Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 43

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45→Archive 50

R3 - Clarifying "recent"

It seems that Fastily and I have very different interpretations of what constitutes a "recently" created redirect. My view is that anything older than a couple of weeks cannot be "recent" when applied to a redirect on Wikipedia', whereas they assert it the term "recent" is completely flexible and "can refer to values ranging from a few minutes to a few years."[1]. I interpreted this as referring to "recent" in the context of redirects as well as generally, but apparently I am mistaken (see below).

What is the community's view on this, and should the criterion be changed to be more explicit? Thryduulf (talk) 18:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC) [strike through and words in italics added 20:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)]

Where the hell did I say that recent = a few years in reference to R3?? I only used that as an extreme example to express my belief that the definition of recent is flexible! I know it's hard, but please, please, please do not change the context of my words! Please amend your statement immediately. -FASTILY (TALK) 19:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
That was my interpretation of your comment in this edit. I have amended my statement above to make it clearer that this is my interpretation of your statement and that you disagree with it, although you could have been more polite in your request.
Please could you therefore clarify what you regard as "recent" in the context of R3? Thryduulf (talk) 20:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Much better, thanks. I'll post a comment on "recent" with regards to R3 shortly. -FASTILY (TALK) 21:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I would like to see this clarified too. The criterion that I have been declining is over 2 months old. But really it should be whether damage is caused by deleting the redirect, eg attribution from the world outside Wikipedia, links from old versions of articles, or used renamed images. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
It's not just attribution from outside Wikipedia, general links to our content as well. The reason for only allowing "recently created" redirects to be speedied is that the longer a title has existed the greater the likelihood of it having incoming links that would be broken (Link rot). [2] is a concise explanation of why we should take preventing link rot seriously. There is obviously a balance between this and redirects that cause confusion or other problems - but that is something that cannot be determined by a single admin and is why we have RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

CSD F7b

Courtesy notification: as WT:NFC is having quite an extensive discussion at the moment on acceptable and not-acceptable uses of non-free historical images, I have asked them to review CSD F7b, added here in November 2010, as well as my understanding on some points of its interpretation. The full discussion is at WT:NFC#Must images of historical importance be "subjects of commentary" before we can claim fair use?, with a section near the bottom specifically for F7b. Jheald (talk) 08:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of non notable future events

Lately there have been a lot of articles created about non-notable future pay-per-view sporting events; in particular I have been looking at ones that are the property of a company called K-1. If you have a look at the {{2011 K-1 Events}}, there are many articles without sources or completely sourced to the company's own websites. The articles are being put up ahead of time in most cases, and they don't qualify for speedy under A-7 as A-7 does not apply to events. By the time we get the article through a deletion discussion the organizer has already taken advantage of our servers and resources for at least a week of free advertising. Then there is a big obstacle with getting them deleted as all the fans show up at the AFD and make non-policy-based arguments for keeping; for example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KOK Europe GP 2011 in Lublin. Well, my point is that perhaps we should have a speedy deletion criterion for non-notable events, to help take the burden off the AFD process for those articles that do not actually qualify for Wikipedia articles. Could events be made eligible for deletion under A-7, or a new speedy deletion criterion created? Has this been suggested or tried in the past? Any commentary or advice on how to get the ball rolling on this idea would be appreciated. Thanks. --Diannaa (Talk) 19:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not recall ever seeing a CSD criterion for non-notable events suggested. I thought they were covered under WP:FUTURE, though?   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 19:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
WP:FUTURE works well, WP:CSD#G11 covers a lot of stuff too, and as for a week of free publicity, please keep in mind that the event was displayed with a big, shiny, prominently displayed deletion template on top, and I believe marketing experts will tell you that it says, "cheapster." However, I believe if a speedy deletion criterion covers events, it should be an extension of A9, which should be reworded as "conditional no assertion of importance" or something like that. If there's no assertion of importance for the event, and no article on either its predecessors or its organizers, then it should be speedied. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 20:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
There has been discussion to include a number of aspects of WP:NOT into CSD and each time they have been rejected for good reasons (hence the policy says that meeting WP:NOT is not a criterion for deletion). The AFD you mention is a perfect example for why it should not be a speedy deletion criterion. You might call those who argue to keep it "fans" but they are established, good-faith editors and as such entitled to argue against deletion, even if you think their arguments are not policy-based. But the decision is not yours to make. None of those articles are created in quantities that AFD and PROD could not handle them just as well. Even if they were, it's impossible for a single admin to determine whether something is notable at a given point of time and it's unlikely to be uncontroversial in most cases (the AFD is a perfect example for this). Even if we created a criterion like this or expanded A9 as Blanchardb suggests, the articles you mention would not be covered since K-1 is a notable company and as such the fact that they create an event will constitute an assertion of importance/significance. If such a page is really only created for advertising purposes, G11 can handle it already. If not, speedy deletion is not the tool for it. Regards SoWhy 20:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure that I agree that if a company is notable all of their actions and events are therefore notable. --Diannaa (Talk) 21:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Non notable future events should be deleted. However, notability has always been rejected as a CSD because it is inherently too subjective. CSD require to have a criterion that's fairly easy to spot. CSD A7 does not cover articles lacking notability, but a failure of an article to assert any claim to importance. If an article does assert importance - then whether that assertion is sufficient to meet notability is a matter for AFD (or prod). Hence "Joe Smith is a joiner" is a speedy "But Joe Smith is a professor of linguistics" is not - since that's an assertion of importance (even if it is found to fail WP:BIO).

If we were to add "events" to A7 (and that's perhaps worth considering) then it would be on the same basis. An article on a future church jumble sale would be speedied, but an article on Slammiversary IX would certainly not, since it does make a claim to notability. Similarly, any event claiming to be e.g. a regional sporting contest would be making a claim (even if one that fails guidelines and would probably end up with a deletion at AFD). I'm wondering whether it is the notability guidelines that need working on, rather than the CSD. If the guidelines are clear, that will discourage people creating article which they can be told are likely to be deleted at afd.--Scott Mac 22:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Scott, for your remarks. That is exactly what I am wondering: If "events" could be added to A7. Perhaps Slammiversary is notable, but it is a bit of a stretch to assume that every kick boxing event is notable, even if K-1 is the organiser. For example, was KOK World GP 2010 Battle of the Dnieper notable? Every athlete on the fight card is red-linked. No assertions of notability are present in the article. By the way, the two links provided for this article do not give any info about the event; they are links to the organiser's home pages in English and Ukranian. --Diannaa (Talk) 22:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC) If some of the more straightforward ones could be speedied, then it would take some of the burden off the people who work at AFD. --Diannaa (Talk) 23:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
The problem with speedy, is that it should be only used where any reasonable admin looking at the article would say "yup, this meets the criterion". KOK World GP 2010 Battle of the Dnieper fails that test. It may well be entirely non-notable. It may well be it would fail afd (although I see no one has tested that). But, as an admin who knows nothing about the subject, it is quite impossible for me to assess that. This is why lack of notability has consistently been rejected as the basis for the creation of new CSD.--Scott Mac 23:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
What about some sort of CSD criteria that prohibits sporting, musical and other entertainment event articles until the events actually take place? I don't really see the need for any sort of future event cataloging, aside from perhaps political/sociological events such as the G8, and that (among others) could certainly be excluded. If companies are, in fact, simply creating these pages for the sake of a weeks free advertising, they would not have the same incentive to create articles on minor events if they had to wait, as it would not bring them any actual advertisement. On the other hand, the fans of concert or show X would still be able to include notable events and would likely have an easier time finding reliable sources since third parties would have presumably covered it after the fact. As it stands now, WP:V and WP:RS are problematic for smaller events as they are generally self sourced, but as pointed out, very difficult to delete. This would essentially be an integration of an already established WP guideline into CSD. Noformation Talk 04:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
@Scott, I am sure you must know the existing A-7 does not require the admin to make a judgement of whether or not notability exists; the criterion calls merely for a credible assertion of notability to be present. I am not suggesting that notability be a speedy criterion; just that events be subject to A-7 same as bands, people, organisations, etc. --Diannaa (Talk) 05:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy incubate

What I propose is a Speedy incubate for future events (WP:FUTURE) and breaking news reports (WP:NotNewsReports and WP:Notability (events)).  Editors keep trying to deal with these at AfD and DRV. This doesn't work, because the notability of the topic changes at the time of the instantiation of the event, or during the on-going course of events for the breaking news story.  The speedy incubate would have a date and time when the article comes out of the incubator.  For events the time of release is obvious, for breaking news reports previous discussion suggested a default of two weeks to allow weekly news magazines time to weigh in, but this date would be determined by the admin.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Can't be done. Not all future events die at AFD. The notion that an event article on the next Olympic games can't be created until the day it opens is absurd. Speedy is for classes of articles that ALL ALWAYS get deleted via consensus. It is must not be used to circumvent in areas where consensus takes each on its merits and keeps some. Witness Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton. Any rule that would speedy (delete or incubate) this, or large international sporting events is clearly not going to fly.--Scott Mac 07:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
International events, along with other criteria, could be excluded. Noformation Talk 05:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
A better idea for this is to use it on articles created by new editors if the article doesn't amount to more than one line (or doesn't imply significance/importance) in order to give them a chance to flesh the article out more. In this way, we are not being so "bitey" to the new user, and would actually appear to be more "hand holding" to them in the process.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 06:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
The speedy incubate could have multiple criteria, for example (1) future events, (2) breaking news events, (3) premature articles.  One helpful aspect of the speedy incubate for future events is that there is no judgement call as to when the article gets moved back to main space.  Once back in main space, it is fair game for an AfD nomination.  Since the current community consensus is to allow 2012 Summer Olympics, we would need some qualification to leave such articles in main space and subject to normal AfD nominations.  Unscintillating (talk) 10:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
One issue is that if the article is moved to the incubator it will be recreated again. This often happens with proposed albums by famous performers. These article appear at the first rumour, and get deleted over and over until it is verifyable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • First I'd like to thank Diannaa for bringing this up, as it's always been somewhat of a gray area in my own mind. I likely can not add much in the line of guidance as I've always just tried to read through the "deletion guidelines and policies" and try to understand the spirit of them; rather than to memorize and quote verbatim the details. My understanding was that "future" events were somewhat discouraged unless there was something that made them "notable" in the present. Such as the current feud between The Rock and John Cena with respect to next year's Wrestlemania. Basically I'm simply a reader here trying to gain a greater understanding, and only wanted to acknowledge the posting. I do much appreciate the "incubator" idea, and it seems like a very logical approach. — Ched :  ?  19:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • an informal criteria I use as a guide for notability in all sorts of events is whether there are notable participants--in unfamiliar fields, whether any of them have independent Wikipedia articles, But that's not a criterion for deletion at speedy, but rather AfD (or prod) .I've just !voted delete on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KOK Europe GP 2011 in Lublin for this reason, and am about to nominate KOK World GP 2010 Battle of the Dnieper similarly. My rationale is that if none or almost none of the participants are notable, any pre-event references found are overwhelmingly likely to be more publicity. DGG ( talk ) 14:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

New Criteria - completely unencyclopedic

How can I propose a new criteria for completely unencyclopedic material, that any reasonable person could tell it would not survive an AfD? Too often I have to take stuff to AfD because no criteria fits, case in point Feeling like you do not fit in CTJF83 08:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It has been proposed several times, but gets shot down because it so open to abuse. With regards to this specific case, it falls under A3 as "chat-like comments". Yoenit (talk) 08:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
But that's why we have admins review the CSD tag before they delete it. It seems like an obvious category to me, save AfD/PROD time. CTJF83 08:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I was unaware of "chat like comments" as part of A3 CTJF83 08:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
"Unencyclopedic" is just too vague and too open to interpretation, and could be used to tag things which are way out of the scope of CSD. Yes they'll get reviewed by admins who can reject bogus ones, but the CSD backlog gets too big as it is without opening the gates for a flood of new unsuitable nominations -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm with Boing on this. "Any reasonable person could tell it would not survive AFD" means making a judgement call, and describing good faith articles as unencyclopaedic could also lead to overly harsh templating of editors. There are several good reasons why our default deletion mechanism is not CSD but AFD, allowing a CSD criteria of unencyclopaedic would come close to reversing that. ϢereSpielChequers 13:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I'll pile on my agreement here. "Unencyclopedic" is completely subjective and thus not a good criterion for speedy deletion. Regards SoWhy 16:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh, alright, CTJF83 21:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
But I am totally adding the redlink above to WP:DAFT. So something good came out of this after all. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

CSD:A7 for musicians and bands

I'm engaged in a difference of opinion with User:Epeefleche regarding the application of A7 to musicians and bands. Our discussion on Epeefleche's user Talk page is here. The articles under dispute, which Epeefleche nominated for A7 and which I declined, include...

There may be notability and verifiability issues with some of them, but my opinion is that that is a job for PROD or AfD, and they are not valid CSD:A7 candidates. Your thoughts would be appreciated. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

  • First of all, I would say that many of Epeefleche's deletion nominations in recent days have been fine as far as I can see, so we're discussing a subset of those here, and this needs to be viewed as a general issue among editors. Looking at the articles above, Bashar Al Shatty claims that he released two albums that "were a success both in Kuwait and in the Arab world making him one of the most successful Arab singers", which is sufficient claim to avoid speedy deletion. Ahmed Soultan claims two albums released and an interview in some sort of publication - again there's likely significance here, so not an A7. Shams (singer) claims 4 albums on what look like commercial labels, so not an A7. Maryem Tollar claims a track used in a major film. These may or may not prove to be notable subjects, but I believe these are not good candidates for speedy deletion. These are indications of significance at least. PROD or AFD would be more appropriate in such cases (a search for sources and article improvement where possible before PROD or AFD is, of course, a much better option). There is a general problem with speedy nominations among a lot of editors, so let's not focus too much on one here. The guidance is that any plausible claim to significance or importance is sufficient to avoid speedy deletion, and I agree with that completely. Many editors mistakenly confuse 'importance or significance' with the Wikipedia concept of 'notability', which is often the cause of inappropiate speedy tagging, as is a lack of sources, with mistaken arguments such as "it meeds to claim significance via citing sources". My view can best be summed up as If the article is clearly about a subject that is not significant or important or contains nothing to indicate that it might be then speedy deletion is appropriate. In all other cases, other processes are better suited.--Michig (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
    Oh yes, this is not meant as personal criticism at all. Epeefleche is a fine Wikipedian who I've come across doing excellent work in many areas - but it was Epeefleche who suggested the need for a public discussion -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
My opinion:
Regards SoWhy 19:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
One thing I will do if a band's only claim to notability is to be signed to a notable record label is verify it. If I check the band's website and it says they're unsigned, I'll tag it A7 and stick an explanation in that the band claimed they weren't signed on their own site. I haven't checked Buddahead, but depending on how that worked out I might have. Hakim (Spanish singer) is one of those ones that's slightly subjective; it depends on what you define "credible" as, so even if you declined it it's not a headscratchingly unreasonable tag. I can think of a couple of admins who would have deleted it, but SoWhy is probably right above. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

This has been happening a lot recently, lots of IP addresses are making blatantly incorrect A7 and G11 taggings which make these seem borderline. My view is that A7 wasn't created to speedy articles like these listed above. It was created to speedy articles people made about themselves / their MySpace bands / companies / websites which quite clearly are not notable in any way. If the article contains any credible claim to significance it should not be speedied. If the article makes a claim which you dispute, as Blade of Northern Lights states above, it's more appropriate to PROD the article incase the thing listed is a recent development which might not be reflected on the band's profiles yet. Basically all these seem to be good faith contributions, and it doesn't matter if we give them time, even if it turns out they don't pass WP:BAND. I might also note that a few of these articles exist on other language wikis. I decline any speedy on an article with references or with an established article in another language (unless the content of the article is all inappropriate). Speedying good faith contributions should always be avoided if possible. - filelakeshoe 23:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Sorry for the late input here. And this post will just be a prologue to a more substantive comment, when I have a moment. To put this discussion in perspective, and indicate what I am hoping to get out of it (as Boing points out, I was the one who suggested that we have this larger community discussion).

First -- I have great respect for Boing (as well as Michig for that matter), both of whom I've worked alongside. So, this certainly isn't a matter where personal animus is involved.

Second -- this isn't (from my part) part of a deletionist-inclusionist debate. I'm happy to follow whatever consensus happens to be. And am likewise happy for us to retain good/notable/significant material. Most of my work is content-production.

Third -- this is not about the AFDs in question, really -- I wasn't prompting the discussion to quibble about those, but because I read the rule differently than Boing (and others, it appears) read it.

I'm happy with whatever we all agree on, at the end of the day. But I do think that perhaps if the guideline is meant to be understood as Boing reads it, we could more helpfully guide editors to understand that that is the import of the guideline by clarifying it in the guideline itself. I'll be back later to explain why I read the guideline differently, as it is presently written. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the collegial discussion here, Epeefleche. For now, I'll just add that I agree with the comments above from Boing, Michig, SoWhy, and filelakeshoe, and I'll add that the CSD page is clear that "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases" [my emphasis]. Without really wanting to stir up trouble, I'll add that The Blade of the Northern Lights is quite right that there are certain admins (who are developing a reputation as those who will delete via speedy inappropriately) who probably would have speedied many of these, so that's where some of the confusion may be coming from. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Here is the issue that I was hoping to solicit community input on, from my conversation with Boing. The question is whether the community feels that A7 deletion is appropriate where an article claims that a band (or singer) released two or more albums -- but fails to claim that the albums' labels were (to use the language of A7) "important or significant". And either fails to name the albums' labels, or alternatively names labels that do not appear to be important or significant.

My reading is as follows. A band is notable if it releases CDs on a notable label. It is important or significant if it claims (no ref necessary) to release CDs on an important or significant label. The rationale is parallel. (I recognize by the discussion that the consensus so far is at odds with my reading, and am happy to hear the views of the community and re-jigger my understanding accordingly).

The guideline requires that there be an appropriate claim -- I don't see the wiggle room (unless we change the guideline) to on our own create and read into a band article the claim that the CDs that it released were released on an important or significant label -- when no such claim is made, and the label indicated is unknown or else its name is not mentioned.

In other words, A7 requires that the band have a credible claim that it is "important or significant" for it to survive A7 deletion. I think that if what is relied on is therefore band album releases, that two of those releases must be by an "important or significant" label. (Note: this is less that the requirement for notability.)

As I understand Boing (who is welcome to correct me if I am off), he does not read the guideline as requiring anything more than two releases. In other words, he does not require that the releases be by an important or significant label. To not delete articles just because a band has issued two CDs on an unimportant or insignificant label strikes me as contrary to the rule -- all that we are requiring is that they at least make an unreferenced claim that the label is important or significant, to deem the ban important or significant. In this day and age, its frankly not that impressive that a band has a CD on a non-important label -- the barriers to entry in the CD-releasing business have plummeted. I would imagine the same issue is at play with self-published books.

In short, I think that under the guideline as written, releases not claimed to be on a significant or important label can't make the band significant or important.

Again -- I'm happy with whatever view the community has on the issue. Though if it is as Boing says, then I think we might tinker with the guideline to so reflect. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you should forget about anything to do with 'two albums' as far as speedy deletion is concerned - that's purely a rule of thumb for the notability guideline and only one indication of notability. Any band that has released an album commercially or has been signed to a recognized record label is probably not going to be a good speedy candidate. If a band has become established enough to release an album, they will likely have coverage somewhere, and most bands that have released an album will have some 'importance or significance'. The exception is where the band has simply put out their own CD-R or had a release on an incredibly obscure and off-radar label, for example, but this shouldn't be assumed simply because no record label is stated in the article. There have also been several examples of bands that have become notable before they have even released a record. Unfortunately, lots of very poor articles get created on bands that do belong in this encyclopedia, and where there's a chance that the problem is a poor article rather than a complete lack of importance, we shouldn't speedy-delete. And as an aside, I would say that a band that has released two or more albums on a label that is merely "important or significant" is probably "notable", let alone not-speedyable - that's really the gist of that part of the guideline - it doesn't specify 'notable' labels.--Michig (talk) 06:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Yep, the key point is that there is no *CSD* guideline that even mentions albums (and as there is no such guideline, there is none to tinker with). The notability guidelines are not criteria for CSD -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree with SoWhy and Michig and others. Any recording on a recognized label is sufficient to require a community judgment, just as with any published book not self-published. Not that most people who have released one album or published one book are notable--probably 90% aren't. But it needs in each case the checking by people who know how to check such things. A speedy should be a deletion that any administrator can do, whether or not they know what actually amounts to full notability in the subject. The rationale is that a book I never heard of may have gotten major reviews or awards, or a label you never saw before might actually be a recognized publisher. This is especially true when it is people from outside our primary culture area. I think even I recognize the major US labels, but I certainly don't know the ones in Egypt. The problem I have is with books or recordings from unfamiliar areas where I can not tell if it is self-published, or where notability is asserted based on club performances or of writings that do not amount to book length--in these cases I look for some secondary indication, even a minor one. If in doubt, PROD, along with a careful notice to the author about what's actually needed--not just one of the prebuilt prod notices is the way to go. Judging expired prods is trickier, but there I try not to delete in areas I do not know at least something about. DGG ( talk ) 14:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm happy to accept the strong consensus here. Lots of our best editors have commented. I wonder whether we might make the guideline clearer on this point, with a small addition? I think that would avoid future confusion by editors not familiar with the talkpage discussion. Open to suggestions.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
    • What about the current criteria is confusing? "An article [...] 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. [...] The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." seems clear enough to me? Obviously though it isn't clear enough to some people, otherwise we wouldn't have discussions like this, so what can we do? Thryduulf (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
      • What is confusing -- at least to me -- is this. Anyone can self-publish a tape or a CD, and annoint themselves with a label. Saying I have an album (no label name given, or a non-known name given), without more, doesn't jump out as indicating importance or significance. Recognizing that we want to view it as such could, it strikes me, be clarified. I'm fine with the result -- I'm just seeking to have the guideline more clearly reflect it. If that is the same for books that are self-published, or where no publisher is indicated, we might indicate that as well.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
        • Actually, A9 was created to handle such subjects, i.e. self-published media by such artists and as such, just claiming to have released some CD is not sufficient to make the article pass A7's requirements anyway. All the examples mentioned in this discussion where the A7-pass was because of the released media, claimed that the media in question was published by a notable label, not self-published. I fully agree that claiming to have release self-published CDs is not sufficient to pass A7. Regards SoWhy 16:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
          • I must be missing something. You indicate that all of the examples "claimed that the media in question was published by a notable label". Had that been the case (and there been 2 such albums), none would have been nominated. I just double-checked the first above example, Bashar Al Shatty, and could not find such an assertion in the article. All it said as to his recordings was "he produced and recorded his first song which got a lot of attention", and that he "released his first album and a video clip that went hand in hand with the Album. During winter 2006, he released his second album. Both albums were a success ..."--Epeefleche (talk) 02:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

A1 and A3 too quick

We have the note "Caution is needed when using this tag on newly created articles.[3]" included in the A1 and A3 sections, with a footnote explaining the need not to tag too quickly, but we still see lots of articles tagged very quickly. I suggest that statement is not strong enough, and suspect that few people actually read the footnote. I suggest changing it to "In most cases articles should not be tagged for deletion under this criterion moments after creation as the creator may be actively working on the content.[3]" (as taken from the footnote), and leave the footnote as it is as an expansion. I know we should keep it brief, but I don't think that's too wordy - anything that will help minimize the biting of newcomers surely has to be worthwhile, and A1 and A3 are the most common bites, I think (and don't get me started on G1). Any thoughts? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd support to say so clearly in the descriptions of A1 and A3 but I would advise that you (and everyone else of course) tell taggers if you notice such problematic taggings. Most taggers simply don't read the policy before they start tagging, so telling them specifically is probably the best solution. Regards SoWhy 18:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, definitely - I've pointed people at the NPP guideline before, but I think it would be better to have a strengthened CSD guideline to give them -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Strong support. Anything that reduces bad tagging and tightens the language of CSD is a good thing. Thryduulf (talk) 19:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
If we want to significantly reduce overhasty A1 and A3 tags I would suggest changing the templating tools so that A1 and A3 cease to be options for articles that are less than an hour old. ϢereSpielChequers 23:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
If that is technically possible, that sounds like a very sensible idea. Might be worth doing the same for A7. Thryduulf (talk) 23:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
That would be great if we could do it - perhaps a shorter delay for A7, as we do get a lot of those that are obvious right from the start -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to do it for A7 and BLPprod as well (not much point doing it for one and not the other as you'd just steer taggers to the one they could still use). But I'm pretty sure that wouldn't get consensus, and some such articles effectively assert unimportance so while there is no harm in leaving them up for a few minutes; The chance of "**** is our High school prom queen and totally awesome" being expanded to "**** is our High school prom queen and totally awesome at javelin where she's made the Olympics squad" is vanishingly low. So I suggest we seek local consensus here to do this for A1 and A3, and if we achieve that I'll file a request at WT Twinkle. ϢereSpielChequers 04:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Certainly I wouldn't want discussion about A7/BLPprod to hinder consensus for A1/A3. Thryduulf (talk) 08:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Yep, sounds good to me -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure WereSpielChequers's idea is technically feasible without resorting to substable timestamped templates like the ones we use for prods, but when I come across an A1/A3 candidate that's fairly recent (less than 30 minutes old), I add the {{hasty}} tag along with the deletion tag. But the major problem I see with the hasty tag as it exists now is that I have to manually convert local time into UTC, then manually add an hour. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 14:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
1 hour also seems a little long; after waiting 10-15 minutes for an A1-A3, I can only remember a very few times when the article actually turned into something salvageable. If we really want to go this route, I'd recommend 10 minutes, but I could settle for 15-30. The problem with doing that for A7s is that not all A7s are the same; some are patently useless while some might stand a chance if given more time. Fixing up the hasty template for A7s would definitely be a good idea, though. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd prefer an hour, but I could live with 15 minutes as a compromise. I think that the vast majority of the incidents we are trying to avoid would be within that first 15 minutes - most of the over hasty A1 or A3 discussion at RFA are about A1 or A3 tags at the moment of creation or very soon after. As for whether this is technically feasible, I suggest we first see if we have consensus for the change and then file a request at WT Twinkle, if they need help coding it there are a couple of hacking days coming up. ϢereSpielChequers 17:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't feel particularly strongly about it, so whatever everyone else wants is fine with me. Hopefully the Twinkle people would be able to do it; they still don't seem to have resolved the edit conflict issues for UAA/AIV reports. I do like the basic idea, though, as I've seen plenty of overhasty tags myself and I think it would help. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
(Just as an aside, today I've deleted A7s for "the best friend anyone can have", "a man who is borned on 30th. April 2000", and an assistant bank manager - I don't think any of those needed delaying -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC))
You're right on those Boing!, but of course, a little common sense goes a long way.  :)   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 13:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I would support implementing a technical means to stop the premature use of A1 or A3. Perhaps an edit filter could put a stop to it. An edit filter could also warn on A7 early, and it could be ignored if the article really deserved it. Twinkle is not the only way to get this kind of tagging! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Misuse of G11

I have noticed several cases of misbuse of this criterion: the articles without any trace promotional pitch were speedily deleted. I have no idea about their notability (not my expertise), but the rule of thumb must be simple: only articles that have intractable excess of "our product is the very bestest" must be deleted. The article written in neutral tone (list of features, etc.) and those from which the hype may be easily cleaned away must not be speedied.

