Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 11

message: This is a perennial proposal, but I really don't understand why this does not fly. Here is an attemp on a compromise, sligthly wordy but it seems needed. This proposal meets all the criteria a proposal has to meet: It's objective (a checklist), it's uncontestable (images properly mived to Commons are routinely deleted at IFD, and this proposal includes an escape clause), it arises frequently (thousands of images meet it), it's nonredundant (obviously).
I8: Images available as bit-for-bit identical copies on Commons, provided the following conditions are met:
* The image's license and source status is beyond reasonable doubt, and the license is undoubtedly accepted at Commons.
* All image revisions that meet the first condition have been transferred to Commons as revisions of the Commons copy and properly marked as such.
* All information on the image description page is present on the Commons image description page. That includes the complete upload history with links to the uploader's local user pages.
** If there is any information not relevant to any other project on the image description page (like featured status), the image description page must be undeleted after the file deletion.
* The image is not protected, and the image description page does not contain a request not to move it to Commons.
* The image has been marked with Template:NowCommons or Template:NowCommonsThis for at least one week.
* If the image is available on Commons under a different name than locally, it must not be used on any local page whatsoever.
That is more complicated than is required (the second and third points in particular are not required for public domain images at all), but they don't hurt either. Of course, administrators acting on this need to be well-versed with image licensing policy both here and on Commons, but people interested in this criterion generally are. Comments? -- grm_wnr Esc 11:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks okay to me in terms of the criteria of objective, uncontestable, occurs frequently, and nonredundant at the top of the page, but it is rather complicated. I'd vote yes on it. Deco 14:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes please!  There's no reason to list on IfD when they're invariably getting deleted anyway, somtimes without even looking at the commons page.  This way we can make sure an admin actually looks at it, and we don't have to wait for 5-10 days. --Rory096 17:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposed I8: Images available on Commons (again) 

message: Bold or not, I'd rather have opinions before editing a policy page. :)
I'm curious if there would be any point to request that people not subst CSD templates on to-be-deleted pages? ~Kylu (u|t)  20:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally think this doesn't matter at all either way. I'd rather see them not substed, since I don't buy arguments about server resources, especially for articles that are about to be deleted anyway, but it doesn't hurt all that much. Deco 23:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It's just extra syntax to remember and type out all the time, in my opinion. Kind of seems instruction-creepy to me. --W.marsh 23:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CSD templates, as opposed to , aren't dated.  (I'm assuming that's the reason that  is substed, and produces a nasty warning if you forget, so that the date sticks around and doesn't change every time the page is reloadededited?) --EngineerScotty 23:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's why prod is substed, and there's no reason to subst CSD templates. , however, should be substed. --Rory096 18:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't really get the fixation with substing everything. It's easier not to, the article usually exist for a minimal period and are viewed a small number of times while they do exist. Those articles that are incorrectly tagged (and there are a good number) will finish up with gallons of unnecessary wikicode in them to scare newbies away: it's much easier for them (and admins) to just remove a curious thing with an obvious meaning. -Splash - tk 23:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm, these are fine arguments, but wasn't Kylu's proposal to not subst CSD templates? It seems like everyone is in agreement. Deco 00:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahem. I read that too quickly. Yes, we're in agreement. -Splash - tk 05:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subst: 

message: This image  looks like a professionally crafted poster for the ART FLAME event it is being used for, however its license says that User:Kavala created it. I'm not sure what (if anything) to do about this. Thanks. BigNate37 07:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just found the  tag. Duh. BigNate37 08:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can Someone Take a Look? Looks Like Wrong License Given 

message: Lately, I've noticed a rise in cases of images tagged with A6 templates.  These taggings were correct in sentiment: one image included the word "Dumbass" under a person's picture.  Of couse, CSD A6 doesn't apply to images; I am also wary of elevating A6 to General status, because (although personal attacks are always bad), I wouldn't want a personal attack speedy applied to a project-page in the midst of sometimes heated policy discussions.
In cases so far, I have deleted the attack images under G3, which is, in fact, what was formerly done for personal attack articles prior to A6 being adopted.  Still, to clarify matters, I would propose an image criterion allowing for the speedy deletion of images obviously intended with the sole intent to disparage someone.  I don't think this is controversial: it wouldn't cover uploading images that might be called "unflattering" (eg., the first President Bush vomiting on the Prime Minister of Japan), but would cover a case where the image (or its description) literally labeled someone a "moron," etc.  I know G3 applies, but (as with the creation of A6), a specific criterion makes the issue more clear for all. Xoloz 02:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having drawn no objection, nor comment, I will add CSD I8 as a corollary (and rephrasing) of A6, and see what people think then. Xoloz 04:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Attack Images

