Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 53

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50Archive 51Archive 52Archive 53Archive 54Archive 55→Archive 60

Propose: G14. Blatant WP:NOTWEBHOST violations by accounts with no mainspace contributions.

Reviewing the comments below in there totality, I found most comments reasonable and in good faith, so I pretty much attempted to weigh them equally and have reached the following conclusion.

There is support for for a new CSD category with the following characteristics:

  • Userspace only.
  • No account age limitation.
  • No/few edits outside user space.
  • "Writings, information, discussions, and activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals"
  • No grace period.
  • Drafts, WP:UPYES and resume style pages exempt.NE Ent 23:06, 3 April 2014 (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.

Propose:

G14. Blatant WP:NOTWEBHOST violations by accounts with no mainspace contributions.
Applies to pages containing substantial content covering an offsite activity, real or imaginary, such as fantasy online reality game shows, containing no sourced content suitable for mainspace, and only applies if the author(s) have no history of good faith mainspace editing.


  • Intended to apply to the multiple MfD nominations currently listed by User:Whpq. Such pages regularly appear nominated at MfD, are always deleted, and are a waste of time and space to have the community consider individually.

New criterion criteria:

(1) Objective. We have never seen anyone at MfD misrecognize NOTWEBHOST material for drafting, it is not sourced, it is not encyclopedic, it is tabulated data-rich and prose-poor, and it has not benefit to any current mainspace page. Further, extensive data rich drafting is not associated with SPA accounts. No (zero) good faith constructive edits to mainspace is an objective criteria for excluding all potentially interesting project related material.
(2) Uncontestable. SPA NOTWEBHOST violations are not seriously contested at MfD. They are so trivial they are barely worth supporting the nomination.
(3) Frequent. I guess I see several a month, and have done for many years. There are probably more not nominated for deletion.
(4) Non-redundant. while very similar to G1, G3 & G11, it is clearly not patent nonsense (G1), and is much broader than G3 & G11 which is why it requires the SPA author co-criterion, and the SPA author co-criterion would be too restrictive to add to G3 and G11.

Such pages usually occur on an SPA main userpage, or sandbox subpage, or titles subpage. They sometimes occur on SPA talk pages, and in these cases I expect that taggers/and CSD deleters should be able to recognize whether the talk page has been used as a talk page, which is not typically the case. In principle, these pages should be deleted wherever found. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Support the idea. I think the details need to be talked out, though. Would a userpage being used like a Facebook page be G14-able? What about completely hopeless COI "drafts" that narrowly dodge G11? Does a single constructive edit really exempt accounts from this? That seems like a really cheesy way around it (fix a comma somewhere or something). Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • My thoughts... A facebook page from a non-contributor. If old (beware WP:BITE), Yes, speedy delete.
  • A good faith draft, No. Even if hopeless, or a COI, etc. If the intention was to contribute to mainspace, then No.
  • There are so many of these, so regularly, without even a whitespace fix to mainspace, let alone a meaningful constructive edit. I think we actually have quite a low proportion of misplaced commas, if a new editor can find one, they are a potential serious editor, and worth an MfD discussion over. However, "good faith mainspace editing" has a degree of fuzziness, I don't think a single edit to one comma is necessarily "editing". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose because while We have never seen anyone at MfD misrecognize NOTWEBHOST material for drafting it could be misrecognized. Despite the "and only applies if the author(s) have no history of good faith mainspace editing." clause, a person could have virtually no mainspace edits and have their userpage deleted under such a criterion despite hundreds or thousands of template and/or module edits. This would be unacceptable. I do like the theory of this criterion, but the details need to much better hashed out. Technical 13 (talk) 02:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
    Okay, drop mainspace. How about any contributions useful to the project, anywhere? And anything COULD happen. That doesn't mean we have to act like it will. If that were the case, we couldn't have CSD at all. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Instead, I recommend doing what I do: WP:BOLDly moving such "main" user pages to user-sub-pages, boldly adding {{user page}} to the top which (evil grin) turns on "no index" in most search engines, and even boldly blanking such pages when they cannot be anywhere in user-space. Oh, of course, I go and tell the editor what I did, why I did it, and how he can find what he wrote in the page history. The difference between this kind of action and deletion is that the editor can go back and retrieve his wiki-code if he can find a wiki that will host it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the pages Smokey Joe are referring to are almost always user pages. Thus, my alternate proposal below. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Narrower alternative

U4. Blatant WP:NOTWEBHOST violations by accounts active at least 30 days with no contributions outside their own user pages.
Applies to pages containing substantial content covering an offsite activity, real or imaginary, such as fantasy online reality game shows, containing no sourced content suitable for mainspace, and only applies if the author(s) have no history of good faith editing outside of their own user pages. This does not apply to draft articles unless they are vandalism or blatant hoaxes. Such pages may be deleted after seven days.

This narrower user-space only version should work better. I'm not sure if 30 days is too long or too short. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Why do we need the 30 days requirement at all? Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Because sometimes users sign up, make a user page, then take several days off before becoming a productive editor. The last part won't happen if their user page is immediately deleted. The helps ensure that the criteria isn't abused. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
If it's not indexed, and it's not clogging up a CSD category, and it's not readily searchable, what's the harm in AGF and allowing the page creator (or anyone else who happens upon it) to turning it into an actual draft mainspace candidate? Doesn't seem like it does any more harm then most of the G13s that have been sitting around for 6+ months (I've seen some as old as 4+ years). Technical 13 (talk) 04:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
We're not talking about anything that looks like a draft (I explicitly excluded that from my proposal). We're talking about people using Wikipedia to track fantasy football, or reality shows, or made-up games they play with their friends. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Then don't those fall under the new "Obviously made up" criteria? Technical 13 (talk) 04:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
    • No, because these are user pages, not articles. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
      • These user pages are not articles in a draft state. They are tables for tracking fantasy off-wiki activity. I've nominated a lot of these through MFD, and the editors involved are not prospective productive editors. Any main space edits have been few, and are minor edits to a reality show article. If anybody has not seen such articles for themselves, visit MFD and check any of my nominations for fantasy reality game show pages for a sample of such articles and the editors who create them. -- Whpq (talk) 11:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is an old and persistent problem that has occupied MfD as long as I know, well before 2010. Most such pages are fantasy or games or fan-recording TV shows, and sometimes we see unreadable data-dumping and access. I used to try being very nice to such accounts, as per davidwr, but the blatant, rapid, WEBHOST abusing accounts never respond. Accounts that were fiddling around with an article on a TV show, they are much easier for AGF. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure about this. I dislike the "no sourced content suitable for mainspace". Firstly, articles and drafts are not required to be sourced, merely sourceable, and this would potentially hit the work of a user who drafted the prose first and then went back and added sources afterwards (a perfectly valid method of constructing an article). Secondly, it would also clobber content that would be useful in another namespace (for example a user who has been contributing anonymously and has signed up so they can draft an improved portal or template, etc) and/or which would be valuable on a sister project. Overall there is a lot of "I know it when I see it" about this, which is completely unsuitable in a CSD criterion. I agree with the spirit of what this is trying to achieve, but it needs careful attention to get the details right, and it isn't guaranteed that it is possible to be sufficiently objective and broad enough to make it viable. Thryduulf (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Have you ever seen any account with no mainspace edits, excluding declare alternative accounts, produce useful new pages? And if they did exist, if they were somehow Wikipedia-clueful without an edit history, wouldn't they be well prepared to talk the the deleting admin and request a refund? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Some comments
    1. Having noindex doesn't prevent illegitimate wiki-mirrors from slurping the data and copying it out.
    2. I could see usefulness in putting a constraints on how long users must be away from editing the page (staleness), non-productive collaberation (using en.wp to play a game), and non-productive content.
  • I do like the "Put it on a maintenance category for human evaluation" to flag pages that might be eligible, but would want a second set of eyes/brain to verify that yes this is something that WP doesn't need to be hosting. I think constratining this to only User/User talk namespaces could be a bad idea. Hasteur (talk) 16:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
    • So far, the discussion is about a speedy deletion process, but there is some reluctance. Would something akin to a PROD, but applicable to user space be more appropriate if there is a desire for more human review of the material under review? The fantasy gaming pages are not controversial deletions and the discussions (when they exist at all) don't go much beyond a "per nom" other than to note that the editor doesn't have much (any) productive edits beyond the page in question. -- Whpq (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
      • I'd certainly not object to that, giving 7-10 days for human review. The criteria would still need to be well defined (although there is more room for subjectivity) and templates would need to be carefully written to avoid BITEiness but both of those are achievable. If prod can't keep up with the load long term (i.e after the initial 'backlog' is dealt with) then we can revisit speedy then. Thryduulf (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
        • Is there any difference between a Prod and a 7-day speedy delete? I can't think of any except for name. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
          • I suppose not. My response was really based on the very long 30 day proposal. Something along the lines of 7 days would make it similar to how some speedy deletions for files are handled which seems reasonable. -- Whpq (talk) 03:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I propose an alternate wording:

U4. Pages consisting entirely of writings, information, discussions, and activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals, by editors with no significant articlecontributions. This criteria includes pages containing substantial content covering an offsite activity, real or imaginary, (e.g. fantasy online reality shows or roleplay), which would be otherwise inappropriate elsewhere on Wikipedia, whose editor(s) have little to no long-term history of good-faith editing outside of user pages. Pages meeting this criteria may be deleted after 7 days.

I worked in actual wording from the User pages and WP:NOTWEBHOST guideline, and got rid of the time requirement in favor of just "long-term" activity outside of userspace. ViperSnake151  Talk  04:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Shouldn't the end be changed to "with no other significant contributions", to address Technical 13's concerns above? Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support the above. Would modify to:

U4. Pages consisting entirely of writings, information, discussions, and activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals, by editors with no significant article contributions. This criteria includes pages containing substantial content covering an offsite activity, real or imaginary, (e.g. fantasy online reality shows or roleplay), which would be otherwise inappropriate elsewhere on Wikipedia, whose editor(s) have little to no long-term history of good-faith editing outside of user pages. Pages meeting this criteria may be deleted after 7 days.

(ie not at all related; don't require history to be long term, a short history of good-faith editing outside of user pages gives credit.) --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I support the modified wording from SmokeyJoe. -- Whpq (talk) 11:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid I don't like this at all. What is "writings, information, discussions, and activities" meant to be – a comprehensive list of anything a page might include, or a list that excludes some (unspecified) types of content? What about images, are they in or out? Is there a reason why this list can't be condensed to "content" or "material"? If I append to my user page "Wikipedia aims to be the largest encyclopedia in history", will that spare it from speedy deletion? Surely user pages do not have to be related to Wikipedia's goals – a page can very properly say a bit about who the person is and what their interests are. If someone has a conflict of interest we should encourage them to say so before they start editing. If you want to have a criterion against roleplay or whatever these things are, just say so. Thincat (talk) 11:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
    • In addition to Thincat's concerns, I also object to "editors with no significant article contributions" as users may have only minor contributions to articles but very significant positive contributions elsewhere on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 11:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
    • But the user's interests are related to Wikipedia's goals — they will probably influence the user's editing habits. Perhaps the criterion could be amended not to cover WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. (And maybe another criterion created just for that.) Keφr 12:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I think the grace period may be too long. I think these people will just create another account to host their "reality shows" on. They will get bored with the speedy deletion cat-and-mouse eventually, but well… I am also a bit worried that these users will start abusing the project namespace instead. Keφr 12:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • @Thincat: To note, my definition of the wording "writings, information, discussions, and activities not related to Wikipedia's goals" comes straight from Wikipedia:User pages; the content matter it restricts falls directly in line with that we're trying to do with this CSD criteria. The remainder of those examples of "excessive unrelated content" are already covered under other criteria ViperSnake151  Talk  17:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I should have directed some of my criticism towards that guideline. Frankly I have never bothered to discover what these sort of pages are about so my suggestion here will be naïve. Something on the lines of:

U4. User pages, other than draft articles, with no substantial content other than for the offsite activities of roleplay or online game shows.
Such pages may be deleted after seven days.

Vandalism and blatant Hoaxes, etc can be deleted anyway. The criterion should apply to everyone, not just newcomers. The word "substantial" is already used in several CSD criteria. The intention would be to add further specific types of unacceptable content following consensus here and as the need arises. Thincat (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I'd still adhere to the wording on the user page guideline, and make it something like "User pages which consist of writings, information, activities, or discussions that are unrelated to the goals of Wikipedia. This includes pages intended to facilitate activities on outside websites, such as role-playing and "fantasy" games." ViperSnake151  Talk  19:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I'd keep the no non-user edits clause back in. If we are going to delete an productive and experienced editors user pages, we should be discussing that. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
"User pages which consist of writings, information, activities, or discussions that are unrelated to the goals of Wikipedia, whose editor(s) have little to no history of significant contributions to Wikipedia articles. This includes pages intended to facilitate activities on outside websites, such as role-playing and "fantasy" games." ViperSnake151  Talk  03:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. A CSD for WP:NOT#WEBHOST pages is long overdue as said above. As for modifications, I suggest:

U4. Pages consisting entirely of content that does not contribute to Wikipedia's goals, by editors with no significant contributions to the encyclopedia. This criteria includes pages containing substantial content covering an offsite activity, real or imaginary, (e.g. fantasy online reality shows or roleplay), which would be otherwise inappropriate elsewhere on Wikipedia, whose editor(s) have little to no history of good-faith editing outside of user pages. Pages meeting this criteria may be deleted after 7 days.

This allows good-faith editing outside of user pages and hopefully avoids the problems Thincat points out above. Anything mentioned at WP:UPYES can be reasonably interpreted to contribute to Wikipedia's goals. MER-C 05:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support with a rider. There should be provision for a newbie who is just telling us a useful bit about themselves ("I'm a student at Deadbush Flats University", "I am a linguist specialising in Upper Slobodian, Krankichik and other languages of the Fischburg Mountains", and so on), but who hasn't actually edited yet. Those probably will edit. A full FAKEARTICLE may or may not be considered deletable here. Personally, I'd like to include the things that belong on Facebook (the smiling or gawping portrait, the description of their educational path from infants to studying engineering in their first year at uni, and the links to Twitter, MySpace and YouTube). These won't edit. They are profile people who have to be on all available social media (and things they don't understand that are also free, like encyclopaedias...). Definitely include for the chop are the fantasy charts, the 'you can post here about the Dungeon Miners World game' would-be forum pages, and the short (or not so short) story publishers who don't know the difference between an online encyclopaedia and an online anthology (and who can't spel proply or put a coherent plot together either...). Peridon (talk) 11:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
    Anything that is explicitly permitted by Wikipedia:User_pages#What_may_I_have_in_my_user_pages.3F is not covered by my wording. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
With MFD nominations as seriously flawed as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Pravin Kumar Sonu, I would not welcome speedy deletions on these lines. Thincat (talk) 17:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I would say that one would be OK if they'd edited elsewhere, but is borderline otherwise. Too many pics, perhaps, but no Twittering, Facebooking or YouTubing. I do find the nomination maybe a bit sudden, but if no more edits in other places are forthcoming, it would not be flawed. Peridon (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support this one. I was seriously thinking about creating this criterion myself and bringing the discussion here. On Commons, I created a tool to monitor contributions by new users (commons:User:OgreBot/Uploads by new users), and the results are absolutely damning about the amount of content which they contribute that is out of scope. Frequently, that scope bleeds over onto local projects, and I'm forced to nominate something for deletion. The most common scenario is that the content was article space and already deleted, but also quite frequent is that something is in the userspace and was never deleted because it technically doesn't violate any of the CSD rules, and no one wants to bother with the lengthy MFD process. We very much need and ought to get a control of this. I suggest that G14 or U4 or whatever it would be would be subject to the same requirements as A7. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 21:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support a criterion like this. Not sure yet about the exact wording. Right now though I am wondering why we are restricting this to only user pages. We get these at user subpages and at user talk subpages. I would suggest the language start with: "Personal user pages and subpages and user talk subpages (but not user talk pages...)" Also, minor quibble, "...covering an offsite activity" → "...covering offsite activities."--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support the MER-C version. We can see if more specific forms are needed as we go along, but this looks fine for now. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose for not being #3 frequent enough to justify instruction creep. Also, the seven day waiting period makes this a PROD, not a CSD. CSD are Criteria for SPEEDY Deletion. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 00:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support anything that gets this garbage CSD eligible. Obviously this shouldn't be constructed too broadly, but it looks like folks are on top of this. --BDD (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, I see these all the time. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Just go see MfD backlog. It is almost entirely obviously out of project scope user pages. jni (delete)...just not interested 16:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. --j⚛e deckertalk 23:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

RfC

Per above, there is an apparent consensus in favour of establishing a "Blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a webhost" speedy deletion criterion in some form. However there is no single phrasing that everyone seems to agree on. The following RfC is intended to clear this up.

To participants: please edit the appropriate section, read the suggestion in the <!-- comments --> (keeping them intact for later participants) and sign yourself under the appropriate header explaining your position.

Keφr 18:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

This description forgot the "by an SPA non-contributor" clause. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, there might potentially be no such clause in the criterion itself. But when there is, we could add "by users not actively contributing to the encyclopedia" to the criterion name. Keφr 09:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose entirely

If you want to oppose the criterion in its entirety, please sign your name below.

  1. I support the idea, but the criteria as actually proposed is significantly too subjective and risks of driving away contributors is too great. Speedy deletion of WP:NOT-violating material has been rejected many times before for good reason. We need to tread massively more softly than what is proposed here. Thryduulf (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  2. This is precisely why we have MFD. Why should we trust anyone independently to determine whether something doesn't contribute to Wikipedia's goals? Of course you can have a solid opinion, but whether something contributes to our goals is absolutely something that needs discussion. This criterion is simply too vague and incapable of being firmed up. Nyttend (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  3. I do not see any justification for this as a speedy deletion criterion. I see no evidence that MfD is overwhelmed with such pages, nor that their deletion is so urgent that we cannot wait for MfD. DES (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  4. I shall oppose this. I would be happy for fantasy game pages (not pages "such as" these, but specifically) to be speedy deletable for all spaces and users. I would likely agree to further specifically listed bad types of page. However, the vagueness of the matters proposed here and the poor judgement of some editors, including admins, at MFD makes me feel that a good speedy criterion is unlikely to be agreed to here or subsequently adhered to strictly. The question about "Eligibility of items listed in WP:UPYES" for CSD makes me worried that something, somewhere has gone off the rails – possibly it is me. Thincat (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  5. I agree with Thryduulf that this is too subjective. Many such pages should be deleted, but MfD works fine, and the occassional divided opinion on these at MfD shows the danger of one or two admins should not be making a speedy decision on it. DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
    @Thryduulf:@Nyttend:@DESiegel:@DGG: Actually MfD is backlogged (see Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Old_business with discussion, where only the nominator commented. Could anyone of you do the job? 81.183.18.228 (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
    Better to have a backlog than to risk a lot of pages being deleted improperly — giving people several days to participate is better than preventing them from offering input on a deletion that's nowhere near clear-cut. Moreover, let me remind you that CAT:CSD is also backlogged. If it's backlogs about which you're worried, the solution to the problem is more administrators, not a change in our deletion policies. Nyttend (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
    Nyttend Sidebar: Acutally, the reason why the CSD category is backlogged fairly often now is because of the Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as abandoned AfC submissions sub category being filled up which is caused by my CSD:G13 nominating bot (User:HasteurBot/Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot). Once we've dealt with the years worth of backlog the bot will calm down and only nominate pages that meet the higher standard (at least 6 months unedited+ 30 days of notice to creator that the page is in danger of being deleted) that was agreed to by a consensus. Hasteur (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
    @Nyttend: It's not really "more administrators" that we need, but more that the community is willing to permit to carry out XFD closures. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
    More admins would probably mean more MFD-closers, both because non-admin closes require a "keep" or "no consensus", and because non-admin closes should only be done in non-contentious situations. And meanwhile, CAT:CSD was frequently backlogged even before the AFC tagging began, and it's not too uncommon that I go there and find that the number of non-AFC pages in the category is still enough to qualify it as a backlog. Nyttend (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
    @Nyttend: I'm not saying, that this change is necessary. I'm just saying, that there many discussions, which have a silent consensus for deletion and therefore the closer need the admin bit. 81.183.18.228 (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
    Thank you for the clarification. Still slightly confused — do you mean that we admins simply aren't paying enough attention (i.e. closes take longer than they should), or that there's not enough participation at MFD (i.e. the problem's that too many MFDs get no outside input), or something else? Frankly, I wish it were more common/more accepted for non-admins to close XFDs as "delete" when consensus is obvious, and then tag the page with {{db-xfd}}. It would reduce the admin workload a bit, as well as cutting down on the unhealthy status gap between admins and non-admins. Meanwhile In my eyes, there's a big difference between speedy-deleting a page and deleting a page after an MFD in which nobody except the nominator comments. Both end up in deletion without outside input, but the difference is that people can't comment in one, and they decided not to comment in the other — the opportunity was freely given, and that opportunity is what's important in ambiguous cases. Nyttend (talk) 02:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
    The first one, and this is especially true for WP:FFD and WP:PUF. They have backlogs to September 2013 and October 2013 respectively. (It's highly likely most of them are unopposed nomination, where only deletion is needed. The deleting admin doesn't even need to close them, because a bot does it automatically. 81.183.18.228 (talk) 11:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  6. Oppose more or less per Thryduulf and DGG. No indication that routine use of existing deletion mechanisms has any significant inadequacies. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. I just can't see how this can be objective and uncontestable, while also being frequent enough merit inclusion. There's a reason why WP:NOT don't make good CSD criteria, and this one is hitting it right on the head. It's a nice idea, and I don't think anyone would disagree philosophically, it's just that I don't think it can work practically and it's just going to end up a bunch of WP:CREEP. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 07:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
    I might add that the onslaught of negotiation, mitigation, compromise, and nit-picking that has gone on in trying to define the new criterion is pretty indicative of the inherent problem with it. If no one can agree on what exactly it is, how to go about it, and what should or should not be included, that's usually a pretty good sign that it's just not CSD material since it's never going to be either objective or uncontestable. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 02:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  8. Oppose I don't actually see what this grants us. In my experience patrolling new pages, attempts to use Wikipedia as a webhost in the mainspace are usually A7-able, and attempts in the user namespace tend to be spam. In the few cases where this isn't the case....well, MfD exists. Ironholds (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. Too subjective, potential for misuse. Not seeing a need for it. Stuff like this found in mainspace can be moved to to userspace if it's a good-faithed user. Otherwise it should be deleted as A3, and the A3 criterion should be updated to allow for this. Or even G6! as anyone wanting to use a wiki as a webhost is obviously "in error" ;) -- œ™ 11:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  10. Oppose Unfortunately, this proposal is nit going to result in an uncontestable criterion, or even one that is close. Under any conceivable wording, multiple experienced Wikipedians will often come up with different answers to the types of pages this CSD will likely be applied to. This criterion will almost certainly either be redundant or controversial. Tazerdadog (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  11. Oppose as there is simply no way to make this specific enough to do what is wanted without a ton of collateral damage, and the potential for misuse (mostly unintentional misuse) is too great. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 16:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Namespace

To which namespaces the criterion should apply.

