Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 12

message: I have a concern about CSD I3 and how it affects fair use.  I asked Jimbo on his talk page (since I3 is a policy from him) but I think now it might be better to have a discussion with others.  Okay; here's the issue.  A lot of "fair use" images, as part of their rationale, say "in the absence of a free alternative" or something similar.  The thing is, because of CSD I3, we basically reject entirely any images that would be free for Wikipedia to use, but which are not "free+" in the sense that they aren't GFDL-compatible.  So, what if an image was being used under a fair use claim, and a "with-permission" alternative existed, although not a "free+" one?  It seems to me, that would invalidate the fair use claim, as an alternative exists that would be free to use.  If this is the case, we need to either reconsider I3 or our fair use policy.  Mangojuicetalk 20:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if that other image is also justified under fair use, then you can replace the first one and tag it . Stifle (talk) 12:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Thinking further about this, I think the problem with images used "with permission" is that people are using it as the thin end of a wedge, and if it was permitted to upload images that are just "with permission" to Wikipedia, they will just slap permission tags on everything. (In fact, since the institution of Template:Permission from license selector, they do, and it gets speedied.) "GFDL" and "Creative Commons" still have a somewhat "mystical" feel for users and they don't tend to use them, or maybe it's just because the permission slot is earlier in the drop-down, I don't know. Stifle (talk) 23:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSD I3 and Fair Use 

message: I wonder whether CSD R2 shouldn't be extended to cover redirects to the Wikipedia namespace as well.  The reason for this is that redirects are frequently listed on RfD with the rationale "cross-namespace redirect" and deleted virtually automatically.  It seems to me that this is wasted effort, and we may as well allow such cross-namespace redirects to be speedied. --David Mestel(Talk) 21:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To the contrary, I've seen contentious debates over certain cross-namespace redirects, often with multiple deletions and undeletions. No one's going to convince me this criterion would be uncontestable. Deco 00:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The anti-cross-space redirect faction has already deleted most of them. As they often have many incoming links, speedying them is not a good idea. At WP:RFD, there will be at least time to orphan them by bot before deleting. Also, the criterion would have to be formulated in a way that the WP: and MoS: shortcuts (which are just as cross-namespace as those that recently have been deleted) won't be affected. Kusma (討論) 08:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This also raises the question of whether G4 should apply to redirects. Normally, if someone else wants an article on a deleted subject, it's not G4, because it's a different article; and this has been taken as an indication of notability. But there's only one way to make a redirect from A to B, so deleted redirects will never be reconsidered. (A limited form of G4, on the order of "no identical redirect can be recreated within 30 days" would be perfectly reasonable.) Septentrionalis 16:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects 

message: I would suggest adding this as a user page criterion:
*Attack pages. User pages or sub-pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject(s) or some other entity.
This would reflect the reality at WP:MFD, where such pages are always speedy deleted. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would oppose this wording, since it will be abused to get rid of pages collecting evidence of 3RR violations or for ArbCom cases. Septentrionalis 16:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't forsee a problem. The wording is basically the same as A6, and theoretically the A6 criterion could be used to delete articles about subjects where a neutral biography inevitably paints them in a bad light (Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Roy Whiting, etc). Of course it isn't, because admins are able to exercise their judgement and can tell the difference between an attack page that calls someone an arsehole and a neutral biography that happens to be about an arsehole. In the same way we are perfectly capable of telling the difference between a legitimate 'evidence collecting' page or a work-in-progress Arbcom case and an attack page. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, such a difference will come out in discussion. This is why this should be a criterion for deletion, but not a criterion for speedy deletion. Septentrionalis 18:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think there's a pretty big difference between "take it to MFD for a few opinions and then speedy delete" and just plain speedy deletion, even if that difference can't be encapsulated in policy. It can be useful to get a few more pairs of eyeballs on these if there is doubt. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested U3 - attack pages

message: I changed "Check Special:Listusers to verify" to "Check both Special:Listusers and Special:Contributions to verify," because some very old accounts have been removed from the system (perhaps all of them at some point in 2002?), even though their contributions are still logged. As an example, compare User:Forgotten gentleman with Special:Contributions/Forgotten gentleman. Ardric47 00:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  U2 modification 

message: Several weeks ago, in my proposals for "patently worthless media", I proposed, "Image pages for images hosted on Commons where there is no actual media on en Wikipedia."  This situation occurs one of two ways usually.  Sometimes, a picture is nominated to be a featured picture.  Then, the FPC tag is deleted, leaving an empty description page.  The other way is that someone leaves a comment about the image or provides some other useful information that would be more useful on the commons description page.
The general consensus was that this situation was already covered under the existing I2 criterion.  I have been, when I have found them, tagging such images with I2 and leaving this explanation - "this image is at Commons. There is no media here - just this empty description page."  Unfortunately, the response is often a blank stare and several messages have been left on my talk page informing me of the correct way to request that a Commons image be deleted.
So I would like to formalize the arrangement with a tag.  Please take a look at . Any thoughts? BigDT 14:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The description page, in many cases, should be blanked, not deleted, so as to preserve the edit history of the image description which has been copied to commons. The talk page is also used to place the images into en cateogires and tag images an en-Featured Pictures. 13:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for a new CSD template 