message: A user page that contains only libellous material, hate, or other legally questionable or inflammatory text in its history should be eligible for speedy deletion.  It does not fall under A6 because it is not in the article space.  Denelson83  05:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than create yet another CSD criterion to remember, why not simply elevate this clause from Articles-only to General?  (A6 -> G9)  Is there a reason why this clause would not apply in every space?  Rossami (talk) 05:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd imagine this is already standard practice even though it's not written into policy.  Seems entirely reasonable, although to elevate it, we'd have to make sure it's available in the event of arbitration situations between users. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this one should be made policy. A6, I8, and all others should be merged into a criterion G9 - Content which has been added only to disparage or attack someone. Stifle (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSD U2 proposed 

message: The rather non-controversial rule I2 reads:
:2. Corrupt or empty image.
However, it is possible to save JPEGs, PNGs, and especially SVGs in some rather exotic ways that not all browsers support correctly. As such, I added a recommendation that they first preview a resized thumbnail; all such thumbnails are rendered by the engine and should present no problem for browsers. Deco 12:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing the part of my comment regarding SVGs - these are already rendered by the engine as PNG on the image description page. Deco 12:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Corrupt verified by two parties (nominator and admin) is most probably really corrupt, and not only exotic. Besides we have now undeletion. -- Omniplex 21:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, first of all CSD doesn't require a separate nominator and deleter (does it?) and second, it doesn't matter how many users can't read the image as long as the thumbnails rendered by the engine can be, since that's what appears in the articles. And well, yes, undeletion does help. Deco 21:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slight addition to I2 

message: At the moment, G7 includes the sentence - "If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request."  However, if an author blanks the page, it will immediately be recreated by the bots.  This sentence should be removed to avoid confusion, and it should be made clear that authors have to use the  tag to request a G7. Tevildo 20:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What bots are you talking about?  Rossami (talk) 01:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: --William Allen Simpson 02:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think there is any need to change this. If the author was the only editor and they blank the article, it seems reasonable to assume that they want it deleted. Wikipedia:Use common sense applies too. Stifle (talk) 10:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, the admin's decision to G7 the article in this sort of case shouldn't be difficult.  However, my concern is that an inexperienced editor, wondering how to delete an article, will go to WP:CSD and think, from reading the G7 description, that all they need to do is blank the page. (I could also comment that "blank the page" is by no means an obvious piece of terminology, but that's a separate issue).  We need to make it clear that such a procedure won't generally work, and that, in order to ensure their request gets admin attention, they need to put in the db-author tag instead. Tevildo 14:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  G7 - correction required 

message: There are some cases, and I'm thinking especially of advertizing, where it's not possible to set a blanket rule because one persons' spam is anothers 1st draft of an encyclopedic article. As a result some new adspam articles sit on AFD for up to a week, when it's really very clear within hours that they're almost certainly non-notable and rapidly heading for WP:SNOW.
I'm thinking of this one, as an example of such an article: WP:AFD/Kimi height. 
How would people feel about a policy tweak, either 
# "Reroute to SD" is a valid response and consensus on AFD, or alternatively,
# WP:SD allows rerouting blatent non-starters from AFD to SD, given admin concurrance and AFD voting to date?
What I'm thinking of is something simple, like that an advertizing article may be moved from AFD to SD "at admin discretion", if it appears to be NN advertising, and AFD appears to have already reached a tentative consensus (eg,to the point of WP:SNOW)? 
Just to have a way for the more blatent judgement cases to be handled faster. Thoughts? It would allow a quick way to use judgement to fast delete adverts, bio's etc that aren't likely ever to survive AFD but which aren't formally allowed to be SD'ed in case notable articles get removed by mistake. 
FT2 (Talk | email) 16:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know why I can't reply directly to this, it's really weird. But speedying things because they're "on the way to WP:SNOW" isn't possible because WP:SNOW isn't anything, and there's no way to predict the future regarding what can turn up in an AfD discussion. To expand, there's a reason the discussion rages on for 5 days - it's a discussion, and to shut that down because you think there's a "tentative consensus" should never, ever fly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Articles on AFD that are speediable get done so all the time; just mark your response speedy delete and it has the same effect as what you're suggesting (and has more basis in policy/procedure than WP:SNOW). -- nae'blis (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, that's roughly what I meant. Will clarify that in the relevant policies then. I think that might be all that was missing. FT2 (Talk | email) 16:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although some debates on AfD are being closed early because of claims that the article is advertising, a neologism, etc., this is out-of-process.  There is no policy basis or consensus for this behavior. Spacepotato 00:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The important point is that articles must be speediable, as Nae'blis says. If they already meet a CSD, then sure, speedy them, but we can't speedy things because someone thinks they meet WP:SNOW, which as others have pointed out, isn't anything, not policy, not consensus, not nothing. If it's not "formally allowed" to be speedied, it's not allowed to be speedied. · rodii · 01:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rerouting AFD to SD for blatent adspam cases 