Can someone add clarification to the criteria? Muslim lo Juheu (talk) 01:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

To be honest I think the wording is already pretty clear. The problem is not with the wording; the problem is with admins who continue to delete articles based on what they think the speedy deletion criteria ought to be. Thparkth (talk) 01:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the wording is clear. My point is that the wording is insufficient. Also, I am afraid you are mistaken. If there are many admins who think what they think, this means that the criteria are not very instructive. In fact, the current wording, while clear, is totally useless as a guideline:
  • Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic.
    This is basically a repetition of the title "Unambiguous advertising or promotion," i.e., the sentence does not give a slightest hint as to the criteria what and what doesn't constitute "advertising or promotion".
  • Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion
    This is so trivial as makes me laugh. Of course, no one in clear mind wouild delete the articles Coca Cola or Ford T.
IMO the proper language for the second sentence must be:
  • An article which describes a company or a product in neutral tone does not qualify for this criterion
It is possible I don't see some problems with my version. Please comment. Muslim lo Juheu (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't object to your proposed change, but the fact is that it won't help, because the admins who are currently misusing G11 will probably never read (or at least never remember) your wording, just as they have apparently not read (or at least remembered) the current wording. Thparkth (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I may agree with your scepticism, but I disagree with your conclusion: the suggested wording gives much better grounds for an appeal. I hope y'all understand how it is so, otherwise I may explain in more detail.Muslim lo Juheu (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
If you give a list to me I will restore them if they are suitable non adverts and a claim of importance. I often decline speedy delete noms for G11, where a little bit of editing can despam them nicely. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I run across this issue by a pure accident. I was removing some overcategorization and when double-checking my past edits suddenly run into bizarre IPs which was struggling to remove some software tools from the list while inserting others; see history of List of data recovery software. I could explain this only by desire to kill off competitors. I took a closer look to edits of this IPs and noticed they liberally placed various "prod" and "speedy" tags. I removed some of them, warned the original article authors, but these floating IPs managed to speedy away some articles. One of them was recreated since then, but others I don't remember and don't particularly care. Therefore thanks for your kind suggestion, but let the original authors bother, if they think the products are notable. However the basic issue of too vague G11 criterion remains, if only careless deletions create nuisance for original contributors. Muslim lo Juheu (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Very rarely, if I find something that's borderline but screams every hallmark of a copyvio, I'll tag it G11. I think I've done that three times to date, but if something looks like a copyvio but is right on the border of G11, I'll stretch it a tiny bit. I also tend to be less sympathetic to articles from obvious corporate accounts; maybe not 100% ideal, but it's not terribly different from assuming an edit from an account like User:Rapefarsiforlife is unconstructive. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree, corporate accounts must work harder; after all, they are paid to do the job properly :-) Muslim lo Juheu (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The current second sentence is needed. It was added very quickly after the criterion was adopted because one or two admins (I can't remember exactly) used it to speedy delete a significant number of non-promotional articles about clearly notable British and Australian (chocolate) biscuits, see for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Tam and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Penguin biscuit. Thryduulf (talk) 19:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion supersedes and clarifies the previous one. The whole point is that the article must be speedy deleted under this criterion only if it is next to impossible to rewrite it in neutral tone, i.e., to remove all promotionalism, from independent sources, and left with something encyclopedic. By the way, is there any wikipedia guideline (or at least an essay) on what constitutes encyclopedic content? Wikipedia:Encyclopedic is just a redirect to WP:NOT. Muslim lo Juheu (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I once understood Wikipedia policies well and was a regular editor, but now I am neither, so please help me here. I came in search of a Wikipedia article on Cleartrip, which is a fairly well known travel booking site in India and quite popular, and I found to my surprise that it had been deleted just yesterday under the criterion we are discussing here. Luckily, a google cache exists, and can be found here [3] It reveals an article that is somewhat well-written and has a reasonable amount of references, but is completely one-sided without being exceptionally promotional in tone. In other words, this is exactly what a fan of Cleartrip who respects Wikipedia policies would write. The article could certainly have been improved by presenting other points of view about the company, but now it has been deleted and its history is not visible to the user, so someone who wants an article needs to start again. Obviously, some admin misinterpreted G11, but in what way? The page is one-sided and borderline promotional. It just is not excessively so, and he should have erred on the side of keeping it, but that is a judgement call. I just fail to understand why this particular criterion is a criterion for speedy deletion. What is the harm of keeping an article for a few more months to see if it will improve? Why not at the very least discuss the deletion before taking action?

As I said, I am a born-again newbie, so I may have missed the reasoning that has gone into establishing this criterion. I just wanted to put my view here. Specifically as regards Cleartrip, I note that someone has offered to restore any wrongfully deleted sites. Can an admin who agrees with my argument restore the page? If this request is out of order, can someone point me to the page where such deletions can be contested? Ravikiran (talk) 06:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The criterion exists to get rid of spam basically. In this case there wasn't a misinterpretation of G11 and I'd have deleted as well. The reason for this is that it wasn't an encyclopaedia article, or even the start of one - it was an "about us" page that would be perfectly at home on a corporate website. The references were all to press releases or verifying that it had won an award for it's website, and all the external links were to the official site and official facebook page, etc. There was no attempt at a neutral tone, nor independent coverage. If I were to write an encyclopaedia article about the company then it would be easier to start from scratch, as most of what is there would be deleted and the rest completely re worded. A G11 speedy deletion says nothing about the notability or otherwise of the subject, it's entirely about the completely inappropriate style. You are of course free to either start a new article or to challenge the deletion of this one at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Thryduulf (talk) 08:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
After studying list of data recovery software history, not much has actually gone from the list, one copyright violation and a one sided company article. However now I find Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/Local/strongrecovery.com and the action that stops the person from Poland spamming. I am checking the nomination work, and have restored history of CDRoller. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

F11 is too sweeping

Please improve the advice under F11 to allow for the case of images uploaded with claimed permission from the copyright holder explicitly given by the uploader. Instead of speedy delete it would be better to nominate such images for deletion so that more people can see and act on it. This is especially important for files uploaded many years ago where the uploader is no longer active. See Talk:List of webcomics#Image permissions needed for two examples from 2006.

Those two images were uploaded in 2006 with the history comment claiming permission was given by the copyright holder to the uploader "to release under the GFDL on 9/27/06". Back in 2006 wasn't that how wikipedia worked? Maybe restrict F11 for images that are more recent, such as under 2 years old? Otherwise we risk bothering the contributors with pointless emails after they have already given permission.

Feel free to move this request to the best location. -84user (talk) 23:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Does CSD A1 cover a dictdef or a tautology?

Basically my question is this, there are lots of articles that are definitions and some that are even more obvious. The one that comes to mind today is "mushroom sauce is a sauce made of mushrooms" but I've seen more than just that. Do these qualify under A1? they give some bare context but they're obviously not an article either. HominidMachinae (talk) 04:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

No, A1 covers only articles where you cannot determine what the subject is. Many articles start with a definition like the one you mentioned as an example and they are valid articles nonetheless. Regards SWM (SoWhy[on]Mobile) 07:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
An article on "mushroom sauce" where the only content is "mushroom sauce is a sauce made of mushrooms" would qualify for A3 as a rephrasing of the title. Hut 8.5 08:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
The specific article being referred to here had more than that, though; it had a basic definition of what it was beyond a dicdef. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh yes, I know the article in question was not speediable, which is why I put it up for AFD. But my question is if something IS an article of that nature does CSD:A1 apply? For instance an article on blue lasers which simply stated "blue lasers are lasers in the blue wavelength of light" HominidMachinae (talk) 06:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd think either A1 or A3 would apply there; I'd go with A3 myself, but it doesn't really give any context (what is the blue wavelength of light, for instance) so A1 would work. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
No, definitely not, both A1 and A3 are not applicable for this example. I am rather shocked you think otherwise. No context means you can't indentify what the article is about and thus it is impossible to improve it. "blue lasers are lasers in the blue wavelength of light" provides plenty of context. To use your own example, you can easily look up the wavelenght of blue light and add it to the article. A3 specificially excludes short stubs with context. The proper criteria would be A10, as a duplication of laser. Yoenit (talk) 07:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking more generally than this, actually (should have clarified that), but I suppose in the second example that's true. The first one is rather clearly a rephrasing of the title. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC) I've got to stop answering these kinds of questions late at night; I call a mulligan because it was 2:30 in the morning. 16:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

A7 is redundant

"A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content)." By animals, we don't mean entire species of animals, we mean individual animals, which is covered by the word "individuals". Was this causing a problem to the point that animals had to be singled out? Presumably this would also cover individual trees and robots. There has been some discussion at WT:TWINKLE about including {{db-animal}}, but frankly it is redundant and a bit silly. I propose that the template is redirected to a template for "individuals". ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 10:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I think in this context "individual" is meant to mean person - CSD criteria are intended to be specific -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Well when the "animal" part was added, it read "real person" not "individuals". Exploring the edits following this one may help - Kingpin13 (talk) 12:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
The actual explanation (rather than just the title) says "An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant", which seems pretty unambiguous - it's not for trees or robots -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
If there's still concern about it we could simply add a disclaimer that species of animals are generally always notable. HominidMachinae (talk) 20:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I have actually used db-animal before, as described at WT:TW; it's a supplement the same way A9 is to bands. From reading through the archives, people were running into the problem that they could speedy an article about some farmer in upstate New York but had to send an article about that farmer's horse through PROD/AfD. That didn't make sense, so they added animals to A7. No, it doesn't happen that often, but it does happen. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Applying A7 to schools

I regularly patrol new pages and to an increasing degree, I run into new pages for schools. In my opinion, the policies/guidelines that apply to the inclusion of schools are WP:GNG (obviously) and maybe WP:ORG but neither make a specific reference to schools. In my experience with deletion of school articles, WP:NHS seems to be the most widely accepted viewpoint on the notability of schools (high schools and colleges/universities are notable). Also, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Education exists and so does this failed school notability guideline. I only present them to further show that, while there aren't great arguments to support the idea, that it seems people feel that only HSs+ should be notable.

Furthermore, in WP:CSD#A7, it is specifically stated that it applies to a real person, individual animal(s), organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools). From what I've been able to find in the 42 pages of archives here, the general belief regarding school notability is inherently controversial and therefor cannot be speedily deleted.

I bring up this issue here because I'm finding that more and more articles about schools are being created and an increasing number of these "schools" are actually for-profit companies that do teach students but may or may not have any official accreditation.

I find this situation concerning because I feel that WP is being used as an advertising platform for companies who are certainly not notable and all they have to do is call themselves a school. This situation probably has more to do with what English speakers or just humanity know as "schools" than anything and we're not going to change that concept with a discussion on WP but I do feel that we can come to a conclusion as to which "schools" are absolutely not inherently notable.

Is this a discussion that people feel may be constructive for WP? It may belong in WP:N, first. I have ideas as to how we can narrow down the criteria but didn't want to bog down the conversation too early.OlYellerTalktome 15:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed an uptick in this as well; although some can be cleaned out as copyvios or particularly blatant advertising, I've been unsure what to do with the rest. IMO, WT:N would probably be the best place to start, and depending on what consensus comes out of there we can work out whether or not the school exemption to A7 doesn't apply to dubiously or non-accredited for-profit schools. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
There have been many, many discussions about the notability of schools. The consensus seems to be to keep them, in part because it encourages more contribution to the project as a whole. As such, all schools are notable see: Wikipedia:Notability (high schools). I don't think CSD talk page is the place to revisit that decision. -- Selket Talk 17:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
That's right, except I don't think we're talking about quite the same thing here. These are frequently non-accredited or dubiously-accredited institutions whose degrees either aren't accepted or only with strings attached (it's not hard to find that out). But, as I said above, WT:N (the actual policy page; WP:Notability (high schools) is only an essay, and doesn't seem to take the situation described above into account) would be the best place to work this out. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Could you provide some examples of "schools" that expanding A7 as you suggest would allow to be speedied? I ask for three reasons: First, I worry that anything sufficiently obvious as to be speedy-able would have already run afoul of G11, so an expansion would only create false positives, which I'm sure we can all agree would not be a good thing. Second, I'm concerned about whether or not accreditation can be verified quickly and unambiguously enough to be suitable for CSD; AfD sounds like the better choice if some amount of research is required to make the decision. And third, while I do not doubt that the numbers of these articles are increasing, unless quite a few very recent examples can be brought up (my first blush would be at least a dozen cases a day), there is no reason that we need to expand CSD; PROD and AfD are capable of handling the load just fine on their own. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
There is another reason why speedy deletion of schools is problematic. When non-notable schools are sent to AfD a common outcome is to redirect or merge the article to an article on a school district or local settlement. This option isn't available within the speedy deletion process. Hut 8.5 18:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
@Lifebaka: I don't have a list made up. I'll start keeping a list of the schools that I run into that I end up getting deleted in some fashion but even then, I'm not sure I can perform a study with any sort of statistical significance. We'll probably just have to go off the opinions of new page patrollers. That's a good point about verifying accreditation quickly. I think that would definitely have to take a big part in the definition. I also agree that perhaps there aren't enough articles to ask that we use the resources to come up with a guideline for such a small niche.OlYellerTalktome 20:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Here's my proposal. It's a very small niche that I think can be speedily deleted. If a "school" is easily verifiable as a for-profit and fails the rest of WP:N, it's actually a corp/org and qualifies for A7. Otherwise, if it can't be easily verified as a for-profit or simply doesn't list any accreditation, it should be taken to AfD.
While that definition may include a number of new articles, the time saved by patrolling admins that decline A7s on anything described as a school may be greater than the AfD time saved by deleting the articles that are obviously for-profit companies. I guess that's where the most useful discussion might be. OlYellerTalktome 19:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
@The Blade of the Northern Lights: I think you're right. I've noticed an uptick but I think that the majority of the problems will probably have to be solved at WT:N. I guess my hope is that we can more closely define the difference between a school and a company/organization as they have different CSD guidelines. It may not be worth it though. OlYellerTalktome 20:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
The criterion for being a school is whether it awards a degree and has a real existence. I do not see how the for-profit nature is relevant. That they might be unaccredited is not any reason why they are necessarily unimportant--the matter has arisen several times at afd, and a few of the least significant ones have in fact been deleted, often on the grounds that they do not actually have a substantial real existence. But this can't be a category for speedy, because it is never an uncontroversial deletion. This is different from such things as tutoring institutes and miscellaneous educational enterprises, even if they use the name "school"--almost all of these except the best known have been consistently deleted at AfD. The difficulty is determining which group an institution falls into, which normally requires a certain degree of investigation, and they are therefore not usually a good speedy candidate, though some are clear enough on the face of it. (There is no settled policy on institutions awarding recognized certificates less that an US Associate's degree from a 2-year college. They have often but not always been deleted. However, in the RW, most of them now at least try to offer a degree as well, so there are not many of these to deal with.) DGG ( talk ) 18:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Quarterly update

It would be helpful if, sometime in the first week of July, someone would add the changes to this page from April 1 to July 1 to WP:Update/1/Deletion policy changes, 2011, which is transcluded at WP:Update. - Dank (push to talk) 20:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a crack at it; I keep up with what goes on here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Much appreciated. - Dank (push to talk) 01:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Page should contain advice on handling misuse of the Speedy tag

eg in https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Richard_Granger the asserted grounds are clearly not satisfied at the first application, by a user who is clearly doing this a lot. After criticism and having removed it he then applied it again in what looks like a fit of pique. Its a mess and irritating. A proper RFC seems a bit heavy duty as a response. What is a more proportionate response. Midgley (talk)

Seasoned editors know that there are tools to deal with that kind of situation, though I haven't found anything specifically about abuse of maintenance templates in general, not just speedy tags. General disruptive editing warnings may be used here, though, and perhaps a suggestion at WT:WARN is in order. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Not everything needs a template. Disruptive editing is disruptive editing. When speedy tags are being misused by a new editor, it can be handled with just a note pointing them to this page. When it's an experienced editor, personal communication can be escalated to ANI if need be. -- Selket Talk 16:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
A tailored message is better for a user that is tagging many articles improperly but note these: {{Sdd}}, {{Sdd2}} and {{Sdd3}}.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Sort of tangential, but why do none of those mention the option of proding the article? Monty845 06:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Simple. Prod first came into general use around April 2006 while these were all created in March 2006. Time to update them, no?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Rights to do G6 Technical deletions

Is there a way to reverse redirects (a type of G6. Technical deletion) without using {{db-move}} and waiting for an admin, short of having admin rights oneself? I'm thinking of something like the way rollback rights are given. Thanks. Nurg (talk) 02:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

If the redirect has no history other than its inception, the page can be "moved over a redirect" by simply moving it like any other page move, and any autoconfirmed user can do that without admin assistance. If the page does have an edit history, this can't and shouldn't be done without admin assistance. Someone might want to preserve the edit history of the redirect. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Note, that only works if the redirect you are attempting to move over is the prior location of the page you are attempting to move. If you move page A to page B, you cannot move a page C over the redirect that was left at A. Monty845 06:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Sandboxication

I'm not a fan of moving articles to userspace if there is any intent for them to return, but as well as userfying some userpages would it be a good idea to move testpages and perhaps some other goodfaith stuff to the author's sandbox if they are a newbie and haven't already got one? I've done this occasionally and I hope it can be a less bitey alternative to deletion. I wouldn't suggest it if they've clearly tried to submit an article, or if they already have a sandbox. But if people agree this would be a nice to have we could request Twinkle to look for sandboxes and prompt for testpages to go that way wit an appropriate friendly note. ϢereSpielChequers 16:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't know how you missed it, but we recently had a full-on RFC on the subject of userfying instead of deleting, with consensus strongly against the idea of any automatic userfying. I think evaluating the submitted content and offering to restore it in userspace if it is salvageable is a better alternative. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to resurrect that proposal, hence my opening comment about not userfying articles if there is any intent for them to return. But we have a longstanding and uncontentious practice that when an editor with a redlinked userpage creates an article that could be interpreted as a userpage it can be politely moved to their userpage, I'm just suggesting that we extend that courtesy to newbies with redlinked sandboxes who create an "article" such as an empty table or other formatting experiment. ϢereSpielChequers 07:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
That actually makes sense; I could see that working. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

GIF files converted to PNG files

So I moved the image File:Oxygendepletion1.gif to Commons as File:Decline of oxygen saturation to anoxia at night Kiel Fjord Germany.png. This is the exact same image transferred from an outmoded format to a more modern format. I understand that the original {{ncd}} was declined because they are different file formats, and policy says they must be the same format. It does not make sense to transfer a GIF image to Commons, when this is a perfect opportunity to upgrade it. Converted PNG files need to point to the original GIF files, migrated files need to point to the original file, why not do this at the same time? Please amend policy so that single-frame GIF images replaced by bit-for-bit identical PNG images can be deleted as redundant. I realize that a GIF image will not increase in quality when converted to PNG, and the slightly smaller size does not net a huge benefit. The idea is that GIF offers only a fraction of the functionality of PNG, and was not designed to be a free format. PNG was designed as a free format, offers better compression, and better color-depth, so there is no reason not to default to PNG where bitmap images are concerned. Again, I am not talking about images that are in any way stylistically different, simply bitmap conversions. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 10:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The GIF format was created by CompuServe and has since then become an Internet-wide standard for simple graphics. Given that some browsers still in circulation can't read the PNG format, it makes sense to preserve GIF files even when an available PNG file displays the exact same information. That's true even where the old GIF file is not embedded in the article. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 18:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
You can always submit it to WP:FFD.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 14:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I would be wary of deleting GIF files even when they can be converted to an image-equivalent PNG file, for reasons of maintaining the license attribution chain. (This image move is probably Ok as it includes the Upload log, but other moves have lost this information.) For background please see Commons:Commons:Superseded images policy and its Talk page. -84user (talk) 13:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC) The part I am thinking about is this: Do not delete originals after creating derivatives. It is good practice, and also often required by license, to refer to the original and indicate any changes made to it. Deleting the original because a derivative is available is thus a bad idea, and in some cases even a violation of license terms. -84user (talk) 13:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Baysian filtering.

This isn't really relevant to changing the criteria, but do you think it's abstractly possible to train a baysian filter to recognize articles that are likely to be speedy deleted? I know it's not a process I'd trust to a computer, but it seems like there are probably structural, phrasological, and word choice characteristics that typically distinguish completely useless articles from decent ones. Is it possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikanreed (talk • contribs) 14:42, June 2, 2011 (UTC)

While this might be possible for some criteria (not English springs to mind), it wont be for all (how does a computer recognise what is a claim of significance for example). What you're suggesting is one or more rules for the Wikipedia:Edit filter that would probably be best suggested over there where users who understand it are most likely to see the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting actually implementing such a thing. I'm just wondering if statistical algorithms could manage a fairly high hit rate for invalid articles. From what I've seen they tend to have lots of characteristics that regular articles don't, such as lots of praising adjectives. This is entirely a hypothetical. i kan reed (talk) 19:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
It should be quite possible. It won't be even vaguely reliable, but it is an interesting idea. Hobit (talk) 22:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
The idea of using machine learning to detect vandalism, deletion candidates, copyright violations, etc. on Wikipedia is an exciting research area that has received little attention. I think there's a lot of fun investigating to do there. I wouldn't limit yourself to a single method a priori without experimenting with alternatives. Dcoetzee 21:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

So, is this page for discussing the policy, or what?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk • contribs)

Yes, it is. Regards SoWhy 20:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

A2 and Machine translations

Would newly created articles that are just machine translated versions of other languages articles be deletable under a2? I'm bringing this up after seeing István Fekete Primary School, (not the first time I've seen this) which is clearly just hu:Fekete István Általános Iskola (Zichyújfalu) run through google translator, its barely intelligible, and per Wikipedia:Translation, "an unedited machine translation, left as a Wikipedia article, is worse than nothing" --Jac16888 Talk 02:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

  • In light of the ability to request translation, as has been done on the page, I think it would not be appropriate to include such pages under A2. Request translation or WP:PROD it, but I don't see a pressing need to speedily delete it. Monty845 03:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Tidying a machine translation is often very difficult, its generally easier to start from scratch, which is why the backlog of rough translations at WP:PNT is so much larger and older than the backlog of untranslated articles.--Jac16888 Talk 03:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Still, I see no reason to try to fit it into A2 instead of just going for a PROD. While it doesn't look the best to have the poorly translated article around for a week, I don't think it would cause serious harm. Monty845 03:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Machine translations are often so bad that I delete them as nonsense. As Jac16888 says, the existence of such pages usually prevents creation of a proper article about the topic: working from Google nonsense is hard work, and you don't even get the satisfaction of filling in a red link. To allow deletion under A2 is a good idea. —Kusma (t·c) 03:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • If not under A2 there should be a new criterion for this. There is no harm in deleting a machine translation, because it can be readily reproduced by running the same article through the same tool again. I acknowledge that machine translation can be a helpful assisting tool in translating an article, and I've used it to double check things a lot, but it does have to be used properly by a speaker of both languages to avoid being misleading. Dcoetzee 04:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • If a reasonably intelligent editor can figure out what the subject is, then I really don't see any reason why we need to delete it right this very minute, rather than a week from now. Perhaps someone will see it and be inspired to fix it, or to BOLDly scrap it and start over. There really is no deadline, and deletion is not clean up—not even for poor translations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    The problem is, sometimes translations can be outright misleading if done by Google translate. For example, I know basic Japanese. The sentence "家は白いです。" shows up on Google translate as "Of whom are white."; the sentence actually means "My house is white." (for those of you who know the language, I entered うち instead of いえ; same kanji, but the first means "my home" while the second means "house"). And that's just a basic sentence. Machine translations tend to be fine for individual words, but they frequently mangle even the most basic sentences. It tends to be more helpful to work from nothing, because there isn't the chance of being misled by a bad translation. In addition, it's usually pretty easy to tell if something is a machine translation (i.e. with Japanese to English, it usually garbles his/hers); in the event there's any doubt, PROD/AfD do still exist. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    Cleanup is usually impossible, and harder than starting from scratch. The best alternative to deletion that I see is to keep the essential information from the machine-translated nonsense (the full extent of which is the interwiki link) and to write a new one-sentence substub. —Kusma (t·c) 06:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    I agree that clean up does not require perfect, complete clean up. Cutting it to whatever you understand is almost always sufficient in these cases. If you can figure out that the subject is some school in Hungary, then it's better to have a page that says "____ is a school in Hungary named after the writer István Fekete" than to delete the page entirely. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • It may be more helpful to work from nothing for someone with a fluent knowledge of both languages. It is much easier to have any reasonable partial translation for anyone else. Machine translation can be used as a convenient partial dictionary and some professional systems are designed to do only that, as a mere word-for-word translation, similar to the word-for-word translations (sometimes called glosses, used in written form for instructional purposes since the development of writing. For someone with a better knowledge of the source language, the errors in the machine translation can be corrected, although they may not be able to put the final result into colloquial English--the traces of such translations are everywhere in Wikipedia, any assuming they are accurate for the meaning, any good native English speaker with some idea of the subject can put them into fluent English, just as they would correct the writing of a schoolchild. I have often done that as the final step, both for writing by neophytes in English and for semi-literate native English speakers. But opposite situation, where the editor has a better knowledge of the target language than the source language, is the usual one for me. For French , where I have an intermediate level of knowledge, I can, with only a dictionary, probably produce a reasonable English translation of any frWP article not in a specialized field I do not understand. Unless the article is trivial, I can do it somewhat faster with the help of a google translation, using a dictionary only for words not in the Google vocabulary. For German, a language I have only an elementary knowledge of, I can translate from scratch a simple short deWP article, or at least the first few sentences as suggested above. But I can translate almost any German article with the help of Google translate, for I know by my education the differences between German and English syntax, and by experience the oddities of Google translate for that pair of languages. For languages where I have the most rudimentary knowledge, I can sometimes manage at least the first few sentences with the help of Google translate. Because of problem such as that indicated above, I wouldn't try even that from a language I could not read at all--but I will sometime be able to add a reference, even from a language whose script I cannot read. The problem of dealing with low quality trasnlations is the same as for low quality articles--we improve them, we don't discard them. DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
DGG sums it up perfectly. As a professional translator, I do actually use Google quite a lot. Cleaning up the machine translation saves much of the retyping. However, there would be no way of doing this (taken from the fr.Wiki article) for example, from a machine translation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Upon further reflection, Japanese is a pretty extreme example; it's notoriously difficult to produce decent translations between Japanese and English, which is why we have an entire article on that very problem. Most of the time those comfortably fit into G1. I would think that Germanic and Romance languages especially, and Indo-European languages in general would probably fare better through machines, for obvious reasons. But of course, I wouldn't want to rely solely on a machine translation for something like the above linked article. If an article was so bad that a blank page would be more useful for a rewrite, an AfD without prejudice against recreation would be a decent approach; I've seen this work with wildly inaccurate geography lists, and I see no reason it wouldn't work for this problem as well. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)And just for a bit of fun, the signature of my alternate account is a very polite way of saying "please speak"; this is what a translation does to it (it actually makes some sense if you know the language, but even still it's way off). After taking Japanese for two years, I have a lot more sympathy for the early video game designers.