All namespaces (G14).
  1. Support: We have the A series to deal with articlespace, but once people discover that their walled gardens of WikiGameFun are being torn down in userspace, they'll just move to annother namespace. All namespaces allows this creation to traverse into other namespaces where the pages migrate to next and we don't have to come back in a year to create annother CSD. Hasteur (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support: People wanting to use WP as a web host don't care what prefix they use, much is the same way they don't care what any of the other rules are. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support: If we only apply to userspace, they'll just start making the pages somewhere else. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Chris Troutman (talk) 03:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support. I've seen plenty of mainspace articles created as a substitute for a proper website. It certainly isn't limited to the userspace. ProtossPylon 22:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support; I think the problem is more prevalent in some namespaces than others, but that's no reason to deliberately hamstring our responses to the problem. bobrayner (talk) 03:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  7. Support Yes, please. Gigs (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
  8. Support Out of project scope material is out of scope of encyclopedia building regardless of namespace. Sometimes users create weird wiki-tangles by moving pages around namespaces in erratic fashion. CSD tools must cope with this without arbitrary rigidity. jni (delete)...just not interested 16:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  9. Support. Otherwise we could just have people creating their nonsense in a godforsaken namespace like TimedText talk. --Jakob (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
User namespace only (U4).
  1. Support. While NOTWEBHOST abuse by SPAs is usually found on Userpages and UserTalk pages, it is obviously unacceptable anywhere. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
    @SmokeyJoe: Your response sounds like you meant to support all namespaces, but you signed under user namespace only. Jackmcbarn (talk) 13:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support: In other namespaces, such content can be classified under other criteria (i.e. hoaxes, spam, A7, etc.). ViperSnake151  Talk  18:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  3. I'd much rather this be rejected entirely, so this is explicitly not support for the proposal as a whole, but if it does happen, this is the less damaging of the two namespace options. Thryduulf (talk) 19:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support: NOTWEBHOST violations are almost impossible to pass off as legitimate in other namespaces, per ViperSnake. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 00:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support: Other namespaces have deletion criteria that will cover this. -- Whpq (talk) 11:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support. I don't see the need for all namespaces right now. We can always change this if the nonsense spreads to other namespaces. MER-C 05:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  7. Support per above. This is a good addition for maintaining user space; other namespaces have other mechanisms in place. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  8. Support. Seems to be a userspace-only problem to me. Stifle (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  9. Support. I have seen cases where the problem is with content in userspace; I haven't seen any cases elsewhere. APerson (talk!) 14:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  10. Conditional support as per Thryduulf. I oppose the entire proposal, but if it passes, it should be limited to userspace. DES (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  11. Support - As mentioned above in other namespaces this already falls under other CSD criterion, but "it's userspace" has been used as an excuse for not deleting this sort of stuff from user pages/subpages in the past. So this is, regretfully, necessary. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  12. Support - But I'd be open to revisiting this for other namespaces after we've had some experience with the narrower scope. --j⚛e deckertalk 23:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  13. Support per above. The issue is prevalent in userspace, but not really elsewhere; therefore, so I see no need at this time to make this a general criterion. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  14. If done at all, it should be limited to User (and possibly usertalk). Anyhere else is confusing and excessive. DGG ( talk ) 07:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Requirements on account age

Whether creations by accounts younger than some given threshold would be exempted from the new criterion, to avoid biting the newbies and give them time to become useful contributors.

No requirement
  1. Support: Behaviour can change; a long-time editor may come back as a vandal. This makes the criteria a bit less subjective. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support: I have found that it is primarily new accounts using WP as a short-term host. It shouldn't be allowed to happen. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Most of the accounts that do this are new, and it only takes 7 days to MfD the pages, so this criterion is pointless if it has a higher waiting period. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support. WP:BITE will still exist. NB the speedy deletion notification will be a direct and unambiguous communication, and this communication is best done promptly, for an unambiguous NOTWEBHOST violation by an SPA. A prompt discussion is highly desirable, in the case of a newcomer with completely the wrong idea, but who might turn around. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support - Prompt communication is better than letting it sit. Based on the NOTWEBHSOT I've found, waiting will make d=no difference. -- Whpq (talk) 11:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support This should be measured from the date of their first edit, as many accounts are created years before the person first clicks the save button. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  7. Support Chris Troutman (talk) 03:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  8. Support If an article acting as a webpage isn't deleted under this new CSD, it's bound to be deleted in some other way. Most users who create CSD-worthy pages are brand new anyway and everyone seems fine with removing them on the spot. I don't think this would be any less bite-y. ProtossPylon 22:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  9. Support: It's vital to encourage good new editors. If somebody starts with work that qualifies for CSD, that warm welcome should be tempered. Refusing to fix problematic pages for fear of being mean to an editor who has started out making problematic pages is, I think, not a helpful application of WP:BITE. bobrayner (talk) 03:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  10. Support: What shouldn't be in Wikipedia shouldn't be in Wikipedia, and having even a 7-day period sends a message that "if you can get your game done in X days you can totally use Wikipedia to host it". - The Bushranger One ping only 02:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  11. Support: Useless rule creep. jni (delete)...just not interested 16:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  12. Support --j⚛e deckertalk 23:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  13. Support: An account age requirement may be counterproductive. If a new user is misusing Wikipedia as a webhost, I would think he or she would be better off knowing sooner rather than later, before he or she has invested a significant amount of time into creating userspace content. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  14. Support. The Bushranger and Black Falcon say it well. --Jakob (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Account must be older than 7 days
  1. Support This is the longest I consider to be reasonable. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support this or more; anything less should be a user education matter. Stifle (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


Account must be older than 14 days
Account must be older than 30 days
  1. Support, though I wouldn't mind seeing a higher threshold (90 days) as few editors learn enough of the WikiLaw in 30 days to properly defend their actions. Hasteur (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support iff the whole criterion is not rejected, but per Hasteur while 30 days is really too short to expect people to learn our policies it's better than giving them less time. Thryduulf (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  3. Conditional support as per Thryduulf. DES (talk) 15:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Requirements on account activity

Whether creations by actively contributing accounts should be exempted from the new criterion to minimise false positives (i.e. technically eligible content which might be desirable to be kept), and how to define "actively contributing".

No requirement
  1. Support: Polices should equally apply to all users, especially if we're enforcing WP:NOT. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support, Giving a nod to ViperSnake151's view I would suggest that the CSD be a final step in attempting to remove the content. If they're an established editor who should know better, perhaps talking to them on their talk page might encourage them to clean up the item themselves. Hasteur (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Chris Troutman (talk) 03:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support: Articles acting as webpages can appear regardless of the articles/namespaces they've edited in. Pages which obviously don't fit the bill for something worthy of an encyclopedia article are going to get CSD'd/PROD'd/AFD'd anyway I don't think there's much of a point in implementing an arbitrary post threshold for a CSD that is supposed to speed up the process. ProtossPylon 22:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support: There's no reason to have a wide-open invitation for gaming the system. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support: No need for "gaming the system" rules. jni (delete)...just not interested 16:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
No/few edits in mainspace
  1. Any good faith edit in mainspace means that the account is not typical of the many cases that come steadily to MfD, of blatant NOTWEBHOST violation by accounts that have never edited anything else, and never do, during or after the MfD. Any account that edits meaningfully should not be subjected to this CSD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  2. < 5 edits to mainspace only. I think we should reevaluate if other namespaces should be consider if we find examples of useful edits to other namespaces. OTOH, it is common for someone to be disruptive in Wikipedia space and using their userspace as a webhost. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
No/few edits outside userspace
  1. Support iff the whole proposal is not rejected, this should apply only to those accounts with exactly zero edits to pages outside the user: and user talk: namespaces. Thryduulf (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support few edits: This criterion shouldn't affect people who are benefiting the encyclopedia, but at the same time, fixing one typo shouldn't exempt you. (Not sure how "few" should be defined yet.) Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support. No objection to expanding the exclusion to accounts that have edited usefully anywhere. I have never seen it happen, an SPA NOTWEBHOST violator who makes meaningful contribution in other places. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support - Accounts editting elsewhere usefully might have a good reason for whatever is being considered for deletion and should be taken to a discussion. -- Whpq (talk) 11:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support For the exact same reason as Whpq. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support. Not all useful contributions to the encyclopedia are in mainspace. MER-C 05:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  7. Support this one. Stifle (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  8. Conditional support as per Thryduulf. This should not apply to anyone editing helpfully. DES (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  9. Support as a fairly good failsafe. It does carry potential for gaming the system, but I'd rather see that than overbearing application of the criterion. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  10. Support, with few being defined as less than 10 edits to mainspace, projectspace, or templatespace and no constructive content edits. --Jakob (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


Grace period

Whether there should be a delay between nominating a page for deletion under the new criterion and performing the actual deletion, to give users time to take their content elsewhere.

No grace period
  1. Support, If the content is not appropriate, a stay of execution isn't going to help it. Write into the CSD a offer of REFUND by mail for content that doesn't violate any of the other rules so as to make the CSD relatively soft. Hasteur (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support: With a grace period, this wouldn't be much more desirable to use than an MfD. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
    That might be the perspective of the tagger. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support: but compensate for with a very gentle message, so as not to scare off editors who, in another few years, may make useful contributions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 00:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  4. We have enough silly half-delayed speedy deletion categories. Stifle (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Chris Troutman (talk) 03:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support: It doesn't make any sense to apply a time requirement to a CSD because it defeats the purpose. Delaying also might also give the user the mistaken belief that they aren't doing anything wrong by making more pages like this. A softly-worded CSD would be best. ProtossPylon 22:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  7. Support: Again, we don't need to provide a gaming-the-system loophole. "Sure, give me a week and I'll move it. Heh heh, joke's on them, I'll be done by then." - The Bushranger One ping only 02:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  8. Support There is no purpose served by a grace period. Gigs (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
  9. Support Grace period does not contribute to encyclopedia building. Fast deletion of out of project scope material does. jni (delete)...just not interested 16:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  10. Support This (that is, the grace period) is both a loophole and an invitation to process complexity. --j⚛e deckertalk 23:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  11. Support. It's not like you can fix garbage like this in a few days. Why else would you have a grace period. I also agree with Stifle, delayed speedies are almost the same as PRODs. --Jakob (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


Three days
Seven days
  1. Support iff the whole proposal is not rejected. This gives users a chance to defend their content without having to figure out what on earth happened to their content and how to argue it's relevance after the fact. 14 days would be better still. Thryduulf (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support. "Speedy", long since recognized as a misnomer for CSDs, is not what's desired here. What is desired is easier deletion without having to occupy attention and space at MfD. Never have I seen an establish editor alleged "SPA NOTWEBHOST violation" and not seen the page deleted. It should be deleted, but there is no rush. Seven days is long enough for the author to explain unexpected reasons, or question a mistake. There is still WP:REFUND. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support - Making this s SPEEDY removes the need for burdening other editors with a discussion at MFD. There is no need for immediate deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 11:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support - Immediately is much too short - seven days is reasonable and gives editors a chance to change it or move it elsewhere. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support - Preferred grace period. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  6. Conditional support as per Thryduulf. If the proposal is approved, users should have a chance to defend their actions and to learn the rules in the elaste WP:BITEy way possible. DES (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  7. Support per above. The purpose of a speedy criterion is to reduce bureaucracy, and not necessarily to act quickly. I do not think that we would gain anything from immediate deletion or lose anything by waiting a few days. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Scope

Content eligible under the new criterion.

"Writings, information, discussions, and activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals" (broad)
  1. Support If we're designing this to be the good case for cleaning out items that aren't related to the goals of creating an encyclopedia or developing the creation of an encyclopedia, it doesn't belong here. Hasteur (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support: No sense restricting this to the one particular type of violations we're currently seeing. No doubt another type will become popular in the future. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support The other criteria are better ways to narrow down the use of the new CSD. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support, this is in the department of "you know it when you see it". Stifle (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Chris Troutman (talk) 03:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support ProtossPylon 22:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  7. Support. If it's not aligned with the goals of Wikipedia, it shouldn't be in Wikipedia. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  8. Support as per the above, but would rephrase as 'Writings, information, discussions, and activities not closely related to Wikipedia or its goals'. --Jakob (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
"Substantial content covering an offsite activity, real or imaginary, such as fantasy online reality game shows, containing no sourced content suitable for mainspace" (narrow)
  1. Support if worded without the specific reference to fantasy games (WP:NOTWEBHOST can be linked somewhere in the final wording) ViperSnake151  Talk  18:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support iff the whole proposal is not rejected AND "mainspace" is replaced by "the article, portal, project ("Wikipedia:"), help, template, or category namespaces". Thryduulf (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose "not closely". Something half-related must not be subjected to this CSD, but taken to MfD. Delete "closely". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

    Support Thryduulf's modifications. The wording needs to be improved. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

  4. Support - Intention shouldn't be to cover anything under WP:NOT, but the narrow scope that requires no discussion. -- Whpq (talk) 11:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support. prefer broader scope. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support, but the example given is a bit too specific. There's a lot of other subjects of which articles are created more frequently that this CSD could apply to. ProtossPylon 22:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  7. Conditional support. If this passes, a narrow bright-line criterion is better. DES (talk) 15:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Possibly fantasy games, but not RL activities. Many active user's pages talk about how they are an dwhat they do outside WP--its useful information if they care to give it. DGG ( talk ) 07:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Eligibility of items listed in WP:UPYES
Whether kinds of pages listed in WP:UPYES, either mentioned generally or specifically listed, should be explicitly exempted, and which.
  1. Exempt ViperSnake151  Talk  18:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  2. Exempt (but this does not indicate support for the proposal as a whole). Thryduulf (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  3. Exempt: This seems implicit, even with the broad scope option. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  4. Exempt, obviously?? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  5. Expempt - Things that are allowed by guideline obviously cannot be deleted without discussion. -- Whpq (talk) 11:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  6. Exempt - obviously. MER-C 05:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  7. Exempt John Vandenberg (chat) 08:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  8. Exempt Chris Troutman (talk) 03:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  9. Exempt. There's a lot of things you shouldn't have in a user page that don't really fit with this CSD. ProtossPylon 22:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  10. Exempt as per Thryduulf and Whpq and others above. DES (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  11. Exempt - A no-brainer. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  12. Exempt certainly. --Jakob (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Eligibility of WP:NOTMYSPACE and resume-style pages
  1. Exempt editors should be provided guidance on how to make proper user pages. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  2. Exempt (but this does not indicate support for the proposal as a whole). Thryduulf (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  3. Exempt These are a separate issue than NOTWEBHOST. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  4. WP:NOTMYSPACE violations by SPAs should be summarily deleted, without the fuss of MfD. Posting a resume may be an introduction in preparation of editing, maybe. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  5. Exempt - Agree wity SmokeyJoe. -- Whpq (talk) 11:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  6. Exempt John Vandenberg (chat) 08:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  7. Exempt Stifle (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  8. Make eligible Chris Troutman (talk) 03:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  9. Make eligible. I was under the impression that this was one of the reasons for the CSD. User pages like these may as well be personal webpages. ProtossPylon 22:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  10. Exempt as per ViperSnake151, Thryduulf and others above. A resume page is not appropriate, but can often be converted into a proper user page with reasonable editing. DES (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  11. Exempt - In this case, stuff not salvagable can be properly MFD'd. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  12. Do not exempt. WP:RESUME is a humorous essay, but it makes a good point about these kinds of pages. Clearly notable people, however, could be exempt. --Jakob (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


Eligibility of drafts
Whether pages plausibly intended or explicitly marked as drafts would be eligible under the new criterion, and which.
  1. Exempt plausible drafts ViperSnake151  Talk  18:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  2. Exempt everything plausibly intended as a draft, whether explicitly marked or not and whether it would make a plausible article/template/category/help/project page or not (but this does not indicate support for the proposal as a whole). Thryduulf (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  3. Exempt plausible drafts Sticking {{userspace draft}} on a page shouldn't make it count as a draft, though. Admins would have to decide when deleting whether or not it's a good-faith attempt at a draft. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  4. Exempt everything plausibly related to the project. I think this CSD is aimed clearly at games and fantasies, and personal file storage. I would also exempt anything verifiable under WP:V. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  5. Exempt - Anything plausibly written as a draft needs discussion. -- Whpq (talk) 11:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  6. Exempt - obviously. MER-C 05:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  7. Exempt John Vandenberg (chat) 08:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  8. Exempt plausible drafts Chris Troutman (talk) 03:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  9. Exempt: I do believe that drafts shouldn't be posted outside the userspace (or, in some situations, the Wikipedia namespace), but this seems irrelevant to this CSD ProtossPylon 22:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
    Note that the new Draft namespace is also particularly appropriate for drafts. DES (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  10. Exempt Nothing that seems a good-faith draft, however impossible, should be speedy deleted under this criterion, if it passes. DES (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  11. Exempt, providing it's a plausible draft. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  12. Exempt let's try not to destroy good-faith work. For drafts that need deletion, use G13 or G11 (if applicable) or MFD otherwise. --Jakob (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Reboot. "Old fantasy games by a non-active non-contributor"

Several comments above are critical of the poorly defined criteria, and the unwarranted breadth of scope. They are right. The vast majority of the problem material that is slam dunk deleted that clogs MfD is straight fantasy games in the userspace of a non-contributor, an account that never edited outside their own userspace, and the account, and the page, has been inactive for a long time (>six months). It is true that such stuff does not typically appear in other namespaces. Larger walled gardens of fantasy games are also rare. I suggest eh following would be more agreeable, and just as effective.

