Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 21

message: Relevant thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive92#Change to CSD I7.
About a week ago, I made a change to I7 encompassing non-free images uploaded as free. Geni reverted this as it'd be redundant under G12, but I have two concerns with the reversion:
#Uploading an image with the wrong tag != Blatant infringement.
#In that case, I7 would be redundant to G12.
I had a rough conensus on the AN (about 70%), but I think I should ask on this page before reverting, even though it's a nobrainer. Will (talk) 22:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to distinguish between pro forma problems and images that are not acceptable to use.  If someone uploads a screenshot from a TV show, tags it PD-self, and says "I made it", then just fix the tag and let them know that taking a screenshot isn't a creative act.  But if they upload a news media photo and tag it PD-self, just speedy the thing - we can never use news media photos and there is no reason to wait 48 hours to expunge a copyright violation. In other words, the driving force behind an instant speedy vs a delayed speedy ought to be "could we use this image if the proper tags were added?"  If not, there's no point in waiting 48 hours for the inevitable. --BigΔT 02:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is IMO not unreasoanble (Although I think there are rare cases where a news media photo might be usable under fair use, this is not true in the vast majority of cases, if ever.) But a deleting admin ought to be admonished to think hard if there is any plausible way that with a proper tag, and perhaps a proper fair use rationale, an image might be usable, not jsut auto-delete based on a tag. DES (talk) 04:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change to I7 

message: Say a user posts a comment on their userpage that they are a rock band from somewhere. The comment is blatantly promotional of the band, and is using the userspace purely as MySpace. The user has made no other edits, and it has been a reasonably lengthy amount of time since the posting. Could we presumably delete the userpage under G11, or should there be a new userspace criteria? Sure, userspace isn't the same as mainspace, but does the process really need to go the WP:MfD? Sr13 06:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Use prod instead. MER-C 10:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: G11 can apply to userpages, actually. The general criteria apply across all namespaces, user pages included, but generally some leeway should be given with pages in userspace (for instance, deleting a user's sandbox under G2 would be poor practice). They should only be speedily deleted in the most blatant circumstances, e.g. blatant copyvio, spam, vandalism or defamatory material. The example you're describing sounds like it might be fine for G11, but if in doubt there's no harm in using prod. If the user has made no contributions it would seem unlikely that they're going to object. - Zeibura (Talk) 15:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  G11 

message: What about the seemingly obvious case where an editor uploads images A, B, C, claims fair-use for their use in an article that they just created, which happens to be a copyright violation (from the same source as the images). I delete the copyright violation, but the images are now orphaned non-free images without fair-use rationales. Do we give a waiting period in case the article is created properly in the near future and actually can use those images? Sancho 05:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are deleting the article under WP:CSD#G12, even I wouldn't see a problem with speedily deleting such images, as long as they were uploaded by the same person who uploaded the copyright-violating article. This of course is not the same as mass deleting thousands of images uploaded by probably hundreds of different users in good-faith, two days after warning them that the images will be deleted in 7 days if they don't fix the problem. DHowell 06:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's what I did, since I couldn't imagine an objection. Do you think that's common sense enough to already be covered under WP:CSD#G12? Or should we add this case into either G12 or I5? Sancho 06:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just delete them.  We have in the past actually discussed having a rule for "images uploaded soley for a deleted article that have no other encyclopedic purpose", and there is pretty universal agreement that we should do it, but the wording is a point of contention. --BigΔT 13:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the wording of G12 already covers it: "Uploader does not assert permission (for images: no assertion aside from tags) or fair use, or the assertion is questionable"; I don't think anyone would dispute that it would be a "questionable" claim of fair use if the image was only uploaded to be used in an article which is a blatant copyright infringement. DHowell 01:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leftover images from a G12 deletion 

message: Hey, I propose the following as an addition to the G section.
CSD G13: RfA or RfB pages where the page was created and the user declined the request
This would cover all RfA or RfB pages that were created by a nominator before asking a user, and the user declined. These pages contain no useful information, apart from the default RfA/B template, the nominators statement, and the user saying they did not accept. This would include ones with comments/votes, as those would be removed anyway.
This would cover both declined ones at any time, and at ones not edited by the nominee within 1 month.
Thanks, and this is my first proposal like this, so sorry if I messed something up. Thanks! (Note: Feel free to edit the proposal above, but say you changed it. I do not consider that changing my comments) Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSD G13 