Correct forum for discussion of CSD user talk notices?

Would like to verify: For discussion of the speedy deletion notices that are left on user talk pages (things like Template:Db-csd-notice-custom), is this the correct venue to discuss them as a whole? Someone recently came over to Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace to discuss these things, and while it would seem to make sense, it also seems a bit out of scope for that page. So if someone could verify that this is the right place, that would be helpful, and if this isn't the correct place, please advise as to what is the correct venue. Thanks! SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

If it's about the wording of the message, I would say it's the correct venue, which can also be inferred from the categorization (the template is in Category:CSD warning templates which in turn is part of Category:User warning templates). In a case like this one, it would be a good idea to leave a message at WT:TWINKLE (since the template is used by Twinkle apparently) and this page though, pointing interested users to the discussion. Regards SoWhy 22:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I was the one that asked. I do not believe this page Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion to be the corredct venue as my question had nothing to do with either CSD policy or twinkle. I wanted to r, while remaining eword a template fro the well inteded wall of text that it is; which nobody is reading, to something that is clear and concise while remaining friendly, and not confusing. The template itself is made up of a string of php calls for other templates and I could not locate the body text. That was all I wanted to know. I know enough about templates however not to disturb the Twinkle syntax or the existing php. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I would like to change it for the suggested text at here. Reasons: 1) It is a wall of TL;DR text and is being ignored by the recipients. 2) It is deeply embedded in the parent template code, and is unavailable for use, and unlisted anywhere as a manually placed template. 3) A Twinkle option shuold be included as a single issue uw rather than only the automated placement by the Twinkle CSD A10. 3) In spite of my knowledge of templates, I have tried, but I am unable to unwrap this body text from its parent templates and additional contingent template calls. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
You're on the right track, but the wording can be greatly tightened, e.g. the redundancy, "new additions" I'd suggest not
Hello Template:Revisionuser, thanks for creating, Cars (franchise). Unfortunately, we already have a page about this at Cars (film) and your article may soon be deleted (if it hasn't been already). You are most welcome to expand the existing article, but do remember to add reliable sources for your new additions. If you think your article should remain separate, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," on the article's deletion message and leave your comments on the page that opens. If you have any questions please don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. (103 words)

but rather:

Hello Template:Revisionuser, thanks for creating Cars (franchise). However, there's already a page about this at Cars (film), so your article may very soon be deleted. Instead, please expand the existing article; remember to give reliable sources for your additions. If you think your article should remain separate, click the button labelled"Click here to contest this speedy deletion" on the deletion message, and explain on the page that opens. If you have questions, just ask me on my talk page. (81 words)

Note I do not deal with the special case that it may have been deleted, which makes the advice on how to contest it moot & would therefore be confusing. If it's already been deleted, the new editor will soon realize. I still don't like the wording , click the button labelled "click here ..." -- suggestions welcome. I also don't like " on the page that opens" but again, I cannot immediately think of a better.

Similar should of course be done for all the other speedy templates. DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree entirely DGG. Your version is even more compact than I dared. But how can I access the text template to change it? If I knew, I would BRD and do some of the others. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

When was A9 changed?

I always thought A9 allowed us to CSD articles about songs that make no indication of their notability (eg. Pop the Trunk)? When was it changed so that it can only be used when an article for the artist doesn't exist? This means creating 10-20 AfDs when some quasi-underground rapper has a notable article made for him, and less than notable articles for his underground album and every individual unheard of and uncharted song on the album? WP:NSONG has a very objective set of criteria that should make it easy to CSD ones that clearly don't meet any of the criteria. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 21:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Whether I like it or not, A9 as I recall has never applied to anything but "there's no article on the performer, there's not gonna be articles on their recordings"; and getting that much accepted was an uphill battle. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, A9 has always been like that: here is where it was first introduced in October 2008. JohnCD (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
It's always been this way. I agree that I would love to make "fails WP:NSONG" a speedy deletion criterion, but it's never been that way and unlikely to ever be that way.—Kww(talk) 21:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)A9 has always specified that the artist has to have no article - the language was there when to criterion was originally added in October 2008.[4] Speedy deletion is intended to get rid of obviously inappropriate cases to free up load on other deletion processes to consider less obvious ones. If the song is by a notable artist then there is at least some chance that the song is notable in its own right. Speedy deletion is not about notability and the fact that the subject of an article does not meet a notability guideline is never a reason to speedy delete it. Hut 8.5 21:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I know. I meant more in cases where the article itself makes no attempt to establish notability, such as an article that consists of "X is a song by Y off their nth album, Z. (stub template)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Floydian (talk • contribs)
In my opinion, A7 needs to be expanded. Why a podcast is held to a different standard than an iTunes only song is beyond me. Same is true with "movies". -- Selket Talk 22:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Whether or not the article attempt to establish notability isn't relevant. What counts is whether the article contains an claim of significance, which is a much easier standard to meet. If Y is a notable band then the claim that the song is by them can in itself be considered a claim of significance. The question of whether the song is independently notable then depends on how prominent the song is as well as how prominent the artist is, and this is a question that can't easily be addressed through the speedy deletion process. It is certainly possible that an article of the type you cite could easily survive speedy deletion (an article which just says "Bohemian Rhapsody is a song by Queen off their 4th album, A Night at the Opera" isn't going to be speedied under A9). Hut 8.5 22:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
"staying at the top of the UK Singles Chart for nine weeks and selling more than a million copies by the end of January 1976" would also qualify as asserting notability. -- Selket Talk 22:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Just in case it wasn't clear I was discussing the case of a hypothetical article which just has the content I quoted. The only assertion of significance that one has is that the song is by Queen. Hut 8.5 08:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
It would be immediately redirected to either Queen or A Night at the Opera" because the article doesn't contain any information to indicate its notability (the song isn't notable because Queen perform it, Queen are notable because they wrote it and many other well performing songs), just a puffed up version of the track listing on "A Night at the Opera". - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 10:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Which demonstrates why A9 requires the artist to not have an article. If they do, songs that cannot be a stand-alone article can and should be redirected to the artist or the album instead. As such, your argument in the beginning of this section does not make sense, since you shouldn't AFD those articles anyway. And redirecting 10-20 articles is not really a problem. Regards SoWhy 19:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
This is an important point. Remember that per WP:ATD, deletion is for articles where there is no reasonable alternative. If a non-notable song is by a notable artist, it could (and likely should) be redirected to the artist's article or the album's article. There's no cause to expand speedy deletion to cover things for which deletion in its broadest sense is not appropriate. If there's no redirect target for a NN song, though, deletion is spot on, hence A9's narrow focus. Jclemens (talk) 04:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I'm convinced. Now, what to do about movies? -- Selket Talk 20:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
What about them? A9 was not created to delete insignificant songs because it's easier that way but because the insignificant MySpace bands that are deleted via A7 often have articles about their equally insignificant songs. Movies on the other hand can be handled by AFD/PROD just fine. Also, since it's much harder to produce a movie than to record a song and upload it to MySpace, movies will much more often have at least some kind of claim to significance and those who don't are too few to require speedy deletion (remember, SD is an exception to the rule that all deletions should be by consensus and thus should only be used when consensus-decisions are impossible (because of the amount of articles created, e.g. A7), clearly unrequired (e.g. G6) or the extended time to discuss it would be harmful (e.g. G10)). Also, with movies, unlike songs, there is no clear artist to check for a redirection target. What if an insignificant movie was produced by a notable company and directed by a notable director. Where would you redirect it to? As such, discussion is preferable when it comes to movies and the few really clear-cut cases can be handled by PROD/AFD just fine. Regards SoWhy 08:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Although I'd personally like to include movies in A7 (I honestly don't see a lot of non-obvious cases on NPP, but that could just be chance), it's not worth the tension and fighting to implement. And frankly, a good chunk of them fall under db-web or G3 already.
That being said, the one thing I can think of that might stand a chance of being added to A7 would be the most blatant NFT pages we get, because a lot of people delete them (whether using G2, G3, G13, or WP:SNOW AfD closes) per WP:NOYOUDONTGETTOKEEPYOURINJOKEONWIKIPEDIAFORSEVENDAYSJUSTBECAUSETHATSWHATTHERULESSAY already. If others here think it's worth pursuing, I'd be happy to work on some wording. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

CSD Expiration Date

Discussion moved from the idea lab to hopefully facilitate more input. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 22:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

In the proposals section someone mentioned Voiceprint Records as an article which had been speedily deleted after having been around for over six years. Generally, I think too many people use a specific decision they were unhappy with to contest procedures that work just fine, but I do think there might be room for improvement here (without at all commenting on whether, under current policy, the deletion of that article was correct). Most of the CSD criteria are aimed at getting rid of new pages that just cropped up or quickly deleting content which might need to be removed quickly for legal reasons. I'm not certain that criteria that fall in the former category should apply with equal force after the passage of weeks or months, for three major reasons:

  1. The articles affected (that are around for weeks or months prior to CSD) are likely to be closer calls and less clear cut than the majority of articles removed under CSD. They are more likely to be contested and the lapse in time means that the creator is less likely to be online to contest it between nomination and deletion.
  2. The comparative benefit to the Encyclopedia is smaller when we are extending the article's life by 5%-25% with a PROD.
  3. The very limited number of articles this would apply to would mean that the impact of additional discussions or waiting would be smaller.

I would be interested in formulating a proposal for a policy change that prohibits (or at least strongly discourages) the use of certain CSD criteria (A1, A3, A7, and A9 come immediately to mind) after an article has existed for a certain period of time. I'm still fairly new, so I am interested in hearing if anything like has been proposed previously, whether anyone thinks it's a bad or good idea, or any ideas for the specific criteria and time frame to be used. I realize that one objection to using PRODs instead of CSD may be that the author can remove it and require a full review. While more complex, I thought that a way to handle it would be to formulate something similar to WP:STICKY when the article is alleged to meet one of the included CSD criteria but has passed the allowable time frame.‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 18:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I think it is a good idea; however, there are pages that slip through the system for speedy deletion. You also point out that A1 and A3 are among the criteria that should not be deleted after the time period; however, if you check Special:NewPages you will notice that those two should not be used soon after an article is created-they should be used later. I believe that 99% of the time speedy deletion is an effective process and this proposal would be more limiting than it would be useful. Ryan Vesey(talk) 18:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the input. I understand what you're saying about A1 and A3, but I think that's because of my lack of clarity. I'm certainly not proposing that the time frame to be used is anything like a day or even a week. I would imagine that, were this proposal to even be considered, the time frame would need to be at least a month, if not 3 or 6 months. So I don't think it should bump up against the intended safe harbor that A1 and A3 are intended to provide by not being added immediately after an article's creation. And I completely understand your viewpoint that this could limit an effective policy, I just believe that a policy targeting CSDs based on certain criteria on articles of a certain age could do a good job of limiting its impacts to the small percentage of cases where CSD is misused (though certainly not catching all of those cases). Thanks again! ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 19:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea to take "recently created" from A10, and add it to the criteria for A7 and A9, but leave it to the discretion of the tagger and reviewer what exactly the cutoff is. If an article with any real content has been around for a year, it can wait another 7 days for a prod to run. However I don't think it is really relevant to A1 or A3, as an article that is properly tagged as either of those (and not the result of vandalism) is so useless that nothing is lost in the deletion. Monty845 19:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't be against a limit of 6 months. This could be a little long even, but I believe anything less would be more controversial. I know I earlier said that it could limit the effectiveness of the policy; however, I like one of the points you made. Once an article has existed for six months, it is unlikely to matter if it is there for a little longer. In addition, there are probably more incorrect tags after that amount of time. I only think that speedy deletion for articles should be affected by this. In addition, I don't think A5 and A2 should be limited. Ryan Vesey (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
In reality, I think that A7 and A9 are the only ones that should be affected. A1 and A3 are often confused; however, if a page exists after six months and still falls under those categories it should be speedied. Ryan Vesey (talk)
I haven't reviewed this in depth, but I do speedy articles that are several years old, and I always smile when I do so. Without opining on precisely which of the criteria involved, I strongly agree that if an article has existed for six months, letting it last for another week or ten days under PROD isn't an issue, so I would have no problem supporting a change. However, I'd like not to invest too much time thinking about it, as I don't see that it matters much one way or the other.--SPhilbrickT 18:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
The rationale for adding this rule seems extraordinarily weak. The only one presented here is that the author is less likely to be online to contest the speedy. Is that the only reason? If we are going to add more rules, we really should have compelling reasons for adding them, I think. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
It's certainly not the only reason, but I could have made my position clearer. CSD, to me, is a disfavored remedy. It's a bypass to the proper mechanisms of deleting pages. It's certainly necessary, without it we just couldn't handle the number of deleted pages we'd need to deal with. We generally allow the bypass to deal with the influx of junk pages and for matters that are legally problematic to wait on. I don't think that the justification for the bypass is as strong for those pages that supposedly fall under criteria geared towards deleting new, unhelpful pages and a substantial period of time has passed since creation. Additionally, CSD is for deleting only the most obvious and clear cut instances where a page needs to be deleted, and I think that the longer a page survives, the more likely that it is on the border of CSD criteria and an appropriate candidate for more time or deliberation before it is deleted. Some CSD decisions are wrong, and I think this would help prevent some of those incorrect decisions without burdening the deletion process as a whole. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 00:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't doubt this correlation between age and CSD inappropriateness, but there might be some perfectly accurate CSD tags on old pages. The policy already says "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." I don't think we need to keep coming up with creative extra rules for trying to reinforce that. Let's not complicate this policy with even more rules. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I'ts always necessary to be very careful when I find a CSD nomination for a long-present article. Most older articles with notability problems will have been tagged for discussion long ago, or if not, are borderline enough to be worth discussion now. I cannot remember seeing an A1 or A3 except in recent articles. If an article with such problems were to be tagged, it would almost always be a change due to vandalism, or an incorrect application of the tag. G11 is trickier--there are many older promotional articles, but the remedy in almost all cases would be a rewrite if possible, and AfD otherwise. What I'm not sure of is whether this should be an absolute prohibition, or a warning. The argument for a prohibition is that warnings are apt to be ignored. I think on balance I'd support this for the cases I've listed. As a time limit, I suggest 6 months. DGG ( talk ) 00:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I think a warning is a fine idea. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 11:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I think this comes under the heading of "this is why we have RFA". A speedy on an old article may be a case of someone finally noticing a truly bad article after a long period of time, may be an invalid tag, or may really be pushing things. Applying the tag does no harm, and the reviewing admin should be expected to investigate. Changing the speedy template to detect the article age and print out a banner is about as far as I would go.—Kww(talk) 13:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, Admins are expected to look at page histories, incoming links, and talk pages before they delete. Those who don't shouldn't be doing deletions. For those who don't and delete anyway, the problem is the admin, not the tag.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 05:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Procedure for contested speedies

We don't seem to be clear about the procedure for contested speedies. This case is clear:

  1. Enthusiastic NPPer tags it for deletion.
  2. Original author (who is assumed to be highly biased) contests it.
  3. Admin either declines or deletes it.

This case is unclear:

  1. Enthusiastic NPPer tags it for deletion.
  2. Somebody else (who has never edited the article) removes the CSD tag (e.g., claiming the article doesn't clearly fit the criteria).

Should the admin treat the opinion of the independent editor as being equal to the original author's, or should the page be treated like a contested prod and be sent to AFD?

I'm thinking that AFD is normally the right choice. Most of the CSD pages require "unambiguous" problems, and evidence of disagreement between the non-authors pretty much proves that it's not "unambiguous". Also, given the frequency of complaints about NPPers and other CSD taggers, I don't think we want to institutionalize a preference for the NPPer's opinion over any other editor's opinion.

What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The article (as with contested prods) should only be taken to AFD if the editor/admin concerned feels that the article should be deleted, considering all alternatives first per WP:BEFORE. If the original speedy tag was wrong, and the article belongs in the encyclopedia, why should it be taken to AFD? If it's still clearly a speedy deletion candidate (e.g. speedy tag removed in bad faith) it can be speedily deleted, though any reason given for removing the speedy tag (e.g. significant coverage being identified or other notability criteria being applicable) should be taken into consideration.--Michig (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deletion is only meant for uncontroversial cases; if a user, who's neither an admin nor the page creator, contests a speedy deletion nomination, than it means that the case is not really uncontroversial and the article should not be speedily deleted; WP:CSD reads: The creator of a page may not remove a speedy deletion tag from it. Only an editor who is not the creator of a page may do so (my bolding); there's no mentions of the requirement to be an admin to contest a speedy (and there are various non-admins who do that regularly). Of course, if the page creator logged out or created another account just to remove the tag, then the page can be deleted all the same, but, apart from this case and from the occasional WP:IAR case, I believe that it is inappropriate to speedily delete a page, if an uninvolved editor has objected to the nomination. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
There are cases such as attack pages and unambiguous copyright infringement where speedy deletion is always justified. I think where judgment comes into it, such as A7's, removal of the speedy tag by an independent editor should prevent deletion as A7 (though not deletion by other means). I think the original question can best be answered with 'there is no procedure for contested speedies'. An article that has been tagged for speedy deletion, and that tag removed is an article like any other and we don't and shouldn't have any special procedures for it beyond those in place for all other articles. --Michig (talk) 18:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree with all the above remarks. The exception being if you see a user that seems to be pursuing some sort of agenda, i.e. objecting to every single speedy deletion they can find whether flawed or not, or a good faith but uninformed or incompetent user who is simply wrong and does not understand the finer points of the criteria. If you see something like that, try to discuss it with the user in question, and revert any obviously flawed tag removals. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Generally, on the pretty infrequent occasion someone other than the page creator objects to one of my tags, there are one of three things I do. If an article is a blatant attack page or a copyvio (or if I were ever to come across an article recreated in defiance of an office action), it doesn't matter who removes it; I'm restoring the tag until it's deleted or until the proper permission is received. If an editor in good standing removes a tag, I may not necessarily agree with it, but I will take a good hard look at it before deciding whether to PROD, AfD, or do something else with it. However, if some IP or random account pops up whose first edit is to remove a tag, or if someone is indiscriminately removing tags for no apparent reason (I've had that happen once, to date) I have no objections to restoring a tag; the probability of that being coincidence is essentially zero. There's a bit of common sense that goes into it, which is a problem because most NPPers are fairly new users who don't quite get it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Would you do the same for a contested prod? If a prod tag is removed by an IP, and you disagreed, would you think it reasonable to restore the prod tag? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Anyone may remove a regular PROD (as opposed to a BLPPROD) for any reason, including the page creator. Once a regular PROD has been removed, you should never PROD the article again, and must resort to another deletion mechanism. Monty845 20:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm familiar with the written policies.
Blade gives rational reasons for replacing a CSD tag deleted by an uninvolved editor, e.g., someone indiscriminately deleting every CSD tag he can find. So I wonder if he'd apply the same standard to prod: if an editor indiscriminately deletes every prod tag he can find, would Blade consider it appropriate to restore all the deleted prod tags? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
That's a little bit trickier, because anyone can remove PROD tags, and it doesn't matter if the creator logged out to do it; however, there are some instances like this where I would have no problem doing so. It would have to be incredibly obvious, though, which is why I haven't had occasion to yet. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Speedy_deletion seems to provide similarly confusing advice. I think it can be cleared up. Should the "right answer" (whatever we decide that is) be described on this page, or solely on that policy? Which approach is handier for people actually doing CSD work? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with most what is said above, speedy deletion tagged should not be replaced when contested by an uninvolved editor unless a) the removal appears to be in bad faith b) The page is a an attack page. I disagree with copyvio deletions though. With your average admin knowing too little about copyright and your average editor even less, mistaggings do occur. I remember for example an article that was a split from an existing article, but was tagged as a copyvio because the original article was mirrored on another site. If your G12 speedy is contested in good faith you should use the normal method for copyvios ({{copyvio}}). Yoenit (talk) 21:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I've linked to this discussion at WT:DEL and WP:VPP.
It appears that we have a rough consensus that a disagreement between one random, independent editor (who says the article meets a criteria for speedy deletion) and another random, independent editor (who says the article does not meet the criteria) should be handled more or less like a contested prod, i.e., that if a third person thinks it ought to be deleted, they should take it to AFD to do so.
There also appears to be support for:
  • making attack pages an exception to this process,
  • assuming that IPs are the article's logged-out authors (perhaps brand-new accounts, too?), and
  • permitting admins to IAR if someone's disrupting Wikipedia by systematically contesting all CSDs.
Does anyone have any other comments, or suggestions for wording? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't think we need a new layer of process here; we already have things like 3rr and BRD for dealing with disputes, and the reasons for the prod shelter just don't apply, generally, to the speedy criteria. Are there a lot of edit wars or something about people arguing over tags? I don't see many of these, but then again I suppose I don't usually deal with A7s. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't believe that anyone's proposing a "new layer of process" here. I think we're trying to write down what exactly what the correct process is. Most admins and other editors believe that if a CSD (by someone other than the original author), then the page clearly doesn't meet the "uncontestable" and "unambiguous" requirements of most CSD requirements. Declaring that a page whose CSD tag has actually been contested therefore does not "uncontestably" meet the CSD criteria does not create a new layer of process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
But CSDs mostly aren't about being uncontroversial; I think you have that wrong. G6 is. If someone removes your G6, don't add it back so you can move the page, go to wp:RM. Maybe G11. But most of the criteria aren't. They are about things like being completely empty, or not. If someone removes an A3 from an article that just repeats the title and has a "see also" section, you can feel free to add the A3 back. It's empty. The whole point of CSD is that we don't waste time on AfDs for empty pages. It's not about whether it's uncontroversially empty—it's either empty or it isn't. If I found such a page that wasn't too new and I couldn't expand, I'd delete it. This just isn't like prods, and this extra rule doesn't make sense. Again; is there a problem that you're trying to solve here? Are there edit wars going on over these tags? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 14:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm trying to solve the problem of articles on notable subjects being deleted as CSD when—in the opinion of people other than the page's author—they do not actually qualify for the CSD. Not all CSD criteria are as simple as either the page is blank, in which case we delete it, or it's not, in which case we don't.
So consider G11: "Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." Alice writes it. I say it's nothing but advertising, because it says only nice things about a successful company. You say although it doesn't report any criticisms, it's not actually "advertising" or "exclusively promotional". If the two of us—both experienced editors—disagree in good faith, is it logically possible for it to be unambiguous spam (=the actual requirement)? If it were truly unambiguous spam, don't you think that the two of us would agree that it was spam?
Consider A7: "No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content)." Alice writes it. I read it—a subject I know nothing about—and do not understand why anyone would think some television actor is important, and it doesn't contain words like "is notable because..." or "is important because...", so I tag it as A7. You read it and immediately understand why it's important and how the information on the page shows that. Should my ignorant tagging count more than your informed rejection of the tag? If the next admin who comes along is just as ignorant of the subject as I am, should the page be deleted despite your accurate objections? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
wrt G11, I already conceded that might be one of the few exceptions, although in this case the admin can decide if I have a point or not. G11s are anyway a judgment call for the closing admin, the admin can take my edit summary on the tag removal into account when deciding. If admins have bad judgment then we have a bigger problem anyway. wrt your A7 example, no, the page should not be deleted. You and/or the admin will see my edit summary and try to figure out if I'm right. If I'm out in the weeds, you can re-add the tag and open a discussion on the talk page. Just like every other time there is a dispute; no special process/rule needed, BRD works just fine. Usually these discussions are pretty easy; you put the tag on because you didn't recognize that some detail in the article was a sign of notability, but once I point it out in my edit summary then you'll see that and leave it off or go to AfD. Are admins deleting a lot of pages where the tag was removed? Do you think those deletions are bad? My point in asking what problem you're trying to solve is that my sense is that things here are going ok, generally. I don't think this new rule is needed. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I have seen problems with this—real problems, real articles, real mistakes, real newbies being confused and scared away from Wikipedia. If it's not perfectly clear that something fits the criteria—see the long-standing rule, "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases."—then it shouldn't be deleted as a speedy. "Only most obvious cases" is our actual, written policy on this point, not "it's a judgment call..." If it's not perfectly obvious, it's not a candidate for CSD.
I don't think your idea of re-adding CSD tags to pages is a good one. If a speedy is declined, you should move onto XFD and get a clear answer from the community. It's not a matter of tagging as CSD until you find an admin careless enough to delete it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
But what if the remover is totally clueless? I mean, someone could remove a completely obvious A3. It's still a completely obvious A3, even when the removal was in good faith. As you say, people are careless. The solution to that is not to send ridiculous pages to AfD. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I haven't ever seen that problem when the page should have been deleted. (Have you?) There are times when an A3 deletion is the wrong result for a blank page. For example, page-blanking should normally be handled by reverting the vandalism, not by deleting the article and all its history. I've seen editors blank userspace drafts as an alternative to NOINDEXing them. "Blank" does not always mean "must be deleted ASAP without community discussion". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Not that I can remember, but then again I have not seen much if any edit warring over speedy tags, which is why I am opposing this new rule! (Except where the orig. author removes the tag, but we aren't discussing that.) Also, of course when I am talking about obvious A3s I am not talking about cases of vandalism, I'm not sure why you are bringing that up. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

So you propose a non-existent, purely hypothetical issue as a means of preventing us from solving a real, demonstrable problem.