message: Over at Wikipedia:Requested templates#CSD, user:Deon555 suggested there be a version of template:PRODWarning or template:PRODNote to warn new users about an impending speedy deletion.  I see a procedural problem with such a template since CSD-eligible articles can be (and frequently are) deleted on sight by any admin.  I'm not sure, but I suspect the issue is deletion under A7, without any warning, of "good faith" creations by editors who simply don't know the rules.  WP:CSD already says (2nd paragraph) Users nominating a page for speedy deletion should specify which criteria the page meets; it would also be considerate to notify the original author — remember, everyone was new once.  Perhaps we should create template:CSDWarning and template:CSDNote (as a new pair of deletion notifications) not for the intent of warning about impending deletions, but to notify the original author, particularly "new" users, what might have happened to their article in cases that could even charitably be considered "good faith".  Comments about this? -- Rick Block (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would be an excellent addition, as long as they're easy to type and remember, e.g: ((sdna#|PAGENAME)) = Speedy Deletion Notice Attack-page (which would also include the text from ((test#)), ((sdne|PAGENAME)) for Speedy Deletion Notice Empty page (perhaps adding text saying that if they were going to add material to the article after creating it, they should include at least some content in the original version, and mark it with ((stub))), etc. --SB_Johnny | talk 16:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: If A7 is a problem, we should discuss refining or excluding it from CSD. Changing the whole system will just confuse users, as by the time they likely read it, the page will be gone. It's different for AFD/IFD, where there's some question and debate to be had about the deletion. If a speediable page gets deleted, it can be recreated (if appropriate) in non-speediable form. If admins are speedying pages that are outside the criteria, smack them with a templated trout. -- nae'blis 17:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the point is to let new contributors know that the article was deleted, and why... or at least that's why I think they're a good idea. I'm assuming this is a tag to be used by the person proposing the deletion as well as any admins on NPP? Of course they'll probably not be used every time (vandalism and spam is often reverted without followups on userpages), but I'd guess they'll get their share of use once patrollers become aware of them. --SB_Johnny | talk 17:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think this is sometimes a good idea, but only as an optional thing for more confusing/surprising speedies. CSD has to remain lightweight to be useful. Deco 17:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should a speedy ever be confusing or surprising? -- nae'blis 02:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because its personal opinion and subjectivity that can determine if something is worthy of being speedy deleted. Sadly a lot of admins take it upon themselves to remove things stating T1 and T2 in cases where that isn't clear. Enigmatical 03:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  Two reasons: A7, T1. Deco 21:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It should definitely be optional... and it certainly shouldn't be as arduous as starting an AfD. However, they would allow for easy ways of dealing with both vandals (example template) and newbies example template). --SB_Johnny | talk 17:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind... these templates seem to be around already! SB_Johnny | talk 20:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Many speedy deletions occur because a new editor expects to be able to work on an article in stages instead of having to finish it within 1-2 minutes of creation. Ardric47 20:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warning new users about speedy deletes 

message: The present G4 means that a deleted redirect can never be reconsidered; contrary to WP:NBD; since there is no way to make a different  redirect from A to B. WP:DRV will not reconsider, since applying G4 to a recreated redirect, even if it is recreated as a result of popular demand a year later, is still proceedurally correct. I suggest the following language:
:To avoid irreversible decisions, G4 shall not apply to redirect recreated more than 90 days after deletion. Such cases should be taken to WP:RfD, to ensure that there is still consensus to delete. 
Septentrionalis 23:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not seeing the problem, unless everyone turns into the most wikilawyerest of wikilawyers. For starters, if G4 overruled a DRV consensus to undelete as you say, then DRV could only undelete articles if they were substantially changed. That's not the case - DRV can undelete articles without them being substantially changed if the deletion was improper. Has there ever been a case of a redirect staying deleted per G4 when it clearly shouldn't have been, or is this an instruction-creeping solution in search of a problem? --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the problem is that, under present phrasing, all such speedies are proper. DRV would be discouraged from discussing "was this redirect useful?", in favor of "was it identical?", which the new redirect will have to be. Septentrionalis 02:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem now is that if a redirect is ever deleted, even by three or four discussants, it can be (legitimately) speedied every time anybody ever recreates it. (And under the proposal, we only have to discuss them if A recreates one and B RfD's it; i.e. if there is still disagreement on the matter.) Would adding "recreated by a different user" answer your objections? Septentrionalis 02:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: G4 on redirects

message: A proposal has been made which involves modifying the R2 criterion. You are invited to the discussion. --Zoz (t) 00:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested change in R2 