U4. "Old fantasy games by a non-active non-contributor" User space or user talk space content that is Fantasy games, or reality games unverifiable in reliable sources, that has remained untouched for over six months, posted by an account that never edited outside their own userspace, and the account has been inactive for six months.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

On first glance at the heading I thought your proposal was tongue-in-cheek. -- Ϫ 03:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Feel free to improve the section title. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • It is my opinion that it frequent enough. There has been a rush of these nominations in recent weeks, but they have been represented in nominations frequently and consistently for the several years I have been reveiwing MfD. They don't quite number as impressively as abandoned AfC nominations, but they are enough that they consistently burden the process.

    I have other times argued that such pages need only be blanked, much as per davidwr, 03:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC). However, they are continually nominated, and once nominated, all MfD participants want them deleted. User:Whpq has clearly demonstrated that it is easy to find many.

    It is tempting to widen the scope to improve the apparent frequency of application. Perusing the archives, I see that games (non-wiki games) and fantasy reality are frequent, and that with "old resumes by non-contributors" and "old attempts at social networking by non-contributors", they seem to represent the majority of pages deleted via MfD, however, fantasy games or unverifiable reality games currently represent the majority of MfD nominations that are SNOW deleted. Reading above comments opposing entirely a wide version of this CSD, it seems that enough people are more worried by a new CSD that is very wide that we shouldn't do that. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I too have seen these brought to MfD. Another way to remedy it would be to somehow streamline MfD, such as by permitting the grouping (bundling) of nominations, as is allowed at AfD. —rybec 23:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

What is the point of that if we will just rubber stamp the group nom anyway? Gigs (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, MfD is suffering from little participation to delete the obvious resume-spam and facebook content. I would formulate U4 thus:

U4. Out of project scope userpage. Pages consisting entirely of content that is out of scope of Wikipedia's goals, by editors with no significant contributions to the encyclopedia. This criteria includes pages containing substantial content covering an offsite activity, real or imaginary, (e.g. WP:NOTWEBHOST, fantasy online reality shows or roleplay etc.), whose editor(s) have little to no history of good-faith editing outside of user or project pages.

all details can be left to deleting admin. What utility there is to fill rules with things like arbitrary time limits designed to enforce WP:BITE, when all editors should take it into account automatically? We are not writing Code of Federal Regulations here! jni (delete)...just not interested 16:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
That fails the objectivity requirement for CSD criteria in just about every possible place it could do so. If something requires administrator discretion it is not suitable for speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 14:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Most things at CSD require admin discretion to some extent. Is this really unambiguous promotion, or could it be innocent? Is that a copyvio, or is it really licensed CC-BY-SA? Is the 12 year old kid from Widnes who claims to be a millionaire really one, or is it a load of bollocks? Is 'tybrejs fitresg klaventimod' gibberish or perhaps Upper Slobodian? One author request - yes, that is a straightforward yes/no situation (except where the author has changed name or an IP has been editing in a similar style to the creator). Red linked redirect - no problems. G4 should be an easy decision - it is or it isn't. Any choice involves 'discretion' - except perhaps the one about what to do when ten armed cops are telling you to put the parcel down slowly and then raise your hands high.... Peridon (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
That is somewhat true, Peridon but the CSDs are supposed to be pretty much the most bright-line, objective, and yes prescriptive policies we have on Wikipedia. A proposal for a new CSD should show that it is sufficiently clear cut that most admins would make the same (correct) decision in most cases. Thryduulf's objection is IMO well-taken, and Jni's comments above again show a badly mistaken attitude to the CSD process, in my view. DES (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Peridon has it right, very few of the existing criteria are objective. Maybe G9, G13, R2, F2, U1 are, but everything else requires administrator discretion of some sort. Even U2 (non-existent user) criteria has been edited by someone to exclude redirects from misspellings of an established user's userpage, and for the previous name of a recently renamed user (which should normally be left as a redirect to the new name for a reasonable time), requiring admin discretion about what is a reasonable "misspelling", who is "established user", and what is "reasonable time"). The alleged bright-linedness and objectiveness of CSD rules is just a mirage created by some WP process theorists and is best ignored when it obstructs deletion too much. My proposed U4 wording is not in any way less objective than current criteria, as it is easy to see if user is a non-contributor, or that userpage contains WP:NOTWEBHOST material. Note that this is not same as making all WP:STALEDRAFTs speediable as WP:NOTWEBHOST contains a detailed list, just like A7, what it is covering. Wiki-games are not there but adding them there or in new CSD criteria is easy. jni (delete)...just not interested 16:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

U5 added

To avoid confusion, since U4 was a legitimate CSD criterion in the past, I've created this criterion as U5. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I think I've done everything that needed to be done to set this up. Let me know if I missed anything. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • It looks OK to me. Given that there is no limit to the youth of an account, and that a newcomer's clumsy drafting may be misrecognized as not a "plausible draft", I hope that CSD#U5 deleters will remember WP:BITE, if applicable. NB. WP:BITE does not trump, it would mean: say something informative in the deletion summary. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Why does it exclude "résumé-style pages"? Are these examples of "résumé-style pages" that are not U5-speediable: User:JUSTICE STEPHEN MUSOTA, User:Manojbaviskar, User:Gadhewarvijaykumar/sandbox, User:Siddiquemahmud, User:Khmermega/sandbox, User:Alshokhp, User:Sandeep jat. All of these are currently in MfD with zero discussion or voting (and minimal listing period for each has elapsed) and there are thousands more of exactly this kind of hit-and-run junk by non-contributors lurking in the user namespace. I am going to remove the special exception for "résumé-style pages" from the criteria as common sense should tell anyone that it is total waste of time for two people to tag team to delete this spam through the tedious MfD process. The "resume-exception" is also contradicting the text of WP:NOTWEBHOST that the U5 cites, making it confusing for everyone who is familiar with the current consensus about that guideline in MfD. jni (delete)...just not interested 20:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Résumé-type pages are excluded because the consensus in the section above was that they should be excluded, you can read the rationales people gave there. Any unilateral removal of it will be reverted as directly contradictory to that very recent consensus. If you want to change that you will need to propose the change, explaining how your change meets the objectivity, frequency, uncontestability and non-redundancy requirements for CSD critera and seek consensus for it. Thryduulf (talk) 23:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Resume style pages shouldn't be part of U5 because they can't be seen as blatantly abusing Wikipedia in a prolific manner. A resume is very similar to a proper userpage introducing the Wikipedian, the resume poster 'could' be an intending contributed. Also importantly, a resume poster is not an anonymous spammer. As they have given their real name, we can at least give them the courtesy of a personal message. Real people encountering Wikipedia back rooms should walk away with a positive impression, not an automatic cold rejection. Also, resume pages blanked and not an ongoing problem, no one is going to NOTWEBHOST abuse Wikipedia by external linking to a history archived version of their resume, that would be counter productive, and better ways are easily found.
The games and advocacy on the other hand, bears so much group similarity that I believe it is produced ( or encouraged) repeatedly by a small number of people. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
What is your suggestion for avoiding the needless busywork in MfD, where the resume junk of non-contributors is routinely deleted? jni (delete)...just not interested 08:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
After reviewing each if your examples, I am more susceptible to have my mind changed on this. However, resumes in the history are not as offensive as archiving webhosting pages, or pages with advocacy screeds. Using Wikipedia for online storage is not hurt by requiring the user to access the history, so we don't want to leave this option. And NOTWEBHOST abusers, I think, repost under different accounts. The same resume doesn't get repeatedly deposted under different accounts, so blanking accomplishes all that needs doing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd prefer much less inconsequential matters to be posted (advertised more widely than ever previously) at MfD. Most inconsequential stuff should be either speedied or just blanked. I don't see why blanking is not preferable for old SPA resumes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Blanking isn't preferred because then whoever posted the stuff can just give out permalinks to it instead of the link to the latest version. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Do you really think so? If so, I don't oppose expansion, for old (weeks) resumes by non-contributors. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Some resumes do get repeatedly deposted under different accounts, and blanking doesn't always accomplish all that needs doing. See for example past versions of User:Md Gaju Rahman Sk; and if you're an admin, try comparing those with the (deleted) User:Gajurahman. I'm sure that the same guy has operated under other names too. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
OK. I have no objection to U5 including detailed resumes of non-contributors. I haven't checked rationales against resumes above. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
And sometimes you need blocking and salting, not just deletion to deal with the most troublesome cases. See for example this vandal. He is not creating resume spam per se, and is not limited to user namespace; instead he is creating dozens of accounts in multiple wikis in order to post a bio of a male Bengali singer (whose name and occupation and other details change between versions!). Blank his page or ask him nicely to contain his activities to just one account or to a single page, and see how well it succeeds! He typically starts from new userpage and then tries to spam copies of it, or links to it all over the place, if not blocked early on. As my previous examples of resume spam in userspace were deleted via MfD, here are some more examples of pure junk that is currently protected by the U5 special exemption requiring a nuisance MfD if want to get rid of: User:Abraham.Ayom/sandbox, User:Kurigram MIT, User:Zizolux, User:Abulghanam m, User:Fila ali, User:Prashant.sri8956, User:Rami.khoury, User:Mdobashi, User:Trainer udhayasandron. First one, User:Abraham.Ayom shows a typical pattern: non-contributor is adding irrelevant content on user page, user talk page, user sandbox, etc. Again many more mouse clicks and edits and useless work from multiple editors to get this mopped through the MfD. There is way more utter garbage in userpages than most editors think, just few minutes search yields dozens of pages that are spam, attacks, copyvios, WP:FRINGE physics theories, huge unwikified textdumps, and any kind of random non-contributor content. jni (delete)...just not interested 15:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
How did you find these? (I'm just curious). Did you come across any borderline cases where the resume conceivable could be a reasonable newcomer userpage, or where the resume poster soon became a contributor? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Because I am sceptical about how U5 may be used, I made my first (and probably only) speedy tagging about a week ago.[1] I looked here for new users with edits and blue links to their user page. I started looking about a fortnight back in time and looked at their contributions to be pretty sure they didn't ever edit elsewhere. It took me about five minutes to find a soapbox-style page with the user's only ever edit. I expect the experts can be a lot quicker in finding these but why they bother is a complete mystery to me. What also greatly puzzles me is the huge number of new users who never seem to make any edits at all (here from 5 April) – or have their edits all been deleted? A weird corner of WP, I think. Thincat (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is searching resumes from userspace, other than for this discussion about policy. But they do crop up when you are searching for spam or copyvios from user pages (some people actively do that, as current policy takes copyright violations very seriously) or just encounter some troll who posts random junk here and there. It makes sense to delete or blank all kinds of junk when you first notice it, without silly classification step for sorting the junk into bins and then deciding what deletion method is suitable for different varieties of clearly unencyclopedic garbage. But if you want to search for resumes, just try searching for some BS phrase that often is used in (poor) CV's and select the namespace for User only. For example, this search [2] yields some interesting attempts at communicating with someone: User:Manapakkam Mukundhan, User:Manoj8, User:Jaymin, User:Dharinder, User:Didik marjadi, User:Emperorwind, User:Pkvish/sandbox, User:K.A.Salam/sandbox, User:Vijay gharde, User:Firuzmiah, and User:Zahirbdesh, whose only contribution to Wikipedia is a request that we forward his letter to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II (LOL!?!) We have probably several tens of thousands of "throw away accounts" who have only posted some random, incoherent text and never contributed anything of value. I don't recall ever seeing anyone who first posted a horribly written, unformatted CV and then became active contributor. jni (delete)...just not interested 18:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • There are active and experienced wikipedians who describe their background into what looks very much like a resumé. They could of course rewrite it into a slightly different style, but why should they need to? If the pages amount to really blatant advertising, we sometimes delete them as such,but the tolerance for this outside mainspace is much greater. In general it is very difficult to tell the difference between advertising, a resumé from someone not intending to make encyclopedic contributions, and a bio in form of a resumé from someone who does intend to make encyclopedic contributions. The only way of judging the difference is by a discussion, and mfd is the appropriate place. Obvious mfds go very quickly, but for a new w contributor there is often no way of knowing . Deleting all kinds of junk is a very dangerous way to look at it. I have a personal view of what that amounts to, and it includes a good deal of what might stand at MfD or even AfD. I hope I wouldn't take advantage of a license to remove whatever I thought unconstructive, but I know I would be tempted. We admins have enough temptation to be arbitrary as it is. DGG ( talk ) 20:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree that it is hard to draw a line between a résumé and an acceptable user page for an active Wikipedian, but there is a clear line between those who only write about themselves and those who contribute usefully to the encyclopedia. If the exceptions at the end of U5 read "and résumé-style pages by users whose accounts are less than three months old", that would save a good deal of work at MfD without being WP:BITEy to new contributors finding their feet. JohnCD (talk) 09:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • You are making a pure strawman argument here. Nobody has suggested deleting resume-like userpages of active users. U5 is for removing the hit-and-run spam of non-contributors who create a throw-away account and post few irrelevant pieces of text and then go away permanently (or at least for a long time). Or who only keep editing their own irrelevant pieces of text (in their userspace or perhaps in some obscure location). jni (delete)...just not interested 19:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: Merge F9 and G12

Criteria F9 and G12 are essentially the same. The criteria in the "General" section are supposed to apply to every type of page, so it seems that criterion F9 is redundant as it restates the same idea. G12 states that it only applies to "Text pages that contain copyrighted material", but we can easily expand it to include any type of page that does so. I think we can make G12 applicable to files as well. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Could be worded like this?

Obvious copyright violations, with a lack of credible evidence that the content in question is licensed under an appropriate free content license, or is in the public domain. For articles, this does not apply when a "clean", non-infringing revision exists, or in cases involving a dubious assertion of permission, free-content edits overlying the infringement, or where there is only partial infringement or close paraphrasing. In these cases, the article or the appropriate section should be blanked with {{subst:Copyvio}}, and the page should be listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Dubious cases for files should be listed on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files, and dubious claims of permission can be considered under criteria F11. For files, this does not apply if the image is or can be used as a fair use image.

ViperSnake151  Talk  00:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I think that would be fine, except the word Images should be replaced with Files, as this will apply to all files. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 01:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not clear on the benefit of this. Although the underlying issues are the same, the detailed considerations and procedures are different. The suggested rewrite does not say what tags to use and it is likely these will be different for articles and files. Thincat (talk) 08:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There is no benefit to merging two already complex criteria as it would just produce something even more complicated. All the proposal would do is create a criterion that says in cases of copyright violations do X for text and Y for files, as there is little overlap between them. When you make things more complicated you increase the likelihood that people will get it wrong - and we should be especially careful to avoid getting CSDs wrong as much as we can. I could support a link at the bottom of G12 that says something like "For images that violate copyright, see criterion F9" . Thryduulf (talk) 09:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
The link you said you would support already exists. I just thought it would be better to have a one-size-fits-all criteria for copyright infringement rather than have two separate criteria for the same issue. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • There has been so much discussion and explanation and analysis based upon the present arrangement, that it would seem prudent not to tinker with it merely for the sake of this simplification. What's not simple isnt the rule, but the very complex history of interpretations. DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Definition of "substantial content" per WP:G7

I created the article "Steven the Sword Fighter" about three days ago. I'm planning on WP:G7ing it, because I think I jumped the gun on making it, but as a recent editor has kindly added an episode summary of 1,453 bytes, and I have written 3,283 bytes of prose, would this not be eligible under it? Does it matter that the summary the editor added is unreferenced (as is typical of plot summaries), and thus, not stand on its own (per WP:PLOTONLY)? Whisternefet (t · c) 23:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Upon reading it further, I now hold that my contributions as an author substantiate it enough, so I have added the G7 tag. Whisternefet (t · c) 00:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
You're not the only substantial contributor. I removed the tag. If you think the article unsuitable, please use AfD, and explain why you think so. (btw, plot summaries can be sourced from the work itself; what we do not allow is articles composed only of plot summary, In this case, there seems to be quite a bit of such content, so a reasonable section on plot is not only allowable, but necessary ) DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I understand; thanks anyways. Whisternefet (t · c) 00:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Substantial content is any content of substance; that is, anything beyond formatting, spelling, grammar, categories, etc. If there is new article content that was added by another user, it is not eligible for G7. VanIsaacWScont 01:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Conjecture

I just altered a sentence in the R3 footnote from this:

If we delete these redirects, it will result in dead links on these other websites, which reflects poorly on Wikipedia.

to this:

Should such links exist, deletion of these redirects will result in dead links on those other websites.

stating in my edit summary that the former phrasing was superfluous, because conjecture and opinion are inappropriate for policy. Entirely unsurprisingly, this change has been reverted by Thryduulf. So let's have it then, Thryduulf, explain how "reflects poorly on Wikipedia" is anything but fantastical thinking. Tell me how you know what people think when a link on any random website to Wikipedia doesn't function. Explain how Wikipedia is collectively responsible for maintaining every unknown third party website in the world, and how if it doesn't that "reflects poorly" upon us. And do it without resorting to hand-waving, guessing, or plain old making stuff up. — Scott • talk 18:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

