I know this is stating the obvious, but right now I don't think there's a speedy criteria covering them. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Linkbombs are covered under A3, rants (at least if they attack a living person) under G10, and tributes under G11/A7, but I do like the idea in terms of pure editorials or personal essays. In reality, they frequently get IAR'd. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean rants against people, but rants in general, such as "You know, 'insert sujbect' is pretty neat. The fun fact about said subject is that altough most people disagree on most of things about culture and religion, all people would say that this is cool. 'Insert religious/pseudoreligious/metaphysical commentary on subject'. "Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) I do not see how we can phrase such a criterion so it does not lose us important content. As Seraphimblade says, link-lists, rants and tributes are usually already covered by other criteria already, so that would only cover essays mainly. But that conflicts with our current taggings of {{Original research}}, {{essay-like}} or {{Synthesis}} which are reasons for rewrites and cleanups but not deletion. We cannot on the one hand say that written like an essay is worth keeping when cleaned up and on the other hand say it's to be deleted. Also, I do not think there are many cases where such a criterion would be needed. Regards So Why 08:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay I'll quote something that'll probably be deleted soon: Exceptional Universe Now deleted under what I propose to be A.10 :P ... . For archiving purpose, here is some excerpts from it (the rest of the article is like that).

We live in a ‘Exceptional Universe’
We live in a universe which is perhaps not comprised of just space and time but space-time-observations creating an observed event-line. Our universe is a series of observations of events made and thus may be called a Historical Universe that must not be confused with history. History as we understand today also consists of the unobserved history which is open to all possibilities.

Historical Universe is sum total of all observations to date.

Observing events creates the Historical Universe. (Top-down Cosmology[[4]])

Event-line generated is random and might be made of active(transversing) or passive observations.

...

Who are we ?

Each of us are unique observations in the Historical Universe which create new event possibilities and provide a view point in the Historical Universe for the observations to happen for the observer.

...

Implications for the real world

So what next how do it save the world and africa ?

World must observe ‘exceptional’ technology to help save Africa and control terrorists. The event-line must be managed to the right possibilities.

R&D in dual-use technology must be banned.

‘Exceptional’ management must be put in place to prevent proliferation of existing WMD.

All possible risks as currently being done should be mitigated by ‘exceptional’ interventions.

This is not an "essay-like" article, or an article with essay-like parts it is an essay. Wording can be argued over later, but that's the sort of things that would be covered by "A.10 Not an article", as well as other things covered by WP:ISNOT, such as article that are nothing but Usage guides/How-to's/Opinion pieces/mere collections/etc..., Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

What about something like this, to address SoWhy's concerns? "A10: An essay or opinion piece, written at a title that is not and is unlikely to be an appropriate title for an article, containing no content of an encyclopedic nature." I do see SoWhy's concern, I ran across an issue like that at Hyblaea puera, where someone was initially writing a long essay-style piece. Upon finding it nominated for speedy, I did find that it was a real insect and was able to put a stub in its place rather than deleting. However, as I said above, the "Exceptional Universe" type material, as noted above, does tend to get frequently IAR'd when it's obviously unsuitable. In this sense, we'd be having policy more codify an existing practice than suggest a new one. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much yeah. But it's not only about essays, it would be sort of a catch-all thing for things that are not articles (including essays amongst others). And as always, things that are not clear-cut should go to AfD instead. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Well, but we do have a section titled Wikipedia:CSD#Non-criteria where it says that reasons derived from WP:NOT are not speedyable, so creating a criterion like this A10 actually contradicts our current policy. Those IARs you mention are breaches of policy, nothing more. The policy clearly says that essays should not be speedy-deleted - if they are, the deleting admin should be told about this. I do not see how "we do it already anyway" is a good argument to create such a criterion. Generally I think IAR should not be an exception to CSD as it contradicts the very reason we have a strict set of criteria.

That said, I think the non-criteria are quite a good idea and we should not turn them into criteria. Essays may be quite useful as Seraphimblade points out and there is no harm to PROD them instead. To take Seraphimblade's example above, if we had such a criterion, there is a real possibility that valid articles will be tagged and deleted on sight instead of trying to salvage them into something useful. Regards So Why 09:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I would be very hesitant to say the deletion of Exceptional universe as noted above is a "breach of policy" in any meaningful sense. If you were to take that to DRV, I believe you would see the decision quite ringingly endorsed, and there is certainly always this policy, not to mention this one. It is not a breach of policy to take an obviously and uncontroversially correct action just because one did not have the correct forms signed in triplicate. Also, many of our existing criteria are based in some sense on WP:NOT. G11, for example, is based on the fact that we are not for advertising, A7 on the fact that we are not a directory, and so on. As to my example above, I realistically could have probably speedied it, and the essay was rather useless in writing the article. It just happened that an article was possible there. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Re to SoWhy. WP:CSD#Non-criteria's raison d'être is to prevent stuff like an article about a movie containing nothing but a plot summary to be speedied, for example, because that's something that's salvagable, or something that's written like a scientific paper obviously shouldn't be deleted, but rewritten (for obvious reasons listed in WP:Jargon). But you'll have to admit that many of the things are defacto submitted under WP:ISNOT, and get deleted very uncontroversially. What of WP:ISNOT should be admissible for speedy deletion under A.10 is debatable, sure, but let's have that debate.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 10:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Point is, we have got a list of things that should not be speedied. It exists for a good reason and that people do it does not mean the list does exempt those cases. Some people would delete anything under IAR if they think it should go, that's why we drafted a set of strict criteria in the first place. We could just create a G1 that reads "everything the admin thinks should not be in Wikipedia" and leave it to the admins to decide. As I said, I do not contest that speedy deletions like that happen, but I for one decline any request based on non-criteria and there are many admins who do the same. That some decide to invoke IAR in those cases is correct but makes a travesty out of the idea of having a set of strict circumstances in which admins are allowed to delete a page without discussion. But I digress...

My point is that there are exemptions to the WP:NOT-non-criterion but they are strict and justified. G11 only applies to blatant advertising, A7 only to articles where importance is not even claimed, etc. Creating a new criterion that basically says "if the admin does not think it in encyclopedic" allows every admin to freely decide what is encyclopedic. A deletionist admin might go ahead and delete an article that he/she thinks is "fancruft" and be well within this criterion. I think any criterion based on WP:NOT that does not currently exist is very likely to become a WP:IDONTLIKEIT-excuse for deletion, probably losing us usable content to the admin's interpretation of encyclopedic content. So Why 16:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be very difficult to create an effective CSD for articles like this, because in many cases an article that is nothing but an essay can still contain enough content about the topic that it can be trimmed down and moved to get a decent encylopedia article. I guess you could say something like: "An article which makes no attempt to describe a topic." Dcoetzee 01:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

there is no really clear distinction between an essay and a potentially acceptable article. A change in wording to the proper encyclopedic style, and suitable referencing, can rescue many an article. I don't think any one or two of us is qualified to decide definitively whether or not this is possible--it depends more if someone of the ten thousand or so active editors is willing to take an interest. Except in extreme cases, there will often be disagreement--as shown by instances that are bought to afd. There's no real need for this--the sort of essay that one would have in mind here is well dealt with by PROD. DGG (talk) 05:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with DGG — PROD can manage this; there is not the volume of articles that would require a speedy criterion. Stifle (talk) 12:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

BLP

Which criterion, if any, can be used to tag an article for deletion which violates the BLP policy? I refer to "summary deletion" described on Wikipedia:Blp#Deletion and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff#Summary deletion of BLPs. Thanks. Martin 22:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Usually {{db-g10}}, {{db-blp}}, or {{db|your reason here}}. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

zzuuzz is correct - if it is such a violation of BLP, it is almost always disparaging and thus a reason for WP:G10. Otherwise it has to be handled like any other BLP violation, e.g. reverted to a neutral version and, if needed, the vandalising edits removed from the edit history. So Why 22:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate mistitled articles

Resolved

I'm surprised to find no criterion for duplicate articles? I just tagged Congress of the People (COP-SA) with a custom db template. In this particular case it was a duplicate of content found at Congress of the People (South African political party), but with no obvious use as a redirect to the original article (FYI no-one anywhere has ever used COP-SA as an acronym for the party, the correct acronym is COPE). There were no incoming links except from bots. The only criteria that is relatively close is for duplicate images. I feel that in this case a speedy was justified even though it doesn't fall neatly into one of the CSD criteria. Perhaps a new criterion should be added. Zunaid 08:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

If it is non-controversial and a mistaken creation, removal is maintenance and G6 covers it. You can also turn it into a redirect and then R3 it. I would not propose a new criterion for this, as mostly those things can be turned into good redirects and for those few which can't, G6 or R3 should cover it nicely. After all, in most cases they are good faith creations by new users, potentially including good, new content and we should give people time to merge that information to the existing article before deleting it (and people usually redirect and (sometimes) R3 it when they have done so). Regards So Why 08:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

In this particular case it was created mid-November, compared to October for the better-titled article. I did initially turn it into a redirect but then db'd it after some thought. I see it has been deleted as R3. Zunaid 08:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

CSD notifications

There's a discussion about making the CSD notices fit the "uw-" style user warnings at WT:UTM#UW templates for CSD, which would be a good opportunity to unify the three different notices (manual, Twinkle, Huggle) we have a the moment. --Amalthea 14:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Blitz deletions

This section was started a bit hastily by me, and unfortunately I used an admin who was acting in good faith as an example. Consequently, the section got so messed up that nobody wanted to write anything here anymore. It got restarted by the below subsection, which enjoyed some participation. Since I regret having contributed to cluttering this page, and since I believe the bot will not archive the parent section as long as the subsection does not meet archive criteria, I am archiving this section here. The section contains a number of open issues and unanswered questions; If you would like to discuss them please repost them here; I am not trying to dodge any questions, and I will answer them.

One question should be answered here already: What does "blitz deletions" mean? I meant this to indicate deletions of articles that do not meet CSD criteria, and/or that are done without considering if the deleter can improve the article, instead of deleting it. (I used the word "blitz" to indicate my impression that they are often done hastily, but I now realize that may distract from the real issue, which is if our criteria are met.) An example would be the G10 deletion of an article of a minister that contains, among some relevant information, the statement that she was a defendant before a certain International Criminal Tribunal. Such an article could be improved by (1) searching for the documentation about that tribunal and then (2a) if the person is listed there: adding the link or (2b) if not: removing the sentence. Also, it does not meet G10, because (1) the article does not only exist to disparage or threaten their subject as the article contained other information, and (2) articles about ministers exist because to document a notable person.

For the sake of peace on this page, please do not ask for specific examples. I think we don't need them because, even if this were only a hypothetical situation, I feel we need to think about how to address it. — Sebastian 08:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Addressing the issue, not an individual admin

(title renamed from "Removing Fram from the Equation")

Ok, I have questions about the two articles Fram deleted, I mentioned them on his talk page... IMHO, they shouldn't have been deleted as G10, but had sections deleted. I think our CSD'ers sometimes need to actually edit the articles rather than delete the wholesale---which is why I don't support admin candidates without article building experience. That being said, the two cases in question were not the most egregious mistakes that I've seen---while I disagree with them, they are defendable. I'm also not as outraged about them because the articles had been tagged for a while and my big concern about CSD is biting newbies as they are writing articles... not deleting articles that have been around for a few months. That being said, I've done a couple of reviews recently how CSD criteria are applied. You can see my analysis at CSD A1 Survey, CSD G1 Survey, and CSD G10 Survey. You can also see how others have interpretted the same results on my talk page. There are two admins who have caught my attention during these reviews---one of them deletes almost everything he comes across A1 immediately--his deletions on both the G1 and A1 summary are somewhat obvious, simply look for the most egregious mistakes! I do think it is clear that CSD criteria are being used too liberally and it is a fairly widespread problem.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It was indeed not helpful for me to bring up Fram. (More about this here.) So how can we get out of this mess now? I learned a lot from people's replies, and I feel it may be best if we archived this discussion now, and when I have time (maybe in a week) I could write something similar that addresses the problems and questions raised; maybe in my user space, as you did. — Sebastian 18:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that most proposals to "fix" speedy deletion suck. As a result, people generally take such proposals with a grain of salt. Some suggestions based on what I've observed from previous proposals:

Minimal extra bureaucracy. Many proposals try to "fix" speedy deletion by throwing in a ton of extra checks and balances with the end result of a system that's more complicated than AFD.
Focus on all the problems. The problem is not just careless deletions. Many careless deletions are caused by careless tagging, which is caused by the massive amount of bad pages created 24/7 and a lack of people to adequately patrol them.
Don't just shift the work. A lot of proposals try to just push the more subjective deletions onto other deletion processes. About as many articles are speedy deleted in an hour or 2 as are AFD'd in an entire day. Dumping the load on another system is not a solution, its just creating a different problem.
Non-admins cannot see deleted content. This is basically straight from the foundation's legal counsel and is pretty much non-negotiable.
Look at the problem in perspective. 5 bad speedy deletions (a completely made-up number) per day sounds like a lot, but bad speedy deletions probably make up about <1% of all article speedy deletions and maybe <0.1% of all speedy deletions. A complete overhaul to fix the corner cases is overkill.
Look at implementation costs. A new policy that requires dozens of people to radically change what they're doing, and requires massive infrastructure changes is much more likely to fail simply because it would be hard to implement, regardless of how good an idea it really is.

While I'm not saying "don't try," I wouldn't get my hopes up about a new system replacing CSD anytime soon. Mr.Z-man 20:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Balloonman, for providing some facts. (That they happened to mirror my gut feeling about CSD was a bonus. *grin*) I wonder how many of the "bad" speedy nominations get correctly declined. Some days I feel like I'm declining half the noms I come across. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the best education here is pointing out mistakes. I can imagine an automated tool that goes through deletion logs and allows an admin to, in a single click, undelete a page, and tell the deleter why it was undeleted and offer an alternative course of action. They're not going to be more careful and less rash just because you suggest they're not spending enough time reviewing articles, but they may be inclined to take more care after a string of embarassing errors pile up on their talk page. Dcoetzee 01:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

And what if the undeletions are in error? Is there going to be a one-click undo system for that? As the above discussion has shown, one person's "article needing refs" is another person's "blatant BLP vio." Many of the CSD criteria are by necessity somewhat subjective, personal interpretations will always vary somewhat. In any case, discussion before action (especially when many people support 0RR for admin actions) is generally a better idea, especially when it comes to things like BLPs and copyvios. Mr.Z-man 02:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

CSD exists for uncontentious deletions, not as a way of quietly cleaning up damaging articles as quickly as possible. If at least one reasonable person disagrees with a deletion, chances are it's not a speedy deletion and should be reviewed by additional people in PROD or AfD. Dcoetzee 02:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP is quite clear on this:

“

Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.

”

BLP vios and copyvios put the project and its contributors at legal risk and reflect very poorly on the project. They should certainly not be restored just because one person disagrees. Mr.Z-man 05:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree, BLP/COPYVIOS are by definition, the two types of CSD that by definition should be done the quickest... and restored the slowest. They should never be restored without discussion.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Sebastian and I have worked out our problems amicably. I am glad that this thread is no longer about me :-) I agree that speedy deletions, just like every tool and policy, does occasionally gets seriously misused, and that admins (or other editors) who have a really bad track record should be warned abot this, and if needed action should be taken. But I do also believe that CSD in general works well and is one of the most needed tools / options in many cases. I'll now leave this discussion, so that my personal actions don't get confused with the general discussion any more. Fram (talk) 08:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Fram! I renamed the title accordingly, and I won't touch the section before that headline. If anyone wants me to reply to any of the questions I left unanswered there that are not related to Fram, please just point me to it and I will reply to it here. Otherwise, I will hold myself back here for a while. — Sebastian 18:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Screenshots of software that was stolen

Here's a fun one I'm currently in the midst of trying to figure out what to do about.

On Windows 7, we have a couple of essentially single-purpose editors, one of whom writes like this, who are insisting on including a screenshot of what it known as "build 6956" of Microsoft's upcoming operating system. Now as we know, any screenshots of Microsoft software are generally done so under fair-use. In this particular case, however, "build 6956" was actually stolen from Microsoft at a trade conference by a Chinese hacker, and the build was placed on Bittorrent sites. Microsoft never intended for this build to be distributed to anybody, so it is essentially theft. Everyone who is reviewing this build on popular tech news sites is using this illegally-obtained build.

(As an aside, there are people who are pursuing the belief that this leaked build of Windows is somehow a "release"... yeah, sure, and if I were a musician, an invited friend of mine came over to my house, made a copy of an album I was working on without telling me, then posted it on the Internet, that would be a "release". Right. Of course.)

But what really concerns me is this: Wikipedia is hosting images of software that was obtained illegally, and we cannot be certain that Microsoft won't pursue legal action against the Foundation for doing so. The counter-argument to this that I'm getting is, "well, other web sites are showing these images, therefore we can too"... but when it comes to copyrighted material, that's not the measure by which we decide what to include in the encyclopedia, is it?

In short, I want to see File:Win7 build6956.png deleted, but we don't have a clear CSD criteria for it. Any opinions on the matter would be welcome. Warren -talk- 02:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact that crimes were committed in order to obtain an image does not make it any more illegal. If I trespass to take a picture, or get kicked out of a museum for taking a picture, I am still the sole copyright holder, and I can use or license the image in any way I want without penalties. This is no different. There's a question of whether we "encourage" illegal action by accepting these type of images - we certainly shouldn't be requesting people to go out and do illegal things to get pictures. But once the picture is available, the damage is already done - often by someone who knows nothing about Wikipedia and was not motivated by a desire to upload it here. This image might get deleted if it goes to AfD - this is a grey moral area - but I would vote keep. It shouldn't be speedy deletable. Dcoetzee 02:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly, in this case, the software is copyrighted by Microsoft, the person who pirated the copy and made a screenshot has no copyright as there is no creativity. Everything except the upload itself is Microsoft's work. Mr.Z-man 05:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like IFD is the way to go. Illegality of an image is a bit beyond the CSD, I'm afraid. As for the legal concerns, it'll go through the OTRS if anything's going to happen of it, so unless one of those guys comes along with a ticket I wouldn't worry about it. Cheers. lifebaka++ 04:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

IFD is the way to got, yeah. As Dcoetzee put it, the picture does not become illegal because the software it depicts was obtained illegally. It is not the copyright of the one taking the screenshot, true, but the screenshot itself is not bound to the legality of the product it shows. So it should be treated as we treat all screenshots - copyright owned by Microsoft and it's just a question of fair use. I dare say that this should even qualify as fair use, especially if it aids the article which describes the theft (like "picture of the stolen release's desktop..."). Regards So Why 09:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Screenshots of this build has been published by Paul Thurrott (editor of Windows IT Pro Magazine), the same who public the current "valid" screenshot. Anyway... I dont think is illegal Sotcr Excuse my English (talk me) 23:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Possible new criteria CSD G-13

CSD G-13 for jokes. Example: Erko Lopskanen is a ski jumper born 9738. He has the world record with 394778 metres. I think we need a joke criteria. The Rolling Camel (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

This would be covered under G1, G3 or A3. Happy‑melon 20:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Clearly not G1, this in no way fits G1. A3 possibly. G3 yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balloonman (talk • contribs) 17:30, 2008 December 16

I can't think of anything that would qualify for a "joke" criterion, but not for one of G1, G3, A1, or A3. I also would point out that we explicitly don't have a criterion for obvious hoaxes, which seems to be more what The Rolling Camel is looking for. Attempts to propose a "hoax" criterion in the past have always failed because some surprising topics look like hoaxes without context, but actually aren't (e.g., Exploding whale). If I understand this proposal, I don't see it as something that's likely to gain consensus. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

A joke like the one above is probably a A7 - after all, we cannot say anything about the notability of someone yet to be born ;-) So Why 22:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I mean that we schould have an criteria for articles that is a joke/hoax so we dont need to take them to to prod or afd. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elin Sen is a good example of why we need CSD G-13. The Rolling Camel (talk) 11:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

That's completely different from the example you gave. The article in question gave a realistic sounding age, and (to someone not familiar with the metric system) a realistic sounding achievement. Such pages are explicitly not covered by CSD. In many cases, they turn out to be true. Mr.Z-man 01:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I am taking at least three hoax articles to prod and afd evrey day. We need an criteria for hoaxes that is simply hoax and nothing to say about it. for example Elin Sen with not a single hit on google or something else. The Rolling Camel (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Google is not the ultimate source of all information, especially about obscure and historic subjects. Its perfectly possible for something to sound like a hoax and have few google hits but still be true. And your contributions don't seem to back up the statement that you are nominating at least 3 hoaxes every day, the only AFD I saw that you started for a hoax in the past several days was the one for Elin Sen. What you are proposing has been proposed and rejected many times in the past. You're going to need a better reason than "we need it." Mr.Z-man 20:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Double articles?

Do we have any criteria for double articles? See this case San Carlo (Poschiavo). The Rolling Camel (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You can just redirect or merge such things, as I already did. There's no need for deletion. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... But i can't redirect pages. The Rolling Camel (talk) 17:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, establishing a redirect is usually preferable to deletion, because it makes it less likely that the duplicate article will be recreated. To create a redirect just replace the redirecting article's text with #REDIRECT [[Insert text]], replacing "Insert text" with the name of the article to which you want the redirect to point.Cmadler (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Revising wording of CSDi7c to deal with borderline NFCC#8 cases

There has been ongoing discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content about editors using subjective opinions to speedy delete large amounts of borderline WP:NFCC#8 violations. Recently, for example, one editor decided that all music video screenshots fail WP:NFCC#8. Per CSDi7c here, that editor then mass tagged those images for speedy deletion. Because WP:NFCC#8 seems to be open to hugely different interpretations, this leads to lots of heated conflicts. The people who maintain those criteria refuse to change the wording of the criteria, however, for fear of setting the bar too low. They respond that borderline cases should not be speedy deleted, but should go to WP:IFD instead. Per that idea, I would like to propose that CSDI7c be changed from:
"Invalid fair-use claims tagged with subst:dfu may be deleted seven days after they are tagged, if a full and valid non-free use rationale is not added."
to:
"Clearly invalid fair-use claims tagged with subst:dfu may be deleted seven days after they are tagged, if a full and valid non-free use rationale is not added."
Kaldari (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that if the image has everything that is normally required for meeting NFC (license, all required parts of the FUR filled out) and the only issue is that an editor thinks the provided purpose or reason isn't satisfactory, CSD cannot be invoked - that would be like CSD'ing an article that one thinks is borderline notable. These cases should always be discussed in some venue (IFD seeming to be the best place, even if this is just removing one use of an image that is valid on another page). Obvious if the rationale is missing a required part such as the source, then CSD is appropriate after the 7 day warning, as that's an objective metric. --MASEM 18:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

agreed,anything, for which a reasonable good faith argument can be made, does not belong in speedy. And if any established Wikipedia contributor disagrees with an admin, the it's a goodfaith disagreement, and that the community should decide. Masem';s analogy to articles is exact, and on encountering deletions by any admin thinking otherwise, the first step is to bring each clear instance to Deletion review. DGG (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the existance of CSDi7c is problematic, in that it always involves a judgement call. If NO use rationale is given, that falls under CSDi6. If an obviously incorrect rationale is given, that falls under CSDi7a. The item in question is explicitly used when a rationale is given, and another editor finds that rationale inadequate (look at the referenced template. It appears to me that Masem is actually arguing for the elimination of CSDi7c (I agree with that elimination) by saying that if "an editor thinks the provided purpose or reason isn't satisfactory, CSD cannot be invoked". Do I misunderstand this issue? Cmadler (talk) 15:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems that CSDi7a and CSDi7c are slightly different, as CSDi7a deals with fair use tags and CSDi7c deals with fair use claims (which could entail a lot of different factors). Kaldari (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, so you're saying that fair use claims that are patently invalid (can you give an example?) should be speedy deleted, while if there may be a dispute it should be sent to IfD? I'd accept that, but I'd like to see examples of what might be acceptable versus unacceptable speedy deletions? Cmadler (talk) 21:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

One obvious example would be a fair-use image that is only used on a disambiguation page (as it fails NFCC#9). Kaldari (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Support this change, per Masem, DGG, and Kaldari above. But I worry (like Cmadler?) that even with the word "clearly", the clause may still get abused. Jheald (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

If a non-free use image appears only on a disambiguation page, wouldn't it be sufficient to 1) remove it from the dab page per NFCC#9 and then 2) CSDi5? I wonder if part of the problem is that NFCC is based on usage, but the fair-use claim(s) is/are placed on the image page? Image deletion seems like a poor solution except when, as in the above example, after removing all inappropriate uses, no use remains and then CSDi5 applies. See, for example, the heated discussion on WP:NFC talk regarding the use of logos for sports teams. Such a logo might be clearly acceptable in one place but clearly unacceptable in another place (NFCC#8 in that discussion); image deletion is not an option here. Cmadler (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd have appreciated being informed of this discussion and would like to clarify the situation as to what I have done with the music video screenshot category. Having discovered that a number of images in that category are used for illustration or decoration only, with little or no critical commentary, I have decided to "audit" this category for compliance with the non-free content criteria. It is my intention to go through further categories in turn once I am finished with this one.

On an alphabetical basis, I examine the files in that category one by one
If the image is obviously not a screenshot of a music video, I delete it under I7a
If the image has no source, no copyright tag, or no fair use rationale, or is orphaned, I tag it accordingly and move on
I look at each and every page where each file is used (most are used on one page)
If the image is being used in the article about the artist where the artist is still alive, I tag it as replaceable (unless it obviously is not) and move on
If the screenshot is used in the context of a "music video" section, there is any commentary on it, and it is more than just an image of the artist in no context, I ignore the file and move on
Otherwise, I tag the image as possibly failing NFCC#8 with the disputed fair use rationale template
For images I tag, I check back a week to ten days later to see if the image has been de-tagged, deleted, or if a rationale has been added, and act accordingly

However, there are several incorrect assertions that I wish to correct:

I have not decided that all music videos fail NFCC#8
I have not mass-tagged all images in that category, or any category for deletion
While I am tagging the images using Twinkle, this is solely to perform three edits (to the image, the article where it is used, and to notify the uploader) expediently. I am manually looking at each and every image.

Whenever any editor has contested the tagging of an image, either by messaging me or removing the tag with any explanation (and you can check my talk archives for this), I have sent the image to IFD for discussion.

It's worth noting that this process gives seven days for anyone who opposes the deletion to save the image — the uploader is directly notified, and anyone who views the image or article is also put on notice of the deletion — which is more than an IFD, and images are deleted at IFD anyway if there is no opposition.

I don't think that this change is desirable, and I am very concerned about the attempt to put it through behind my back. I also agree with Cmadler's point that this is effectively trying to abolish the criterion, and that may even be ultra vires for us because of the WMF's rules on exemption doctrine policies. I suggest that discussion of this significant change should be put on a subpage here and listed on WP:CENT for a wider audience.

If, after proper discussion, the consensus is that this third part of NFCC#8 should be abolished, I will of course respect that consensus. In this case, I would anticipate listing the images at IFD instead, or in blatant cases (for example, where the screenshot is included with no section or discussion whatsoever about the music video) removing the image from the article and tagging it as orphaned. Stifle (talk) 11:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

For completeness, during this process I also tag album/single covers for failing NFCC#3a if there are multiple covers used in an article where one would suffice. But that's tangential to this discussion. Stifle (talk) 11:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

And finally (for now), if this does pass, I propose deferring it for (say) ten days, so that images tagged before it comes into effect are grandfathered. Stifle (talk) 11:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

CSD G5

Is G5 (Article created by banned user) really still needed? Cause my about 6 months as new page patroller, I have not one case of G5 (although maybe it is because I focus on n00b's pages instead of established ones'). So do we really still need CSD G5? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It isn't the kind of thing new page patrollers will have to deal with, since they aren't familiar with the habits of many banned users. There is a longstanding rule that banned users' edits can be reverted on sight and without discussion and this should extend to creating new pages too (which normal users can't "revert"). There were about 140 G5 deletions in September of this year. Hut 8.5 12:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

~~Ok. I get it. but why do we have G5 in the first place. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)~~

~~See WP:BAN#Enforcement by reverting edits. Hut 8.5 12:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)~~

Oh, my bad. Just forget it, end this now... Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Removal of A7

This conversation at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Remove_A7 may be of interest. Dloh cierekim 00:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You might be interested in my latest survey on CSD'd articles per A7.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

G6 split

I think the G6 criterion should be split. I've had issues multiple times where an entry was tagged and it was unclear whether it was about a non-controversial housekeeping deletion, a page move or a history merge. If it's either of the last two, the responding admin should know so they can immediately deal with the issues and not let the material be left deleted without the actual maintenance taking place. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

How do you propose it be split? Stifle (talk) 12:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- (ec) Would a split help with that? I'd think that a page can be tagged with {{db-move}} without an explicit or implicit page to be moved either way. How about changing {{Db-g6}} and {{db-move}} instead so that they instead display a big warning if no explicit reason is given?
  In case of a history merge the second page must be provided in any case since it's, as you say, part of the non-controversial maintainance to be performed and can only be done by an admin. --Amalthea 12:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

G6 G8 - proposal from "archive"

(This was still active - "new i12"?)

Proposal

Note: This is now, per discussion, G8 expansion.
How about this: (Changes/additions in red) *G6 - Technical deletions. Non-controversial maintenance, such as temporarily deleting a page to merge page histories, deleting dated maintenance categories, deleting images categorized as "Self-published work" where the parent article has never existed or has been deleted and that are non-encyclopedic, or performing uncontroversial page moves.
8. Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page, such as talk pages with no corresponding subject page, subpages with no parent page, image pages without a corresponding image, images categorized as Self-published work where the parent article has never existed or has been deleted and that are non-encyclopedic or redirects to invalid targets, such as nonexistent targets, redirect loops, and bad titles. Also categories populated by deleted or retargeted templates. This excludes any page which is useful to the project, and in particular: deletion discussions that are not logged elsewhere, user and user talk pages, talk page archives, plausible redirects that can be changed to valid targets, and image pages or talk pages for images that exist on Wikimedia Commons.

I have been experimenting with the {{db}} tag per lifebaka's suggestion along with the reason of "Orphaned image from "deleted article". (See CSD G6 or G8)" which sort or works but I think Skier Dude hit the nail on the head with their suggestion. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Further Discussion

That reads okay to me. Have you publicized this suggestion elsewhere? It can help get enough participants to reach consensus. :) A good location might be WT:IUP or even WT:IFD. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I came here from the post at WT:IFD, read the proposal, and thought "WTF does that mean?" After reading the above discussion, I'm still not quite sure. It seems the original discussion was to address images uploaded for self-promotion that don't quite meet WP:CSD#G11, but then it changed to address orphaned "unencyclopedic" images in general. I don't really see the point of the latter (that's what WP:IFD is for, and IFD gives anyone who cares a chance to find a use), and if the former is really a problem perhaps G11 should just be clarified with respect to orphaned images. Anomie ⚔ 18:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

reply: This discussion (and proposal) is/was not solely about "images uploaded for self-promotion" at all. It is/was about any user created image that is orphaned, or otherwise un-used, that is "blatant" in it's unencyclopedic-ness. Questions were asked, examples of images given, and over the course of the discussion this has gone from a new CSD concept to simply adding wording to an existing CSD. There are many examples given above and as G11 only deals with "Blatant advertising" it does not cover all user created images that turn up at IfD. And G11 is already used for images that fall under that criteria. Images can still be sent to IFD if there is a question about them being encyclopedic but this would prevent, for example, the "becky" images that were orphaned when the user page for Girl-Fix-Er , was deleted from being sent to IfD. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

To avoid using the word unencyclopedic, I suggest changing the proposal to read something along the lines of "...and that cannot be used in another article." WODUP 20:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

reply/question: We use "unencyclopedic" for describing images already, why would it be different in this case? Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

<facepalms because it doesn't say unencyclopedic> I think that whether or not something is encyclopedic is more subjective than if something can be used in another article. WODUP 02:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I am dense right now I guess. You said "To avoid using the word unencyclopedic..." In the comment I thought you were replying to I said "...that is "blatant" in it's unencyclopedic-ness" and "Images can still be sent to IFD if there is a question about them being encyclopedic..." but now you say "facepalms because it doesn't say 'unencyclopedic'". Or are you suggesting to just remove the word "unencyclopedic" from all the existing criteria, tags, guidelines, policy and so on? I would be against that as the word is as common here as "notability" is. Take a random look at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 November 16 and see how many images are listed as "Unencyclopedic" as part of their IfD description/reason. Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no, no. I facepalmed because my first post was to avoid the word unencyclopedic, but that word isn't used in the proposal, non-encyclopedic is. I goofed. I'm not suggesting to remove the word from where it already exists in criteria, etc., but with this proposal, I just think that the meaning is more clear when it's replaced with wording that mentions the image's ability to be used in another article. WODUP 04:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I still don't believe that any changes are necessary, but if we really want them I'd highly suggest making the adjustment to G8 instead of G6. G6 is for technical uses of the deletion tool, nothing else. Deleting any page, except to merge histories or similar (the common cases are listed in G6 already), under G6 is simply not acceptable. The nature of the proposed addition is more in line with G8 than with G6. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

reply:G6 or G8 makes not matter to me as I think either of them basically fit now, and G6 was the suggestion above so I went with that. If there is consensus for adding to G8 instead cool beans by me. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

← Just checking in on this. Does the phrase "deleting images categorized as "Self-published work" where the parent article has never existed or has been deleted and that are non-encyclopedic" get inserted into G6 or G8? The suggestion was G6 and however one editor has said it should be inserted into G8. other opinions? Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't like adding such a precise image-specific prescription to a general criterion. Could this be an extension of I10? Happy‑melon 14:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

i10 is specifically not for images. ("Files uploaded that are neither image, sound, nor video files") Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't seem in the spirit of G6 to me. My interpretation of G6 is that it should be something that everyone involved, even the people who originally created the deleted content, are likely to see as routine maintenance: just a little messiness to be cleaned up. E.g. I used it this week on a malformed AfD nomination that had been replaced by a proper AfD with a better name. The criterion itself lists history merges as another such case: nobody minds that you're temporarily deleting something to do a history merge, because it's only temporary. By contrast, a self-published unencyclopedic and unused image is still likely to be something the self-publisher wanted to put there. It's reasonable to put this under a speedy category, but I don't think G6 is the right one. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so if I am reading the entire thread - including the archived portion - we can not create a new CSD for orphaned images. It was suggested by one Admin to add expand G6. However there appears to be more of a slant towards G8. In re-reading the overall wording of both G6 and G8 I agree that G8 reads better resting place for this. So the expanded G8 will read:

8. Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page, such as talk pages with no corresponding subject page, subpages with no parent page, image pages without a corresponding image, images categorized as Self-published work where the parent article has never existed or has been deleted and that are non-encyclopedic or redirects to invalid targets, such as nonexistent targets, redirect loops, and bad titles. Also categories populated by deleted or retargeted templates. This excludes any page which is useful to the project, and in particular: deletion discussions that are not logged elsewhere, user and user talk pages, talk page archives, plausible redirects that can be changed to valid targets, and image pages or talk pages for images that exist on Wikimedia Commons.