Everyone else seems to believe that the existing policy limits speedy deletions to "the most obvious cases". They seem to believe this because the policy directly says this, in the first sentence of the third paragraph of WP:CSD. It has said this, or things like it (e.g., "Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead") for years now.

Everyone else seems to believe that if (non-author) editors disagree about whether the page meets the criteria, then it's not one of "the most obvious cases", and that the existing policy therefore does not authorize speedy deletion.

You seem to think that limiting speedy deletion to "the most obvious cases", i.e., those for which reasonable doubts of the page meeting the criteria don't exist, amounts to a "new rule", rather than the existing policy. Do I understand you correctly? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Responding to your last sentence: no. Why would you ask me that? If there's a completely clueless tag removal, I don't want to force an AfD. That's all I'm saying. If it's a clueful tag removal, then the tag should probably not be re-added in most cases. "preventing us from solving a real, demonstrable problem"—I haven't seen a demonstration, but in any case I don't think this proposal is going to solve any problems. In fact, I think you've just clearly demonstrated that existing policy already prohibits speedy deletion if there is reasonable doubt. Who is "everyone else", anyway; is there a big discussion about this somewhere that I missed? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
And who decides whether a good-faith objection is clueful? If I say it's unambiguous spam, and you say it's not, and the admin is inclined to think it's spammy, does the admin get to unilaterally decide that you are clueless? I'm not worried about simple vandalism or pointy-headed removal of CSD tags from every article. I'm worried about cases where legitimate disagreement appears to exist.
Naturally, it's a little difficult to give examples that non-admins can see, since they've been deleted, but what prompted me to seek this clarification now was the first CSD for Burgess Health. It's a plainly notable organization, and the deleting admin basically asserted on my talk page that the fact that someone placed a CSD tag on the article, no matter who disputed it or why, meant that he could delete it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
"Who decides...?" We decide the same way we decide everything around here? In this example, it was fine to delete it no matter how many people objected to the spam tag, because it was an obvious G12 (I think, I didn't look that closely). But your tag removal was problematic, since it didn't address the concern of the tag. You just said it was notable. This was not an A7, but a G11. For a notable G11, it is fine to delete the article and then when someone wants to write an article about the subject in a tone appropriate for an encyclopedia, they can feel more than free to do that. So your rationale for removing the tag wasn't really a reason to not delete the article under G11. The G11-ness of the article was never contested, as far as I can tell, by the time of the first deletion. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Then I suggest that you actually read both the article and the talk page, where I explained to the newbie how to improve the article. Even if you thought that some of it was promotional, it could have been stubbed to something completely non-spammy in less than two minutes. There's nothing even remotely spammy about the plain facts, like the fact that the organization contains multiple hospitals and clinics. WP:Deletion is not clean up, and speedy deletion is only to be used when the page has no realistic chance of surviving a full deletion discussion. What do you think the odds are that a health care organization currently in the news, and with the usual number of sources available for a business of its type, would have been deleted through a community discussion at AFD? (Have you ever seen AFD delete an article about a full-fledged hospital? I haven't.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
"Then I suggest that you actually read..." What am I to read there? Again, the only objection to the spam label was from the author. There are legal issues around copyright violations. They need to be removed. Really. There is no prejudice against the subject if someone wishes to write, not copy, an article about it. wrt G11, if we implement your new rule, then your removal here is the kind of thing I am worried about. The tag was for G11, but you removed it for a reason that has nothing to do with G11. Does this mean the article can not be deleted under the G11 criteria now without a full AfD? Note that right now, you could do something like add a hangon if 2 mins is all that is needed, stub it yourself, or just write a note on the author's page about what the issues are with the article and help that editor do what needs to happen to get the page written. Also note that your google search is for the wrong subject. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
  • What are you people talking about, a CSD is a CSD. It's evaluated based on policy not based on whether one editor has removed a tag. There is no need for more process. First of all, there is no category for "had a CSD tag but someone just removed it" so most admins are only going to stumble on the pages described by chance. Second, if I stumble on a page by chance that is a clear CSD candidate, I will usually consider notifying the creator to avoid being bitey; however, I am completely within policy to simply delete it, without tagging it. If I should happen to notice that it was recently tagged and the tag removed (a rare situation in my experience) then I will investigate who the tagger and untagger are. There is no requirement that an admin determine that speedy deletion is unopposed, this is not WP:PROD and should not become it. Many editors, especially new editors, have very little familiarity with the rules of CSD and I consider their tagging or removal the same way I consider their comments at an XfD - they don't necessarily reflect consensus to the same degree as more experienced editors who show an understanding of policy. I should note that I have probably removed more CSD tags than I have acted on. Bottom line, there is no such thing as a "contested speedy" where the tag has been removed, it simply isn't tagged for speedy deletion - so it most likely wont be speedy deleted.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 04:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

R4 : Retitled image

R4 - Redirect is from File name space to File name space, and all relevant incoming links have been updated.

Recently I've been doing some file rename tagging, and this CSD would assist greatly in removing seemingly un-used file redirects.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm unsure why we should do that. One of the MW developers threatened he will personally block anyone deleting such redirects and I am inclined to see his point. Just because no links on this project point to it, there might be links on other projects or external sites that link to the file which will break if we remove those redirects and I don't see any convincing reason to do so. Regards SoWhy 18:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Redirects are cheap, so as a rule we do not delete seemingly "useless" redirects, only "harmful" ones. As SoWhy notes, they may not be so useless after all. —Kusma (t·c) 06:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, and if the file was only uploaded recently, you can try tagging with R3 or even G6 with a description or just contacting an admin directly. If deletion is actually warranted, it will be done. In the general case though RFD or orphan and leave it alone are better choices.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 10:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

New criteria – autobiography article

How about having a new criteria for autobiography articles? Having this criteria would speed up the deletion process because {{db-person}} may be applicable to an article about a non-notable person and not necessarily the autobiography of the author. — Abhishek Talk to me 11:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Some people write quite reasonable articles about themselves, so why would we want to delete them?--Michig (talk) 14:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. Unneeded, as A7 already covers the vast majority of cases, G3 (hoax) covers more than half of the rest, and the {{autobiography}} tag discourages users from elaborating without sources regardless of whether or not A7 applies. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment: Criteria {{db-person}} (of A7) says an article about a real person that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. This could not necessarily be about the user who created the article but the user might have created the biography about some other unremarkable person and may meet A7. So having a criteria where users create their own autobiograhy article would speed up the deletion process. And Michig, you being an admin I wonder how you can accept autobiographies of users on wikipedia!! — Abhishek Talk to me 16:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deletion criteria should cover cases where almost all articles satisfying the criteria would be deleted through another deletion process such as WP:PROD or WP:AFD, and its function is to remove clear-cut cases to reduce load on these processes. While writing an autobiography is discouraged it is not actually prohibited, and the mere fact that something is an autobiography isn't an automatic reason to delete it, so a speedy deletion criterion for autobiographies isn't appropriate. Of course autobiographies frequently promote the subject or fall foul of notability/verifiability requirements, but if this is the case then the article can be deleted because of advertising or notability issues (including through speedy deletion criteria G11 and A7) rather than because the article is an autobiography. Hut 8.5 17:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
That's right. That the article is autobiographical has never been, in and of itself, a deletion criterion, speedy or otherwise. At best, it's a red flag indicating that the article probably meets some other deletion criterion, but it's your responsibility to indicate which one.
If the article doesn't meet any other criterion for deletion, then its autobiographical nature warrants cleanup, not deletion. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 18:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Also, how are you going to identify that the article is autobiographical? Unless the creator admits that it is an autobiography, it will at best be a suspicion. An unconfirmed suspicion is not the sort of thing that lends itself to justifying a speedy deletion. Monty845 18:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - There is no special reason to speedy delete an article merely because it is an autobiography. On the other hand, a large number of autobiographies are already deletable as A7 for not making a credible claim of significance. Thparkth (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose The number of unambiguously autobiographical entries are reletively small, and fall pretty commonly under db-bio anyways. If there were an exception to a7, it would be a conflict of interest, but quite possibly notable as a subject. Better for more discussion then. i kan reed (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose some of these autobiographies are worth keeping, or can have a small amount of editing to make them useful articles. There is no hurry to get rid of those that are not a speedy delete candidate otherwise. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose some of the A7 candidates make perfectly good userpages. But as A7 already covers the ones that can uncontentiously be deleted this is a proposed speedy criteria for contentious deletions - and speedy deletion is not for contentious deletions. It would be better to encourage more taggers to refer editors to WP:COI - and for those who think COI mean one can't edit where you have a conflict of interest perhaps we need a reminder to read the policy? ϢereSpielChequers 16:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Adding to (or changing) WP:CSD#A7

I have encoutered many problems with the A7 criteria over the last few months. The spirit of the rule is that if the article does not credibly indicate the importance of the subject, then it is a candidate for speedy deletion. However, if a nomination does not meet one of the particular examples, e.g. {{db-person}}, {{db-band}}, {{db-company}}, etc, then nominations are often declined. This leaves people unable to apply A7 to cases that it is intended for. A case in point is Orbix (Software), which is a piece if software. There is no credible indication of notability, or importance, in its article. However, it does not meet any of the A7 subcategories, while at the same time it is not a G11 candidate, so I have had to tag it with PROD; I had no choice. I have tried to follow the spirit of the A7 rule in the past, but have received condescending user talk page messages from admins that are unprepared to do anything other than apply the letter of the law; which is basically wikilawyering and ignoring Wikipedia's fifth pillar. What can I do, and more importantly: what can the community do? — Fly by Night (talk)

For reference, previous discussions about adding software to A7 include: Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 34#Software and Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 24#Add non-notable software products to A7. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Much debate has gone into the wording for A7, and others cannot extrapolate the spirit of the criterion. Yes software is certainly out of scope for A7 speedy deletion and admins that delete it on that basis should also get a condescending note or fish slap. Speedy deletions are the result of community consensus, so things outside that consensus should not be speedy deleted. What is wrong with prod? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
You seem to miss the point. Just because it may have once been that way does not mean that it should remain that way. Consensus is not a once-and-for-all thing. The point is that it needs to be changed. I could write a computer program now. What's the difference between writing an article on my new program and writing an article on my new best friend, or my new band, or my new dog walking company? — Fly by Night (talk) 02:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
With respect, it seems to be you who misses the point. If you want consensus to change, you need to be the one providing a convincing argument why the previous objections that lead to the current consensus have become incorrect. So far, your only argument seems to be based upon a mistaken assumption as to what A7 actually is. It's an exception from the rule, not a rule itself. Speedy deletion, especially those content-related criteria, has been created because the regular method of deletion, i.e. deletion by community consensus, proved to be overwhelmed by the amount of certain pages it had to handle. That's why A7, G11, etc. allow to bypass deletion discussions in those few cases and that's why they do not allow it in any other. You operated under a mistaken assumption of what the spirit of A7 is (you seem to think "anything not indicating importance of the subject" while in fact it's "any subject of a very specific group not indicating importance") and those "condescending" messages served to inform you of it. Instead of complaining that others are acting "condescendingly" or even accusing them of wikilawyering (WP:AGF anyone?), you should accept that A7 simply does not mean what you think it means and thus you were probably the one wikilawyering (by claiming a rule has a spirit it doesn't and then basing your actions on this spirit). You are free to start a discussion about it, as you did here, but please do so based on the actual facts, otherwise success is imho impossible. Regards SoWhy 10:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
SoWhy's post above is spot-on. You knowingly and repeatedly misuse A7, and then cry "wikilawyer" when admins follow community consensus-driven policy and decline your CSD requests? Do you seriously expect reviewing admins to repeatedly invoke IAR in order to delete material not covered by your incorrect A7 interpretation? Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 15:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Not to pile on, but I couldn't agree more with SoWhy. The community has made it abundantly clear to the admin corps that they want us to interpret the criteria very narrowly. If you don't like it, take it up with he community at large, but don't blame admins for doing exactly what they've been asked to do. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I understand, the content of SoWhy's post; although the tone was a little over the top. I had openly and honestly expressed my thoughts and feelings on the matter. There was no need to be so curt. As for Ponyo, well s/he really does need to assume good faith. In fact his comments are borderline personal attacks; claiming that I "knowingly and repeatedly misuse A7". Come on Ponyo, I'm calling your bluff. Show me a list of all my deleted CSDs and let's work out the percentage of A7s that have been rejected due to me knowingly misusing A7. If you can't then I want an apology. You claims are completely incorrect, and totally out of order! And after all the bashing, no-one bothered to address my main point: what's the difference between me writing an article about my new program, or my new best friend, or my new dog walking company. The response seems to be, that's the way it is; like it lump it. I apologise for expressing my thoughts and feelings on a policy talk page. I'll know to keep them to myself in future. — Fly by Night (talk) 20:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
P.S. Could someone please link to this abundance of community clarification? Paul Erik's links are two short discussions, one in 2007 and one in 2009. — Fly by Night (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
You specifically said "I have tried to follow the spirit of the A7 rule in the past, but have received condescending user talk page messages from admins" and "However, if a nomination does not meet one of the particular examples, e.g. {{db-person}}, {{db-band}}, {{db-company}}, etc, then nominations are often declined". So, you knew that that A7 does not apply outside of specific cases, tagged them anyway, and then accuse admins of wiki-lawyering when they decline your nomination. Hence my comment "you knowingly and repeatedly misuse A7". I commented on your editing based specifically on your own opening statement - that is not anything near a personal attack. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
There's a big difference between trying to follow the spirit of a rule, i.e. trying to use it for what I think it is designed for, and knowingly and repeatedly misusing a rule. I'm sure you can see the difference. I was doing what I thought was right, and what I thought the rule was intended for. But I've been left, less than friendly, messages telling me that A7 is not for that. If I had continued to used A7 then that would be knowingly and repeatedly misusing it. But I haven't. I came across an article that I believe A7 should cover, but doesn't; and instead of tagging it I came here to discuss it. It also seems that I'm not the only one, given the 2007 and 2009 threads linked to above. I assume that you won't be retracting your comments, which is a shame. It's very sad that you're quick to accuse me of disruptive editing, but then you refuse to supply evidence, and you refuse to retract. Please try not to make unsubstantiated accusations of disruptive editing, especially when it's not true. It can be very hurtful. I give a lot of my time to patrolling new pages, and I get it right 99 times out of 100. All this thread has done is to leave me feeling unappreciated, and personally insulted. Net result: I stop patrolling new pages, and the project loses out. Good work. — Fly by Night (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
People have been a little sharp here, and I don't think they mean to say that the work you've done isn't appreciated. But I don't think you really have a great argument regarding your previous use of A7. I'm all for trying to follow the spirit of a rule, but it's not following the spirit to use it in a way which is expressly contemplated and rejected in the text itself. I think you would have received a better reception if you had simply tried to start a discussion about amending the rule rather than acting like the rule itself is being misapplied as it stands now, which is what you did. You might want to just try to start a new discussion in that manner. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 22:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. The point is that I don't apply A7 in any other way than is explicitly written. That's why I created the post in the first place: I found an example of something that, IMHO, should be included in A7, but isn't. I didn't tag it, but I came here instead; thinking that I was doing the right thing. I really can't see how, from my OP, anyone can infer anything bad about my use of A7. It's a real shame though. Maybe I didn't explain myself properly, or maybe people misunderstood what I wrote. Either way, you are right that a new discussion is best. But, to be honest, there's no point. I could see from the knee-jerk hostility, that as soon as I question administrator actions I get wholesale opposition. — Fly by Night (talk) 22:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I believe that impression comes from you discussing A7 and software, and then saying that you've tried to follow its spirit only to be talked to by people who are wikilawyering. What I inferred from this was that you had applied A7 outside of its content limitations in the past, and believed the administrators who declined to delete were incorrect in doing so. That might be a misunderstanding. I don't think you should give up if it's something that you think matters. People might have negative reactions no matter what you propose or how you do so. But I think you're much more likely to also get supporters if you clearly approach CSD on software as something that is not currently available but should be. Doing it that way does not question anyone's actions, it only suggests that a new policy might be better going forward. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 23:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Good point, and well made. Thanks for the advice. — Fly by Night (talk) 23:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
If it means anything to you, you're not completely alone in feeling that way. WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Simplify policy RfC would suggest that your view is not so universally looked down upon (my own view is further up the page). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I hope it's clearer now that people are not hostile to you, FBN; but they feared you didn't understand that A7 is one of those "everything not included is excluded" rather than "everything not excluded is included" things. I personally would love to include movies, books, songs, albums, and software under A7; but so far, the consensus is against me. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
It does seem clearer now, thanks Mike. It's disappointing because the only people to be hostile are admins, and they are both able to check my deleted edits. I have more than 700 deleted edits, and almost all of these come from correct CSD, PROD and AfD tags. IMHO I know Wikipedia and its policies quite well. But it doesn't make a difference. I've experienced this sort of hostility at WT:RFA and WP:AN/I too. My experience of Wikipedia's back rooms is that they're full of angry people that like to make people feel bad; that is why Wikipedia is broken, and why it will stay that way. — Fly by Night (talk) 23:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Fly, you said "if a nomination does not meet one of the particular examples, e.g. {{db-person}}, {{db-band}}, {{db-company}}, etc, then nominations are often declined. " I hope that is inaccurate; if a nomination is outside these classes it should always be declined. If it is felt necessary to stretch the criteria a little, the criterion G11 is much less definite and more susceptible to necessary judgment. Do you have any examples of where you made a nomination for something else in A7, and it was not declined. Those are the problem cases, and, with all due respect to my brothers-in-arms, the problem administrators.
Mike,the reason the categories you mention are excluded is that too many mistakes would be made if we included them. Books are the ones I know about, and judging by the books nominated for Prod, so many such articles are written by inexperienced beginners, and from what is written it is very easy for two people to think it absurdly unlikely that a book be notable, and yet it is. It might even be a famous prize winner that neither of them has known about (cf. Brown Girl, Brownstones. The community must see them at least on prod, so someone who recognizes them will spot it. Similarly for software, as I understand it. As for songs, I don't think you'd want to trust an admin as ignorant as myself of most genres of music to delete them. People and clubs, anyone can judge. DGG ( talk ) 01:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
No, because all of my deleted CSD nominations have been deleted, and I can no longer access them. Please feel free to look through them on my behalf. — Fly by Night (talk) 02:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Can do, and will. But I am much less concerned with what people may have done wrong in the past, than in what they do going forwards. DGG ( talk ) 16:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
You want to talk about stretching, talk about criteria G2. Personally I think the majority of articles deleted G2 were not really test pages. Monty845 05:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I confess I have myself used G2 to mean "playing with the wiki but not amounting to vandalism".I think people actually do often use such pages to test, in the sense of "let me enter something silly to see if I can edit", or even "let me enter this to see how soon it gets deleted." Sometimes this is a downgrade from a G3 vandalism tag that could be called vandalism, in the spirit of WP:DENY, and I consider that a valid use of IAR. I've also used it, similarly as a downgrade under IAR, instead of db-person to avoid saying no indication of importance when its a child, or entered as a joke. But I suspect it may be used sometimes to mean "hopelessly non-notable but not an A7 category", and I'm not sure that's always totally wrong either. I'll check a few such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 16:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

CSD F2 warning template made less bitey

Hi guys, I just wanted to let you all know that I decided to boldly make the {{Db-noimage-notice}} template less BITEy by replacing the warning exclamation point icon with the information i icon. I did this since a notice about a corrupt image should be a gentle notice that "your image is corrupt, missing, or on commons", not a warning of "do not upload corrupt or missing images". Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to change wording used for CSD:G12

I'd like to rethink the message used in Twinkle for G12. (I'm not entirely sure whether this belongs here or at Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle, but I think of that page as discussing the technical details of the tool, while this is where policy like decisions should be made. After further thought, it probably need to go to [[WP:VPR for formal approval, but I think this is the right group to draft the proposal.)

I don't want there to be any confusion that I take a hard line on inclusion of material in WP that is in violation of copyright. Absolutely not allowed. However, I think there's a distinction between what we allow in the encyclopedia, and the messages we send to editors who may simply be ignorant of the rules.

Specifically, the message includes the phrase "Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing" with "will be" in bold. To be sure, many editors appear to think it is OK to copy some random website. They need to be told that's not acceptable. However, there are other cases, technical violations, where the wording is too BITEY. More than once, the author of a website has tried to use the words in a WP article. We all know that can't be done (at least not without jumping through some hoops) but it is entirely reasonable that an editor would think it is OK to use their own words. Yelling at them that they might be blocked is not the right way to begin an interaction. See this note on my talk page for a recent example.

A few minutes ago, an editor tried to use material from this page. Note the Creative Commons license. Yes, it turns out to be non-compatible, but an editor who knows that WP accepts no ads, might assume WP is non-commercial. The assumption that the license might be compatible is an incorrect assumption, but it is hardly an implausible assumption.

What I suggest is that we modify the wording on our standard message. I haven't come up with substitute wording yet, but I will if there is general support for a change. I am more than happy for strong wording for repeat offenders, but I think the first time they make an error, we should AGF.

Ideally, I see two messages. One with less bitey language, and a second stronger one. I see two broad options, but matter there an even better solutions:

  1. Create two message, one not yelling about a block option and the other one including the a stronger language. Let each tagger pick which one is appropriate, so the stronger one could be used if the tagger is sure that it isn't inadvertent.
  2. Create two messages as above, but use the weaker one always for a first offense (effectively an AGF even when you might think otherwise for a first offense) and save the second one in cases where it is a repeat offense.