  • The footnote was inserted during a revision of R3 in May 2012 (history) discussed at WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 46#Exclude moves and merges from R3. Flatscan (talk) 04:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks, yes. If I had been present in that discussion, I would have objected to the proposed insertion of a value judgement. I've removed it again, anyway.
    Additional reasoning: if it was not intended to refer to the opinions of third parties - and definitely opinions; it's qualitative, not quantitative - then it must apply to the opinions of some Wikipedia editors. Not all of them. My opinion is that the only thing reflected by the occasional presence of a broken link is the day-to-day operational reality of a wiki. But of course, I wouldn't add that to the policy, either - because it's just my opinion. — Scott • talk 15:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
    I don't have time to explain things now in detail, but Wikipedia contributing to link rot is seen as very unprofessional by people in the real world. Remember that we are producing an encyclopaedia for people to use and reference that happens to be a wiki, we are not playing in a public sandbox. Indeed most Wikipedians I talk to in real life struggle to comprehend why anyone would ever think deleting a redirect is a good idea (next time you go to a Wikipedia meet, try asking people their opinion). I wont edit war with you, but I really think you should restore the wording as was - the procedure is bold (your first edit), revert (my edit), discuss (your posting here) then wait for there to be consensus for or against the change before proceeding. Bold, Revert, start a discussion but revert anyway is not acceptable. Thryduulf (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
    And there we go with the handwaving. No thanks, I won't be reintroducing conjecture and value judgements into policy on that basis. I'm also going to refrain from commenting on these alleged Wikipedians and their struggles with understanding.
    Regarding procedure, following your revert I immediately wrote the above and pinged you in it. Response came there none, and a couple of hours later you could be seen editing other pages. So apparently you didn't have time to follow BRD, but you did have time for other things. Whatever, dude. — Scott • talk 21:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
    @Thryduulf: People who are linking from outside with the expectation that their links won't rot should be using perma-links to specific edits anyways (not that they do, just that they should). Such links still work if the page has been moved and the incoming redirect deleted. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
    It seems to me some of this discussion reflects the thoughtless attitude we take towards our reusers. Best practice requires reusers to attribute the source and authors of the work reused and using a URL is frequently recommended. Best practice guides do not suggest using a permanent link.[3][4][5] If I attribute by using links to an article or image, and the history and the source are deleted (or moved and the redirect is deleted), this attribution is, at the very least, obfuscated. Whether this reflects poorly on WP I don't know but in my subjective opinion it is an undesirable situation that should be avoided whenever reasonably possible. It is a good idea to have some sort of warning explaining this problem about deletions. We routinely delete non-commercial use images in case our commercial reusers were to use them inadvertently but we show little concern for people trying to attribute properly. Thincat (talk) 08:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
    While I do agree in principle that people should be using permanent links more often, I don't have any realistic expectation that they will, for a number of reasons. However, I do agree that perhaps people encountering a "this page was deleted" message could be met with something more informative, that explains that non-permanent links are just that, and tells them about permanent links. I also find it interesting that nobody yet has mentioned how a broken link reflects on the third party that made it in the first place. If I encounter a broken link to us from a static external page, it means that that page's author has never checked to see if it still works. The door swings both ways. That doesn't, however, mean that it's appropriate for us to put a sniffy comment about it in our policies. — Scott • talk 09:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
    It is not always possible for links to be updated (think hard copies, read only copies, offline versions, etc), most of the web is not a wiki so it is not always easy to update pages, and frankly when someone is creating a static document it is not their responsibility to continually check links (just think how many links someone may have to manage). Yes, in some cases, it reflects poorly on that document author but it also always reflects poorly on Wikipedia. As one of the most important websites in the world, we are looked on to offer a model of good practice for digital information management (which is why we take copyright so seriously). Deliberately or recklessly promoting link rot is the antithesis of this good practice. We are a decade or more beyond the time when we could concern ourselves only with our internal fancy, these days we have a responsibility that not everybody here is taking at all seriously. Thryduulf (talk) 09:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
    we are looked on to offer a model of good practice for digital information management Haaa!!! Sorry, but you're living in a self-important fantasy world. This project is amateur hour from start to finish. I regularly encounter and fix egregious document history issues that have gone completely unnoticed for years on end, the result of multiple compounded layers of renamings and deletions all undertaken by random individuals without even the slightest concept of maintaining long-term integrity, bots operating unattended, ad-hoc naming conventions created and amended in piecemeal fashion, you name it. Our "information management" is a complete joke. As Nyttend points out below, we don't even offer permanent identifiers for anything. For your information, here is how many archivists or librarians that have held up Wikipedia as a "model of good practice" at the various seminars, lectures, panels and other academic/professional events on the topic of digital archiving that I've attended: zero. In fact, this project is rarely mentioned at all in such contexts. Your starry-eyed admiration for the Great Work needs to be tempered by some time spent in the relevant part of the real world. — Scott • talk 10:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
    What an amazingly self-centred, eletist, short-termist and frankly offensive view! I'm not talking about what we are now (we are not perfect), I'm talking about how we are viewed by the man and woman in the street - they expect us to be a reliable (meaning verifiability and stability) provider of quality information and a model of good practice on the Internet. We should be striving to be just that, because that is what our goals are: to provide open knowledge to everybody - not just a knowledgeable few who deal with information for a living, not just the technical experts who understand things like DOIs and permalinks. The average person on the street (I know, I talk to them) looks at Wikipedia and expects it to be reliable - they expect that when they save a link today it will still work in six months and it will still work in six years. Fulfilling this expectation costs us as near to nothing as makes it completely negligible and brings massive benefits to all parties; breaking that expectation costs us massively in terms of reputation and usability, costs our users potentially massively, and benefits absolutely nobody. This evidently isn't obvious to everyone, so it needs to be explicitly stated. Thryduulf (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
    I love it. As soon as someone calls you out on your highfalutin statements about "digital information management" you do a frantic U-turn and write off any serious consideration of the entire area as "elitist" while presenting yourself as a champion of the common man. The irony of your accusation of short-termism, coming from someone encouraging us to deliberately school our readers and third parties into blindly trusting unguaranteed access mechanisms to work on a permanent basis, is painful. In fact, it's particularly ironic to be accused of short-termism by someone who can frequently be seen loudly advocating the use of cheap namespace hacks without even the slightest idea of whether succeeding generations of editors will change policy and do away with them, or indeed sometimes even whether the current generation of editors finds the presence of a particular variety of redirect to be appropriate. — Scott • talk 18:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
    Ok folks, I think you've strayed close enough to the WP:NPA line to justify some intervention. The worst thing about it is that you guys are doing this over a dispute fundamentally about style, not substance. So Scott, can you see that Thryduulf is trying to codify and impress upon people good data management practices? And Thryduulf, can you see that Scott is concerned about the overwrought tone and self-importance of the current wording? So here's my suggestion for moving forward: "Deleting these redirects can result in dead links outside of Wikipedia, reducing the utility, reliability, and reputation of Wikipedia to the general public." Do either of you object to this wording? VanIsaacWScont 19:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
    I reject any made-up statements about our "reputation" in policy documents. — Scott • talk 19:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
    Whether people can rely on links to Wikipedia is one of the measures by which they will judge Wikipedia and one of the key things affecting its reputation. This applies whether they are the common man in the street looking up something out of casual interest or someone researching for their third doctoral thesis. This isn't "made-up" or "conjecture", stability of references and links is one of the basic fundamentals of internet sites and reference works. I do not understand why you find this at all objectionable. I think Vanisaac's proposed wording is very good, although I might use "readers and reusers" rather than "general public". Thryduulf (talk) 20:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • @Scott: Just because someone does not respond immediately does not mean they do not have an opinion, nor that nobody else has an opinion. I had very limited time available for Wikipedia, and could not deal with everything at once, sorry if my priorities were not the same as yours. As for the substance of your arguments, or rather the lack thereof, I have absolutely no regard for your refusal to consider the people we are creating this encyclopaedia for - in fact I find it rather disgusting that you apparently consider yourself to be so above them. Permalinks do still work, but only if that revision has not been deleted (either individually or as part of a page that has been deleted) so it is irrelevant for pages created as redirects. Even if best practice said to use permalinks, not everybody would do - indeed outside of referencing in reports, etc. people probably most often want to link to the live version of a page so that they see improvements. In any case we really should do what we can to make it easier for people to find, link to and reference our content, not harder. Yes, there are times when we should delete redirects, but the conditions when it is appropriate to speedy delete them are very few. Thryduulf (talk) 09:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
    • If someone pings you that fast in a BRD situation, at least have the common courtesy to leave a brief line saying you're too busy to respond immediately. Then it doesn't look like you've done a hit-and-run revert. And that's my last comment on the matter. — Scott • talk 09:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • @Scott: Thanks for making this edit! I prefer your version. We don't need to restrict ourselves too much for someone else's outdated links. jni (delete)...just not interested 19:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Why? How does ignoring the rest of the world help us build an encyclopaedia? How does making it harder for people to find our content benefit us or them? Thryduulf (talk) 09:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
      • We absolutely need to explain to new readers why we must not delete old redirects without extensive deliberation. Since we don't have an established system of DOIs here, we need to be careful to ensure that existing content can always be accessed from a redirect. Yes, sometimes we change a redirect's target, but the knowledgeable reader will be able to check the page history, and the not-so-knowledgeable reader can go to WP:HD and ask for help, which can be answered by a knowledgeable reader checking the page history. This is precisely why we do not delete old redirects unless their targets have been deleted (we've removed the content in question, so no point to keeping the redirect) or unless we've discussed the situation and decided that there's no need to keep the old title. This isn't necessarily intuitive, so we need to remind people why it's critical to be good Internet citizens and why we need to consider off-wiki links to our articles. Nyttend (talk) 00:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: G14 - Unnecessary image talk page

I've been running into quite a few of these where someone created a talk page for an image and left some nonsense commentary. Some are even clear attack pages where a clear G10 will do. But a lot of them are harmless. They're tagged with "because test page" or "nonsense" or G2. I think it would be worthwhile to have a clear criteria for these.

G14. Unnecessary file talk page

Talk pages of files hosted on Wikipedia or Commons where the content consists solely of nonsense or gibberish edits, or inappropriate commentary about the file. Talk pages with valid discussions, project tagging or sorting templates are excluded from this criteria.

Perhaps not the best wording - also I would think this is a general criteria rather than one of the F ones since it does not apply to the files themselves. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Have you tried WP:G1? — Keφr 18:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Already covered by G8, "Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page", which explicitly lists file/talk pages for Commons images as an example. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Yep, it's G8; tag it {{db-talk}} and wait for a friendly admin (often RHaworth). --Redrose64 (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Strange I read G8 as talk pages related to commons images are excluded from G8, perhaps the wording should be clearer. MilborneOne (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • G1 is fine when it applies, but it doesn't always do. And someone correct me if I'm wrong but I read G8 as explicitly excluding these scenarios. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I've taken a liberty and changed 'on' to 'of'. Commons pages are excluded from G8, but this would get them. They aren't pages dependent on a non-existent page, anyway. Often nonsense or messages for the person in the pic (as if they're going to look there for messages...), sometimes vandalism, attack, or even attempted totally irrelevant articles - that's what these things are. This gives a cover-all for them to avoid the stretching of the criteria. Quite clear cut stuff, with no need for time wasting at XfD. And the necessary exclusions are there. I like it. Support Peridon (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, G8 does exclude talk pages associated with commons images, but the answer is not to invent a brand new criterion, but rather to discuss whether the exceptions to G8 need to be changed. G1 applies otherwise, so unless someone sees something outside G1, G8, and the G8 exceptions, I say we archive this sucker and then you can decide whether to open up a discussion on the G8 exceptions. VanIsaacWScont 01:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Nonsense and gibberish are G1, test pages are G2, vandalism is G3, attacks are G10, spam is G11 and talk pages for images that don't exist (here or on Commons) are G8. As far as I can see this leaves only commentary about an image or the subject of an image, and attempts to correspond with the subject of the image:
    Good faith commentary about an image should not be speedy deleted - if the image is (or was at the time of the comment) extant locally then the comment is likely in the correct place (and if it isn't then a reply with a pointer to the correct place is the appropriate course of action); if the image is on Commons then the commenter should be pointed to the file talk page on Commons or other appropriate location. Bad faith commentary about an image that is not speedily deletable under an existing criterion should not be speedy deleted but taken to MfD as I don't think a new criterion would satisfy either the frequency or objectivity requirements.
    Commentary about the subject of the image that is not an attack is unlikely to be harmful, and may be relevant - e.g. if a photo shows two people and only one is identified, then enquiring about the identity of the second is a legitimate use of the talk page (such discussion may be better at the Reference Desk, but that is not a reason to delete); likewise providing relevant additional information about the subject as depicted in the image is to be welcomed, although this is probably best at Commons for a file hosted there the local talk should not be deleted. Equally, negative (non-attack) comments should not be deleted, for example complaints about depictions of Mohammed should be replied to with reference to policies, etc not deleted. Commentary about the subject that is clearly not relevant (e.g. "She looks beautiful in this picture" or "Elephants are amazing!") could be deleted, although I fail to see a need for this to be done speedily (or at all in many cases).
    Attempts to correspond with the subject of an image are almost never going to be relevant (possible exceptions being photos of Wikipedians), but if they are civil then such attempts in file talk space do not exhibit the problems that such attempts do in article space (cf criterion A3), and so should probably be replied to with a note we are unable to help/a pointer to where they can contact the person (e.g. a user talk page, or a recommendation to google for their agent) - persistent requests by the same person quickly become vandalism. I would have no hesitation in deleting most attempts that are not civil as either attack pages or vandalism. MfD should be more than adequate to handle the borderline cases.
    So in summary, I think that everything that should be speedy deletable already is. Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Going down the Criteria:
  1. Objective - Fail. It's discretion that determines the "on topicness" of the file talk discussion.
  2. Uncontestable - Withholding judgment. Where is the precedent that talk pages such as these are commonly deleted as the result of a Deletion debate not using one of the existing CSD rules?
  3. Frequent - Fail. Looking at the historical archives there are 27 cases where a File talk page was brought for MFD in the entire history of WP. Most of those appear to have been dealt with by existing CSDs, so I'm disinclined to see the need for a new special rule to handle this.
  4. Nonredundant - As evidenced in the above listing of MFDs most of them are being handled under other CSD rationale.
For these reasons I consider a new CSD rationalle unnecessary. I suggest that if there are truly that many File Talk pages that are giberish, start with one, then nominate some more once the first closes, then even more after the second batch closes to build a precedent and show how there is a need for a CSD rule. Hasteur (talk) 12:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, what should be done about File talk:Palmyre - théâtre pano.jpg which doesn't involve the hassle of MFD? --Redrose64 (talk) 13:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
You have three options: (1) leave it be. (2) nominate it at MfD. (3) propose a CSD criterion that is objective, uncontestable and nonredundant that would be needed frequently (the current proposal fails at least 3/4). Thryduulf (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
You just remove the text as per WP:NOTAFORUM - the page doesn't need to be deleted. DP 20:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I would be very reluctant to remove trivialnon-harmful material from user talk pages. It's presumably a test edit, and could be removed as such, but if it is harmless, why bother. DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes. And if the talk page consisting only nonsensical, incoherent ramblings gets deleted, that is not a big deal regardless if you cite G2 or whatever criteria or IAR away the "Commons exception" to G8 (I would ignore it, say in cases where the image in Commons were banned user's creation or otherwise obvious deletion candidate - but just waiting for Commons admin to zap it). I don't think we need this proposed new rule. jni (delete)...just not interested 08:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree we don't need this criterion. Thryduulf and Hasteur sum it up nicely. File talk pages are mostly ignored, so deleting it for inoffensive chatter is needless and could be seen as biting newbies.-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Speedy rules

Hi. I nominated a page for speedy, under A7. The person to whom the speedy notice (User:David Gerard) was sent (the creator?) deleted the speedy notice himself. And wrote in his edit summary: "no, you don't speedy things that have been around years".

Two questions. First -- is that a rule; that we are not to nominate things that have been around for years? And if so, for how many years? And why?

Second -- is the person to whom such a notice goes supposed to leave a comment, or are they allowed to remove the speedy themselves?

Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The only time periods that are applicable to a speedy criterion are that some speedies must stay for seven days before being acted on, and that it is considered rude and WP:BITEy to tag a new article in the first 15 minutes or so after its initial creation. There is no grandfather clause for any CSD criteria, and it is emphatically illegal for a page creator to remove a speedy tag unless they placed it there themselves. If, on the other hand, this was merely another contributor who removed it, then you should take it to AfD. VanIsaacWScont 08:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
There's no rule against speedily deleting very old pages. David Gerard technically broke the rules by removing the speedy tag from a page he created, but considering the net result (that it was changed to a redirect), I'd say it doesn't matter now. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
If an article is old, I prefer to AfD it just in case I'm missing something... Unless, of course, the best version that can be found in the history reads "BloggsCo is a company in Dead Mouse, Arizona. It makes things." or similar, in which case bye bye. Peridon (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to all of you. First, thought -- I'm concerned when sysops state their personal preference as rules, as when he wrote: "no, you don't speedy things that have been around years". If that's made up, it's inappropriate to state it as such, especially so for a sysop to do so, and if he speaks that way to newer editors that can have a chilling effect on their participation. Second -- that was not an edit summary for the "ultimate" result; it was his edit summary to deny a speedy. Third, as he was the creator -- if the rest of us are supposed to follow the rules and not decline a speedy for a page we create, I would hope a sysop would view himself as bound to the same rules -- especially as the rule was stated in the notice to him. Finally, as to Peridon's comment, I think it is fine for one as a personal view to go to AfD on their own speedy, but if it is not a guideline I don't think it is appropriate to decline a speedy of another on that ground ... and I question it's basis, as I've found many old articles that were especially poor because there were fewer eyes and standards were lesser in days of yore.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Although David Gerrard was technically the creator of the article Jeyênne, what he created was a redirect to XPQ-21. It was a later IP editor who created an article at the title "Jeyênne". It might have been better to boldly revert this article to that redirect, rather than speedying it - checking the page history would have shown that it started life as a redirect. I note also that there's a redirect from Jeyenne (no accent) to XPQ-21. If the Jeyênne article emerges from these discussions as an article, rather than a redirect, will someone please retarget Jeyenne so that it points there. Thanks. PamD 21:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
First of all, David has kindly apologized, so we are all squared away. Second, Pam -- your comment didn't touch upon the speedy rules issue, but that's no matter as we've addressed it, and as best I can see creation is creation (if I get a notice that I shouldn't delete a speedy but rather engage in conversation I would follow the notice rules as well I should ... there are others who can take care of housekeeping ... the notice is not sent to the main contributor, and never has been), and furthermore I don't in general prefer bold redirects in such circumstances as they inappropriately to my mind diminish the collaborative nature of the Project where it should not be done.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, this is kind of treading into one of the murky areas of CSD. As a sysop, David should not have removed the speedy tag, just on appearances, and he has graciously acknowledged his mistake on his talk page. But, if this were just a regular editor - someone who doesn't have a good several thousands edits under their belt - I would actually argue that he wasn't substantially the article creator, the IP was (or maybe even Pisciolino). Making a redirect way back when is probably not out of bounds of the spirit of the rule when removing a db-article tag, even if it might technically constitute a form of "creation". VanIsaacWScont 23:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
It's all resolved, so this is all just chatter between us about hypotheticals. But I think whatever the rule is, it is the same for all (though admins are bound by wp:admin to a higher standard generally). There is no harm, especially in a gray area, to letting another editor do the honors. If there is, and another editor should be forbidden from removing the speedy, that's something we should change in the rule and in the automated notice. But under the current rule, I would think it odd to suggest that Pisciolino for example was forbidden from removing the speedy.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't arguing that the rule was different - I don't believe that David violated the intention of the rule, and would never suggest any sanction - merely that sysops have an interest in being above reproach, and I would argue that long-term contributors probably should be told about how doing something like this looks, even if it is in keeping with the spirit of the rule. Just for new editors I'd stick a quick "Hey, just to let you know, page creators aren't supposed to remove speedy tags, they need to put their objection on the talk page." and be done with it. Of course, this is all predicated on the contributor having initially having created a different kind of content (ie, redirect instead of article) than the speedy tag would apply to. VanIsaacWScont 21:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Re: Van's "There is no grandfather clause for any CSD criteria": A10 "Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic".-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 19:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Another G7 issue

Is it possible for a template to display the page creator's name? I was imagining having the G7 template display the creator's name as well as the most recent editor, along with a comment. If creator and last editor are the same, we could say "Remember that this criterion doesn't apply if anyone else has made significant edits", while if they're different, we could say "Creator and most recent editor aren't the same!" I think I'd find it useful when emptying CAT:CSD. Nyttend (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I like the road you're going down but I'm not sure the focus is on the right query. The fact that the creator and most recent editor are the same doesn't tell you that there weren't 10 edits in between those two ends of the scale, so I would think the detection would be whether or not all edits were by a single person, and the resulting messages upon that detection, something like: "Note: The only edits to this page are by USER NAME", or "Note: More than one user has edited this page. Remember that this criterion doesn't apply if anyone else has made significant edits". (As to technical feasibility, I don't know.)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
@Nyttend and Fuhghettaboutit: Lua could probably be used to do it, but since I don't know how much was stripped out of Lua to make it into "Wiki-Lua" I could be wrong. However, since admins are supposed to check these things, would that really be useful? Probably far more useful in general would be a user-script that displayed the "recent" edit history at the top of each page as it was loaded. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Well yes, admins are supposed to check, and if feasible, that's exactly what this would address and help with – it's a time saver for that checking process. With this in place, pages that have only been edited by one user would not need their history checked, thus saving us two clicks and the attendant loading time. The cumulative effect of small refinements like this to our processes are large. Relegating this to a user script will ensure a tiny percentage will know, see and use it, as compared to making it a feature of the db-g7 template. What downside do you see?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Had you asked me about getting it to tell us whether multiple people had edited the page, I would have said that I didn't think it at all possible; I didn't address the issue because it didn't even come to mind. If we could get your idea to work, I would really appreciate it. I'm going to guess that a large percentage of G7-tagged pages have never been edited by anyone except the creator, even to add tags or fix spelling or something like that — after all, people often create pages by mistake, and it's common to see a G7 tag used in userspace when U1 would work. With that in mind, it would frequently save us little bits of time, and that would add up to a lot of work saved. Nyttend (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
@Davidwr: Unfortunately, Lua, to borrow a comparison often made to CheckUser, is not magic pixie dust, and it's not possible to query the history of a page in a template (yet?). There is some talk of exposing more of the internal PHP API to Lua templates, but that's in the far future. I like the idea of an automated check to see if any (non-minor non-bot?) edits have been made to a page to save the history diving, but that's not coming from a Lua template anytime soon. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Curses, foiled again!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:G4

If an article was deleted via AfD in March 2012 (over two years ago), but recreated over a year later in April 2013 with very similar content from the previously deleted article, can it qualify for WP:G4 or would it have to go through another AfD? 173.3.53.104 (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Probably, but it depends. What article specifically? Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
If the content is substantially the same, the page can be speedily deleted under G4. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
To take this a little further, it is oftentimes very difficult for a non-admin to know whether the new contribution is substantially different from the previous content, since non-admins are unable to see the deleted content. With an AFD G4, you need to go to the old AFD discussion and make sure that all of the salient deletion rationales still apply to this new contribution. If they don't, you need to run another AFD instead of G4ing. That is the basic due diligence of the tagging editor, but the reviewing admin still must look at the previous content to ensure that there isn't anything of substance that has changed between the old and new content, which makes G4 a criterion that can easily be tagged in perfectly good faith, but rejected as being clearly not applicable. VanIsaacWScont 19:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
To elaborate on what Malik Shabazz and Vanisaac said, make sure the actual notability hasn't changed. A wanna-be celebrity in 2012 may still have been a wanna-be celebrity in 2013 but may actually be notable enough to qualify for an article in 2014, or his notability may have improved enough to be in the "grey area" of maybe-notable/maybe-not where a discussion and group effort to find sources is preferred over a WP:POINTy G4-deletion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: R4 - Orphaned redirects to the File namespace

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I'm withdrawing this proposal. The two statements below by Davidwr and Thryduulf have essentially informed me of what I didn't think about/know when creating this proposal. Even if there is a set amount of time after the file is moved for corrections to be made, a lot of the links outside of this Wikipedia and on the internet might not resolve themselves automatically. Best to leave this alone. Steel1943 (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I've been starting to do some maintenance on file names, and I believe that I have ran across an issue that may be easily resolved by creating a new CSD criterion. I'm beginning to get an understanding of the WP:FFR process, and realized that after a file is moved and after all of the links to the file are removed, the redirect that is left over from the file move serves no ultimate purpose. Even per a line in Wikipedia:File names#What files should be renamed?, after moving a file, the file mover is instructed to do the following: "After moving the file, please replace all uses of the old file link with the new one." Per these instructions, after the file is moved, if the redirect that is left over is orphaned, the redirect essentially serves no purpose. In addition, the title of the redirect could be used the future for hosting a more appropriate file. Here is an example of the wording that could be used for this criterion:

R4. Orphaned redirects to the File namespace

Redirects to pages in the File namespace from the File namespace that have been orphaned for seven days.