Any wording issues? Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: as this was archived with no further comments on wording I am adding this. Soundvisions1 (talk) 07:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Schools

It was suggested above that we split off a discussion of schools, so here we have it. I didn't even know that got slipped in there, dunno when it did, but I do believe it needs to come out. Certainly, if I see "The Foo School is a school in Barville" I'll be hitting the delete button, just as we'd do for a company, charity, band, bowling league, fraternity, LUG, or any other organization imaginable. We can treat schools every bit the same as any other organization. For those who dislike the idea, I'd remind them that a speedy does not in any way preclude an appropriate article at that same title about that same organization, if it can be written. But for a lot of schools (just like for a lot of organizations in general) we don't have sufficient sources for that to happen. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this warrants a larger discussion within WPSchools I'll start a separate discussion page and post a link here shortly. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The point of speedy deletion is that we delete things that we know would get deleted at AfD, saving time (and where it may be a bit urgent, with attack pages & copyright infringements. Highschools are almost universally kept at AfD, other schools - depends. But where the AFD would not be lopesided, or where it might result in "keep", speedy deletion must not be applied. Wily D 17:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you repost this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Criteria for Speedy Deletion A7 so everyone can see it? Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, unless the server crashes. Wily D 17:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

School exemption for Criteria for speedy deletion A7 up for discussion

The Criteria for speedy deletion A7 says articles about organizations except schools which do not claim notability can be speedy-deleted. This is up for discussion. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Criteria for Speedy Deletion A7 if you want to participate. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

CSD T1

It seems to me that CSD T1(divisive and inflammatory templates) is redundant to CSD G10 (attack pages). Can anyone give me a potential example of a T1 that isn't a G10? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not the same thing at all. The original example for which T1 was created was a user template by which a Wikipedia user could identify themselves as a pedophile. It was placed voluntarily by users only on their own pages, so it wasn't attacking anyone, but an outcry nevertheless ensued. T1 was decreed by Jimbo Wales, purportedly to avoid needless conflict. I'll leave out the arguments about the motives of those using the template, or the arguments of those opposing its use, but I'm no advocate of T1. Dcoetzee 19:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

T1 was next on my hitlist. How is this -

Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage or threaten their subject or some other entity (e.g., "John Q. Doe is an imbecile"), or that are divisive and inflammatory. These are sometimes called "attack pages". This includes legal threats, and may also include a biography of a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced, where there is no neutral version in the page history to revert to. Administrators deleting such pages should not quote the content of the page in the deletion summary, and if the page is an article about a living person it should not be restored or recreated by any editor until it meets biographical article standards.

The addition of "or that are divisive and inflammatory" fits nicely, and also clearly includes anything T1 covers. Thoughts? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 19:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. We've got pages that are "divisive and inflammatory" within the community, but that an admin would have to be insane to G10. Nationalist edit war hot zones, pseudoscience edit war hot zones, and quite a few essays in Wikipedia: or User: space, as examples (WP:ROUGE). I'm not at all comfortable extending T1 outside of the Template: namespace in this way. lifebaka++ 19:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)To further clarify, I don't think any CSD should be overly-specific when it can be used for other similar situations. What about a personal essay in user-space "Why I like sex with small children"? Or category "Wikipedian rapists"? Just because it is usually templates is no reason to exclude everything else. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 19:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize until this thread that T1 was different than G10. "Divisive and inflammatory" is obviously a judgment call. Then why do we have T1? I don't care who created it, it seems that matters that can't really be much more than personal opinion show be an MfD. Would something like Template:User Fox News Sucks count? Template:User Gay Pride? If this is a call an admin should make, it overlaps G10. If not, it should be deleted and sent to MfD (which is where I'm leaning). ~ JohnnyMrNinja 20:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The situation Dcoetzee put above is certainly T1 but not G10. At the same time, it's sufficiently obvious that an MfD would close very quickly or WP:IAR could be invoked to speedy it. I'm all for removing it, preferring these avenues instead. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, especially since most user boxes of the kind would be in user space these days, and it would already require WP:IAR to delete as a T1. --Amalthea 20:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

And obviously, g10 would still cover "This user hates the Irish" or whatever. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 20:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favor of removing T1 in favor of a combination of G10 and MfD. T1 seems to exist on the principle of stymying moral panic - if we don't make a fuss and talk rationally about the value of these things in deletion debates, there won't be a problem. Dcoetzee 23:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have died down - is there still support for eliminating T1 in favor of a combination of G10, MfD, and IAR? If I don't hear any objection in the next day or so I'll remove it myself. Dcoetzee 02:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

CSD T1 – more opinions needed

It alarms me that a "discussion" involving so small a number of participants is being put forward as consensus for a change. If this change is wanted, I suggest you take it to the village pump to get wider consensus. Mayalld (talk) 07:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you actually opposing this change, or just saying that it needs more outspoken support? The discussion should be had here (per WP:POLICY even ;)), and there are enough editors reading this talk page to find a consensus, even though active participation above was low. But feel free to leave a notice at WP:VPP.
I support this change per my comments above: There are preciously few templates in template space that are "divisive and inflammatory", but not "disparaging or threatening", in particular since user boxes, for which this template was originally created, live in user space these days. The few cases that are left (and I'd be interested when the last template deleted as T1 could not also have been deleted G10) can easily be handled by TfD or MfD.
In the meantime, someone should also undelete {{Db-T1-notice}}, {{Db-t1-notice}}, {{Db-divisive-notice}}, {{Db-t1}}, {{Db-inflammatory}}, {{Db-divisive}}, {{Csd-t1}} and their respective talk pages. --Amalthea 10:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I am, at this stage, opposing this change. Mayalld (talk) 12:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Why? --Amalthea 12:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

No, at this stage, we do not need more opinions. The above discussion has indeed died down for almost two weeks, and not a single argument has remained in favor of the template. — Sebastian 14:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, a CSD is not a normal policy. There needs to be a clear consensus to have a CSD, and there isn't. And it should only exist if it seems clear that it meets the requirements listed at the top of this page. This isn't a vote, it's a discussion, and the people discussing it decided that it can never truly be more than a case-by-case judgment call. It is not a completely uncontestable CSD, and everyone involved would probably be more satisfied with the results of an MfD or TfD than an easily wrong CSD. If there are valid reasons to have it, please feel free to list them, but I don't see a point in labeling the decision invalid just because everyone in the community didn't give their two bits. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 15:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a new voice on the subject, but I've personally always found T1 to be the most objectionable of CSDs by quite a margin. It's highly subjective, it was created by decree rather than consensus, and once the G10 cases are eliminated, few enough legitimate cases remain that TfD is easily sufficient to accomodate them. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the templates that are "divisive" are the very ones that most need to be discussed - the differing opinions over them are not a distraction but an example of the consensus process at work. Dcoetzee 20:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed clarification for A7

I would like to make what I hope is a con-controversial change the wording of A7 a bit to emphasize the core criteria: No mention of any claim to notability and the limited article categories it applies to. The implicit "this does not apply to school articles" will become explicit. I also added PROD as an option. The underline and ~~strike-through~~ are for comparison only and will not be in the final version. If making "no schools" is a hangup I'll remove it and re-propose with a trimmed down version.

Change from:

A7. An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on. Other article types, including school articles, are not eligible for deletion by this criterion. If controversial, as with schools, list the article at articles for deletion instead.

To:

A7. An article about a real person, an organization other than a school (e.g. band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on. A7 does not apply to any article that makes any non-trivial claim of significance or importance even if that claim is not supported by a reliable source. Other article types, including school articles, as well as articles that make any non-trivial claim of importance or significance, are not eligible for deletion by this criterion. If ~~controversial, as with schools,~~ there is any doubt thtat there is a non-trivial claim of importance, or if there is an obvious claim of importance that can be easily added, improve the article if you can propose deletion of the article, or list the article at articles for deletion.

Without the markup it looks like this:

A7. An article about a real person, an organization other than a school (e.g. band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on. A7 does not apply to any article that makes any non-trivial claim of significance or importance even if that claim is not supported by a reliable source. Other article types, including school articles, as well as articles that make any non-trivial claim of importance or significance, are not eligible for deletion by this criterion. If there is any doubt thtat there is a non-trivial claim of importance, or if there is an obvious claim of importance that can be easily added, improve the article if you can, propose deletion of the article, or list the article at articles for deletion.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Rationale: I've seen comments on talk pages and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) to the effect that A7 is overused and administrators are too quick to delete rather than checking if it's a validly-applied tag. This should reduce that somewhat. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The new wording, allowing claims of notability to provide absolute immunity against A7 deletion regardless of their sourcing, seems too strong to me. I don't want to allow A7s for articles with valid but unsourced notability claims, but sometimes articles make claims that are blatantly false and that should not prevent deletion. Also, I think "non-trivial" may be too low of a bar. The likely consequence I see of such a change, if followed, is a lot more pointless AfDs such as this one that I initiated last night because an article did not meet the strict letter of the A7 criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I am conservative when it comes to A7. PROD and AFD, even one that is closed quickly due to WP:SNOW, is preferable if there is any hint of notability. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the reasoning behind the suggested changes, but am concerned the suggested text is too long and repetitive. Also, although you want to make its meaning clearer and remove ambiguity, as said above by David Eppstein, people will now be making their own interpretations of "non-trivial". For example, an article says, "My brother Joe Bloggs is the best skateboarder in the world", and a quick Google search shows no mention of this guy or his skateboarding expertise. Is this a non-trivial claim that could qualify under A7? Somno (talk) 04:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

That would either be a hoax claim, which qualifies under a different criteria, or a not-easily-verifiable claim, which should be discussed at AFD. "My brother was the best skateboarder in the world in 1923" would ether be a hoax if the best skateboarder or even the major skateboarders of the day could be identified easily and it wasn't him, or a claim that needs to be discussed either on the talk page or at AfD if there's no easy-to-lookup evidence to support or refute the claim. Who knows, maybe this guy was the best skateboarder and he got significant dead-tree national press for it. I would vote DELETE on any AFD for any article like that which didn't provide verifiable sources. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't My brother was the best skateboarder in the world in 1923 qualify as nonsense? Gnevin (talk) 16:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You mean because skateboards didn't exist in 1923? Maybe, but it's a stretch, and this illustrates exactly the problem with tightening what passes as A7: there ar a lot of articles that clearly do not belong in Wikipedia, and the more we make A7 not apply to them the more we will end up with the other categories being misapplied to delete them anyway, because the reasoning behind the tagging is not "does not make an assertion of notability => let's delete it", it's "this is a bad article => let's delete it => which speedy category applies". If we let a lot of articles escape A7 deletion that were previously deleted that way, we're still going to have to delete most of them (because the vast majority of A7-deleted articles really do deserve deletion) and it's a question of whether they can still be speedy deleted somehow or whether we're setting ourselves up for more work in AfDs. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

For articles which are no longer watchlisted by their creator, WP:PROD works wonders. Speedies usually come in 3 flavors: 1) very recently created articles, 2) someone finds the article somehow and thinks it's speedy-worthy, 3) when people like me check the older articles on the un-patrolled new-article list. PROD works wonders for these if the author was fly-by-night, and they can quickly to go AFD when I see the PROD is removed, as happens occasionally. Of course, the ideal is the author either improves the article or communicates with me and asks for help improving it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

<ec>Clearly, we have a conundrum. Of course, A7 does not apply to the above. Some delete such as nonsense or vandalism-- false claims. The conversation @Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Remove_A7 might interest you. The article mentioned in the third heading was tagged under G10 originally. I trimmed it down. I researched. I found no WP:RS. The only possible claim was hopelessly entangled in BLP. It was not a reliable source. I retagged as A7 for another admin to look at it, and it was deleted. There are some articles that should obviously, incontravertibly be deleted that do not meet a strictly interpreted CSD category. Policy needs somehow to reflect that, unless we are willing to continue to rely on admin judgment as the sole arbiter of when to use common sense. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 04:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I personally, I prefer credible claim... 'credible claim to notability.' This gets rid of the 'my brother is the greatest skate boarder alive.'---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 04:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I also would prefer credible or plausible to nontrivial. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

<ec>Somno, your points about length are well-taken. Do you have suggested wording that would achieve the desired goal: Fewer incorrect A7's, with correspondingly more correctly-tagged CSDs, and where no CSD legitimately applies, more PRODs, AFDs, and articles not nominated for deletion? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree w/ David. Swap credible for "non-trivial". This change is fine. I prefer that CSDs be narrow, precise and descriptive. I don't think this will fix the problem of borderline A7 tagging but it will allow for a clearer "this is how you are messing up" message. Protonk (talk) 04:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Good clarification, bad change in the exemption for schools. Take that out and it's great. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

How about this?

A7. An article about a real person, an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. A7 applies only to articles about web content, people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on. A7 does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. If the claim's credibility is unclear, list the article at articles for deletion.

It's shorter and removes the PROD option, because if the claim to importance may be credible, then the article's deletion would not be "non-controversial". Somno (talk) 05:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure removing the PROD option is needed. PROD is intended to say "This isn't speedyable but I don't think anyone will disagree with deleting it." Anyone during that point can come along and say "Yes, I do disagree", and require a full AfD. Basically, it's an AfD where even one keep argument stops the process and requires a full discussion. It's entirely appropriate in a case like: "This article claims that this person invented several different breakthrough medical techniques, but I can't find a single source to support that." Articles like that go through PROD all the time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. It's up to the editor to decide whether it could be controversial, so it should spell out both options. How about this then?

A7. An article about a real person, an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. A7 applies only to articles about web content, people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on. A7 does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion.

Includes PROD and improving the article yourself as options again. Somno (talk) 09:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

That's still got the schools bit. A school is an organization, and "Foo School is a school in Barville. John Baz is a student there and is the coolest kid in the world." is still speedyable. "Foo School is the top rated school in Bar" is not, as it contains an assertion of significance, but that's already covered. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I left that there because it seemed to be a large part of the changes davidwr was proposing. My aim was to shorten his suggestion, but leave the schools part there for further discussion. Somno (talk) 09:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The existing A7 criteria already says "Other article types, including school articles, are not eligible for deletion by this criterion.", making it clear that school articles should not be deleted using A7 criteria (that does not stop it being deleted under other criteria which I think your above example could be.) This has been in the criteria in various forms for a long time because schools are very rarely actually deleted at AFD (merges and redirects are much more common and many high schools are kept) and are usually controversial enough to not be the uncontroversial case that speedy deletion is meant to be for. Davewild (talk) 09:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I think that's what davidwr was trying to make more obvious to CSD taggers. Somno (talk) 13:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I like the above changes but have a question. An article was deleted which a DJ claimed to have 15000 listens . Too me this is a assertion of notability. Should be define or quantify what is a assertion of notability Gnevin (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

That's impossible, and kind of the "I know it when I see it" type thing. Without any context, "15000 listens" or any form of "That number is large" without context aren't any form of assertion of significance—we live in the Internet era, you could get something listened to 15000 times by pure mistake. On the other hand, if it asserted he's had five good reviews from major sources, there's a contextual assertion of notability. If it asserts that he's sold 15000 albums...maybe, very borderline but maybe. These still of course has to be backed up eventually, but would render it non-speedyable. There's got to be context for a number to have any meaning. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Another issue for A7

If we are going to discuss A7, I have another issue to bring up. Most of the criteria are fairly straight forward: An attack page is clearly an attack page, a copy vio is clearly a copy vio, and while G1 is the most misapplied tag, it is also fairly clear. If somebody is writing an attack page, they can expect it to be deleted quickly. There are a few tags that can result in premature speedy deletions. The problem that I see with A7 isn't that it is misapplied, but rather it is applied too quickly. One of the big problems that CSD'ers face is that they delete articles before giving another person a chance to salvage it. EG the author saves the first draft of an article on somebody they KNOW is notable, and it is deleted before they have chance to even make a second edit. This can be fairly frustrating. I would love to add some criteria to the effect of, "articles whose presence on wikipedia that will not harm the project should be prodded first rather than speedied." This gives the author a chance save the article.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 10:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not, that guts A7. Garbage articles with no assertion of significance do harm the project by making a farce of it, and prods can be removed by anyone whether in good faith or not. If someone can't even answer that most basic of journalistic questions, "Why would anyone possibly care?", with the first edit, they should be drafting in userspace, learning to write better, or learning what this project is and is not for. If they won't do either of those, and will instead leave in a huff, well, sorry, but good riddance. Sure, we want editors, but we should want good editors. Not everyone is suited. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not in anyway talking about the articles that say, "I'm the best person alive." I'm referencing the one's that are "John Smith was the Republican candidate for the Ohio Senate." That article may not meet our notability requirements, but it does no harm being on the project for 5 days while a PROD expires. The ones that people may be working on. As for creating in user space, guess what, most newbies don't think to do that. Heck, I often forget---and I've had several articles speedily deleted because I was saving my work. There is a reason why CSD has a bad rep, and it is because there are overeager admin's who will delete an article 2 minutes after it was created. This turns people off big time to the project. We need a way to curb those types---it is that type of CSD'er that gives CSD a bad name and why CSD'ers find it increasingly difficult to get the bit at RfA. Having an article on Wikipedia for 5 days saying "John Smith was the Democratic candidate for the Ohio Senate" will not hurt the project. Plus, who knows, John Smith might actually be notable for something! The claim is weak, but it is viable, and it could be something that could reasonably be expanded into something. As for removing it, yes it can be removed, which is why you watchlist the page---and if it is removed you can then tag it for speedy. Or you can explain that the PROD gives them 5 days to assert notability, or it could be speedily deleted.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 10:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we are going to fix that by changing the wording. I would just spend more time at CAT:CSD and use {{Hasty}} where it applies. We can't instill an editing philosophy through template changes. Protonk (talk) 10:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy having Hasty Built into A7. That would take care of my concern. My concern is really to prevent CSD'ers from deleting works in progress. Or similar language---"Articles that meet the criteria for A7, but are written in an encyclopedic manner should be given an hour for the author to assert notability."---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 10:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I just think since that the template is physically incapable of distinguishing between genuine works in progress and joke pages (my brother is so awesome...), we shouldn't bother trying to force this into the wording or the template syntax. Admins and other CSD patrollers are the methods to protect against that. Technical means will just create headaches and overhead for the 'good guys' while only mildly inconveniencing poor taggers. Protonk (talk) 10:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Does {{Hasty}} actaully create a template/hold on the article so that it doesn't show up on admin pages? If so, then the wording could be guidance to consider adding it to articles!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 13:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

(EC) I would personally view candidacy for a major public office as an assertion of significance (though not by any means an ironclad assertion of notability, but that's outside the realm of speedy to determine). But as the recent farce with BLP has suggested, "harm" is highly subjective and has no place in consideration here. "Hasty" similarly has no place, speedy deletions are meant to be, well, speedy. If something is appropriate for speedy it should go as of right now, if not it should go through PROD or AfD. A speedy does not prohibit an appropriate article being written at the same title. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I think removing A7 would be a net negative, and amending it would not solve the perceived problem, which is that admins (and I hold my hands up among the guilty) may be deleting articles which don't strictly meet the criteria. In this case, the policy is right, but the enforcement needs to be tweaked. Stifle (talk) 12:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Removing A7 would completely overload the other deletion processes. More articles are deleted under A7 than though AFD, PROD, A1, A3, G11 and G12 combined. Hut 8.5 13:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

This proposal is not about getting rid of A7.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 13:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You are proposing to completely change the purpose of A7. Right now it aims to weed out articles which don't have a chance of surviving other deletion processes. You are proposing to limit it to the much smaller group of articles which actively harm the project by their existence, which in practice will be the articles on the lines of "Fred is a 13 year old who goes to Somewhere Secondary School". The resulting criterion will be nothing like the current one. This will, as I said above, have the side effect of hugely increasing the load on other deletion processes, and the only systematic study of the correctness of A7 I know of found that very few articles deleted under A7 would have a chance at AfD, so there would be very little gain for the extra effort involved. Hut 8.5 14:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

A7 as it stands now is not for articles which would would not survive the deletion process this is a totally incorrect interpretation. It's for article which make no assertion of notability . I like the above addition of makes no credible assertion of notability Gnevin (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the wording of the criterion, I'm talking about why there is a criterion. It used to be that if someone started an article on a high school student it could only be deleted through AfD. People got fed up with this and introduced A7 to remove those articles more quickly. The fact that the criterion is there to remove some pages which would not survive the deletion process does not mean that if a page is not going to survive the deletion process it can be deleted through this criterion. Hut 8.5 15:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Er, not at all. What I am proposing is common sense and should in reality already be followed---but isn't. If an article shows any value, then put a minimal pause on it. Articles about "Fred goin to somewhere middle school" is still vanity article with zero redeeming value. "JAne Do was the republican nominee for the Texas state senate" The Jane Do article won't survive an AfD as is, but who knows there might be a notable article behind that one... keeping it does zero harm to the project.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Balloonman I think has it fundamentally right, but we would need to find some way of wording it that will not be overused, and persuade people to do more of the new article patrol not on the most recent page of articles. I am not sure we can. It is often clear from the very beginning of an article whether or not there is any potential, and, for somewhere between ¼ and ½ the people deleted in A7, there is very clearly none. For bands and companies, it's much harder to tell, because the next part might perfectly well talk about notable recording, or business accomplishments: "X was founded by A and B in B's garage" can lead to quite a number of things, some of them very highly notable.. Obviously, if no more is said very soon the article will be deleted vlidly under A7, but the authors need a chance. DGG (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

They already have a chance. Well, many of them. They have the chance to read the advice the article creation page provides and get it right the first time. If they don't, they have the chance to read the advice the speedy warnings give. They have the chance to place {{hangon}} and explain what's going on. They even have the chance to recreate an appropriate article if the first one that made no assertion is deleted. There's no lack of chances here even if we leave speedies being speedy. Speedy is commonly flooded, and it's one of the best quality control mechanisms we have. The last thing we need is some type of mandatory "waiting period". Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Seraphim, I really have to wonder how many articles you've written? Your comments really strike me as somebody who is unfamiliar with the realities of article building and oblivious to the harm caused by over eager CSD'ers. Experienced editor get burnt by over eager CSD'ers. You forget to write it in your user space, save it, and before you get a chance to respond the article is gone. Too often a first draft is tagged and deleted in a matter of minutes. They don't have a change to get a {{Hangon}} on an article... heck, there are several admins who delete on sight, thus zero chance to put a hangon tag on the article. The project suffers more damage from over eager CSD'ers than it does from the vandals they fight.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Balloonman, would much appreciate if you didn't make this about me. I more commonly do fixup on existing articles than start new ones, but I've started them. I don't have them speedied because I ensure they're valid and clearly indicate so. If I wrote an article saying "John Foo once said not to fear any enemy" and it got speedied I'd be kicking myself, not the speedying admin. That's the exact type of thing that speedy is designed to deal with. On the other hand, if I wrote one saying "John Foo was the Prime Minister of Barland from 1991-1998, famous for saying to fear no enemy during the Bar-Baz conflict" (presuming we replace "Barland" with some real country here), and someone speedied it, then yes, that's bad, but that would be the fault of the admin—that article contains an assertion of notability. Even a "first draft" should contain some minimum standards, such as a bare assertion of why the subject is significant. There's no "stub" speedy criterion, there's no "badly written" speedy criterion, there's no "needs verification" speedy criterion. All you need is a bare assertion. That's really not too much to ask. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

And yet, we have admins who cite WP:IAR and WP:SNOW when deleting articles, because in their opinion the article would be deleted anyway, so they aren't going to bother sending it to AFD/PROD it. My main concern are the CSD'ers who delete just about everything without regard as to whether or not it should be deleted.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The better way to approach this if you're concerned is probably too just spend some time at CAT:CSD at this point. II | (t - c) 23:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Hope this is the final wording

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

With the addition of some clerical work, I can live with Somno's wording above. What do you think of this version? I've also listed a strikeout/underlined markup version so you can compare to the existing A7

Modified version of Somno's version, strikeouts and underlines are clerical corrections to Somno's version above:

A7. An article about a real person, an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. A7 applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people and organizations themselves, not to articles on about their books, albums, software and so on. A7 does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion.

Marked up from the current A7:

A7. An article about a real person, an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. A7 applies only to articles about web content ~~or articles on~~ and to articles about people and organizations themselves, not to articles on about their books, albums, software and so on. A7 does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or ~~Other article types, including school articles, are not eligible for deletion by this criterion. If controversial, as with schools,~~ list the article at articles for deletion ~~instead~~.

If there are no recommended changes in the next 48 hours, or no requests to wait longer, I think we should make the change. I'd like at least 1 person preferably several to reply with "yes, make the change" so I know this is reasonable. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Who is the "you" that can do all those other things in the final sentence? The article creator? The tagger? The (not) deleting admin? Otherwise this all looks ok to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The tagger. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think specifically excluding schools is a good idea, because that would support the idea that every single school is notable regardless of the article content. Currently, there are some users that suggest highschools and higher education is notable (this is contentious), but there's no concensus for primary and secondary schools. If a school is truly notable, the explicit mention of sources should stop them being speedied as a non-notable organization (they are organizations). - Mgm|^(talk) 10:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Schools are excluded from A7 in the existing language, this is not a policy change. Non-notable schools are treated the same as articles about other non-notable topics that are excluded from a7. From the existing policy: Other article types, including school articles, are not eligible for deletion by this criterion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
If we change it to this wording, can we unify the A7's in the deletion dropdown menu (i.e. so they aren't "A7 (bio)", "A7 (group)" and "A7 (web)" with the same explanatory text following)? How do we do that? (I have no idea) Protonk (talk) 12:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
That's just a case of editing MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown. Stifle (talk) 14:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Gotcha. I'll do that once the change goes through. Protonk (talk) 22:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Schools were listed simply as a specific example of a controversial article type that should be brought to AfD rather than speedied. (Right here.) I think the proposal loses that point a bit. I like the changes, but would suggest dropping the "except schools" and restoring the "If controversial, as with schools, list the article at articles for deletion instead." I think this not only prevents schools becoming some strange category of their own, but also warns that there may be inherently controversial topics that would otherwise fit within A7. (My one and only overturned speedy at DRV related to a museum.) I also think it's a good idea not to create a blanket exception to schools since some schools likely are uncontroversial: preschools, for instance. The commercial cooking school Sally Mae opened behind her local drug store. Sunday schools. That kind of thing. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
No, schools are specifically excluded from A7 under the current policy. See my other comments in this edit, above. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I know what it says now. :) My note was meant to point out the fact that schools were originally listed as an example of a controversial type, not an excluded subtype. They were not explicitly excluded as a type until October 2008, following this. But in any case, I don't see how the fact that they are currently excluded as an article type has any bearing on whether we decide they should be excluded as an article type tomorrow. We are, after all, currently engaged in discussing a change. I support restoring the earlier language, before the addition of that exclusion. "School" is too broad and generic a term, imo, to warrant a blanket exception. The exception is meant to minimize controversy; I don't think Sally Mae's Cooking School or the Primrose Academy of Two Year Old Tots are likely to be controversial. OTOH, I also tend to doubt that they're a common enough issue to go to the mat over. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
That is a change worth discussing. I'm actually in favor of allowing A7 on certain school articles, particularly those below the US-high-school-or-local-equivalent level. However that is a contentious issue and I have what I thought was a non-contentious suggestion. If it's Christmas-treed with semantic changes the net result will be lack of consensus and the existing text will remain. The right time to discuss changing school language is after this change is made or we decide not to make this change. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
No opposition from me, then, as I know how easy it is to lose momentum for these kinds of changes. :) The blanket school exception can be revised/refined/removed later if need be. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes make the changes Gnevin (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I've made the change. If it needs reworking please start a new discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

too soon after article creation

Separately from whether or not the above changes are made, I suggest appending to the end of the A7 paragraph, "Try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its creation if it seems likely that further edits will soon make it ineligible for speedy deletion." The first half of this sentence echoes something which is said in the lead. The idea of this is to still allow "James is my friend" to be deleted immediately, but to implicity add a {{hasty}} template for borderline cases or where there are signs that the creator intends to continue editing. Perhaps "speedy deletion" could be renamed to "obvious deletion" or "straightforward deletion" so as to avoid the impression that it is intended delete articles within minutes of their creation. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 14:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest renaming it Snow-delete . As in articles which don't have a snowballs chance of passing and AFD Gnevin (talk) 19:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I think WP:CSD#snow needs to be a separate entity. It should have strict requirements that the tagger and the deleter performed a search for WP:RS establishing meeting a notability guideline and came up empty. It also should allow adequate time to assure due diligence. (Not tagged and deleted before the creator has had an opportunity to present sources and figure out how to contest the deletion.) The article in question could still contain assertions of notability, but which can not be sustained. It would not apply for subjects for which it would not be reasonable to expect to find sources through a search of the internet resources, as there are notable subjects difficult or impossible to source via the internet (ie, John Stansel Taylor, people whose names are in a language that does not use the Latin alphabet. It would require more thought and insight than have have available to flesh out all the details and iron out the wrinkles, but we're intelligent people here, and we can do it through the usual consensus building approach. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 20:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Would probably not meet criteria 1 & 2 above. Protonk (talk) 20:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Dlohc, you have a few issues that you have to address. First, there is a large segment of users who believe that IAR/SNOW should NEVER be used in regards to CSD. If it doesn't fit the established criteria, then it isn't a candidate. If you have to IAR on a routine basis, then you are over applying IAR. Second, you are assuming that these same admins who chime in on IAR/SNOW as justification to delete articles that don't fit the criteria, will not simply IAR the guidelines you want to add.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Protonk, I'm not sure that every phrase in the criterion has to meet those objectives. However, it could be made objective like this: the criterion does not apply to articles less than 1 hour old unless it's clear that they are about a non-significant subject. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 17:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Davidwr/Choosing SPEEDY, PROD, or AFD deletion

I would like your opinions and suggested changes to User:Davidwr/Choosing SPEEDY, PROD, or AFD deletion. If there's consensus to do so, I would like to move it to Wikipedia: space as an essay first, perhaps a guideline later. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Add optional delay-timer parameter to A7 speedy templates

There's some discussion above that A7 and possibly other criteria for speedy deletion shouldn't be "quite so speedy" - maybe a small delay timer of an hour or even a day can be added so editors not familiar with {{inuse}} or other tags don't find their brand new in-progress article wiped out from under them.