message: Several flags from "Flags of the World" website have been nominated for speedy deletion due to a non-commercial license. I do not believe that they should be deleted, and have written a query at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Fair use claims. - Mike Rosoft 15:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, these should not be deleted. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Flags nominated for speedy deletion

message: Does anyone here think it would be good idea to reduce the lag time for CSDs I4, I5, and I6 from seven days to five? I have observed that for the majority of the images deleted under those criterions, the uploader never returns to make any changes to the image page, for better or for worse. And, even in cases where they do come back, it usually happens quickly, within two or three days. Right now, I'm not considering a formal proposal, but would like to see what everyone thinks of the idea. Alr 21:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not a good idea; it will burn some people, who edit weekly, quite badly in exchange for slightly increasing the speed of removal. (After all, it can take a while for an image to be tagged.) Septentrionalis 16:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough on burning weekly uploaders, but in the cases where images are tagged long after they are uploaded, how many uploaders are still around by then? I would think that a sizable portion are hit-and-runners who do a few edits just to try things out, then leave. Alr 01:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People should consider the use of  on the pages where the images are being used, so that regular editors of the articles can help out in these cases when the original uploader is long gone. howcheng  {chat} 23:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea of shortening the window, but another practical reason for the seven is that it allows OrphanBot plenty of time to remove the images from the article. This usually happens around day five (apparently Carnildo was bombarded with complaints when it happened too soon after tagging and uploader notification).  Like the caption template, the removal of the image also warns the article's community that the image is in danger. ×Meegs 06:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reducing CSD I4, 5, and 6 lag time from seven days to five 

message: Somebody thought it would be helpful to add wiktionary links to T1.  We probably don't need that because the templates that have been deleted from Wikipedia, whose deletions have been confirmed by review, provide sufficient guidance on what Wikipedia considers summarily deletable from template space.
Since most controversial templates have been removed to user space, the problem has largely subsided, and I suggest that the test to be applied in T1 should be assumed, in the absence of other factors, to approximate to the User Page guideline.  --Tony Sidaway 21:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry but I disagree, and I was the one who added those links. The reason I added them was specifically to try and remove the "smoke and mirrors" that seems to come with those terms. The removal of Template:User transhumanist was what made it seem inconsistent to me. If we look literally at the term divisive then a template simply stating you are male clearly and undeniably IS divisive. So why the does this stay and others go? Clearly we do need to state definitions here and what better definition than one provided from this set of websites itself? The template is also not inflammatory, there is no global outcry or shouts of injustice or immorality with transhumanism, and with any topic there can always be those who vehemently oppose something... if I were to start objecting profusely against those people who like spagetti would it turn that template into an inflammatory one? I personally find religion itself offensive (as do many others), so a userbox which states someone follows a particular religion is something I would object against... so why do they have a right to exist but stating a belief in ones own evolution is considered "divisive and inflammatory"? The problem has not subsided... it has been moved into "slow motion" with templates being deleted every now and then in order to avoid the "do not go on mass deletions" dictate. Enigmatical 22:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Tony's edit, precisely because this rule is not to be interpreted literally but based on consensus and precedent. It would be better to provide links to some relevant undeletion debates. Deco 17:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I have often found in a lot of cases where disagreement occurs it is a result of differing terms. One believes it means one thing and the other believes it means another. They both argue the other is wrong when in reality it is just a case of them not agreeing on the fundamental definition of what they are arguing over. I have also found that often those who wish to abuse terminology don't wish that terminology to be properly defined because in doing so it nullifies their ability to abuse it. Keep the term more.... fuzzy and thus you can always claim that something falls within its definition. It was my hope, in good faith to try and eliminate confusion and the potential for abuse by simply making the terminology clearer. I guess we must now go through another several months of the same old thing without any resolution of the matter. Is that desired? Enigmatical 23:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The original wording assumed a definition of both of the words. It did not place its worth on the definitions that Wikisource is able to come up with. It is much like saying you have to define every word explicitly or else it will be "fuzzy". The criteria survived a strenuous initiation period and should be fine as it is, given the low number of templates likely to be even under it given the recent happenings (see Jimbo on Userboxes). Also, it is all well and good to complain when I put warnings about assuming good faith on your talk page, maybe you should be less hasty to put the words "bad faith edit" in your edit summaries. Its not like you had everyone backing you on your edit yourself. I for one don't think it should be there, but that had nothing to do with my warning you. Ansell 08:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation of [[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]'s removal of wiktionary links from T1