I think the second option is easier to implement, but I'm open to argument for the first option, or even an option 3 which may be something I haven't considered.--SPhilbrickT 22:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

There are already several templates:{{Nothanks-sd}}, {{Nothanks-web}} and{{Db-copyvio-notice}} The middle one is probably the least bitey. Technically that one is for use as notification with the {{copyvio}} template, but there doesn't really seem to be anything there that would not also work with a AGF speedy deletion situation. Monty845 02:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Also, if the author of another website is using their own text, and claims to have authority to license the text to Wikipedia, isn't that technically outside the realm of G12? Monty845 02:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Responding to your last point, my experience has been that many editors assume they can reuse their own material, and assertions that they have the right to license come up after the G12, not before. I agree that if the editor has already made the claim, it ought to be handled differently, but there are many examples where they don't make the claim until challenged.--SPhilbrickT 12:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
WP:Copyright problems#Copyright owners who submitted their own work to Wikipedia (or people editing on their behalf) covers this, but it seems that the G12 may be allowed to go through. {{copyvio}} replaces the G12 tag in unclear cases, but there's no mention of using it in this situation. Flatscan (talk) 04:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
The current description of G12 includes the following "For equivocal cases (such as where there is a dubious assertion of permission, or where free-content edits overlie the infringement), please consult Wikipedia:Copyright violations." (bold from me). It is not explicit how do deal with a situation where the assertion is made after the CSD G12 is applied. My sense would be that even if the assertion of permission is made after the G12, AGF, it should be switched to {{copyvio}}. Furthermore, it is possible to read assertion of permission to require they claim to have already submitted permission through OTRS, but as generally CSD criteria err in favor of not deleting, if that is the intent it should be clarified. All that said, I have tried replacing a G12 with a copyvio, it was promptly edit warred off, and unlike the G12 tag, there is no bot waiting to pounce on the removal, and I don't think most RC patrollers realize there is anything inherently suspicious about the removal of a copyvio template. If I had seen that coming I would have left the G12 and let the admin delete it G12, as most admins will delete on a G12 tag regardless or protestations about having authority to repost the content. Would have been easier then digging up people to restore the copyvio tag (it is not clear to me that my edit warring it back would be exempt from 3rr, so I didn't). Monty845 05:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I missed WP:Copyright violations#Dealing with copyright violations, which supports using {{copyvio}}. As Doug wrote below, the tag's safety net is the CP listing. Flatscan (talk) 04:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Responding to your first point, thanks for pointing out those alternatives. They read better, but all mention the possibility of blocking. I don't think our first interaction with an editor, who may be attempting to contribute in good faith, should be a threat to block them. I'm fine with strong wording for repeat offenders, but let's not start with a threat to block.--SPhilbrickT 12:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, we may want to consider amending one of those to remove the explicit reference to blocking. Maybe make an oblique reference to it, changing it: "Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing" violations will not be tolerated. Though I think modifying that one should be discussed either at the template talk, or at copyright violations. Monty845 05:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Just a note: if you use {{copyvio}}, remember to replace all content with the tag, it is not a hat, and report the page at WP:CP. Even if the tag is removed the page should get reviewed once people get to it at CP. This is important since WP:CP may not get to the page for a week or more and we don't want potential serious violations staying that long, not to mention it will cache on Google by then if it hasn't already. Thanks.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 06:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The example given in CSD A1 (No context)

I do not think the example that is given in the text (Example: "He is a funny man with a red car. He makes people laugh.") is adequate because it does not say what the hypothetical title of the hypothetical article is. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that, before we had an article or redirect with that title, someone had created an article with the title "Del Boy" or "Derek Trotter" the entire text of which was "He is a funny man with a yellow car. He makes people laugh." In that case, I think there would be sufficient context from the title of the article alone to identify who it was about. Accordingly, I think that a suitable hypothetical title should be added to the example. James500 (talk) 15:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Even if the article has a title such as the ones you mentioned, it would still be without context. The only difference it would make is that it would now read "Derek Trotter is a funny man with a yellow car. He makes people laugh." which still contains no context whatsoever to identify who the subject actually is. No context does not mean that you don't know what the name of man with the yellow car is but that you know it and still are unable to actually identify him in a way that would allow a reader to tell him apart from others having the same name. For example, "Derek Trotter is a character from Only Fools and Horses" would be shorter but have sufficient context to identify him. Regards SoWhy 15:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Question on A9

Oh Lords of the CSD, forgive me if this is often asked, but why is that A9 covers only musical recordings, and not films, software, TV shows, podcasts, etc that are also cultural production. I ask because I just had to PROD a film article that had it been about a recording would have been clear A9 (no claim of notability made).--Cerejota (talk) 22:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

See WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 41#Propose expansion of A9. I'd like to expand A9, but IMO the fighting and ill will it would create just isn't worth it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
There are two components to A9. First article about the recording must not assert importance or significance and there must be no article about the artist. This because it is exceedingly rare for a musical recording by a non-notable artist to be individually notable. For >99% of films and TV programmes, most software and many podcasts there is not the same direct link between a singe person/group and the product.
For films, books, TV programmes and software it is common for the product of a non-notable artist/director/actor/producer/author/etc to be individually notable.
These together mean that A9 would not fit these articles. It doesn't mean a new criteria wouldn't, but every time I've seen it discussed there has been no demonstrated need for them to be speedily deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 23:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Wow, excellent explanation.--SPhilbrickT 21:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


  • The real answer, in my estimation, is pragmatic: transparently promotional articles on non-notable musical acts created by single purpose accounts are vastly more common than the same for books. If the criteria did not cover music, the backlog at AFD would be counted in decades. Not so for books, so we have time to consider them more closely. causa sui (talk) 17:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, pragmatism is one clear reason--the overwhelming number of such are musical recordings, (and I note it's only musical recordings not music in general.) The other reason, is that for most musical recordings that fall under this criterion, it is exceedingly easy to tell, even for someone like myself who is almost totally ignorant about most genres of music. If there's no article on the artist(s), and no claim that the particular recording has any particular distinction, the chances of it being notable are essentially zero, especially considering our extremely detailed coverage of musicians in many genres. This is not the case with book. For books, most that might fall under this heading are children's books with articles written by children, of the nature of a third-grade book report, and does not know how to say anything indicating importance. . The book is quite likely to be notable, because it will usually have been assigned or suggested by a teacher or librarian, and our coverage of authors of this books is very poor, And most Wikipedians may well never have heard of it, unless it was a book from their own childhood. It therefore has to be checked carefully, for the odds are it is possible to easily write an acceptable article, and usually an article on the author started as well, for we need to encourage increased coverage in this area. Films can be similar. Broadcast TV programs also, especially older ones--and articles on current ones are almost always for ones that appeared only on youtube, and therefore covered by the A7 provision for internet content. (podcasts would thus I think be covered under A7 also). Other things sometimes suggested for A7 or A9 are even hard to tell, such as computer programs , which notorious give rise to some of our most contentious AfDs. DGG ( talk ) 20:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

A5 issue

it is specifically about avoiding duplicating text with Wiktionary NOT about linking to Wiktionary. Why have a {{wi}} instruction if it cant be used. It makes no sense. --Penbat (talk) 12:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It certainly can be used, but generally shouldn't. From the template:"This template is only for dictionary definitions that currently exist on Wiktionary and which, due to previous re-creations, are likely to be re-created in unencyclopedic form. Do not place it on every possible word." That means that any newly created article using it is subject to A5.—Kww(talk) 12:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh i see what you are saying: Template:Wiktionary_redirect/doc. I cannot for the life of me see any reason why not to link all Wikipedia articles to Wiktionary not having Wikipedia text but having Wiktionary text. What is the harm in that ? I personally find it very useful. --Penbat (talk) 12:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
To keep it simple, we do not want WP articles that are simply replacements or functional duplicates of Wikt articles. When such wp:DICDEF articles are created, deleted, and recreated we take that as indication that it will again be likely to be re-created in future. The intended use of Template:wi is to prevent editors from doing that re-creation of a DICDEF article without preventing the possible creation of a substantive wikipedia article of the same name. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
{{wi}} is also used where there hasn't been a history of recreation, but where there is evidence of a significant number of sources and nowhere suitable to redirect the title to. This is currently proposed for Equidistant - see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 July 25#Equidistant. Thryduulf (talk) 15:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
The whole point of the criterion is for pages that were created here but belong somewhere else — for example, someone creates a page in mainspace with the entire text of an old book; ideally, that content will be moved to Wikisource and then the page will be deleted under A5. Since a page with nothing but {{wi}} is not going to have that content moved to Wiktionary, an A5 deletion is not appropriate, so I'd support the inclusion of the text added by Penbat. Conversely, the idea of creating large numbers of pages with that template is not ideal; some of them may be valid article topics, and new editors often don't realise that any type of redirect (whether hard ones like from one en:wp page to another, or various types of soft redirects, such as this) can be edited by anyone. Nyttend (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Agree. A5 does only cover pages that could be created at another project. Pages with the {{wi}} template on the other hand are essentially soft redirects and thus should be handled by R3 or RFD. As such, admins who handle soft redirects as articles are misapplying the spirit of A5.. I'd support re-adding Penbat's clarification to hopefully minimize the amount of such mistakes. Regards SoWhy 13:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
PS: The Wikipedia:Soft redirect guideline explicitly mentions the {{wi}} template and states that soft redirects are not subject to the A1-A10 criteria but rather the processes for deleting redirects. As it's the specific guideline for this very issue while CSD is only the general policy, I think the special rule takes precedence (see Lex specialis). Regards SoWhy 13:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree, although {{wi}} is not the only soft-redirect template. A note at A5 along the lins of "This criterion does not apply to pages that consist solely of a soft redirect or soft redirect template (for example {{wi}}. See #Redirects below." would work best I think. The end of the redirects section already notes that RfD deals with soft redirects, but it might be worth noting in the notes at the bottom of the articles section as well. Thryduulf (talk) 14:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't believe that a soft-redirect to Wiktionary falls under A5. Such a page might want to be deleted, but A5 isn't the way to go about it. Consequently, I support the clarifying text.
BTW, Penbat, you can link directly to Wiktionary inline, like this: [[wikt:foo|foo]], which produces foo. As a result, it's not necessary or even appropriate to provide soft-redirect pages to the majority of words. Unlike the soft-redirect, the piped inline link gets the reader to the Wiktionary page with a single click, so I often think it preferable. I'd only create a soft-redirect page when I was trying to send the message that nobody should try to create an article on this word. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
At the very least, soft redirects to other Wikimedia sister projects should be discussed. They probably aren't all automatically appropriate, but they certainly shouldn't be speediable.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 13:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Dictionary definitions - possible expansion of A3

Based on my comments in the #Arbitrary section break section above]], I do not think it a big or unreasonable stretch to add dictionary definitions to criterion A3. It already covers articles that are "a rephrasing of the title", and it's not far from that to "a definition of the title".

Not every dictionary definition should be speedily deleted, and we need to be careful about not biting newcomers who create a dicdef in good faith. However where the word/term being defined:

  • Already exists in Wiktionary, or
  • Has been deleted from Wiktionary, or
  • Will never be acceptable in Wiktionary (e.g. no evidence of existence)

Then a transwiki would be pointless. Obviously if {{wi}} is apropriate then that should be used instead of speedy deletion, but this situation is no different to the "titles that are plausible redirects" clause in A10.

Obviously whether something already exists in Wiktionary or not is a trivially discoverable binary option (either it does or it doesn't), so this shouldn't pose any problems. Whether a title was deleted from Wiktionary or not is also discoverable but it's not always going to be clear if it is the same something unless either the tagger or reviewing admin is also a Wiktionary admin (possible but statistically not likely), although things like a recent creation date and/or the same creator make it more likely to be the same thing. How to deal with this will need to be addressed. The third case is the most difficult to determine without knowledge of Wiktionary policies (something that we cannot expect a Wikipedia admin to be familiar with).

If there is a desire to make these cases speedily deletable (which the above referenced section suggests there might be) then I don't think these issues will be unsolvable. I wondered about expanding this to cover other projects as well as Wiktionary, but I doubt that the frequency of such things being posted here warrants speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty hard to stretch "no content" to something like the neologism-phobias that popped up at around the time of this sockpuppet investigation. They weren't exactly blatant hoaxes either, because if you check the root words, they are true. --Σ talkcontribs 19:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
There's a rather fine line between a dictionary definition and an acceptable stub or short article. In addition many dictionary definitions can be turned into actual articles without much effort (so deletion isn't necessarily appropriate anyway). I think the issue is too subtle for CSD. Hut 8.5 19:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Have you seen #Arbitrary section break yet, Hut 8.5? --Σ talkcontribs 22:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm with Hut: I do not think that we can expect such a criteria to be correctly applied. "Heat intolerance is a medical condition in which the person is uncomfortable in warm environments" is both a "dictionary definition" and the first step in starting an article on an obviously notable subject ("heat+intolerance" at Google Scholar has 5,300 hits). If you put "dictionary definitions" in the criteria, then our less-than-perfect taggers are going to try to speedy stubs that do not meet your narrow limits, or are going to tag articles on valid subjects merely because I created wikt:heat intolerance at Wiktionary first. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, Hut is right. Most of the time a dictionary definition can be converted into an article about the subject (although it is possible that the subject may in the end turn out to be not notable, but its's hard to be sure of that until the work has been done.). It's a matter of choice whether to do so, and it depends on whether someone is interested in doing the work, but almost never s is it obvious that there might not be a viable particle. the current method of dealing with these, WP:PROD, offers a 7 day opportunity for someone interested to make a proper article out of it before it gets deleted. I very rarely encounter these in patrolling the expired prods, because usually someone has taken the opportunity to make an article. Remember, that the first thing to do in writing an article, is to say what the subject is DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Half the time something gets PRODded, the page creator removes it shortly after. --Σ talkcontribs 00:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
So? WP:There is no deadline on turning a stub into a proper article. If the subject is notable, we shouldn't be deleting the baby steps that someone has taken towards creating an article merely because they didn't get very far. If the subject isn't notable, then you can send it to AFD. We're not looking for fastest, most reliable route to deletion. We're looking for the correct answer, which includes keeping any good-faith effort to create an article at Heat intolerance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I think the purpose of the A3 expansion is so that it can cover crap definitions like WP:Articles for deletion/Saugie, as long as the article undeniably is a non-notable and unsalvageable neologism, and that it extends no further, as to not stretch the "no content" part of A3. --Σ talkcontribs 06:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
That is not a good example. That article could have been deleted as vandalism and probably would have been if you hadn't converted the CSD nom to a PROD and then nominated it for AFD after the PROD was removed. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I understand "patent nonsense" as stuff that isn't a legible sentence. --Σ talkcontribs 01:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
"The purpose" might be pages like Saugie, but the actual effect, based on the specific words proposed, is that anyone who starts Heat intolerance with a single sentence will see it sent to CSD because it "already exists in Wiktionary".
That might not be what you want, but it is what you wrote. I know this is one of my soapboxes, but: Writing policy is hard. It's hard in part because you have to live with what you actually write on the page, not what you meant. The NPPers are not going to magically know what you meant. Policies must actually say what they mean—and we must not make them say things that we do not mean. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:CSD v WP:UP

Wikipedia:Userpages#Deleting_your_user_page_or_user_talk_page says

Unless they meet the criteria for speedy deletion (copyright violations, attack pages, unambiguous promotion, no other significant contributor, etc.) or you are permanently leaving Wikipedia, it is unlikely that your main user page or user talk page will actually be deleted.

(emphasis added) Note "permanently leaving" links to WP:RTV. This somewhat contradicts Wikipedia:CSD#User_pages, which in effect says that userpages will be deleted on request unless there are reasons not to: "In some rare cases there may be administrative need to retain the page." At CSD "on request" isn't linked to RTV. So, are userpages routinely deletable on request unless there's reason not to, or only deletable on request as part of RTV? Rd232 talk 12:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Policy aside, my view is that the actual main user page should be deletable on request, and it would be exceedingly rare that such requests should be refused. User talk pages are a valuable interaction history, and the only way to see if a user has been warned about various behaviours, chronically enters into the same disputes over and over, etc., and should only be deleted in extremely rare cases, regardless of user request.—Kww(talk) 13:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree: I have always gone by WP:CSD#U1 and would normally accept a U1 request on a user page. I see no reason to treat them specially (unlike user talk pages), and I suggest the words "main user page or" should be removed from the passage quoted above, so as to bring it into line with WP:CSD. JohnCD (talk) 13:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I agree with Kww, and that's how I've seen it done over the years I've been here (although it doesn't happen very often). Userpages are normally deleted on request, but user talk pages are rarely if ever deleted (excluding occasional revision deletion for things like grossly insulting material, which is not a CSD matter). User subpages and their talk pages are normally also deleted on request, unless they're relevant for dispute resolution purposes, or have significant edit histories by other users (in the latter case they go to MfD, I have no idea how frequent this is). Thryduulf (talk) 13:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Half the problem here was that the talk page was redirected to the user page and protected. The talk page history is still there, so outsiders to the events can kinda see what happened if they're willing to dig a little bit. The appearance of... something bad ("grave dancing?") happening is there though. Take that criticism or not, it's up to everyone who is reading this to decide individually, but that's what brought this discussion here.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 13:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Kww. Userpages should be deletable upon request and user talk pages should not be deleteable unless there is a compelling reason to do so. The guideline you quote above seems to contradict the speedy deletion policy that says:
Personal user pages and subpages (but not user talk pages) upon request by their user. In some rare cases there may be administrative need to retain the page. In exceptional cases user talk pages may be deleted via Miscellany for Deletion (see right to vanish); they are not eligible for speedy deletion under this criterion. Note: The template may not display on certain pages (such as .css and .js pages), but its categorization should work.
In most cases the only significant contributor to the main userpage is the user and if they request it to be deleted it should be allowed. GB fan please review my editing 13:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I have proposed at WT:User pages#Deletion of main user pages on request a change to that policy to bring it into line with WP:CSD#U1. JohnCD (talk) 14:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
The criterion here is far more vetted and reflects actual practice. Tracing back how this language came about shows there was no disagreement until recently, that it was not discussed specifically, and that it was possibly unintentional. Until March 15, 2010 WP:UP said "Where there is no significant abuse and no administrative need to retain the personal information, you can request that your own user page and user subpages be deleted." The change came about here, which in turn refers to the discussion here. This was a fairly complete rewrite of the entire page. This change—that it was even a change—was lost in the shuffle. I don't think anyone, including the proposer, meant to reverse what it had said before but just rewrite it. Rather, when the sections on deletion were cut down and summarized, the distinction between deletion of user talk and user pages was lost.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:CSD A1

We are having a debate at Wikipedia_talk:Four_Award#Creation_date regarding the May 2006 state of an article and whether it was encyclopedic or should have been WP:CSD#A1ed. Please comment there if you are knowledgeable on this matter.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

A7 and ebooks

A7 applies to "web content", but not to books. What about a book available only as an ebook? (In particular, Deliver Us From Evil (Espion Series).) Does such an article fall under A7, or should it be PRODded? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking that maybe WP:BK might need something about ebooks to clarify this. Ebooks are books, but they are only online. It's sort of like how there are magazines that are only online. Can online books and online magazines count as just web content? I'm hoping that this discussion can clarify it. Joe Chill (talk) 23:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
The reason why A7 doesn't cover books, that importance can be difficult to judge without knowing who the author is and a bit about the genre, should apply regardless of their medium. I wouldn't imagine that we'd get enough of these per day that PROD and AfD can't handle the load, anyway (correct me if I'm wrong on this point). These shouldn't be deleted under A7 due to the combination of these. If the volume becomes an issue, then we can discuss exactly what to do about them. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Lifebaka - an ebook is fundamentally a book and should be treated as one, regardless of the format it is in. Thryduulf (talk) 10:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree too. If the volume of e-books builds up we may need to make provision for speedying them, but I don't see a case for it yet - PROD/AfD are coping OK with self-publishing and print-on-demand. JohnCD (talk) 10:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Also, "web content" does not mean "on the Internet". It means stuff specifically on the World Wide Web, for example homepages and YouTube videos. eBooks are usually designed to be read offline and just distributed using the Internet, so they imho already fail the definition of "web content". Regards SoWhy 10:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
We have the A9 criteria for recordings where there's no indication of importance where the author has no article - why can't this be expanded to books, whether ebook or self-published? It would have fit this situation perfectly. MikeWazowski (talk) 13:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Has been suggested before and rejected, basically for the reasons lifebaka mentioned above. Last discussion about that was in February iirc, see here. Regards SoWhy 14:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
See also #Question on A9 above. Basically there is not the same notability link between book and author as between recording and artist. Thryduulf (talk) 18:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

If I remember rightly, clicking a link to WP:A7 or WP:G4 or any other "Wikipedia:CriterionLetterAndNumber" link formerly took the clicker to that specific criterion's section of WP:CSD, but it presently takes us to the top of WP:CSD. Did something happen in the past several months that disabled the feature I'm remembering? To use the two links I already provided, G4 hasn't been edited since its creation 3 years ago, and the last edit to A7 was 4 years ago. Nyttend (talk) 00:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

They both work properly for me maybe there was some glitch.--76.66.186.54 (talk) 03:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Yep, working fine for me too. Nyttend, have you switched browsers or done anything else to change your account or computer configuration? The CSD links above are just redirects that link to page#section, so if they're not working for you, no normal section linking should work, e.g., Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Question on A9 is a link to a section higher on this page that works no differently than these redirects. What happens when you click on it?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm running the same browser that I've used since I bought this computer in 2008. Section linking works normally for me; your link took me to the proper section, and if I go to Judge Roy Snyder, I end up at the "Judge Roy Snyder" section instead of the top of List of recurring characters in The Simpsons, but the speedy criterion links consistently take me to the top of WP:CSD. Nyttend (talk) 03:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm at a library computer now, and I get the same results as I did with my own computer. Nyttend backup (talk) 21:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

A7 and Software

A7 covers web content, but not software. I've found a number of new articles about "unremarkable" software products (to use Twinkle's CSD wording). Lately, I've taken to custom-CSD tagging these under A7. Is that proper procedure? Tckma (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

No, software that is not web content does not fall under A7. If no other speedy deletion criteria apply, you should either use proposed deletion or open an AFD. --RL0919 (talk) 16:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Why is Twinkle not using the same wording as the CSD criteria? Thryduulf (talk) 22:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
It may be that they are just trying to come up with wording that is short enough for radio buttons, but it is probably best to ask that question at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle. --RL0919 (talk) 22:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

A7 and WP:NOTINHERITED

Hypothetical situation but based on a current talk page discussion. Let's suppose Joe Bloggs who is a notable actor/athlete/politician/media mogul or whatever creates a charity called the Joe Bloggs Foundation. Now if that article went to AFD, a "keep" argument based solely on the fact that the foundation was created by "Joe Bloggs" would be a non-argument. However, if the article were tagged for deletion under A7, would "it was created by Joe Bloggs" be enough for it to escape A7?. I would think that it would be an assertion of significance but I'm curious as to what others think. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I am inclined to think not, absent some indication of importance or significance for the charity itself. I think a lot of "celebs" set up "Foundations" that are essentially vanity projects and don't do much. JohnCD (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with John. NOTINHERITED's principle is specifically for purposes of WP:N, not A7. A7 accepts any indication of importance imho and being founded by a notable person fits this requirement. At least, that's the view I held so far (see my essay WP:A7M). In this cases, deletion would not happen at AFD (since there is a target to redirect/merge the organization's article to), so it shouldn't happen using A7 as well. Regards SoWhy 21:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I too would count "founded by a notable person" as an assertion of significance (with 'notable' meaning a person with an article, whatever it's current state). It might or might not get merged at AfD (e.g. Joe Blogs' article might already say everything that's in the standalone article), but the outcome is not going to be "delete" on every occasion, so speedy deletion is not appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
It probably would count as an assertion of notability, so I suggest that rather than tagging it as CSD, you boldly merge it into the article about the notable person and redirect the page to the newly created subsection. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I would decline an A7 based on that example, exactly for SoWhy's rationale. GedUK  07:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I too would count founded by a notable person an assertion of possible importance, but if it was merely named after a notable or even famous person it might be another matter. In any case, my experience is that many of these articles are deletable as G11, G12, or both. DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
When you're talking about an actor, athlete, CEO, etc., "founded by" is usually a polite fiction for "had their paid staff do it and may or may not be involved". I dislike the idea that these get a free pass from A7 speedies just because some celeb has put their name on them. This is a stark contrast to the many small organizations we speedy every day because they are doing good, noble, admirable work, but don't have some jock's or actress' name plastered all over them to the greater glory of the celebrity. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
The whole point of A7 is that it requires new articles make at least one credibel assertion of significance or importance as to why the subject might be notable. While you might not like it being so, in contemporary British and American culture (at least), associating your product with a notable person can lead to it gaining a much higher profile and so it might be notable. These articles can be, and are, deleted through the regular PROD and AfD processes if they are not actually notable. Celebrity endorsement is not the only way to make an assertion of importance or significance, and if these smaller organisations actually are encyclopaedically notable then it will be easy to make such an assertion. Whether the work of an organisation is good, noble, admirable or bad, morally corrupt and despicable is irrelevant to their notability. Thryduulf (talk) 10:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Does A7 apply to newspapers?

I am right in thinking that A7 doesn't apply to newspapers, aren't I? I'm currently in dispute with another editor over the article about the newspaper Diario Frontera, and it seems to me to be covered by the clause "not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works". --88.104.39.209 (talk) 18:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Magazines, newspapers etc. are neither people, organizations, animals or web content. They might be covered if the newspaper is web-only but if it's printed, it's a product and not covered. Regards SoWhy 18:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. --88.104.39.209 (talk) 18:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

G8 jumps the gun?

I am a deletionist, but given that there is no deadline, is there really anything lost by waiting until a deletion is actually complete before also deleting the pages dependent on that page? I propose removing the sentence "In certain cases, G8 can be used even if the depending page still exists, i.e. if the deletion of the page has already been decided by consensus or the page clearly meets a criterion for speedy deletion and is tagged as such." from criterion G8. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Removing that sentence might mean that the page cannot be tagged until the root page is deleted. Flatscan (talk) 04:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with considering the pages as a set to be deleted together. I just want to avoid a non-admin declining a G8 solely because its parent has not been deleted yet (hopefully an admin would delete or decline them all). The wording "is itself currently tagged for speedy deletion" in {{db-g8}} seems better than the current sentence. Flatscan (talk) 04:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Are there example cases? The dependent page will be deleteable because of deletion of the parent page, but the parent page is not yet deleted? Why jump the gun, why not delete the parent page now? If it is uncertain (not 100%) that the parent should/will be deleted, then no, the G8s have to wait. Is it that the parent’s deletion requires further action? (eg. XfD concluded “email and delete” or “transwiki and delete”?) If “further action” may require consideration of the dependent pages.
I think G8 should, as a rule, be made to wait until after the parent is deleted. However, tagging pages G8, with a link to the parent page and the XfD page if applicable, is fine and even probably a good idea. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I cannot think of a case where tagging a page as G8 when the parent page still exists and has not also been tagged for speedy deletion would be a good idea or necessary. If the parent page is at XfD then make a note in the discussion, or if the discussion has closed, on the discussion's talk page or the closing admin's user talk page about the existence of the dependent page. If there is a reason why the dependent page cannot wait for the parent page then the dependent page will meet another CSD criteria and should be tagged with that.
I've got no issue with tagging the parent page for speedy deletion and also tagging the dependent page for G8 at the same time, although I'd encourage mentioning the parent/dependent page in the CSD nomination statement. Thryduulf (talk) 10:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
The dependent pages should be deleted at the same time or later than the parent page. If one administrator is deleting the set, it probably does not matter what order the deletions are done, but it is a problem if one of the pages is declined for delete but some are deleted. So we should avoid this situation. In practice a talk page seldom needs tagging, and it would be subpages, editnotices or redirects that should be highlighted as needing deletion, but I think it would be better to mention them all on the parent article, so that they get kept or deleted as one set. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
There should be no need to tag pages with G8 preemptively. As far as talk pages go, when a page is deleted, if it has a talk page the system says "This page also has a talk page. You may want to delete it as well – click [show] to view the contents", and most admins will also check "What links here" to pick up other dependent pages like redirects. G8 should normally be needed only for the not uncommon case of a talk page being created where there is no article, or where a dependent page has somehow been overlooked. JohnCD (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I support the removal of this sentence. Either it can wait until the 'parent' is being deleted (although the exact order is unimportant), or it should be tagged as some other criterion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Since there seems to be general agreement that this extra sentence is unnecessary, I've removed it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Tailored db-tag contest preloads

Please note that most of the criteria now have tailored preload text when the "click here to contest this speedy deletion button" is pressed. Try a few: {{db-a1}}, {{db-a3}}, {{db-a7}}, {{db-a9}}, {{db-a10}}, etc. If anyone thinks we need additional ones for criteria using the generic preload, they are easily added.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit notices to help people contest in the right place