As an experiment, I'd like to change {{db-a7}} so it has a "delay=hours" parameter, which would add highlighted text saying "Please do not delete this for hours hours after 20241121123147". If this gains wide adoption, it can be improved by making the text calculate the expiration time and creating the appropriate categories. If it gains wide adoption we can also consider an appropriate non-zero default delay, but that's months down the road. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Yay, I'm the first NPP to support this. I'd prefer a time lag of 6 hours (which I think is the usual time lag anyway, due to time between tagger and admin overseer). NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 04:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Silly me didn't read that it was optional. I'd support it if it was mandatory. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 05:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

If it's optional no one will use it. If it's a template parameter, you'll have nimrod patrollers who deceptively add yesterday's tag. I've said it before but I still think the best solution would be to ask Cyde to set this page chronologically rather than alphabetically (it would of course check the timestamp of the edit which added the tag, not the timestamp claimed in the template code). Of course we'd still get admins who intentionally delete from the wrong end because they want to appear super-fast. — CharlotteWebb 04:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Charlotte, I like your idea. I did not know it was possible to do this. I hate checking a CSD candidate only to find it was tagged 93 seconds after creation. (My first article creation got deleted for "no content", because I did not know how Wikipedia works. I felt pretty bitten, and gave up in frustration rather than fighting the system.) At first blush, the idea of a timer or listing the things in chronological order sounds great. Dloh cierekim 21:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

!voting

Oppose - several reasons. 1) For this to work at all without requiring the setting of an absolute date, it would require the template to be subst'd. 2) Categories based on time-based parser functions rarely work as expected, except when the times are > a day. 3) The main issue I've seen is not too short of a time between tagging and deletion, but between creating and tagging. People are put off by the big red tag on their article saying it will be deleted appearing 90 seconds after they create it, not the actual deletion an hour or more later. 4) Speedy deletion is supposed to be speedy. 5) The vast majority of pages deleted under A7 are unsalvageable crap about a subject that will never be notable. 6) Unless patrollers put the pages on their watchlist, there's really no tracking of speedies besides the category. Increasing the time between tagging and deletion increases the chances the tag will be removed by the creator with no one noticing. See points 2, 5, and 7 on my essay about fixing CSD. Mr.Z-man 05:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose as well; this gives creators of nn articles more chance to remove the tag and avoid the page being deleted. Stifle (talk) 12:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. I would tend to use it. Articles like "James is my friend" can still be deleted the same way, no delay needed. The time-tagging can be made to work with the aid of a bot. The tag can be designed so that no big ugly box is displayed on the page until the time is up. People who choose to use the delay feature can put the article on their watchlist or maintain a list of links and glance at them to see that they've all become redlinks. The last few times I did new page patrol I patrolled older pages (e.g. 1 hour or 1 day perhaps); with a delay feature available I might tend to patrol newer pages, which could be more useful in eliminating outright junk faster. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 15:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
This is technically quite difficult with the resources we have available to us. We really need a queued deletion system such as has been proposed since the dawn of time. Happy‑melon 16:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Support I don't even think it needs to be 6 hours, 1 hour is enough time for somebody to salvage it. We just need a way to A) let users know their article is in danger and B) not have over eager admins deleting it the same minute it was created!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Support While a lot of CSD canddates ar unsalvagable crap, there are also some that get deleted before the new, inexperienced, only-understands-WP:Bold creator can fix the defects and save the article. Some will leave in frustration after being so bitten. This or Charlotte's proposal would be helpful to me, as I hate to delete things hastily. Dloh cierekim 21:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. We already have a simple deletion method with a built-in delay: prod. And if the tagger thinks the article may be salvageable, why on earth are they tagging it for deletion? --Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Because sometimes new editors do a poor job of asserting notability on their first edit or even first few edits to a new page. This gives them time to understand what is being asked of them and to do it. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 23:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I fall a bit more into the WP:SOFIXIT school of thought. If it might be notable, take five minutes to do a gsearch. Or tag it for notability and make a note to come back later (user subpages are great for this).--Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose and not just because my proposal to time limit non-csd deletions went down in beautiful, beautiful flames. I am an economist, so I believe firmly that architectural and procedural incentives will change behavior. But these are not those changes. Social pressure will work much more efficiently than time limits--opposing admin candidates for crappy CSD tagging will provide better results (in the long run) than protecting A7 candidates for an hour. Protonk (talk) 20:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Very strong oppose, yes, we should use a gentle touch when communicating with editors whose article is being speedied, but we should not confuse that with "We should not speedy." Speedy deletions that are, for lack of a better term, speedy, are an essential quality control mechanism. And if editors are feeling "bitten" because someone edits their work and civilly tells them why, well, realistically, then they're probably not a good fit here. When you make an edit here, it might be changed or removed five seconds or five years from now. If we really want to reduce people getting "bitten", let's restrict article creation to those who have some number of edits to existing articles. That will introduce new editors to editing without the likelihood that exists of someone totally unfamiliar with the project creating an inappropriate article. As a side benefit, it would probably deter a lot of those "jon is a (insert profanity here) lololol!" vandals. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Admins should heed WP:DEMOLISH but adding a delay will not make that happen. Add a delay and some admins will cry IAR and just delete away. You cannot change the mentality of some admins by such measures. So Why 18:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose PROD is for unclear situation, time-based templates are difficult to work with, if it is clearly an A7 then time for subsequent edits should not change it, would inappropriately treat articles created more than a couple hours ago as their creator is not likely to be around at that specific time. MBisanz ^talk 18:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I support the idea that speedy speedy-tagging is counterproductive however I don't think this is the best solution. I'd rather tell those who are too quick on the tagging to slow it down. But then again, there are probably too many people doing it... - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

CSD Surveys

Well, I've gone through a number of CSD nominations from the past month and found about 40 that I thought might pose interesting questions on how people perform CSD's. Basically, I'm asking people to review the article in question and answering the question, "how would you handle this" with one of four options (if you were the closing admin):

Agree with criteria for deletion.
Disagree with criteria for deletion, but would delete the article under another criteria.
Disagree with the criteria for deletion, but this is a situation where IAR applies.
Disagree with speedily deleting the article.

To see the surveys, go to this page. I'm hoping to get a good mix of people to participate in the surveys---people who agree with my interpretation of CSD and people who have different views. I'll post the results in a couple of weeks after getting a decent return.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

G4 and restored articles that were redirects

Does G4 apply here: An article got cut-and-paste-moved in 2006 and then redirected. The target article then gets AfD-deleted in 2008, but the redirect stays around for whatever reason. The redirect then gets reverted to the years-old article version in good or bad faith. Is that recreation per G4? I ran into this question with Daxter (Jak and Daxter) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daxter (Daxter (video game) has since been moved to Daxter).

And how does CSD apply in the following (somewhat related) case: There is an ongoing effort in the fiction area to merge fiction articles into bigger articles when they lack demonstrated notability; the former articles then become redirects for GFDL reasons. If the big target article gets deleted in an AfD (i.e. still no sufficient notability) but the redirected articles get restored by fanboys, does G4 apply as well? – sgeureka ^t•c 20:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd call it a recreation and deletable per G4.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree w/ Balloonman. For AfDs that are well in the past (say, >1 year), there may be some leeway, but that AfD was from september of this year. Protonk (talk) 21:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Did your replies apply to the second part of the question too? – sgeureka ^t•c 10:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, didn't see the 2nd part, thought it was an unthreaded reply. My guess is, yes but you won't have much luck in practice. Meaning that if the AfD decided that subject shouldn't have its own article, you can probably slap a G4 tag on there with a note in the edit summary, but most admins will decline the speedy on the grounds that it wasn't previously 'deleted'. You are better off finding a more appropriate grandparent article (if one exists). Protonk (talk) 02:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with protonk. Let's take an absurd example. Suppose we have an article on a musician. The Musician is then redirected/merged to the band the musician performs for. The band is deleted because it isn't notable. But for some reason, unrelated to the band, the musician achieves notability on his own---perhaps the merge was incorrectly decided? Perhaps people decided that the musician was marginal in notability, but a redirect to the band was appropriate, but now that the band no longer exists, the musician still has marginal notability worthy of his/her own article.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 23:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Quick question

Does A7 apply to bios about animals that don't indicate significance? This is probably a stupid question, but I just wanted to make sure. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Technically, no; it's not a real person. In practice, yes; many admins will delete an article on a pet/mascot tagged as A7 either impliedly or expressly under WP:IAR/snowball/not elevating process over substance.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, technically, no. But I would be willing to entertain that the spirit of real person was intended to cover anything living, thus would not hold that against people---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 06:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I will myself always remove such tags as completely illegitimate, and will restore such articles if they have been deleted and there is no other reason for speedy deletion. The spirit of "~~living~~ real people" means people with a potential for biography, not other sorts of subjects. It does not included living objects, either general or individual--the rationale is that it is not as easy to rule out possible significance. In practice there are two sorts of articles here: ones about someone's pet cat, which can be deleted as test pages or vandalism, as nobody can in good faith possibly have expected them to stay in an encyclopedia, and articles about animals who have won prizes or been in shows, in which case usually a discussion is needed about their significance. DGG (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

A7 has nothing to do with living people. It applies to dead people as well as organizations and web content. "animals who have won prizes or been in shows" is a strawman. A person who won a significant prize wouldn't be eligible for A7 deletion either. Mr.Z-man 01:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I meant "real people" The analogy was to people, not corporations or web content. My point was that there are essentially no articles to which this would apply that cannot be dealt with otherwise. DGG (talk) 04:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Deleting such material as a test pages or as vandalism would often be simply incorrect and bite the user in the case of using vandalism as the basis (to the extent it is not clearly so). When speedy deleting an article that does not fit the letter of any CSD, to my mind it's better to disclose exactly what you are doing. Take the article: "Harry is my adorable vietnamese pet pig.<ref>myspace URL</ref> He lives with me and is very smart...<ref>my blog</ref> [and more so that no one would argue A1 applies]. We cannot assume this is a test page at all, any more than we would for any article by a new user on a family member. Deleting it as such leaves the user who posted with an opaque and very likely irrelevant explanation for why it was deleted. Deleting it as vandalism when there is nothing vandalistic about it—again, certainly nothing more than one would assume for any article on a family member with no claim of importance-makes no sense at all and could be highly offensive to the clueless but good faith user. If this is going to be speedied, and we know many admins will (I would), the only criteria which comes close to applying is A7, in its spirit. The best deletion summary in my opinion is WP:IAR: extending the spirit of CSD A7 to cover article on pet with no claim of importance. That express basis provides a substantive explanation to the user that no deletion summary of "G2 test page" ever will, and isn't pretextual, as the test or vandalism based deletion summaries are. I have seen your stark proclamation at Balloonman's survey. Not only do I disagree, but think admins who delete articles on bases that do not technically apply, without acknowledging that the basis being used is actually a mismatch, do a disservice to the users whose articles are affected. IAR does not mean just what the acronym stands for. It means what it has long been interpreted to mean (and not mean)—the spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule; do not elevate process over substance, it is not to be used, nor is it a mandate to simply ignore the rules, etc., all of which is clear to anyone who visits the policy page with explanatory essays linked.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd bet money that if you add the word "animal(s)" to A7, some nimrod will try to use it to delete "non-notable animal species". Please, choose your words carefully. — CharlotteWebb 15:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Redirect question

Not sure how to tag this, or if I should - Matt lee(musician). Reason is this has gone through many named articles (Matt Lee (musician), Matt lee, Matt Lee(musician deluxe), Matt Lee(guitarist), Matt Lee (guitarist) and so on) that have had CSD's, AFD's, DRV's, sockpuppet issues, redirects and been userfied and now it is restored (and a speedy already declined - dif) at Matt Lee. If we now have this restored version, assuming it now stays as it's own article, do we need the Matt lee(musician) or Matt Lee(musician deluxe) redirects? Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

"Need" is a slippery criterion, but if these went to RfD, I would support keeping Matt lee(musician) as a barely plausible typo and support deleting Matt Lee(musician deluxe) as an implausible term for the target. Hope this helps. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I moved Matt lee(musician) to Matt Lee (musician) and will speedy-delete-tag the first one. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

sorry, In re-reading what I said I left out something important. The redirect in question redirects to an article on a band that Matt Lee was in. The core article on Matt Lee was userfied and was placed back in mainspace on December 25 by the main editor (Also I.P 76.94.31.7) thusly prompting the question above. Which prompted the question above, which should have been more clear in that: if the current article, Matt Lee, does in fact stay do we need the redirect of Matt lee(musician) which redirects to the The Divine Horsemen article? (NOTE: Per davidwr the Matt lee(musician) redirect is now "redirected" to Matt Lee (musician) which now redirects to the The Divine Horsemen article - but the same issue exists.) Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If we have an article Matt Lee now then Matt Lee (musician) should redirect there, and I just changed it. There aren't any incoming links from article or template space anyway, so hardly anybody will ever find that page anyway, except if he searches for the page with the qualifier.
Typically the redirects with common qualifiers (Matt Lee (musician) and Matt Lee (guitarist)) are kept if someone went to the trouble to create them, but nobody will ever look for Matt Lee(musician deluxe) so I'll tag it. --Amalthea 07:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW, soundvisions, you might be interested in the {{ArticleHistory}} template. --Amalthea 07:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah....cool. Thanks! That would have saved some time. :) Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

← At least it'd be prettier. ;)
FWIW, the article has now been deleted again as a WP:CSD#G5 created by banned user following WP:ANI#Need history check for Matt Lee. --Amalthea 17:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

But now it has, yet again, been recreated at Matt Lee(guitar player) by a brand new user. I tagged this with a G4 already and the user has posted a {{hangon}} already. This article is getting very much "out of control" isn't it? (I also replied in more detail at "Need history check for Matt Lee" ANI thread. Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Recreation of previously deleted articles

I missed this, but was there discussion about adding an active link from CSD G4 to the "Recreation of previously deleted articles" proposal? Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. It was done here, and I'm inclined to think that we shouldn't be prominently linking to a nearly moribund proposal (the page itself has had five edits since it was listed here in September. The talk page to that proposal has had four edits since that day). I'm delinking it, though of course consensus may emerge that it should remain. If it does, maybe somebody will undertake to get it in shape. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Extend A9

I propose to extend A9 to non-notable albums as a whole, whether the one who made the album's article existed or not. that is because sometimes (not always), after creating the article on the nn-notable band, the creator will also write articles on the albums. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This not a good idea for 2 reasons, firstly if as you say the band is not notable then that article can be deleted first and then the articles on the albums can be nominated for A9 once the band's article has been deleted. Secondly WP:MUSIC says that most albums, by musicians/bands that do meet the notability criteria, are also notable and where they are not recommends merge/redirect not deletion. Davewild (talk) 07:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Ohhh... Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This all seems odd to me. I'd have thought most bands which are truly "non-notable" wouldn't actually have albums, and that mentioning that they have albums would be enough "assertion of notability" for A7 not to apply. Counter-arguments such as "it's not an album, you goofball, just a demo-tape" are addressed by the subsequent language about unclear claims of notability (use normal deletion process).

If a band is nominated for deletion it would be best to include any albums as part of the same AFD. If you want the band should be deleted, you'll want to delete their albums too. If you're arguing that it should be kept, you'll want to make it obvious to everyone that the band does in fact have albums (yes, a lot of people don't bother to check before voting). — CharlotteWebb 15:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't know why we need an A9 criterion; if the band's article has been deleted, I'd consider the directly related articles (albums) to be delete fodder as well, under the auspices of "it's related, regardless of its inclusion in the parent AfD" (as in, the encyclopedia shouldn't suffer unworthwhile articles just because the nominator missed an article). EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

A9 also applies though when the bands article has been deleted either by speedy deletion or prod not just AFD. The reasoning behind this addition was that often the bands article was being speedied but the equally insignificant song/album they had made had to spend five days going through prod or AFD rather than be speedied. This was coming up often enough to be a problem. Davewild (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

We need that criterion because we cannot just delete anything related that does not describe the band under A7. Sometimes there are albums or songs that are notable while the artist in question is not, WP:BLP1E comes to mind. So A9 serves it purpose but I think the proposed extension makes sense. After all, as said above, we can delete the artist article first if they are not notable and still satisfy A9. Regards So Why 18:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I'd just delete it under the banner of "the band's article got deleted," without a speedy deletion criteria. Thinking outside the box, as it were. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Removal of CSD tags

What is the policy regrading removing or restoring CSD tags? I've always thought that it was similar to PROD in that, once removed (by anybody other than the creator), the tag should not be re-added. Pretty much for the same reason as a PROD - deletions without community discussion should be uncontroversial. But over on ANI [5], I'm reading this this is not actually the case? Why do we let people re-add a CSD tag if we don't allow them to do it with a PROD? -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

CSDs are written so that, in almost all cases, any article satisfying the criterion ought to be deleted. Consequently, unless the person removing the tag is contesting that the article satisfies the criterion, which they must do explicitly, it remains quite likely that the article should be deleted. PROD must be more careful, because it allows the deletion of literally any article, with any justification; the only protection against its misuse is that anyone can remove it. Dcoetzee 18:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. Still, it doesn't seem right that someone can just keep reinserting a tag on an article which is not a proper CSD candidate. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

They can't, not with impunity. They run the risk of being themselves tagged for Wikipedia:Vandalism (it's specifically mentioned under "Abuse of tags") or disruptive editing. I myself would certainly not reintroduce a speedy tag unless I was really sure it ought to be deleted, notwithstanding what the other editor thought. :) (G12 comes to mind. But, then, given where I primarily volunteer, G12 comes to mind quite a lot....) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Only the admin reviewing the page may remove the CSD tag, unless of course it is obviously inapplicable. To disagree with the CSD, the {{hangon}} template should be used. Any (non-admin) removing the CSD tag should be reverted, or any 'involved' admin, for that matter. Prodego ^talk 18:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion policy is very clear that "Anyone except a page's creator may contest the speedy deletion of a page by removing the deletion notice from the page". Davewild (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

What Dave said: WP:DELETION#Speedy deletion. I remove them quite frequently. Hangon is only for the author. --Amalthea 18:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

In the interest of avoiding a "me, too", I'll note that this policy is fairly clear on that, too: "The creator of a page may not remove a Speedy Delete tag from it. Only an editor who is not the creator of a page may do so. A creator who disagrees with the speedy deletion should instead add {{hangon}} to the page, and explain the rationale on the page's discussion page." :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Prodego - I'm not an admin and I frequently patrol pending speedies, and de-tag a fair number of them. I immediately re-tag a fair number of these as PROD or even AFD though. The most common case is where there is an assertion of notability that doesn't meet WP:N and I've never heard of the subject before. "ACMERocks is a band in Smalltown. The received an award from the Mayor for their anti-drug-abuse message." is an assertion of notability and I will de-A7'd it, but it may or may not rise to WP:N so I may immediately PROD or AFD it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Me too. I try to search for notability and reliable sourcing even in articles that to me look speediable. I once detagged what I thought was a subtle attack page. Much to my surprise, there is a genus of worms named Eunice. Sometimes new users don't know how to assert notability, or have a bit of writer's block, and we need to help them. Speedy deletion is only for deletions that are "non controversial." If an unbiased/unconnected to the article disagrees with speedy deletion, it is controversial, and would be better dealt with via PROD or AFD. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 02:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Me too. Non-admins, even IP editors, may decline speedy deletions. Once the speedy is declined, the matter needs to go to XfD or be dropped. This excludes the article creator, obv. Evidently this is a relatively common misconception. Protonk (talk) 02:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd in fact advise those thinking of becoming admins to practice doing this, as a demonstration of accuracy in judging here is a good thing to point to at the Request for Adminship. the best way of showing that one knows the rules is to apply them to real instances. DGG (talk) 03:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem with removing tags, is that there are career CSD'ers who believe it is their job to continue to readd the CSD tag until they get an admin who will delete the article. And we have admins who would rather delete an article that has been previously rejected for CSD than do what is right. Once a CSD has been removed, especially if it was by an admin, then the article should not be CSD'ed unless it is a clear attack or copy vio. Admins who knowingly delete articles, that have been rejected, do the community a disservice... and do CSD'ers a disservice. They are the one's who give CSD'ers the bad reputations. And yes, I lay the blame on the admins, not the non-admins. The non-admins have been trained that there are delete happy admins who simply don't care (and while I won't name names, this is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact.)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 04:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

There are two other major exception to that: If the reasoning is different or if new evidence arrives. For example, CSD-no assertion of notability may be declined to be followed shortly by CSD-banned user, with supporting evidence. But in generally, you are right, if a CSD tag has been removed and re-added, the closing admin should be very careful and at least initially assume all the taggers and de-taggers are sincere, and act accordingly. CSD is supposed to be for non-controversial stuff, sincere disagreements over CSD tag removal pretty much mean it's not non-controversial. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

there is almost never any real virtue in forcing a speedy over opposition from any good faith editor, or in arguing about it if there's an even possibly reasonable challenge. If the article is really a bad idea, the decision at an AfD is more definitive--and otherwise, let it be argued. If you are right, people will agree with you. DGG (talk) 05:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you, me, and Balloonman are philosophically in agreement. There may be rare occasions when we aren't, like "hmm, this LOOKS like an attack, but someone removed the attack CSD" when in fact it's an iffy call on whether it's an attack or not. WP:SOFIXIT is frequently a good option in cases like this. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree w/ DGG here, but would substitute "usually not" for "almost never". Protonk (talk) 05:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

New CSD's for images

CSD I12 - Images of identifiable minors, where no model release/permission has been lodged with OTRS.
CSD I13 - Explicit adult images, lacking artistic or academic value, where no model release, permission and age confirmation has been lodged with OTRS.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I propose that the exception for those two rules would be for historical photos, because that's the area where personality rights are irrelevant. —harej // be happy 19:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

This would also work better as PROD criteria. —harej // be happy 19:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I've been harping on the idea of PROD for images for some time now Wikipedia_talk:PROD#Image_and_Redirect_proding, but there isn't a critical mass one way or another to change policy. MBisanz ^talk 19:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I oppose this, fails items 1 and 3 of the recommendations for new speedy criteria.

Firstly, it cannot be objectively determined whether someone is or is not a minor. I know plenty of 16-year olds who wouldn't even be carded when buying alcohol, and some 20-year olds who still get child fares on the bus. That's before even starting to consider that ages of majority around the world range from 13 to 21.

Secondly, the matter simply doesn't come up with enough frequency to be worthwhile as a CSD. MBisanz and Messedrocker mention image PRODding, but most IFDs end up that way anyway (deleted without any comments after five days). Stifle (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Identifiable did not in this instance refer to age, but you raise a valid point. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose both, as too much bureaucracy and no legal imperative to do so. Much better would be to apply missing-copyright or suspected-fraudulent-copyright-claim procedures to such images. Balancing this with WP:AGF can be tricky, but politely asking someone to verify that yes, they did indeed photograph the person in question and therefore own the copyright and reminding them that they may wish to reconsider and {{db-author}} is available to them should be good enough. As for model releases, until WP:OFFICE says otherwise, we don't need them.

If this were in place, we would loose pictures where the photographer or even the subject didn't want to go to the trouble of doing the paperwork. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Explicit images are already supposed to have the age of the models recorded in the US aren't they? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, it's only images taken after a certain date. I'm sure WP:OFFICE will chime in if it's an issue. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You already need parent/guardian permission to take pictures of kids in the UK, and probably the US. Not by any offical decree of course, but because it's the de-facto accepted position. Formalising this on wiki would be a good thing as it helps to confrim images are legal, as well as resolving other related issues.

A side effect of needing parental permission for images of minors is that it would enstill responsibility in genuine users,

A genuine user, would not mind doing the paperwork so to speak. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no. It's quite common to take pictures of other people's children, especially in public places. You need permission from the parents only in cases where a model release would ordinarily be required, such as commercial use where the person is recognizable. Until Wikipedia requires model releases from all newly-produced pictures of people, they should not require parental permission of purported minors. Besides, if a parent wants to take action, they can probably get WP:OFFICE to take down any pictures of their children and get the IP addresses of the uploaders so they can go after them in civil court. Also, I would mind, if it takes more than 30 seconds, I have better things to do with my time. It's a chilling effect. Now, if anyone were to upload a clearly illegal picture of a minor, it would be deleted, oversighted, and reported to the FBI on sight. If anyone were to upload a clearly legal-in-the-US but explicit-looking picture of a minor with a very good reason for using it, a neverending discussion would ensue. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

GFDL allows for commercial use. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think these are needed. As noted, these will generally be uncontroversial deletions at IfD. Moreover, the few cases where these would be controversial would involve WP:NOTCENSORED issues, which basically must go through the long process, and we shouldn't create a loophole to get around that. Meanwhile, for those occasional cases where the mere existence of such an image could harm Wikipedia immediately, WP:IAR trumps even the speedy deletion policy, and is simpler to apply. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but the idea that WP:IAR trumps everything should not be considered here at all. We would not need any criteria at all if that were true. If the image actually harms Wikipedia, it falls under G10 in most cases anyway. But the VK incident proved that such an image is perfectly acceptable under our policies while a "IAR trumps everyone"-thinking would probably have lead to deletion. Regards So Why 21:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:IAR is controversial in itself, It should be noted that CSD I12/CSD I13 would not have prevented the VK incident. which would have required a CSD I14 - Image represents a potential legal risk for contributors/editors.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose as well, there is absolutely no need for such criteria and problems have been noted above. Regards So Why 19:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, per Stifle. Also, the "I13" proposal is far too subjective. "Explicit" and "artistic or academic value" are very much matters of opinion. And whether or not we have a model release should not matter for images that really do have no redeeming value, we should get rid of them anyway. Mr.Z-man 20:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

We don't need more highly subjective CSD criteria. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose per all of above well stated oppose rationales. These will cause more problems than they solve. Processes already exist to remove problem images. Dloh cierekim 20:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose both. "Artistic" value is highly subjective. "explicit" can also be highly subjective---is a picture of two men playing tonsil hockey be explicit? "Academic" value can also be subjective. Age of minor in general has never been a legal concern in the US. Plus, this would open a whole new can of worms---would a picture of parade, wherein children are visible now be deleted?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 21:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Note that the wording was 'identifiable', the 'parade' issue being one of the examples why the wording was used.

In response to the image someone posted, It should be possibe for the uploader or others to confirm certain details with the US agency concerned. So it's not an automatic speedy... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Neither of these make any sense. Photos of minors are perfectly okay. The notion that they are not is rather Orwellian. Same with sexually explicit material. These brush up against some legitimate issues, invasion of privacy, child porn, and obscenity. However, those are specific legal issues that are not easily susceptible to CSD, with legal definitions that are quite different than the language proposed. CSD is not a very good place to make content decisions or legal analysis. Wikidemon (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

But, per the criteria, the work of the US government, won't obtain a model release/permission [that] has been lodged with OTRS. This is creating a process where none is needed. You haven't demonstrated a need where such a CSD would be needed... it's not as if we area deleting scores of pictures a day for either of these reasons.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 23:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I am all for an OTRS overall being required for user uploaded images but that requirement would not always verify that a release form had been obtained in the case of certain images - such as headshots or "modeling" shots. Keeping in mind that currently there is only a "one size fits all" upload procedure for user created images (See Special:Upload and "My Own Work") I think any sort of new CSD that would relate to actual uploads there needs to be a revamped system in place for the uploads. In addition to that, as far a minors go, there are many "under age" Wikipedia users, including Admins, that exist on Wikipedia. These users upload their own images for use on their pages so adding a requirement that there must be parental permission before these images could be uploaded would entail proving that, first, the uploader was, in fact, an adult and, second, establishing that the adult had a valid consent form from the subjects parent or guardian. Either way though as no current policy exists in regards to user created (self-published) images needing an OTRS or model release forms there would really be no way to adopt a new CSD based on non-existent policy. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like moral panic to me. Putting aside the question of whether this type of image ought to be deleted, it's clear that there should not be a CSD for this. There are only two reasons one ought to delete an image of an identifiable minor, for legal reasons and for privacy concerns, and neither applies to all such images; laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and there is the (highly subjective) value of the image to be taken into account. Moreover, I would assert that the number of images uploaded that deal with this problem is quite small; ordinary deletion procedures should be used wherever volume does not make it impossible. Dcoetzee 17:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a solution in desperate search of a problem. More explicitly, it is a solution to "problems" like Phan Thị Kim Phúc and Virgin Killer. The community has repeatedly rejected this sort of misguided moralism and fear and it will do so in the future. Protonk (talk) 03:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Dloh cierekim 03:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

What Protonk said, but replace fear with hope.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 02:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree as well. The last thing we needed during the whole Virgin Killer episode was a backdoor deletion using this proposed criteria. The situation was contentious enough as it was. --76.66.184.160 (talk) 05:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

CSD Survey Results

Well, I've posted the results for the CSD survey---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 02:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic - semi-automated transwiki to reduce IFD backlog

Is there a set of tools that can quickly identify images that claim commons-eligible license and quickly tag the photo with "transiwki," "transwiki and change format," "transwiki but retain local copy|reason," or "do not transwiki|reason." This, combined with an automated or fast tool to do the actual transwiki would make a lot of IFDs go away, as many would be on the commons before they ever came up for IFD, or if they weren't, they could be fast-processed and the IFD speedy-closed without waiting for an administrator.

It would be handy if at the same time you could quickly add tags like "license suspect" or "source suspect" or "license information incomplete" or "source information incomplete." I think bots do the last two already. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Not 100% sure I follow you but do you mean the "di" series of tags? Such as {{di-no permission}}, {{Di-dw no source}} or {{Di-orphaned fair use}}? While not 100% "automated" I use Twinkle. It avoids sending the file to CSD directly and allows the uploader to fix the noted issue. I don't think there would be any fully automated way for a non-human to tag images for safe move to commons. I still do that by adding the {{move to commons}} tag to the image. In the cases where an unused image has been taken from a website I check it's source, provided one has been given, and if it is clearly free use I use the same tag. In all cases though the human elemnet has to get involved because Wikipedia still contains many files with non-descriptive names, no summarys and questionable licensing terms. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

This is an interesting idea, but I'm generally against it, for three reasons. 1) Commons has it's own project scope which, at a glance, many of the free images I just looked at didn't meet. 2) Some users upload images especially for Wikipedia and, with a user not knowing this and tagging it for move, the image could be sent to Commons inappropriately. 3) Some images are blatant copyright violations with an incorrect or false license, and users without the relevant knowledge of WP:C may not notice this. I like the idea, and if there was some way to establish an "approved user" list in a way that's similar to AWB, I would support it. In the absence of that, I'm hesitant to support. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Does G10 apply to pages that attack groups?

I've noticed that on at least two occasions, G10 has been used to speedy delete pages that attack ethnic groups (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Original settlement of Sri Lanka and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindu terrorist--in the case of the latter, the article was previously speedied before being brought to AfD). I'm not really comfortable with using G10 in this manner--if I'm not mistaken, few (if any) courts recognize group libel as a valid form of libel. Unless there's something I missed ... Blueboy 96 20:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

In some cases, another CSD may apply. "G3/Pure Vandalism: This includes blatant and obvious misinformation," "G11/Blatant advertising" if it's promoting a hate group in the process, and if you want to use A7 as a proxy for IAR, "A7/no indication of notability" if the article says "XYZ ethinic group are losers" without indicating the notability of XYZ ethnic group. I wouldn't recommend the last one though. This is one of those few times where I would consider boldly using WP:AIR and delete it. I would likely immediately to deletion review for discussion and a confirmation that the deletion was a proper use of IAR.

A better option might be to remove all of the attack information. If you get reverted, as another admin revert back and lock the page, then one of you send it to AFD in the gutted state, with a clear explanation of what's going on. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

If the whole article is an attack on a group, then G10 applies imho. G10 does not limit the scope to persons, it says "subject". Regards So Why 21:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I always read G10 and WP:ATP as a way to speedy pages that only contained libel--and like I said, groups can't be libeled. Granted, most of those pages would be candidates for a prod or a snow delete--but G10? That's a bit too broad--and I say this as an admin who takes a very strict approach to enforcing BLP. Blueboy 96 21:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see it as a matter of the legal definition of libel - or even of the BLP policy; it's a matter of whether the page can fairly be said to serve no purpose other than to disparage someone or something; ie if a page consists of little other than rants or insults then it can be deleted regardless of the subject matter. As an example, I once used it to tag a page called "Liberal Logic" or something similar, which began along the lines of "Liberal logic is a complete oxymoron! They want to save the lives of convicted murderers but they abort innocent babies...", and went downhill from there. Of course that's a bit different from an article which is potentially useful in places but which suffers from some POV problems; without seeing the deleted revisions I can't tell which category the examples you list were in. The "no purpose other than to disparage their subject" wording has been used for a long time and doesn't restrict it to BLPs; in fact it predates the BLP policy; it was only much later that the deletion of unsourced negative BLPs was wrapped up into G10. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 21:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. G10 is clearly for all cases where the article or page only serves to attack or disparage its subject, no matter what the subject is. I don't know US law but where I live there is something called Volksverhetzung and I am sure G10 applies to that as well. Regards So Why 22:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Iain99 and User:SoWhy. As I see it, it is, essentially, the flip side of G11--in both cases, the articles are essentially so non-neutral as to be useless. In both cases, we've got total disregard for WP:NPOV and no clean version in history. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

CSDs are not intended as legal measures (except perhaps in the case of blatant copyright violations). G10 exists because essentially useless articles are frequently created solely to attack their subjects, which would be rapidly deleted at AfD; a typical example is "John Doe is a dumbass and is gay." It can be applied to people, groups, companies, or even abstract concepts ("e.g. Vector calculus is boring and useless and I don't see why I have to learn it"). Attack is different from criticism; if there are sources and the article is written in a neutral tone, giving undue weight to a negative perspective is no justification for a G10. Dcoetzee 22:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I too use it for more than just libel in the legal sense. I use it for such things as articles entirely or mainly devoted to consumer complaints, or displeasure at a school--unless of course there are truly RSs and some prospect of notability. I myself wouldnt do it for the vector calculus example above though, I keep it for material which is more offensive--but I don't think it would be wrong to use it there. DGG (talk) 05:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of old IP talk pages

User:MZMcBride has posted on WP:User page some criteria for deleting certain IP talk pages which haven't been edited for over a year, and is using this as rationale for deleting thousands of them.