message: WP:FUC states: "Images which do not comply with this policy within 48 hours of the editor who uploaded the image being notified will be deleted. This is because fair use can be, and has been, applied incorrectly to images. The editor who uploaded the image should explain and provide evidence of how fair use applies to the image (though anyone can provide an explanation) and make every attempt to comply with Wikipedia's fair use policies. In addition, the Special:Upload page is very specific about our image upload conditions."
Shouldn't this page be updated to reflect this? -- Ned Scott 08:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the WP:FUC line should just be removed (after discussion there).  Anything in that list of policies that could cause a FU image to be removed is covered elsewhere.  So it really just amounts to instruction creep.  BigDT 00:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not at all true that things that can be speedied for failing WP:FUC are already listed here (#1? #2?), and that line was just added after a policy amendment.  I suggest that we amend I7 to reflect the situation.  Jkelly 01:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It shouldn't be removed because one page is about the policy and then this page is about the process of deleting that which does not follow the policy. -- Ned Scott 06:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Err, I just re-read that, you suggest it should be removed from WP:FUC. However, as I've said above, speedy deletion is the method of handling things, not the policy itself. The amendment in question was discussed and adopted after a discussion, so it's consensus has already been established .. Wikipedia talk:Fair use criteria/Amendment. -- Ned Scott 06:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: "No source", "no license", and "no rationale" (FUC #10) are bookkeeping mistakes.  Since not everyone visits Wikipedia every day, it makes sense to leave them at one week before deletion.  Violations of most of the other fair use criteria are fundamental to the image, so deleting the image right off the bat is a good idea. --Carnildo 07:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but the "no rationale" one is already policy for 48 hours. -- Ned Scott 07:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I6 or a new one should be added for new policy on WP:FUC 

message: I have a proposed addition for the G6 criterion: pages with a disambiguation term in their titles that are redirects. A lot of bad moves for disambiguation are made. For example, someone might come along and move steel to steel (metal) and make steel a disambiguation page. Then, it is decided the article should go back to its old name. Steel is deleted and the article is moved there. However, steel (metal) remains as a completely unnecessary redirect after the move. After making sure that any links to it have been changed, I think that the redirect should be deleted. -- Kjkolb 10:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is a result of the move discussion, then it's G6 (and should be noted in the discussion close); if not, it should go to RfD. But I don't think we need to add language; G6 says "like" because it's never going to be complete. Septentrionalis 16:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: There is actually a good reason to not delete such redirects.  An article that has existed under one valid name for any significent length of time may have external, non-Wikipedia links coming to it under that name. Keeping the redirect created by the move allows such links to remain valid. --Aquillion 22:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  G6 addition 

message: ... the set of non-notable companies does not fit into the set of non-notable clubs. A company is a club of select people (those who have been hired) who have the intention of generating income and -- just maybe -- serving customers.
I think Wikipedia already has a de facto speedy deletion criteria for non-notable companies/spam/advertising, even if de jure companies are excluded from A7 (I've seen companies get speedied, and I'll admit I've done this on several occasions too). Either the criteria ought to be changed to reflect this, or "companies do not fall under A7" ought to be enforced. I prefer the former option, obviously. theProject 05:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I still can't see how... 

message: Recently, a number of redirects have been inappropriately deleted under criterion G6:Housekeeping after simple page-moves.  The intention of this criterion is to allow the non-controversial deletion of a redirect in order to make way for a pagemove to the deleted title (for example, when merging pagehistories or reversing a contested pagemove).  The intention of this criterion was never to delete a redirect after a pagemove simply to leave it blank.  
The MediaWiki software automatically creates the redirect at the old location for a reason.  It assists in the preservation of the article's contribution history (a requirement of GFDL) and it serves to point the original author(s) to the new location of the article so they may contribute at the right place.
The only exception to this that comes to mind is when a page is moved from the article-space into the user-space.  In that situation, the left-over redirect should always be deleted.  Rossami (talk) 21:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sort of. The move function, unlike copy-paste moves, preserves the full history of the article (on the other hand, external links from mirrors of the article may become broken by a redirect deletion, so it should really have a grace period). Also, after page move vandalism, the leftover redirect can be deleted as simple vandalism (not G6). Other than that, I agree that G6 should not ever be used to delete a former title, even if it was simple miscapitalization - it should go through RfD to determine if that redirect is useful or not. Deco 21:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criterion G6: Housekeeping 

message: After Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7 needs verifiable claims, any objections to having "An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not plausibly assert the importance or significance of its subject." This is rather a change in the letter of the rule, where currently any insane assertion of "greatest in the universe" technically does not qualify, but are in practice rightly deleted. —Centrx→talk • 16:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I object to any widening of this already too-subjective rule. Deco 21:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case, an article that hinges on a completely and plainly implausable assertion (e.g. "John Smith is a high school student and President of the United States.") can probably just be deleted under G3 as vandalism.  --Aquillion 01:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plausible assertion of notability 

message: "Author deletion requests made in bad faith". IMO the addition is way too harsh. In a civilized society  people must give each other some slack. Ever heard about buyer's remorse? 
IMO if a person asks to delete his contrib within 2-3 days of creation and no one contributed substantially, why not indulge? We will create less enemies in this way. What can we possibly gain by being snatchy grabbers to risk a reputation? Don't you know that people hate abusers of fine print? (Yes, I know it is bad analogy, but the same style: "Sorry dear Sir or Madam, you ve seen the contract, gotcha!")  `'mikka (t) 21:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I think they're worth consideration for deletion, just not speedy deletion. I'd first like to see some consensus form around the decision of making the author happy over retaining the content. In cases where the content is either high-quality, fills a notable niche, or is a voluminous collection of many articles, I don't think happiness is likely to be of equal value. Since it's not clear cut and involves subjective judgement, speedy deletion is inappropriate. Deco 21:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  non-criteria 