message: Hi all,
I have just requested speedy deletion of :Image:ThayneShaman.JPG, because it is what I would call an "obvious garbage image", something that any reasonable person would immediately agree does not belong in Wikipedia. Aside from that, it's not linked from any article, and if you look at the creator's contributions, it's clearly part of an ongoing pattern of vandalism.
Addressing the first point only, is such an image covered by general criterion 1 (patent nonsense)? It doesn't seem to be covered by any of the criteria specifically applying to images. It seems unreasonable to me that such an image should have to go through the whole five-day process.
Your comments are appreciated. Tualha (Talk) 02:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would opine that, as a rule, G1 is a bit wider for images than it is for articles — they cannot (and should usually not) be edited into useful material.  IMHO, YMMV, etc.  — Coren (talk) 02:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, G1 and possibly G3 may apply. Will (talk) 02:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Patent nonsense as described only really applies to text, though. The only instance I can think of where an image page might be speedied under G1 is if the page was created with a load of random text on it, for a nonexistant image or for a commons image or something. The rule here is that if you can be sure something was created in bad faith, as it was in this case, G3 applies. If not, then the image should be tagged however appropriately (generally dubious images tend to have no source information) and run the full course. Or taken to IfD. - Zeibura (Talk) 03:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about "2. Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever"?  Wouldn't that apply to images just as much as text?  — Coren (talk) 03:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting point, I don't think that could be applied to images though, it'd be a bit rash to judge that "no intelligent person" could make any sense of a picture; pictures are open to interpretation and any good faith image might be illustrating anything. - Zeibura (Talk) 03:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly, although the original question really was directed at obvious garbage.  I've seen the image in question just before it got deleted and I wouldn't have hesitated to G1 it as well.  G3 might also be appropriate though, and I see your point that it might be more inclusive of images, but it needs to presume deliberation...  the uploader might have simply been misguided.  G3 pretty much throws AGF out with the image.  — Coren (talk) 04:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obvious garbage images 

message: Our policy page here states that images uploaded after May 4, 2006, may be deleted after 7 days after the uploader is warned. Our policy page over here says that any image which doesn't meet any of our non-free content criteria may be deleted 7 days after the uploader is warned. This includes criterion 10c, the requirement for a fair-use rationale. The "deadline date" on that policy page merely states that older images get a 7-day grace period. In light of this, and to reflect current usage, I went ahead and streamlined I6 to remove the requirement that the image be uploaded before May 4, 2006. There's no sense making everyone wade through multiple policies when they all have the same net effect. (ESkog)(Talk) 01:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverting. WP:NFCC specifically states "For an image that was uploaded before 2006-07-13, the 48-hour period is extended to seven days." —Remember the dot (talk) 04:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As does criterion I6. "may be deleted seven days after they are uploaded". I don't see the conflict here. (ESkog)(Talk) 04:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies. I misunderstood your changes. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you.  I think this is an excellent change, since images on both sides of the date were being tagged, but producing different messages on the uploader's talk page - causing confusion. ~ BigrTex 14:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modifying I6 (no fair-use rationale) 

message: See this discussion. Lately the nogallery has been added to the speedy deletion image categories. Any objections to this being removed again? I find it very unpractical. For non-free/fair use reason it also is not necessary see Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria exemptions. I put it here since :Category talk:Candidates for speedy deletion doesn't seem to be watched so much. Garion96 (talk) 20:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It primarily gets added and removed as the size of the images causes the page to load too slowly. — xaosflux Talk 01:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should have specified it more. No, I meant categories like :Category:Images with no fair use rationale as of 17 June 2007. Just a little while ago I found out on what templates it was added, I removed it from the templates now.  Garion96 (talk) 09:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nogallery on image categories 