I have suggested to him that the proper process through which pages are deleted without discussion on Wikipedia is Speedy Deletion, and that this is the place to propose new criteria for deleting such pages.

I have been told (see User talk:MZMcBride#Wikipedia:OLDIP) that I am wrong. So I thought I would ask for opinion here. My concern is that these pages are being deleted by the backdoor. I believe these deletions are controversial and further scrutiny would be beneficial.

See also the discussion on WT:User page. Thanks, Martin 12:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The deletions are perfectly fine and uncontroversial in my opinion. If you insist on labeling them with a specific CSD then g6 should suffice. Other pages have been being deleted in a similar fashion for a couple of years. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - there's no reason why we would want to keep these pages. No-one is going to take action on year-old warnings, as the IP will probably have been reassigned, and the exceptions at WP:USER seem adequate. This is also at WP:AN: [6]. Hut 8.5 14:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that there a few very specific requirements that a page must meet in order to be deleted by this means, which are listed at WP:OLDIP. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

ARGH... I hate forum shopping... I don't mind this if it were to inform this page that a discussion is ongoing elsewhere: here and here --- Plus Mz's talk page. We don't need a third discussion going on here as well. I think we need to consolodate these three conversations into one area an hash out specifics for incorporating this into G6 or a new criteria.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 15:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

If we're looking at a new CSD criterion, it should be a U-series. But I agree that the discussion should be consolidated. Come back here if there is consensus that there shoudl be a CSD criterion, and we can hammer out the details. Happy‑melon 15:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, if we're going that route...it should include CAT:TEMP pages also. I proposed this months ago. See here for that discussion. I still believe that a new criterion would be the best idea, but it should include those considered "OLDIP" and those "TEMP". Otherwise, I'm still thinking that these pages meet g6. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I can see it fitting under G6, if we reword G6... but I am inclined to make it a new category based upon the criteria required. (Or we would need to create a link to a page defining the criteria.)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 17:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

As presented at WT:USER, this would not really be a kind of CSD, but more of a housekeeping task for an adminbot. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Six of one and half a dozen of the other. I originally used CSD G6 and people griped. So I added it to WP:UP using a redirect, WP:OLDIP. You all work out where you'd like the explanation to sit and just edit the redirect when you all have made a decision. (Just be sure to add <span id="oldip"></span> to the target page.) Cheers. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the point about keeping the discussion in one place (although somewhat disappointed to see it labelled as forum shopping). I only came here because I think this is the place where it should have been discussed originally; in hindsight, a link would probably have been better. Anyway based on the various discussions, consensus seems (to me) to be saying

these deletions do have support
G6 does not adaquately cover them

Personally I would feel happier if such a large number of deletions were supported by an appropriate speedy deletion criterion, and I think that a new criterion in the U-series is probably the best route to take. I will take this back to the other discussions and then, depending on the result, bring it back here to discuss the details. Martin 18:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

So I'm guessing that this is now the consolidated discussion?
In my opinion G6 covers these deletions perfectly well, I see them as a prime example of housekeeping. I'm quite happy with the current solution: link to WP:OLDIP, and the section in the guideline there describes the deletions as "routine housekeeping", per consensus. I wouldn't suggest adding that case into the "such as" phrase of the actual criterion, since this is a purely automatic task, and I don't want to encourage editors wasting their (and the admins) time by tagging any such pages (I'm sure that would happen).
Similarily, creating a seperate criterion for it seems unnecessary. Detailed specification of deletion criteria is good when it touches the encyclopaedic content, with housekeeping tasks it is overspecification. --Amalthea 23:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It's been added to G6 now, with reversed wording (by an IP, which is only appropriate). I can live with it that way. --Amalthea 11:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I thought the conclusion of the above seemed to be that it should be a new U-criterion, and that CAT:TEMP could be incorporated into it as well. Martin 12:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

After re-reading all five discussions I see no consensus either way. What I'm reading is consensus that those deletions are non-controversial.
To bring CAT:TEMP into the fold, a section could be set up at e.g. WP:INDEFUP, similar in spirit to WP:OLDIP: Write down current practise, and call it non-controversial housekeeping. --Amalthea 12:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think deleting old IP talk pages is good policy. I've been editing from dynamic IP addresses for many years so I've used a lot of them, and I've engaged in discussion on several of their usertalk pages that are relevant to articles that I was editing at the time, and sometimes I even refer back to those old discussions. I will put a comment on WT:UP about it. 208.120.235.110 (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Today's change to G8 to include images without a "parent page"

When did this change get discussed? The edit summary says "wording per discussion." The change is that G8/Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page just got updated to include images that are "images categorized as Self-published work where the parent article has never existed or has been deleted and that are non-encyclopedic." Maybe it's because of the New Year fogging my eyeballs, but I'm not seeing any discussion. Can some kind soul point it out to me? Personally, I don't think this fits G4 and I don't think it should be a speedy criteria, send it to IFD. However, if it's been discussed thoroughly and I just missed the discussion, well, "you snooze, you lose." Self-published works generally qualify to be transwikied to the commons anyways. Once they are transwikied, they qualify for speedy deletion under CSD:I8. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 10:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted the change. I can't imagine that any discussion would cause that to be a G rather than an I, either. Protonk (talk) 10:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Certainly this should be added to an I-series criterion, not a G-series. Happy‑melon 11:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

"images categorized as Self-published work where the parent article has never existed or has been deleted and that are non-encyclopedic" was removed from G8 with a note that "I don't recall that discussion on WT:CSD." I am restoring it, because I do. :) It's at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 31#New "i12"? and Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 32#G6 G8 - proposal from "archive". Consensus seems to have been in that discussion that it was better under G8 than as an image type, which was what was initially proposed. (I've reverted myself because it seems consensus may be emerging contrary to the previous discussion, linked.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl ^(talk) is correct. The issues that both Protonk (talk) and davidwr/(talk) raise have been discussed. I asked if there was any issues with wording before it was placed and there was zero response. I had planned on inserting on January 1 pending any further comments, the discussions was archived on that day as well so I inserted it.

For those who do not want to read the archives - "in a nutshell" - November 21, 2008 I proposed a "new" "i12" - which would be an image based CSD. Amalthea^Talk asked if there were many images that would warrant a new criteria and lifebaka++ indicated that, overall, any sort of image was already covered. A discussion followed asking about specific images and what criteria would best cover them. I raised the issue that criteria for deletions "where the parent article has never existed or has been deleted" already existed for articles, talk pages and even "image pages" and it was the fact none of them specifically said "images" I was asking/proposing the new criteria. Per the discussion and the responses I started experimenting with simply using the {{db}} tag and adding "See G6 and G8" as the reason. Skier Dude (talk) suggested that they would "like to see for this very specific type of image that's being discussed is that the G6 (as part of "non-controversial maintenance") can be "expanded" to include this" but added on that "It's sort of akin to to making an G8 for images (images used on a deleted page...)". On December 1, 2008 I made a clear proposal for G6. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) asked how it would relate to certain types of images and the result of that conversation was the addition of "and that are non-encyclopedic." A new, and "more official", proposal was made on December 2, 2008. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) said that is was fine and suggested it be publicized elsewhere. Anomie ⚔ was not fully sure what the issue was in reading over the thread however the editor never came back to respond to the answer(s) given. WODUP seemed fine with the proposal and suggested using "...and that cannot be used in another article" rather than "unencyclopedic" because they felt the "meaning is more clear when it's replaced with wording that mentions the image's ability to be used in another article". On December 3 lifebaka++ said they opposed changes to G6 and "The nature of the proposed addition is more in line with G8 than with G6." On December 10 I asked if the line should "get inserted into G6 or G8? The suggestion was G6 and however one editor has said it should be inserted into G8. other opinions?" The full thread was archived so I brought back the core proposal to the main talk space G6 - proposal from "archive". On December 18 Happy‑melon said they did not like this going under a "G" category and asked if it could be an extension of i10. I replied that i10 is specifically not for images. They made no further comment. David Eppstein (talk) said it was not in the "spirit of G6" and summarized that "It's reasonable to put this under a speedy category, but I don't think G6 is the right one." On December 24, in re-reading the entire thread, I agreed that it should not be under G6 and did, as lifebaka++ pointed out, go more in line with G8. The proposal was changed to reflect the addition to G8. I laid it out and asked "Any wording issues?". As there were none the line was added. As the line has now been removed, thusly challenged, I will repost it below for further comments. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

G8 proposal (from archive)

Please see archives:

New "i12"?

G6 G8 - proposal from "archive"

Ok, so if I am reading the entire thread - including the archived portion - we can not create a new CSD for orphaned images. It was suggested by one Admin to add expand G6. However there appears to be more of a slant towards G8. In re-reading the overall wording of both G6 and G8 I agree that G8 reads better resting place for this. So the expanded G8 will read (New additions in Red):

8. Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page, such as talk pages with no corresponding subject page, subpages with no parent page, image pages without a corresponding image, images categorized as Self-published work where the parent article has never existed or has been deleted and that are non-encyclopedic or redirects to invalid targets, such as nonexistent targets, redirect loops, and bad titles. Also categories populated by deleted or retargeted templates. This excludes any page which is useful to the project, and in particular: deletion discussions that are not logged elsewhere, user and user talk pages, talk page archives, plausible redirects that can be changed to valid targets, and image pages or talk pages for images that exist on Wikimedia Commons.

Any wording issues? Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC) (reposted by Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC))

1. The new wording doesn't logically fit as part of criterion G8; it simply has nothing to do with the issue in question.

2. How does one define a free image's "parent article"? I'm unfamiliar with such a concept.

If I were to upload a photograph of my Pontiac Vibe without transcluding it or specifying any uses, would the "parent article" be Pontiac Vibe? What about Automobile, Station wagon, Pontiac or NUMMI?

If someone were to upload a photograph of a box of candy labeled "Choco Drops," would that be considered to have no "parent article" because we don't have a Choco Drops article? If so, what if that article subsequently were created? Or what if the image would have made a fine addition to the Gumdrop article, Chocolate article, Candy article or article about the [fictional] product's manufacturer? Of course, there's another qualification that must be met, and this leads me to...

3. Why do we want sysops unilaterally determining that unused images are "non-encyclopedic"? As noted above, isn't that what IfD is for?

4. Lastly, the new wording describes any self-published image uploaded for use outside mainspace (on user pages, project pages, et cetera), which certainly could be said to have no "parent article" and to be "non-encyclopedic." —David Levy 17:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

1. "Parent article" wording doesn't make sense. What is the parent article of "Desert Scene at sunset, near Reno Nevada"?

2. In general, anything that qualifies for the commons and which wouldn't be deleted from there for whatever reason should not be deleted from here. Many an orphan image at IFD has been transwikied to the commons. If an IFD result would be anything other than "delete/no transwiki" then it should not be speedy deleted.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

To answer the davids - please read the full threads because most of what you asked was already discussed and explained with examples. If you don't want to read the threads archive than please reads the wordings of G6, G8, A9, i5, i10, C1 and U2 for the concept of the wording and how it came about. The "logic" of how it came to be a "G8" and not "G6", or a new "i12", criteria all together has been explained. To try and address the specific questions not asked in the discussion already: the parent article of "Desert Scene at sunset, near Reno Nevada" is unclear in the question. If this were a title of a stand alone article it would, in itself, be the "parent article". If it were the name of an image on a desert at sunset with Reno visible in the background and named "Desert Scene at sunset, near Reno Nevada" than it would be clear, used in an article or not, what the image was. Depending on how the image looked, in other words if the image were "encyclopedic", it could, and most likely should - used or not - be moved to Commons. The same answer would apply to the question "If I were to upload a photograph of my Pontiac Vibe without transcluding it or specifying any uses" what would the "parent article" be. That aspect, in the context of how this proposal came about, would not matter because, as with the "Desert Scene at sunset, near Reno Nevada", if the image was of a "Pontiac Vibe" and it was encyclopedic it should be kept and/or moved to Commons. The exact same answer also applies to the "Choco Drops" question. As for how one would define "parent article" I would offer that if the phrase is unclear by more than just the two David's above than the phrase, and similarly worded phrases, may need to be made more clear in the existing criteria and guidelines found throughout Wikipedia. In brief, when a specific file is contained on a related, specific, page than that page would be be the "parent". As an image example - an image called "Me at my birthday" and used on "USER:Me"'s userpage would indicate the "parent article" to be "USER:Me". In other uses - a page that contained an article about "Me love jelly" that was tied to a comment about "jelly" on the main "USER:Me" page would indicate that "USER:Me" was the "parent article" (or "parent page"). On mainspace one could look at World Trade Center as an example. This could be considered the "parent article" for those looking to find out about the Construction of the World Trade Center, Top of the World Trade Center Observatories, Windows on the World or 1993 World Trade Center bombing. While all of these, and several other related articles, could stand on their own without the "parent article" it only because the "parent" subject exist(ed). In short it becomes more "encyclopedic" because it has a relevant "parent". Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

1. I'll read the threads when I get a chance, but you can't expect every sysop to do so before applying our CSD. The wording should be clear and unambiguous, and it isn't.

2. Frankly, it doesn't matter how you arrived at the wording and the decision to add it to criterion G8. What matters is whether the addition is appropriate, and I believe that it isn't. At the very least, it should be reworded and added elsewhere (as it has absolutely nothing to do with criterion G8), but I don't understand how the basic concept is even feasible.

3. I'm aware that term "parent" can refer to a page on which something is transcluded. But the images in question aren't transcluded in any articles, so how is one supposed to define "the parent article" (and why should such a determination be left to a random sysop)? Why is it reasonable to assume that there's only one?

4. You refer above to a user page as an "article," which is incorrect. The term "article" refers exclusively to pages in the main namespace.

5. Again, what qualifies a sysop to unilaterally deem images (apart from obvious examples already covered by other CSD, such as those of a blatantly vandalistic nature) "non-encyclopedic"? —David Levy 22:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

1. I do not care if every editor who comes in and reads this goes back to read the full threads but when the same questions are asked that have been discussed it seems easiest for the person asking to simply go back and read. I did do an "in a nutshell" version, in the same way that each and every CSD has a "nutshell" version and the same way as each and every CSD notice has a "nutshell" version. When someone asks "why was my [fill in the blank] deleted?" it is not out of the norm to tell that person to "see [fill in the blank]" or provide a link to the "parent" that fully explains this.

2. I think if you actually had been involved in the conversation(s) or read them you would see why it relates. The implication that I pulled this random line out of my ass and inserted today without any discussion is wrong. As I have said I introduced this as a possible new image based criteria on November 21 and it ended up, by discussion, as a general criteria.

3. Already answered directly and, say it with me, in the archived discussions.

4. I tried to be careful and said "page", not article. In looking over I did say "userpage" and did say "if a page contained an article..." but if that is what you mean and are invoking Monty Python skits please don't. ;)

5. When files, or articles, are tagged or nominated (CSD, PROD, AFD, IFD, PUI, MFD - whatever) they are done because someone (One need not be an admin to do this) has used the criteria, policy and/or guideline they feel best describes the situation. When an admin comes along they too use their own reading to see if that does applies. Only you can answer fully the question of "what qualifies a sysop to unilaterally deem images "non-encyclopedic"?" But if you do have issues with use of the word "encyclopedic" than I am guessing you also have issues with many other policies and guidelines at Wikipedia. Better to direct specific questions here at specific editors who raised specific points that lead to the specific wording that has been proposed. As I said in number 2 this is not something I did alone and pulled out of my ass this morning. Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Yes, when someone asks a question that's been answered before, it makes sense to point him/her to the earlier discussion. I'm not criticising that. I'm saying that most sysops aren't going to come here and ask questions, let alone read the archives; they're just going to apply their interpretation of the CSD. The wording, therefore, needs to be clear and unambiguous. As I said, a literal reading prescribes the deletion of any image uploaded for use outside of the main namespace, which doesn't appear to have been the intention.

2. I'm not claiming that you created this addition unilaterally. But I just read the archived threads in their entirety, and while I see a suggestion to add the new text to criterion G8 (because of its incompatibility with criterion G6), I see no explanation of how this is logical.

And frankly, I also see nothing remotely resembling consensus for the text's addition. You're quite correct that some of the issues raised above were discussed back then, but they don't appear to have been resolved. That several other editors independently expressed the same concerns only bolsters the assertion that this addition is problematic.

3. I neither understand whatever answer you're providing nor see this covered in the archived discussions. And I don't appreciate being spoken down to ("say it with me").

4. I'm not trying to be funny. You wrote the following:

As an image example - an image called "Me at my birthday" and used on "USER:Me"'s userpage would indicate the "parent article" to be "USER:Me".

5. I'm not criticising the use of the term "non-encyclopedic." I'm saying that it's inappropriate for someone (sysop or not) to unilaterally determine that something fits that description and act on this determination with its deletion (excepting some specific examples that already are covered by other CSD). That's why we have non-speedy deletion processes. —David Levy 05:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I hate to weigh in with the opponents after missing the initial discussion, but I'm also skeptical of this expansion of G8. The most obvious issue is that the phrase "non-encyclopedic" is highly subjective; there's also the fact that frequently images that were once used on deleted pages can be usefully reused on other existing pages. It's also a bit strange in that most images that are "self-published" are candidates for transwiki to Commons anyway, where they would be beyond the reach of CSD, and there is no similar speedy deletion rule on Commons, so this is easily circumvented. Dcoetzee 19:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

(See above reply to the Davids - all three of you are asking questions answered and discussed in the archived threads) Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I see no reply that satisfies why "non-encyclopedic" can be anything but subjective, even in those examples. And I see no need for that expansion. And I want to add that between Christmas and New Year many regular contributors here have contributed at a lower level or not at all, so I think you should have allowed more discussion. Regards So Why 21:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion about this, but I do have to note that this conversation was opened on November 21st. 5 weeks seems like a pretty good allowance of time. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

An additional reason I object to this is because it makes images eligible for deletion that may not be useful in any currently existing article, but for which an article may be written in the future. If there were going to be a criterion along these lines, I would use language something to the effect of "an image that has no potential use in any article that exists or may ever exist"; which despite being more strict is still too subjective and really requires wider discussion to evaluate. Dcoetzee 22:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

That is part of the overall issue. Trying to maintain the "vague" feel and not get too much into instruction creep. Look at A9 and how it is worded - I believe one of the main reasons it passed was because it contains the qualifiers of "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" and "where the artist's article has never existed or has been deleted". It is also "vague" in what would qualify as "important or significant". My original idea was based on wording such as that, except for images however it was discussed and refined to what it is now. For me, personally, I would love it to be more specific but the discussion flowed into what it became and was finally proposed. As Protonk (talk) mentioned below (and as I also mentioned in the archived threads) "no encyclopedic value" is a term used for images at IFD and PUI so why can it not be used in a CSD for images? Such as: "This only applies to orphaned images with no encyclopedic value" and than define "orphaned works" further as "left behind" when it's "parent" was removed. Sure we can define specific images such as blurry out of focus, myspace personal, self taken, photos left over from deleted userspace, CD covers and logos left behind when the SPA, COI, myspacey, non-notable type mainspace article was deleted. But the generally accepted policy here is we can not be that specific. Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

As Protonk (talk) mentioned below (and as I also mentioned in the archived threads) "no encyclopedic value" is a term used for images at IFD and PUI so why can it not be used in a CSD for images?

No offense, but I find it a bit scary that you're even asking that question.

IfD and PUI are processes that invite input from the Wikipedia community. Someone can nominate an image for deletion because he/she believes that it has "no encyclopedic value," but there must be general agreement (or lack of disagreement) that this assessment is accurate. One person's judgement is insufficient (regardless of whether that individual happens to possess the sysop bit). —David Levy 05:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I can see the purpose of this. Orphaned works with no "encyclopedic value" are often sent to IfD for days with no comment (search for "orhpaned, unencyclopedic, absent uploader" and you'll see what I mean) and then deleted. Covering them under a speedy criteria seems like a good solution to this problem. I object to the G8 choice from a semantic perspective--G8 is for non-controversial deletion of pages which are strictly subordinate to a deleted page. The only reason G8 exists is that the deletion software won't let us delete talk pages or sub-pages automatically (for the main examples). I feel uncomfortable placing deletions that can expect to be disputed under either G8 or G6. Protonk (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't sound like an uncontroversial CSD criterion at all, really; more a subjective decision - PROD for images would be a better solution, which I know is being kicked around somewhere already. Happy‑melon 20:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, if we can "expect" a deletion "to be disputed," it shouldn't fall under any CSD. —David Levy 22:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Almost all deletions are disputed by someone. By that rationale you should make a proposal to "delete" most all of the CSD policies because they will cause disputes and controversy when applied. But seriously - read the archives other wise it is just repeating the entire thread again, which I can do - but it seems unneeded. Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Any deletion can be contested, but the CSD are intended to cover situations generally regarded as clear-cut and uncontroversial. This is neither.

Having now read the archived threads, I indeed see that this issue was raised. What I don't see is any sort of resolution. —David Levy 05:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Policies should not be ambiguous or confusing. If they are they need to be reworded. The fact that at least 3 of us who have not read all of the talk page history are confused by this change is strong evidence that CSD with the change included fails the not ambiguous or confusing test. If the goal is to provide a faster means than IFD to get rid of non-encyclopedic image-cruft, then fine, but it needs to be blatantly obvious in the affected CSD that this is the purpose of that CSD. It should also be blatantly obvious in talk page discussions that this goal is agreed upon. I personally don't think this is a worthy goal unless it's taking way too much time at IFD and there is a consensus that doing this by speedy rather than some form of image-PROD is the better solution. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Most all of the polices are somewhat "ambiguous or confusing". I am not saying that is bad, but more often than not I am of the "more specific and clear the better" but that goes against the wider concept that "less specific instruction is better". A PROD for images is really nothing more than what IFD/PUI currently does - now that is unneeded and a redundant process. It also has nothing to do what what this proposal is about or for. You say we now have three people who are confused. That is fair. However there were more than three people who were not as confused and who helped to guide this to where it is now. I am at the point of just saying screw it - lets start over and start form where I started 5 weeks ago. So, Ok - here goes - note several links have since been deleted. (I was going to just re-paste the entire tings but have decided not to) Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, that the addition made sense to the individuals involved in the discussions that led to its construction is of no help to everyone else. Of course, I don't even see consensus among those users. —David Levy 05:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I now have read the archived threads, and I still don't understand how this change makes sense (nor do I see anything remotely resembling consensus). —David Levy 05:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

New "i12"?

Is there a reason why images left behind from deleted articles or uploaded by SPA's trying to promote their own project can not be CSD'd? For example I just went through and did an IfD nom for each image that was upped by Nevermindthelove (I suspect related to Special:Contributions/76.112.179.112) who, clearly, was only here to try and insert his name into articles such as Grammy Award for Best Male R&B Vocal Performance (dif) and My Destiny (dif). We have an A9 for article about a musical recording that "has never existed or has been deleted", why not have something similar for images? Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Because A9 is much stricter than the above mentioned criterion. Images can be useful someday even if they are not used at the moment - but an admin cannot decide that alone. If those images were used for promotion only, I'd say G11 should clearly apply anyway and there is no need for another criterion. But if it's not so clear, then IfD should be the way. Regards So Why 09:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Heck, even 100% promotional images are not necessarily used in a promotional manner. How many historical advertisements were in your High School US History Text book? I know there were plenty in mine.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 10:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

(November 21, 2008 reply) As I go through images almost every day I am finding them everyday. (Also articles are being deleted every day as well) And I am only going through the "Self-published work" images. In the example above it is pretty obvious where as some are not so much. Lots of band promos, logos, production stills, movie posters, "cd covers" and lots of misc little things such as icon sized images that seem to be a throw back to the early days of the internet. And to be clear I am not talking about obvious unused shots of, say, the latest Jewel CD cover or an used movie still from "Wall-e". I have done a few G11'a but, as has been discussed here concerning articles, it has to be pretty blatant. An unused promo shot from a non-notable bands failed attempt at getting an article is not really a G11. And I have only done one G3 because it was very blatant. Many of the current image CSD's come close, but not quite. For example a CD cover really should be under fair use, and if it was unused it could be i5'd but take a look at the example user I gave above. These were all "self made" and none were claimed under fair use, so if I had tagged them all i5 the overseeing admin would have declined the request. The same could be said for a self made movie poster, promo shot, production still and even frame grabs. I suppose G8 could apply here as it covers "Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page" but if that is used doesn't that open up the entire "The article just wasn't created yet" argument? I am open to using that, I just never have. Feedback welcome. (Edit: I tagged a few images with a G8 so we will see how that goes.) Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC

(January 2, 2009 reply) Also, in terms of "Images can be useful someday even if they are not used at the moment" - this would clearly fall under "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball", "Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site" - number 2 - "File storage areas" and also touch on "Wikipedia is not your web host". I have come across images orphaned over two years ago when the parent article was deleted for being "non-notable". Someone made that choice to delete the article because it's subject was "non-notable" and, as with most of these cases, it leaves behind images. Put another way: Say I create an article on a 3 year old that said "Someday this three year old will do something of note" and uploaded various mommy/daddy type snapshots of the three year old doing, well, three year old things for use in the article and placed them in the article. Anyone can come along and make a choice - is this article true? Why? But there is a very good chance this will not be asked on the talk page or asked of the creator - instead someone, admin or not, will decide if G1 or G2 might apply. If not they may decide A1 or A7 apply. The "good faith" editors may PROD it first citing the subject doe not meet the notability guideline for biographies, that is fails to follow the "Biographies of living persons" policy and, most obvious, that "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". AFD might be an option as well but once a few "Speedy" comments are logged there is a high probability it will be closed and speedied. It is rare but some, perhaps Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon and So Why, may do nothing at all feeling that eventualism works just fine in this case. But based on what really happens I don't see a PROD being done or "nothing" being done. Most likely it would be speedied because Wikipedia history shows articles with subjects more notable than a random three year old have been CSD'd. Now - as it comes back to the images - after the article is gone, orphaned images would still be in place. G11 would not apply at all. Nor would any of the current CSD image criteria. In reality the CSD that comes close to describing the situation is G8 - "Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page". And it also clearly says "This excludes any page which is useful to the project" so by default this tag fits the scenario of images that were dependent on a page (article) that was deleted and are not "useful to the project". So if the consensus is that adding the word "image" to G8 is not acceptable, and that i11 does not/should not include "image, sound, nor video files" that would leave creating a new criteria. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

1. You're badly misconstruing the meaning of "pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page." This refers to technical issues, not editorial ones.

2. You've omitted one of our options: retaining the status quo.

In the above example, I don't want a sysop to unilaterally determine that an image like this should be deleted because its "parent article" was about a non-notable three-year-old. I want the community to arrive at the conclusion that it's a useful addition to the Toddler article. —David Levy 16:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Clearly if the entire set of criteria at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion were only for "technical issues" and not "editorial ones" it would say as much and it would be brought up time after time. G6 is the only criteria that explicitly states "Technical deletions". The only other place on the entire CSD page where it refers to "technical" is under "categories" where it says: "Due to technical restrictions, renaming or merging a category effectively deletes the original category." In that case you are correct - it is due to a technical reason that "renaming or merging a category effectively deletes the original category" and not an editorial reason. I am getting the underlying concept that some editors feel that admins (or any other editor) should not be allowed to use their own judgment ever. There are differences between "editorial" and "judgment". For example editorial choices are made when anyone adds or removes content from a page/article, and this includes such things as blanking pages, creating articles, creating userspace pages that contain text in a readable form that may also contain personal information and files (i.e - images) not suitable for mainspace articles, uploading files or using the G7 tag. In doing any of those it it true that it should involve someones "judgment" as to why they are doing it because, overall, they go hand in hand. However, while Wikipedia is based on the idea that anyone can edit the content there are people placed, somewhat, in "charge" of policy enforcement such as what is being discussed here - deletions. When it comes to CSD anyone can use (invoke/make the nom/place the tag) them but only admins can act (push the "delete button") on them. As has been discussed many times an admin can use their own "judgment" to act upon it - they can look at the nom and feel it is the wrong one and use another. That is currently the "status quo". It is clear you are against any "one admin makes a choice/one admin uses their judgment" policy so, with that in mind and no disrespect, perhaps it would be better to take the discussion on overall CSD policy to another location and/or thread. This thread is an attempt at creating or adding to existing criteria that addresses images uploaded and categorized as "Self-published work" that were uploaded for use on a user page or specific article and where the image has been orphaned for whatever reason (i.e - deletion of "parent" by whatever means - AFD, MFD, CSD) and that are not "encyclopedic" (i.e - "[not] useful to the project", "lacking sufficient context to identify the subject", "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant", "have no foreseeable encyclopedic use" etc). (← before someone asks - those are current, existing, wordings found in various deletion criteria. I feel they are fine and understand why they are "vague" but for images, if consensus it to add extremely narrow and specific wording, these could "translate" to criteria such as "blurry and out of focus", "very low resolution", "thumbnail", "underexposed resulting in an almost black image" or "overexposed to the point of an almost all white image", "uploaded by a user who only created "self" article(s) that was/were deleted and uploaded image(s) with an unknown subject due to lack of summary information causing a lack of sufficient context to identify the subject once the "parent" article was delted", "uploaded by a user who only created "self" article(s) that was/were deleted and uploaded self created image(s) reflecting their desire to be a 'star' but due to lack of sufficient context to identify the subject once the "parent" article was deleted the image would be not useful to the project" and/or "personal image that was used on a userpage that will have no foreseeable encyclopedic use") Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

(From December 1, 2008. --Moonriddengirl asked about certain images and I replied. This is what I said but using the image David Levy used above) See my examples above. The ones you gave are generic enough they can be sent to commons if they were orphaned, maybe not "important or significant" but usable as, say, stock images. A better quesiton would be what is the difference between File:A child running.jpg (--Moonriddengirl's example - Image:Ceeiling fan.JPG) and Image:Breakinupsingle.jpg or File:AndreDeJuanFace.JPG and how best to word it. Maybe "Encyclopedic content"? Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I did not claim that "the entire set of criteria at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion were only for 'technical issues'." I explicitly stated that the wording "pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page" refers to technical issues. And good heavens, I can't believe that you're attempting to refute that by pointing out that it doesn't contain the word "technical." It doesn't need to. All of the examples are technical in nature.

A talk page is supposed to have a corresponding subject page at a specific title. A subpage is supposed to have a parent page at a specific title. An image page should not exist without a corresponding image (either here or at Commons). Redirects are supposed to lead somewhere. Categories formerly populated by templates that no longer exist are vestigial.

All of the above are situations in which a technical issue prevents a page from functioning as intended. The proposed addition, conversely, requires a sysop to take a fully functional image, arbitrarily assign a nonexistent "parent article," and unilaterally deem the image "non-encyclopedic."

Secondly, no one has suggested that "that admins (or any other editor) should not be allowed to use their own judgment ever" or opposed the existence of "any 'one admin makes a choice/one admin uses their judgment' policy." We're saying that no one person is qualified to determine that an image should be deleted because it's "non-encyclopedic" (a highly subjective and controversial assessment) or because it has no "parent article" (an arbitrary concept that you've yet to fully explain).

You appear to have a very poor understanding of what it means to be a Wikipedia administrator, and I'll keep this in mind if you ever seek the mop and bucket (a term commonly used because administrators are janitors who act in accordance with the community's judgement, not bosses who substitute our own judgement).

Thirdly, I used your example of an image that would be deleted under the proposed addition:

Say I create an article on a 3 year old that said "Someday this three year old will do something of note" and uploaded various mommy/daddy type snapshots of the three year old doing, well, three year old things for use in the article and placed them in the article.

You now realize that your own example was poor (because the images in question could be useful), and this is precisely the sort of thing that occurs at IfD. The proposed addition would eliminate that stage by consecrating a random sysop's gut reaction. —David Levy 20:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if I even should reply to your comment(s) but I will anyway. You are off base...way off base. You gave a very specific example of an image (File:A child running.jpg) and I replied with the exact same reply I used when --Moonriddengirl gave very specific examples. Perhaps you missed that - "The ones you (Note - "you" in this case refers to David Levy) gave are generic enough they can be sent to commons if they were orphaned, maybe not "important or significant" but usable as, say, stock images." And I then asked "what is the difference between File:A child running.jpg (--Moonriddengirl's example - Image:Ceeiling fan.JPG) and Image:Breakinupsingle.jpg or File:AndreDeJuanFace.JPG" and how would you (again - you in this context is meant for David Levy) put that into words. As for my example - it was also clear in that the text would read "Someday this three year old will do something of note" and have "various mommy/daddy type snapshots" placed on the article. What was not clear, because I gave no specific image, is what I "saw" when I typed the description - so unless you are currently in my mind reading my visual cues there is no way your image is what I saw. Perhaps I should have said - uploads 10 or various mommy/daddy type snapshots, out of focus, dark, sideways, cut off head, bad framing - overall poor images that, outside of "mommy or Daddy" would have no "encyclopedic" use. Another example is that when my daughter was born, between my wife and I, we must have several hundred photos from the first year alone - real photos, shot on film and printed. Had we had digital we would have several thousand images. Per your suggestion above of images being useful even if not being used that nay be fine however th wider Wikipedia community does not appear to hold that same feeling. If it did, outside of copyvios and failed fair use claims, we would never delete any images. We would toss things such as "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" out the window. A this point I will hit my cyber "ignore" button unless you can add somehting contractive to the conversation at hand. You have made you're opinion clear on the matter at hand. (and a few other matters as well). Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

1. You're right; I'm not a mindreader. You referred to "various mommy/daddy type snapshots of the three year old doing, well, three year old things," and now you're inexplicably amending that to add "out of focus, dark, sideways, cut off head, bad framing - overall poor images," which are issues that likely warrant deletion regardless of whether the images are categorized as "self-published" or lack "parent articles." But said deletion should not be speedy, as such quality assessments are highly subjective and should be presented for the community's evaluation. It's beyond a sysop's purview to unilaterally determine that images (apart from specific examples already covered by other CSD) have "no encyclopedic use."