message: Hopefully not the wrong place but I couldn't find better. Browsing round I found this page - Stacy Shields.  The first edit (after it was created) placed a speedy deletion because of vanity tag on it.  The next edit was by the creator  & removed that tag.  I can see no evidence of discussion of deletion.  There is a related page - SShields Couture that may be of interest.  I'd like any comments - I can always learn!  Anything from "none of your business" to "how interesting" will do. Regards & thanks -- Nigel  (Talk) 11:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put Stacy Shields on Afd as per Wikipedia:Autobiography.  JoJan 14:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The tag was correctly removed. Vanity is not a criterion for speedy deletion. Deco 20:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if removed by the page creator? --Nigel  (Talk) 08:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No matter who removed it. I'd advise Jaranda to cite a specific criterion for speedy deletion that clearly applies in the future. Deco 08:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - useful info --Nigel  (Talk) 08:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, speedy deletion tags may not be removed by the creator of the article. See the text of  and every other speedy deletion tag, which explictly says this in bold text. This comes under 'avoidant vandalism' if done repeatedly. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I should think anyone could remove a speedy tag that is placed out-of-process. Deco 01:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd (non)deletion query 

message: === Proposal ===
:R4. Redirects using punctuation that does not appear in the target's title.
:R4. Redirects with scare quotes that do not appear in the target's title or in the target article's alternate name which appears in bold on the target page. BigNate37(T) 20:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you give an example of a redirect that is set up like this? I can't say as I've ever encountered one.--Crossmr 19:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Examples include 10 of the 13 nominations from 17 August 2006 RfDs, "Hate Me" → Hate Me from 7 August 2006, MOBBSTARR' → Dice and k9 from 3 August 2006 (bad example), 6 of the 16 from 30 July 2006 RfDs... come to think of it, all but one of these are in the form of single- or double-quotes used as scare quotes except one. BigNate37(T) 20:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Just because they don't tend to be kept doesn't necessarily mean that a) they're all being nominated for deletion, or b) that there isn't a legitimate search target with quotes in some instances. I'm a little wary of the necessity of this at the moment. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, how would this CSD criteria affect, say, Life's Rich Pageant?  The apostrophe does not show up in the title of the album in reality, thus meeting your criteria, although this is a perfectly logical redirect as well as a perfectly logical way to type the title. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I intentionally left the wording terse as opposed to a complex-compound-triple-integral-fudge-ripple-run-on-sentence, which was my first idea. I see now with a couple examples that the wording needs revising, but could be a lot simpler than I had first thought.  Single quotes, double quotes, tildes and apostrophies used as scare quotes should all be considered to be scare quotes, of course. BigNate37(T) 20:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Why can't these just be speedied as unlikely typos (or attack pages)?  "Hate me" was speedy deleted.  I've tagged quoted redirects for speedies before as unlikely typos and nobody has ever complained. BigDT 21:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unlikely typos are open to much more interpretation, and as such have a short limit on how new a redirect can be to qualify under that criterion. Most of the redirects I've seen that this proposed criterion addresses are not attack pages. Admins continue to delete redirects out of process by misapplying CSD criteria, or applying WP:SNOWBALL, or whatever you wish to call it, but that is neither consistent nor efficient because many of them end up on RfD for a few days. An actual policy provision means that we wouldn't need rouge admins sniping these off of RfD; those finding them could simply tag them as CSD in the first place. An advantage to this is we would have less reason for these awkward pseudospeedy deletions: admins would be less likely to hastily delete a contested RfD nomination by mistake if they had less uncontested RfD nominations like these to content with. BigNate37(T) 22:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems too narrow. Other criteria apply to broad classes and have hundreds of candidates per day. For this, there was just this one crop, and some of them are reasonable typos. —Centrx→talk • 00:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the biggest problem here is that it potentially leaves too much guesswork.  Anything that is really an attack scare quote like John "the idiot" Doe can be speedied.  Anything that is "just for the heckofit" quotes, like "Michael Vick" or "Frank" Beamer can be speedied as an unlikely typo.  Anything that is potentially controversial or questionable (Tim "the tool man" Taylor, etc) needs to be discussed and not speedied anyway. You don't want an administrator having to have some kind of technical knowledge or knowledge about the subject to decide whether the quoted portion makes it a legitimate redirect or not.  If anyone with no knowledge of the subject can see that it is a nonsensical name, then it should be speedied.  If they can't, then it needs to go to RFD. BigDT 02:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any support for a CSD R4? 