This criterion wording is just a rough draft, and can be adjusted, but this is just an idea of what the criterion could say.

On the criterion, I have put a "seven day" requirement prior to deletion due to similar CSD criterion for this namespace having the same requirement. In addition, since most pictures that are hosted on Wikipedia are for Fair use (since all public domain files, in theory, should be on or moved over to Wikimedia Commons), the maintenance provided by this CSD criterion could also reduce Wikipedia vs. Commons file name conflicts. Steel1943 (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about redirects that point to live pages, not redirects that point to nothing (G8). Be careful: Other web sites may link to these image-redirect pages. Deleting them would break things outside of the web. In particular, discussion or file-description pages on other Wikimedia projects may link to the English file-description page. For this reason, RfD is a better way to handle these. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:32, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) strong oppose. This will break old revisions, anyone who is hotlinking the image from Wikipedia, those who have it bookmarked, and most of the other reasons why being orphaned is not a reason to delete (let alone speedy delete) non-image redirects. File name conflicts should be resolved individually when they occur. Thryduulf (talk) 20:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Proposal for C4: Blatant overcategorization

Although this discussion has already been archived, I am closing this per the request at WP:ANRFC. There is an obvious consensus to not include this proposal as part of the Criteria for Speedy Deletion. This is a situation, as evidenced in the discussion, that this proposal would cause a vague or subjective situation that would be better suited to the WP:CFD process. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 00:30, 11 June 2014 (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.

This would contain categories that unambiguously represent overcategorization in that every reasonable user would agree that it is an overcategorization. Redirects to its template, {{db-c4}} would include {{db-overcat}} and {{db-oc}}. Nerd in Texas (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

object - Why do you think the creator in not included in "every reasonable user"? Please keep in mind that it may be very time consuming to restore a deleted category, therefore it is better to give the creator a chance to contest the deletion. Unless it is a clear vandalism or stupidity, there is no harm to wait and talk. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose This is too subjective. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose: While overcategorisation can get a bit silly sometimes, this proposal is too vague to be a speedy criterion - who is a reasonable user? To apply this criterion would be to immediately assume lack of clue on behalf of the category creator, and such assumption would often be wrong. BethNaught (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose on principle: Given that most specialty areas of study will have salient hierarchies of classification and distinction that general editors without specialized knowledge may neither understand, nor appreciate, it will be almost impossible to determine what constitutes overcategorization, let alone define it in an objective way. The proposed C4 thus violates criterion #1 for a new CSD, and cannot be salvaged on that basis. VanIsaacWScont 05:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose; even though I know it when I see it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Over-speedy policy editing?

We now have "Use common sense when applying a speedy deletion request to a page: review the page history to make sure that no prior revisions of the page meet any speedy deletion criteria,"

This is wrong, isn't it?. What is meant is "all prior revisions of the page also meet a speedy deletion criterion". Or am I confused? If a page meets a criterion, it should be deleted, right? Thincat (talk) 22:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's an obvious example: suppose some random user blanks an article. That doesn't suddenly make it eligible for deletion under A3. A page only meets a speedy deletion criterion if all of its revisions do. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Isn't that what I am saying? Thincat (talk) 23:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Ah yes, indeed. Fixed. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

CSD U2 criteria

I'm not certain of the full history, but i believe:

For example, if a user page exists but no contributions to Wikipedia have been performed with that user name (which can be checked at User contributions), the user page may qualify for speedy deletion per CSD U2.

correctly represents an accurate example of U2. It is recently being edit-warred about. I'm not sure whether the status quo ante edit war is with or without the sentence. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

That sentence was recently added by Northamerica1000. I reverted it because it isn't always correct, and there are better ways of testing U2. For more details, see User talk:Northamerica1000#Speedy deletion declined: User:Bubbalue/sandbox. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
No edit war here; I added it once, and it was removed. After that, it's out of my control. I feel that more exacting criteria on the page regarding WP:U2 is in order. As worded, it's somewhat, but not entirely vague. NorthAmerica1000 06:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
This isn't an accurate example of U2 because it is sometimes acceptable to have a user page for an account which exists but has never edited. If such a user has been blocked as a sockpuppet, for example (based on checkuser evidence or their username) then it's OK to create a user page for them with a sockpuppet tag, and it wouldn't make any sense to delete it under U2. Hut 8.5 06:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Also, expanding U2 in that way would allow speedy deletion of redirects from other capitalizations of a contributor's username. Even though the alternate capitalization has never edited and never will (usernames which differ only in capitalization from a preexisting one are not valid for new accounts), there seem to be several situations where the account will not have any contributions, but the user page is valid. VanIsaacWScont 09:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I had forgotten about sock puppets (which could have all contributions deleted, even if checkuser was involved) and redirects. Carry on. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
CSD criteria formulations are almost uniformly much more complicated than anyone who doesn't hang out here can imagine, and something as seemingly straightforward and uncontroversial as this proposal can have unintended externalities. That's why we have these discussions, and why some of us can be so reactionary and protective of the status quo in these CSD criteria. VanIsaacWScont 01:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Worth noting also is examples like user:B2C which is a correct redirect to user:Born2cycle, who signs as "B2C", to avoid impersonation accounts. See also WP:DOP. Thryduulf (talk) 15:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Another place this rendering of U2 would fail, although not one that I expect would actually happen, is User:Joe's Null Bot. I am comfortable with not accounting for this edge case in policy, as (a) I doubt any admin would do it, because duh, and (b) I'm in a good position to fix it if an accident occurs in any case. --j⚛e deckertalk 16:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

P3

A portal would meet P3 if it is redundant to an existing portal and does not contain any pages that aren't in the original portal.

Nerd in Texas (talk) 15:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Would they not be already deletable as A10 (via P1)? Thryduulf (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Portals hardly every come up at speedy deletion so we probably don't need any of these P criteria. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Unremarkable book?

Closing per a WP:ANRFC request.
There is a clear consensus against making "unremarkable book" a speedy criteria. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:56, 26 May 2014 (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.

Given that criteria A7 & A9 include unremarkable "individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events," and musical albums, I think we should create a new criterion for unremarkable books (maybe we could use it to fill that weird A8 gap). After all, there are at least as many obscure, non-notable books as there are obscure and non-notable things covered by the existing criteria, aren't there? Jinkinson talk to me 19:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - a proper solution for an unremarkable title is to merge-redirect to its author. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, I would suggest to lump some into a common group: Unremarkable works by unremarkable authors.. This would nicely cover books, songs, web content, dances, whistle patterns, and whats not. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

strong oppose I see no evidence of any attempt to meet the requirements for new criteria, let alone that the proposal meets them:
  1. Objective: "unremarkable" is completely subjective. You need to define it for all types of works and all types of author/musician/sculptor/etc that the criterion would apply to.
  2. Uncontestable: Given the subjectivity of "unremarkable" this is impossible to meet.
  3. Frequent: How frequently are things not covered by A7/A9 nominated and deleted at AfD?
  4. Non-redundant: What isn't covered by A7/A9 and/or other criteria that would be caught by this criterion? Thryduulf (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Strong support for adding books and whatever to A7/A9 lists of unremarkable things. I can recognize unremarkable things when I see 'em. jni (delete)...just not interested 06:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
@Jni: And how is that objective? Thryduulf (talk) 07:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose very unclear what this would be applicable to. Also A8 should not be recycled. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Definite oppose Speedy is for cases which can be judged by an ordinary admin without any ambiguity. Many people/companies/organizations have content which make it obvious that based on the information stated, there is no possible encyclopedic importance. Internet is a little harder, but we all of us have at least some experience here, and a great many of the articles submitted are quite obvious. A9 has special limitations. I'd never use it, not knowing how to spot an exception, but even I can tell that the articles are pretty formulaic, & a great many people here can tell accurately for many genres of popular music. Books come in a very great variety, and it is very frequent that an unsophisticated student puts on WP what is written as a elementary book report, with just a plot description or contents description that doesn't indicate very much about importance. But experience is that many of these books are actually important books that we have not covered, because relatively important childrens' books are what schoolchildren are usually guided to write book reports about. The book is not always worth a separate article--a redirect will often handle it, but that's not a deletion. (And we can't use the A9-type criterion of whether we have an article on the author, because we are missing articles on tens of thousands of notable authors of all types; the first we see of it may be the book, and I will sometimes convert it to a stub article about the author.) I probably have as much general experience with this type of article as anyone in WP, and for books, I have learned never to rely only on my own judgement of whether it might be important without a search, generally on worldcat and elsewhere as indicated. Anyone who thinks they can do much better is either an exceptional genius--a walking encyclopedic themselves about literature, or is insufficiently experienced to tell. I've known librarians and academics and just plain readers with a wider knowledge than I in various genres, and they might well be able to tell, but even then only in their own genre, not universally. Books can be about anything. DGG ( talk ) 07:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ambiguous wording - are CVs allowed in Userspace or not?

WP:CSD#U5 states the following:

Pages in userspace consisting of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals, where the owner has made few or no edits outside of userspace, with the exception of plausible drafts, pages adhering to Wikipedia:User pages#What may I have in my user pages?, and résumé-style pages.

I thought CVs came under the heading of promotional material (i.e. not allowed), and the page Wikipedia:User pages#What may I have in my user pages? limits you to minimal autobiographical material. Yet the grammar of the above paragraph implies that it is included in the list of exceptions.

Could someone clarify, please? Thank you! Stephen! Coming... 09:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

If CV's are promotional (which they are 99.9% of the time), they fall under G11, so can be deleted. I would also argue CV's fall under NOTWEBHOST, so I feel they fall under U5. Of couse, all of this is IMO. --Mdann52talk to me! 10:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
U5 explicitly says that it doesn't apply to CVs, though as Mdann52 said, if they're bad enough, G11 may. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
StephenBuxton It's really a matter of judgement. Giving context for interested readers as to how someone comes to a decision is one thing that could very much look like a CV. However if it's patently clear that the only purpose is to be a shingle hung out for resume scrapers (i.e. Email & contact details) then it falls more on the explicit advertising side of a CV which would fall on the wrong side of the CSDs. If you have a hard time figuring it out, run it by annother editor to see what they think to figure out if it makes sense to nominate for CSD. If you don't think it's CSDable, but probably should be deleted, put it up for MFD and make your case. Experience in evaluating eligibility of CSD is based on determining what the community considers too far or not far enough. Hasteur (talk) 14:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Not quite. The usual practice with G11 is that it is enforced more strictly in article space than elsewhere, which makes sense to me. On a user page, G11 is for extreme circumstances, where the material is undoubtedly advertising by any reasonable standard. An ordinary CV does not usually fall into this position--it's what many people will pretty much automatically post when asked to say who they are, and a user page does look like an opportunity to do that. In many cases, a request to make the material more concise is all that is needed. DGG ( talk ) 07:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The "resume-exemption" to U5 is just a silly mistake made by incompetent talk page editors who drafted the CSD rules. The pages it intends to protect from deletion always get deleted in MfD. It is best to IAR the U5 resume-exception or cite G11 and delete blatant user-space resumes as if the exemption were not there. Worst that can happen is some busy-body takes it to DRV and from there it gets listed to MFD and finally deleted via the longer drama-route. Speedy deletion should reflect existing deletion practice instead of being dreamed up by junior admins and other newbies who have little first-hand experience with the deletion processes, or who fail to understand WP:NOTRESUME's clear policy wording If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog or to post your résumé, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet or any hosting included with your Internet account that is actually routinely enforced in MfD. jni (delete)...just not interested 18:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Using your userpage to promote yourself or to try to find a job isn't acceptable. On the other hand using your userpage to tell other people a bit about yourself is not only appropriate but is one of the main reasons we have userpages in the first place. The distinction between the two isn't always obvious. A new user who posts a few paragraphs about their life, their job and their interests could plausibly fall into either category, and making fine judgements and distinctions is not what speedy deletion is intended for. With new users it often pays to be generous. Hut 8.5 19:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I wasn't (so far as I can remember) involved with U5's genesis, but as I understand it, the intention was more to do with fantasy football and fantasy Big Brother etc, plus misuse as a free host for real (non-notable) club competition tables. These didn't come into existing criteria, but U5 would shortcut the deletion of these obvious misuses. A real CV is obvious - and the lack of other editing from someone taking days to create their CV here is also obvious. And, with all due respect to DGG, a CV is advertising or promotion. It might be worded neutrally, but the intention is to 'sell' the qualities of the subject to potential employers. (I have written many successful CVs for assorted people including sixth formers, managers and a television actress who was delighted by my totally over the top suggestion and reckoned it boosted her career.) (No, I'm not plugging my services - I don't write CVs now - no exceptions.) I don't know about online CVs being of any use in this, as employers don't often search for people of the sort who seem to post here - they spend more time fending off the hordes... But that doesn't excuse the CV misuse. A real CV with contact info is easy to spot, and with no other edits showing is G11 with no worries for the deleter. General info about an editor who is actually doing work is acceptable. A short neutral paragraph about an editor's interests is OK for a newbie - but if it has contact info in it, beware. Peridon (talk) 10:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Propose clarification: CSD G6 - when does it apply to disambiguation pages with only two listed articles?

No consensus here. Number 57 18:59, 28 May 2014 (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.

When should the criterion for speedy deletion, reason G6 (technical deletions) apply to disambiguation pages with only two links? Steel1943 (talk) 02:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

During the past few days, I have ran across some a few disputes about when CSD G6 applies to disambiguation pages with only two entries. After an administrator recently repeatedly denied a {{Db-disambig}} tag that I had placed on an article, I talked to the denying administration a bit on their talk page, and mine. After some discussion, it seemed like the wording of the {{Db-disambig}} template is not consistent with the WP:CSD#G6 criteria. With the way that the template is worded currently, it could lead an administrator or editor to believe that pages may be applicable for this deletion criterion. The problematic phrase in the template is as follows:

...disambiguates fewer than two extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic)...

The wording of the aforementioned phrase on the template seems to be a source of some issues. Here's how I interpreted that phrase: if the disambiguation page's name ends with "(disambiguation)" and there is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for that term and there is only one other article on that page that has is disambiguated from the primary topic, then the page disambiguates only one article and the page is unnecessary and can be deleted. After reviewing the WP:CSD#G6 criterion, that is not the way it is worded at all. The seemingly contradictory line on the criterion states:

...Deleting unnecessary disambiguation pages, such as those listing fewer than two links to existing Wikipedia articles...

Since the criterion says "...listing fewer than two links...", there seems to be a wording issue in the template that can be interpreted as contradicting the CSD G6 criterion. However, since the template is worded as it is currently, editors and administrators could potentially be nominating and deleting disambiguation pages for CSD G6 against the criterion itself. So, with that being said, here's the ultimate question:

In the next section, I am going to provide two examples of "fake" pages with both of the situations of a two-entry disambiguation page, as explained in WP:TWODABS. Here are the two "fake" examples:

  1. Example 1:
John Adams (1735–1826) was the second President of the United States.

John Adams may also refer to:

  • John Adams (composer) (born 1947), American composer who came to prominence with his opera Nixon in China
In this example, there is a designated primary topic for the term, and it is listed at the top of the page. After that, there is only one other term on the page. Per WP:TWODABS, this page's title, in theory, should end with "(disambiguation)".
  1. Example 2:
Interval may refer to:
In this example, there is no established primary topic, and the ambiguous title serves at the disambiguation page.

Per these two examples, which ones of these should be eligible for deletion per the CSD G6 criterion? Steel1943 (talk) 23:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

ONLY Example 1 should be deleted

  1. When a disambiguation page is designed such as this, the page should qualify for the CSD G6 criterion. A hatnote on the article of the primary topic is enough to direct the reader to the other article. Otherwise, all existing hatnotes might as well refer the reader to a disambiguation page, regardless if there is only one other entry on the list besides the primary topic. However, if there is NO primary topic for a term, there HAS to be a disambiguation page, even if there are only two entries. Steel1943 (talk) 23:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Agree. (Not often I'm this brief - Steel's said it already.) Peridon (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Delete example 1. Sawol (talk) 03:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. This. It's what {{db-disambig}} said until it was changed in February. - Eureka Lott 04:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Example 1 could easily be replaced with a hatnote. Example 2 may be useful. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  6. Example 1 should be deleted, as it doesn't aid navigation. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  7. WP:TWODABS applies only to example 1. If there is not primary topic, then a disambiguation page exists at the base name, whether there are two topics or two hundred topics for the ambiguous title. This most recently came up again at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 42#Speaking of TWODABS... -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

ONLY Example 2 should be deleted

Both examples should be deleted

Neither example should be deleted

  1. Example 1 could be deleted, but it shouldn't necessarily. Just because there is a primary topic and only one alternate doesn't necessarily mean that there can only be a single alternate. In this case, I would probably decide against deleting, due to John Quincy Adams being a possible additional member, as well as links to disambiguation pages for Jon Adams, John Addams, and Jon Addams. VanIsaacWScont 05:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    • @Vanisaac: True, this probably wasn't the best example I could have used for this: these were examples that I had modified from MOS:DAB. What I am referring to are examples where there is no chance of additional entries being added onto the disambiguation page based on the current selection of articles on Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
      • And what I'm saying is that without an actual discussion, you probably have no idea whether a 2 article DAB page is like the Adams page in those salient regards or not. CSD processes are not supposed to cover every conceivable deletion of a type, and when you get into edge cases, the best thing to do is to not SPEEDY, but rather to take them to XfD. VanIsaacWScont 01:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. What am I missing here? "Fewer than two" means one or zero links, since the number of links on a disambiguation page will always be a non-negative integer. In practice, the point of a G6 is to eliminate stuff that no one would be expected to object to. So if a disambig page went from three to two entries and can be handled with hatnotes, go ahead and nominate it. If someone created a disambig page with two entries, leave it alone; they found it useful. VQuakr (talk) 05:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. I'd prefer that the disambiguation page remain.  Identifying non-usefulness is not an exact science, as has already been shown by the example; and moving the dab from article space to delete space is itself on the non-usefulness spectrum.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. We cannot expect people to reliably know whether a given term with two or more uses has a primary topic or not, especially as this can change. I frequently search for foo (disambiguation) when I'm looking for a use of foo that I suspect is not the primary topic but for which I do not know the disambiguator used. Previous discussions over the years mean that I know I am not the only person who does this. In very few circumstances will having an unnecessary disambiguation page harm anyone or anything, even if it is not linked from any articles, so deletion will not benefit the encyclopaedia in those circumstances. In the exceptional cases, XfD will be able to handle things so speedy deletion simply for being a short disambiguation page is not necessary or desirable. More eyes mean more chance that missing items will be added to the dab page anyway. Thryduulf (talk) 10:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    • What? It's quite simple whether there's a primary topic. If the disambiguation page exists at the title "John Smith", there's no primary topic; if an article exists there, there is a primary topic. Whether the primary topic we have is correct is a different matter and something any user could fix. Jackmcbarn (talk) 11:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Indeed, it is easy to know whether there is a primary topic when you are reading the page at the undisambiguated title, but it is not possible to know this before you have read that page. Once a person has found the page they are looking for it is not really relevant what that page is called, article titles are most important when people are looking for a page, which is what this discussion is about. If a given term refers to two or more encyclopaedic topics then it is always plausible that there will be a disambiguation page associated with that term. For example if I was looking for the locomotive named Union of South Africa then it is unlikely that this will be the primary topic but I don't know either what the title of the article I'm looking for will be (e.g. is it "(locomotive)", "(train)", "(steam locomotive)", etc), nor how many other things are named Union of South Africa (e.g. maybe there is a notable ship, racehorse, or perhaps other train with this name), so I load the page Union of South Africa (disambiguation) so that I am presented with a list of the articles to choose from. There are other examples where the choice of whether there is a primary topic or not is much less clear, and for the purposes of trying to find an article I don't care whether the choice is right or wrong, nor if I can fix it is wrong, all that is important is that I want to be able to find where the article I'm looking for is located now. Thryduulf (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. While there's a difference between examples 1 and 2, as far as I can see whether a given page ends up being example 1 or example 2 is going to be a haphazardly made choice by one person, that another person might well make the other way, making it unsuitable for speedy deletion. I'm also not convinced that a typical disambig two pages page shouldn't be typically expanded, rather than deleted (and I rejected one CSD request of a two target disambig page during the discussion, pending it's outcome. It now disambigs three pages, only re-enforcing my suspicion.) WilyD 09:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  6. Example 1 may be deleted in some cases, but it should not be speedied; it's necessary to determine whether the first article is indeed primary, which requires discussion. Therefore G6 should not apply. I agree with WiliD that giving time to other editors to search for other ambiguous articles is useful; we created the {{Only-two-dabs}} template just for that, so speedily deleting the dab page is actually against the WP:TWODABS guideline. Diego (talk) 10:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

My main concern is that in practice, the difference between 1 and 2 can be quite subtle, and is likely to be chosen haphazardly by the creator. I can easily image that I'd create a page in the style of (2), while another editor might create the same page in the style of (1), based off how much exposure we've had to the two topics, our personal like/dislike of them, or who knows? (e.g., if the topic was Whitby, someone from Scarborough, Ontario might place Whitby, Ontario as the main topic, someone from Scarborough, Yorkshire might place Whitby, Yorkshire as the main topic, and someone from Scarborough, Queensland might place as equal choices.) WilyD 08:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The difference between 1 and 2 is more about the page name than about the content, so I don't really see a big issue here. Jackmcbarn (talk) 12:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand your meaning here at all.
A Canadian editor creates:
John David Smith was the MPP for Durham from 1828-1830.