message: :The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.  
Our goal in Wikipedia is to create a reliable encyclopedia. It does not serve this goal to facilitate the creation of articles wholly devoted to unreliable statements about living persons.
I propose the creation of a new deletion criterion:
*any article in the name of a person, who is the primary subject, who is not represented as historical or deceased, that is absolutely devoid of actionable sources.
By actionable sources, I mean public sources that are accessible from any good university library or any official national library.  That includes but is not limited to everything publicly available, without conditions or subscription, on the internet.
This CSD doesn't address linkspamming, etc.  It focuses solely on completely unsourced BLPs.
*If an article says  "Maher Fahood is a renowned Persian storyteller" it's deletable under this criterion.
*If an article says  "Maher Fahood was a renowned Persian storyteller" it isn't deletable under this criterion.
*If an article says "Maher Fahood is a renowned Persian storyteller, see http://crapsite.org/" it isn't deletable under this criterion.  Even an apparently crappy source doesn't fall under this criterion if it's public.
*If an article says "Maher Fahood is a renowned Persian storyteller, see the Encyclopedia of Modern Persian Folklorists" it isn't deletable under this criterion.
Even a questionable or possibly non-existent source is worthy of examination.  Somebody who wants to delete can present evidence that the Encyclopedia doesn't exist and if it's strong then we'll decide that it's an unreliable source. But without consensus on that we shouldn't reject a source under this criterion.
So it's only looking at articles where the subject appears to be alive and there's no reliable source for anything that's written.  As with any deletion criterion, there is no requirement that we delete the article. We could always add references that we know about. --Tony Sidaway
* Thank you for the many considered comments on this proposal. I have withdrawn my support for it because to me it's obviously a matter for proposed deletion, which provides editors with notice to add sources. --Tony Sidaway 23:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Support Will (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Of course, although there's probably a better word than "actionable". -Amarkov moo! 22:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, please come up with better wording. --Tony Sidaway 22:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Makes great sense, support. Until(1 == 2) 22:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It's a good idea, but what about those BLP with bias sources, that's as much as a problem as one without sources. Jaranda wat's sup 22:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If biased sources exist, there's a good chance a less biased and more neutral source exists and could replace it, with any changes being made to the content in the process. Nick 22:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If the source is biased then we need to discuss it and reach consensus.  This criterion mustn't be used as a license to say "that article is not well sourced, delete."  It's solely aimed at removing articles about living people where the author makes no attempt to source his statements. --Tony Sidaway 23:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeap, strong support. Nick 22:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm a stickler for sources, but I very strongly oppose this proposal. It would utterly cripple our encyclopedia's coverage of Africa. Wikipedia does not work to a deadline; I have and will continue to source biographies of living persons that have sat untouched for years, but this would force me and all the rest of Africa editors to spend every moment of our time on Wikipedia scrambling to source the "most important unsourced biographies of living persons." To put it simply, I'm not going to do that. You are aware that there are ex-presidents whose articles would be deleted because of this, guys? Getting Africa content at all is very hard; insisting all biographies of living Africans have a source is completely impossible. Picaroon (Talk) 23:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I strongly sympathize with this objection.  Is there some way we could meet you half way? --Tony Sidaway 23:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  I suppose my reasoning here would be that the writers of our articles simply must have obtained their information from somewhere.  If they didn't just make it all up, they should disclose the source. We could add a grandfather clause if this would help.  "All articles created after (DATE X)..." --Tony Sidaway 23:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Oppose. No basis in policy - WP:BLP applies only to negative unsourced statements, not positive or neutral ones. Most stubs do not have sources - this is the sort of detail that gets added over a longer period of time. Let's not kill the ugly ducklings. Dcoetzee 23:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with this sort of argument revolving around minimal stubs is that such stubs generally serve very little (or no) purpose not served by a redlink. SamBC 23:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought the stub wars were long over. A stub provides sufficient context to identify a subject and conduct further research. That's valuable. Dcoetzee 23:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  I think it's reasonable, at this stage of Wikipedia, to expect all new articles to conform to verifiability, which was Wikipedia policy last time I checked. --Tony Sidaway 23:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's a valid viewpoint, but I am an eventualist and strongly deny that all articles must be verifiable and well-sourced at all times. I've seen many cases where good sources were added by other editors much later in the editing process. Dcoetzee 23:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with that is that such strong eventualism also argues against many of the current CSDs. SamBC 23:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  Absolutely.  If an unsourced article about a living person is deleted, that's no reason to stop someone creating a new article about the same person that includes a source. --Tony Sidaway 23:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I continue to disagree, and do not view my position as strong or extreme. The point is that, currently, one person can write some information about a person, and another person can later source it. This is a productive division of labour that would not be possible if this CSD were enacted. Dcoetzee 23:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  WP:BLP says, unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material—whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable—about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. It's not just negative material the the policy applies to, but to any unsourced material and even poorly sourced contentious material. Sancho 23:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AIUI, that doesn't apply to whole articles; to remove a whole article (however stubbish) 'immediately' you need a speedy delete, and speedy deletes should be based solely on the specified criteria. SamBC 23:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  This is a recent change of which I was not aware. Nevertheless it still only applies to contentious material - a neutral article about the "boring" facts of someone's life such as childhood and career is typically not contentious and is not a basis for enforcing sources in all articles about living persons. Dcoetzee 23:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Support in principle. Certainly it would need to be a well-publicised guideline that isn't a CSD for some time first, with the caveat that it is expected to become a CSD. After all, some regard must be made to teh point above that there are many very-much-salvageable articles that would currently fall foul. Enough time for a mass-flagging effort, at least, and an understanding that this flag gives some protection from speedy deletion under that criterion. SamBC 23:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would certainly support careful discussion over this matter.  We can take our time over this. --Tony Sidaway 23:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Very strong oppose in principle and practice. Though part of me really likes the idea of forcing people to add sources whenever they create an article, I think this is a very bad idea for a speedy deletion criteria. Content is often: (1) easily sourceable via a 15-second Google search or (2) sourced via links provided in an "External links" section. Also, the definition of "actionable sources" is way too restrictive if it excludes subscription-based sources (most academic journals fall into this category). There is nothing here that can't be accomplished via proposed deletion. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 23:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dammit you're right.  proposed deletion is far more suitable for this kind of deletion. --Tony Sidaway 23:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  I sort of agree, and sort of disagree. I certainly think immediate action would be premature simply because the practice would be fraught with danger. The best solution would really be for more people to do unsourced article patrolling, and new page patrollers to be somehow infallible and catch/tag all such articles, without someone untagging them unreasonably. That's not something that any amount of policy debating will fix. SamBC 23:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm alright with prodding them. This draws attention to the need to source it, of which the author may not otherwise be aware, and gives time to do so. Controversial portions can still be "speedied" via WP:BLP, but no article is 100% controversial. Dcoetzee 23:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What if the author is no longer active? What if the article is on no one's watchlist? Picaroon (Talk) 23:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an objection to prod in general. This is why the prod list needs constant review. Dcoetzee 23:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: (EC) With an unsourced BLP, it is of course justified to remove any BLP non-compliant content before or after prodding the article (though disclosure of the action in an edit summary or in the prod rationale is probably a good idea). -- Black Falcon (Talk) 23:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Oppose.  Too broad for a CSD.  PROD (or if need be AFD) are better suited to uncontroversial articles that need sources.  Better to prod people into providing sources than to simply delete outright.  Of course, BLP still addresses the controversial and problematic stuff.  Dragons flight 23:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Prod people into providing sources"? Prods are for cattle, not volunteers. If this proposal was adapted to the proposed deletion method that would be, what, five days to find sources, as opposed to three hours with speedy deletion? I don't see a difference at all between the two. Maybe if the wait was a year long we could save a quarter of unsourced biographies of living persons. But three hours vs. five days? My objection stands. Picaroon (Talk) 23:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Prod gives them the option of removing the tag, if they are unwilling or unable to provide sources but believe it is reasonably eventually possible to do so. Dcoetzee 23:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd rather spend my time writing new articles than making sure existing ones aren't deleted, how about you? The prod system works because it at least bears a resemblance to something manageable. Adding tens of thousands of articles does not a managable work load make - see our existing backlogs for proof. Picaroon (Talk) 00:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think that tagging dozens of articles in one day is frowned upon, especially insofar as it reflects a lack of effort to improve an article before tagging it for deletion. I would think that prodding an unsourced BLP would also be inappropriate without at least some effort to source the article (a Google search takes only a minute). -- Black Falcon (Talk) 00:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If a BLP article has no sources at all, you can just remove all unsourced info per WP:V, then it fits the CSD for being empty. So this is really already how things are. Until(1 == 2) 23:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...At which point someone rolls you back and warns you for page blanking. Picaroon (Talk) 23:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At which point I educate them on how WP:V works and how I am allowed to challenge ANY and ALL unsourced content, especially that about living people. Until(1 == 2) 00:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But before doing any of this, one would try to find sources first ... right? :) -- Black Falcon (Talk) 00:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the job of the person seeking to include information, not the person challenging it. Until(1 == 2) 00:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but an overuse of that idea quickly leads to a very antagonistic environment between users. After all, as editors we all have the same goal – building an encyclopedia. I don't think it's constructive to insist whose "job" it is to do something when the issue is good-faith contribution to the encyclopedia. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 00:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: How about a prod that can only be contested when a citation is provided? Until(1 == 2) 00:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that either one of those is necessary. A 24-hour prod is basically useless as it affords no time to check the article and a conditional prod undermines the "uncontroversial" nature of proposed deletions. Such cases are relatively few and can be handled via AfD. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 00:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Gee this idea had some support, it is now closed because Tony changed his mind? Until(1 == 2) 00:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article deletion criterion: completely unsourced articles about a living person 