message: :R4. Redirects using punctuation that does not appear in the target's title.
:R4. Redirects with scare quotes that do not appear in the target's title or in the target article's alternate name which appears in bold on the target page. BigNate37(T) 20:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: What does everyone think of this? At times, 25% of the listings on RfD would qualify for this, and I've not yet seen one kept or even had significant showing from the keep votes. Many redirects have single- or double-quotes as scare quotes, which are being nominated en masse. BigNate37(T) 19:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you give an example of a redirect that is set up like this? I can't say as I've ever encountered one.--Crossmr 19:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Examples include 10 of the 13 nominations from 17 August 2006 RfDs, "Hate Me" → Hate Me from 7 August 2006, MOBBSTARR' → Dice and k9 from 3 August 2006 (bad example), 6 of the 16 from 30 July 2006 RfDs... come to think of it, all but one of these are in the form of single- or double-quotes used as scare quotes except one. BigNate37(T) 20:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Just because they don't tend to be kept doesn't necessarily mean that a) they're all being nominated for deletion, or b) that there isn't a legitimate search target with quotes in some instances. I'm a little wary of the necessity of this at the moment. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, how would this CSD criteria affect, say, Life's Rich Pageant?  The apostrophe does not show up in the title of the album in reality, thus meeting your criteria, although this is a perfectly logical redirect as well as a perfectly logical way to type the title. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I intentionally left the wording terse as opposed to a complex-compound-triple-integral-fudge-ripple-run-on-sentence, which was my first idea. I see now with a couple examples that the wording needs revising, but could be a lot simpler than I had first thought.  Single quotes, double quotes, tildes and apostrophies used as scare quotes should all be considered to be scare quotes, of course. BigNate37(T) 20:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Why can't these just be speedied as unlikely typos (or attack pages)?  "Hate me" was speedy deleted.  I've tagged quoted redirects for speedies before as unlikely typos and nobody has ever complained. BigDT 21:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unlikely typos are open to much more interpretation, and as such have a short limit on how new a redirect can be to qualify under that criterion. Most of the redirects I've seen that this proposed criterion addresses are not attack pages. Admins continue to delete redirects out of process by misapplying CSD criteria, or applying WP:SNOWBALL, or whatever you wish to call it, but that is neither consistent nor efficient because many of them end up on RfD for a few days. An actual policy provision means that we wouldn't need rouge admins sniping these off of RfD; those finding them could simply tag them as CSD in the first place. An advantage to this is we would have less reason for these awkward pseudospeedy deletions: admins would be less likely to hastily delete a contested RfD nomination by mistake if they had less uncontested RfD nominations like these to content with. BigNate37(T) 22:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems too narrow. Other criteria apply to broad classes and have hundreds of candidates per day. For this, there was just this one crop, and some of them are reasonable typos. —Centrx→talk • 00:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the biggest problem here is that it potentially leaves too much guesswork.  Anything that is really an attack scare quote like John "the idiot" Doe can be speedied.  Anything that is "just for the heckofit" quotes, like "Michael Vick" or "Frank" Beamer can be speedied as an unlikely typo.  Anything that is potentially controversial or questionable (Tim "the tool man" Taylor, etc) needs to be discussed and not speedied anyway. You don't want an administrator having to have some kind of technical knowledge or knowledge about the subject to decide whether the quoted portion makes it a legitimate redirect or not.  If anyone with no knowledge of the subject can see that it is a nonsensical name, then it should be speedied.  If they can't, then it needs to go to RFD. BigDT 02:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: :Moved recent discussion from section Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Expand A7.
A template is up for deletion since it refers to A7 to speedy-delete unnotable web sites. Some might argue that websites are groups, but simply expanding A7 would be very useful. Allowing speedy deletions of unnotable websites is certainly in line with the spirit of the rule that grants speedy delettion of articles on unnotable groups, clubs, bands or people. --Swift 00:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly oppose any expansion of the already too-subjective, too-general rule A7, which is often interpreted loosely by the single admins that apply it. Deco 05:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Could you explain this a bit further? Do you mean that the term notable is too loose? Are you both opposed to widening the rule (adding more items in similar vain) as well as deepening it (making it further reaching)? --Swift 08:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am opposed to any expansion whatsoever. I disagree with it because what constitutes a "assertion of notability" is subject to interpretation, and because often legitimate articles are written (such as on historical figures) that contain, at best, an implicit assertion of notability. Deco 23:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not convinced of A7's usability, but it does need SOME sort of refinement. Websites and startup businesses could fall under a  generalized "no claim of notability" criterion, but we can't start biting the newbies just because their first edit doesn't include what the person's fame and fortune is. I've seen way too many articles tagged and bagged in under 5 minutes (and then sometimes redeleted as G4) to be comfortable with an expansion of A7 at this time. Maybe set a "no plausible claim of notability, and the article is more than X hours/days old". There's a fine line here between chasing off new contributions, and keeping the dreck out. -- nae'blis 17:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: P.S. There's a lot of commentary on this page about the problems/limitations with A7. This should probably be moved down the page/split off into Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Proposal/A7 refinement to get the widest possible consensus. -- nae'blis 18:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it should have a delayed element. Broaden the class of things that fall under it, but only allow deletion after they have been around for a week or so. —Centrx→talk • 18:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After a week, you're faster going through  anyway, aren't you? I was thinking more like 12-24 hours. -- nae'blis 18:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Prod can be removed by anyone. The idea is that the article has been around for a while, it is not "in progress" to making  a claim of notability and it is not a popular sort of article that is on its way to indicating notability. The time limit could be anything to that end. At the extreme, deleting 10-minute-old pages with A7 should be stopped. Just a notion. —Centrx→talk • 18:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, you'll get no argument from me on giving progressive saves some slack, but the trick is how to word it without hamstringing NPP for things like kids in school, garage bands, somebody's aged grandmother, etc. -- nae'blis 20:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Why expand it at all before discussion here?  It's controversial enough without trying to add corporations and websites, and there's no indication that it needs to be expanded. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? It hasn't been expanded, and this is the discussion about whether and how to expand it. —Centrx→talk • 18:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's part of the template thing, no?  Either way, is there anything demonstrating the need to expand it?  --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd still like somebody to explain why the current A7 needs to be speedy? "Oh no, they aren't notable! Quick, get it off the servers, before the notability police see it!"?  would seem to be able to do the same job just fine if we dropped the "uncontroversial" constraint (which is often ignored anyway). Yomanganitalk 18:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Prod can be removed by anyone and then it has to go to AfD, so for many of these it means adding to the already many AfDs and the extra work that goes with nominating, having several people vote on it, and then closing it, when for the majority of these sorts they are going to be unanimously deleted on AfD, or in some cases are just deleted peremptorily by admins where they vaguely fall into the CSD criteria. So, the question is: what is a good, well-defined, well-worded criterion that would include the things that are always deleted at AfD, but not admit the deletion of legitimate articles. So, for example, if Bill Smith the insurance salesman makes an article about himself and also an article about his personal website, which happens to have some insurance tips, why shouldn't the website article be deleted along with his person article? —Centrx→talk • 19:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but the removed prod having to go to AFD is a failure of the prod process, which at the moment acts more or less like  for non-owners or a clear-up for abandoned articles. Sticking random notability criteria in Speedy delete isn't a solution because the problem doesn't lie there.  needs some teeth - removal without a reason shouldn't mean that it can't be replaced for example. Yomanganitalk 23:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why that's a "failure" of prod (as opposed to maybe a "failing"). Prod is designed for lightweight, uncontroversial deletions that neverteheless don't rise to the level of speedy deletion. If it's controversial in any way (and that includes if any editor disagrees with the prod), it either stays or gets a wider audience at AfD. That's how it was designed and how it was accepted - we can't change the rules now because we don't like them. Several processes failed to gather approval before prod was formed. Where do you see the problem is with prod? Most prods suceed in their goal, according to at least one survey of the data. -- nae'blis 03:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what is meant is that prod breaks by allowing the 2-day old user who wrote a fan page about their favorite website to just remove the prod tag. —Centrx→talk • 23:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, perhaps I should have said failing rather than failure. Essentially what I'm saying is that  succeeds in its very limited aims, but there should be something between the current  and AFD, and that it doesn't need to be a rather flimsy A7.  I'd like to tighten up the prod rules slightly, but my main problem is with A7 being speedy - there are lots of articles that don't conform to the policies which don't fall under speedy criteria, so why should this? It doesn't hurt anybody by being on the servers for a week; it is likely to be newcomers that fall foul of it (as, unlike experienced contributors, they don't know that inserting a rather flimsy claim to notability will avoid the article being tagged under A7); the inclusions and exclusions are ridiculous (I can make an article about my pet, my house, or my imaginary friend under a strict reading of the rule but not one about myself); and I'm guessing a lot of the potential A7 deletions end up at AFD anyway, because nobody is quite sure where to draw the line on the notability claims. By the way, I'm pretty sure we can change the rules if we don't like them (otherwise this discussion is a waste of time!). Yomanganitalk 16:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gotcha. Prod works most of the time, and A7 works some of the time, is overapplied some of the time (and passes, and sometimes looks like it should be applied (imaginary friends, pets, etc) but can't be so it takes up time and space at AFD. I'd support, personally, an A7 that included real-world people/groups/bands/companies/pets that make no claim of notability/importance and are more than 24 hours old. Maybe this requires some sort of  template for New Pages Patrol that can be revisited, or maybe just better use of prod, but it has a lot of potential to trim AFD, if recent days' entries are any indication (yesterday (unscientifically): 34 RL persons, ~29 lists, 21 businesses, 19 websites, 15 musicians/groups/albums, 14 fictional characters/references, 9 neologisms/dictionary definitions, 6 original research/essays/POV pages, 4 webcomics, 3 RL groups, 3 RL places, 3 pieces of software - with some noticable overlap between websites & businesses, and musicians & people). -- nae'blis 22:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Something like that  template to slow things down may help address some of the points, but I'd be worried that it would get removed by the editor without comment, just as  can be. Although I'm loathe to suggest another process, perhaps a NPP watchlist page, where New page patrollers can add pages that look like they are likely to fall under A7 (or just need watching), would be the solution. If A7 is sticking around to prevent things going to AFD, it should definitely be reworded to list its exclusions rather than its inclusions (I think allowing pets and buildings to pass was probably an accidental omission rather than a conscious choice). Yomanganitalk 08:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Everyone in this discussion should be aware of/read Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Proposal#Failed_proposals where unremarkable bands failed with 69% support (at the time), unremarkable websites failed with 58% support (too subjective), and unremarkable clubs failed with 37% support (too vague). Also vanity articles unimproved in 3 days failed an earlier proposal with 58% support, which is probably relevant. A lot of the prior discussion seems to center around the idea that "notability is too hard for one person to determine", which has a lot of validity. Since admins can use speedy deletion criteria to delete articles themselves without ever having it be tagged/go into the category, it's important that we not shortcut any ambiguous cases. It's also important to note that the original proposal emphasized that it was about "real people", and even then only squeaked by with 74% support. Note the original "An article about a real person that does not assert..." wording. bands/groups were added in December 2005; the discussion is referenced here and the poll itself was closed here. It's still all about people, not websites/corporations, though, which would be a stumbling block to expanding A7. On the other hand, can someone provide statistics on uncontested deletions of nn websites/companies on AFD? Maybe that would provide the data needed to gain support. -- nae'blis 22:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanding A7 