John Smith may also refer to:

Which is then speedily deleted as G6. The next day, an American editor creates

John Ambler Smith was a representative for Virginia

John Smith may also refer to:

Which is again speedily deleted as G6. Finally a helpful Cambodian editor comes along, and creates

John Smith may refer to:

Which is then kept. How is that not a misfunctioning process? WilyD 18:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

@WilyD: If there's an actual article at John Smith, then a disambiguation page with only two entries isn't useful since a hatnote would suffice. If there's not, then the disambiguation page is useful. Of the three examples you gave, I'd say delete them all if they were at the title John Smith (disambiguation), or keep them all if they were at the title John Smith. I don't see anything wrong with that. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm also a little concerned that if a topic requires disambiguation of two topics, it's likely to require disambigging of more than two topics in the future, and this is kind of a step backwards. But I'm not sure how big a concern that should be. WilyD 08:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Let the future take care of itself. There might in the future be a President John Smith of the Republic of South California. We need hold no space for either the prez or the republic. Wait for them to happen. Peridon (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Err, that misses the point entirely. A John Smith disambigging just two guys should be expanded today, to also disambig John Campbell Smith, John E. Smith, and others. Not speedily deleted. WilyD 15:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Why are we looking for ways to provide the reader with the least possible assistance? We should rather look for ways of automatically generating every disam notice that might possibly be useful (and then keeping track of them so they can be changed as needed with the minimum human intervention. DGG ( talk ) 17:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • @DGG: I started this discussion mainly due to some confusion about this this by non-admins and admins alike. As states above, the wording in {{Db-disambig}} was boldly changed a few months ago to match the CSD G6 criterion. There have recently been administrators who have deleted disambiguation pages as listed in example 1, and some that refused to delete the page that appears as in the first example. My opinions aside (since I have voted above), I'm hoping that this discussion can clarify the contradictory statements in these templates and streamline a consensus-based decision on what to do in these matters. Steel1943 (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, I know the history. The discussion has gotten into the details. But extensive discussion has shown the details are ambiguous, for it is not difficult to construct cases where any proposed simple decision method will fail. You will not find a way to streamline it without confusion. The fault is fundamental: the basis upon which the details are being discussed is foolish. There is no need whatsoever to remove disambiguation tags even if they are logically superfluous. The principle of disambiguation is to help readers by making it unambiguous what they are looking for. The best way of making things unambiguous is redundancy. Efficiency is much less important than covering all the possibilities, and making it clear at every place just which article is which. Efficiency was important in print, where saving a line of type in each article of an encyclopedia added up to hundreds of pages. Disam tags are almost as cheap as redirects, and th simplest way is to make all which seem likely. The only basis for removing them is when they are wrong or confusing. Unnecessary is an insufficient reason. (I know the time to make this argument was much earlier, in fact way back when the system was originally established, long before I joined.)
  • furthermore, the discussion above has gotten into the fundamental purpose of disambiguation. I basically disagree with its guiding principle as used here, that things should not be disambiguated unnecessarily. I know it's longstanding practice, but it was wrongly conceived in the first place. We cannot predict much about the growth of WP, but we can predict that there will be articles on all likely topics, and therefore titles should be disambiguated in advance, as a guide to the reader. Yes, I would add country to every place name title, and dates to every personal name where it is possible. Consistency is helpful to the reader/ A confirmation that one has gotten to the right place is useful. It's even done on roadway signs, so that people can be sure they're going where they intended. But WP from the start implicitly rejected consistency. It's a sign of not taking ourselves seriously. We should be past that by now. I do know that won;t happen., at least not on this issue, so I've finished for now. I'll remind people in a few years, when things have gotten yet again more unnecessarily complicated. DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • A summary of the current consensus and guidelines. I don't know of any guideline text that contradicts this. If any does, that text should be updated:
    1. If there is no primary topic for an ambiguous title, then the base name is a disambiguation page.
      • It might instead be a redirect to a disambiguation page, if the disambiguation page is titled differently than the base name.
    2. If there is a primary topic for an ambiguous title, then navigational assistance is needed for readers.
      1. If there is only one other topic (in addition to the primary) for the title, the navigational assistance is best rendered (the reader is best served) by a hatnote on the primary topic article.
        • In this case, there is no need for a dab page; it would be an orphan, and provide no benefit to the encyclopedia user. There is just as much "need" to remove these as there is to remove any other redirect that provides no benefit to the encyclopedia user. In this case, they can be speedied.
      2. If there are two other topics (in addition to the primary), navigational assistance might be rendered by a longer hatnote or by a disambiguation page.
      3. If there are three or more other topics (in addition to the primary), a disambiguation page is needed
    3. If there is no ambiguity on Wikipedia currently, no hatnotes or disambiguation pages are currently needed on Wikipedia.
      • If ambiguity is introduced in the future on Wikipedia, creation of hatnotes and/or disambiguation pages should follow that introduction, not precede it.
  • I have no issue with a change in consensus to leave orphan dabs extant (removing that criterion from the speedy list), as long as we don't hinder reader navigation by directing them through the dab on the way to the only other WP topic they might have sought. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
  • No speedy delete since the issues can be subtle, and the harm of leaving them be is minor, or non-existent. That means instead of speedy, an editor can double check the hatnotes on the involved articles to make sure that each is currently the most efficient path indicator, as suggested above (indirectly) by JHunterJ. --Bejnar (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
    IMO, the issue isn't subtle. If the disambiguation page is not at the base name, has two (or fewer) blue links, and is orphaned, making it speedy-able is perfectly workable. We needn't keep it speedy-able. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) remove speedy deletion as there are situations where an orphaned dab page should not be deleted. For example when there used to be a dab page but no longer is as opinions about primary topicness have changed, or where it is plausible that a topic has not primary. Thryduulf (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
    Why shouldn't the orphaned dab be deleted in those cases? Either it should be moved (back) to the base name or it could be deleted. They're just navigational tools, not articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
    Precisely - if you delete it with speed, you're not evaluating whether it should be moved to the base name instead, but that should be taken into consideration. Diego (talk) 15:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
    That's not true. Unless you're saying we can't delete anything with speed, since those deletions are also not evaluating if the thing being deleted isn't simply the wrong thing in the wrong place at the wrong time. If there's a question of primary topicness, raise it. If the question hasn't been raised, the orphan dab can be deleted. If the question is subsequently raised, the dab (again, a navigational tool, not an article) can be re-created. If someone's missing their edit counts, the old versions can be restored, but that would hardly be needed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
    What I'm saying is that speedy deletion is allowed only for situations with broad consensus for deletion, but DAB pages with two links are too controversial - as proved by the above discussion and the numerous tweaks, subcases and exceptions in WP:TWODABS. Deleting a DAB page with one or no links is uncontroversial and can be speedied; deleting a DAB page with two links is not uncontroversial, even in the case you mention, and therefore shouldn't fall under speedy criteria (as it doesn't fall now, according to the current text of G6). Diego (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Categorization of speedy deletion templates

There are certain pages in my userspace that I have wished to be deleted, basically practically useless templates in my userspace from my first stint in my editing here. Last time I used a speedy delete template from way back when it used to put the speedy delete requested page in a speedy deletion category. But the pages in my userspace I requested for deletion as they serve no purpose other than historical which I am not sentimental like that like I used to be. Like on these the category isn't showing up.

Was this something that was done on purpose? And what are the methods these days that get speedy deletion requests to the attention of the deleting administrator? As I'm very out of style these days about the familiarity of the administrative aspects of this project. —Mythdon (talk contribs) 00:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

@Mythdon: Hey Mythdon. All of them are showing up in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion#Pages in category "Candidates for speedy deletion", as well as in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion by user and the template pages themselves each show they are in the category. I am guessing this is a caching issue. See WP:BYPASS and WP:PURGE. I'll go zap the pages now.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:27, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

A7 to medical articles

Given the higher requirements of WP:MEDRS, I take the view that being an unsourced medical article should be an A7able offence.--Launchballer 10:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

A7 is about notability, not sourcedness. I would possibly support a new criterion for unsourced medical articles, but I think a system more like WP:BLPPROD would be better. BethNaught (talk) 10:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Fair point. How would that be proposed?--Launchballer 11:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
As a first step, I'd talk to WP:WikiProject Medicine to see if they feel that there is a problem with unsourced medical articles that isn't being handled by current methods, and that best way to deal with unsourced medical articles is deletion after a prod-like process. If they are in favour, then write up your proposals at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of unsourced medical articles (WP:MEDPROD) (or a similar title) and start a discussion on that talk page linking to it from here, WT:PROD, WT:AFD, WT:MEDRS, the preceding discussion, WP:VPPRO, WP:AN and anywhere else relevant. Make it clear that it is only a proposal and be prepared to radically amend it in light of the comments. In the proposal, make sure you explain all of: What the problem is, why it is a problem, how this proposal will solve that problem, what other things you've considered, exactly what pages it will cover (i.e. how are you defining "medical articles"?) and why that definition has been chosen, and how edge cases will be dealt with. Thryduulf (talk) 12:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello Launchballer, I have stumbled upon this discussion. There would certainly be quite a bit of support for a stricter enforcement of sourcing on medical articles. Have a read here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/RFC on medical disclaimer. If you are interested I'd advise you to spend a lot of time creating a clear proposal, and then put it in a yes/no RfC, as we're a loquacious bunch. One issue that is likely to pop up is whether or not information that is poorly sourced (eg from from magazines or newspapers or small studies) would be covered by the criteria. That is a huge kettle of fish and I'd advise you to word in such a way to steer clear of that issue. I wish you all the best. SandyGeorgia may be interested in this endeavour and I'd be happy to help draft a clear RfC on the matter. In this matter, preparation is key. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 01:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
This Signpost article should help. Would it be an idea to draft the RFC in userspace first?--Launchballer 09:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
That would be reasonable. Let me know on my talk page if you'd like some help; I'm sure other users would also be interested. --LT910001 (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

G7 and talk pages

I propose that criterion G7 be rewritten as follows:

1

If requested in good faith and provided that the only substantial content to the page and to the associated talk page and, if the page is a talk page, the associated content page was added by its the author of the page for which deletion is requested. (For redirects created as a result of a page move, the mover must also have been the only substantive contributor to the pages prior to the move.) If the sole author blanks a page other than a userspace page or category page, this can be taken as a deletion request.

Rationale: The language referring to the associated talk page was introduced by User:Davidwr in December 2009 as a response to a G7 deletion of a talk page (see [6], [7]). Recently, some contributors suggested on Talk:Comparison of quiz bowl formats that the article, Comparison of quiz bowl formats, had serious issues. I determined that their complaints had merit and tagged the article for G7 deletion (I was the sole substantial contributor). Later, I realized that this was improper under the current text of G7. Nevertheless, the rationale for allowing G7 deletion of an article or other content page applies whether or not other Wikipedians have commented on the talk page or not. My changes remove this anomaly and attempt to implement the change made by User:Davidwr as he must have intended. RJaguar3 | u | t 01:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed phrasing seems awkward. Any ideas on ways to tighten it without losing meaning? VQuakr (talk) 01:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I can try putting it as a parenthetical:

If requested in good faith and provided that the only substantial content to the page and to the associated talk page was added by its author. (For redirects created as a result of a page move, the mover must also have been the only substantive contributor to the pages prior to the move. For talk pages, the only substantial contributor to the associated content page must also have been the same author.) If the sole author blanks a page other than a userspace page or category page, this can be taken as a deletion request.

RJaguar3 | u | t 02:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
We already have G8 (which covers talk pages with no corresponding article), G6, and WP:IAR. I would suggest simplifying it instead:

If requested in good faith and provided that the only substantial content was added by its author. If the sole author blanks a page other than a userspace page or category page, this can be taken as a deletion request.

VQuakr (talk) 05:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I would suggest the following:

If requested in good faith and provided that the only substantial content to the page and to the associated talk page was added by its author. (For redirects created as a result of a page move, the mover must also have been the only substantive contributor to the pages prior to the move.) If the sole author blanks a page other than a userspace page, a category page, or any type of talk page, this can be taken as a deletion request.

This preserves the intent of Davidwr's change and makes it so that deletion of your page would not technically violate G7. The talk page itself can be taken care of using G8. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I've always understood the point of this clause was to prevent G7s in exactly the scenario here - one contributor to the page, multiple to the talk page. I can see why you don't think it appropriate in this case but I cannot see the benefit in watering down the protection against bad faith and misguided G7 nominations for very rare edge cases such as this one is. CSD criteria must be as frequent and objective to be passed in the first place, so they should not be amended to include subjective language about infrequent events. Thryduulf (talk) 23:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The phrasing of the proposal is very vague, and defeats the purpose of a CSD altogether. I agree with Thryduulf. Z10987 (talk) 01:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for keeping this edit by VQuakr [8] per discussion here (or can someone point out what this breaks?), Oppose to the proposal itself. There is no need to make G7 more complex. Common sense and IAR can take care of any odd corner cases. While we are at it, we could also remove the unnecessary weasel wording "If requested in good faith", because admins don't honor other than good faith requests in any case. Nobody will process a clearly malicious page blanking as G7 request, no matter what G7 says, so this wording is superfluous. Note that G7 is a deviation, albeit quite minor, from WP:OWN policy by bestowing the sole contributor special privilege to faster deletion regardless of things like notability or any objective criteria based on contributed content itself (other than the "good faith" vague phrase); so this is another reason to keep it simple. jni (delete)...just not interested 20:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Close in Archives

Just a note: Per the request at WP:ANRFC I have closed the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_53#Proposal_for_C4:_Blatant_overcategorization as there is consensus to not include the proposal. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 00:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of articles about music and film festivals

A large number of these articles have been speedily deleted over the past few days. It has not been just one admin deleting them, so I bring it here for discussion rather than addressing with individual admins, and I think it's worth getting the community's perspective. My concerns:

  1. "Events" being within the scope of A7 was added in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 47#A7 in January 2013. From that discussion, I'm not certain that music and film festivals that draw international headliners and attendees (which is the case with many of these subjects) fit into the spirit of what was attempted to be included in this new category of A7.
  2. Most of these articles were created many years ago, in the mid-2000s, at a time when sourcing was less strict than it is now. I wonder about the fairness to these editors (most of whom of course are long gone) in applying an A7 category retroactively in this way.
  3. I suspect that some of these articles might be found to be notable if a search for sources was conducted. (I declined this one myself, after another editor added some sources. Others declined declined declined declined, and many of the deleted articles are similar to the ones declined, except that someone took a moment to add a source or two.)