message: From – Templates that are divisive and inflammatory to – Templates that are divisive and inflammatory including those used as templates but kept in userspace.
Userspace has been frequently used as a means to get around WP:CSD#T1. Transclusions that are used as templates should be treated in the same manner and explicitly stated on the WP:CSD page. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. If a page is used as a template, then it should be treated as a template.  (Though it also in addition may be treated as whatever else it may be, such as a userpage. This shoudln't be an either-or scenario.)  I also think the whole decentralisation of userboxes from Template space was an incredibly bad idea. There is a history of the various spaces being used for different supportive things, direct and indirect. - jc37 12:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Especially when userspace is used as template space for soapboxing, WP:NOT, etc. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOT is specifically not a criteria for speedy deletion. But I suppose that that may be a different discussion altogether. - jc37 12:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: What people find divisive and inflammatory is awfully subjective, and I have seen userboxes of the type "This user joined Wikipedia in 2004" deleted as T1 because they are in Template space rather than user space. The Wikipedia:Userbox migration was a way of solving the userbox wars we had from December 2005 to March 2006, and was quite successful at stopping the fighting, keeping unencyclopedic boxes out of template space, and the users of these boxes fairly happy. I fear that sticking a CSD into the userspace area will spark off more fighting over this, and with the BLP controversy still ongoing, another stupid war is the last thing we need. In addition, I think our current MFD process for getting rid of truly offensive userboxes works pretty well (see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:One Night In Hackney/Monarchy for example), and userboxes which just disparage people ("This user hates Sjakkalle and thinks he should be banned indefinitely") are already subject to deletion per the criterion on attack pages. I think the proposed expansion of the CSD will cause more problems than it will fix. Oppose proposal. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *Many of these user box templates have been used by multiple users by transcluding these pages into their userspace. This in many ways entices other users to transclude them in their user pages as well. In my opinion, user boxes should be hard coded into user space rather than transcluded. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If T1 was not opposed so much then I would suggest making U4 or replacing T1 with G13 instead. FunPika 18:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: T1 has always and will always apply to all transclusions. --Tony Sidaway 08:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  T1 has never applied to transclusions from userspace to userspace.  Jimbo has spoken.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 22:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where has Jimbo said this?  I hope that doesn't sound like an unreasonable question. --Tony Sidaway 00:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you should leave a note on User talk:Jimbo Wales and ask him to provide his opinion.--SefringleTalk 00:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If you want to use templates, substitute them, rather than providing other users options to transclude those pages into their userspace. Wikipedia is not a free web host for soapboxing. We are an encyclopedia. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed, we are I hope all agreed that it is in the interests of the encyclopedia to rid it of as much of this poisonous trash as possible.  --Tony Sidaway 12:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I completely agree that the encyclopedia will grind to a halt if we allow people to present their opinions in easily shared ways. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Please read the User page guideline.  Your statement above is simply false. Polemical statements are not permitted on user pages. --Tony Sidaway 20:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeesh, I didn't realize this would generate such strong opinions.  I've taken it for granted - not really as a CSD, because I don't have the delete button, but just as a rule of thumb - that "This user is a pedophile" is inappropriate under any circumstances, and the whole userbox migration thing was a formality to prevent the appearance of Wikipedia supporting controversial positions.  In other words, we don't need to expand T1 to cover userboxes because it's already been understood that way.  Did I miss something all these months?  (I'm always willing to learn.) YechielMan 13:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not everyone agrees with that even for "This user is a pedophile" -- I don't, for one. But T1 is being used to delete "This user supports the ACLU" and possibly even "This user is a Democrat/Republican". It has been urged as a reson to delete "This user is a Christian/Jew/Muslim". I really don't think there is consensus for deletions that broad even in template-space, much less in userspace. I think that the creation of T1 was a large mistake, and it should be removed, not expanded. DES (talk) 22:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I never actually understood what Brant was talking about before, but now it's perfectly clear to me. The Hive-Mind mentality. I totally agree with the NPOV as it applies to the articles, but I totally and utterly disagree with any attempt to control the minds of individuals while they are here. This is not a social network site, but that does not give some high level egotistical admins the right to be total idiots to every contributer here just because they have a bit that allows them to. Maybe you guys should be more concerned about the content of the actual encyclopedia than about the people that are giving up time to write it. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 19:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Does not apply to userfied userboxes. Template boxes have always been in play. That's why WP:GUS was invented. Otherwise support adding that T1 does not apply to userfied userboxes. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 01:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Support.  Suggest wording this as does not apply outside the Template: namespace. — The Storm Surfer 01:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:CSD#T1]] scope widening 