message: A few weeks ago, Kjkolb et al. pointed out that CSD G1 should be reworded because it is so often misused—it is abused to cover articles that are merely untrue or poorly written, but which are not patent nonsense by Wikipedia's criterion.  I am requesting comments on the following rewording of G1:
G1.  Gibberish, called by Wikipedians patent nonsense—an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content. This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English,  badly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes.
Spacepotato 21:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why we can't take out the reference to "patent nonsense" altogether. Why not just say "An unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content"? Sometimes it's better to omit jargon than modify it. Deco 18:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason to call it "patent nonsense" is so that G1 can refer to Wikipedia:Patent Nonsense, which gives a more extensive definition.  Ultimately, it might be best to rename the Wikipedia:Patent Nonsense page, but rewording G1 seems an easier first step. Spacepotato 21:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess the question for me is whether we need a more extensive definition. It seems easily and accurately describable in one sentence, and we don't provide more extensive descriptions of most things in the list (except maybe vandalism). Deco 17:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with this is that this will tempt editors to use the reasoning I don't immediately understand it, therefore it's unsalvageably incoherent (analogous to: I never heard of it, so it's not notable).  I think it's better to leave in the link. Spacepotato 22:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree with this. Stifle (talk) 23:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on rewording G1 

message: I work on speedied articles sometimes, and I would say that easily 25% of speedies that I see shouldn't be speedies. Some should be PRODs, some should go to AfD, and some shouldn't even go to AfD. Of the rest, some can be salvaged with juat a bit of editing, and some can be salvaged with some more serious editing. 25%. The other 75% are properly speediable.
I'm not sure that all of these are getting the consideration they deserve, especially when there's a backlog. I just had an article I was salvaging deleted out from under me despite the ((hangon)) tag. There had been a big backlog, and whoosh it was gone, which is all well and good, but if the closing admin in is a hurry to clear the backlog, an inappropriately speedied article can slip into nothingness.
I'm just saying. I don't know the answer. But the CSD are honored more in the breach, sometimes, I guess. Herostratus 02:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: <dreaming>With m:Help:DPL admins (or in fact anybody) could list categories like the speedy deletion candidates sorted by date of addition excluding "hangon"-cases. </dreaming> Time for a DPL-petition at the Pump? -- Omniplex 09:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meanwhile, in the trenches... 

message: That's not a spectacular way of putting it ... but it would be nice if vandalism-only images, vanity images (beyond something used legitimately on a user page), obviously stolen images with no fair use criteria, images where people are using Wikipedia for free webhosting, etc, could be deleted without the formality of sitting thought IFD.  I'm listing below a few ideas for new criteria.  Feel free to mercilessly edit, aggressively mock, whatever. ;) BigDT 00:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good intentions on your suggestions, but I believe there are already processes in place to deal with these situations. howcheng  {chat} 23:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't question that anything can be deleted eventually ... my hope was to remove the barriers in cases where the image is obviously worthless.  If you go to Special:Allpages, pick the image namespace, and pick a random spot of the alphabet (hit two random letters, then go to the middle column, halfway down), I'd say you probably have better than a one-in-five chance of hitting an image that doesn't belong on WP.  Adding ways for the more patently useless images to be speedied wouldn't be a bad thing.  BigDT 02:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The real question is whether we actually need them or can apply the processes we already have. Stifle (talk) 09:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I did an empirical test of BigDT's postulate there, by randomly picking 10 images beginning with K. One was a photo with , and another was an orphaned fair use. The others were all good. don't think we need more criteria (other than perhaps the top one), we just need to apply those we have strictly. Stifle (talk) 15:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Drag it to another section, so it is more visible. I agree that one is a good idea. Titoxd(?!?) 23:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed new criteria for "patently worthless media" 

message: Shouldn't we be able to speedy delete a redirect to a page that meets speedy deletion criteria? Aplomado talk 01:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cleaning up after a deletion would probably come under G6, the "housekeeping" criteria, presuming that the cleaning up is not controversial. --bainer (talk) 01:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: A speedily deleted page no longer exists, so R1 ("redirects to non-existent pages") applies.  —David Levy 01:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Remember, however, that pages are sometimes turned into redirects as an act of vandalism in cases like this.  In this situation, it is particularly important to double-check the redirect's page-history before carrying out the housekeeping.  Rossami (talk) 01:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional speedy delete for redirects 