I'm not suggesting that most of these article subjects are notable, per WP:GNG or otherwise. I suspect that most of them should be deleted. My concerns relate more to the wisdom of using speedy deletions instead of other processes. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 19:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Partial list of deleted articles
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • The deleted articles consistently lacked any assertion of notability and any independent references, therefore they qualified for speedy in my book. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • What RHaworth said. Of course, if the community were to wish to revise the speedy delete criteria from what the criteria now are, it could do so. But if articles meet our speedy rules, I think it appropriate to act on them accordingly. Which is the case here. Similarly, if the community wanted to adopt a rule of "Old articles cannot be speedy deleted," it could do so. But for now, I don't believe there is any such sentiment or criteria. The related comments of Bbb23 here bear on the issue.
(BTW - while I noticed you helpfully alerted the one other declining admin above, and one of the deleting admins, there are a few other deleting sysops whose actions are reflected in your above list that you've not yet alerted to the discussion, whom you may perhaps want to ping). Epeefleche (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Good idea. I believe I've completed the needed notifications now. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 21:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I came here in response to a message Paul left for me on my talk page asking for my input. At the outset, Epeefleche is creating a lot of work for us. On a more serious note, obviously an article can be speedily deleted at any point in time, although, obviously, it's rarer for it to be speedily deleted when it has existed for an extended period of time. I should say, though, that I've seen administrators tag articles that have existed for years. Thus, unfortunately - that's the work part - I think we have to take each article and evaluate it independent of the fact that many such articles have been tagged. If someone thinks there's a case of abusive tagging by Epeefleche, that's something that would need to be raised and addressed. Otherwise, I don't see much hope for avoiding the work. A couple of caveats. First, just because an article is not sourced doesn't mean it should be speedily deleted. Sourcing isn't required to withstand an A7. Second, if unsourced material was removed from the article and that tips the balance against speedy deletion, the speedy should be declined and a more appropriate deletion process used.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I agree with RHaworth. When an article simply asserts the existence of a music festival (sometimes in a single sentence) and lists musicians who have appeared, it has not satisfied the minimum threshold of importance or significance required by A7, in my opinion. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I do see where you all are coming from, but I remain concerned about these deletions. I can't say I agree that long-running festivals with international participation are speedyable. Maybe if I try another angle here.
    Malik Shabazz, you deleted Tanjazz. I've just done a quick search and found several news articles about it in AllAfrica.com for example and this and this, and in Middle East News Online. Would you have any objection to me undeleting and then adding the references I found?
  • Paul, feel free to undelete it. In fact, if you find any others I deleted that you believe you can make them into real articles that belong here, you don't have to ask my permission, although your courtesy does you credit.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The article Mumbai International Film Festival had been around for seven years. How is it that in that time no-one had managed to add any independent references? Feel free to restore it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Paul, there are two separate questions. The first is whether these articles are properly subject to speedy, under speedy rules. We can all read the responses to your query here. The second question you now raise is whether these articles, once deleted -- like any other deleted via speedy or prod or AfD -- can be restored, if proper revisions are made ... and I think we are all in agreement that of course they can be. The same as any other articles, deleted via any other process. Epeefleche (talk) 00:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Wrong Haworth. References has never been a requirement for keeping an article. Adding a reference is not necessary to prove that your speedy deletion was improper. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • For my part, I don't have any real concerns about the deletions that have been done; clearly the articles fall within the speedy deletion criteria. Personally, I try to treat all deletions individually and, in particular, consider whether it is reasonable to carry out speedy deletion when the article has been in existence for a long time - not because they don't qualify but because they may either have become notable since the article was created or it may just have been a question of adding sources not having been mandatory when they were created. Likewise, restoring articles should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Deb (talk) 04:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks Deb. Checking with you as well, you deleted Headway Festival. I did a quick search and found several sources. [9] [10] [11] Would you be okay with me undeleting the article and adding the references? Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 22:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Paul, stop asking for permission to restore these articles. The moment you find a single third-party source, the speedy deletion was invalid and in error, and you should just restore it immediately.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ego White Tray (talk • contribs)

No, not at all. The assessment under A7 is not whether the topic is notable but whether there is an indication of importance or significance. An A7 speedy deletion is not rendered invalid or in error because the article that failed to indicate importance or significance, was on a notable topic; that is fundamental.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Important as it: a) addresses the "fairness to the article creators" concern in the first post above; and b) where the creator made the only substantial content contribution to the page, deletion is in keeping with G7. Epeefleche (talk) 19:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Yawn. Since when this talk page has become a second DRV? Nothing concerning speedy deletion policy in this section, save for some clear newbie misunderstandings. Endorse what RHaworth said. Fix the few deleted articles that can be salvaged, let the rest rot in the deleted articles bin. Most seem to be of run-of-the-mill variety ("Some articles not to create based on common sources only are: ... The local festival or other scheduled event that occurs annually"): there was some festival somewhere, there were this and that (mostly redlinked) bands there, it was organized by (redlinked nobodies) etc. jni (delete)...just not interested 20:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • It requires a "credible claim of significance or importance." We're all agreed on that, I expect.
I'm not sure whether you are trying to expand what the policy says. You re-state it as "might imply a possibility of notability". The policy says it must credibly claim it, not "maybe" "imply" it is "possible". I would stick with the words of the policy. Epeefleche (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. It states (WP:A7):
An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event 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. The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible.
Not an assertion of "notability"... an assertion of "significance or importance", which is stated to be of a lower standard than "notability". Significance/importance is not here defined, but we can be sure that if the assertion implies that the subject would pass WP:GNG if true, then CSD-A7 is inappropriate.
With respect to articles about music/arts festivals, assertions that the festival is of a reasonable size (e.g. tens of thousands of attendees) and/or it included performances by a number of internationally significant artists should be sufficient to suggest to any reasonable WP editor that notability (as per WP:GNG) is likely. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps you mis-read my post?
I wrote that A7: "requires a "credible claim of significance or importance." The only time I mention notability is in speaking about what your above post says. In which you re-state the A7 rule as: "might imply a possibility of notability".
There's nothing in A7 about "might imply" or "a possibility" of notability. The policy says it must credibly claim significance or importance, not "maybe" "imply" it is "possible" that it is anything. I would stick with the actual language of the policy.
As to the other points, see the above posts on this page. Epeefleche (talk) 02:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, apologies. I interpreted the following as you confusing the requirement as a claim of notability rather than significance or importance:
You re-state it as "might imply a possibility of notability". The policy says it must credibly claim it, not "maybe" "imply" it is "possible".
The sticking point here appears to be in the lack of definition for "significance or importance". The only clue we are given in the policy is in its relationship to "notability" (the general requirements for which are long established). We're told it's something less than notability. We're told that it does not require references. I would assume that if the subject of an article is notable then it's also significant or important, so my personal benchmark has always been that if the text suggests that the subject of an article is likely to be notable (and there is no reason to disbelieve it), then it makes a credible assertion of importance. You apparently disagree... Perhaps we need to establish a more concrete definition. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 06:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Apology accepted. I understand the confusion.
Your language inserted notability into the equation. For greater clarify, please read my "it" above as not referring to the phrase you used (notability), but rather to the one I used at the outset as being the test (a "credible claim of significance or importance.").
We're in agreement that the criteria is something less than notability, does not require refs, and that if the subject is notable then it's also significant or important.
Where we diverge is your insertion of the words "likely to be" ... or as you said above "might imply" or "a possibility" of .... The policy says it must credibly claim significance or importance. Not "maybe" "imply" it is "possible" that the subject is anything. Again, I suggest we stick with what the policy says. The above comments reveal a surprisingly (for wp) high level of consensus on the issues raised by the first post. Epeefleche (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I would agree with that. Whether the subject is possibly notable (or even merely possibly significant) doesn't enter in. If it is claimed, and is credible, it passes. The element 'credible' is a value judgement - sometimes obvious (Joe Bloggs from Widnes, age 12, getting engaged to Pippa Middleton is hardly credible even after a few bottles of something strong), but otherwise experience and common sense have to be used. If not, then Joe will have his article for a week and we'll all look daft. There is always appeal to the deleting admin with further evidence, or to any other admin, even. Or to DRV, or simple repost with improvement. The showing of actual notability is the best insurance for survival, and I encourage people to aim at that and not just to pass A7. To sum up - if you see potential, don't delete it but activate it. If you can't do it right away, ask for it to be userfied and do it later. Otherwise, if it really was notable and hiding it's light under a stack of bushels, someone will write a new article some day. If they don't, it probably wasn't... Peridon (talk) 16:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay, granted.
What then constitutes a claim of significance or importance when it comes to music festivals? Is the stature of the artists performing at it a reasonable metric? Take for example the Orange Warsaw Festival, one of the articles nominated for CSD-A7 above... Numerous A-list international artists, annual event for 6 years, televised on national channel... were these statements not sufficient to assert significance or importance? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
There are various ways that an article can avoid A7. One way - already alluded to by a number of editors in this string - is via RS references that support such a conclusion. Another way, which you will find in a number of existing festival articles that lack any references whatsovever, is a credible assertion that the festival is the largest in a country, or the oldest in a country, or the most popular in a country, or the like. Those unreferenced assertions of course may be inaccurate, but if they are viewed as credible that get past A7. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm late to the discussion (as usual), but having had a look at at a few music festival A7s that have been thrown up, I'd give you my opinion. While you might think of the Woodstock Festival when "music festivals" comes to mind, the reality is in this day and age they are as widespread as village fetes. That means you need substantial and significant news coverage, and ideally several notable bands appearing on the bill. The Brentwood Festival is probably my benchmark for what's acceptable, given I see it has UB40 and two of Ocean Colour Scene on the bill. (Disclaimer: I won't be creating this as I'm also appearing at the festival in a rather less notable capacity). From this, I conclude that most of the festival articles I looked at, which are totally unreferenced one paragraph stubs that say nothing beyond "x is a festival in y that has been running since z" are fair game for A7. If you think otherwise, find some reliable sources and improve the articles! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

  • The proper interpretation of all speedy criteria is that no reasonable admin would disagree, and therefore, any speedy deletion on grounds such as "lacks any assertion of notability and any independent references," could and should be reversed as a blatant and obvious misinterpretation of the plain language of policy, unless the article does in fact meet the real speedy deletion requirements--as it probably will most of the time , if someone as fundamentally sensible as RHaworth is using it. All such should be challenged, and though I consider it clear enough to summarily reverse, though if an established admin is doing it I personally would rather first ask them, and if denied, use DelRev. The only real way or corrected such persistent errors by an admin is publicity at an admin board, and Del Rev is the one for this.
  • The way I think of credible or plausible indication of importance is that the subject is such that a contributor who understands the purposes of WP would think it sufficiently qualified for an article.
  • Music festivals are not my field, but more broadly I think any festival drawing people from only a very local area is not really a credible assertion, but it is relatively hard to judge this for many submitted articles. I prefer to list them for Prod, even when it as obvious as a festival limited to students at a particular college, if it has been held more than once. I think there is real grounds for confusion here, which is why I opposed including events in A7, and ewhy I would still oppose it. If it produces such disagreements as I see here, it isn;t obvious enough for speedy. DGG ( talk ) 02:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

AfC and Draft duplicate of articles

There is A2 for duplicates of articles on other Wikipedias, and A10 for articles duplicating articles here. There is no such provision for things in AfC or Draft. I've just nominated Draft:Takyon as at MfD, having already deleted an identical main space article under A10. I would suggest that these two classes should be applicable to spaces other than Article space and assigned G numbers. There is no value judgement involved - it's a duplicate or it isn't. The only thing is checking that it is the same, when in another language - and that isn't all that hard to do. Peridon (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Now, slow down, turbo. The devil is in the details. I don't see how we will make such a criteria that covers all of these very different issues without being an unreadable mess. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • If it is a duplicate you had better check the history to see what copied what. If it is the same author exactly then the draft can go. if it is different then attribution or history merge may be needed. But there may be a case where a draft copies an article ready for more edits for a proposed change. In which case a pause of a day or a week for deletion should not hurt. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • If a draft is patently inferior, and contains no additional information, I sometimes do use speedy G6, on the grounds of common sense about usefulness. Perhaps some regard this as too much of a stretch, but, frankly, even an inclusionist like me has to be realistic. DGG ( talk ) 02:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Peridon There's also the option of redirecting the Draft/AFC page to the mainspace article if they're sufficently similar. This has the added benefit of people being able to investigate the history left behind. Hasteur (talk) 12:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
And if you want to keep Draft space clear, rename to a reasonable alternate title without redirect and make that reasonable title a redirect. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Tightening speedy deletion of disambiguation pages

I've been thinking about the housekeeping deletions of disambiguation pages and conclude that we should narrow which pages are speedy deletable:

  • Pages with zero links - yes should be speedy deleted, but this is a case of no content and better included there
  • Pages with one link:
Ending in (disambiguation) - fine to speedy delete
Not ending in disambiguation - these should be changed to redirects, not speedy deleted
  • Pages with two links - the discussion in archive 53 showed that these pages should never be speedy deleted.

So I proposed this new wording: "Deleting a disambiguation page with only one link to extant articles and ending in (disambiguation)" And, added to A3: "This also applies to disambiguation pages that do not link to any extant articles.

Thoughts? Ego White Tray (talk) 06:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

That looks good. We should somewhere encourage redirecting to an existing (disambiguation) page rather than speedy deleting where there is a suitable target, but I'm not sure where the best place for that is. Thryduulf (talk) 08:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Looks fairly good to me too. The zero link is neither use nor ornament, and the single link is just a long-winded manually operated redirect anyway. Two (blue) links has use, although there are cases where a redirect to a 500 hits a day major page with a hatnote to the two hits a year minor page could be justified. Peridon (talk) 14:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. We don't need this. Speedy deletion is not about enforcing a MOS to certain page types. Overly detailed CSD rules are best ignored when they get in the way. jni (delete)...just not interested 19:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
"We don't need this" - We already have this, I'm proposing adjusting it. Best to actually understand a proposal before commenting on it. Ego White Tray (talk) 14:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Your adjustment is what is not needed. jni (delete)...just not interested 18:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Because??? Your statement has nothing to do with my proposed adjustment, it was a irrelevant statement about deletion and ignore all rules. Ego White Tray (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Off-topic
CSD rules should never be ignored. If a page does not meet one or more criteria for speed deletion, narrowly interpreted, then it is deletion without consensus - one of the most seriously harmful things an administrator can do to the project. Thryduulf (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
That is your opinion, but your position is not factually correct with current policies. Consensus is formed in deletion discussions, and only partially on this talk page. Take a minute to re-read IAR, nowhere in it is written "...except cannot be applied to CSD X21's exempt list's special rule about item number 2.". jni (delete)...just not interested 19:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Nice attempt at justifying abuse of admin powers, but try reading the first line of this policy, "The criteria for speedy deletion specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, at their discretion, and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media. They cover only the cases specified in the rules here." Consensus to delete is formed in deletion discussions, which means that there needs to be a deletion discussion before anything not covered by a speedy deletion criterion can be deleted. If this was not so then G6 (non-controversial cleanup) and G9 (office actions) would not need to exist.
IAR explicitly applies only where the action would improve Wikipedia. Deleting pages out of process cannot improve Wikipedia, so IAR is never appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 21:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
That is just nonsense and trite. Deleting utter garbage can and does improve the encyclopedia. Besides, there are other policies that contradict what you just quoted. WP:BLPBAN said for a long time: "Administrators are authorized to use any and all means at their disposal to ensure that every Wikipedia article is in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the biographies of living persons policy. Administrators may use the page protection and deletion tools as they believe to be reasonably necessary to effect compliance." This basically gave admins a more wider license to utilize speedy deletion, if it was for resolving BLP abuse and logged to the arb com's enforcement log. (I just noticed this was superceded by something different, but BLPBAN was in effect for a very long time since 2008). I bet the "canned consensus only, deletion explained down to minute details"-school of thought has never tried to reconcile this arbitration ruling into the framework of their own deletion theory. G6 just codifies existing and long-standing practice (the rule is superfluous as consensus was to delete certain obviously non-controversial editing artifacts *before* the rule existed explicitly). G9 was imposed by fiat; it was most certainly not obtained by concensus distilled out of past deletion discussions. jni (delete)...just not interested 21:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Jni comes across as very CSD aggressive. Is he sometimes too aggressive? We have DRV to discuss that. Maybe he knows what he is doing, and just sounds like a cowboy. WP:IAR has been considered a very poor reason to bypass the tight wording of WP:CSD. Speedy deletion per BLP issues is something that has remained undocumented at WP:CSD for a long time. It should be documented. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Funny that exactly zero of my 30000+ deletions have been overturned in DRV :) DRV does not deal with technicalities and minor technicalities are the most natural area to successfully and correctly apply IAR. I was just objecting to Thryduulf's completely mistaken idea that some policies are too important for IAR to be applied. This can never work, and editors can ignore any attempted IAR-exemption clauses, if needed. As one of 5P, IAR is higher in WP norm hierarchy than details of CSD rules. IAR is explicitly designed to deal with overly tight *details* of each and every rule, including CSD criteria. BLPBAN was also overriding consensus-based CSD rules and deletion policy itself. Nobody here is arguing for arbitrary deleting whatever someone wants to delete and the cry for "admin abuse" in cases where no real mens rea can be demonstrated is just a strawman argument. I'd like to argue that any real admin abuse of the deletion feature needs to satisfy both of these elements:
  1. actus reus: any conduct resulting in deletion of page;
  2. mens rea: intent or knowledge that the conduct would result in deletion adversely affecting project's goals. jni (delete)...just not interested 09:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Closing per a WP:ANRFC request.
There is clear consensus against this proposal. Armbrust The Homunculus 05:07, 21 June 2014 (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.

I think disambiguation pages which have less then three blue links should be speedy deleted,per WP:D.118.186.129.76 (talk) 02:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages with two links are allowed per WP:D, it doesn't make sense to have them speedy deleted. Diego (talk) 08:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Quite often, one of two is a major target, and the minor subject can be linked by a hatnote on the major page. Where there are two equal (or undetermined - or even undeterminable...) subjects. a disam is not only allowed but necessary. Peridon (talk) 11:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Nope. VanIsaacWScont 22:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There are many cases where disambiguation pages with only two blue links should not be deleted, so this proposal fails the requirement that everything which could be deleted should be deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 09:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: where there are two uses and it's not obvious that one is the Primary Topic, then a two-entry dab page is completely appropriate. (Where there is a Primary Topic and only one other use, and nothing appropriate to list under "See also", then any dab page would be eligible for speedy deletion already under G6). PamD 10:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - in practice, even brief consideration usually finds that disambiguation pages with two targets need expanding, not deletion. We're writing an encyclopaedia, remember. WilyD 10:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I woudn't delete even disambig pages with two or three redlinks, when referenced and verifiable. This, for example, would be acceptable as a list of redlinks with proper citations. Just my opinion. I also agree with the above comments. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Update G4 to account for Draft-space

G4 currently reads: This excludes (...) content moved to user space for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy). It doesn't mention content that was either moved to Draft-space to allow improvements, or content that was later restored or recreated in Draft-space to be improved before AfC review and/or recreation. I have updated the wording to: This excludes (...) content moved to user space or converted to a Draft for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy). I feel this is likely to be uncontroversial as it respects and doesn't alter the spirit of G4, so I just went ahead and did it, but as always I am open to being reverted and seeing the changes discussed here if there are objections. I'm particularly open to finding an alternative wording to "converted to a Draft" (maybe "moved to Draft-space"?), so if you have a better idea than mine, just go ahead and do it or let me know. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The idea sounds good to me. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
agreed, but I suggest the wording : content moved to user space or draft space ... (and omit the word Userification, which will probably become obsolete with the introduction of Draft space),. DGG ( talk ) 21:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

G13 for userspace drafts

Where was the consensus for including userspace subpages in G13? I think this a very dangerous practice. For AfCs and Draft space we have a system for checking beforehand, and for warning people, but we do not have it here. The proper procedure is to move them to draft space, which enters them into the review system, and then they will be deletable by G13 in due course. If there is need for hurry, there's still MfD, which has been doing these deletions since time immemorial. DGG ( talk ) 22:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 49#G13 - The discussion for the official criterion, point 4 in the closure box. It seems that G13 can be used for any page (in any namespace) which has AfC templates. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
As Stefan2 says, all these G13 have been declined at AfC first - that's how they are found. After 6 months they go into Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions, where they get manually reviewed and manually tagged as G13. Every user gets a warning message on their talk page before deletion, complete with instructions on how to re-claim the page post deletion if they still want it. See also Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/G13  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The problem with AfC subpages was that there were tens of thousands of abandoned low quality drafts produced by IPs or accounts of short activity. This problem was not demonstrated to generalise into userspace. One of the ways to rescue or save a draft is to move it into userspace.
Yes, speedy deletion in userspace is dangerous. Userspace is workspace for users, and includes things other than drafts. Speedy deletion of usersubpages would go largely unnoticed, as these pages are rarely watched by more than the user, and deletion on one's notes and records is extremely unwelcoming to a returning user.
The presence of an AfC template to define an AfC page is a potentially over-broad loophole. I think it reasonable if the AfC template were added by the author of the page, but unreasonable if the AfC template were mass-added bot-like well afterwards.
I see that I !voted against Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_49#Support_anywhere_there_is_an_AFC_submission_template. The rationale of the three objections there would seem to be well accommodated by the following understandings:
  • A user may remove the AfC template from their userpace draft to avoid G13.
  • Active editors may do the above, or several other things, to prevent or reverse deletion of their apparently abandoned draft.
  • The intention of this G13 policy section is that it applies to abandoned Articles for creation pages. Somebody mass applying AfC templates to non-AfC pages, activating the G13 mechanism, would be grossly violating the intention of the agreed policy, and this person should be stopped. But we can worry about this should it ever happen. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I too think that G13 deletion of userspace subpages is draconian and unnecessary, in most cases. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I concur with DGG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • You have invented a non-existent problem. Don't use the AfC-templates in your userpage notes and other draft materials, if potential G13-deletion, which is easily refunded besides, is such a problem. And SmokeyJoe's worry about someone maliciously adding AfC templates to innocent victim's userpages and waiting for 6 months for their incorrect deletion is very fanciful fiction! This has never happened, and is unlikely to ever happen, and is trivially corrected if we ever see it in practise. jni (delete)...just not interested
First, these templates can appear if someone other than the original editor has placed them, and several people have have placed them on a considerable number of pages, with or without justification. Second, several administrators have been deleting user space pages under G13 even when no template appears. This is a very real problem. I only came here because I have been encountering dozens of such pages of both sorts, not all of which were in the least appropriate for deletion. (& I've encountered them in most cases by the extremely tedious process of checking in the deltion log after they have been deleted. DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • My first thoughts on that are; if you don't have your own draft on your watchlist, and you don't notice that your {{Userspace draft}} template's submit button has had your draft submitted for review by someone else (logically because they thought it was worthy of mainspace), and you don't notice the declined template on your talk page or the edit to decline the submission, and you don't notice that Hasteur's HasteurBot has placed a warning notice of impending doom on your talk page, and you don't notice that yet again the page has been edited to place the G13 csd template, and you don't notice right away your draft has been deleted, and you're too lazy to click a button and request a REFUND, then apparently the draft couldn't have been that important to you. As to your second issue, administrators are deleting under this criteria out of process. My thoughts to that are, those administrators need to be warned that this is inappropriate and there needs to be a discussion brought up about those administrators misusing tools which should likely go through ARBCOM, allowing them to do what we nominated them for and work with the administrator to make sure it won't happen again and do what is needed to fix the situation. Whether that be a stern warning or desysoping really should be the final decision of the committee. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 00:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Technical 13 I think there may be a misunderstanding. HasteurBot is 100% excluded from operating in User space by convention and configuration ([12] and [13]), so the warning notice that a Userspace page has become eligible for G13 is never sent by HasteurBot. If there is consensus here, at AFC, and at BotReq (though I suspect BotReq will rubber stamp whatever the other 2 endorse) then I'll be happy to extend the skirts over userspace. Before I start enrolling userspace pages we may want to decide how to have the bot go about handling the userspace efforts. I'm only putting options on the table, not making any particular endorsements any which way. Hasteur (talk) 02:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

A couple points (as the resident G13 guru and operator of HasteurBot which was authorized to go through a process of giving notices/warnings/deletions).