message: It seems the general consensus is not to widen the scope. As such, maybe we should add to the description of T1 that this policy does not apply to userboxes.--SefringleTalk 01:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does not apply to userfied userboxes. Template boxes have always been in play. That's why WP:GUS was invented. Otherwise support adding that T1 does not apply to userfied userboxes. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 01:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Support.  Suggest wording this as does not apply outside the Template: namespace. — The Storm Surfer 01:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvements to description

message: I would like to propose a change to CSD R2. It currently reads: "Redirects to the Talk:, User: or User talk: namespace from the article space (this does not include the Wikipedia shortcut pseudo-namespaces). If this was the result of a page move, consider waiting a day or two before deleting the redirect." However, I would like to propose that it reads: "Redirects to any non-article namespace from the article space (this does not include the Wikipedia shortcut pseudo-namespaces). If this was the result of a page move, consider waiting a day or two before deleting the redirect." I would like to propose this because, currently, a lot of reports are being filed at RFD that are downright deletes, but go through this because it's not on here. For example a lot of X -> Wikipedia:X are showing up, and they're always deleted, but it's not covered in CFSD. Cool Bluetalk to me 15:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically I agree with you.  The problem is that a small number of RFDs for "article" redirects to Wikipedia: namespace pages have been kept where it was sufficiently obvious that the search term was not an article.  (I "voted" in at least one example, but I can't remember it.)  At any rate, I would support expanding the range of speediable XNR namespaces to every one except Wikipedia: and perhaps Category:.  I think the current text should be updated accordingly. Shalom Hello 16:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any suggestions on how we should pursue this? Cool Bluetalk to me 19:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at this now, I don't think we should have too much of a problem with this. I think we can trust the administrator looking over it to use common sense. If there's any conflict we can always just send it to RFD. Cool Bluetalk to me 19:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we get anymore comments on this? Support? Oppose? Suggestions? Cool Bluetalk to me 23:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Support, expanding to all namespaces bar Category:, with an exception for "WP:X" redirects into Wikipedia: Will (talk) 00:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Support - also extend to redirects to user or user talk pages from any other name-space. I recently nominated Wikipedia:Random picture of the day and Wikipedia:Random picture of the day/template under R2, but the nominations failed as the redirects are from Wikipedia:, not mainspace. I believe this is a mere technicality which should be addressed. – Tivedshambo (talk) 11:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll address that. Is it safe to put it in? Cool Bluetalk to me 14:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll announce at the village pump. Cool Bluetalk to me 17:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Cross namespace redirects are not always deleted at Rfd. Yes, recently many have been. But there is a giant list of them that mostly have consensus to be kept. --- RockMFR 21:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And there exist many "pseudo-namespaces" that not everybody is aware of. There's at least C:, CAT:, MoS:, P:, T:, WP: WPT:, WT: and possibly more. The mailing list redirects are also helpful, cross-space and can't possibly confuse anyone. RFD isn't overworked, so they can deal with the small amount of CNRs and decide case-by-case. Kusma (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think we're fine as far as the pseudo-namespaces. I mean, even if a newbie comes along and noms something like WT:X or CAT:X, and it redirects to a Wikipedia talk:, Category:, or other non-article namespace, I think that the administrator can be trusted to use common sense, and administrators are regulars who know about the pseudo-namespaces. Cool Bluetalk to me 13:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is CSD we're talking about here. No offense, but never trust interpretation of CSD to administrators' common sense. Why? It only takes one administrator to disagree with everyone else and delete all the established pseudo-namespaces not explicitly mentioned in the criterion. Admins don't all have the same POV, and some of them will always interpret the letter of the criteria different than others. Let's not leave anything to anyone's interpretation with speedy deletion criteria. BigNate37(T) 05:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSD R2 