message: Articles should only be deleted if they're deragatory or if the Person requests deletion.  We often have cases where users tag these articfes for speedy and the author promptly removes them.  Because of this, all such articles should be discussed or at least given a certain amount of time (such as 24 hours) for the auther to improve the page so it doesn't get deleted to begin with.  Henry Bigg 1986 12:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have the  tag if an author contests deletion of the article and wants to improve it.  Metros232 12:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is often ignored. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  is not sufficient in itself (I've seen a hangon template hang around for three days with no subsequent edits) . The person placing it actually needs to make som effort into improving it. I tend to allow 12-24 hours to do this, after that I treat it as abandoned. If subsquent edits have been made, but it still meets speedy deletion criteria I've generally deleted it. Just now though I've thouhgt that removing the  template would be better? Thryduulf 00:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The hangon tag is not to be used to say "I think this isn't a speedy", it's to be used to say "I think this isn't a speedy, I'm just about to tell you why on the talk page, so give me a couple minutes to write it". The tag is supposed to be removed as soon as this explanation is written. Stifle (talk) 22:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that deleting biographical articles which do not claim any notability is indispensable. Otherwise, what would we do with the dozens, perhaps hundreds, of vanity articles created each day by people who think "hey, it would be a great idea to have a Wikipedia article about me"? Stifle (talk) 22:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur, there is a greater danger in over-burdening the deletions process with lots of non-notables.  If the article does not make the subjects notability clear, the article should be deleted.  If the author is in the process of writing when the speedy is added, the  tag is sufficient to give the person a few minutes to write their notability into the article, or even a few sentences on the talk page.  --TeaDrinker 05:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: No.  Don't.  This proposal is an extremely bad idea. A7 articles are a serious problem, and A7 was written specifically to define them by the content of the article and not the article's subject, so as to restrict argument over what does or does not meet the criteria. It has been an almost overwhelming success; in the rare case where an article about a genuinely notable person gets A7'ed due to a failure to assert that notability, it is usually simple enough to rewrite, since an article that failed to note the most important part of their subject was unlikely to have had much meaningful content in the first place. --Aquillion 00:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although it sounds like a good idea, A7 has been almost an overwhelming failure as I see it. It is almost never applied correctly, and I hesitate to truly consider how many worthwhile articles have been deleted by it. Ardric47 00:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The speedy category for this type of article is overkill. There's no real reason for it to be speedy: it's not as if it is a legal problem. The problem here, I think, is that there is nothing between  and AFD: since you can't prod it if you think it likely to be contested you then have to take it to AFD.  isn't much help either as it often doesn't give the editor enough time to react (not everybody sits in front of wikipedia hitting F5 on their watchlists) or is invoked and nothing is done to the article. We really need an 'unlikely to be controvesial' interpretation of the prod rules (rather than the strict one that exists now) and to lose A7. Yomangani 13:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed amendment regard A7` 

message: I am thinking that it might be best to amend A8 and remove the requirement "Material is unquestionably copied from the website of a commercial content provider (e.g. encyclopedia, news service)." Currently, pages that are copyvios of materials from non-profit organizations take too long to process. People have to check if the article is a copyvio, blank the article, insert the  template, and list the page on WP:CP. Then, a week later, somebody else has to verify that it is a copyvio and then speedy it. Given that there are an astronomical amount of copyvios, this can cause a lot of wasted time. Thoughts? -- Where 20:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One reason for this is to allow a new article to be easily created from that information, when the copyright violation is not from a company that makes money off its content or when the copyright violation could even be questionable. However, it would nice to be able to delete all these cut-and-paste articles, and I doubt that many articles get refactored into a non-violating article. —Centrx→talk • 20:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "The main reason is that it is not uncommon for an admitted copyvio to recieve permission later. "commercial content provier was intended to be a bright-line rule for those cases in what we could effectively never expect this to happen." . Actually, according to that section, there was a vote in Nov-Dec 2005 that apparently supported speedy deleting all copy-and-paste articles, regardless of copyright status. I don't know why it wasn't implemented. Looking through the archives, it looks like the general consensus overall is that the criterion needs to be loosened a bit, but should not apply to all copy-paste articles or to all copyright infringements. However, with the growth of Wikipedia, it may be that copyright infringements only rarely get refactored into articles. Still, if something is important enough, an editor can easily make a one-liner out of it. A possible, but complicated compromise is to say that any copy-paste that is just plain not notable should be speedy deleted, regardless of whether it asserts notability. On another note, I think a page should be created that cleanly describes the reasons for and against each of the CSD criterion. —Centrx→talk • 20:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a very good idea. Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Explanations coming right up. Stifle (talk) 23:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amending A8? 