2. You state above that "[the] wider Wikipedia community does not appear to hold" the view that "images [might be] useful even if not being used." On what do you base this assertion?

3. You also state that "if [the Wider Wikipedia community] did, outside of copyvios and failed fair use claims, we would never delete any images." What on Earth are you talking about? No one said anything about keeping non-useful images. We're merely saying that sysops lack the authority to unilaterally determine which images are and aren't useful. That's why IfD exists.

You can "ignore" me if you wish (as you evidently did when other editors expressed the same concerns), but it won't make the issues go away. —David Levy 22:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we are trying to solve a non-issue: If the images are uploaded "free" and fit within commons:Commons:Project scope, transwiki. If they are not free then as soon as they go orphan, speedy-delete under I5/Unused free images criteria. Spammers and promoters don't upload a whole lot of free images that are outside the scope of the commons. It's a small enough number that those can go to IFD. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. —David Levy 16:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

My replies below from the archived portions of this discussion Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

(From November 22, 2008) I also wanted to re-state that I am only talking about images that are in the Self-published work category. I know many images are put there to bypass copyright issues and because the uploader really does not get that grabbing an image form myspace is wrong, and I am not talking about those obvious cases where a tag such as {{di-no permission}} or {{db-imgcopyvio}} will work. For example there is Image:Noir Pictures Logo.jpg and it was tagged, first, by myself on November 12 under CSD i3 as the uploader/creator/copyright holder clearly states it is to only be used on Wikipedia. Another editor came along and removed the CSD tag explaining that Wikipedia can claim fair use no matter what the creator/copyright holder stated and added a fair use tag and rationale. The parent article was deleted on November 21 so I added a CSD i5 but than, after thinking about it, and the discussion here, I changed it to a G8. Another editor now has added the {{di-orphaned fair use}} tag and the problem I see with this is, first, the wording of "This image or media is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia..." which is just the opposite of what the creator/copyright holder has said which is "I have personally designed this logo myself and fully approve of its use on wikipedia, but I do not approve of its use anywhere else online or otherwise without my direct authority or supervision." The only reason the editor added the {{di-orphaned fair use}} is because of the earlier CSD denial where another editor added FUR to the image. This is why I think something specific is needed in these "orphan/unused image" cases. While I can understand the idea behind the "if they're free, we oughta' keep 'em around and move 'em to commons" comment I feel that is too broad of a statement. Going back to Nevermindthelove's images does anyone think they should be all kept and moved to Commons? It is a legit quesiton, I am not being sarcastic. In cases such as that and such as the, now orphaned, Noir logo, rather than saying "Well you could use this, if it is that, or you might be able to use that one as long as it were that..." we could just say something along the lines of "Unused images categorized as "Self-published work", and licensed under CCL or GFDL, that do not indicate why the subject is important or significant, that are not used in any articles, or where the article has never existed or has been deleted. Reasonable exceptions may be made for images uploaded for an upcoming article. This excludes any image which is useful to the project, and in particular any image pages or talk pages for images that exist on Wikimedia Commons." I also think this would cut way down on the IfD noms that are done, not only by myself, but by others. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

(Also from November 22, 2008 - part of my reply to address the same type of question) I am not asking about non-free files, I thought I had made that clear. If you are referring to the Noir logo you may have misread why I was citing it/asking about it - this is a "user created" image that was uploaded for use only on Wikipedia, it was not a logo that was taken from, say, the Warner Bros official website for use in an article about the company and is no longer being used. This image only got tagged with a FUR, "non-free" use, because an editor objected to my "for Wikipedia use only" based CSD. Also I may be misreading "Non-commercial only and By Permission Only Images to be deleted - May 19, 2005" which says "As of today, all *new* images which are "non commercial only" and "with permission only" should be deleted on sight." I don't see where any form of image is excluded from that and I also may be misunderstanding what "deleted on sight" means in relationship to CSD i3. Likewise "Clearing up Wikimedia's media licensing policies - February 8, 2007" says "It is for these reasons, which we have long supported, that all media on Wikimedia sites which are used under terms that specify non-commercial use only, no-derivatives only, or permission for Wikimedia only, need to be be phased out and replaced with media that does not have these restrictions." and I see no mention of excluding a user created image that says it can only be used on Wikipedia from being speedied under CSD i3. Please tell me if I misread something in those two policy setting emails/posts.

(More from the same reply) I am just trying to point out that we have a specific CSD for musical recordings that points out that if it "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant and where the artist's article has never existed or has been deleted" it can be speedied. We have a CSD for overall articles that, if they do "not indicate why its subject is important or significant", can be speedied. We have a general CSD that includes "image pages" and says if they exist "without a corresponding image" the page can be deleted. What we don't have is anything that is specific to an image that is unused, do not indicate why the subject is important or significant or orphaned because the parent article has been deleted. Likewise we are very specific that "Wikipedia is not" a "myspace" type of social networking site but there is nothing specific to Wikipedia being a personal image hosting service. I have come across more than one image that is only being used in the uploaders own personal photo gallery and no where else. I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest that if a personal photo gallery, such as User:Wellus/Photo/2007, was deleted than so should the images that would be orphaned by it's deletion. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

"I license this for Wikipedia but noplace else" is a special case of "non-free image" where orphaned images are not eligible for speedy deletion under I5. In particular, they are ineligible for moving to the commons. Is this really a common enough problem to warrant speedy? I think IFD can handle this nicely. It's my understanding that A9 and A11 exist because otherwise AFD would be overloaded. Besides, if a spammer also used this image on his personal user space, then you couldn't speedy that without also speedying all the other same-permissioned novelty images users create and put on their user space. That would create chaos. Suppose this did get approved but excluded images used in user space to avoid the aformentioned chaos. Spammers and promoters would start using the image in user space to avoid having their image speedied, forcing either an IFD of the image or a speedy- or MFD of their user page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Valid questions and concerns - I5 was raised because of using an example where a user created image (and "user created" is really important in this entire proposal) stated it was created for, and to be used only on, Wikipedia. It would fall under i3 - used or not, orphaned or not. But in this case this user create image was a logo for use in that users self created mainspace article on that users company. Now there were other issues introduced. As far as images go there is no, nor should there be IMO, any restrictions about a user, who is the subject of (Of whose company is the subject of) a mainspace article, uploading any self-published/user created image be it a logo CD cover, poster or a picture of their "naughty bits" for use in the article. But there is an issue if they state it can not be used outside of Wikipedia. According to "Non-commercial only and By Permission Only Images to be deleted - May 19, 2005" that type of image should be "deleted on site". As it relates to this proposal the issue that came into play with the specific image is that, because it was a logo, an editor felt i3 did not work because logos can be claimed under fair use and that is all the mattered. Now, when the "parent article" was deleted I felt that the image clearly would have no "encyclopedic use" for Wikipedia because it was, now, an orphaned, user created, image specifically done for Wikipedia for use in a specific article. The qualifiers here should be "user created" or "Self-published" and not that is was a logo. This is an issue that arose from this thread - should user created and user uploaded images such as logos, cd covers, promo pictures, posters and so on be included or excluded? It was suggested that any such item should fall under i5, tagged or not with a FUR. So I have, more or less, gone with that as long as the parent article still exists. In the larger sense, when the "parent" does not exist I feel, and based on other comments others also feel, there could be some form of CSD that would allow images that are part of an article that was deleted ("article specific images" if you will) to be deleted speedily. I see no reason, for example, why, when a teenager plays with their own image and creates a make believe CD cover out of it, uploads it here under a free license, and places it into a mainspace article they created, the image should be excluded from deletion because, as was worded above, it "can be useful someday even if they are not used at the moment". Likewise I would see no logic to tagging every user created image image as an i5 because the image was like other images that did fall under i5. (ie - CD cover) The core issue is not about the type of image (Free vs non-free) but about how they are dealt with once their use is no longer "blatantly obvious".

The other important part of this that the proposal is not aimed at "spammers". We have G11 that would cover "Blatant advertising". it is important to note that not all images uploaded and then orphaned are "spam". For example if an image orphaned when it's "parent" on "show" was deleted via A7 said "See this show for only 9.95 December 25 at this venue" it would be fairly blatant, but an image that showed the front of Radio City Music Hall may not be even if the marque is "advertising" something, and that would be the deleting admins judgment as well to do either if it were a CSD. G11 is used on images when that are used or not, orphaned or not. Outside of "blatant advertising" images can be uploaded in full "good faith", including self made CD covers, but may not have any real use outside of the "parent". Here is the example I used December 2, 2008 at it relates to userspace: "I do not think user space "user portraits" should be excluded and if they are unused and/or orphaned and they are not encyclopedic. The image Becky5.jpg (along with three like images) was just orphaned and is a user page image. The Bhati.png user image is another user portrait that, if it were orphaned, would not have much encyclopedic use." In these cases I would not call the users "spammers" at all. G11 would be speedily declined if used. Yes the "becky" images were taken to IFD but the quesiton I ask - was there any real need to? It appears there may be missing emphasis on what the qualifiers are in the proposal - it is not a blanket policy as you suggest would "cause chaos". It is for images only (not other forms of files) that are "orphaned" (however to be "vauge" the "usused and orphaned" came into play) and have no encyclopedic use. (or no foreseeable use). A9 is a perfect example of this - it needed to state that, in order to qaulify, it must be an article on any musical release that not only "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" but also "where the artist's article has never existed or has been deleted" That is very important and for images the same form of qualifier should be in place.

userspace is not exempt from CSD criteria - images residing solely on/in userspace can be, and have been, deleted via G11. Likewise most of the image criteria can be applied to image in userspace as well so the suggestion that "Spammers and promoters would start using the image in user space to avoid having their image speedied" doesn't hold up unless there is a broad proposal made to exclude userspace from all of the criteria for speedy deletion. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I love the strawman thrown in there with my name and Sowhy's. The issue isn't whether or not specific images should be kept, but rather whether or not they should be speedily deleted. Writing a CSD criteria that is likely to be used carelessly and potentially delete some valid pictures is not a viable alternative. IFD is always an option.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 20:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You put it nice and short. As you say, Balloonman, we do not talk about keeping or not, we talk about whether an admin can decide it in speedy deletion. And I maintain that they can't. Regards So Why 00:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Ballonman, I am glad you got that. I think it is very important to note that the concept of "Images can be useful someday even if they are not used at the moment" goes against other concepts in use. Articles are often speedied because it's subject is not notable and, even if at some point it's subject may be notable, we don't allow the articles to stay. Because of what this propsal is, that response says, to me, that an image uploaded and once used to represent a now "deleted for not being notable" article may, at some point be useful because it's subject may be notable at some point. In which case I strongly feel the article should have been be kept and not deleted as well. If that is not what was meant than someone explain how it relates to the type if images being discussed...which are images left behind when their "parent" is deleted. And that is part of the reason why this whose issue was brought up in the first place. As you said "The issue isn't whether or not specific images should be kept, but rather whether or not they should be speedily deleted." As you asked/suggested in the original thread something like this could go under i10 and I said that criteria specifically excludes images. There was no suggestion by yourself, or anyone else, that i10 been changed to include images at that time. If that is the feeling you still hold however by all means feel free to make a proposal. I never said that would be a bad idea, only that adding the comment that was proposed at that time would not work in i10. Also, because at that time, it had morphed into "G" proposal going back to an "i" criteria seemed to be a step backwards. However I want to say that where it goes is not the issue to me - the issue is how this type if image should be addressed. I thought the wording issue was cleared up but now editors have voiced other opinions about wording but, unlike before, I have seen no-one offering alternative wording.

Here is core base: Images only (not other forms of files) that are "orphaned" and have no "encyclopedic" use. As a reminder again - the first proposal did not have that qualifier. There was no use of the word "encyclopedic" but when a clarifier was asked about, that word, or like wording, fit. From what I see now, the current editors involved have issues with the use of any variation of "encyclopedic". The wording of "cannot be used in another article" was suggested in the original thread so if that works I will add that. But I want to say that in looking at some of the existing criteria it is used. In G11 (Which is also used for images) the phrasing of "Pages that exclusively promote some entity and that would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic" is used but it does not define what "encyclopedic" is. i10 says that a file must not only be "unused" but adds the qualifier of "and have no foreseeable encyclopedic use" but it does not define what would be considered "encyclopedic use" or what would allow a file to be used in the future should it meet that. In looking under the article/essay/guideline/"how-to" on "Donating copyrighted materials" the phrase "In particular, we try not to include content that is below an encyclopedic level of notability." is used with a link to Encyclopedia. In the image use policy, when discussing fair use images, the wording of "Unfree images are only allowed as long as they are in actual use in an article for encyclopedic purposes" is used but does not fully define what "encyclopedic purposes" are. Good or bad, the words use on Wikiepdia is not up to me but I do not have an issue with the word because it is used a lot and seemed clear in it's meaning when I suggested it. However it seems clear now that is is not that clear to other editors. In looking for other alternative wording, other than the one that was suggested, I like G8's wording that excludes what may not be "useful to the project" but I fear that would be even more vague.

As for the sending of files if IfD/Pui. I have said that is not any problem and no one said that was not an option, I know I never did. But if those participating feel that fact needs to be explicitly laid out in the wording I might suggest wording along the line of what is found in A7, modified for images.

So, how about this wording to be inserted in some "i" criteria if a new one can not be created -

"images categorized as Self-published work where the parent article or userspace/userpage has been deleted and the images summary or other information is unclear and would not be useful to the project. This includes the orphaned personal images with you, friends or family that are prominently featured in a way that distracts from the image topic. Please note that as with articles, others may edit or delete your uploads if they think it serves the project. Keep in mind that if the images summary or other information is unclear, you can improve the information yourself if you are familiar with the image subject (see "Mini How-To" guide) or list the image at images for deletion or Possible unfree images."

Hows that? (and respectfully - this is about wording for this proposal and 1> making it more clear and 2> Where it should go.) Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Articles are often speedied because it's subject is not notable and, even if at some point it's subject may be notable, we don't allow the articles to stay. Because of what this propsal is, that response says, to me, that an image uploaded and once used to represent a now "deleted for not being notable" article may, at some point be useful because it's subject may be notable at some point.

No, that isn't the logic at all. An image intended to depict a specific subject might be useful for depicting something else. We've already discussed the example of a non-notable toddler. Other examples are a non-notable man with a beard (useful in the Beard article) and a non-notable woman with an afro hairstyle (useful in the Afro article). The argument isn't that the images should be kept because the specific people depicted might one day be notable; it's that the images are useful for reasons other than their original purposes. Your proposal would strip the community of the ability to determine this, instead assigning it to random sysops.

I thought the wording issue was cleared up but now editors have voiced other opinions about wording but, unlike before, I have seen no-one offering alternative wording.

The wording, while flawed, isn't the main problem. The proposal's basic concept is. —David Levy 09:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, we never speedy delete (or at least should not speedy delete) articles because the subject is not notable. A7 applies when notability is not even claimed, not when it does not exist because an admin alone cannot determine if it really exists. Text can claim that "X is a notable scholar" - you cannot do that with an image. So there is no possible way to transfer A7 to images. Regards So Why 10:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

← And that's why I think that this criterion should not be included for reasons of uncertainty and non-objectivity. IFD handles more images on an average day than AFD does articles, but it's not breaking down. Stifle (talk) 10:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

While I said above that I can see the virtues of this criteria, I can also see that it doesn't really fit the mold of a decision I would like 1 person making rapidly w/o community input. So I can't support a new I12 (or a changed G8...really can't support that). Protonk (talk) 10:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Commons wording of the types of files included in this proposal

A few editors have suggested that any orphaned file that meets the Commons:Project Scope should not be deleted but simply moved there, or that any file is useful at some point so shouldn't be deleted. I have never said the "encyclopedic" images should be speedied. But using the "Commons" approach I think their wording may actually be far more clear in the types of images that this proposal is aimed at. As explained above the core concept of the "new i12?" is that when an article or userspace/page is deleted from Wikipedia it most often leaves behind images. Commons explains these images pretty well.

"Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose" has the description of "The expression “educational” is to be understood according to its broad meaning of “providing knowledge; instructional or informative”." This section provides examples of what is acceptable for use at Commons. But after the acceptable use example there is an example of unacceptable use - and much to my surprise it describes most of the exact same type of images I am suggesting be part of this proposal. For example an image, or several images, in user space is allowed but "An otherwise non-educational file does not acquire educational purpose solely because it is in use on a gallery page or in a category on Commons, nor solely because it is in use on a user page (the "User:" namespace)" As I mentioned somewhere above, or in the archived portion(s), or both, if an image is used, it is not included in this proposal. It is only when that "parent" is deleted the images become orphans associated only with that page/userspace they are most likely not "encyclopedic" - or "educational" as the Commons term is. As Commons words it: "A media file which is neither: realistically useful for an educational purpose, nor legitimately in use as discussed above falls outside the scope of Wikimedia Commons."

I mentioned above in one of my replies that you could use specific wording to define images in this cirteria but it might be too much creep. However Commons uses these: "For example, the fact that an unused blurred photograph could theoretically be used to illustrate an article on “Common mistakes in photography” does not mean that we should keep all blurred photographs. The fact that an unused snapshot of your friend could theoretically be used to illustrate an article on “Photographic portraiture” does not mean that we should keep all photographs of unknown people. The fact that an unused pornographic image could theoretically be used to illustrate an article on pornography does not mean that we should keep all pornographic images."

"Examples of files that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose" include:

Private image collections, e.g. private party photos, photos of yourself and your friends, your collection of holiday snaps and so on. There are plenty of other projects on the Internet you can use for such a purpose, such as Flickr. Such private image collections do not become educational even if displayed as a gallery on a user page on Commons or elsewhere.
Self-created artwork without obvious educational use.
Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality.

There are both sides of the issue also present in the "Discussion" area and it does a very good job of explaining what type of images fall under this proposed CSD. Comments such as "...but there is no purpose in our hosting tens or even hundreds of essentially identical poor quality images that have no realistic educational value" and "poor or mediocre files of common and easy to capture subjects may have no realistic educational value, especially if Commons already hosts many similar or better quality examples" stick out to me. I think one of the best comments on the page, one that could also be used as part of this proposed criteria, is "However, as indicated above, a file that is use in good faith on a Wikimedia project is always considered educational, so a poor quality file that remains in use is not liable to deletion even if a better-quality file covering the same subject later becomes available." Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the Commons deletion policy? If so, you're aware that Commons handles images failing to meet those quality criteria in the same manner that we do (by nominating them for deletion and allowing the community to discuss whether they should be kept). Quoth said policy:

Redundant or bad quality files never get speedily deleted. They have to be listed the usual way at Commons:Deletion requests and will only be deleted on a case by case basis.

Again, no one is disputing that the above are reasonable image deletion rationales. We're disputing that it's appropriate for a sysop to unilaterally determine that an image qualifies. Commons operates under the same principle. —David Levy 09:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

All righty then. IFD/PUI it is! Cool beans. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

A10

I was thinking of having that criterion for mainspace pages that are unencyclopedic. Does anybody think we should add that criterion to the criteria? -- IRP ☎ 18:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we should not. "Unencyclopedic" or "not encyclopedic" is a too subjective criterion for an admin to decide on. A deletionist admin will think much more stuff "unencyclopedic" ("fancruft" for example) than an inclusionist one. I think there is a good reason that reasons derived from WP:NOT are not CSDable. Regards So Why 18:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, has the same problem the proposal for unencyclopaedic images has. --Amalthea 19:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Please define "unencyclopedic?" Please put them in a manner that is clear and unambiguous? And do so in a manner that won't be abused worse than A1 and G1 currently are? Impossible you say? Nay I say.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 20:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed amendment to criterion A2

I propose that CSD A2 would read as follows (amendment in italics): Foreign language articles that exist or have been deleted on another Wikimedia project. Being a regular at Pages needing translation, I often see foreign-language contributors who come to the English Wikipedia and use it as a dumping ground for articles they couldn't get accepted by a Wikipedia in their own language. It looks like these people expect that we wouldn't dare to delete an article that's in a language we don't understand. There have also been a few reported cases of foreign-language contributors edit-warring with people trying to translate their articles in order to prevent translation and make sure their pet articles stay in their language of origin. In one case I remember, a short investigation revealed that the Spanish-language article had been speedied five time by the Spanish Wikipedia within a few minutes before that article had been created here. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Can anybody think of a good faith reason why an editor or group of editors on the English Wikipedia would resist having a non-English article translated into English? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, this would be a sensible change which would help clearing articles from PNT that don't need translating--Jac16888 (talk) 00:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Good idea in theory but not practicable. If it's been deleted elsewhere, no en-wiki admin can check if the deleted article there is a copy of the recreated one here. And that is if they manage to understand that it's been deleted when viewing a foreign language Wikipedia and that is if they manage to figure out what language it is. This would only be useful if the reviewing admin a.) understood the article's language, b.) is able to determine that it's been deleted in that language's Wikipedia and c.) is an admin there to check if the deleted article is the same as the one here. Which is a very very unlikely situation usually... Regards So Why 01:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

We have tools at PNT that allow us to identify the language an article is written in. Unidentified languages rarely remain unidentified for more than a few minutes. Some languages (Korean, for example) use a proprietary writing system that makes identification quite easy. Knowing what language an article is written in is usually the easy part. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

And how do you propose that an admin here can check if it's really the same article and not just uses the same article name? And of course you say yourself that other projects have less strict criteria so what they delete may not be deleted here if in English - and there is no reason to delete just because it's not in English. After all, A2 serves for cases where no information will be lost because it does exist elsewhere and can be translated from there. If it does not exist there, the information will be lost with deletion, thus the situation is different. Regards So Why 10:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

In theory, I have no problem with this, but in reality I'm not sure how that would work. I'm already worried that people delete foreign languages articles too freely---oh it's in a non-European language, let's just delete it.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 01:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not move non-English articles to a holding pen "somewhere else" (not article space) until they are translated? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Alternative: New A10 or ammendment to A2: Foreign language articles that are tagged {{notenglish}} and for which transwiki has been refused under criteria at least as strict as "speedy deletion" on the target wiki. For example, if the target wiki had the same policies as English, it would mean a destination-wiki admin would have to name a specific speedy-deletion criteria, perhaps by using {{transwikirefused|targetwiki=|reason=|targetwikiadmin=YES}}. Transwikiers who are not target admins would be free to tag the article {{transwikirefused|targetwiki=|reason=|targetwikiadmin=NO}} to get the attention of an admin on the target wiki. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, most of them don't. In the French Wikipedia, if an article looks like trash, it can be speedied under no specific criterion, and no tag is even required on the article itself. Speedy deletion there is all done through a dedicated project page. In the Spanish Wikipedia, original research is among the speedy deletion criteria. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a problem at all. If an article is tagged for transwiki into French, all it would take is for a French-wiki admin to say "db|reason=I'm a French-wiki admin [verify]. This French article has been discussed at our speedy-deletion page and will be deleted on sight if transwikied." If it were tagged for translation into Spanish, all it would take would be someone to say "db|reason=I'm a Spanish-wiki admin [verify]. If transwikied, this Spanish article will be speedy-deleted for being original research." Either way, the next en admin who sees it can delete it on sight. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Fails the third rule for new speedy criteria (frequency). Just PROD the article or delete it under A2 anyway. Stifle (talk) 10:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Consider costs and benefits. Verifying circumstances of deletion is foreign-wiki may not be so simple and it consumes time. The en-wiki admin must have perfect understanding in what happened in foreign-wiki and complete trust in their admin. Simple fact of deletion, not knowing who and why deleted it does not mean anything (it could be for copyvios, maintenance etc.). A simpler solution by Stifle is far more effective. NVO (talk) 13:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

even on wikis where I can read the articles, I can not necessarily tell the nuances of the discussion. DGG (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Not every wiki has the same inclusion criteria that we do. I believe some don't even allow stubs. Unless it would actually be inappropriate for this wiki I see no reason to disallow it. Mr.Z-man 19:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Tumbleweed (diaspore)

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

Could someone here please restore all the deleted edit histories of both Tumbleweed (diaspore) and its talk page? That article is a subject of an ongoing AN/I and a WP:RM (here). Thanks. --Una Smith (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the wrong place. If it's subject on ANI and RM already, there will be admins to care for undeletion if needed. Other than that, undeletion should always asked from the deleting admin first and then at WP:DRV. Regards So Why 20:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Which deleting admin should I ask first, the first one or the last one? --Una Smith (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way the RM and ANI both predate the first speedy deletion by several days. --Una Smith (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

From what I understand the articles were moved/deleted in response to the ANI thread, so I suggest sorting it out there. It will only get ugly if more admins are brought into this mess by undeleting without being aware of the discussion there. If you mostly want the content of the article back you can approach anyone at Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles. I'd very strongly advise against recreating it anywhere but in your user space though, again until this is sorted out at ANI (and no, I haven't read the thread). --Amalthea 20:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to restore anything. They were not deleted. The articles were moved. They retain their page histories. As I pointed out on AN/I where this discussion started. --KP Botany (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Here, I pasted them to another forum where Una is making this request. Edit history of tumbleweed diaspore.[7] Edit history of tumbleweed diaspore talk page.[8] Moves bolded. --KP Botany (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Proposed change to intro and to Redirect: Spell out that reverting is good

“

Proposed changes to the intro:

Deletion is not required if a page meets these criteria. Before nominating an article for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, reverted to an earlier version, merged or redirected elsewhere or be handled with some other action short of deletion.

Proposed changes to the General section: G8:

Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page, such as talk pages with no corresponding subject page; subpages with no parent page; image pages without a corresponding image; redirects to invalid targets, such as nonexistent targets, redirect loops, and bad titles; or categories populated by deleted or retargeted templates. This excludes any page that is useful to the project or which can be restored to a previous useful version, and in particular: deletion discussions that are not logged elsewhere, user and user talk pages, talk page archives, plausible redirects that can be changed to valid targets, redirects with non-redirect versions which are not themselves eligible for speedy deletion, and image pages or talk pages for images that exist on Wikimedia Commons.

Proposed changes to Redirect section:

Redirect pages that have useful page history or useful previous versions should never be speedy deleted. This includes redirects which currently point to nonexistent articles.

”

Rationale:

Articles which are not speedy-deletable may be changed to a redirect by a merger discussion, AFD discussion, or even unilaterally by someone being bold. The target of the resulting redirect may later be deleted by PROD or AFD for reasons unrelated to the now-broken redirect.
Likewise, such a redirect can be expanded to create a new article that is speedy-deletable.

In both cases, the reasonable action is to revert to the last non-CSD-eligible version then, if necessary, PROD, AFD, RFD, or better yet improve the resulting article or change the target of the redirect. While the above change would not necessarily fix the bad articles, it would prevent harmful speedy-deletion.

If I get a "second" or better yet wide support, and nobody objects, I will make the change in 24 hours. If there are objections or no "second," I will hold off for a clear consensus. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think that seems to be a reasonable change to reflect the instructions for the administrators "check the page history to assess whether it would instead be possible to revert and salvage a previous version". Davewild (talk) 08:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no objections, but would split G8 in the same way that I7 is split, to aid readability, viz:

Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page. This includes:

A talk page with no corresponding subject page
A subpage with no parent page
An image page without a corresponding image
A redirect to an invalid target, such as a nonexistent page or a bad title; or a redirect loop
A category populated by one or more deleted or retargeted templates.

However, it does not include any page that is, or has a previous version that is, useful to the project, and in particular, it does not include:

Deletion discussions that are not logged elsewhere
User and user talk pages, and talk page archives
Plausible redirects that can be changed to valid targets
Redirects with a valid article in the history
Non-blank image pages or talk pages for images that exist on Wikimedia Commons.

Long sentences are hard to read, sometimes. Stifle (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

This works. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with these changes. I think that most people who conduct speedy deletion are aware of this requirement, but are merely failing to be careful enough. Emphasizing it won't fix anything, and will draw attention away from the other, equally important requirements. I think the best way to deal with this type of problem is: 1. to inform admins who make a mistake so that they will be more careful in the future; 2. Add a section describing the step-by-step process an admin should go through to speedy delete a page. Dcoetzee 20:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll hold off on including this until/unless consensus develops. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I support these changes also, but suggest an RfC before any changes take place. I say this to be consistent. Right now I am actively harping on how "consensus" was created on A7. travb (talk) 09:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I partly agree with Dcoetzee in that emphasising this will not solve the problem of admins being too trigger-happy. I also disagree with the principle of the last change. If a page is redirected as a result of an AfD, and the target page is then deleted by AfD, the redirect should also be deleted; the first AfD established a consensus that the previous content of the page was not acceptable content, and that decision should not be rendered invalid just because a further consensus determined that the target content was also unacceptable. If anything, the fact that the content that was 'saved' from the first AfD was deleted in a second is further evidence that the past content of the redirect was unacceptable. In most cases the history of merge/redirect redirects is retained only for GFDL compliance; if the content is no longer present in an extant article, there is no reason to retain the redirect. Happy‑melon 15:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the proposed change to the intro and the first change to the redirect section, specifically the bit that says "or useful previous versions". The intro change is useful for taggers, not just admins (who should already know), as is the first change to the redirect section. With respect to the other changes, I agree with Dcoetzee and Happy-melon. I disagree that an RfC is necessary for such changes, as this policy is constantly undergoing minor revision. We would essentially have to have an open-ended, constant RfC...and that's basically what this talk page is. :) Except for the perennial "CSD is over-applied!", almost every thread here is proposing to change policy in some way. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with those proposed changes (also Stifle's way of writing it) as well. Except for the redirect bit, they are just clarifying the text anyway, which is always a good idea. We can discuss whether G8 (= old R1) should include redirects to now-deleted pages or not but the rest should not need any major discussion. Regards So Why 16:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

How about making these changes, then?

“

Changes to intro:

Deletion is not required if a page meets these criteria. Before nominating an article for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, reverted to an acceptable earlier version, merged or redirected elsewhere or be handled with some other action short of deletion.

Changes to G8:

Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page, such as talk pages with no corresponding subject page; subpages with no parent page; image pages without a corresponding image; redirects to invalid targets, such as nonexistent targets, redirect loops, and bad titles; or categories populated by deleted or retargeted templates. This excludes any page that is useful to the project or which can be restored to an acceptable earlier version, and in particular: deletion discussions that are not logged elsewhere, user and user talk pages, talk page archives, plausible redirects that can be changed to valid targets, and image pages or talk pages for images that exist on Wikimedia Commons.

Proposed changes to Redirect section:

Redirect pages that have useful page history or acceptable previous versions should never be speedy deleted.