message: I have a problem with Speedy A7. People add the speedy tag claiming that the subject has "no notability", but no due diligence is required to check Google to see if the topic has any notable. I want to add a "due diligence" clause that states that the article can be flagged for "no asserted notability" ONLY after some due diligence is performed with a Google web and news archive search. A7 is becoming a back door deletion method. We should always fix and improve before deletion, especially when there are so few checks and balances to a speedy deletion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that the issue is whether the article asserts notability.  Certainly if it looks as if the person might be notable, a person ought to check before deletion or tagging.  But I don't think we should be required to check Google for every article that doesn't even give a hint of why a person deserves an article.  NickelShoe (Talk) 19:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that it should be required for something like "John Doe is the coolest guy ever!!!", but it could be helpful in a disputed subject in compliance with WP:BIO, WP:CORP, etc. It should be a pressured suggestion for an admin. Cool Bluetalk to me 20:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Cool Blue. Its a good idea - but only if one is unsure about it. Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: "Non-notable" is not sufficient justification for A7 deletion, despite widespread misuse. To admins, please only cite A7 when A7 applies - if A7 does not apply, and you still want to delete, you have the option of using and citing IAR instead (at your own risk). Dcoetzee 02:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here I disagree. Any speedy that cites IAR as its reason i will undo as invalid if I happen to see it. Please note that the policy page says "These criteria are worded narrowly and such that in most cases reasonable editors will agree what does or does not fall under a given criterion. Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead. Instead if you see something that you think really ought to go, but it asserts significance so it isn't properly an A&, but seems to lack any actual notability, tag it with  instead. This allows others to find sources establishing notability if they can Or  just go directly to AfD. DES (talk) 05:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this is what people ought to do - I'm not speaking here to the people trying to follow the rules, but the people so determined to delete something that they're happy to ignore the substance of a CSD and misapply it. It's less destructive to simply admit that you're breaking the rules, allowing appropriate scrutiny to take place, than to deceptively hide the deleton behind a CSD and encourage its further misuse. Dcoetzee 06:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't go quite so far--it has to have some credibility.  But in borderline cases I would much rather use another criterion when possible. Basically I'm looking for some assertion in good faith--which is hard to specify exactly. When it's obviously gaming the system, I end to lose patience. The problem cases for me are someone naively asserting his notability as a junior high school student, but with an article too long to really call it empty or lacking context. I don't know how to set up a rule to deal with these. DGG 03:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I certainly recognize that there can be different interpretations.  But in my mind A7 was designed for the "John Doe graduated form Slippery Rock University 147th in his class and now employed by some dull firm" and the "The Totally Awsome dudes are a great band. As soon as we release an album we will be famous" articles than anything else. Every time I work on the A7 backlog I find things with very clear claims It sometimes is very hard for me to allow obviously bogus claims through, but I would rather have a bad article hang around for the week or so it takes PROD to work than see A7 expand too far. Dsmdgold 02:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: A7 is getting abused as far as I can see. How is an "assertion" defined anyway?-h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 08:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I do that at CAT:CCSD from time to time. Removing incorrectly placed speedy tags isn't an admin only task, as long as a rationale is left somewhere as to why the speedy deletion is declined then it shouldn't matter. If speedy deletion is dubious or questioned by another editor then the article should be put through another process. - Zeibura (Talk) 05:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: (EC) Not at all. Anyone except the article's creator may, in good faith, remove a speedy deletion tag. Per the CSD policy, "discussion using another method under the deletion policy" is appropriate for cases where "reasonable doubt exists". -- Black Falcon (Talk) 05:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A7 