message: My proposal is that we allow fairuse images replaced with free ones to be deleted "on sight" if they're likely to be inappropriately re-added to articles.  This would avoid the nuisance of anons persistantly re-adding such images and even removing the speedy tag.  It removes the need for people to "baby sit" the article and image while awaiting deletion. Of course users can re-upload such images, but anons can't, so this rule would have some positive effect.  I suggested this in the past, but now that images are undeleable, I see no reason not to do this now.  Replacing fair use with free images seems to be hopelessly slow process, filled with silly revert warring that's a total waste. 
p.s. On a minor side note, this rule should be called "Unused nonfree copyrighted images", since there's no problem with unused GFDL images. --Rob 21:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Per this outcome, we will be moving up the timeframe to two days instead of seven, after July 13th.  Deleting unfreely-licensed images that have been replaced by freely-licensed ones on sight would mean less edit-warring and/or page protection, but would probably increase traffic at WP:DRV.  Jkelly 21:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, good point.  --Rob 22:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  #I5:  Unused copyrighted images - (fair use replaced with free) 

message: Why does CSD U1 apply to subpages only. Can't I have my main user page deleted if I want? TZMT (de:T) 13:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess is that the policy doesn't allow it because otherwise, many people would request that their userpages would be deleted whenever they went on "indefinate" wikibreaks. This would be a waste of people's time. Also, I don't think there is any need for people to have their userpages deleted. -- Where 15:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, you can have your user page deleted; before the present hide-my-edit button, I did. User talk pages can contain things not to be removed, like vandalism warnings; they should not be deleted without consideration. WP:MfD exists for this. Septentrionalis 23:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Septentrionalis is correct. User pages can be deleted upon request while user talk pages are supposed to be kept forever. However, some long-time editors have had their user talk pages deleted anyway for various reasons, like promising not to vandalize anymore if the talk page is deleted, to prevent other people from using the talk page to harass the editor, or the editor is well connnected and has the page deleted as a favor. If you want yours deleted, I suggest you kiss Jimbo's ass for several months before asking, as admins are unlikely to reverse his deletions of user talk pages, historically. ;-) -- Kjkolb 02:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSD U1 

message: While people may create pages about themselves in vanity, what about other pages they create about things they do that are non-notable? For example we have an individual who made a film and put it on the internet. He's been trying to push through pages about him, his magical film company and now the movie. The page on him and his film company (which have only the movie he made to their credits) are covered by vanity, but is the film? Should any pages they try to make in relation to their vanity articles be considered part of the whole and qualify for speedy deletion, or is that just license to make vanity pages about the things you do rather than you yourself?--Crossmr 16:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Vanity isn't speediable per se. --Tony Sidaway 02:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unremarkable people or groups/vanity pages While this directly references people and groups, what about other pages created in the same vein that aren't specificly about a person or group. For example person X creates a page about himself and its non-notable and speedied, but he creates a page about his pet project and its not technically about a person or group, so it doesn't technically fit the criterion. Should it be expanded to cover these types of vanity pages.--Crossmr 02:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The wording has changed, I see.  The use of the term "vanity" there is misleading.  It is possible for a person to write a non-speediable vanity article (for instance, a newly elected member of the US Congress might be the first person to write about himself). --Tony Sidaway 02:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm talking about something completely non-notable, as in some high school kid rights a bio of himself, and then makes a non-notable entry about some pet-project of his that doesn't fit on a speedy criteria. While the non-notable bio on him can be speedied, there doesn't seem to be any provision for speeding his non-notable pet project, unless it happens to be a band.--Crossmr 04:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  other non-notable advertisements 

message: "Personal pages (User: and User talk:, including subpages) of users who do not exist"
What do you think? googl t 19:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems logical to me.  A user page for a nonexistent user can create a great deal of confusion, and would probably cause problems if someone ever registered under that name. I can't think of any good reason why we'd want people going around creating user pages for nonexistent users, either. I feel like there's some rule or guideline out there referring to the case where someone creates such a user page, but I couldn't find any mention of it on Wikipedia:User page... --Aquillion 20:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the best way to determine if a user exists or not?  Looking at logs or other special page? --EngineerScotty 20:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The user creation log would be useful. Also, go to the user page itself, and look for the "User contributions" link in the toolbox, if it isn't there, then the user does not exist (even a user with no edits will have a link to the contributions page). --bainer (talk) 02:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This seems very reasonable to me. Absolutely no reason for User: or User talk: pages if the user with the corresponding name has never existed. I didn't even realise you could create these pages without creating a new user. :) Ansell 02:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree, I delete these all the time, but generally under the flag of G2/G3/G6. — xaosflux Talk 04:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that user accounts created long ago may not have user creation log entries, at least mine doesn't. The deleting administrator should also check for user contributions from that account. —Centrx→talk • 04:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Special:Listusers contains a record of every account.  —David Levy 05:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, so may I add it? googl t 20:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it needed or is it instruction creep? Stifle (talk) 17:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed U2 CSD 