message: How about adding a U3 "Blatant advertising". Self promotion/sandboxing etc on userpages is expressly forbidden by WP:NOT/WP:USER yet there are probably thousands of such userpatges out there (I'm talking about stuff like User:Group5motorsport, User:Junwang, User:Flatratefax, User:Motargem, User:Unisoftdatatech (will be MFD'ing them all)), and they are generaly left alone due to our traditional respect for the "privacy" of userpages, indeed advertisements created in the main namespace are often even moved to userpsace rather nominated for deletion! This seems to have resulted in userpsace becoming a "free for all" where people can drop theyr google bombs and plug theyr products in relative peace. Such userpages don't stand a snowball's chance in hell to survive a MFD debate, and a few bold admins are already quietly deleting such pages with no great controversy, so IMHO we should simply make it "official". The only problem I can see is wording it properly so it's neither easy to game nor too wide as to result in "legitemate" userpages getting deleted because they included a link to some commercial website. --Sherool (talk) 23:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any statistics on this question?  CSDs are usually proposed when AFD (or it's equivalent process) is getting overwhelmed.  How many of these a day are at MfD?  Is the problem really beyond the ability of MfD to handle efficiently?  I believe we should look for solid evidence that we need yet another CSD criterion before we add yet more complexity to this page.  Especially since, as you say, this one may be particularly difficult to word properly.  Rossami (talk) 00:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New userpage criterion? 