As I'm sure some people here have noticed, new users fairly often manage to navigate to the speedy deletion templates before they click the "Click here to contest this speedy" button, so they post their contestations on the talk pages for those templates, which doesn't do them much good. To help users contest speedy deletions in the right place, I've added editnotices to the talk pages of all speedy deletion templates directing them to use their browser's back button until they reach the page with the actual template on it. All of the editnotices use {{Db editnotice}} for their text, so that making changes to them is easier. A full listing of editnotices can be found here. Please tweak the text of the notices, if necessary, and let me know if I missed any speedy templates which have the contest button. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 17:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Should the text maybe say the full label of the button? You have ""click her to contest this speedy"" in all of them; the full text of the button is "click her to contest this speedy deletion". I'm curious as to how these people are making it to the talk pages. They all redirect to Template talk:db-meta. And couldn't we just protect all the redirects? Template talk:db-g11 is already protected, for example, so no one but admins will ever see the notice you made for it because regular users can't click edit this page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it should say that. I just couldn't remember exactly what they said, apparently. I've fixed it.
I assume they're clicking the contest button from the templates themselves. Since it loads to editing a new section, they wouldn't be aware that it's redirected until after they've entered their comment.
Even if we protect them, without a message letting them know what they should be doing, I don't know if it'd help. It'd be less work for anyone who comes along later and removes their comments, but it still wouldn't address the problem that people who are trying to contest are doing it wrong, and therefore their comments aren't going to be read by the right people.
I checked {{Db-g11}} in another browser, where I'm logged out, and the message appears even though I couldn't edit the page. I could rework {{Db editnotice}} a bit so that it'll make more sense for protected talk pages, but I don't see that the two approaches are mutually exclusive. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes of course, they are clicking on the button in the templates!.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

"Speedy" is a shortcut

Looking at the discussion above, and the recent removal of the entire paragraph talking about how one can remove the speedy tag, I just want to ask if it is common knowledge that the speedy process is discretionary only when it is uncontested or non-obvious? The usual process for changing content is consensus, right? And the process for entirely removing an article is also based on consensus via a special process (XfD). Speedy, as I understand it, isn't a right, but a privilege. When no one finds fault with the removal, an admin can feel confident that the content can just be removed. But the normal process should still take precedence, slow as it is. The idea that maybe sockpuppets or others will game the speedy system is obvious. In fact, they can game anything, but we deal with such things as we discover they occur. Again, speedy is not a guarantee or a right, but a expedient privilege that allows us to assume consensus, but if someone insists on a true consensus, it ought to be strongly considered. -- Avanu (talk) 16:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

There are a number of criteria that relate to policy based reasons, such as copyright or attack pages these should be deleted regardless, for example if a article on a subject is created, nominated for AfD and is kept, it is quite proper for it to be speedy deleted if it later turned out to be a copyright violation that could not be fixed, in this case there would normally be nothing to stop creation of a new article on the same subject this time without copyrighted text. 17:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
In those cases, maybe there should be a different tag or something to differentiate it. I can understand that 'risky' content ought to be dealt with more quickly, so those exceptions make sense. -- Avanu (talk) 17:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Contested speedies still get deleted all the time. Vandalism, copyright violations, nonsense, attack pages, obvious hoaxes, creations by banned users, and word-for-word recreations of articles deleted at AFD can and should be deleted over objections, especially if those objections come from the page creator. A7 and G11 noms are often contested with invalid arguments and are deleted anyway as well. Pages dependent on non-existent or deleted pages are pretty cut-and-dried, either they are or they aren't. It seems to me that the situation you describe is the exception rather than the rule. CSD is not the same thing as WP:PROD, you need a solid, policy based reason for declining a speedy deletion nom, just as you need one for adding it in the first place. The whole reason we have administrators iis that somebody who has demonstrated knowledge of when to delete and when not to should usually make the decision. The only time non-admins should be declining speedy noms is when they are manifestly incorrect, similar to non-admin closures at AFD. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Two points:
1) I speedy things over the creator's objections all the time--but not so often when another editor has looked at it and declined the speedy. I don't blink when the creator's removed a tag, but when another editor has, I stop and examine it in pretty serious detail.
2) In fact, speedy is even easier to decline than PROD--with the exception that we don't really assign value to the creator's input. The only thing that need apply is the good-faith dispute that the criterion applies, and then the next step is AfD. Speedy is for when no good faith editor familiar with our policies objects, period. Jclemens (talk) 20:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I've removed this again. There's a number of problems. First, one can act in good faith and be utterly wrong. The fact that someone disputes a copyvio and gives a reason should not prevent a speedy of a blatant copyvio. The fact that someone fails to see that a page is an attack, isn't grounds for not speedying it, if it is actually an attack. My wider problem is an objection to legislating through policy pages. Policy describes action, it doesn't prescribe it. The fact is that articles are often retagged and deleted, so that's policy. It may be inadvisable in many circumstances, but there's no hard rule against it - and a few of us on this talk page don't get to legislate across the project. Avoid instruction creep. Can't we say "you might wish to consider the wisdom of retagging" - but if someone has mistakenly untagged an article that clearly meets the CSD there's no rule. Discussion can happen on a case-by case basis - if the deletion has been halted there's AFD, but equally if it has gone ahead (and you can't persuade the admin to back up) there's DRV.--Scott Mac 20:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem with that interpretation, Scott, is that it's wrong. If there's a dispute over whether something is an "attack", it is supposed to go to AfD, where a tiny minority will be quickly informed of SNOW consensus. Granted, well over 90% of CSD tag removals are not appropriate (from bad faith editors or those unfamiliar with actual policy) and can quickly be dealt with. Perhaps we need a courtesy-blanking template for contested G10-12's, where the content is only available in history while the article is discussed at AfD as a way to minimize risk while dealing with the contested content through a consensus process, much like DRV restorations are... Jclemens (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
To put it even more succinctly: If there is a dispute over whether a CSD criteria applies, it doesn't. Thryduulf (talk) 21:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Right, but there's plenty of people who would dispute that it applies without any policy backing. Hence, needing to qualify what sorts of disputes are really legitimate vs. which can be safely ignored. Jclemens (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion, the paragraph that Scott removed was entirely correct and should be restored. Thparkth (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
A copyright violation should be a fairly straightforward thing to prove or disprove. Whether something constitutes an "attack" is somewhat subjective. I would say the more objective something is, the easier it is to speedily delete it, but Scott, unless you are dealing with an unreasonable editor, if "someone fails to see that a page is an attack", it would seem to indicate we need to get a real consensus, not the implied consensus of a speedy deletion. -- Avanu (talk) 21:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, that's wrong. Firstly, copyvios are not always open and shut. Sometimes there is room for debate. (Is the alleged source actually copying wikipedia? Is it public domain). So if one person in good faith says "this isn't a copyvio" does that mean it doesn't get speedied, even if they are clearly wrong? As for attacks, alleged attacks on living people get speedied - and remain deleted until/unless consensus says it is safe to undelete. That means if one person is saying "hey this isn't an attack" and removed the tag, if you think it is an attack, the correct thing to do is to replace the tag and have it speedied. The contester can then try to convince the deleting admin that it isn't an attack and he should undelete it. If he manages, fine. If the admin disagrees then DRV. Bottom line, the default for an alleged attack is to nuke it. We undelete only if there's general agreement it wasn't an attack. We don't keep it undeleted just because one person in good faith disagrees. So, if something is tagged "attack" and then deprodded by someone who disagrees, retagging the correct action.--Scott Mac 21:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Again, this is why we have administrators. Sometimes it is appropriate to delete over objections, and sometimes it is not. No change to the policy is needed, admins are already expected to posses the judgement to make that determination. We don't need this supposed "real" consensus as the criteria already have consensus behind them, and admins are selected by the community to uphold that existing consensus. If a particular admin lacks that ability, that is a problem with that admin, not the criteria or the process itself. For appealing specific decisions we already have WP:UNDELETE. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, Scott, but all it takes is one good-faith editor disagreeing, and off to AfD it goes: even if it's supposedly a copyvio or an attack page; that's how policy is actually written. Of course, IAR is still policy and BLP measures apply, but AfD is the appropriate place for hashing out whether or not a contested speedy applies. DRV is for any speedy contested after the fact, not one contested before a deletion has actually been performed. Jclemens (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
(e/c) Well, true, a lot of things have consensus behind them, making people admins takes a consensus, making a policy takes consensus, but I think we're talking about a specific decision here that has specifically been challenged, not an overall lofty-type overarching consensus. The common refrain is that 'admins are just normal people', so it shouldn't necessarily mean anything less if one editor with a reasonable viewpoint disagrees with an admin or a tagger, right? -- Avanu (talk) 22:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I think what some of us are struggling to see is evidence that there is any widespread problem here. Most of the time if a person other than the creator removes a speedy, that's the end of it and the article does not get speedy deleted for that reason. Has there been a recent rash of admins coming in after a speedy was removed and deleting anyway? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Not that I know of... which begs the question: isn't policy supposed to describe what actually happens? Jclemens (talk) 22:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Right now it says "Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion.[1] Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." and "The creator of a page may not remove a speedy deletion tag from it. Only an editor who is not the creator of a page may do so. " and a bit further down in the instructions for admins "Before deleting a page, check the page history to assess whether it would instead be possible to revert and salvage a previous version, " Seems pretty clear to me, but I suppose we could make sure that it mentions that asking the deleting admin and/or WP:UNDELETE are the correct avenues of appeal for speedies. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

@JClemens. You are simply wrong as to policy. Any admin who sees a page that he views as an attack on a living person is entitled to delete it - even if there is a good faith objection, he is entitled to do that. It will be restored, ONLY if there is a consensus that it is safe to do so. Now, if that discretion applies to an admin, it must be quite reasonable for a non-admin to tag a page as an attack, and invite an admin to delete it as such, even if there is a good faith objection. What you are suggesting would rewrite several arbcom findings as to policy. If you want to do that, yet a wide consensus for it. You can't do that by simply changing the CSD page.--Scott Mac 23:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

  • G10. Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose: These "attack pages" may include libel, legal threats, material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person or biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced. These pages should be speedily deleted when there is no neutral version in the page history to revert to. Both the page title and page content may be taken into account in assessing an attack. Articles about living people deleted under this criterion should not be restored or recreated by any editor until the biographical article standards are met.
The important procedural step is that before deleting the admin must check the history to see if there is a neutral version to which it can be reverted. There is no prohibition on restoring the page if the material is compliant with BLP policy. As for policy, it isn't set by the ArbCom, it's set by us.   Will Beback  talk  23:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
A half dozen people on this talk page, don't get to overturn an interpretation of policy endorsed by arbcom. You don't like it, go get a real consensus.--Scott Mac 23:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I think that this problem is related to your misunderstanding of BLP policies, Scott. If there's a dispute as to whether something is an attack, there's a dispute. If you think the dispute is misguided, that's your right, but you don't get to proceed full speed ahead shouting "It's an attack page" any more than you get carte blanche by shouting "BLP!". Note the the criteria doesn't even include all attacks, only those attacks where the article "serve[s] no other purpose".—Kww(talk) 23:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Wrong. A dispute as to whether something violates BLP is settled in the absence of the material. Admins have the right to remove, and the onus is on the person wanting it restored to convince others that it is safe to do so. We don't keep something hanging about because someone says they dispute it. We err on the side of removal.--Scott Mac 23:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Hopefully, we err on the side of reasonableness. -- Avanu (talk) 23:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
As Avanu so aptly points out, you still don't understand our policies on such things.—Kww(talk) 23:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually, Scott is sort of right, but for the wrong reasons. G10 contested BLP attack pages may still be deleted as BLP material, but attack pages on e.g., corporations are not subject to BLP measures, so they don't get that benefit. You'll note that the G10 wording calls this out, sort of. Thus, while BLP attack material can be deleted immediately by two different methods (CSD and BLP special measures), the first is not applicable to contested material. I'll note we're having this discussion at the CSD page, not the BLP page, hence my interest in a broad approach that encompasses all possibilities. Jclemens (talk) 00:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
But a well-sourced, profoundly negative article about a person can't be speedied if contested. Given the history of such articles as Kelly Wearstler, you'll have to forgive me for suspecting that Scott's intepretation of BLP and attack pages is unreasonably broad.—Kww(talk) 00:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
That a well-sourced profoundly negative article shouldn't be speedied if contested is a truism. But then a well-sourced article shouldn't be deleted at all. However, admins are empowered to delete articles they believe to be violating BLP (where there's no compliant version). The fact that someone contests this and claims that in their opinion the article is adequately sourced is beside the point. The admin deletes using their judgement, and then that judgement can be contested after the fact, and the article restored if discussion indicates deletion was in error. The point is that we err or the side of removing the contested material, until discussion occurs. My point is that if a non-admin tags an article as G10 on the basis that it is "biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced", and someone contests it by removing the tag, then it is entirely reasonable for the tag to be re-added by someone who believes that the objection is ill-founded. Otherwise what you are saying is that an admin is still free to delete a de-tagged article if, in their judgement, it still violates BLP, but a non-admin is not free to ask for an admin to do this. That would be illogical. Not least because, if a non-admin re-tags, then at least one other admin has to review the article and judge whether the case is correct.
However, my wider point remains. If an article is an obvious A7, and someone in good faith, but in obvious error detags it claiming that "class bungee jumping champion" is an assertion of notability, there's nothing to preclude someone re-tagging. Sure, don't edit war. But don't jam AFD with pointless debates.--Scott Mac 10:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

A7 and Products

I have seen many examples of unremarkable product articles on Wikipedia. However, I don't know of they can be tagged as A7. I propose adding a new branch to A7 for "un-remarkable product". This could also solve the issues I have seen above such as can newspapers, ebooks and other things be covered by A7. Any product could therefore be tagged for CSD without confusion. Oddbodz (talk) 09:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

This has been proposed multiple times and rejected every time. Please see the talk page archives for previous discussions. Regards SoWhy 10:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be helpful to have a /Frequent proposals page that lists those things that are frequently proposed, summarises the reasons for rejection and links to previous discussions. Hopefully this will reduce the number of repeated suggestions that don't add anything new. Thryduulf (talk) 10:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

G5 templates

Over at Deletion review and ANI, we've been having a rather large conflict over the deletion of several templates that were created by a banned user, but had been transcluded in several other templates, including the main infobox for a WikiProject. Pretty much everyone involved, including me, let this get quite far out of hand, but now that I've had time to calm down and really analyze the situation, one thing keeps bugging me: the admins who did the deletes were following a legitimate interpretation of the speedy delete process, and it led to unacceptable consequences and a lot of hurt feelings and bruised egos.

The problem is that templates, by their very nature, tend to get transcluded alot, and their deletion can seriously screw things up. My hope is that we can get a note into the G5 criteria that says that templates that would qualify under G5 if they were regular articles should be taken through a full templates for deletion process. Perhaps the addition of a T4. Non-transcluded templates created by banned or blocked users would be useful as well for some of the truly uncontroversial deletes. My hope is that we can get some of these issues out of the "everything's screwed up because of you", and into the "how do we uphold the block/ban while retaining the functionality of the template" question. VanIsaacWS 18:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Such a criterion would be redundant to G5. The general criteria apply in all namespaces, so having a special one for templates wouldn't change a thing. In situations like these, I suggest you remind users that all the CSD are for uncontroversial deletions only, and there is clearly a controversy here. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
The problem remains that the admins really had no way of knowing beforehand that they would be disruptive and controversial, and that's a bit of a problem that I think is inherent in most template deletions that fall under the G5 criteria. VanIsaacWS 19:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. Admins are expected to check transclusions, especially when it comes to templates, and if they notice that the template has been trancluded into templates that cannot be speedy deleted for the same reason, then it's imho automatically potentially controversial and thus G5 should not be applied. I won't mind an addition to G5 clarifying this though, something like "does not apply if pages created by others depend on the page". Regards SoWhy 19:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
How about "does not apply to content transcluded in non-SPEEDY articles" VanIsaacWS 20:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
How about adding, "G5 should not be applied to transcluded templates."  Unscintillating (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm just thinking of the possibility of a collection of G5 templates that are transcluded in each other. Maybe I'm trying to find a policy for the exceptions, but that's kind of what happened in this incident, so I may be looking a bit too far into this than is warranted. VanIsaacWS 03:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't technically know what was transcluded in what, but this sentence may still cover it, so I ask, how can my proposal be misread for the case(s) you mention, to lead to an undesired result?  Unscintillating (talk) 04:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't have the background to answer this question, but does anyone have experience with G5-able templates being transcluded, who can tell us if they tend to be transcluded into actually useful and necessary templates, or if they are mostly transcluded into other junk that the same banned editor has created. If it's the latter, then we may end up having full deletion reviews for a lot of templates that should be speedy deletable. That's the result that I'm thinking about. I'm not going to say I'm worried about it, but I don't think I'd be doing due dilligence unless I thought of possible negative consequences for the change to G5 criteria. VanIsaacWS 13:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I think a better solution here is better tool support for erasing the contributions of banned users, which can check things like "is this template transcluded, directly or indirectly, in any pages that were created or edited substantially by other users?" This is really rather difficult for editors to check manually. Dcoetzee 06:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
If that is a better solution, why did the admin object to restoring the transcluded templates once he/she knew that the templates had been transcluded?  Would not my proposal be a desirable change with or without improved tool support?  Unscintillating (talk) 12:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I think that better tool support could be helpful in relaxing the burden on admins doing G5 housekeeping in the template namespace under the new guidelines, but that without the policy assistance, they aren't going to have the framework to be able to use the tools to do their job more effectively. VanIsaacWS 13:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Does the lack of feedback for four days mean that we think "G5 should not be applied to transcluded templates." is the consensus? I think it's succinct and to the point. Any dissenters? VanIsaacWS 03:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I guess nobody objects -

Please add the following sentence to the end of the G5 criteria: "G5 should not be applied to transcluded templates."

VanIsaacWS 17:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done Edit protection was lifted, so I did it myself. VanIsaacWS 18:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed change to F11 (no permission)

Would anyone object to a proposed change to deletion criteria F11 to include files tagged with {{OTRS pending}} for over 30 days? This is currently the policy used at Commons (see item "4" under "file". Kelly hi! 19:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

F11 strictly speaking already covers that, since files tagged with the template already lack evidence of permission - they just contain the promise of evidence. Your proposal would make it more lenient by giving such files a longer grace period in order for OTRS to deal with it if such permission actually was provided via OTRS. I think it's a good idea since OTRS might take some time in some cases and the internal lag at OTRS shouldn't affect the file. Regards SoWhy 12:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Support, seems like a good idea per SoWhy. Thryduulf (talk) 19:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Please add the following to the end of F11:

Files tagged with {{tl|OTRS pending}} for more than 30 days may also be speedily deleted under this criteria.

Kelly hi! 16:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

New Changes

Please consider these changes. Jab7842 (talk) 05:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and make the change. It's a shame this page hasn't kept pace with the speedy deletion templates. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
The page is fully protected. --Σ talkcontribs 05:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I suggest using
{#tag: inputbox |
type=commenttitle
hidden=yes
buttonlabel=Click here to contest this speedy deletion
break=no
}

To prevent contested deletions from coming onto this page. --Σ talkcontribs 05:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that the page was protected.
When I tried to add the code, I found the problem you identified: clicking on the button would add the contested deletion to this page. Your proposed code is better than the original sandbox diff, but it tries to make a change to the Main Page—probably not a problem for non-administrators, but maybe we should discuss it here before making the change. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I have disabled the request for now as this page is not protected anymore. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Résumés

Occasionally I find résumés in the new pages log, and judging by the existence of WP:RESUME, I'm hardly the only one. I've been marking these under G11 (Unambiguous advertising) as there is no separate criterion for résumés. Is this the correct category? If not, how should I be marking them? Or, should a new CSD category be created? Tckma (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

G11 may be appropriate if the article is exclusively promotional and contains no non-neutral material whatsoever. I would imagine that this is not usually the case for a resume. But A7 would surely apply in most cases - I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that "fast learner", "experienced" and "good customer service skills" are not credible claims of significance for A7 purposes :)
Indeed, what is a résumé if not an advertisement about oneself? G11 is a good fit, and I agree with the above poster that A7 may work as well if it is in article space. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Except, what is user space if not an advertisement about oneself as well? Does a CV get deleted because it is an advertisement, or is it acceptable as pertinent background on a given user? What is the dividing line? VanIsaacWS 18:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I disagree that userspace is a form of self-advertising. If I put on my userpage something like "I'm a software engineer and a roadgeek and in my spare time I enjoy bowling," I'm clearly not trying to get a job or sell myself, even though I've just disclosed my profession. I'm just trying to give some background information for other Wikipedians to get to know me a little. On the other hand, a résumé's purpose is to advertise oneself for the purpose of obtaining employment, and therefore is a form of spam/advertising where the "product" being "sold" (to a potential employer) is oneself. And, as WP:RESUME points out, who is going to look on Wikipedia for a résumé? Monster.com, dice.com, and several other venues exist for that sort of thing, and would probably be more successful for getting a job. We speedily delete other forms of spam/advertising in userspace, so why not résumés? Tckma (talk)
#Arbitrary section break may be relevant. --Σ talkcontribs 23:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

A résumé in article space would always be speedy deleted. A résumé in user space might be given some time, possibly sent to MFD instead of speedy deletion, but it won't be kept in the long term. WP:UP#PROMO is the relvant policy section, stating that a user may not have "Extensive self-promotional material, especially when not directly relevant to Wikipedia" on their userpage. So we already have a policy on this, it just isn't a speedy criterion. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Not always! a resumé in article space, which is intended as the description of a person's career, can usually be truncated sufficiently to make at least a stub article of it-- I think we do not make use of the option to stubbify frequently enough. This goes of course only if the things in the career are in fact notable; the frequency of that depends on the subject area. The criterion for G11 is both exclusively promotional, and need to be fundamentally rewritten. Promotional here is used in contrast to factual. At one point, it read promotional purpose, but purpose is impossible to really determine except in extreme cases--especially since about half the material here has an ultimately promotional purpose: the purely objective description of what a notable person person or company does, will inherently promote his activities. I know I am often prepared to rewrite more extensively than most, but then I do still find occasion to use G11 quite a lot also. For me, it depends on whether it's worth the trouble--I won't rewrite a borderline career. The indefiniteness of G11 is indeed a problem, but without it, since the really promotional articles will usually be contested, we'd have a lot of SNOW AfDs. DGG ( talk ) 03:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Uh, I guess that's possible, I've just never seen it. Most people who are actually notable are not going to spend their time posting their résumé to Wikipedia as they already have careers. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Not always. If we're talking about someone like Ruth Ellen Brosseau, who's unquestionably notable because of the position she's currently holding but might have trouble finding a job after the next federal election in Canada, then she might be tempted to post her resume here, even to the point of overwriting our article on her. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 19:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I've seen quite a number of resumes. There are plenty of people with significant careers who suddenly find themselves with time no their hands and a desire to improve their notability. Or they have their assistant do it, if they're still employed. While it's not relevant to speedy deletion, a couple of months ago I dealt with a senior government official who'd recently been forced to resign and wanted to put his spin on the events and to burnish his credentials. It happens. Getting back to SD, even if a persona might be notable, if a new article is simply an unsourced resume then it should be deleted. Wikipedia isn't Linkedin.   Will Beback  talk  23:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Those cases that are not at least one of stubbable, revertable or deleteable under G11, A7 or A10 are going to be so far between as to completely fail the frequency requirement for a new CSD criterion. If someone is wanting to put their own spin on things, then we should evaluate our article for neutrality and, if necessary, include quotes reflecting the user's posisition (in the unlikely event they haven't written it elsewhere, we should encourage them to do so). Thryduulf (talk) 23:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
You said "There are plenty of people with significant careers who suddenly find themselves with time no their hands and a desire to improve their notability." That's pretty much the nub of it. That they think that having content about them on Wikipedia will improve their public recognition / significance in the real world, instead of the other way around, is evidence that the person won't pass WP:GNG. Aside from that, I don't see much need to defend the resumes anyway -- if the person is notable, then they are sincerely welcome to write an encyclopedic article about themselves after I speedy their resume. causa sui (talk) 00:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't think they do it "to improve their notability" An academic knows damn well that their notability comes from the way they are regarded by their colleagues--and that this does not depend in the least on Wikipedia, but on their reputation their work may have,and the reputation they gain from the work of their students. Based on what I've seen here, the motives vary: some are posted not by the individual, but by their students, or sometimes by people associated with their department--this is a degree of COI, but no more so than any bio. Sometimes they are interested in having their work known generally, for the very good reason that they think it important, and of interest to the public-- sometimes because of controversies they are engaged in, sometimes because most people choose to work in fields where their work will have some practical effect, and they want people to know it. (All of this is just the same as in any other field of endeavor). Some write their articles as a CV because it's easiest--all people in the academic (and business, and other professional) worlds, have their CV immediately on hand. None of this is necessarily reason for deletion . all of it is reason for examination and rewriting. A person here evaluating such an article needs to get to the actual gist of it--the actual notability, even if it is sometimes obscured by the writing or the manner of presentation. There is very little in Wikipedia that can be done without thought--and nothing that can in deletion processes. DGG ( talk ) 06:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

User space article drafts from inactive users

I'm coming across quite a few of these when looking through red-linked categories and I wondered if a new Ux criterion (U4 I suppose) could be considered). This would speedy delete pages in the following circumstances

  • It's a user space article draft
  • The user has been inactive for at least a year (and so is unlikely to respond to any requests); and
  • The corresponding article now exists in mainspace.