message: NB: this discussion continues the "Amending A8?" discussion above and this discussion from the policy village pump
Having recently helped a user who, after a copyvio contribution did assert ownership and is now rewriting it to make it encyclopedic, having recently found a few tagged copyvios that were in fact from public domain sources, and in light of comments found in the archive such as those mentioned at #Amending A8?, I think there might need to be more discussion about this criterion. If the unwieldiness of WP:CP and :Category:Possible copyright violations is the problem, there are at least a couple of alternatives or combinations to resolve this: 1) Copyright violations could be dated and categorized like PROD is, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Dated categories for Deletedpages and Copyright violations; 2) the waiting time for copyright problems could be reduced, to say 3 or 5 days, which is far longer than the minutes or hours a CSD candidate gets before deletion; 3) copyright problems with claims of ownership could be dealt with more summarily with claims that are unsubstantiated or for users that don't respond within a couple days. —Centrx→talk • 04:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about making the amendment a bit stronger, like "Material is copied from a website with an obvious copyright notice that is unquestionable not compatible with Wikipedia." I may not be quite satisfied with the clarity and simplicity of this wording, but this is trying to make it airtight against deleting material that is unquestionably copied but from text that is available for licensed use on Wikipedia. —Centrx→talk • 19:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All very good points. I completely agree with Centrx's proposed amendment. -- Where 19:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I am not yet convinced it is necessary. I agree there must be improvements to copyvio process, but I don't see what shortening the deletion time to minutes or hours will do. As was said in the archive, "releases are grnted in a fair number of cases (albiet a small proportion of the whole) and this would be to toss out perfectly good content"; new users may also be perplexed at the disappearance of the page they created, when with discussion they might be convinced to write a non-copyvio article about the subject, etc. —Centrx→talk • 04:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points. However, if the user uploaded the copyvio content, s/he would be able to discuss the deletion if s/he disagreed with it after seeing the  template on his/her talk page. Thus, they would still be notified of the oppertunity to write a non-copyvio version and would still be able to point it out if they had released it under the GFDL. -- Where 21:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I would strongly support ditching A8 entirely. It is pointless, as it allows us to delete almost nothing. -Splash - tk 22:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If we just got rid of the 48 hours issue, it would be much more useful. Admins have an undelete button too if the material is proven to be from a GFDL/PD/verbatim-copy-compatible source and was deleted in error. Titoxd(?!?) 23:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What could be a possibility for this and similar deletable pages is to require that it first be tagged, even by an administrator, and then another person must be the one to delete it. So, it would still be fast and efficient, but two people would look at any page where there is the possibility of, for example in this case, mis-identifying something that is actually on a mirror that copied Wikipedia. —Centrx→talk • 23:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with that. Here is a possible implmenetation of that idea: How about we modify  so that it automatically adds pages to :Category:Copyright problems and so that it lists the user who tagged it on the page using ~~~. Then, once it is listed, an admin (who did not originally list it), can delete it.  This would have an advantage over the previous system since it would be much quicker to list a page and since copyvios could be deleted quicker. Thoughts? -- Where 20:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That it is not practical to insist that it be an admin in the first stage of the process. There aren't enough of them to handle CP as it is, and really if a minion-level editor (sic :) ) finds a copyvio, I can see no reason for not allowing them to tag it any say so. However, to pour some cold water on the notion of making all copyvios speedier than PRODs, there have been at least a large number of cases where the copyright owner has only come back to check on their masterpiece a few days later. Shortening its delay to 48 hours is too much by far; not all our users live, eat and drink Wikipedia and while a lot can happen in 48 hours if one is very plugged in here, it is much shorter a time to people with less engagement in Wikipedia. It is for example, about the length of a weekend away. -Splash - tk 21:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first person, tagging it, wouldn't have to be an admin, but if it were they would tag it and not delete. The idea is just to have two people, they don't have to both be admins. I agree that a user coming back to find their addition gone is a problem, but I think as was said above, the Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate your contributions to the  article, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy editing! template is tells them what happened. Regardless, it needs some streamlining, like not having to list every page on WP:CP, no matter what the delay time is. —Centrx→talk • 21:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You have hit on precisely the fatal flaw in A8. However, I think there'd be a pretty strong case for a CD release constituting commercial content provision. That should be a speedy. -Splash - tk 21:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A8 changes 

message: The old U2 CSD (recycling old IP talk pages) was deleted. I can't find a disscussion related to this, and I don't think that blanking is better. Say X received a vandalism warning while editing under IP 1.2.3.4. Later the vandalism warning is removed and the page is blanked. Now, Y gets IP 1.2.3.4. Y opens any Wikipedia page and the first thing (s)he sees "You have new messages", although the only "message" is the page blanking. I think this _is_ confusing. What do you think about restoring old U2? googl t 10:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heres the discussion: Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive9#IP talk pages. NickelShoe (Talk) 13:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, how I could've missed it. googl t 14:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old U2 CSD 