message: Unsalvageably is not a word (Ref: Oxford English Online, Merriam-Webster Online, and American Heritage). I took the liberty of doing a full text search of Oxford English Dictionary Online, and unsalvageably does not show up anywhere – that is any definition, quotation, variant spelling, etc. Furthermore, neither salvageably nor unsalvageable are words, thus making this use of erroneous sesquipedalia verba in official policy, CSD G1, all the more abnormal. The use of a real word would be less offensive and more intelligible, especially considering this is often used as a notice to new users who have just made an inappropriate entry. JustOneJake 19:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The meaning is obvious. It's the adverb form of "unsalvageable", which is quite common and found in the Merriam Webster dictionary, among others. The word "unsalvageable" has been used in headlines by the NPR and the New York Times. It's a real word. Deco 23:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken, unsalvageable is a word, sorry for the mistake. The meaning may seem obvious, but I believe it is highly ambiguous, bad English, and looks poorly upon Wikipedia. salvageably are unsalvageably are not words in any English dictionary. Dictionaries list adverbs formed by adding a derivational morpheme, namely -ly, such as systematically (M-W), accountably (M-W), and beautifully (M-W). Complex derivations that are not considered words in common use are not listed, like tastablely and unsalvageably. Would you find it odd if someone said, That fruit was tastablely delicious? Furthermore, consider the phrase it is used in:  an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content. This implies unsalvageably modifies the adjective, incoherent. We are suggesting the incoherence of the page can not be salvaged. It makes more sense to use the adjective unsalvageable, and definitively describing the noun, page. Thus, suggesting the page is neither coherent nor salvageable. JustOneJake 17:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To the contrary, it is the coherence to which the adverb is intended to apply. The point is that if the page can be edited to be coherent, it should be. This often applies to articles written by authors with a poor knowledge of English. Deco 10:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is not in the dictionary, it is safe to say that this is a nonce word made up of a real word and a familiar suffix. We are not documenting the word itself but using it for its meaning; if it suits the purpose there is nothing wrong with using a nonce word in policy. Having said that, if a suitable alternative can be agreed upon there is no harm in removing the word. I really don't see it being a big deal either way, there are more pressing issues on Wikipedia. BigNate37(T) 13:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I find it even more disturbing, and inaccurate, if we actually intend to be modifying the adjective incoherent. Incoherent implies parts of what has been written lack connection or unity. It is doubtful the articles flagged with this message actually contain mutually exclusive or contradictory statements. Thus, while the articles may often be unintelligible and not encyclopedic in nature, the coherence almost always could be salvaged given the authors further explain themselves. So take this into consideration along with the nonexistence of the word and the novice linguistics skills of the average offender of the policy. The suggestion (below) for irredeemably confused, by Deco, is strikingly better in this situation, as it more accurately describes the situation at hand. JustOneJake 20:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage of Unsalvageably 

message: You know, looking back.  I realised I was quite silly and didn't cleanly read the criteria.  We ask that uploaders in all sorts of places put fair use rationales.  But there's no teeth to it with dozens of fair use templates that circumvent the point, I belive, of I6.  I've tagged (and probably gotten several images deleted as a result) by tagging images which were marked as fair use, but not with  or .  If you want to actually upload some images, you can avoid having to put a fair use rationale if you create your own template.  , for example, was created after the cutoff.  No longer do you need to provide a rationale, you have the fair use copyright tag that isn't !  Yet people abuse  and  constantly, and the images are used for almost decoration.  The strong recommendation that images have a fair use rationale needs teeth.  Several editors already do this, they take the time to provide fair use rationales when they don't neccessarily need to because the image would have to go through a lengthy deletion process to be deleted, when they can just be lazy.  I7 has some usefulness to remedy this, but its not enough.  Please help to amend this criteria to include all the fair use tags. Kevin_b_er 07:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing fair-use rationale (I6) needs teeth 