I have read the text of G13 to imply that any page that bears the banner of AFC and has remained unedited for 6 months is eligible regardless of what namespace the page is in. That being the case I see a few potential ways of working with pages that are eligible for G13. In Draft namespace and the previous home of AFC (WT:AFC/) I consider it appropriate and right for G13 nominations to proceed as they are well aware of the requirements of AFC. In Userspace, I think rather than G13ing user pages, it would be better to remove the AFC banner (thereby removing the page from the AFC tracking categories) and letting ones that aren't causing problems lie.
As the operator of the bot I take the narrow interpertation (Only operate in Draft and WT:AFC) in addition to giving a notice to the creating user that their submission has become eligible for deletion by G13. If the page is still around 30 days after the G13 eligibility notice, then the bot takes the action of nominating for speedy deletion (including putting the warning about G13 speedy nomination).
As to the underlying issue, I think it comes down to the "rules as written" vs "rules as implemented through common practice" Hasteur (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Please see my comment above on how these templates have been getting there. And in any rate the problem is knowing about them to remove them before they get deleted--for other G13 we have a warning system. DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • At one time any page submitted to AfC was moved into AfC space, so this problem didn't arise. Now, sometimes new editors remove the AfC templates for their pages because (1) they don't realize that they will later need the template to resubmit, or (2) in edit mode they can't tell what they are. AfC reviewers often replace the deleted templates along with an edit summary such as "You will need this template later, please don't remove it until the article is accepted" or something like that. However, there's no way really to tell, without asking, if the user has removed the template because they intend to keep the material in user space and remove it from review, especially if it's already in user space. I wish we could agree to move all of the AfC submissions to Draft space, except those with little or no content (blank or almost blank/no context); if those ones were later deleted there would be no loss anyway. Then any submissions which were removed from the review process could be "userfied" and have their AfC tags removed. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • AfC submissions are given extra leeway in the area of promotionalism, since it's expected that they will be improved and that the offending NPOV problems will be edited out before acceptance. Just removing tags and leaving this spamlike material in user space may not be a good idea. When would one of these become a WP:FAKEARTICLE? —Anne Delong (talk) 01:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • User pages with AfC templates show up as eligible for db-g13, and are listed in Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions. Hasteur says that the Hasteurbot is not involved in this, but still, since they are on the list, and have the G13 pink banner, they are being nominated for deletion and deleted on a regular basis. The fact that it's real live editors doing it has nothing to do with the need for a consensus about whether this deletion is appropriate. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • This really is making an issue out of something that isn't an issue... Take for example User:Technical 13/Drafts/MWML. Now, this draft was in WT:AfC space when I received the notification from HasteurBot. This notification very clearly explained to me how to USERFY my draft (had I not already knows) and explained to me how to request a REFUND had the draft gotten deleted quicker than expected. I didn't think much of it. Two weeks later, I got another notification about this draft notifying me that JMHamo had nominated it for deletion using Twinkle. This allowed me to thank JMHamo for the notification, and move the draft to my userspace and remove the WPAfC tags. As long as there is a note in the edit summary saying that the user is userfying it or otherwise intentionally removing it from the AfC radar, there is no reason that we really should be talking about this anymore and wasting time better spent elsewhere.
I am, however, very concerned with DGG's claim that several administrators have been deleting user space pages under G13 even when no template appears. This may be extremely inappropriate and these administrators' actions need to be looked into as there is a much greater issue here than a few trashy promotional advertisements being deleted that the OP copied from the products own website (most of which would be valid CSD criterion to use to delete these without just slapping a G13 note on them). I'm wondering why this is happening and hoping that we can get a couple names of administrators doing this. Now, I'm not asking their names to be thrown out here so we can beat on them and desysop them and make a big deal about it, and I would be very happy if they would voluntarily come to discuss the issue. I want to know why specifically they are doing that. Is it because one of the templates is unclear, is there a deletion script for administrators they are using that isn't working well and they are just slapping that on it because it should be deleted under all these other reasons anyways? Is it because there is a lack of space on the edit summary line with the deletion reason (and the drop down isn't inclusive enough)? Would a new userscript with the ability to use a custom decline reason and skip the dropdown that allows listing multiple reasons be helpful? Is it some other technical reason I've not thought of or kept to myself for BEANS concerns? Is it a non-technical reason? Is one of the policies or guidelines not clear enough about this? I am willing to accept private communications, and have listed many ways on wiki to get a hold of me if one of those administrators prefers that to posting here. I want to make the process easier for you, not bash or berate you. Help me help you... — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 02:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, I don't know about others - but since I read this, I thought I would just re-check my deletions. In the last three months, within the hundreds of G13's deleted by myself, I've actually deleted 120 user space drafts, all which had an AfC banner present and added by the user. None of those 120 pages has been restored.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I'll be glad of your help in explaining it to them. Examples forthcoming by email. I was planning to do so myself, either directly or via Deletion Review, and came here primarily to establish clearly there was a consensus they should not be doing this before I approached them over it. I do not think the problem is a technical one with the script.
more broadly, each time we change deletion practices, either by actually changing the rules or by a gradual change in practice, there is inevitably a delay of a year or two until everyone comes to accept & use the new standards. DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Any consensus on what to do about these, then? I don't like it either; should we just remove the AfC templates, then? WilyD 09:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Sorry to bring this up again, but here's a userspace draft that has never been submitted, doesn't have a grey "unsubmitted" template, but instead a "work in progrss" template, which does appear to have a submit button on it. Should this be deleted under G13 as an unsubmitted draft? Lots of pages all over Wikipedia could be classified as "unsubmitted". Shouldn't it go to MfD as a promotional fake article instead? —Anne Delong (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

G10 and advertising illegal products

I just noticed an article tagged as A7 and G11 that seemed to be an advert for cracked Sony Playstation software, and tagged it for G10. It doesn't appear to meet the letter of an attack page, but I think anything whose sole existing is to advertise illegal products should be deleted without hesitation. Does anyone agree? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Disagree - I don't see advertising illegal products as an attack page. I see advertising an illegal product as advertising, and so G11 would make the most sense. -- Whpq (talk) 16:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't see why being about illegal content should make any difference. If its sole purpose is to advertise something then it's a G11 candidate. There's nothing necessarily wrong with having an article about something illegal, although we might have to take precautions such as not linking to it. Hut 8.5 16:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • What if it were a well-written, non-promotional, well-sourced article about a notable web site that hosted illegal-in-America cracked Sony Playstation software? Don't laugh this off - there's a country in the Caribbean (Aruba?) that has sued the US in some UN-type "trade court" and they have "permission" to allow their locals to violate US copyright laws - it's possible a company or web site in that country could get enough reliable-source coverage to qualify for an article. This would be a case of "The topic markets in things illegal in the USA." We already accept articles on companies that market things that are illegal in other countries. As a hypothetical, if there were a well-known US company with a neo-Nazi product line, their marketing would likely violate German law, but we would still allow the article if it were otherwise okay. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Question

So what criterion do I use if the subject of the article exists, but is never referred to by the name being used as its title? (e.g. Pano (chemistry)) Double sharp (talk) 08:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The subject exists, you say, and the article is sourced, so why do you want to speedy-delete the article? If it's not called "pano", it needs a different title. Move it, or use the WP:RM process to request a move. Or suggest a merge with Nonmetal#Polyatomic_nonmetals. PamD 08:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
But on closer looking, the article is indeed vandalism - the two paragraphs of Nonmetal#Polyatomic_nonmetals, and between them a chunk clearly copied from an article about a single substance. Needs to be deleted. PamD 08:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
You move it to a better name or use WP:PROD or WP:AFD. Not everything that should be deleted needs to be deleted speedily. —Kusma (t·c) 08:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
In your example, the content was entirely copied from Nonmetal (and its footnotes) and has been deleted. I used WP:CSD#A10 as a deletion reason; while splits are allowed, they should use the correct attribution procedure as in Wikipedia:Splitting. —Kusma (t·c) 09:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for all your replies. (Yes, I should have mentioned that the content already existed somewhere else.) Double sharp (talk) 10:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

A7.and GNG

A7 was developed before we had WP:GNG. A7 has always ignored sourcing. But, what if you have an article that doesn't have a claim of importance, but actually meets WP:GNG. Maybe the article is well sourced, but it hasn't been worded to properly explain why the subject is important. The importance may be described in a source that's listed, or the notability comes simply from the quality and quantity of sources (which is what WP:GNG allows). For example, you could have a singer, and somebody makes an article with ample sources proving GNG, but doesn't mention chart success, or being on a major label. In the bulk of A7 cases, this rule change would make no difference, because usually if there's no claim of importance, there's no substantial reliable independent sources either. In principal it's better to have a well sourced article with small claims of importance, than the reverse. --Rob (talk) 07:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I figure that if there are several independent and reliable sources cited that cover the subject to reasonable depth, that is not only a claim of notability, but the ultimate claim. All the rest of our metrics just exist to answer the question "Are sufficient sources to sustain this article likely to exist?" If that's already clearly demonstrated by actual use and citation of said sources, the article clearly makes a strong claim toward notability sufficient to preclude A7 deletion. That does not, of course, apply if the sources are unreliable or primary, as those do not help toward claiming or establishing notability. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Wording it slightly differently, but saying the same thing fundamentally as Seraphimblade, the point of speedy is to remove the articles that have no chance of staying in the encyclopedia. That an article does not presently show notability int a reason for speedy, because during the course of a prod or an afd other people may well add the necessary material. And if the article has anything approaching usable sources, then there is certainly a good chance it might be approved at afd, and it is inappropriate for a single admin to make the decision at speedy. (I extend that to articles with corresponding articles in other language WPs--they may sometimes not meet the enWP requirements, but there needs to be a chance to discuss them.) To be eligible for speedy A7, the subject of the article has to be so unimportant that there is no reasonable chance it will meet the GNG or any other criterion even if people work further on it. If all the sources are utterly & obviously unusable, that doesn't imply that there will be decent sources--but of course it doesn't prove there won't be. It's the same as if there were no sources at all--that by itself is not reason for speedy, but it does give reason to consider if there would ever conceivably be any) . DGG ( talk ) 21:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
So, how is it exactly that a topic would be notable but the article make no claim of importance. Are you talking about Barack is the coolest kid ever born in Hawai'i as the article or something? Is there some real example in mind? This seems so rare that it doesn't matter. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I would simply consider any good-faith sourcing as an inherent claim of notability in and of itself. After all, if a secondary source has written about an article subject, it is implicitly notable enough to have been written about. VanIsaacWScont 06:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't go quite that far. If the source is something that is never going to be considered evidence of notability, such as a Facebook page, then I would ignore it for the purposes of determining whether the article meets A7. But if the article cites coverage that might possibly be evidence of notability then it shouldn't qualify for A7. A7 is meant to be a lower standard than notability, and notability is meant to be judged through AFD and PROD, so anything remotely ambiguous should be sent through these processes instead. Hut 8.5 06:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Well it would be secondary if it wasn't written by the subject, and I can easily imagine a new editor adding a citation like that in good faith. The main problem with it as a source is that it isn't reliable. Hut 8.5 18:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Whether a source is reliable or not is a discussion that needs to happen, though, and a CSD doesn't do that. If you are talking about an actual, good faith attempt at citing a secondary source that just so happens to be a facebook page or blog, that is still an implicit claim on its notability - the editor has found someone else that has taken the time to write about the subject and has published it in some way. Remember that we are not talking about actually meeting any standard of sourcing or even trying to meet GNG, this is about making some claim of notability, and an actual secondary source, even one meeting absolutely no conditions of WP:RS is still an attempt at showing some kind of notability. VanIsaacWScont 00:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
"Someone else that has taken the time to write about the subject and has published it in some way" is an incredibly low standard to meet. A forum post saying "Fred is cool" would meet that standard, and I certainly wouldn't consider a citation to it to be an assertion of significance. By that standard I could probably get an article about you past A7 by citing this comment as a source. A lot of what you're saying is applicable to primary sources as well, although you concede that they shouldn't get an article past A7. We have discussions over whether sources are primary or not as well as whether they are reliable or not. A citation to any source at all can be considered an attempt at showing that the subject meets the GNG and thus an attempt at showing some kind of notability. I'm not saying that sourcing needs to meet certain standards in order to get past A7. Anything which has the slightest chance of showing that the subject meets the GNG should render an article ineligible. I just don't think we should do the same for sources that unambiguously fail to meet the GNG. Hut 8.5 07:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, you've completely ignored the part about it being a good faith attempt at sourcing in order to develop your convoluted hypothetical here. But in the end, we're talking about CSD, where the false positive rate needs to be pretty damn close to 0%, and the false negative rate really doesn't matter. So I'll say again: If an article has a good faith source, even if the source doesn't come anywhere near RS, nor the article subject GNG, it absolutely is not appropriate for A7. Citing a secondary source that actually talks about the article subject in any way is an inherent claim of notability for the A7 criteria. Period. VanIsaacWScont 09:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't think your "good faith" clause should apply at all. Whether articles meet speedy deletion criteria is determined on the basis of the article's content, not the identities or motives of the authors. But even if it apply it would make little difference. If an article is written by a new editor who knows nothing about our sourcing standards but is still aware at some level that articles are supposed to have references then any source at all would be a good faith attempt at sourcing. Furthermore this is the kind of editor that speedy deletion is typically concerned with. Hut 8.5 19:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I would go as far as VanIsaac, but more clearly stating that there is at least one source that is all off:
1) Independent
2) Secondary source (contains tranformed information, such as comment, and is not a report of facts)
3) Reliable (any facts contained are reliable). Some secondary sources can be loose with facts.
4) Reputable (not a random persons blog, not crowd sourced, the opinions/analysis that makes it a secondary source are from someone of some reputation.
Most commercial products are sourced from the owners/managers/distributors website, and won't count. Facebook and personal websites should be ignored. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure how 3 and 4 can be evaluated objectively as necessary for evaluating for CSD eligibility. VanIsaacWScont 09:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I think they can be evaluated objectively at the level of zero versus non-zero. If a source has zero reliability (is not a reliable source), or the publication/author has zero reputation (no one has ever heard of it/him, or it is regarded as negative), and that's the only "source". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I generally agree with a common sense evaluation of sources to determine significance. Whether a source or content was added in good faith or not is irrelevant. Either the text of the article should make a credible claim of significance or the article's references should support notability per any of our established notability guidelines. Social network pages, IMDB, self-published sources, press releases, and many blogs and closely connected sources establish neither significance, nor notability for purposes of speedy deletion eligibility.- MrX 10:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I've done a lot of re-reviewing A7s to see if they are correct, and I now take the line that if the article gives you sufficient information that you might be able to search for sources, or you think sources might exist, it's not a speedy. If you think finding sources to meet notability is pretty much impossible, it's a speedy. So, to give examples (assume all these are completely unsourced):

  • "Mr Greenjeans is the principal at De Boise Junior High. He likes baseball and Pearl Jam." is a clear A7.
  • "Mr Greenjeans is the democrat candidate for the 2014 De Boise Mayorship candidate" is a "probably A7" for now (though he might meet WP:POLITICIAN later)
  • "Mr Greenjeans is Professor Emeritus of Literature at De Boise University" is a "probably not"
  • "Mr Greenjeans is a hip-hop singer. His first album, Jiggin with ma' Greenjeans was released in June 2014 and reached number 2 in the iTunes Modern Rap Charts" is a "no".

(please note these Mr Greenjeans are fictious and a disambiguation page should not be created!)

The other thing to take extra care, is unlike quite a few articles that meet a speedy criteria (particularly G3 and G10), A7s are frequently created by new users in good faith without any real evidence they are "spamming" or using Wikipedia as a promotional device, and I always advise to go easy on them. A possible A7 that does not also qualify for one of the more urgent criteria such as G10 (attack) or G12 (blatant copyvio) will probably not hurt too much to sit it out at AfD for a week.

Finally, I'd remind people that "merge" and "redirect" are valid options at AfD, and a legitimate speedy means you would not even consider that as an option. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC) "

for these examples, though I agree with Ritchie333's approach, I interpret his hypothetical examples differently. Tthe first is A7 because nobody who understands WP to be an encyclopedia would think the person appropriate--there is no rational claim to importance. The second is not "probably an A7," but on the contrary not even conceivably an A7, because there is a real possibility of an article--such people are indeed usually not notable, but some are for various reasons, and the afds are almost always contested in good faith. An article that will be contested in good faith at afd needs to go to afd, not to speedy. The third is not merely "probably not A7", but certainly not--most such people are notable. It's just like the 4th.example. DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

U1 for user sub-talk pages

I've had this question for some time now. What is the consensus on applying CSD:U1 to user talk subpages with no substantial content, such as a soft redirect, since U1 specifies that it cannot be applied to main talk pages? Thanks, Tyrol5 [Talk] 02:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

If no messages for the user were left there by other users, and it isn't an archive created by moving the root talk page, then it qualifies for U1. Otherwise, it doesn't. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I had a hunch that that would be the case, but wanted to make certain. Thanks, Jack. Tyrol5 [Talk] 14:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Of course. I was asking if U1 could be appropriately self-applied by the page's user (it can't in cases where there had been discussion). Apologies if I wasn't clear. Tyrol5 [Talk] 14:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
The wording is "Personal user pages and subpages (but not user talk pages)", which to me is somewhat unclear. Are "user subpage talk pages" "user talk pages" or aren't they? I think it does in fact mean that subpage talk pages can be subject to U1, but the main user talk page that is where the main business goes on can't be U1ed. Any page that fits G7 (nothing of real interest by any other editor - I paraphrase here...) can be G7ed anyway. Even a user talk page, if only edited by the 'owner' or the creator (usually by mistake). Peridon (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


Per MOS:HEAD, the subheadings created when automated notifications of CSD nominations are delivered should not include links. What template or script needs to be changed? Can someone do this, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Nothing needs to be changed. User talk pages are not articles, links in section titles are useful there and so disabling them to conform to mainspace style guides is not a good idea. —Kusma (t·c) 12:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
(e/c) The MoS guidance on this appears pointedly something targeted at unsuitability for article headings. Looking in the MoS archives, the reasoning was mostly that they are ugly – a relevant concern for articles and in my view quite irrelevant for talk page notices/warnings. It was also noted, quoting from Wikipedia:Writing better articles, that "headings in themselves introduce information and let the reader know what subtopics will be presented", and that there is a minor technical effect: "editors who have their preferences set to edit sections by clicking on the header will not be able to click these", both of which which also appears to be mostly germane to articles but not to talk page warnings/notices.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Kusma and Fuhghettaboutit. The links also provide utility, making it easier to get to the CSDed article.- MrX 13:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
That utility can be just as is already conveniently provided by putting the links in the body of the message. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
And the point of removing them would be... what exactly? MOS isn't relevant here. Personally I like big obvious links to the article being discussed on my talk page. BethNaught (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Thumbs up - Seconded.--ukexpat (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
And me too. I often put a link as a heading when I'm telling someone why I declined their speedy tag (so they can easily go back and try something else more appropriate...). Peridon (talk) 16:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_53&oldid=1144716591"