Thoughts? Boissière (talk) 20:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it might fail on the commonness front. Besides, prod would work great for that, as it would give the user a brief while to notice the change if they're still checking their pages, but not editting them. Speedy doesn't add much. It's not urgent to delete drafts, as they don't run much risk of giving false information to casual readers. It's not like deleting saves wikipedia any storage either. i kan reed (talk) 21:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
If it's got sources and meets the general requirements, why not move it into article space? We only need to delete what is not appropriate, if it fits, why not use it? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand your comment. The requirements listed include having an article already present. i kan reed (talk) 21:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
User-space deletions have to go through WP:MFD rather than WP:PROD which seems a bit much for what should be uncontroversial deletions (IMV). These drafts have been invariably put into mainspace via a copy/paste rather than a move so the original user is unlikely to want to work on the user space version afterwards. I have come across quite a lot of these recently but I don't know how many there are in total. A further reason that I feel that this is a good thing is the fact that these drafts are often placed in mainspace categories (even though they shouldn't be) which pollutes them somewhat. (See Wikipedia:Database reports/Polluted categories to get a feel for these). Boissière (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Before deleting a userspace draft of an existing article, we should take care that, if the draft contains pertinent information not included in the article, it should be transferred there before deletion. That's why such deletions should not be rushed. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
As far as I am aware, MfD is handling these cases perfectly well currently without getting overwhelmed. Is there any evidence to the contrary? I'm just not seeing a need for this. Thryduulf (talk) 22:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. There is NO reason for speedy deletion in userspace which is not already covered by the existing U or G series. By definition, the user wanted to keep it, and the speedy criteria which override that wish (G10-12) already exist. Jclemens (talk) 23:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with the notion of speedily deleting userpages for any reason but the already accepted ones. I think we should leave userspace alone as much as possible. I understand that this approach to the question is from rather a different angle than expected, but I would like to make this point here. Debresser (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Just history merge. --Σ talkcontribs 00:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • WP:ABANDON. My Wikiproject already deals with these. If you run across viable userdraft articles (ones that apear viable from a search for sources, mind you), you should let the Wikiproject know so we can move it into the Project's userspace. Or you can do that yourself if you want. SilverserenC 02:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Edit: Didn't see the corresponding article part. If the article already exists in mainspace, then go ahead and delete it, yeah. I was talking about ones that don't have a copy in mainspace. SilverserenC 02:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • That's really the crux of it, that the article does now exist in mainspace. I'm now wondering whether it might be less controversial to create a template displayed at the top which says something like "This is a userspace draft which has a corresponding Wikipedia article at X. The user may have forgotten about this draft or may be working on improvements to the main article." It could also put the article into a category. Silver seren, it might help you with your WP:ABANDON project to eliminate drafts that you are not interested in. I am not aware if such a template exists aleady. Boissière (talk) 14:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • The template seems like a good idea, possibly working along the lines of {{Orphan images}} which categorises and alerts people. It would be easy for a bot to generate a report of new taggings for the WP:ABANDON project (very similar to the article alerts). The category/report would then filter into MfD as appropriate. After a few months the situation can be reviewed and if MfD is getting overwhelmed then a CSD criterion can be proposed at that time with evidence and knowledge of what traits abandoned drafts that are always deleted commonly have. Thryduulf (talk) 14:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Question

I know there's a speedy option for re-creation of material deleted through discussion (G4), but I think there should be one for re-creation of previously speedied material as I see a lot of pages re-created after being speedied (usually by new editors). Haven't looked through the archives, but has this been brought up before?   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 20:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Reason why it doesn't exist is because there is no need for a new speedy deletion criteria in such a case. If the old reason for speedy deletion still applies, re-tag the re-created article. G4 is needed for AfD because we don't need to go through the whole AfD process again when the article is substantially the same as the article that was originally deleted. Singularity42 (talk) 20:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
This pretty much it. To put it another way first, anything deletion that would have been valid under the new criteria would already be deleteable under the original criteria and second, if an article was not deleatable under the original speedy deletion criteria that would mean the new article was found to be sufficently different and therefore a deletion under the new criteria would not be valid. In short this new criteria would not change a thing.--70.24.215.48 (talk) 04:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
This is all that needs to be said. --Σ talkcontribs 05:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Schools & A7

Does the exception to A7 for schools apply to all educational institutions? There is a difference in the use of the term between North America and the UK and Ireland. In North America, it tends to refer to educational institutions of all levels, whereas in the UK and Ireland, it does not refer to third-level or further education institutes. I think the criterion should be altered to clarify what is meant by schools. Quasihuman | Talk 22:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Schools are just an example of the things that are not covered, the list is not exhaustive. A7 only applies to those subjects that are explicitly listed as being within scope. As always with CSD, if there is any doubt whether an article fits the criterion then it doesn't. Thryduulf (talk) 01:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
My understanding was that schools are explicitly mentioned because they are organisations (a topic which normally falls within A7), the deletion of which are thought by some people to be automatically controversial. If that is a correct assessment, clarification is needed as to what is meant by schools. If the criteria is left in the current state, I would use the widest possible interpretation of the word, but it is a shame to keep language which has significantly different meanings between two major variants of English. Quasihuman | Talk 10:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Reading Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Criteria for Speedy Deletion A7, about this issue, it seems that the discussion there includes third-level institutes. See proposal below.Quasihuman | Talk 10:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
There are also those art and music schools for kids that operate after school hours, I would not really consider these as schools but more like some business. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps, but I don't see the problem with extending A7's school exemption to them. We aren't likely to get all that many articles about these sorts of businesses that aren't spam but still manage not to tell the reader why they should care. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

In A7, that (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools) be changed to (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools and third-level colleges) to avoid the ambiguity described above. Quasihuman | Talk 10:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose Silly. Third-level colleges are schools. There's no ambiguity here. If the subject is a place whose purpose is to teach things to other people, then it is a school. Would this really be a plausible conversation in the UK:
Person 1: Hey, what school do you go to?
Person 2: Right now I'm enrolled in the University of Dublin.
Person 1: That's not a school, that's a third-level college.
Third-level college is not even a redirect, I highly doubt there is such an important distinction drawn in the UK between schools and third-level colleges to the extent that we need to explicitly list both of them in the A7 criteria so that people don't get confused. —SW— speak 17:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) From School: "In the United Kingdom, the term school refers primarily to pre-university institutions" when I read A7 first, I assumed it applied only to 1st and 2nd level, OED says that a school is an institution for educating children. The "Read this before proposing new criteria" bit above says in point 1 that " most reasonable people should be able to agree whether an article meets the criterion" this is not true for the current criteria. The wording in my proposal may be clumsy, and I am not particularly tied to it, I am open to clearer suggestions.
Quasihuman | Talk 17:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Now can somebody create a suitable redirect so that third-level college is no longer a redirect? --Orange Mike | Talk 16:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Would Tertiary education be a suitable target? Thryduulf (talk) 23:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. Done. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Warning templates

Hi. The last paragraph of this article's "Criteria" section currently contains this: "All speedy deletion templates thus contain in their body a pre-formatted, suggested warning template to notify the relevant parties of the nomination for speedy deletion under the criterion used." I've just tried db-g8 and db-talk and in neither case did that "contains a template" bit seem to be true. Or I am missing the point? - it wouldn't be the first time. Can someone please explain? Thanks and best wishes 138.37.199.206 (talk) 12:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

{{db-g8}} and {{db-talk}} are for criterion WP:G8 and thus they are only used in situations where a notification would be pointless - usually because the user knows of the deletion already since the parent page was deleted or tagged for deletion. For example, if you tag a page for A7 and the talk page for G8, the user will get a notification for A7 already and it's clear to them that the talk page, that depends on the article, will be removed alongside it. Another example is {{db-g6}} (and the other WP:G6 related templates): Maintenance can only be used if the deletion is completely uncontroversial and thus there is no need to notify people about it. Regards SoWhy 12:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the explanation. It does leave us with the fact that the project page text is simply wrong - whatever the explanation, it makes a simple claim: "All speedy deletion templates thus contain in their body a pre-formatted, suggested warning template" - which is simply untrue; as you have explained, they do not. It might be nice to fix this. Also, I must say that I found this confusing - I put a speedy template on a G8 type page, a Talk page which existed without an article. I didn't necessarily know what was going on and there was no obvious explanation of how it got to be there on its own but I felt it was courteous to inform the user who had put the (admittedly garbage) page there. Given that we generally speaking want people to help with tasks like this, I'd have thought that some more clarity here would help. :) Thanks and best wishes 138.37.199.206 (talk) 06:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
The sentence has been made true. --Σ talkcontribs 06:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Wow, that was fast, thanks very much. Nice new version. I feel a small things-happening-quickly sound effect such as shazooom or a simple groink! is called for here. Thanks again 138.37.199.206 (talk) 08:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Require article-page or article talk page notification for proposed deletion under F6

At Wikipedia talk:Non-free content (I'm not sure which page should be the primary location for discussion) I have proposed a required notification on the article page or article talk page for when a nonfree image used in the article is proposed for speedy deletion for lacking fair-use justification (CSD #F6).

I propose this due to a situation that occurred today when non-free images were deleted from two of my watchlisted articles for lacking fair-use justification. Both images had been uploaded by users who have not edited for several years and both images had been in the articles for several years. There had been no notification in the articles or article talk pages and presumably no one noticed the user-talk-page notices to the uploaders (a talk-page notice to a user who has not contributed since 2007 or 2008 is unlikely to be seen by anyone; indeed one of the user talk pages had no page views in the past month except for the proposed-deletion notification), but active contributors interested in these articles might have wanted to contribute free-use justifications if they had been alerted to the problems. I don't believe either of the images qualified for fair use (and because I don't have much interest in either article I had never delved into the histories of the images), but it seems to me that needless drama can ensue in other situations like this -- when images disappear from articles without alerting interested current contributors who might have been willing and able to provide the documentation needed to prevent their deletion.

Since I believe the more prolific taggers of non-free images lacking fair-use justification use tools to generate the notifications, it should not be difficult to provide notification on the article talk page. --Orlady (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe rather than making this a rule we could just find a bot operator to do it. Now that I think of it that is what User:BetacommandBot used to do. Maybe a less... problematic user could use the code to make a new bot. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
CommonsNotificationBot (talk · contribs) performs a similar function for images nominated for deletion on Commons. Kelly hi! 19:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm the maintainer of CommonsNotificationBot. This is trivial to implement - I have filed for approval for the bot to also run on WP:CSD file categories as well. Hopefully it will be speedily approved :) --Errant (chat!) 00:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, ErrantX! --Orlady (talk) 00:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
That was "speedy"; Anomie gave it the OK so I will implement this in the next couple of days - stay tuned! :) --Errant (chat!) 01:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Followup: I see that the bot is indeed adding notifications to article talk pages - sweet! Best news I've seen all day. --Lexein (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's completely true. It is providing notifications for files proposed for deletion at Commons, but I don't see evidence of notifications for files proposed for deletion on this Wikipedia. --Orlady (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Here's a bit of good news: Talk:Mara Clara (2010 TV series) in re File:MaraClaraTV10.png.
I scanned down Special:Contributions/CommonsNotificationBot while mousing over the File:*.* link for images not linking to commons:File:*.* A good percentage of WP files are in the mix: out of 500 recent bot contributions, 124 were WP images, and 328 were Commons images (grepping for 'title="File:' and 'title="commons:File:' respectively. --Lexein (talk) 18:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Nice. --Orlady (talk) 22:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy noms for categories

Hi, I'm not all that familiar with how speedy noms work for categories rather than articles. Basically I want to object to this proposed speedy [5] - what happened here is that the category used to have a quite large number of articles in it, but was emptied out by User:Hoops gza who then nominated it for speedy deletion based on the fact that... the category is empty. This smacks, at least to me, of a bit of gaming the system. If he thinks that the category should be deleted he should properly nominate it for deletion, rather than, what looks like to me, these sneaky tricks.

So, can I remove the speedy tag and put all the articles that were removed from it back in (which is roughly what would happen with a unjustified PROD for an article)?Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you can object to the speedy tag in that manner as you are saying the speedy criterion was applied in bad faith. I would though start a CfD about it though. Thryduulf (talk) 23:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I would certainly start a cfd; this particular one is likely to be considerably controversial. Better to deal with it by a discussion. In the meantime, I removed the speedy tag, and put an "underconstruction" tag on it to give you a chance to restore the articles, which I think would be better done before the cfd so we'd have something substantial to discuss. Please, however, be careful to put back only the ones that are quite certain; it will make your case stronger. DGG ( talk ) 02:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 02:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, ok. Is there a quick way to see what articles were in the category, say, a month ago? Otherwise I'll have to prowl through Hoops' contributions and find them. Also, since I created a category for Nazi leaders assassinated by Polish resistance (which Hoops said he agrees with), some of those articles have been moved into that category. Volunteer Marek  10:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Somewhat OT but I see a similar situation with non-free images sometimes. A user in good faith perceives that there is a problem with a non-free image but feels that the simplest and most expedient way of dealing with it is to orphan it and then delete it as F5. Same with cats. Find what you perceive as a problem cat, just depopulate and delete it. The problem is that both would appear to be "dirty pool" to an outsider who notices this and objects. This then causes bad feelings as the objector focuses on the "dirty pool" action instead of whether or not the object (image or cat) in question was problematic. In my view, if one feels in good faith that an "object" (article, category, image, or what have you) has the potential to cause harm "right now" then just IAR delete it with a clear explanation as to why. Yes yes I know, deletion should be "IAR free" but doing it this way is preferable to "gaming the system" and is more honest. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Quite right, deletion should be entirely IAR free. There is no point in having speedy critera otherwise. If you think something has the potential to cause harm right now, and it doesn't meet any speedy deletion criteria, and nothing short of deletion will remove the potential for harm, then nominate it for deletion, explicitly mentioning the potential for harm and bring it up somewhere like WP:AN/I to see whether others agree with you. If they do then it will quickly be deleted by consensus. In almost every case I am aware of, what one editor perceives as having the potential to cause immediate harm are actually not urgent (or sometimes even entirely harmless). For example, F5-7 allow unused or unexplained free use files or those with an invalid FUR to remain on our servers for 7 days, so deleting them can hardly be described as "urgent". In all cases where articles are removed from a category, or images removed from articles prior to nominating for (speedy) deletion, it should be a requirement to list these uses in the nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 13:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Declined speedies

NONE:

While there were plausible arguments put forward that removing a Speedy tag was evidence that the applicable article did not then meet the criteria of an obvious speedy deletion, it was strongly argued that the proposed wording was not clear enough, and that introducing an extra layer to the Speedy deletion process was too bureaucratic, was against the principle of cutting down on wasted process, and would allow the Speedy process to be subverted. The !vote tally, though, was quite close, and suggests that the idea could be refined and re-proposed with brief, clear and bullet-proof wording. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
After a discussion at ANI, I added the following paragraph to this guideline:

If speedy deletion has been declined once, the page should not be retagged for the same type of speedy deletion. The fact that speedy deletion was declined proves that deletion of that specific page is contentious, and therefore per definition the page is not a candidate for speedy deletion, which should be uncontroversial.

This paragraph was in accordance with the sentiments expressed there by several editors. Nevertheless, one editor thinks the wording should be improved a little before it can be added here, so I'd like to ask for your comments. Debresser (talk) 15:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Do we really need to add that? Don't get me wrong, I agree with the sentiment, but I don't think the policy has to spell it out, just because one editor cannot accept that the policy just does not work the way he would like it to (anyone who knows me is that I almost never criticize another editor this way but this incident is really too much even for me). Such editing is already prohibited by our policies: It violates Wikipedia:Edit warring; it constitutes an attempt of admin shopping; it violates Wikipedia:Administrators#Reversing another administrator's action (although that section only refers to one admin undoing the actions of another, it's clear that "normal" editors shouldn't either); and Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Speedy deletion is clear that a dispute about whether a page fits a tag should be resolved by XFD, not deletion; etc. But then again, spelling it out clearly won't do any harm and it has been crystal clear consensus for years now that you should not re-tag something after an admin made a decision. Since it already is based on the policies (see above), adding it to WP:CSD is only a formal matter. Regards SoWhy 15:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I think that it would be an appropriate addition. We don't write pages like this to tell an editor as sensible as SoWhy what is and isn't permissible. We write them to stop problems that we shouldn't be experiencing, and this looks exactly like the kind of problem that we shouldn't be experiencing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
It might need a definition of what we mean by "decline". Evidently removal of the speedy tag by the article author doesn't count, but quite often the article author removes the tag, is warned, and the tag is immediately removed again by an IP, almost certainly the author logged out. We shouldn't require that to go to AfD. "Declined by an admin" is too strong, any good-faith decline should be enough. Say " ..has been declined once, for a plausible reason stated in the edit summary... "? JohnCD (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I support the addition of this text, with JohnCD's amendment. This is an issue often enough (especially for a csd-declining-non-admin like myself) that it would be useful to have it spelled out, even though it already is implicit in policy. Thparkth (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
@JohnCD - I disagree with the proposed ammendment, and here's an example of why. New editor writes an article that states in its entirety: "John Smith goes to high school at JFK high school. He is a bad student. He distributes child pornography. Everybody hates him." A NPP taggs the article for deletion under G10. Another editor (either an SPA or an inexperienced editor who is trying to be helpful) comes along, reverts the tag, and gives an edit summary along the lines of "This isn't really an attack page. It could be important. Should be a BLP PROD instead." Another editor should be allowed to restore the G10 tag in that case, and not go through AfD. That's why I like the "declined by admin" wording better. Singularity42 (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment of the proposal, but ultimately do not support the policy as worded. Example: editor tags the article for deletion under G12, but forgets to include the URL of the source. The tag is declined by an admin. Under the above policy, it cannot be re-tagged for speedy deletion under G12, even if the proper source is identified. Instead, it would have to go through PROD/AfD, which is inappropriate for copyright material. The same is true for many other situations that the various speedy deletion tags are used for.

I might reconsider changing my support position (or lack thereof at the moment), if the policy was restricted to A7, where I think the policy makes more sense. The policy should also clearly state that the CSD tag was removed because it was declined by a reviewing admin, not because it was contested by another editor. Singularity42 (talk) 16:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

(e/c x 2) Strongly in agreement with JohnCD that this needs qualification. Since only admins can delete, only admins can "decline" to delete so I think its confusing to lump removal of tags in with declining. There are others way to indicate a plausible reason than the edit summary. So I suggest: If speedy deletion has been declined once by an administrator, or the speedy deletion tag is removed by an uninvolved editor who indicates a plausible reason for that removal, the page should not be retagged for the same type of speedy deletion. The fact that speedy deletion was contested in this way renders deletion of that specific page contentious, and therefore the page is not a candidate for speedy deletion, which is normally only applicable to uncontroversial topics.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I agree that this is something it wouldn't harm to say. I think the wording could be improved from the above though, particularly it implies that tagging with a different CSD criterion is acceptable, whereas it almost always isn't (the exceptions being pretty much just G9, G12 and, possibly, G5). Thryduulf (talk) 17:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the wording of Fuhghettaboutit, apart from the word "normally", which should either be removed or replaced by "per definition" as in my original text, since "normally" is too weak. Debresser (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
If speedy deletion has been declined by an administrator, or the speedy deletion tag has been removed by an uninvolved editor who indicated a plausible reason for that removal, the page should not be re-tagged for the speedy deletion; this rule does not apply when circumstances later change in such a way that the reason for declining to speedy delete the page is no longer valid (for example if it turns out later that the page is a copyright violation). The fact that speedy deletion was contested in this way renders deletion of that specific page contentious, and therefore the page is not a candidate for speedy deletion, which is by definition only applicable to pages where deletion would be uncontroversial.
How's that? I used Fuhghettaboutit's proposal with a little tweak and included Debresser's suggestion above. Regards SoWhy 19:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I think that's excellent. I have BOLDly tweaked SoWhy's words slightly, and I hope uncontroversially - this diff shows the changes I made - feel free to reverse them. JohnCD (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Very good. Debresser (talk) 22:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I think that works pretty well. One minor nit: "...the page should not be re-tagged for the speedy deletion;..." --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I think that was on purpose. Meaning "the same type of speedy". But other types are of course allowed. Perhaps that should be said more explicitly? Debresser (talk) 23:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
If that is meant as the definitive the, I don't think it does it well, and so if we mean that I think we would need to add back "same type of speedy deletion". However, if we do that then the example about G12 becomes a non sequitur and will need to be changed--if we first say you can't retag under the same, it already means implicitly re-tagging under another criterion is fair game. The G12 example only makes sense if the first part speaks to all criterion (but I don't think it should). Thinking about suggested language.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I like SoWhy's version overall, but given the known problems with IPs, I'd be willing to upgrade the "uninvolved editor" to "uninvolved registered editor" if others thought that was a good idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I think this solves a lot of the ambiguity with whether it applied to the same criterion only, or to all, the problem with the example not making sense if it applied only to the same criterion example, and the last sentence has been fixed because it really was a problem from the beginning, parsing as not allowing speedy deletion ever after an initial contest, even for a later copyvio or other later arising basis:

If speedy deletion has been declined by an administrator, or the speedy deletion tag has been removed by an uninvolved editor who indicated a plausible reason for that removal, the page should not be re-tagged for the same type of speedy deletion, but may be tagged under another applicable criterion, e.g., if it is later found that the page is a copyright violation. The fact that speedy deletion is contested renders deletion of a page under a particular criterion contentious, and therefore the page is not a candidate for speedy deletion under the contested criterion, since speedy deletion is by definition only applicable to pages where deletion would be uncontroversial.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. If an admin declines to speedy delete a page, they have in almost every case checked whether the page fits any criterion and not just the one it was tagged for. Thus, when they decline it, it should not be tagged again at all, unless it's clear that the admin couldn't have considered the reason for the new tagging. Regards SoWhy 06:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

In general, for most of the speedy criteria, if any editor in good standing contests a speedy, this a sufficient reason to have a discussion. Further discussion should be taken to XfD, and page should be considered non-speediable.

For several of the file speedy criteria especially, a contest would require an immediate explanation (eg "its not corrupted, you just need the new version"). Without an explanation, the FfD discoussion could be closed early.


The obvious expections are:

  • G9 It's their site
  • G10 If an editor in good standing thinks it applies, further discussion should go off-line or at least with the offensive'illegal material not in plain site.
  • G12, F7, F9, New information that shows that there is a copyright problem trumps.

These contest-exempt cases may still need a discussion at XfD or DRV, but the material should be deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes the wording should be uninvolved registered editor in good standing, I also think that G4 also needs special mention as unless it is a procedural decline due to the page being deleted by PROD or CSD to contest it, you really need to be able to see the deleted version. Also has anyone thought of a Talk page template like {{Old prod full}} to indicate the CSD decline ? Mtking (edits) 00:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I have seen IPs make perfectly valid speedy contests so I don't think we should limit this to registered users. What would you suggest about G4? I donlt think we should go too far afield. See {{Oldcsd}} which I created just for this purpose, though it isn't used much.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I think that if someone (in good standing, IP or otherwise) takes the trouble to contest a G4, and when questioned they are sure, then let them have their XfD. So it will take another seven days. If a trend develops for deleting the tags and failing to make a relevant argument at XfD, consider making a rule about ignoring disruptive tag removers. I don't think G4 is special, except that new users who encounter G4 often need to shown WP:Notability. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
G4 should not be considered special. It is often possible to conclude that a present article does not contain the faults that lead to a previous one of the same title being deleted, even without seeing the deleted article. One example that springs to mind is Truth in Numbers? which led to a little bit of drama of the kind that this policy clarification should hopefully avoid in future. Thparkth (talk) 01:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Both Fuhghettaboutit's and my proposed wordings include "indicated a plausible reason for that removal", so removing G4 with a plausible reason why it does not apply is already covered. Also, I don't think IPs or new editors should be left out. Again, the requirement to "indicate[d] a plausible reason for that removal" is imho sufficient to weed out malicious removals. After all, removing a speedy tag without specifying a reason at all or without specifying a plausible reason why it does not apply is never allowed by this proposal, no matter whether the removing editor is new or established. Regards SoWhy 06:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree, I can see this leading to attempts to game the system and lots of wiki-layering over what constitutes "a plausible reason" and what constitutes an IP editor in good standing, it it one who removes it with his first edit, second edit, tenth edit ? Mtking (edits) 08:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
"Plausible reason" means any reason why the page does not meet any criterion for speedy deletion. As for good standing, I would not require any such limits. If the IP removes a misplaced tag on a clearly notable topic with their first edit, should we revert them just because they have no "good standing"? Imho, the standard to judge editors by in this case is the actual edit they made, not how they acted previously. Otherwise it would imply that you have more leeway to make bad edits if you have "good standing" than you would have if you are a new editor. That can't be the goal. Regards SoWhy 08:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I guess "in good standing" is not so well defined. To me, it is the default position. It would mean "not blocked or banned", or sanctioned in relation to the issue (at a minimum). It might also mean "not in an active dispute". A newcomer arrives in good standing, and remains so for as far as one can asusme good faith. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry maybe I did not make my point, I agree with you on what the intent of the phrase "Plausible reason" is, and I am not saying that we should revert an IP removal on spec at all. But I just see this leading to more confusion and drama with editors wiki-layering over if it was a plausible reason, was it the creator logging out to remove the tag or was it an un-involved editor. Mtking (edits) 08:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Good point. As much as I hate to have admins as moderators, maybe in this case we can add something like "If you disagree with the removal of a tag or what constitutes a plausible reason, request the assistance of an uninvolved administrator." After all, if admins are tasked to decide whether to speedy delete something or not, it's a logical step to let them decide whether the removal of a tag was justified or not. Regards SoWhy 09:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
That seems a reasonable alternative, can we find some words to tag on to Fuhghettaboutit above, that makes it clear an administrator can still delete the page if they feel it meets the criteria and a non-admin removed the tag. To make it clear, if an admin removes the tag even without a reason, then that puts an end to it in my mind, else we get into admin shopping. Mtking (edits) 10:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely disagree. There is no point in having any of this clarification if we undermine it in this way. An administrator should absolutely not be able to speedily delete an article where the speedy tag has been removed in good faith by an uninvolved editor. At that point, they know the deletion is controversial and they would be deleting it against CSD policy, and hence against consensus. Furthermore, there is no reason either in principle or based on pragmatic experience to privilege the opinion of administrators in this matter. Thparkth (talk) 11:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
The deletion may be controversial, but if the page meets one of the WP:CSD, it may be deleted. This is not WP:PROD. If something was deleted incorrectly, ask the deleting admin to reconsider or use WP:DRV. Part of the point of CSD is to have no bureaucracy attached to the deletion process itself. However, a good admin will see if a page has been re-tagged after having the tag removed, and should include this information in their decision whether or not to delete. —Kusma (t·c) 12:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
If one uninvolved editor believes it meets a speedy deletion criteria, and another does not, it should go to AfD. The fact that one of the editors may have the technical ability to perform the deletion should not change this principle at all. We need to make it clear that an administrator who speedily deletes an article when that deletion is controversial among uninvolved editors, does so in error. Thparkth (talk) 13:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Generally support this and all being written here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
(In reply to Sowhy) - Disagree with this addition. It should be If you disagree with the removal of a tag, take it to AfD. Given the number of uninvolved administrators who think WP:NOT is a speedy deletion criteria, or think that having no sources cited makes something an A7 candidate, it will certainly be possible to find one who will agree with the deletion of absolutely anything on absolutely any grounds. And indeed, there is no reason to privilege their opinion over that of an ordinary editor. AfD is the only option for controversial speedies. Thparkth (talk) 11:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
"If you disagree with the removal of a CSD tag, take it to AfD" should be stated clear and simple, yes. I think Sowhy was fairly addressing a concern of an editor removing tags (perhaps many) not-in-good-faith. Note that admins may, and do, delete speedily on sight, without tags involved at all - we trust that they know what they are doing. We could write "WP:NOT is not a speedy criterion" both at WP:CSD and at the top of WP:NOT, although I have noted that all admins become a little more shy when their deletions are critically reviewed at WP:DRV, and so the situation is self-correcting anyway. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Exactly, yes. My response was to Mtking's concern of non-good-faith removals being used to wiki-lawyer. If anyone removes a tag in good faith with good reasons, then it should not be speedy deleted. Kusma is correct that the policy allows an admin to speedy delete even in those cases but imho that should be a rare exception. Since speedy deletion is based on the principle that the deletion of such pages is uncontroversial, any good faith disagreement imho removes this base and thus makes the page ineligible for speedy deletion. Regards SoWhy 12:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
(ec)"Any good faith disagreement"—but many times removals, while in good faith, are not based on reasons outlined by the criteria. For example, a G11 removed with an edit summary of "This is a notable subject." If something is unquestionably spammy, and nobody has time anytime soon to rewrite the article, do we really need to keep the brochure around just because there is a removed speedy tag? I can see how generally we don't want people adding back A7 when someone thinks the article does make a claim of notability, or G11s when someone doesn't think it is spammy enough, or G6 if someone doesn't think the page should be moved, etc, etc, but I think these are exceptions, really. If an article is completely empty and someone removes the A3 with a summary of "this is notable" do we really need to start an AfD? Nobody is even willing to write a stub, but we can have an AfD? We just don't need this extra rule. We already have 3rr/brd/etc. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 14:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
The fundamental rule for all CSD is "no practical chance of surviving a discussion" at AFD. Notable subjects do have a practical chance of surviving a discussion at AFD. Therefore "it's notable" is a perfectly on-topic reason, exactly as outlined by the #1 criteria for any page being ineligible for CSD.
The more I see, the less sympathy I have for G11s on notable businesses. We seem to have some taggers whose definition of "exclusively promotional" is not very different from "is about a business, and doesn't qualify for G10". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Just to note, we have sometimes had issues with established users removing CSD tags for no discernible reason; in one instance, we actually had to ban the editor in question from, among other things, removing CSD tags (the editor's name shall go unmentioned here unless necessary). And this was someone who had been here for over a year at the time. In those cases, people invoked IAR to restore a couple of particularly obvious G11 tags; I like the idea of adding something to this page, but it shouldn't be viewed as a suicide pact. There are exceptions, which SmokeyJoe outlined above, and we don't have to throw common sense out the window. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, this might be ok with the "plausible reason" clause (ie, not just "good faith"). If the removal is way out in the weeds it can be reverted. Although, I think this is already covered and such an addition would be redundant. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Overly restricting re-adding of templates is a bad idea. Situations change. Non-admins or even admins, who do not have a perfect understanding of certain deletion criteria - particularly copyvio and BLP issues - may decline a speedy that really needs to be done. Certainly the addition of the same tag over and over again would be disruptive, but the removal of the tag can be equally disruptive. When we come upon a tagged article we are going to look at the edit history. Most of us are not; however, going to make a detailed search for sock puppetry or assess the relative experience of editors. We're going to see if the article meets the criterion it is tagged with. If we notice that there is a history of retagging, we are perfectly equipped to deal with the situation. That's what the tools are for. Making more rules creates more bureaucracy and more chance that someone will take the article to DRV simply because of a point of procedure that we ourselves have created.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 14:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I just don't agree. The purpose of speedy deletion is not to delete articles without any inconvenient procedural limitations or to get sort-of spammy pages off Wikipedia under some sort of WP:DEADLINE. The purpose of speedy is to delete pages that are so obviously inappropriate that there could be no good-faith disagreement on the point without bureaucratic procedural limitations. Once you've got good-faith disagreement, it does not qualify for speedy deletion. The policy already says this: "no practical chance of surviving discussion" and "Speedy deletion should not be used except in the most obvious cases".
If you've got a disagreement from uninvolved people about whether it is "obvious" that the given page meets the CSD criteria, then it's not obvious—even if one admin thinks Wikipedia is better off without it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I think those sections of that you mention, along with our other guidelines/policies about edit disputes/etc, are probably enough then. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Considering the continuing violations an absolute statement is needed: Any good faith objection other than by the original author stops an AfD on that issue, except for libel and copyvio--and it is hard to imagine a good faith objection to either of them, unless the original speedy was not correct in the first place, & if so, certainly it should be discussed. Puppetry is merely an example of an objection not in good faith; and, if a tag is removed purely by error, common sense will deal with it. In situations not covered otherwise, snow AfDs can be very fast. There are very few of them--usually the matter is actually disputable. DGG ( talk ) 00:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
It looks like we more or less agree that some procedural clarification is appropriate. Would someone like to sort out which of the above seems to be the best and please add that? If not, I can do it myself some other time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Something like