message: Oh.  I'm going to be bold and suggest something marginally radical:
The speedy deletion policy specifies the limited cases where administrators may delete Wikipedia pages or media without  formal discussion. Non-administrators Any editor can request deletion of such a page by adding an appropriate template (see below). The word "speedy" in this context refers to the simple decision-making process, not the length of time since the article was created.
And then add a section
Absent of exigent circumstances (such as an article whose very presence is damaging or dangerous to Wikipedia), administrators should not delete a page unless another editor has placed an appropriate template on it.
(Rewording needed)
Perhaps clarify "exigent circumstances" further?  Something along the lines of clear G10 and G12, for instance, because the longer such a page stays on Wikipedia the larger the legal exposure.
Zeibura below made the very excellent point that uncontroversial deletes would be affected with no good reason.  I've approached this from the default deny approach ingrained into my specialty, which was very correctly pointed out to be a silly mistake.
I'd still propose the double check, but only for arguably controversial/subjective criteria:  A1, A7, G11 and maybe G1, and G3.  Just thinking about it for two minutes (yeah-- I probably should have done that before being bold) allowed me to realize that those were, at any rate, the only cases I've ever seen where individual judgment may differ in good faith and that two minds would have been better than just the one.  — Coren (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: but we will have something better to reply to them. At present, mentioning something like this  is often ignored, and sometimes gets a rather angry response. 
*I suggested this soon after i came here, and, even though an admin now, still think it would be a good idea, but there is the problem of the thousand or so articles of unquestioned junk which just about anyone with experience could safely delete single-handed. The difficulty is in delimiting this--whatever boundary is set, people will exceed it. There are many admins who are less careful than W.marsh. We have very little protection against them unless the author has the gumption to complain effectively, or the errors are extensive enough for people to notice. There have been enough examples mentioned above over the months.  If you ask me whether I think I can count on any admin to follow the rules in all cases, even when tired, the answer is that I do not, and i include myself among them. I know I make mistakes; I know I will continue to make mistakes. I hope not perversely, and I hope with decreasing frequency, but for most things I would rather someone check my work. Of course I can choose to do so, & I generally do, but not everyone does. I think an audit  of single handed deletes for reasons that do not fit speedy would be of some interest, and would either show coren's doubts misplaced (and, unlike myself, he tends to be a deletionist)--or not. The confidence of ordinary WPedians in admins is not at present very great, and we should think how to increase it.  DGG 00:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have some ideas, and I've set up the subpage Wkipedia talk:criteria for speedy deletion/analysis for discussing it. Let's see what we find. If we do decide to change, it would help to have a baseline to see if it does any good. DGG 03:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the first test result looks interesting. It's on the subpage, I did not select someone I thought to be possibly a problem, and yet it appears to be a totally inappropriate deletion by someone who clearly thought it the right thing to do--any comments?DGG 07:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *You're right, of course, that we don't yet have evidence of the problem (or that it's an illusion).  We're working on that.  :-) — Coren (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slight fundamental change in policy? 

message: It's all about checks and balances.  This method would insure that, in most cases, at least two editors look at an article before it gets speedily deleted.  This might even have the side effect of reducing pressure on DRV a bit (although that's not what I feel should be a primary objective).
Pages that are candidates for speedy deletion, as a rule, are not damaging if they survive a few more minutes or hours.  Someone's garage band's article might stay on a little longer (long enough for a patroller to catch it, and then for an admin to handle the speedy), but that's also potentially a Good Thing(tm) since it gives a little wider window for an editor to fix the problem with the article and stave off deletion altogether.
What do you think?  — Coren (talk) 17:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rationale

message: In order to try to make the point we're now at clearer, I've tried to collect/digest/copy salient points here.
The proposal is that an annotation be added to the Criteria for Speedy Deletion identifying certain criteria as particularly subjective; admins are cautioned from deleting an article/whatever under these criteria unless they have already been flagged by any other user. One suggested wording is:
It should be noted that some of the criteria for speedy deletion necessarily include some measure of subjective judgment in their application (G11, A1, A7 and, less saliently, G1 and G3).  An administrator should almost always prefer to wait for the page to have already been tagged by another editor before deleting it.
It is, of course, totally appropriate for an administrator to place a tag on the page to bring it to the attention of other administrators who could then delete it.
Can people try to comment in a way that makes clear whether they are supporting/opposing the sense of the proposal, or the specific wording. SamBC 20:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: but we will have something better to reply to them. At present, mentioning something like this  is often ignored, and sometimes gets a rather angry response. 
*I suggested this soon after i came here, and, even though an admin now, still think it would be a good idea, but there is the problem of the thousand or so articles of unquestioned junk which just about anyone with experience could safely delete single-handed. The difficulty is in delimiting this--whatever boundary is set, people will exceed it. There are many admins who are less careful than W.marsh. We have very little protection against them unless the author has the gumption to complain effectively, or the errors are extensive enough for people to notice. There have been enough examples mentioned above over the months.  If you ask me whether I think I can count on any admin to follow the rules in all cases, even when tired, the answer is that I do not, and i include myself among them. I know I make mistakes; I know I will continue to make mistakes. I hope not perversely, and I hope with decreasing frequency, but for most things I would rather someone check my work. Of course I can choose to do so, & I generally do, but not everyone does. I think an audit  of single handed deletes for reasons that do not fit speedy would be of some interest, and would either show coren's doubts misplaced (and, unlike myself, he tends to be a deletionist)--or not. The confidence of ordinary WPedians in admins is not at present very great, and we should think how to increase it.  DGG 00:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have some ideas, and I've set up the subpage Wkipedia talk:criteria for speedy deletion/analysis for discussing it. Let's see what we find. If we do decide to change, it would help to have a baseline to see if it does any good. DGG 03:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the first test result looks interesting. It's on the subpage, I did not select someone I thought to be possibly a problem, and yet it appears to be a totally inappropriate deletion by someone who clearly thought it the right thing to do--any comments?DGG 07:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *You're right, of course, that we don't yet have evidence of the problem (or that it's an illusion).  We're working on that.  :-) — Coren (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The percolated, digested proposal