”

The use of "acceptable" is intended to exclude the usual copyvio/blp/AfD'd/etc. Happy‑melon 14:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks good to me. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Amendment proposal

Arising from discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 January 9#Didiot, I think the sentence "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it may not be speedily deleted, except in the case of newly discovered copyright infringements" in the second paragraph should be amended to add "or violations of WP:BLP". Any objections? Stifle (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Not from me, although I wonder if we need to specify that both concerns should be for the life of the article; that is, revert to clean if can. But maybe I'm not trusting our admins enough. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why that can be needed. I understand how copyright infringements can be discovered later, but how can BLP-violations be missed in deletion discussions and then be realized by a single user? If it's not a G10-article while in deletion discussion, how can it become one that has to be deleted? So Why 16:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how necessary it would be, because I don't know if it ever happens, but I can imagine at least situations in which it might—not every AfD is an in-depth consideration of all aspects of an article, particularly those which do not attract wide participation. A subject can be notable without properly sourcing libelous allegations, for instance. Three "Keep-notable" may not take into consideration that "Madeup Name is a child molester who is wanted by the FBI.<ref>blog</ref><ref>blog</ref><ref>blog</ref>" doesn't meet WP:BLP. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Maybe we should rephrase it as "except where criteria G10 and G12 apply"? So Why 16:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

A better way to handle this: "Before speedy deleting an article that has survived a deletion discussion, consider all options to keep the article. Read the discussion and compare the article to the versions that existed during the discussion. If the reason for the proposed speedy deletion has been discussed and was deemed not worthy of removal, decline the speedy deletion. If the reason for the proposed speedy deletion reflects content added since the discussion, decline the speedy deletion and remove the offending material or revert to a previous version, deleting specific edits or referring them to WP:OVERSIGHT if necessary. If the material existed at the time of the previous deletion discussion but was not discussed, consider all of the circumstances before deleting the article, and attempt to preserve the article if possible by using any previous version or by rewriting it." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is what G10 and G12 need in any case, i.e. that there is no attack- or copyvio-free version to change it to. You'd just repeat what other parts of the page already specify. Regards So Why 17:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good idea for AFD (or other XFDs where there is a reasonable participation) where decisions receive much wider participation than other XFDs. While I am supporting the deletion at the Deletion Review quoted above this is only because the original RFDs got very little participation (and because I think it is a clear BLP violation). I am very reluctant to make this into a general rule as the interpretation of what is a BLP violation differs widely and if there was not a consensus to delete in a reasonably attended AFD then I would not want to raise the possibility of an admin unilaterally overuling that discussion as they disagree with the outcome and think it is such a violation. Davewild (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No, if a BLP issue exists, then it was either added since the previous AFD---in which case the proper response would be to revert to a version of an article that didn't have the BLP. OR the issues isn't really a BLP that is universally accepted as such. Negative information is not always BLP---even if it is about your favorite rock star. If the article that was discussed during the AFD had the alleged BLP issue, then it should not be cSD'd---although a new AFD might be acceptable. ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 22:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The only case in which I might support this amendment is when the prior deletion discussion predates BLP. This applies to such a tiny number of articles that there's no harm in re-AFDing them. Otherwise, the AfD discussion should have taken this into account. I stress again that speedy deletion is not a device for rapidly hiding dangerous contributions (these can be blanked and if necessary, oversighted) but a device for reducing the load on other processes. Dcoetzee 22:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If the previous discussion predated the BLP, then revert to the earlier version.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 22:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think what Dcoetzee is meaning is if the deletion discussion occured before the BLP policy came into being. Davewild (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sorry for the ambiguity. :-) Dcoetzee 03:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

So, BLP has been around for what 18 months? Two years? So you are talking about an article that is at least 2 years old? First, you should clean it up. Second, if it has been around for 2 years, sending it to AFD for a week isn't going to make a big difference? ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 04:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

No argument from me, I was just pointing it out as a limited case in which it might make sense, but it really doesn't because of frequency, among other issues. Dcoetzee 06:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed exemption

I propose that screenshots of Wikipedia pages be exempt from Speedy Deletion where they are used in Project Space or User Space to illustrate features of, or shortcomings in, Wikipedia. DuncanHill (talk) 13:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

If this was acepted the language should continue: "unless a fair use image, copyvio or attack is included in the screenshot." Can you provide an example of why this is needed; where such exemption would have been necessary?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Most of them have been deleted already, leaving holes in refdesk or VP(T) threads. DuncanHill (talk) 15:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

But here's one that will soon disappear, making a thread on a talk page incomprehensible. File:Cornwallmainline.JPG. DuncanHill (talk) 15:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It's being deleted because it is marked as fair use and not used in any articles. Fair-use content can't be used outside the mainspace. Period. There's nothing we can do, and nothing we should do, to change that. The thing is that Wikipedia screenshots aren't fair-use: as long as the screenshot is not an screenshot of a fair-use image, the problem is not that they should be exempt from WP:NFCC, but that they shouldn't be marked as fair use in the first place. Happy‑melon 15:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

So to continue in the same vein as Happy-melon's comment, were the other screenshots that were deleted marked as fair use and deleted on that basis? And if that is the case, were the screenshots marked as fair use like this one was by including a FUR and then deleted; deleted as fair use even though they didn't contain an indication that they were fair use; or is this example just an anomaly, and the others were deleted on other grounds? In order to see whether anything is necessary, we need to survey a number of images deleted to see what's actually went on. You can provide a list of red links (or better yet, a list of direct links to deletion summaries) and those of us who are admins will have access to see if the image improperly claimed fair use for those deleted on that basis. If many are uploaded as fair use, that's mainly a problem on the uploaders' end. If deleted as fair use but never claimed, that's a problem on the deletion end. If it's something else for many, then the focus of this discussion can shift to address the actual circumstances.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It's marked as fair use because that is what you get when you upload a screenshot of Wikipedia and follow the instructions Wikipedia gives on the upload page. To be honest, I am fed up with problems like this being blamed on uploaders. We follow the instructions in a good faith attempt to help people improve Wikipedia, and get messaged by dumb bots and then told we should have ignored the instructions we were given in the first place! DuncanHill (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

...so just remove the Fair Use tag about five seconds after uploading, before the bots see it. What's the problem? EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

So basically "Ignore these instructions when uploading images"? That should be added to the instructions on the upload page. DuncanHill (talk) 17:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair Use trumps any "but without it, the thread doesn't make sense" nonsense. Just upload the image to a non-Wikipedia server and voila, problem solved. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Or just not bother, problem solved. DuncanHill (talk) 17:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

duncan makes a good point. This is a frustratingly common problem in the image upload instruction tree. I had to tell an editor to basically do the same thing (I just upload it as PD-self and manually change the tag), ignore the instructions and post the image anyway. I think the answer lies in the poorly traffic media-wiki message talk namespace (for the upload messages), not here. Protonk (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

So what needs to be done is to address the issue at [[9]. Ignoring it and asking users to discount the instructions is no answer at all. So let's propose some language and identify where to place it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

A special case for "screenshots of wikipedia" in the initial options wouldn't go amiss. I agree that this is not the uploaders' fault when they have to jump through so many hoops to get their images to stick. These screenshots are not fair use, so it's still Wikipedia's problem if they are being uploaded as such in good faith, even if it's not directly relevant to CSD. Happy‑melon 23:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Curious about A2

Just why are non English articles that exist on other Wikimedia projects speediable? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

If an article is in German, then it belongs on the German wikiproject, not the English wikiproject. And if it exists there, then we don't need it here to get the information from to translate into English.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 06:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not really happy with this rule. If it is here it should be either translated, or--if not appropriate by our rules--deleted. There are enough people here that simply removing it because it hasnt been translated yet makes no sense--yes it's on the other project, but who would know to look. We should keep it for the same reason we keep stubs. DGG (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Many times an article that gets tagged A2 ends up being translated by its creator (either partially or entirely) even before an admin can review the speedy tag. I, for one, never use this tag, even though I recently proposed that it be expanded to cover articles speedied by other projects, although I can see its use: a would-be translator would be able to get the original text from the other project anyway. I say A2 should stay, but an admin who deletes an A2-tagged article should consider making a request at WP:TRANSLATION (though if the article is spam and hasn't been identified as such, that would only make it more visible than warranted). -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps one also could drop a little note at WP:PNT, for a (hopefully) speedy evaluation of the merits of the article. Lectonar (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed template "db-speedy2" to parallel prod2

User:Davidwr/Templates/db-speedy2 is meant to parallel {{Prod2}}. It's meant to give alternative reasons for deletion in the face of a {{hangon}} or a marginal criteria like a weak A7 or A9.

Purpose: Add other speedy deletion criteria under which this article may be deleted. This is a hint to the deleting admin that even if he disagrees with the first suggested criteria for deletion, it should be deleted under another criteria instead.

Note: If you do not think the article should be speedy deleted, either remove it entirely or, if you are a major contributor, use the hangon tag.

Parameters:

disagree - optional, if set, changes text to indicate disagreement.
reason= reason - required, must be a valid criteria for speedy deletion.

Usage:

To add additional criteria, for example, to counter a {{hangon}} tag or to bolster a claim that is marginal:

{{db-speedy2|reason=[[WP:G12|G12]] - blatant copyright violation.}} produces:

Another editor adds the following reason or reasons to the speedy deletion rationale listed above: G12 - blatant copyright violation.

To disagree with the stated criteria but to offer a substitute criteria:

{{db-speedy2|disagree=yes|reason=Not an attack, but [[WP:A7|A7]]-no claim of notability.}} produces:

Another editor disagrees with the speedy deletion rationale above but offers the following reason or reasons this article qualifies for speedy deletion: Not an attack, but A7-no claim of notability.

Would this be helpful to anyone but me? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd just say if you think someone else also applies, add that tag as well. There is no harm when there are two CSD tags. And if you think the article is mistagged, just replace the tag with what you think correct. The reviewing admin must apply the correct tag anyway, not the one that the article has been tagged with. Regards So Why 23:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with SoWhy; the more the merrier with regards CSD tags. I never really understood why the same principle didn't apply to PRODs too. Happy‑melon 23:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah well, in my understanding {{prod2}} serves as a way of expressing a delete-!vote, i.e. saying "I too think that this article should be deleted because of the reasons specified". So Why 09:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

This is one of the few cases where "rolling your own" tag with {{delete}} is useful. I used something like this once...

{{delete|the article is blatant advertising (CSD G11) and the first paragraph was copied from http://www.example.com (CSD G12)}}

--Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't do anything that can't be done already. To add another speedy deletion reason then simply add another template, and if you disagree with the reason given but think another criterion applies then replace the template. The reason for having the prod2 tag is that the prod tag starts a timer (which is why it should be substituted), so a different tag is needed for additional reasons to avoid confusion about when the article can be deleted. That doesn't apply to speedy deletions because they can be implemented immediately anyway. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

... and for comments I just place a {{comment}} box directly beneath the CSD box, although it doesn't use the correct color coding. A {{db comment|Bla}} template as a shortcut for {{mbox|type=speedy|text=Bla}} could be useful there, I noticed at least once that my comment was overlooked, probably due to the wrong color.

Bla

Amalthea 18:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It was suggested in another thread one could use the {{db}} tag along with a reason and that works fine here as well for multi criteria that may fit. I also echo what Ron, Phil and Amalthea say but add on that as the deleting admin can use their own judgment to either delete under the given CSD or delete under another one anyway I don't think a new option tag is needed. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

if you think that a tag doesn't fit, but that another tag would, be bold and change it. When we admins come around to check we'll look at the whole history (or at least we're supposed to do that, and most of them time we do). I choose the deletion reason that I think applies the best, and often give several if several apply--it can save arguments later, e.g. "G11 promotional, and also no claim to notability" DGG (talk) 04:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Per DGG. Dloh cierekim 04:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

A proposal for matching descriptions to templates

As a newbie to the administrative side of WP, I see many experienced members and admins are overworked. I'm sure they'd like some assistance. One thing that I find strongly discourages me (and likely many others) from lending a hand is the challenge of associating these helpful descriptions for reasons to applying speedy deletion to the templates themselves. The lack of a direct association with the templates themselves is frustrating and seriously inhibits usability, requiring user to search for and match up the appropriate template.

Among experienced Wikipedians a shorthand lexicon associated with various templates has emerged, for example, A2 and G11. Veterans toss them around like so much pizza dough. I haven't a clue. Why not provide the appropriate template syntax within the context of the description, or link directly from the descriptions to the template, and perhaps number the descriptions in like manner? This would immensely improve more new comers' ability to make sense of this complicated syntax and structuring. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You can always look up the template named db-##, replacing ## with A7, G11, or whatever. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if you know what the reference number of the criterion is, you can link to it using WP:CSD#Xn and template it using {{db-Xn}}. It's mostly a question of familiarity with the numbers. I agree that this is not something that comes overnight, which is why we're always trying to consolidate and simplify the system so there are fewer tags to remember. Happy‑melon 11:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The recent changes in them in which the drop down list varies from day to day, has not helped people keep straight what to do. It might be a good idea to discuss here first before implementing one's latest ideas. When changes are agreed on, they should be made everywhere, consistently. DGG (talk) 04:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The only one that's been changing from day to day is PROD, although I agree with you that that one has been changing too often for comfort. Now that we've got the sysop javascript sorted out again, things should be steady, and most importantly, since they come from one place (the templates themselves) they'll stay consistent. If we can just persuade Twinkle to adopt the same summaries, then they'll be universal (at last). Happy‑melon 10:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The unified A7 description that has emerged in the dropdown is a step backwards because the basis provided is cryptic. We were much more transparent when we had four separate descriptions for A7 (1 companies and corporations; 2 people, groups; 3 web content; 4 bands, singers, musicians, or musical ensembles), and when each of them actually tracked the criteria ("that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject" as opposed to the oblique "no indication that the aricle may meet guidelines for inclusion). Or course, all of the dropdown reasons provide a link to the specific section of the criteria used. It's natural to click on that and be taken directly to the relevant section of WP:CSD so I don't see there really being a problem with associating the shorthand numbering schema to the criteria.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If the page is tagged with a CSD tag, the autofilled reason matches the tag: I just deleted Richard Cranor, which was tagged with {{db-bio}} - look at the deletion summary. Happy‑melon 12:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's a result of my preferences or monobook scripts but in most cases I get the generic "does not meet guidelines for inclusion" or nothing and go to my offline cheat sheet. So the autofill doesn't work at least for me, and the dropdown menu doesn't contain the options to make A7 tailored.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are all proving my point. You are all busy people, I'm sure you'd like extra hands to assist on your various projects. I've been editing on and off for four years, more intensively for 3-4 months, and I have no idea what "drop-down" you are referring to, nor can I recall from memory what "PROD" is. Forcing someone to use an "offline cheat sheet" is exactly the kind of challenge the current system fosters. It raises the bar for new members to help out to a sufficiently high level as to discourage people. Is there any reason we can't link from the page describing the types of clean up reasons to the associated templates? -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You won't be able to view the dropdown menu, because it's part of &action=delete, which is only available to sysops. The text that makes it up, however, is available at MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown.

We do have redirects set up for most (maybe all) of the templates. {{db-nonsense}} redirects to {{db-g1}}, for example. Some others, such as {{db-person}}, {{db-web}}, and {{db-club}}, merely have more precise names themselves. The system of numbers are letters, while somewhat difficult to memorize unless one uses the CSD often, are fairly straightforward and provide a simple way of referring to each individual criterion. If you think of any template titles that are fairly intuitive and aren't already in use, feel free to create them as redirects to the proper criterion. I hope that answers your question. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Btphelps, where exactly is it confusing? On the tagging end, all of the criteria have intuitive names, copyvio? db-copyvio; attack page? db-attack; spam? db-spam; web, group, corporation, person fails to indicate importance? db-web, db-group, db-corp, db-bio. It's only when someone already knows the numbering scheme that they use db-[letter/number]. On the deletion end, almost all admins use either a tailored or software provided deletion reason which links to the specific section of the criteria they provide as a basis. With the link provided, there shouldn't be any confusion. As for warning users that's intuitive also; nn-warn; spam-warn; and a few others. The stuff about the dropdown menu was a tangent—it was an admin end thing. So can you provide a specific example of a common use of the naming scheme that is olikely to confuse those unfamiliar?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge U1 and G7

Since we seem to be on a roll of combining and consolidating criteria, I never did understand why these were separate entities in the first place. U1 excludes User talk: pages, but G7 makes no mention of it, so currently pages in User talk: can be deleted under G7 anyway. U1 doesn't say anything that couldn't be done in a sentence in G7, and I usually get the two muddled up anyway. Thoughts? Happy‑melon 23:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The author of a user page may not be the same as the user whose name it is under. More than once I've seen someone botch a move to user space and it wound up in the "wrong" user place. Granted, these could be G6'd as technical deletions but it's good to tell people "if your name is foo and you see something under User:foo/, you can have it zapped [almost] no questions asked." By the way, U1 does not apply to User_talk:, although db-author may apply to a user_talk page edited by only 1 person. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, G7 cannot be applied to User talk: as well, as the talkpage-user is seldom the same as the creator (who most likely was someone leaving them a message/welcome/warning). I am with David on that, U1 serves it's purpose when someone else created something in your userspace as G7 cannot be applied if you haven't created it. So Why 12:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree, no need to go overboard on mergers like this. Stifle (talk) 12:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Where is the alleged list?

Someone has told me:

CSD is an area often back-logged and I was working through a large list of such items.

Can someone tell me where this list is? I've looked over the CSD page and I don't find any obvious links to it. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

There's only the dynamic list at CAT:CSD#Pages in category. --Amalthea 23:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

No transparency

Once again I need to remind people that the speedy deletion community (which is indeed a community, as I was surprised to learn last year) is less than respectable because of a lack of transparency, and something needs to be done about it.

Every time I bring this up people complain to me that I'm just saying that mistakes sometimes happen and it's unreasonable to expect infallibility. However: it was quite by accident, rather than through a systematic process that does not exist and is badly needed, that I discovered the irresponsible deletion on December 20th of Poisson hidden markov model. From the talk page:

Logs for this page

I moved this page from Poisson hidden markov model (with a lower-case m) to Poisson hidden Markov model (with a capital M).

The logs do not move along with the edit history. That means the logs for this page fail to indicate that user:VirtualSteve deleted the page without discussion on the grounds that it was "patent nonsense, meaningless, or incomprehensible".

Obviously this was a case of "I am ignorant of this topic, therefore I will call an article in this subject area 'nonsense'". Searching "Poisson hidden Markov model" on Google would have revealed in one or two seconds that this is NOT "patent nonsense".

Deleting with no discussion just because one has no knowledge of the topic area is irresponsible to say the least. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

We don't have control over how the logs are or aren't moved here at WT:CSD. I agree that ideally logs should be moved just like edits when page moves are made, but you'll have to submit a bugzilla request for it (or find one that was already submitted). Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

So what? "we create, they delete" - this is the essence of wikipedia. Either outpace the sysops by throwing more firewood, or lose. NVO (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

end of excerpt

As I said, I found this only by accident. I was not looking through any list of speedy deletions of articles in which I could specify search terms that appear in the article or its title or its edit summaries or its category tags. No such thing exists, as far as members of this community have been willing to tell me. I was looking at the list of contributions of a new user, who had created the article.

The two-second Google search, and also a search of relevant terms in Wikipedia (Markov model, Poisson process, hidden Markov model) should have been done. Last time I suggested adding to the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion page a statement specifying some concrete things like that, that should be done to ascertain whether an article should be deleted, I was told that "you can't legislate common sense". But the problem is that such things really are needed. Calling this article "patent nonsense, meaningless, or incomprehensible" is really offensive. It says that ignorance is a qualification to pass judgment. If there is one illiterate somewhere who has never heard of a topic, it must be nonsense and it must get deleted. How is that consistent with the fact that those who have never heard of a topic come to Wikipedia to find out such things?

That earlier occasion when I was told that "you can't legislate common sense" was when someone proposed SPEEDY deletion of an article, on the grounds that it was "blatant advertising", when

The article was created when Wikipedia was unknown and no one would have thought of using it for advertising, and the organization that the article was about was universally known and respected.
THOUSANDS of internal links in Wikipedia linked to that article.
THOUSANDS of external links in Wikipedia linked to the website of the organization that the article was about.
Those links were put there in many cases by well-respected professors with expertise in the topics they were writing on.
A highly prosperous WikiProject prescribed the use of standard templates for external links to the organization's web site.

I proposed that Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion should say that one should consider those things before speedily deleting. I was told: No. You can't do that. You can't legislate common sense. But if the sort of irresponsible deletions cited above are dismissed as merely cases of inevitable fallibility, then we really NEED such prescriptions.

We also need transparency. There's no way to know how many similar cases escaped accidental discovery. We need systematic, rather than accidental, ways to know what is happening. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

here is your permanent log. People make mistakes, man. Protonk (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is no way to monitor the performance of admins in this area. "People make mistakes, man" is very unhelpful. DuncanHill (talk) 16:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well them's the breaks. Either propose a technical solution to the problem (namely that CSD is a category, not a persistent log and that only through a detailed review of the deletion log and deleted contributions of an admin can we judge efficacy and accuracy of their deletions) or stop harping on it. We have been over this before at WT:CSD and the result was agreement that VS screwed up in deleting that page. What's the next step? Desysop him? Hang him from the neck until dead?

So you tell me. How much more helpful is the complaint "there is no way to monitor admin performance in this area"? I'll say the same thing I did last time: if you care about the quality of speedy deletions, spend time watching the CSD page and decline speedies yourself (you can, so long as you aren't the author), spend time watching RfA and vote against people who make rash CSD tags, and spend time on NPP/RCP and improve new pages in mathematics (or whatever your area of interest is). Those are labor intensive, human solutions but they are the only ones we have. Coming back to WT:CSD to complain about this again isn't a solution to anything. Protonk (talk) 16:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with declining speedies yourself is that there are some really piss poor admins out there who will delete anything with a CSD tag on it, and there are enough people who will continue to re-add the tag until their article is deleted. And then they feel justified that they were correct when said admin deleted said article. I recently was talking to somebody who re-added the tag 3 times, had 3 different people tell him that it wasn't a speedy candidate. While we were trying to explain it to him, a fourth admin deleted the same article and the NPP'er basically said, "I knew that it would be deleted if I kept readding it."---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Then those admins should be trout slapped, either for not checking the page history or for actively encouraging admin shopping (or a minor form of wheel warring even). That's not a problem of declining an SD nomination. --Amalthea 21:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

(ecx3) Let's see if we can cut out the hundred kilobytes or so that usually follow before we actually get to the real question: What do you propose is done about this?? You can stand on this talk page and complain until you're blue in the face, and indeed you have done so, but unless you propose a constructive response, that's all you're doing, and people will eventually start ignoring you. The one concrete idea you suggest above is not a viable response: you can't legislate common sense. No one has or (in all likelihood) will dispute the fact that the article you mention did not satisfy WP:CSD#G1; why do you think that admins are more likely to read the parts of WP:CSD that are not part of the actual criteria, than they are the criteria themselves? Allowing non-admins to view deleted material has been explicitly vetoed by the Foundation; [[ is a comprehensive, accessible (to those with the admin bit) and completely transparent way of recording every deletion that occurs here, and why the admin deleted it. What do you want to do? If you don't have anything constructive to suggest that we do about your alleged issue, please, for the love of god, let's not have another bitch fight over it. Happy‑melon 17:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Part of what I proposed to do is crystal-clear: edit the policy to include the things I proposed above. Concerning the other part I will say more later. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

All right, continuing with the above: Your assertion that "you can't legislate common sense" is just dogma. That sort of "legislation of common sense" happens every time a page in the "Wikipedia" space suggests good ways of doing things. So we should edit the policy to suggest the following:

Before deleting something on the grounds that it's "patent nonsense", search via Google and Wikipedia and the like for relevant terms to see whether it's something that might have appeared to be gibberish because you're not familiar with the subject. That can happen when the person who wrote the page is a newbie who didn't do enough context-setting and the like.
Before deleting speedily deleting anything, check to see what links to it, and hesitate of a large number of pages link to it, since that can indicate why the topic is notable or otherwise shed light on the nature of the page.

The suggestion to look at Special:Log/delete is ridiculous. It's like suggesting that someone search for a specific topic on Wikipedia by looking at a list of all Wikipedia articles, instead of entering search terms. I just looked at the first three pages of 500 deletions each, and all 1500 of them were in less than 24 hours! We need a way to search by keywords, titles, categories, etc. Only then can persons with expertise in specific areas be able to see what's going on in cases where such expertise is needed. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Your second suggestion is already implemented on the delete form, where it is much more visible than on a policy page. Your first suggestion is only a good idea if the article appears to be about a technical concept but does not make this clear through wikilinks etc - perhaps we could add "descriptions of technical concepts" or something similar to the list of types of article that do not qualify for G1. Recently someone proposed that the deletion log should be altered to allow the user to filter by namespace, and the developers rejected it because of performance issues, so some of what you are suggesting may not be technically feasible. Searching for categories in deleted articles will do very little because most speedy deleted pages (including the one you discuss above) are not in any categories. Hut 8.5 21:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

DAMN EC! Hut covered most of what I want to say, except for that if something is, indeed, actually patent nonsense or giberish, a Google or other search wouldn't be necessary to verify. For instance, it would be pointless to do a search for an article which has the text "blue monkey green blue green monkey red monkey monkey key eat skull" or some similar string. Any case where the deleting admin wants to perform a search to check simply shouldn't be speedily deleted, regardless of the results of said search. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact that we delete thousands of pages every day (over four thousand this afternoon, for instance) is indicative of how important deletion, and CSD in particular, is in keeping this wiki from being silted up with sludge. I don't think you really realise how massive this operation is. Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't mean to speak for you here, but I think you see CSD as a minor process involving a 'clique' of perhaps a few dozen admins that does as much harm by deleting good articles as it does good by deleting bad ones. CSD is a process that involves hundreds of admins, the majority of whom don't even watch this page. They delete thousands of articles every day, a process which, if stopped or even significantly slowed, would destroy XfD under the additional load. Now, given that you get what you pay for, I think that that cadre of unpaid volunteers does remarkably well, both in accepting the complete lack of recognition when they 'get it right', and in accepting the sometimes-deserved-but-often-entirely-unjustified flak when they 'get it wrong'. To cut another hundred kilobytes out of this discussion, I'll jump to another question that we always ask when you start these threads: why don't you get involved yourself? Happy‑melon 23:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Just thought of something related to the sortable logs idea. Something could be whipped up on the toolserver that could search a users deletion log for items with a certain phrase in the title, such as namespace, (assuming it doesn't already exist), which would at least help make the process more transparent. Or an external script or some such could work on the same using database dumps, though it would be slightly out of date all the time. Would either of these ideas be tenable? lifebaka++ 03:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I and others have from time to time checked the log, either for all admins, or for specific users. and there are even a few of my fellow admins whose deletion logs I spot check on an irregular basis. In fact, when asking the mop, I said specifically that i wanted to be able to follow this up by examining the articles. The error rate depends on what one calls errors. I & others find there are about 5% - 10% of speedies that do not conceivably deserve to be speedied at all on any criteria, about half to a third of which would probably make it as articles. The reasons are divided between carelessness and deliberate refusal to follow policy. Sure, it would help to have better sort criteria. It wouldn't be easy to do this, because one can give any non-standard deletion reason. The only reason I decided not to follow this up in detail, to be perfectly frank, is the desire to avoid making enemies--and the knowledge that I too make mistakes, as can be seen from the occasional justified complaints on my user page. As for searching before deletion, i do it when I think it advisable to check myself. So I do not accept Lifebakas view that if I need to do a search , it isn't a valid speedy. I prefer to play it safe, and double check, just in case the article, while not indicating notability, might be about something notable, or whether a G11 or copyvio is worth rewriting. DGG (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Michael Hardy, you've complained many a time here when one or two ~~of the articles you've created has been deleted~~articles you are interested in has been deleted. However, you've left out the fact that the deletion has been reversed, the person who made a mistake has realised it, and people have improved. If you want to propose a concrete solution to a specified problem, please do. So far, all I can see is "tell people to be careful when speedying articles", which we already do, and "make a better way of searching through deleted articles", which would have to go to bugzilla. I'm really not trying to be dismissive of a reasonable grievance, but you are the only person who is regularly here complaining about a very small percentage of speedy deletions being wrong, and sometimes it's time to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Stifle (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I have NEVER complained here when an article I created has been deleted. In fact, I don't know of any case in which an article I created has been deleted. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Apologies. I have corrected the statement accordingly. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a legitimate point buried in here, which is that it would be great to keep a log of all speedy deletions which were subsequently reversed; this would help to inform policy discussion and be a way to teach new admins about common mistakes. This can probably be queried for pretty easily automatically or semi-automatically. We could have a subpage here and link it, and group them by criterion. Dcoetzee 10:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Ad hominem

I was surprised to find this as a criterion for speedy deletion:

Banned user. Pages created by banned users in violation of their ban, with no substantial edits by others.

That is a clear case of the ad hominem fallacy. If Adolf Hitler points out that 2 × 3 = 6, the fact that Hitler is evil does not diminish the cogency of his observation. If an article is in all other respects a valuable contribution to Wikipedia, then readers are to be deprived of good information on grounds altogether irrelevant to the merits of the article.

This criterion should be deleted. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Any editor, including an admin, is free to undo and re-do the edit, preserving a record in the edit history that the edit is worth keeping. The reason banned editor's contributions are deleted is without that, a ban has no meaning. Since we can't fine or arrest people for trespass like people do in the real world when they are banned, we silence them. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. It does not answer the objection I raised above as to why this rule is fallacious, and the ban is still just as effective in preventing the banned use from vandalizing pages or doing whatever other harm is to be prevented by the ban. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The criterion is longstanding and in line with the current wording and intent of WP:BAN. I'd personally love to see the way we handle bans changed myself, but the chances of getting a change here before a change there is fairly slim. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It's necessary to keep our cult status with the IRS. Wait, what? --NE2 04:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Imagine this scenario: a user who was banned for tendentiously pushing original research begins creating articles describing more of their original research. There's no CSD under which we could delete this, so it has to go through AfD, perpetuating the very same disruption and needless conflict that their ban was intended to eliminate. Since banning is already our last resort, without this criterion there's no way we can really prevent a user from disrupting Wikipedia. Dcoetzee 06:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, as with all articles, no administrator HAS TO delete such creations. If a previously banned user makes a good edit as a sockpuppet, we can keep it if keeping the edit is more positive than enforcing the ban. As Dcoetzee points out, the criterion serves its main purpose in cases where the banned user comes back to violate their ban by disrupting again. Regards So Why 17:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Quite. It is fallacious and somewhat disingenuous to assume that anything that could be deleted under a CSD, must be deleted. From WP:BAN: "By banning a user, the community has decided that their edits are prima facie unwanted and may be reverted without any further reason. This does not mean that obviously helpful edits (such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism) must be reverted just because they were made by a banned user, but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert". Substitute "edit" with "page" and "revert" with "delete" and you have the admins' version. We do not ban users because we believe they are fascist world-dominating megalomaniacs, we ban them because we do not trust them to claim that 2x3=6 without having an ulterior motive for doing so. Banned users have proven themselves incapable of making constructive edits, to the extent that we make a "formal revocation of editing priviledges". What does that mean, exactly, other than "your edits may be reverted on sight"? Happy‑melon 19:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Not quite true User:Everyme was banned not because of vandalism or issues along those lines, but rather because he was curt with people and didn't give a damn about civility. His edits were generally in good faith, but his attitude torpedoed him.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 19:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, which is where Happy-melon's first sentence and SoWhy's comment would apply. Mr.Z-man 23:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I had an idea about A7

Quite a bit of A7'd articles seem to be autobiographies. Could we just do a "db-autobio", which is essentially db-person (A7) with the phrase "and which seems to be created by the subject"?. Oh yes, I am not proposing a new Asomething, but rather, an extension of A7. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

As WP:COI mentions, an autobiography can be a conflict of interest, but is not forbidden; considering that A7 already covers the cases with no assertion of significance, I don't see any clear reason for a redundant extension. Dcoetzee 10:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Autobios can be written by notable subjects after all; A7 applies to all articles regardless of who authored them but applies only when there is no claim that the subject may meet the guidelines for inclusion. So Why 18:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

A7 autofill/deletion dropdown: opaque and shouldn't refer to "notability"

On the dropdown end, I understand there's a scrolling issue when the description is made longer (and something been added recently making it scroll wide again) but the deletion summary "CSD A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion" is fairly opaque. I think providing a more transparent and targeted deletion summmary takes prominence over a scrolling issue. Also, I just bet there's a workaround to make the dropdown box wrap in some way of otherwise be fixed so it doesn't have to be the same length as its longest included summary. Some coordination with WP:VP/T might get somewhere. Let's make it four summaries (as it used to be) with some real criterion tracking language, such as:

[[WP:CSD#A7|A7]]: Article about a real person or persons that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject
[[WP:CSD#A7|A7]]: Article about a company or corporation that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject
[[WP:CSD#A7|A7]]: Article about web content that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject
[[WP:CSD#A7|A7]]:Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject (or maybe this should be folded into the real person description, now that that has been done in the criterion)

With regard to the "other reason" autofill (where are these located in order to edit them?), when it works, which for me is rarely for reasons unknown, it is more tailored but it doesn't track A7, instead stating for bios "[[WP:CSD#A7|A7]]: Article about a real person, which does not assert notability" (emphasis added) and similar descriptions using "notability" for other A7 subjects. It is an oft repeated canard that A7 and notability are totally unrelated, but nevertheless, we should not be using that wording in the autofill. These should likewise use "importance or significance" language, tracking the actual criterion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I implemented a fix to MediaWiki:Sysop.css to prevent the box overflow, but it was reverted because it broke some browsers (see the history). Perhaps a useful line of enquiry would be why it "breaks in webkit browsers" and whether there is an alternative. I agree that the traditional "does not assert the importance or notability of the subject" wording is preferable, but I don't think it is necessary to have four separate options for the four types of subjects. The category that the article falls into is usually obvious from the title, and is certainly clear from the deleted page content; the only advantage to spelling out the subcategories is to reinforce the point that only elegible subjects can be deleted under A7, which although a recurring problem is not one that I think will be remedied by simple technical measures - it is as always a matter of education and correction of wayward admins. I would support the wording "article about an elegible subject that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject".