If speedy deletion has been declined and the speedy deletion tag removed by an uninvolved editor in good standing who indicated a plausible reason for the decline or removal, the page should not be re-tagged for the same type of speedy deletion. The page could be tagged under another applicable criterion, e.g., if it is later found that the page is a copyright violation. The fact that speedy deletion is contested is proof the page is not a candidate for speedy deletion under the contested criterion, since speedy deletion is by definition only applicable to pages where deletion would be uncontroversial.

Debresser (talk) 17:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
That wording seems fine. But I'll add that I sometimes add multiple criteria when I think they are applicable. We might also want to encourage this. No sense to listing multiple criteria one after another. And while an admin can decline the nomination for the reason an editor offered, there is nothing to prevent them from deleting under another criteria. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I think that is implicit in the proposed text. In addition, note that from the discussion above it follows clearly that a speedy may be declined not only by admins. Which is why the word "admin" isn't in the proposed text. Debresser (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Strongly disagree with that wording, "The fact that speedy deletion is contested is proof the page is not a candidate for speedy deletion under the contested criterion" is fine for A7, but not for example G12. Also take the case of a musical recording tagged A9, the article on the band is created so the tag is declined as it no longer meets the criteria, later the band article is deleted, then the musical recording article should be able to be re-tagged. Mtking (edits) 22:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
But if the reason for removing the tag is not plausible, eg the article tagged with G12 really is a copyright violation, then you can put the G12 back/delete the article. The A9 example feels like a reasonable exception that we don't even need to write down? As another example, this was not a plausible removal of a G11, since the edit summary said "it's a notable organization". It would be ok to revert the removal in that case. I do have a problem, though, with the "uninvolved editor in good standing" clause. Why does the editor have to be uninvolved? What does "in good standing" mean? thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I disagree: Articles about notable hospitals don't get deleted at AFD, and thus "it's notable" is a plausible indication that the article doesn't qualify for CSD. Please think about the meaning of the policy's most basic rule: "Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion". For better or worse, a group of American hospitals has basically a 100% chance of "surviving discussion", no matter how awful the article is in its first drafts. The "plausible reason" needs to address the whole situation, not the NPPer's specific reason for speedying it. For example, if the NPPer tags an article as spam, and it's not sufficiently spammy—but it is a copyvio—then there are no "plausible reasons" for not speedying it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Is "I wrote the text on the xyz website and am happy to have it here" plausible? However without the correct procedure being followed should still be deleted. I agree with the issues of what is a "uninvolved editor in good standing", uninvolved seems to be needed for G4, otherwise you could have the situation that an article is deleted at AfD, recreated by one of the keep !voters and then the G4 tag removed by another of the keep !voters we then get down to wiki-layering over is the edit sum they used "a plausible reason for the decline". I think we are trying to find a solution to problem with one editors action over Remergence which looks like it is going to be deleted unopposed at the resulting AfD. I think maybe a different approach may be needed, maybe by mandating the use of {{Oldcsd}} and have the relevant CSD tag check for its presence on the talk page and a bit like PROD checks for an AFD and then change it's display to warn any reviewing administrator that this has been contested in the past, then let the reviewing administrator decided what to do, we could also ask the Twinkle developers to also check for it before allowing repeat tagging.Mtking (edits) 00:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
No, that wouldn't be plausible; if it's an unambiguous copyright violation then it's still an unambiguous copyright violation. My experience is that articles that have been prodded in the past frequently do not carry the prod tag anyway, so I don't imagine Oldcsd is going to have any better luck. I agree with you, though, that this addition is ultimately useless and will likely not prevent much bickering. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 01:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I might accept that response, but only for the very shortest amount of time that I think it might take the new editor to get this confirmed by the Volunteer Response Team, and only if it seemed likely that the editor owned the website (e.g., a personal website or a small business, but not a multinational corporation, a government website, or a major charitable organization). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
In my experience most all such pages are also deletable as G11, and the wording I use in explaining this to the contributor is "even if you give us permission according to WP:DCM, the tone will not be encyclopedic and the material will not be suitable." sometimes adding. "It would be easier to rewrite." DGG ( talk ) 00:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


"No hope" articles

I've added (and slightly expanded) Debresser's text to the lead. I'm not sure that the lead is the ideal place to put this, but I thought it was a reasonable place to start. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I think the rationale sentence at the end sort of overstates things and misses the point of CSD a bit; I tried to reword it. What do you think? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I've re-added a statement (albeit much shorter) to the same effect. The entire point of CSD is that it is only for pages that will always get deleting in deletion discussions, and it's important to say this. Thryduulf (talk) 01:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
CSD is not only for articles that will for sure get deleted, so it is important not to say this. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 04:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
From your edit summary, ""X is a great skateboarder" is a valid A7 but at AfD we would look for notability and it might turn out he's a famous skateboarder. The same article on him that is empty would have the same result." Actually, that would be deleted at AfD every time. An improved article might not be, but that isn't the same thing - just because a different article about the same subject wouldn't get deleted, doesn't mean that the present article wouldn't be. Were "X is a great skateboarder" to go to AfD then it would be snow deleted pdq. Thryduulf (talk) 09:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually it's my edit summary. That's demonstrably false. At AfD we search for sources and often they are added in by participants. I can't imagine how you could have possibly participated at AfD and not seen this not just once in a while but many times (though I see you have participated in numerous discussions). Anyway, the point is that A7's heart, no assertion of importance or significance, does not require anyone to do any check for sources; at AfD it is the opposite. We are there to make a decision on the merits, and so we do. Notability does not require sources to be present only to exist. Here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Jehangir Hormusji Kothari; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brant_secunda. These took me about one minute to find with a nuanced search. A7's standard by definition allows us to delete articles that may in fact be on notable topics but say nothing to indicate that notability. The language you added covered not just A7 but all the CSD, so the same analysis is applicable to others, e.g. empty or no-context articles may have content or context added and so no longer qualify under A1/A3.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Erik, I thought some of your changes were okay, but here's what the watering-down bit looks like from where I'm sitting:
  • You say that a contested CSD is "not obvious". (I agree.)
  • The first sentence of the third paragraph says, "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases".
  • But you don't want to state the pretty simple, unavoidable, logical conclusion that contested CSDs (which are "not obvious") should therefore not be deleted through CSD (a process not to be used in cases that are "not obvious").
If a contested page is "not obvious", and nobody is supposed to speedy a non-obvious page, then why don't you want to just say, straight out, that nobody is supposed to speedy these non-obvious/contested pages? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I think my version was pretty much saying just that (as long as the rationale for contesting was reasonable). I'm not sure what you take issue with? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
My complaint is that you deleted the last sentence, which directly said this. Multiple people have said that leaving the conclusion as an exercise to an inexperienced editor is causing problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the section should have been added as the above discussion did not reach a consensus on a wording that would avoid wiki-lawyering over what constitutes an "uninvolved editor" and/or what was a "plausible reason", the current wording is even worse, as it does not address the issue of a creator logging out to remove the tag or creating a obvious sock to do so or in the case of recreation two non-socking editors working in tandem to bypass DRV. This section has only been added as a result of one editor edit waring over a tag on an article that at the resulting AfD was deleted unanimously, rather going to suggest that he was indeed right to tag it in the first place (no excuse to edit waring over it). So until these points can be addressed, I am removing the section. Mtking (edits) 16:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it makes much sense to say "uninvolved editor". It can't be the creator, obviously, unless we are trying to radically change things. But for what we're doing here who cares if the editor is involved or not? And I thought "plausible reason" would satisfy concerns about someone removing a {{db-attack}} when it was still an attack, or removing a {{db-spam}} with a non-sequitur rationale like "it's notable" or something. "does not address the issue of a creator logging out to remove the tag"—we don't need to address this and things like banned users, etc here, I think. Again, though, I think we don't need to add anything at all; I think our edit warring guidelines/etc cover these scenarios already. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Restore disputed section?

This was the original text that was removed:

If speedy deletion has been removed by an editor other than the page's creator who has indicated a plausible reason for the decline or removal, then the page should not be considered an obvious case and should not be re-tagged for the same type of speedy deletion, except in the case of blatant copyright violations or explicit attack pages where no good-faith editor would find the objection credible. The page could be tagged under another applicable criterion, e.g., if it is later found that the page is a copyright violation. If there is a dispute over whether a page meets the criteria, the issue should be taken to deletion discussions rather than being deleted as a speedy.

It seems to me that this paragraph already addresses the cases of blatant copyright infringement and attack pages. Given that extensive discussion - not just in the sections immediately above on this talk page, but over years and years - suggests that this is definitely the consensus position, can we discuss restoring this text to the policy?

What precisely is the objection to it?

Thparkth (talk) 11:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

  • oppose currently. My objection is that it is too wordy, too woolly and leaves things questions like what is a "plausible" reason and, especially, who is a "good faith" editor too open to wikilawyering. I agree the sentiment reflects long-standing consensus, but the wording is too loose. Given consensus is that WP:CSD criteria should be applied to the letter, it is very important that we get the wording as tight as possible. Thryduulf (talk) 11:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  • oppose If an admin believes a page to be an attack on a living person, he should delete it. If a non-admin has the same belief, he should tag for deletion. The fact that someone objects, and that hypothetically someone might in good faith (but entirely erroneously) find the objection credible, does not interfere with that. Pages seen as BLP attack pages (or negative articles without references) get killed as quickly as possible. If the judgement is contestable, we have a discussion about that after deletion, because over-caution and undeleting later is a small price to pay to ensure the swift removal of bad stuff. I could perhaps support this if attack pages and BLP violations were excluded entirely.--Scott Mac 11:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

What about this as an alternate wording? It's no shorter, but it is more imperative and explicitly addresses Scott Mac's objection.

When a speedy deletion tag is removed in good faith by an editor other than the page creator, the tag should not be replaced, and the article should not be deleted under that criterion. Such a removal demonstrates that doubt exists regarding the applicability of the tag to the article, and indicates that the deletion requires further consideration and discussion outside of the speedy deletion process. Administrators may, at their discretion, delete articles which constitute an urgent legal hazard (blatant copyright violations and explicit attacks against individuals) regardless of the previous removal of speedy deletion tags. - Please note, this is not currently under active consideration - in this section we are discussing the original wording above. Thparkth (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thparkth (talk) 12:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

  • 1) "legal hazard" is not the reason for BLP enforcement. "legal hazards" can only be judged by lawyers. We remove BLP violations and attacks because it is the right thing to do -whether the WMF could be sued is neither here nor there. 2) Many stupid things are done "in good faith". That doesn't mean we should give them credence. Certainly if there's reasonable doubt as to whether the CSD apply, then don't re-tag, but otherwise do so, and explain to the de-tagger their error. If indeed you notice. Are we really saying that if someone creates an article on a "village bungee jumping champion", it gets tagged for A7, someone removes tag with "bungee jumper is an assertion of notability", then someone a month later sees the article and tags with A7, that it should not be deleted? That's daft.--Scott Mac 12:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Well look, it's obvious you are at odds with the prevailing interpretation of how CSD works, so this may not be a productive discussion, but in my opinion you are fundamentally wrong to say "explain to the de-tagger their error" - the fact that it has been de-tagged means there IS reasonable doubt. End of story. Makes no difference it's about Nobel Prize-winners or school bungee-jumpers. Difference of opinion among uninvolved editors = take it to AfD. You, as an admin, don't have opinions that are magically more correct - you also get to take it to AfD. Thparkth (talk) 12:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
As far as "legal hazard" is concerned, I feel you're splitting hairs a little, but I would welcome an alternate wording for that sentence that you could live with. Certainly, if it's not urgent, it doesn't need to be speedily deleted against good-faith disagreement. Thparkth (talk) 12:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Copyright violations contested in good faith by other users should be taken to wp:CP, no matter how blatant they might seem to you. There is no danger to the project once the article is blanked by the copyvio template and thus no reason to ignore procedure. Yoenit (talk) 13:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
WP:CP is limited to copyright issues involving text; speedy deletion policy has to cover images and other files also. WP:NFC requires administrators to speedy delete non-free images lacking fair-use rationales for example, regardless of speedy tagging. Thparkth (talk) 13:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
If it is supposed to cover files you should say so, the proposed text above currently states "delete articles which constitute an urgent legal hazard". F5 deletions are also an extremely poor example, as there is a 7 days waiting period on them, so those are definitely not "urgent" deletions. Yoenit (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Good point. Thparkth (talk) 14:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Interestingly, I had an opportunity to see the wording above in action. I think it probably needs a bit of tweaking, but overall it's trying to be reasonable. Someone came to the Village Pump saying that each time they made a redirect (WKQX to WWWN), another editor was adding a speedy tag and it was getting deleted. The tagger's rationale was that WKQX was now assigned to a new station. However, the new assignment was to a 'dark' or non-transmitting station (non-notable). I removed the tag, thinking that the paragraph above was the rule (first time I'd had to really read this page), and he restored the tag saying my reasoning wasn't plausible enough. So we had our tiny edit war over that. Eventually it went to a fairly quick 'Redirects for Deletion' and was kept. -- Avanu (talk) 13:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
This actually happens quite a lot. There are several articles in existence now only because I removed a speedy deletion tag and then had to argue tooth and nail with an admin to prevent them from deleting the article prior to an AfD where the article was kept. At least one of those articles is now a good article. Thparkth (talk) 14:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
That an article is speedy deletable has nothing to do with whether it would be possible to write a good article on the subject. If I write an article that says "Joe T. Smith is a cool dude who likes maths" it is speedy deletable as A7, it may well be that Joe T. Smith is actually the world's leading mathematician, and a year later someone writes the featured article. Regardless, the speedy deletion was correct, because we have decided we don't allow stubs that don't explain why someone is important. Similarly, "Bob T. Smith is a murdering criminal{citation needed}" gets nuked as an attack - it doesn't matter that Bob is actually a famous serial psychopath, who merits a good article. So, the fact that good articles were later written on a subject matters nought to the validity of the earlier speedy deletion. Speedy deletion does not preclude someone recreating a valid article.--Scott Mac 14:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I think you're missing the point of the example I gave. The articles in question were not deleted and rewritten, because they were sent to AfD instead with a "keep" result. Thparkth (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Both versions, for the reasons highlighted above, I also wish to add another example with why the wording won't work, take the example of a word for word re-creation of a page deleted at AfD that is tagged, the tag is removed by another editor who !voted keep at the AfD with an edit summary of "This person is notable", the arguments would then revolve around "is this a valid rational". I would only consider a wording that made it clear that if an administrator had previously declined the speedy then another administrator should not delete the target unless they had discussed it with the first administrator (an exception to that would need to be made for attack pages). But leaving it to editors to try and decide what is a good faith rational from an uninvolved editor is open to so much interpretation that it will undoubtedly led to more drama. Mtking (edits) 14:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
    Another example would be a Non-Free company logo uploaded for a article that was deleted following a expired PROD, the logo would then be tagged F5 ( Orphaned non-free use images). However the day after the article was deleted the creator of the article asks at WP:REFUND for the article to be restored, this is done and the F5 tag removed from the logo (as it no longer applies) the article is listed at AfD, where it is deleted as not-notable, the proposed wording above would then preclude the logo being tagged F5 again. Mtking (edits) 15:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
    So "situation that definitely no longer applies" is a "plausible reason" in your mind? It's not in mine. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose for all the reasons I already stated in the previous thread. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, since this is the normal practice and will not result in the doomsday scenarios proposed above. We expect our admins to use their best judgment; that's why we have the "loose" wording that indicates they should use their judgment. An admin can easily decide, for example, that no excuse in the world could be considered "plausible" justification for a word-for-word re-creation of an AFD-created article, a copyright violation, or an attack page. (Go ahead: just try to come up with a reason to remove such tags that wouldn't get you laughed at.) Along those lines, I think that calling out explicit exceptions for re-tagging is unnecessary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, conditional on the language of a "plausible reason" remaining, which to me addresses all of the oppose bases I've seen.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
    Do you mean you oppose this as worded? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support In my experience, of looking at thousands of these, such removals are almost always in good faith, and most of the time I agree with them completely. In fact, about 3/4 of them I do not think should be deleted at all, and the others the deprodder has usually sent by themselves to AfD or prod, so I don't have to. Any reliable regular contributor can fairly evaluate that there is a possibility an article can be saved--what it takes an admin for, is to be sure that they can't be. Even without going into the specifics, no admin is going to fail to delete undoubted and unfixable copyvio or serious BLP violations or other libel or clear vandalism. That's all that's needed. Everything else can wait for discussion. Obvious if one seriously stretches things one can find odd-ball examples: that's why we have IAR. It's a bad idea to make a code that covers everything possible, as if a bot were going to do it.
  • Support Clearly the intent of speedies is to delete things which any reasonable editor would find worth deleting. Otherwise we have a discussion. Hobit (talk) 17:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  • oppose—it needs something along the lines of the "plausible reason" clause. I'm sure there is a better wording, but I think the removals should be accompanied by something to address the tag in order to be "binding" like this. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
    I don't know if this will change your mind, but we are specifically discussing the original wording here which does have the "plausible reason" clause. I have struck out my alternate wording to make it clearer what we are supporting or opposing :) Thparkth (talk) 18:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
    Ah; I see. I'm still opposed, I think, because of the sentence "If there is a dispute over whether a page meets the criteria, the issue should be taken to deletion discussions rather than being deleted as a speedy." Per my concern about the "plausible reason" clause, the dispute must not simply exist, it must be grounded in reality. As an example, if an article is totally spammy, and the disputant just says "this subject is notable", then the article still ought to be deleted. Now, if this were reworded to make that more clear, I would still be "weak oppose", because I don't think we need this; we already have guidelines/etc for dealing with edit disputes. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose If a page satisfies one of the criteria for speedy deletion then it should be deleted. This is quite unlike a PROD, where the situation is "we will wait for a week to see if anyone objects, and if they do we can discuss it: if nobody objects then there is no need to hold a discussion". A speedy deletion is supposed to cover those cases where the reasons are so compelling that we don't need to wait to see if anyone objects. All the time speedy deletion tags are removed (a) by disruptive editors trying to prevent the deletion of spam, vandalism, hoaxes, etc, and (b) by good faith editors who are not well acquainted with the standards for speedy deletion. In both these cases it is common for the article to be speedily-deleted. To try to have every such case subjected to a deletion discussion would be an unhelpful increase in bureaucracy and a waste of everybody's time. If an article is clearly spam, clearly a hoax, clearly makes no reasonable claim of significance, or clearly falls under one of the other speedy deletion criteria then it should be possible to delete it, without some individual being able on a whim to make us keep it while a discussion goes on for a week. The speedy deletion criteria are those which consensus has established are such pressing reasons for deletion that an administrator can delete without discussion: it makes no sense to say that that consensus does not apply if one person says not. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
    • However there are also many cases where the removal is because there is a good faith dispute as to whether the criteria applies or not. For example if one person says "this makes no credible claims of importance" and then another person says "actually, the claim made in the article does credibly assert importance", in which case it should go to a discussion because it does not uncontroversially meet the criteria. It is these cases we are primarily discussing here. Thryduulf (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
      • That misses the point. Speedy deletion means "delete this right now, it meets the criteria". If the person making that call happens to be an admin, then the article gets deleted. Sure, often the decision is disputable, wrong, or more likely the article does qualify for speedy, but it would also be possible to fix it up. If that's the case, then anyone can start a discussion on the admin's talk page, and (if neccessary) at DRV. Mostly if someone gives a good reason to reverse a speedy, the admin will give it consideration. Speedy tags are not a debating mechanism, they are simply a mechanism for a non-admin to flag up to admins an article that should be speedied. If it gets speedied, then good faith discussion can occur just the same as if an admin had deleted it without a tag. There's no difference.--Scott Mac 15:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
        • Yes, Scott Mac is spot on, and Thryduulf has indeed missed the point. If someone removes a speedy deletion tag, and an administrator agrees that it is not an unambiguous case, then of course the administrator is not going to delete the page. What is at issue is whether an admin is prevented from deleting the page in cases where they judge that the removal was unjustified, and the case is indeed an unambiguous one. That sort of judgement is what administrators are appointed for. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. There is no blanket rule for what to do in this situation for a good reason, such things should be decided on a case-by-case basis. A user might dispute a tagging in good faith and still be totally wrong. As I've mentioned repeatedly now, we already have an appeals process for specific cases at WP:UNDELETE. A formal ironclad rule is neither needed nor desirable. The underlying assumptiopn here seems to be that if anyone removes a tag, an admin who comes by later and deletes anyway is automatically wrong. That's nonsense. Admins are much more likely to have a solid understanding of CSD since it is probably the area whewre we face the most criticism. Not knowing one tiny detail out of all the various criteria has torpedoed many an RFA. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
That would be lovely if it were true, but in fact the average admin who is not heavily active in the speedy deletion process certainly has less knowledge of the criteria than the average non-admin who is actively involved in it. Of course it goes the other way too... expert admins shouldn't be overly bound by groundless tag removals by the ignorant. I think I'm coming round to the idea that "no ironclad rule" is indeed the best option. Thparkth (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support in general, as nuanced guidance on how to implement the idea that CSD is not for controversial or discussable topics--those should go to AfD. The wording proposed, which includes some of my verbiage, was very much a work in progress at the time it was reverted and the page protected. I am entirely certain that we can more succinctly capture the essence of what needs to be said on the matter. Jclemens (talk) 23:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_43&oldid=1151009031"