message: Please see Nordie Tullion a.k.a. Nordie4u. This article asserts importance, so under current rules, can't be speedy deleted. However, it's sources are either non-existent or don't mention the person at all. No hits on Google. Why doesn't an obviously fictional person, with no verifiable information in the article, qualify as speedy? Or does it, and I'm just missing which reason it falls under?—Chidom talk  17:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because you can't find evidence doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist.  This is absolutely a situation where an AfD is warranted - if it's a hoax, 5 more days with multiple sets of eyes won't hurt to make it clear, and if it isn't, it'll easily be proven otherwise.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly as Jeff said.  It's no great tragedy when we can't use speedy deletion for everything. Mangojuicetalk 18:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: So you've looked in every possible place that this could be? You don't think other people may be better equipped to find information in places you're not thinking of? I just had this exact issue with Captain Underpants and the Terrible Re-Turn of Tippy Tinkletrousers: I thought it was a hoax by someone who's made some vandal-like edits in the past. It turns out that, even though the book isn't listed at Amazon, on the author's site, or anywhere else, it IS previewed on the final page of the most recent book, something I was unlikely to notice anyitme in the next week. If I had speedied it, it would have been a very dumb mistake. Instead, I took it to AfD, a source was found, and the article should be kept. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It's too open to interpretation. It will give administrators the excuse to delete a large amount of the biography stubs we have without any warning, and it may actually unintentionally apply to some articles on people from long ago. Some editors (and admins) will interpret the word evidence. Do we have evidence Jesus existed? These kind of violations of WP:OR need to be taken to AfD. While awaiting deletion, an AfD notice and a  tag will ensure nobody takes the article as fact. BigNate37(T) 19:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Then, by all means, stub it and send it to AfD.  Hoaxes are bad, yes, but they shouldn't be speedyable.  I understand what you're saying about the sources, but there has to be some level of effort to affirm it's a hoax, or some sort of consensus.  We disagree, and that's fine, but hoaxes don't appear to have an consensus to be speedyable, and I don't see that changing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, generally hoaxes shouldn't be speediable. An article whose only claim of notability is "was elected POTUS while smoking crack and banging four year olds", on the other hand, is demonstrably false, and vandalism. I would think verifiably false claims of notability (i.e. unique awards) wouldn't count for A7, as the claim can simply be removed from the article. -- nae'blis 20:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "POTUS" = President of the United States (I didn't uderstand the abbreviation.)—Chidom talk  20:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: How much time does it take to put a  tag on a page rather than go through listing it as an ? That seems significant to me. How much of the backlog at AfD could be reduced? There are obvious cases, as in this one, where I still feel speedy is justifiable; the sources are either dead-ends or don't mention the person, none of the standard sources for finding a porn filmography list him, there are no Google hits&nmdash;surely one of those would support an AfD, but the lack of all of them? The only reason this can't be listed as speediable under current guidelines is that A7 doesn't apply here because of the assertion of importance, which has not been sourced and is not verifiable by any usual means. What is the harm of deleting the article under these circumstances and having it re-created with proper sources?—Chidom talk  00:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: For the record, I also agree that hoaxes should not be speediable, for the reasons above. Deco 13:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And remember, there is the occasional hoax, like Dominion of Melchizedek, which is notable as a hoax. The proper thing to do in such cases is to make sure the article presents it as one, rather than delete (often difficult, as with the example). AfD is more likely to catch this. Septentrionalis 17:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cannot find evidence that person exists 

message: I do most of my wiki use at work.  I'm typically researching some technical term or company.  I use wikipedia a great deal in this search.  It saddens me when it appears wikipedia does not have the article I'm looking for.  At work I don't have the option of creating a proper article.  So instead, when I found a different website which described what I was looking for I would create a talk page for the notable article that does not yet exist, post the link, and give a one or two sentence description why the article should exist.  Is this Kosher?  I've asked this question all over the place, generally people tell me yes, but I think I should ask again here :) Mathiastck 18:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. The criterea already cover this IMHO. "Talk pages of pages that do not exist, unless they contain deletion discussion that isn't logged elsewhere or notes that would help in creating an article.(...)" (emphasis mine). --Sherool (talk) 18:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree :)  But someone put all the talk pages I created, that didn't have attached articles, up for speedy deletion.  I'm not sure what to do about that now, or how to prevent it in the future.  I am not familiar with the sppedy deletion process, or how to respond to it.  I was thinking of making a template or something I could just drop on a new talk page I create, saying something like, This talk page was created to encourage the creation of an article on this subject.  It is notable because of X, these Y links should assist future editors.  Mathiastck 19:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on how recent the edits to the talk page are, I would think.  If someone created a new talk page as you did, it probably shouldn't be speedied immediately.  OTOH, a talk page which corresponds to a deleted page (admins occasionally forget), contains nothing but garbage or has an inappropriate title, or a page which was moved without moving the talk page (it happens), or which has sat untouched for weeks...those are good speedy candidates.  In questionable cases,  may be more appropriate, to see if anyone wants to keep it for a good reason.  There isn't an (usually) urgency to delete stray talk pages, after all... --EngineerScotty 19:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I took the liberty of creating a template for this purpose. It is . Feel free to use it as-is, change it, move it to your userspace, or whatever. Just let me know if you definately will not use it, and I'll slap a  on it and get rid of it. BigNate37(T) 19:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you kindly!   Bignate I will definitely use it :) Mathiastck 20:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk Pages designed to encourage the creation of notable articles