The autofilled "other reason" field is set on the CSD templates themselves; the |summary= parameter content is appended to a wikilink to the criterion and posted into a hidden span given the "delete-reason" id. That span content is picked up by javascript in MediaWiki:Sysop.js and the link in the 'delete' tab is modified to pass that content on to the 'other reason' field when the link is clicked. The same content is appended to the 'delete' link on the template. So simply navigating directly to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foo&action=delete, or getting there by any fashion other than clicking the 'delete' tab link, will not autofill the summary. How do you access the delete confirmation screen? To answer your question, though, in general to edit the autofill reason that appears when a particular CSD template is on a page, edit the |summary= parameter on that template. However, I think we should be trying to avoid continually changing these summaries, and particularly trying to keep them consistent, such that the deletion summary for a particular situation is similar or identical no matter how you reach it. Happy‑melon 17:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed both. I see that it would be difficult to tailor the autofill message because all the specific a7 templates draw from the summary in db-a7. I would prefer more narrowly tailored but can live with eligible subject just fine. Thanks for the info on where the autofill is. Now let's see how long it takes for the dropdown to be reverted based on the scroll.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

CSD'er of the Week

Some of you may have noticed that over the past month I've been awarding people the CSD'er of the Week award. This award is given for excellent work at CSD. The Award Criteria can be found here, but basically it is given for adhering to the policy and not relying upon "IAR" to delete articles because you can. So far, we've had four winners. I'm doing this with the hope of inspiring people to improve their practices. Right now, the award is only going to admins (as they are the one's who can do the most damage via deletion) it will be opened up to non-admins in a few weeks.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 14:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Issue the star, than CSD the awardee. NVO (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Change on removing CSD tag and hangon

This is big change. Did I miss the discussion on this? It seems like a poor choice that only an admin can remove the CSD tag if incorrectly placed. HANGON should be for the creator. If anything, it is already to easy to speedy delete an article that does not really meet CSD criteria. Dloh cierekim 01:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think everyone missed the discussion on that - or rather, there was no such discussion at all. I have reverted the change. DuncanHill (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Concur with revert. There really needs to be broad discussion before making such a change. Dloh cierekim 01:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. I don't see that many incorrect removals of CSD tags to warrant that change. If it's removed in good faith, it's typically not a non-controversial deletion. And if it shouldn't wait (G10, G12) then there's always AN/I, or a swift AfD. --Amalthea 01:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention that such a change to this policy only would create a policy inconsistency, since Wikipedia:DP#Speedy deletion says "Anyone except a page's creator may contest the speedy deletion of a page by removing the deletion notice from the page." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Since I joined Wikipedia (in 2005) editors were not supposed to remove speedy tags. As far as I can tell, someone just added a notice here changing that. That change had no consensus I could find. Naturally if the CSD is obviously wrong anyone can remove it. Otherwise we shouldn't be removing speedy tags from a page just because we don't think it should be deleted. It should only be removed if it doesn't meet the CSD. Prodego ^talk 01:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It's been this way since before I was an admin. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 01:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

... at least since July 30, 2007. --Amalthea 01:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

There's been some other discussion about this lately. My understanding is that anyone except the page creator can remove a CSD tag, but only if they contest that it is valid, and they are generally expected to explain their reasoning; the bar is higher than it would be for removing a PROD tag, but is not a prohibition. Dcoetzee 01:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

<<ec>>Naturally if the CSD is obviously wrong anyone can remove it. Exactly. If any user besides the creator removes the tag, deletion is too controversial for a speedy. Dloh cierekim 01:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Admins are grossly overworked (or so some of them keep telling us). The removal of incorrect speedy tags by non-admins reduces the workload on admins, as well as reducing the chances of an admin incorrectly speedying an article. DuncanHill (talk) 01:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

but but but... I thought the lesson of CSD was to keep re-adding the tag until SOMEBODY actually deletes the article...---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 01:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, that does seem to work :( DuncanHill (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The key thing is that only someone who is both knowledgeable about the CSD (which any admin clearing C:CSD must be), and uninvolved with the page (which any reviewing admin is also virtually ensured to be). It should not be open to the sort of removal prod tags are open to. Unlike proposed deletion, the CSD are either met, or aren't. Only someone competent to judge that may remove the tag. If you tag an article as U1 deletion, anyone can judge that is wrong. But if you tag a page as A7, or A9, or G10, etc, it isn't going to be so obvious. The idea is that you put it on CSD once someone who is highly experienced looks at it once, and then it is either deleted, or that reviewer sends it to AfD or prod. Prodego ^talk 01:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I've removed plenty of blatantly incorrect speedy tags, and will continue to do so. I don't need some trumped-up popularity contest like RfAd to tell me that I can understand the criteria. DuncanHill (talk) 01:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

And "and then it is either deleted, or that reviewer sends it to AfD or prod" - so no possibility in your view that the reviewer decides that it isn't a candidate for deletion at all? DuncanHill (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No, whoever reviews that CSD is obligated to send it somewhere. It could be prod, or AfD, but it has to go somewhere, assuming it is even mildly reasonable (e.g. not U1 on an article). Prodego ^talk 01:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No, that's nonsense. Are you saying that you send articles to AfD when you do not believe they should be deleted just because someone put an incorrect speedy tag on it? DuncanHill (talk) 02:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Any editor acting in good faith should be able to remove a speedy. Likewise, any editor who in good faith believes a speedy was removed in bad faith or by someone who was clueless should be able to restore it, but the restorer has a burden to explain why the removal was improper. Restoration is especially allowed in cases like blatant attack or proven copyvio. Issues of "good faith" or "bad faith" shouldn't be that common, and can be handled on a case-by-case basis not by rules within CSD. In any case, the deleting administrator should consider the history of tag additions and removals before deciding to delete the file. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with DuncanHill. ((are you an admin, if not maybe I should nom you.)) whoever reviews that CSD is obligated to send it somewhere. Absolutely not. If the tag is wrong, it's wrong. You don't have to be an admin to see that. I the original tagger thinks it should be deleted, it's up to them to PROD or AFD. Dloh cierekim 02:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Not an admin and would be first to oppose myself if nominated. But kind of you to suggest it. DuncanHill (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

←With respect to Prodego's concern that someone just added a notice here changing that, language allowing anyone to remove the tag was added here, in April 2007. It was changed to reflect deletion policy, to which it had been added here in March that same year, as a part of the language overhaul discussed here, evidently publicized in various forums as well as its own talk page. -Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If someone raises a valid concern about an article, but it doesn't meet CSD, you had better not just remove the deletion tag. Prodego ^talk 02:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Then the editor with the concern can go to AfD, the person removing the tag is under no such obligation. DuncanHill (talk) 02:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That isn't exactly a very helpful attitude. Prodego ^talk 02:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Prodego, what you're suggesting is patently unreasonable, though. If a db- tag is inappropriate, a reviewer should remove it. Sometimes I'll PROD or AFD it, but large numbers of pages tagged for speedy deletion just aren't viable candidates for any form of deletion. No one should ever take an article to AFD if they don't believe it should be deleted. Wily D 03:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you explain why the tag is removed? When I de-speedy, I try to explain it either in the edit summary, the article talk page, or the talk page of the editor who speedied it in the first place. This is easy in obvious cases, less so in cases like A7. With those I typically wind up slapping a PROD or AFD on it anyways if I think it should be deleted but there was an assertion of importance. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, in the edit summary typically. Very occasionally I'll chastise the tagger if they're absolutely out to lunch. But usually just "Poland is notable" when declining an A7 or whatnot. Wily D 04:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I usually put it in the edit summary. I notify the tagger, but not as often as I should. I may add a talk page note if it's something extra-ordinary. Dloh cierekim 04:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No if the page doesn't merit a prod/afd, in the eyes of the person who removed the tag, then they are not under any obligation to do anything. It is the repsonsibility of the person who tagged the article to monitor them. If they disagree with the opinion of the person who removed the tag, then they can tag the article themselves.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 04:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Which is what I said. If the tag has any merit at all, it should be proded or sent to AfD by the person who removed the tag. Prodego ^talk 08:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe your choice of words is throwing people off. If I decline a speedy request where an AFD would be reasonable, I'll make a note of it in the decline statement (typically the edit summary). But unless I believe it should be deleted, I must not nominate it. In a "Well, this might or might not be deleted at AFD, I am personally inclined towards keeping" case, I shouldn't nominate it - "Nominator isn't asking for deletion" is realistically a "speedy close" rationale at AFD. Wily D 12:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Where is this activity people are taling about?

Quoting from above:

Someone has told me:

CSD is an area often back-logged and I was working through a large list of such items.

Can someone tell me where this list is? I've looked over the CSD page and I don't find any obvious links to it. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

There's only the dynamic list at CAT:CSD#Pages in category. --Amalthea 23:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

But also above you see "Happy-melon" telling me that thousands of pages are speedily deleted every day. The "dynamic list" above does not back that up. I am also told by "VirtualSteve": "CSD is an area often back-logged and I was working through a large list of such items." It doesn't look that way from the page at CAT:CSD#Pages in category.

So what am I missing?

This came up after "VirtualSteve" speedily deleted Poisson hidden markov model on the grounds that it lacked enough context to identify the subject, even though a few seconds on Google or on Wikipedia would have identified the subject. After I was told of the page at CAT:CSD#Pages in category, I looked there and found the page titled Saint-Adèle tagged as giving insufficient context to identify the subject. That was nonsense—it was very badly written but I identified the subject in a few seconds and after deliberating decided to add a "mergeto" tag to it, pointing to Sainte-Adèle, Quebec.

Is the page at CAT:CSD#Pages in category really so horribly backlogged that it is unreasonable to expect an admin to take a few seconds to do that? To say that the page titled Saint-Adèle lacks sufficient context to identify the subject is unreasonable, just as with Poisson hidden markov model. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

CSD is only backlogged if you have rediculous standards of what constitutes "backlogged". Usually when articles sit in C:CSD for a long time, it's because they're too marginal to either accept or decline the speedy, and nobody wants to do either. Wily D 03:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

<ec>At the risk of sounding like a broken record, CSD's mostly come in two categories-- absolute rubbish, and likely rubbish. In the former instance, I generally delete as fast as my neurons process all the way through. In the second, I generally search for RS with V to try to save the article. And good save on the Sainte-Adèle. I think I looked at that and passed by as not speediable, but I did not follow through for the save. And like WilyD said . . . . Dloh cierekim 03:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I would imagine that the references above are to Special:NewPages, which has a massive backlog. I'd say a good half of new pages are speedy deleted, with about 10% incorrectly tagged, usually fixed by a "new page patroller" or admin. (EhJJ)^TALK 04:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

As before, Michael Hardy, people make mistakes. Most of them are caught and reversed, and really, harping on about them isn't going to accomplish anything. Stifle (talk) 09:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Special:Log/delete is a complete record of every page that is deleted, indeed that has ever been deleted, on en.wiki. Every log summary that includes a link to WP:CSD is a speedy deletion. As you can see, there are thousands of them. CAT:CSD contains a list of pages that are tagged for speedy deletion at the present time, but which have not yet been either deleted or kept - that is, pages where a CSD decision is 'pending'. Happy‑melon 10:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Err, yes. CSD is often busy but never actually noticeably backlogged. Wily D 12:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

"Stifle" wrote:

"really, harping on about them isn't going to accomplish anything."

That is false. Harping on them did acomplish something in March 2008. For about six weeks in February and March we saw repeated speedy deletions every day of articles that were deleted ostensibly because they were gibberish, when the real reason was that the were on mathematics. That ended abruptly when I wrote an emphatic complaint about it here on this page. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The numbers are, I believe, half guess-timation and half combing through database dumps of the deletion logs. If you'd really like some hard numbers, I suggest more of the latter. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Michael Hardy, back in August, during one of your many previous rants on this subject, I asked you for a list of these articles. You didn't provide one, so I looked up your original complaint. Copying my conclusion from then: "I read the entire section twice and all I see is a complaint about two articles being tagging (admittedly inappropriately) with speedy deletion tags. Both speedies were correctly declined. Only one of these two articles was tagged shortly after creation. In a separate complaint in May, an article was speedily deleted, and subsequently restored."

For someone who is interested in mathematics, I fail to see how two articles makes "repeated speedy deletions every day" over a six week period. (Yes, I did major in math, so I'm fairly certain that 2 is not equal to 6 times 7). And even if it was, there's absolutely no evidence of cause and effect between your complaint and a decrease in speedy deletion of mathematics articles. I learned about the dangers of assuming cause and effect in my statistics classes -- I would have thought you did, too.

If you had taken the advice of many, many editors here and spent more time working on CSD instead of rehashing the same old complaints, you would have seen that "patent nonsense" is a widely misapplied speedy tag across all kinds of articles, not just mathematics articles. You'd also have learned that the people who are misapplying this tag are not the people who are reading this page. The only conclusion I can draw is that you enjoy complaining and pretending to be the injured party more than you like doing anything constructive.

Those who know me will know that calling Michael Hardy out like this is totally out of character for me. But I've just had enough of this constant groundless whining. Yes, there are a tremendous number of things wrong with CSD. But we can't fix imaginary problems, only real ones.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for Michael, but one of the reasons I don't keep a list of bad deletions is that I believe I would be blocked for compiling evidence of admin incompetence. DuncanHill (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Being blocked for that reason and no other would be travesty. But I would certainly hope that if you claimed time and time again that there had been a rash of improper deletions which had only stopped because of your complaints, that you would be able to point out at least one when asked about it. Or stop bringing it up until you could come up with one. And the thing is, Michael Hardy is an admin -- he could restore those deletions. If they are truly bad deletions, would he be that worried about being de-sysoped, but not be at all worried about bringing the subject up time and time again? It just doesn't pass the smell test. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, well there was a rash of speedy deletions of articles about Fellows of the Royal Society. There were speedy deletions of recipients of the George Cross (which got an admin not just threatening me but lying about my deleted contributions). All were on AN or ANI. DuncanHill (talk) 22:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Are these Michael's math article deletions, or is this on a different subject? I'll gladly take a look at them if you want, but you'll need to be a bit more specific (article names, AN dates, something. I'm not going to slog through pages and pages of archives to find these for you.)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You have my permission to keep a record of my bad speedy deletions if you like. Wily D 23:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I kept no records of the events of February and March. Maybe I can find some of it. "FabricTramp", I have two questions for you: (1) what makes you think I haven't done those restorations, and (2) when did I ever express any worry about being de-sysoped? Michael Hardy (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for Frabrictramp on the second question, but for the first this would tend to suggest that you weren't performing restorations related to your complaint in March. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Michael Hardy, I don't have any reason to think you did or did not restore the articles in question. Mainly because other than your original complaint, where the articles were not deleted at all, I've never seen you mention which articles they are. You might be reading more into my reply to DuncanHill than is really there.

I also never said you expressed any worry about being de-sysoped. DuncanHill posited that a fear of keeping a list may have prevented you from doing so. Besides the fact that I've never read anywhere that you had such a fear, I was also trying to explain that such a fear isn't a logical explanation. Still, I await some concrete examples of a problem, and am even more anxious to see some evidence that the problem "ended abruptly when I wrote an emphatic complaint about it here on this page".--Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No I didn't, I said that a fear of being blocked has stopped me from keeping such a list. DuncanHill (talk) 01:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for assuming that you were offering your own fear as an explanation for Michael Hardy's actions. Since you inserted it into this thread, I thought it was about the same discussion.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The words "I can't speak for Michael" were intended as some kind of clue, obviously far too cryptic. DuncanHill (talk) 01:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

My experience has been that when someone starts out with "I can't speak for...", they continue on to do just that. Again, my sincere apologies. Just goes to show that humans still rely so much on non-verbal cues for meaning, and writing is easy to misinterpret.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

While I am not worried about being desysopped for criticizing other admins, I am worried about losing their good will, and I am also concerned about not appearing overly combative. I therefore do not go out of my way to look for bad CSDs, though I usually do comment on particularly unjust ones i encounter. If I were to devote myself to finding them, I am sure I could do so based on limited probes. I estimate then number that I personally think are actually wrong are about 5 to 10 percent of the total so, and the number where there is no possibility of rescue at all, possibly twice that. Looking back over them, I could probably find some reason to contest some of my own: I will delete many a G11 where i could, if I had infinite time, rewrite the article from scratch. But I agree totally with the comment above, that the real problem is inadequate patrolling. I've has a little more insomnia than usual recently, and I have been doing some new pages work, sometimes from recent, sometimes from older, and there is a great deal of material getting by that needs either deletion or drastic fixing. We need a better way of doing things than patrolling at random. DGG (talk) 02:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Although NPP is a bit off subject here, I can say for certain from my work at WP:DEP that the change to allow pages to be marked as patrolled made a huge difference in reducing the compost that slips through the cracks. Still not perfect, but the difference was dramatic.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Random checking is not working as well as I'd like. Dloh cierekim 02:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

In my research for Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Overturned_speedy_deletions it appears that most bad deletions are either located by the users who created the article that was deleted, by users who encounter a salted page and wish to recreate the article, or by admins who stumbled across a page they expected to exist and encountered a suspicious deletion record. Random checking is taxing since most (I'd say at least 90%) of speedy deletions are valid or at least defensible. Dcoetzee 07:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:CSD#A7 Needs to be more Useful

There's been some past discussion on it, but this has not yet moved forward... so I'm bringing this up again with the hope of leading to actual policy change. Why does WP:CSD#A7 only relate to "real people, organizations (e.g. bands, clubs, companies, etc., except schools), or web content? This seems a completely arbitrary collection of things which may not be notable, and our efficiency at getting rid of poor content is hampered as a result. For instance, why can "web content" fall under this category, but not "magazine content?" Why can I mark a person or company under this category, but not a pair of pants, a hamster, a song just made up, a slang word used in a particular school? Instead, let's make A7 apply to any entity that is obviously not notable. Seems silly that we can tag a non notable person as A7 and watch it be speedily deleted, but an article about a new dance step needs to be WP:PRODed or WP:AFDed. Thoughts? FlyingToaster 23:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Relevant past conversations: [10] [11]

Short answer: Because there was no consensus for it.

Long answer: Because those were the only instances that we agreed to that admins should be able to judge whether importance was asserted. Please note that this does not mean notability but something less, whether something is notable or not is never decided, only that there is no indication that it might be. And as usual leaving an article for PROD does not harm us at all, so there is no reason to increase the scope of A7 just because we have to PROD now. Leaving a bad article for five days does not really hurt us but it allows others to expand on it, so why change it? So Why 23:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, you are right that this is not an exact call for notability. But I don't see why non-admins can be expected to be good judges of whether there is indication for whether people are important, but not a pair of pants. My main complaint with WP:PROD for articles which are obviously not notable is that in five days everyone forgets, the original author deletes the tag, and the article either stays or stays way too long. FlyingToaster 00:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, A7 is not "this subject isn't notable," it's "this article doesn't point out why the subject is notable." That said, I've never considered the exact mentioned items to be a limiting factor when deleting; if someone posts an article consisting of "My dog Ralph is a golden retriever," then yes, I'm going to delete it as an A7, exact verbiage be damned. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, EVula. And I do find that the majority of admins do the same. But every now and then I get a comment like "cannot delete under A7: subject is a hamster and not a person" that makes me sigh. It's a place I'm happy to WP:IAR: I just wish the rules were a bit better so 1. we don't have to always IAR and 2. the very few people that do not IAR here slow the process of deleting bad content. FlyingToaster 00:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. A7 has nothing to do with notability. --NE2 02:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The article about the hamster is probably deletable as vandalism or A3. But the reason why we allow admins to do people, websites, groups, and companies is because these are the ones that are likely spam/vanity candidates. Personally, I would tighten the criteria for A7, as it is often abused. A7 does not require that the subject meets our notability requirements, in fact the threshold is explicity set lower than notability, all it has to do is assert importance/significance.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 02:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason is that those three items - real people, organizations, and web content, get a lot of "novelty articles" and by requiring people to at least bother to assert significance, it gets some of them to read the notability criteria and not bother writing articles about non-notable subjects. In the cases where that doesn't work, it provides a speedy deletion which in turn deters other novelty writers. The reason schools are exempt is because so many schools, including almost every government-run school offering high school diplomas and just about every accredited post-secondary school offering degrees, are "inherently notable." Well, not really inherently notable but you would have to be willfully blind to not be able to find enough of an indication of notability to pass AFD. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Criteria for Speedy Deletion A7 for more discussion. The reason other types of articles are not A7 is because they aren't abused as much. As for non-notable pets, non-notable places like "My house is a 2-story house in Springfield where me and my family live" etc. that do not assert notability, usually there is another criteria they fail, but if there is not, PROD works nicely.

By the way, when in doubt, don't speedy. For A7 and A9, this also means when in doubt of the actual notability of the article, don't speedy. If Johnathan A. Doe doesn't assert notability, but you think he could be notable, don't speedy. Either improve the article or tag it {{notability}} and perhaps PROD it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

davidwr - So it doesn't bother you that articles like The Tale of Gregory Lovell fall under none of the criteria, and thus will stay up until their prod expires? Gotta say it seems bizarre that if the writer had mentioned their story was on a website or blog, it could be deleted as "web content." As it stands... we have to wait, and I do think Wikipedia is ever so slightly worse the longer articles like this are left standing. FlyingToaster 07:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. By waiting for the prod to expire, you give the author a chance to salvage the article. This means the author doesn't feel bitten. They had a chance to save the article. Also, while in the current stance, it deserves to be deleted, but does it do the project any harm? No. Now what if there was more to the story than we know? What if there is more to the story that actually makes it notable or interesting? The problem with a lot of articles is that it isn't as cut and dry as some people think... especially, during the first few hours of an articles existence---when most articles are tagged by NPP for CSD. I would rather have that article on WP for 5 days, than to delete a similar article 2 minutes after creation only to discover that the article would have been worth keeping, but we've now lost an editor. Keeping that article prodded for 5 days, does not harm the project. It's prodded so outsiders will know it doesn't meet our standards, thus it doesn't damage WP's reputation. Thus it does no harm. If it does no harm, why not give the author the benefit of the doubt, and afford them every opportunity to salvage it? And if, as you suggest, "Wikipedia is ever so slightly worse" for having this article, I think the cost of deleting and losing a potential contributor is worse.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 08:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Nicely put. As I, too, said above, keeping it for 5 days does not do any harm and allows editors time to rescue it. It only harms us if it violates BLP/copyright or spams but in those cases we can G10/G11/G12 it. There is no need to ignore the criteria under IAR just because they don't fit if the alternatives to speedy deletion do not actually harm anyone. I think it is very disturbing that some people think that we need to get rid of bad articles on sight...but cannot explain why the project is harmed if they aren't. Regards So Why 09:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't bother me at all. If we had a bunch of volunteers who were good at AfD who stepped up and said "I'm not much of an article writer but I'll participate in AFD" then we wouldn't need A7/A9 at all, we could PROD and AFD all of these. Personally, I'd like to see Speedy Deletion split into "gotta zap it" stuff like copyvio and attack, and a slightly slower "it won't kill anyone if it lasts 24 hours" 1-day-prod which would be a dated tag like dated prod. This would give editors at least 1 wake/sleep cycle to address the problem.

I agree with the idea of a new PROD - one that's a little slower than a speedy but still doesn't allow dumb articles to remain up there for long. However, I still don't see any reason why certain articles are excluded from A7. There's no reason why an article about something that doesn't assert its notability - whether or not it's a person or group - shouldn't be speedied. Speedy deletion is there for a reason, and we shouldn't keep bad articles around for the sake of not biting the newcomers. How is speedying an article about a corporation any different, bite-wise, than speedying an article about a word someone made up one day? Graymornings_(talk) 00:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The restrictions on A7 are there for a reason, as explained; I think it's okay sometimes for an admin to - at their own risk - invoke the snowball clause and get rid of a clearly useless article, but attempting to codify this process is notoriously tricky. Another reason that A7 is restricted to only certain topics is because those cover a good majority of new articles that are missing assertions of significance; the remaining ones are not so numerous as to overwhelm other methods of deletion. Dcoetzee 09:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's say we have an article We have a band in our garage and a couple of daughter articles Our band once burned its music on a CD. The former gets {{db-band}}ed. The latter gets {{prod}}ed, deprodded, listed on AfD, "debated" for five days, then deleted. WTF?

If the album was a notable Grammy winner, major chart hit, etc, the band would be notable too. A notable band can have a non-notable album but the reverse is a bit hard to imagine. Prove me wrong: list some encyclopedically notable albums where the band does not pass notability criteria. I dare you :-). The rule "speedy the band, AfD the CD-ROMs" is kind of backwards to begin with. 88.112.34.160 (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, A9 could be used to remove the albums, assuming they have no claim to importance beyond being albums by said band. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed change to I10 (Useless media files) to respect copyleft

As of today, I10 is worded as follows:

Useless media files. Files uploaded that are neither image, sound, nor video files (e.g. .doc, .pdf, or .xls files) that are not used in any article and have no foreseeable encyclopedic use.

But a .xls file that OpenOffice.org Calc can open may contain the original data for a graph in PNG or SVG format, and some copyleft licenses used for images here and on Commons require that the original data be preserved in an editable form. So I hereby propose an amendment to clearly exempt a file's original data from this criterion:

Useless media files. Files uploaded that are neither image, sound, nor video files (e.g. .doc, .pdf, or .xls files) that are not used in any article, are not the transparent copy or source code of a file used in an article, and have no foreseeable encyclopedic use.

Any objection? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 14:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather see a more general assertion such as "encyclopedic use, and are not required for license compatibility", if anything at all. I'm not aware of this being a widespread problem - is it even an evident problem, or is it a theoretical exercise? A note on the file description page explaining the situation and why the file needs to be kept is probably more useful (and likely to be more successful) than a rather technical addition to the criterion here. In a notification template you have the ability to explain the situation in plain english (including how its existence thereby has "encyclopedic use", as required) and also add tracking categories etc. Probably a better solution than playing with the criterion to proscribe individual exceptions. Admins are supposed to have common sense, after all. Happy‑melon 17:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to start up anything but there was a strong indicator from a few admins and editors that terms such as "encyclopedic use" were frowned upon as it would relate to a situation such as this. In this case, as currently worded, to be considered "useless" the file must not be an image, sound or video file and it must be unused. The other qualifier is the questionable one because it allows one person alone to determine the file has no "encyclopedic use". Yes, details can be given in the actual notification, but when the file is tagged it should also be very clear what files should be included and what file should not be. That's why I would like to see the wording of have no foreseeable encyclopedic use removed and am for for wording along the lines of what Damian Yerrick has suggested in order to start to zero in on what a files contents must contain in order to be not considered part of "Useless media files". Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see this as necessary. In the described situation, the file clearly does have an encyclopedic use. On top of that, I don't think .xls files can be uploaded here. Stifle (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No, they can't, and there are a grand total of 8 left. I can't see the point of making a change in policy that could only possibly impact 8 pages. Hut 8.5 21:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this change, and my concern here is not so much license compatibility as editability. If someone for whatever reason chooses to build media content using proprietary software, it's really convenient for someone else who has that software to be able to load it and make small changes. The alternative of making changes directly to the media is frequently nearly impossible. And it's not realistic to mandate that all media is created with free software; people use what they know how to use, and some features are only available in proprietary software. Another good example of this is images generated by a program, where we always want to have the source code available in case we want to generate it differently. However, the restriction on extensions of uploads makes this sort of thing problematic. Dcoetzee 21:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the intent of the change, but how many such pages are there which this would cover? If the number is fairly small, {{go away}} would be a simpler solution than changing the criterion here. Additionally, I prefer Happy-melon's more general wording, as there are licenses other than the GFDL and GPL we might have to worry about (most likely in the case of fair-use images). Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

There should be a less drastic way to do this

SOPHIA (European Foundation for the Advancement of Doing Philosophy with Children) was tagged for speedy deletion on the grounds that "It was created by a banned user in violation of his or her ban, with no substantial edits by others. See CSD G5." It has been pointed out that such deletion is also required by WP:BAN.

So at a time when its edit history looked like this:

(diff) 02:48, 14 January 2009 . . Michael Hardy (Talk | contribs | block) (401 bytes)
(diff) 00:20, 14 January 2009 . . Michael Hardy (Talk | contribs | block) (415 bytes)
(diff) 21:34, 13 January 2009 . . Sticky Parkin (Talk | contribs | block) (409 bytes) (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G5). (TW))
(diff) 21:03, 26 September 2007 . . CmdrObot (Talk | contribs | block) (395 bytes) (sp: a open→an open)
(diff) 12:53, 15 September 2007 . . SmackBot (Talk | contribs | block) (394 bytes) (Unrefernced to refimprove where appprpriate and/or general fixes.)
(diff) 19:33, 6 September 2007 . . SmackBot (Talk | contribs | block) (396 bytes) (Date/fix the maintenance tags or gen fixes)
(diff) 14:49, 4 September 2007 . . Melsaran (Talk | contribs | block) (379 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Epic consultants to last revision by Melsaran; Copyvio from http://sophia.eu.org/About%20SOPHIA/about_sophia.htm.)
(diff) 13:39, 4 September 2007 . . Epic consultants (Talk | contribs | block) (20,169 bytes) (Description of SOPHIA and the constitution of SOPHIA)
(diff) 15:29, 3 September 2007 . . Melsaran (Talk | contribs | block) (379 bytes) (wikify)
(diff) 13:38, 3 September 2007 . . IPSOS (Talk | contribs | block) (370 bytes) (create stub)

the edits by others being quite minor, I deleted it and then recreated it as a new article, saying in the initial edit summary

(Recreation of article without the banned user who created this in the edit summary. Minor contributions were made by CmdrObot, SmackBot, Melsaran, and me.)

That way the banned user gets no credit, and that seems to bring it into compliance with the policies.

But obviously the exact nature and times of the edits by others are no longer available to non-admins.

The best solution would seem to be to simply delete the banned user's identity from the edit history, so that it would say "BANNED USER" instead of "IPSOS", making the latter information available only to admins.

I propose that we ask developers to create the technology needed for this.

Opinions? Michael Hardy (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Where are the credits to the original author? There's not a lot of contribution in this example, but isn't damnatio memoriae a direct violation of GFDL? NVO (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it's problematic with respect to the GFDL, and it should be discussed at WT:BAN since the criterion is only a consequence of the policy there, and your proposal applies both to page creations and other contributions. --Amalthea 19:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand the concern about credit to the original author. The policy says the page may be speedily deleted if created by a banned user. That would allow deletion followed by recreation by another user. That's what happened in this case. The policy appears to be intended to deprive banned users of credit for their contributions. What I'm saying is we need a better way to do that, so that other contributions can be fully an accurately reported while nonetheless complying with that policy.

Another alternative would be to change the policy. But I think this would not be the right page for that; it would have to be done at the talk page for WP:BAN. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Surely the intent of the policy is to ban a person from editing, not to breach copyright by allowing their edits to stand without attribution. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Retaining or recreating verbatim content but removing the attribution in the edit history is clearly a breach of GFDL. I can't see anything in WP:BAN that says that speedy deletion is required. Under WP:BAN#Enforcement by reverting edits it says "this does not mean that obviously helpful edits (such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism) must be reverted just because they were made by a banned user" and "if other editors have unwittingly made good-faith contributions to the page or its talk page, it is courteous to inform them that the page was created by a banned user, and then decide on a case-by-case basis what to do". Phil Bridger (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Michael's example is a blatant misunderstanding of the policy. It is never okay to oversight edits where the content from that edit is being retained; only reverted edits can be oversighted under the GFDL. Under G5, you could delete this entire article, since the edits by others are not "substantial", but not only the banned user's revisions. If the article is restored, all revisions should be restored, including those of the banned user. Moreover, WP:BAN does not "require" deletion of anything; it merely authorizes it. Dcoetzee 23:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the edit history of the SOPHIA article because of these copyright concerns. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarify

The policy says an article by a banned user MAY be deleted speedily, NOT that it MUST be deleted speedily.

This raises two points:

Someone requests speedy deletion on the grounds that its an article by a banned user with no contributions from others. Should they be told that that's not a good enough reason? After all, it says "MAY", not "MUST", so there should be a reason beyond just that, before it SHOULD be deleted. With the SOPHIA article, no further reason was given. When I declined to delete speedily, the person who requested it asked my why, and repeated that it's by a banned user. It's as if I had the burden to show it should not be deleted, even though he had never given a reason to delete it, except that the rules say I MAY delete it. That the rules say I MAY delete it is not a reason why I SHOULD delete it.
After the admin declines to delete speedily, is that act of declining enough of a "substantial contribution by others" to the article that other admins may no longer come along and delete without AfD? I'm inclined to say it ought to be so, and I think the rule should clarify that point.