message: This was mentioned above, I would like to gather consensus.
* Proposed CSD: I10 - Images that were used only on pages that have been deleted and were uploaded shortly before or anytime after any of the pages were created.
See above (under "patently worthless media" for further discussion. Stifle (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current setting is a bit unclear as to what to do with these, so it would be better to be uniform about them. Sure. Titoxd(?!?) 20:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I approve of the idea,  but I have a couple of minor comments.  First of all, I'd suggest that we restrict this to cases where the uploader was a major editor (if not the only significant editor) of the deleted article (should only be for articles) in question.  Second, we should restrict to cases where the article was deleted for being on a topic unsuitable to inclusion in the encyclopedia.  For instance, if someone created an article on an individual musician, it might be okay for an article to exist on the band's article even if the musician on their own is too minor.  I don't know if we can meet that in a totally unambiguous criterion, though.  Mangojuicetalk 20:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't know if that's needed. For one thing, if the image proves useful in another article it can always be restored or reuploaded later. Stifle (talk) 23:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you for bringing this back up.  I don't know that I like linking it with page time.  That leaves it too open - what is shortly?  Should an administrator not speedy the image because the logo for some band was uploaded Friday, but they didn't get around to starting the article until Monday morning?  I kinda like something closer to my wording - "Images used only on deleted articles that have no other encyclopedic use."  The whole idea is so that when someone's advertisement/vanity article is deleted, the 10 pictures of themselves they uploaded can be deleted too and we don't have to go through the process of tagging each one for deletion. BigDT 01:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with you on page time; I prefer the idea that it be uploaded by the article creator (or its main editor).  "No other encyclopedic use" is what I was trying to get at.. but doesn't it seem a little too open-ended?  Mangojuicetalk 02:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right ... it does ... and I'm trying to think of a better way to say it.  Maybe the tag needs to say "have a little common sense when deleting it". ;)  I guess my thought was that if Bob's Petting Zoo creates an article that gets deleted after a , but Bob uploaded a nice GFDL photo of a cat, there's no reason to delete the cat - just the logos that serve no purpose any more. BigDT 02:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New image CSD proposal 

message: Just something I was wondering about I've seen prods before stating that if the article wasn't so old they would of tagged it for speedy. So I was wondering is there a time limit on such thing? Or if a article is speedy material it's always a speedy candidate? Whispering 18:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Copyvios are speediable in their first 48 hours, otherwise I believe the logic is that they may have acquired enough edits/been picked up by enough mirrors to make determination of copyright violation more complex. That's the only one I can think of that's time-sensitive... -- nae'blis (talk) 21:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright thanks for the reply. Whispering 20:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It shouldn't be prodded in that case, though, it should be blanked and  added. Stifle (talk) 23:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm gonna disagree with that.  I think copyvio articles on subjects that WP shouldn't cover should ALSO be prodded.  If they're deleted this way, all the better: prod is a lot less work to check than copyvio, and there's always a huge copyvio backlog.  Mangojuicetalk 02:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an excellent idea. —Centrx→talk • 21:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy time 

message: Images 'moved'/'coppied' to commons (with compatible license of course) should be speedy deleted. Are there any objections for such a thing? If so why? --Cat out 23:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:CSD#I9.  Dragons flight 00:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images moved to commons should be speedy deletable. 

message: CSD:I6 stipulates that only "image[s ...] tagged only with  or , with no fair use rationale, may be deleted seven days after it was uploaded".  There are enumerable templates that also require a detailed fair-use rationale (, , , etc); why are they not subject to CSD:I6 and only  or  are?  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 20:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply because it's easy to slap a  tag on a page, and for the time being patrolling all those other categories would be too much to do. Anyway, the fair use rationale for an album cover, movie poster, etc. is fairly obvious. Stifle (talk) 23:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  i6 

message: Can I suggest the following as speediable? "Any template which serves an identical purpose to one previously deleted". I recently speedied a template on these grounds using A4 and its creator of it has contested this, saying that although the template served an identical purpose, it was worded considerably differently. Grutness...wha? 00:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A suggestion for T2

message: (Or Un, if U2 is already open.)
*User pages for a non-existent user:
:(i.e., User:FooBar can be speedily deleted unless there is actually a User named Foobar.)
— Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added it. If someone thinks it is instruction creep, they can remove it. —Centrx→talk • 21:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added some exceptions. If you disagree, you can remove the clause and explain here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A suggestion for U2