message: I propose a csd to delete rfm pages for users who were nominated for adminship but declined nomination.--SefringleTalk 22:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the related discussion in the section #CSD G13 above. Basically, declined nominations can be speedied per CSD G6 (housekeeping). -- Black Falcon (Talk) 23:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  declined adminship requests 

message: Articles that are effectively copies of existing articles under a totally different name, with original research/deleted material added such as Duane moore (Tony Eveready). I've seen them crop up occasionally.-h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 18:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think this is needed for a speedy deletion criteria. For one thing, it is probably not objective/obvious enough in some cases. In addition, it doesn't arise all that frequently to require speedy deletion.  can usually handle these cases effectively (assuming they aren't covered under existing CSD criteria like G3 (vandalism) and G11 (spam). -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would those kinds of articles technically qualify for G12 as GFDL violations? Pan Dan 19:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. The revision history of the original article and any subsequent modifications to the POV/OR fork are licensed under the GFDL. A GFDL issue arises if the article from which the OR fork was created is deleted, but that still doesn't justify deletion under CSD G12 as the revision history can simply be restored. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Speedy deletions are not the answer in situations like the one above, redirects are. Merge any differences (that don't violate core policies like WP:V) and then redirect the less popular title to the more popular title. This will prevent duplicate article recreation and newcomer biting. BigNate37(T) 20:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically what BigNate says, and also if the redirect is one which is never going to be typed into the search box and has no relation to the copied article, it can be speedied under R3. - Zeibura (Talk) 20:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's pretty underhanded to turn an article you don't like into an implausible redirect and then speedy it... aside from that, if someone creates an article at a certain title, it's reasonable to assert that it's something people search for—someone already did. BigNate37(T) 21:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm I see what you mean, I guess there'd be no harm done leaving the redirect and letting someone else find it. I didn't mean "an article I don't like" though, I mean a copy of a page or an article clearly on exactly the same subject, these (unless they're vandalism) should be turned into redirects by default. - Zeibura (Talk) 21:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if I implied anything, it was not my intent. I was speaking hypothetically, and using the second person to direct it at you was out of habit—nothing personal. What it should say is that such an idea leaves itself open to abuse, rather than having implied you were suggesting such abuse. Sorry again, BigNate37(T) 21:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New speedy deletion criterion proposal 

message: The third paragraph of this policy states:
Contributors sometimes create articles over several edits, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its creation if it appears incomplete.
Is this really necessary? Based on the number of people that do Newpage patrol, this is already largely ignored. Also, shouldn't pages not fail speedy deletion criteria from the very first edit? It is also unclear. How long should we wait? Should we assume that the author is editing on a slow dialup connection and will need 5 minutes between edits? Doesn't waiting defeat the "speedy" in speedy deletion? What criteria should this apply to? Obvioulsly it would not apply to copyvios or attack pages, but what about G4, A1, A3, or A7? Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 00:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The present policy is , to put it simply, forthe convenience of admins at the expense of encouraging the improvement of articles. short of copyvio and BLP,  no apparent attemtp to creat an article in good faith should be deleted within at least 24 hours, and if we need to ask the developers to creat a timed holding mechanism, I think they can mannage it.DGG (talk) 22:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amend paragraph 3 of the intro 

message: Is it standard practice to orphan an image that may fail the fair use criteria immediately after tagging it? My question pertains specifically to cases of CSD I7 (disputed fair use). Black Falcon (Talk) 17:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is orphaning images standard practice? 

message: I don't much care myself what the outcome is, but can we please stop edit warring on a policy page. SamBC 14:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think it is a substantial loss if the "should be deleted" in the Foundation Licensing policy is interpreted as meaning "immediately", thus negating the seven day window.  I understand how it could be read that way, but I would also be surprised if the Board really intended to rule out any attempt to correct licensing problems.  Dragons flight 14:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's entirely unsurprising when one considers that this is only for content uploaded after the resolution came into force; content uploaded before should be subject to discussion processes, as the resolution goes on to say. --bainer (talk) 14:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One could read it differently though.  Tagging for 7 days is not the same as a "discussion process", and so I6 actually moves more quickly than is required for old items.  And having a 7-day window is not the same as subjecting new items to discussion, either.  Even with a waiting period, we ensure that all problematic content will be deleted, which I believe is the intent of the Resolution.  Assuming they mean "should be deleted immediately" seems actively detrimental, and so it is not a reading I would want to make unless the timing were really explicit in the text (which it is not).  Dragons flight 15:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Dragon's flight and Wikidemo.  The point the resolution requires is that such images can be deleted by a CSD process; an IfD is not needed.  Our current well-established CSD process, with its 7-day window, fully implements that, in a civilised and straightforward way.  Jheald 15:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 48 hours, with notification. -- Ned Scott 19:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war on I6 

message: Some admins seem to like using CSD criteria to cut short a debate where there are well-reasoned "keep" opinions. This is bad. -Amarkov moo! 03:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gah