So the rules said that I MAY delete speedily, and the person who pointed that out gave no reason to delete except that—no reason why it SHOULD be deleted. That's enough reason to decline to delete if it's a good article that should exist. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

May basically puts it at the mercy of the administrator, and the speedy-tag becomes a request to judge the article not the validity of the claim, which in this cases is self-evident. The administrator should ask "is it better for the encyclopedia that I delete this or keep it?" One solution is to rewrite it from scratch and delete the banned editor's edit, effectively WP:DENYing him recognition while keeping the information that was in the article. Other solutions are to let the article stand as is or to delete it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that WP:DENY is about denying recognition for vandalism. Generally speaking, if someone has declined a speedy, that is not a "substantial contribution," but it does provide evidence that a speedy deletion on those grounds would be controversial and should not be pursued further. Occasionally admins will wipe out an article that has a declined speedy because they either didn't review the history or disagreed with the reviewing admin, but I disagree with this practice. Dcoetzee 06:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I had never heard of this particular reason for speedy deletion until I came across this particular article with a "speedy" tag, which I deleted from the article, and then I got a message on my talk page asking why I had done that despite the page's being a creation of a banned user, phrased in such terms as to suggest that what I had done was surprising, unreasonable, and unacceptable. I found this all quite alarming, to the point that it led to my starting this present thread on this page. So should I take the comments above as implying I'm not the one who was unreasonable? Michael Hardy (talk) 06:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

No, you were fine. An admin always has discretion about whether to delete or decline, regardless of whether or not the criterion is technically satisfied. From the policy: "Deletion is not required if a page meets these criteria. Before nominating an article for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere or be handled with some other action short of deletion. If this is possible, speedy deletion is probably inappropriate." Dcoetzee 06:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I generally agree: If a page is helpful for the encyclopaedic content then it shouldn't be delete just because it was created by a banned user. WP:DENY helps to discourage vandalism, with banned users it depends on why they were banned. That's why the criterion stresses that it's only for page creations in violation of their ban. So from taking a glance at the arbcom case and the article, I'd say you were quite correct to deny deletion: he apparently was banned in parts for spamming, but I don't see that that was the motive behind this article. --Amalthea 12:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Overturned speedy deletions

To help provide some useful feedback on why some speedy deletions are overturned, for the purpose of discussion and training, I've started a new subpage called Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Overturned_speedy_deletions. This page lists articles whose speedy deletions were overturned in DRV, organized by criterion, along with their delete/restore date and summary, link to DRV discussion, and brief summary of why it was overturned. I've only done maybe a couple weeks of DRVs, let me know what you think. Dcoetzee 12:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. It could be useful to get an idea of our most problematic criteria, if trends emerge. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Moon, if you haven't looked at the study linked at the end of my name you might want to... it also has some other "surveys" that I've done on the subject.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 01:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I actually tried to participate in that one, but I think I must have done something wrong, since it didn't look like my comments made it. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You probably partook after I started collecting the results then... I basically copied everything that was on the results... I think I did surveys 1 and 2 on December 31 and 3 and 4 on January 1st.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 23:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, maybe so. I don't quite remember when I did it. I figure I must have done something wrong. When it comes to computer stuff, it usually seems to be something I did wrong. :) I think your survey results are very interesting, too. Things that help us see what's working and what isn't are a good idea. In this particular case, we get a good idea on what might be some of our more contentious deletion types, too, since these obviously were challenged. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The next step, is to do a similar survey, but this time with all categories... and a little more scientific. This survey confirms that there is a problem, but the results cannot be applied to the total population of codes. The survey didn't include any copy vios or advertisements---both of which seem to have issues as well. The problem with copy vios is that we can't recreate them elsewhere, so that makes it problematic as far as getting non-admins involved.00:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The survey confirms that some small number of speedy deletions were performed for erroneous reasons, and some even smaller number should likely not have been deleted at all. Is this really a problem, though, when viewed against the much larger number of speedy deletions that are performed? The survey examples were chosen for being controversial, so they really tell us nothing about typical speedies. They're useful as examples to show admins and speedy taggers, to help clarify what the categories mean, but I'm very reluctant to draw any broad conclusions about how well the overall process is being performed from this. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

How irrelevant can you get? "Typical speedies"? Why are typical speedies relevant here? Why can't we agree that TYPICAL speedies are deletions of crap that should be deleted and THEN begin to discuss the issues without talking about those? Twelve people were killed driving through this intersection last year because of flaws in the way traffic is regulated, but is that really a problem when viewed against the 5000 others who drove through without incident? The fact is, we can't tell what's getting deleted, and the sarcastic assertions that we can find out from the deletion logs have long since worn out. And in most cases no sarcasm is intended at all, and that's worse; that's total cluelessness. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

An erroneous speedy is easily reversible. A traffic fatality isn't. So a certain level of imperfection in speedies may be acceptable when the same level of imperfection in automotion may not be. Can we avoid the hysterical language, please? Typical speedies are relevant because by far the bulk of administrator effort on speedies goes to the typical ones. If we wanted to avoid erroneous speedies, we could simply abolish all speedies and prods and make everything go through the slower but more reliable AfD process. But the net effect would be harm to the encyclopedia because the amount of harmful junk that avoids deletion due to a more cumbersome process would go up relative to the small number of gems that might be saved. Our goal should not be the perfection of the speedy process, it should be understanding the costs and benefits of the speedy process in order to best serve the higher goal of making the encyclopedia better. I don't see your "all speedies are bad" attitude as helping towards that goal. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Dave, take a look at the G1/A7/A3 'surveys' I did on my own. Those were done without looking for controversial cases. I was looking for specific cases, and I was trying to avoid loading up on one admin (EG there was one admin who everytime I saw an A1, I cringed.) But you are correct, the study was not scientific, but the problem is, that it didn't take me too long to find them. I might be a different issue if I spent scores of hours combing through edits over the past year, but those samples came from 3 or 4 nights worth of deletions---and only a few of them. When you review a score of deletion, and a good percentage of those deletions are questionable. Then we have a problem.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 17:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Why only those that were overturned in a DRV? Why not include those that were undone by another administrator because the deletion was unjustified? Michael Hardy (talk) 03:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I've started including some of those too - the DRV ones are ideal because they've had input from a number of people who agree it was in error, and they're easier to find. I've been trawling through deletion logs though and I now have several not listed at DRV. Dcoetzee 07:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

what is scary is the thought that these are just the ones that are overturned... there are a large number of items that are speedily deleted that shouldn't be, that are also unworthy of being recreated.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 07:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that not all of these represent incorrect deletions; in some cases they were restored because someone promised to improve it or new facts came to light. They really deserve careful study. Dcoetzee 07:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Which tells me that some of them were probably deleted WHILE the author was working on said article, which is where a lot of people get turned off of WP.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 23:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Toward transparency

We now have Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Overturned speedy deletions.

We do not yet have any log of pages tagged for speedy deletion and their outcomes. We have only the page at CAT:CSD#Pages in category listing those CURRENTLY proposed for speedy deletion. There is the deletion log (not searchable!) but there's no record of those proposed for speedy and declined.

I've also sent Brion Vibber this email:

begin copy of email

Hello. I wonder if this searchability issue can be dealt with:

The log at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/delete

is not searchable.

I.e. I cannot enter some search terms to identify which articles containing certain

(1) words or phrases or

(2) category tags,

either

(1) in the body of the article, or

(2) in the title, or

(3) in the edit summaries, or

(4) in the list of users who have edited it, or

(5) in the links _to_ the new article, or

have been deleted during a time period that I specify.

Only such searchability can make it possible for those with expertise in a particular subject to see what's going on with deletions that they would recognize as having meaningful content where a non-expert would not. What happens repeatedly is a badly written new article on a topic worthy of an article is speedily deleted by an admin who says it's incomprehensible gibberish.

If I point out in such a case that five seconds of Google searching, or often of searching within Wikipedia, would identify the subject, I am lectured about how unreasonable it is to ask anyone to do that when there's a huge backlog of new articles.

Speedy deletion proposals like this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saint-Ad%C3%A8le&oldid=263979110

or this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poisson_hidden_Markov_model&oldid=259124759

just seem irresponsible.

For about six weeks in February and March 2008 several articles were deleted every day on the grounds that they were new articles on mathematics. That ended abruptly when I wrote a strident complaint at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion, but that is not a systematic or permanent solution.

Is it possible that that log page could be made searchable in a way that satisfies points (1) through (5) above?

Thanks. -- Mike Hardy

end copy of email

Michael Hardy (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, if the speedy is proposed and declined, I believe nothing has gone awry; the very reason deletion is not given to all users is that regular users are not expected to be familiar enough with policy and/or mature enough to exercise due caution in deleting articles. For the same reason I omit articles from Overturned speedy deletions that were restored almost immediately by the admin that deleted them (I think we can forgive an admin for changing their mind after further thought). Searching deletion logs would be great, but full-text search functionality like this is notorious for performance issues, since there's no full-text index on the summary fields - Brion may be likely to object on those grounds. Dcoetzee 22:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that nothing has gone awry if all that has happened is that a speedy has been proposed and declined.

I also thing nothing has gone awry if a new article has been created. So should we erase all record of that too?

There far too much that's opaque about the whole process; I want to get a picture of what goes on. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that's exactly what happens: new page creation is logged in the recentchanges table, which is systematically purged after 30 days. The ability to search for new articles is lost, you have to look through articles individually to see if they were created 31 days ago. Since there is no enduring log of new page creations at all, the deletion process is actually more transparent. Happy‑melon 23:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Obviously I know there's a deletion log. I'm getting awfully sick of repeating over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over that that obviously doesn't do it. Try reading what I wrote above. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

My comment was entirely in response to your question "So should we erase all record of [new pag creation] too? Apologies if there was any confusion. Unlike an increasing number of other editors I still read everything you post to this page. Happy‑melon 08:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the deleted page log will be made searchable (although you may possibly get a search tool for sysops). Either way, bugzilla is the place to be for this. Stifle (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You could download the logs dumps and search through them on your own machine. It's not an ideal solution, as the dumps aren't up to date, but it's at least better than nothing. I agree with Stifle that bugzilla and/or WP:VPT are probably better places to ask for searchable logs. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Creating a toolserver tool that allows searching log entries would probably be feasible. As the toolserver has less load, longer-running queries aren't as much of a problem. Anything else wouldn't really be possible without significant changes to MediaWiki. Outgoing categorylinks and pagelinks are deleted from the database when a page is deleted, so you'll only be able to see pages linking to the deleted page. The page table entry is also deleted and I presume all the search engine indexing is as well (I really have no idea how the lucene search extension works, so I don't know for sure). The edit summaries and history is still kept in the archive table, though its probably not searchable for performance reasons, I don't believe its accessible from the toolserver for security reasons, and its not downloadable in database dumps. Mr.Z-man 17:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

MfD for Overturned speedy deletions

If interested, please consider commenting at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Overturned speedy deletions. Dcoetzee 22:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This seems to have been SNOW kept. Stifle (talk) 09:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Closing school-A7 discussion as no consensus

It's been open for a month and idle for a week, so I closed the discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Criteria for Speedy Deletion A7 as no consensus to change, schools remain ineligible for speedy deletion under criteria A7 but of course remain eligible under other criteria. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Criterion for Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy?

Seeing a bunch of SD requests citing Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy these days, I wonder whether we should create a new U4 for "Userpages consisting solely of information about a child that might be potentially dangerous to the user in question and where there is no other version to revert to". Thoughts? Regards So Why 00:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

No, because it should probably go to WP:OVERSIGHT instead. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes contacting admin-l and getting specific edits deleted is faster than oversight, and sometimes it's all that's needed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The only case where this would apply is when the article is being written solely for the purpose of outing someone. Broadly speaking, I think this already falls under G10. I might support a general criterion along these lines, but I fear it may be applied overbroadly - for example, to articles about child actresses that happen to include information about their family. If you could link some of the out-of-process speedy deletions you're referring to, it would be helpful to see if they were truly valid and sufficiently numerous. Dcoetzee 00:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I misread the question, you were proposing a user space criterion. I do not support deletion of information like this before contacting the user involved. They may be well aware of the risks, and it's condescending (children can think for themselves). If you contact them and they wish to delete it, U1 covers that. If there's no response, then I think oversight is the best course. Dcoetzee 05:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you give examples and show why existing procedures, including existing CSDs, trimming and deleting specific edits, and oversight, are not adequate for each of those examples? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Technically, these userpages do not entirely fall under the oversight policy, nor any written CSD. In line with what Dcoetzee said, I don't think there should be a CSD for it, otherwise every child editor will find their userpages deleted by pedants. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, all criteria are essentially "can be deleted" not "have to be deleted", so any admin can just decline it. My point was that sometimes you have pages where there is personal information by children who are unaware of the risks and not often active and I've seen a bunch of WP:PCHP-deletions which I think should rather be covered by a criterion rather than an ArbCom decision... So Why 13:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Give notice before making bold non-trivial edits

This is a policy page folks, stability is important.

I support the last two bold edits but it would've been nice to at least have a few hours' if not a days' notice on a policy page. Just because I think my edit will be greeted with resounding applause doesn't mean it will be. Edit-revert-discuss is fine for most articles, essays, and maybe guidelines, but policy pages deserve more care. For substantive edits, I'd suggest announce, wait a day or discuss, edit, hope there is no reversion, discuss more if there is instead. For trivial edits like minor rewording/grammar/typos etc. please just make the edit, nobody will revert you and we'll all silently thank you. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

No argument from me - I decided to rewrite instead of revert because I'm hesitant to outright revert what looks to be a good (and relatively minor) edit, but I think CSD deserves discussion on anything substantive. Dcoetzee 02:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I disagree with the change and would like see it reverted. If only the title is an attack, then the course of action should be: Moving to an inoffensive title and then deleting the redirect as R3. I do not see any reason to delete perfectly good content just because of a title we can change and get rid of easily without having to delete the rest. Regards So Why 13:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense, actually. No sense deleting when you can repair the article with a move. Dcoetzee 23:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that's implied in the new wording. The section is called "Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage or threaten their subject or some other entity (e.g., "John Q. Doe is an imbecile")." [emphasis added]. However, if you want to revert, we can discuss it. It's new enough to claim "no consensus/reverting to discuss." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

T1 restored

I have restored CSD T1 (divisive and inflammatory templates), which apparently was removed by Dcoetzee as I believe there was no consensus to remove it in the thread provided (Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_32#CSD_T1). A significant number of people voiced objections with insufficient numbers to match the move to remove it. I highly suggest listing a motion to remove T1 either at WP:VPP or WP:CENT if you believe it should be removed. --slakr^\ talk / 20:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently I also had to undelete the deleted {{db-t1}} and revert the removals to all of the CSD info templates. Dcoetzee: In the future, please do not delete CSD templates you've deprecated yourself within moments of removing the CSD from WP:CSD. I would suggest, instead, TFD. Otherwise, it makes it literally impossible for anyone but an administrator to completely revert your actions (thereby inhibiting the consensus-building process), while rendering the category de facto unusable by non-administrators. --slakr^\ talk / 21:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Er, I saw only one objection in the cited thread, without any justification provided. There was discussion over a period of weeks here, on the page intended for discussion of revisions to this policy, and a long waiting period. The only reasoned objections were to extending T1 to a general criterion. That looks like clear, strong consensus to me. I'm glad to open the issue up to wider discussion, but I really strongly believe consensus today is against T1. I would be glad to put the templates through TfD; I saw this as noncontroversial housekeeping associated with the repeal of the criterion, but if TfD is okay with it I am. Dcoetzee 21:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Usually significantly more than a few people people supporting a change are needed to claim any sort of quorum for adding or removing stuff from CSD. On *fD, a small handfull might be enough to establish consensus to keep or delete, but CSD has proven significantly more demanding before large changes stick. From what I'm led to believe, T1, in part, emerged due to problems with canvassing for causes (the divisive part) as well as rallying ideologies. Yes, a template can be used to specifically attack another editor, in which case it would also fall under G10; however, T1 is not limited to attacks. One of the examples I ran across was a "This user supports pedophilia" userbox, which, while not an attack, is definitely inflammatory and non-conducive to harmonious editing. I think that was the rationale behind adding T1 instead of lumping it with G10. Some pages I found where there's stuff about this:

I mean, I personally don't really care either way, but I think more discussion is needed before claiming consensus to undo history (especially if there actually was objection).

--slakr^\ talk / 00:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm well aware not all T1s are G10s (a point I had to remind a few people of) - I just think the remaining cases are better handled at TfD. Anyway, I'll start a new discussion and advertise to address your concerns. Dcoetzee 01:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is WP:CSD#A1 restricted to very short articles?

I occasionally look through the speedy deletion category looking to rescuing articles that deserve more consideration, but I sometimes come up against articles where, in respecting policy, I have to remove WP:CSD#A1 tags from articles that have no context but are not "very short" as required by the criterion. I don't see any reason why articles of any length that fail to provide sufficient context to identify the subject of the article shouldn't be speedily deleted. Can anyone justify the "very short" get-out? I've also noticed that the inclusion of this wording means that many new page patrollers concentrate on the "very short" aspect and tag under this criterion even if context is there - I mean articles such as "AAA is a village in BBB" or "CCC is a book by DDD". Removing the "very short" would make it clearer that context is the important part of this criterion, not article length. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It should be the lack of context that is important, not the length. FlyingToaster 23:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't quite agree with the first part of the logic (an article of decent length should be long enough for you to figure out what it's about with or without overt context), but you're spot on for the second bit. Removing the text should avoid confusion. If there's no objection (which I doubt there will be much of) we can make the change in a few days or so. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

If the article is more than a sentence or two, then it would have enough that you should be able to identify the subject. If you can't. then it is possibly wp:nonsense But make sure you know what WP:NONSENSE is before noming something as such. G1 is the category that gets the most abuse.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 02:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Phil Bridger needs to give some examples of the kind of articles he means, just to show if its possible for a decent length article to have no context. Epbr123 (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Either way, I support a change to the criteria. If an article has no context, it should be deleted for having no context, regardless of its length. How is "very short" defined, anyway? Epbr123 (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any examples to hand, but I have seen example of quite lengthy articles written about subjects that exist in some fictional universe or belief system whose subjects can't be identified because the context isn't provided, even though the language used is quite coherent, so they wouldn't qualify as patent nonsense. On thinking further I accept there are probably not enough of these cases to make speedy deletion necessary, but I still think that the wording of the criterion should be changed so that taggers concentrate on the lack of context rather than article length. It seems that many of our new page patrollers don't have the attention span to read past the first few words of a criterion, so the important part should be presented first. How about

Articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Example: "He is a funny man with a red car. He makes people laugh." Context is different from content, treated in A3, below. This will usually apply only to very short articles.

Phil Bridger (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's an example that I just came across of an article that isn't very short but provides no context. Phil Bridger (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, this article doesn't fit A1... just because you are not a Muslim and don't understand it doesn't mean that it doesn't tell you exactly what it is in reference for. It is instructions on how to Performing Hajj & Umrah---religious ceremonies. The article is, however, a how-to manual and thus should probably be AfD'd, but right now I don't have time to do so. But, this is the an example of why A1 doesn't work on long articles.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 01:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

But it doesn't tell us what "Ameen Aziz" is, which is supposedly the subject of the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 01:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's a better example of what I mean. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

On thinking about this further I agree that speedy deletion should be restricted to very short articles, as people familar with the subject may be able to identify the context as they have done with my second example. I still think that the wording of the criterion should be changed to to empasize that context is the most important part, so if there are no objections I'll change the wording in the next day or two to

Articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Example: "He is a funny man with a red car. He makes people laugh." This applies only to very short articles. Context is different from content, treated in A3, below.

Phil Bridger (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I like that. I only just looked at your second example, and found it quite easy to figure out who this was about (mostly because it was copied from wikiasite:degrassi:Marco Del Rossi). I'm sure that there are examples where an article that isn't very short won't allow identification of the subject, but they should be rare enough. --Amalthea 15:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
No objection from me to this new wording which makes no policy change but emphasizes the most important part of the criterion. Davewild (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This is an "overall" comment and it sort of ties in to another topic in another area but they really do relate. Using the example of "He is a funny man with a red car. He makes people laugh" I get the concept and why it is used but if that were an article it would somewhat "identify the subject of the article" - it explains that the subject is a male who is funny, drives a red car and that people find him humorous. While that explanation may sound silly it is not too likely that an article would about be an un-named subject. Pretend for a moment that Dane Cook only says "Dane Cook is a funny man in Los Angeles. He makes people laugh." In which case the quesiton becomes an issue of notability more than simply a short article. How many different ways could that be dealt with? First, at least for me, I would try and find out who "Dane Cook" was. I may tag it with {{stub}} and ask for sources. If I could find none I might PROD or AFD, but if I was thinking of CSD than A1 would not come to mind but A7 would. The reason being is that the article clearly says that the subject of the article is a male who was funny, lived in L.A and who people found humorous. What the article would not do is "indicate why its subject is important or significant." (unless one feels that being a funny male living in L.A indicates importance or significance, which is possible) Now if it said "Dane Cook is the most popular stand-up comedian in Los Angeles. He makes people laugh." and I could not find any sources I might tag it {{hoax}} because the use of "most popular" does "indicate why its subject is important or significant" but no information to back it up could be found. CSD wise I might think G3 as a possible hoax. For "real world" - I do not remember the name of the subject but last year there was an AFD on an article that simply said something along th elines of "Subject is a singer and came in 18th in a contest". Even though the article did not "meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability" nor did it "document that the criterion is true" it was not deleted because of the Criteria for musicians and ensembles guideline, number 9, that says "Has won or placed in a major music competition." The guidelines may be secondary but it is clear that saying "subject is a singer" is not enough, but adding on info about the contest is. A one line article is short enough to fall under A1 but how often does a short article not "identify the subject"? Even saying the "subject is a singer" tells us what the subject is/does. So if an article has a subject almost any descriptive text will somewhat explain the subject. And that being the case than I think G3 or A7 would come into play. For an article to really meet A1 it would have to also be, somewhat, a G1. "Dane Cook" article with text that says only "Blue", for example, may describe his humor - but unless there is also text that first says "Funny man" one could not deduct that so if "Blue" were the only text than it could be a page "consisting purely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history" but I would say A1, as currently worded, works too. If the criteria is supposed to include articles such as the "funny man" example than maybe the wording of "lacking sufficient context" needs to describe "sufficient" along the lines of "no meaningful content or history", or at least saying that use of general descriptive words such as "funny", "red" or "man" are not enough. Combine with "He is a funny man with a red car. He makes people laugh" as an example that would meet the criteria and "He is the funniest man in Los Angeles with a red car. He makes people laugh" as one that would not. 19:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soundvisions1 (talk • contribs)

My personal interpretation is: If there is enough context so that you, I, or someone with sufficient expertise can reasonably be excpected to find sources on the topic, it's not an A1. An example from Balloonman's CSD survey that I find an A1 candidate (though he disagrees) is "Salle d'oragé" (French for "Hall of storm"):
The salle d'oragé is a very mysterious place. It is located in an almost abandoned school, linking salle 1 to salle 2. Both 'salles', or rooms, are located under science labs, but also both link to two underground experiment labratories.
Many creations have come out of these salles, the two most notable being the E.P.I.C. duo, [removed name].
It has details, but no one can figure out from that where that place is supposed to be. It could be a fictitious place from a novel or film, or it could be madeup by some bored student. It's impossible for anyone but the author to expand it, cause it doesn't give enough information to identify it. --Amalthea 19:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(reply to Soundvisions1) I agree that that's a pretty poor example, but it's not part of the change I'm proposing here. It's already in the criterion. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Amalthea: I think that is a good example but I would not say A1. It is not fully "lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article". I read it as the subject is the name - "Salle d'oragé" and that is a "mysterious place" located in an "almost abandoned school". The bigger question is how to look for information, as you say. I would start by asking if it is the full article though - it seems to edited with, perhaps, the key "who" removed: "the two most notable being the E.P.I.C. duo, [removed name]." This might be a game description as well. But I do fully agree that "It could be a fictitious place from a novel or film, or it could be madeup by some bored student" and if that is the root of A1 than the wording needs to be clear in that. (i.e: the lack of descriptive terms which would indicate clearly 'who', 'what' or 'where' would make an article an A1)

Re: Phil Bridger - True but your change does not really do much except remove the "very short" part so it includes any length article. Because, article wise, I have tended to view a lot of music related articles I can see the omission being applied to many of those simply because several have no context for the article. The best way I can describe it is an article on an album and all it says is "Third album from the subject" and contains a track listing. My gut instinct almost every time is to ask "And why is this notable?" I do get that "notability" does not equal "context" for this criteria but for a "very short" article at least one could understand it more and see there is no "notability" asserted. (Although we can not use any CSD for article on album outside of A9 it was the first example the came to me) A longer example might be to look at something from December 2005 - 2112 (song). If you have no idea what 2112 was, or who Neil Peart, Geddy Lee or Alex Lifeson are a person could wonder what this is. There is no mention that a band called Rush made this album or why this "song" is even notable. But even if you remove the first line/paragraph of the article and remove the bands members names, because the name of the article is "2112 (song)", it already gives the article text that reads "The suite tells a dystopic story set in the year 2112." some context. Look for something called "2112" that is a song and chances are you will find somehting that leads to the band Rush. And even going back to the example given of wikiasite:degrassi:Marco Del Rossi (Or Marco del rossi (character)) I can see how an article that starts off with "Season 2 Marco was first seen competing with Jimmy and Spinner at a dance competition" might be confusing at first but if you look at the name of the article you can gather some information and in scanning the actual article the use of the phrase "season" implies it has to do with some sort of T.V show. And the line that should be a very helpful give away is "Marco graduates as the valedictorian of the Degrassi class of 2006" That would tell me I should look for "Marco del rossi" and "Degrassi". The first thing that comes up is List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters. But I could add "season 6" or some of the other names to a search.

So just to be clear - ~~Oppose~~ (See below) - "very short" should stay because an article that is not "very short" will, more than likely, have some sort of context and clues as to where it may go. Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

But my proposal does still retain the "very short" wording. It just moves it to after the wording about context, because experience has shown that with the current wording many people tag very short articles that do have context under this criterion. Phil Bridger (talk) 01:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

D'oh! So sorry. I saw that it went from "Very short articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article" to "Articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article" and my brain did not see the wording move. I think also I saw that change and the Marco Del Rossi dif showed your reason for the denial of the A1 as "is not a very short article" so I thought your proposal was meant for allowing of longer articles to be nomed. In the words of Emily Litella - "Oh, well that's entirely different. Never Mind." But my "funny man" concept still stands though and at some point feel that example needs to change. :)

Support. Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Amalthea has hit the nail directly on the head. It's the inability for any editor to collaboratively work on the article, to expand it or to fix it, because it is impossible from either body or title to identify what its subject actually is, that is the important factor. (See also User:Badlydrawnjeff/Field guide to proper speedy deletion#1. Context for a similar view.) However, the length limitation is there so that people don't abuse speedy deletion and start marking proper articles for deletion just because their introductions lack context (i.e. the context is inferrable from the whole article), for which the correct action is not speedy deletion, but cleanup, or the application of the {{context}} template to request cleanup from someone else.

They're really both important factors in the criterion. Swapping them around probably won't do any good, although I have no objection to it. This is because I don't think that the abuse of this criterion is because people don't read beyond the first words. I think that the abuse of this criterion largely results from its automated use via menus and the like, which the order of the words in this explanation will not affect.

On the gripping hand, "very short article lacking context" is a phrase that has become entrenched. So even if you change the order to "article lacking context that is very short" you might not see a change of order in actual usage.

By the way, I last used this criterion at Home Suggestion. It wasn't "very short", but since the article qualified under two other criteria (vandalism and irredemable incomprehensibility) as well, it seemed worth the stretch. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 11:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed change to intro, G8 and to Redirect: Spell out that reverting is good, redux

I'd like to run this by one more time, it's the consensus that came out of Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 32#Proposed change to intro and to Redirect: Spell out that reverting is good. Stifle (talk · contribs) suggested a more radical rewording to parallel CSD:F7. Dcoetzee (talk · contribs) said the change was unnecessary, I think it would be helpful. travb (talk · contribs) suggests an RFC but I don't think that's necessary but I'd like some quick feedback on that. I've demoed the change in this edit, which I self-reverted.

“

Changes to intro:

Deletion is not required if a page meets these criteria. Before nominating an article for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, reverted to an acceptable earlier version, merged or redirected elsewhere or be handled with some other action short of deletion.

Changes to G8:

Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page, such as talk pages with no corresponding subject page; subpages with no parent page; image pages without a corresponding image; redirects to invalid targets, such as nonexistent targets, redirect loops, and bad titles; or categories populated by deleted or retargeted templates. This excludes any page that is useful to the project or which can be restored to an acceptable earlier version, and in particular: deletion discussions that are not logged elsewhere, user and user talk pages, talk page archives, plausible redirects that can be changed to valid targets, and image pages or talk pages for images that exist on Wikimedia Commons.

Proposed changes to Redirect section:

Redirect pages that have useful page history or acceptable previous versions should never be speedy deleted.

”

If I don't get any objections or further requests for an RFC in the next day I'll put it in. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC) Clarification - the underlined text above represents new text. It will not appear underlined after insertion. This diff mistakenly underlined the text. 01:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I support the changes to the lede and oppose the changes to the intro. criteria must be unambiguous and the attached wording is ambiguous. G8 includes a litany of pages which it clearly applies to and a corresponding list of those for which G8 does not apply. I don't think we need a change that says "or if you think page XYZ might be useful". Protonk (talk) 04:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oops. I'm silly. I was reading the clause before the additions. Hmm. Protonk (talk) 04:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok. Scratch my misreading up there. However, I want to stick to my position. I don't think that G8 needs that proviso. Presumably it would mean to apply to redirects where the redirect could be changed to something useful or a talk page which was blank (or what-not) at the time of deletion but served some function in the past. That strikes me as common sense. We don't need it in G8. Protonk (talk) 04:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I actually think it would be not just useless but actively damaging, in pulling attention away from the other equally important prerequisites for speedy deletion. I've seen my share of bad deletions where the admin failed to look at the history, but I think there are better ways to address this problem. Nevertheless if consensus is for the change that's fine with me, not a big deal. Dcoetzee 04:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
So if something is common sense we shouldn't do it? I've seen it stated here that "you can't legislate common sense", but that's just dogma; I see nothing to recommend it. And Dcoetzee should be specific about the "better ways". G8 isn't the only thing that could profit from some explicit common sense. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- No. If something is common sense, we should do it, not outline it in policy necessarily. It should be noted that reverting to a previously acceptable version is a good thing and preferable to deletion. Where is is immediately helpful is in the copyvio deletion procedure--we note that many copyvios can be "fixed" by reverting to a past good revision. How or where that specifically applies to G8 is a mystery to me. As for the "common sense" question, I hope this is clear. Policy shouldn't suggest non-sensical action, it should also comply with practice. That doesn't mean that we enshrine remedial or redundant information in policy. It is a good idea to check to see that you are on the right page before deleting it or that you are on the right user page before blocking a user. It would be insane for policy to suggest that we not do so. But it would be redundant for policy to suggest that we do so. Policies and guidelines should be clear, terse and helpful. Legislating common sense results in policies which are dense, unhelpful and longwinded. I don't see how holding this view is dogmatic. Protonk (talk) 06:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  - There are administrators who NEED to have it pointed out to them that if they see a page that is identical to a passage from a copyrighted book or web page, they have no business posting an accusation that says it is "unquestionably" a copyright violation (sometimes the person copying the book to Wikipedia is the copyright owner and merely neglected to indicate that fact). There are administrators who NEED to have it pointed out that if an article appears to them to be patent nonsense, it may be just a badly written article about a subject they don't know, and 30 seconds with Google would make that clear. There are administrators who NEED to have it pointed out that if 2400 Wikipedia articles link to a particular article and those links were put there by winners of Pulitzer Prizes, winners of Nobel prizes, professors at Harvard and MIT, famous writers, etc., then maybe that indicates that the article is not just crap, but may be just badly constructed and salvageable. There are administrators who NEED to have it pointed out that if an article was created by a banned user in violation of the ban, or by Adolf Hitler, that it may nonetheless be a good article that should be kept, and that CSD does not REQUIRE its deletion. I've seen all of these things happen, with the administrator in question citing CSD as justification. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
    - Do you at least concede that we could put these things in policy until we are blue in the face and that administrators and editors would ignore it with about equal frequency? Or are you intent on suggesting that were we to state all of these things (some of which are already stated in the policy, the drop down menu for deletion, the deletion mediawiki interface text, etc.), the decrease in mistakes/malfeasance would be significant enough to merit the resulting increase in size and unwieldiness of our policy pages? Protonk (talk) 06:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Michael is correct, but it's irrelevant to our discussion here. I think david's changes do not hurt but rather make things more clearer, even if it's only common sense. After all, pointing out a common sense option does not change the fact that some admins and users alike tend to ignore the CSD criteria but it does also not hurt it. So where is the problem with david's suggestions? So Why 13:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It just doesn't belong in G8. I'm cool with it being in the lede of the policy and in the redirect section. Protonk (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

My question is that how would adding "reverted to an acceptable earlier version" relate to a "blatant copvio" or "Recreation of deleted material" nom for example? I think either of those one could "consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere or be handled with some other action short of deletion" but not "reverted to an acceptable earlier version" For example the "blatant copvio" tag gives editors a week to make changes but it is my understanding that one should not simply "revert" the article to address the issue. So I don't think adding that wording does much in the intro, on the other hand why could it simply be added to any individual criteria as needed? Look at G10. It closes with "...and if the page is an article about a living person it should not be restored or recreated by any editor until it meets biographical article standards." Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

We revert on blatant copyvios all the time. The usual scenario is: Someone takes a non-copyvio article and replaces it with or adds a significant amount of copyvio text. We don't delete the article just because of that, we revert to the non-copyvio version. I don't see what G10 has to do with anything, attack pages are pretty much the only CSD criteria where BLP would be an additional issue. Yes that technically applies to all deletions, but in practice for CSD it almost exclusively applies to G10. Reverting to a previous version makes sense for almost criterion, it would be rather redundant to add it to each one. That said, I don't see why G8 is so special that it would need extra emphasis there. Mr.Z-man 20:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I was basing my question on the wording found on {{Copyviocore}} that says "Do not edit this page until an administrator has resolved this issue" and to create a temp version to work on. However if that is not the case, and I know it is another subject, but, we should remove that wording and/or add that the wording to simply revert (using the proposed wording here "acceptable previous versions") if possible on the actual template. Other than that:

Support. Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm reversing my position on this proposal. I was under the impression that the proposal was merely to underline certain phrases in the policy, which I viewed as counterproductive. In fact it's adding new text. Provided that the new text is not underlined, and this was only used to emphasize the additions for the purpose of discussion, I support the changes. Dcoetzee 21:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Why shouldn't image pages for images on Commons be deleted? Stifle (talk) 09:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)