Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 23

message: I would like to add to the "redirects" section, point 1, " Redirects to deleted pages and to nonexistent pages" the following exception:
*(excepting the talk page of a template documentation page, redirected to the as-yet nonexistent main talk page for that template)
Anyone object? Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 21:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to update this, the example redirect I created above Template talk:Thread retitled/doc has been picked up (glad to see the system works!) and nominated for speedy deletion. As there has been no further addition to this discussion, I'm happy to let the example be deleted. Carcharoth 08:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allow redirects to empty template talk pages, from template doc talk pages 

message: I think we need to clarify G4 to exclude user pages, and user talk pages. I wasn't aware it doesnt apply to them, so it would help having it clarified on this page. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Substantially identical copies of userpages certainly qualify under G4. The kind of recreation which doesn't qualify is not substantially identical by any reasonable definition, meaning that it doesn't apply already. Or did someone sneak out that wording again? -Amarkov moo! 01:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If a user page was MfD'd then G4 should apply. Until(1 == 2) 01:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I think he's talking about things that are userfied. -- Ned Scott 01:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, G4 seems to make it pretty clear that userfications aren't to be speedied under it. SamBC(talk) 02:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe I've ever seen a userfication speedied under G4. I have seen some articles which were deleted and then posted as effectively spam to a user's userpage deleted under it, but that could as easily be done under G11. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarify G4 

message: Proposed a speedy template here, feel free to improve on it. Melsaran 10:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Template proposal

message: Please see: IfD for No bush.JPG and George-W-BushXX.JPG and IfD for No Karl Marx.jpg. This practice of photoshopping images with an "X" to turn an image into an opinion (a statement of opposition what the image represents) is, I would think, a clear violation of WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:VER, WP:Reliable sources, WP:Notability, etc.-- in short, a violation of all the basic policies of WP.  Pehaps such images belong on the Commons, perhaps not. But as to WP, they quite plainly are original statements of personal POV. I'd be interested in hearing why the CFSD hasn't addressed this sort of thing.  Or has this sort of thing already been considered? ... Kenosis 13:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These are not, IMO, over POV, but over WP:NOT and all the basics of what WP is and is not.  Whatever WP is, it is most certainly not a blog, not a forum for personal POVs, not a forum for jokes, original material, etc., etc.  The practice of taking an image and simply turning into a statement of "No [what's on the image]", it seems to me, ought be a simple policy matter-- unless it can be shown that the image was already notable as, say, part of an already established campaign of some kind. .... Kenosis 13:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yes, I see your point, but the IFD is far from unanimous on that. Please see the checklist at the top of this talk page with respect to proposing new speedy criteria. >Radiant< 14:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I understand. Perhaps an appropriate course w.r.t. this sort of increasingly common practice is to simply move such images over to the Commons. They certainly don't belong on WP. ... Kenosis 14:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: **Moving images to commons is always a good thing (assuming the licensing holds). >Radiant< 14:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poster Children for CFSD 

message: Is I1 applicable if the two images have different licensing terms. E.g., :Image:Rahula-college-crest.jpg (noncommercial and educational license) is requested to be deleted in favor of :Image:Rcm-logo.jpg (fair use rationale)? Carlossuarez46 05:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I1 question 

message: I do not think that Non-criteria should be used to exempt specific categories or subjects of articles from speedy deletion.  The section, from all the other things in it, plainly lists things that people mistakenly take to be criteria that are not--and, more importantly, there's really only one criteria, A7, that "cares" about the subject of the article.  One editor indicated, though, that schools are occasionally being mistakenly tagged under A7, and occasionally even deleted.  Given the touchiness of the subject, should A7 itself be reworded to clarify that it does not apply to educational institutions?  It seems to me that that would be the more appropriate place on the page to deal with the issue, in any case...  although it should probably only be clarified if it really is an issue. --Aquillion 00:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: School deletions are controversial and (at least used to) attract a lot of sporters as well as detracters. Consequently they are not clear enough for speedy deletion. 00:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand here, I've A7'd schools. I'll take a pretty tight line on it (if there's even a hint of an assertion, I won't), but schools are an organization and are subject to those requirements. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I think that schools should be subject to the same criteria as any other organisation, there is a substantial body of opinion that all secondary/high schools (and above) are inherently notable, and this means that all such deletions are contentious. This is less of an issue for primary/elementary and middle/junior high schools. Not sure how it could ever be worded though. Personally, I think it's high time there was some sort of consensus-based guideline for educational establishment notability, but I believe this has failed miserably in the past. SamBC(talk) 02:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A7 and schools 

message: I restored an exception for speedying of talk pages: "It contains deletion discussion that is not logged elsewhere". In such a case it should not be speedied (best solution would be some 'move and archive by a bot').-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is the discussion that led to the removal of this exception in the first place? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None. It was only very briefly absent when Radiant was "deverbosifying" the wording. See here. I'm sure this was an honest mistake by Radiant. Kudos to Piotr for spotting that this had happened. Carcharoth 01:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree, an honest mistake.  Thanks. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exception for talk pages 

message: this was posted simultaneously with the preceding section by coincidence
A section of the CSD policy was removed recently regarding the inappropriate use of CSD for school articles.  I have restored the section (removal diff — restoration diff). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I noted above--I can see a clarification on A7 (which I've replaced the section with), but I don't think there's any consensus to exempt schools from any speedy criterion aside from A7.  In any case, please discuss it before re-adding the section...  it was added and then re-added without discussion. Clarifying A7 is trivial (since I don't think it's ever been intended to apply to schools), but exempting any class of articles from G4 in particular is extremely controversial, since it would effectively make them impossible to delete under any circumstances so long as a single editor objects. --Aquillion 00:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree somewhat - in that the language used before was much too strong and did not make specific reference to A7 - but when it comes to emphasizing that A7 shouldn't be applied to things it doesn't specifically list, it bears repeating. Dcoetzee 01:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It is completely unacceptable, Aquillion, for you to exercise WP:BOLD on Wikipedia policy as you have here.  I would ask that you restore the policy page to its original form until a consensus is reached here on what the wording should be altered to. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had the use of WP:BRD advocated to me by admins and other established editors on policy pages many times. Removal of the exception doesn't seem to be bold, because as far as anyone seems to be able to tell, it was added boldly in the first place. So, be bold, see it get reverted, then discuss. Or see someone being bold, revert it (if you disagree), then discuss. SamBC(talk) 03:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *Yes, Ceyockey, you're misinterpreting events.  Look at the logs; the section I removed was added without discussion just a few days ago, by an editor who noted that he was being WP:BOLD when he added it.  I almost immediately reverted, since it was a major change and I had the objections noted above and in my edit summary.  It didn't occur to me that anyone would be reckless enough to re-insert such a major change again with no discussion, after someone had objected to it; but when I noticed it had been put back in a second time, I removed it again, starting a discussion on talk and suggesting what I think is a reasonable compromise.  It is the addition of this section that was bold; I was the one restoring the page to its original state, while you have been boldly pushing in a new section that has never had any discussion until now. If you insist, I will remove the edit I made to A7, but it was the addition of the new school exception that was bold, not its removal, and I certainly don't think that should be put in a fourth time until there's been at least some discussion and sign of consensus.  Again, exempting any class of articles wholesale from G4 is a major change, one that could undermine the entire AFD system by effectively making AFD results nonbinding...  I don't really see the need to address schools specifically for any of the criteria except A7. --Aquillion 03:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: **Understood ... your removal was well done and I only looked at the most recent action.  Apologies. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Removed again. I've often seen schools deleted under A7 in practice, and have very rarely seen such a decision DRV'd (much less successfully so), which really doesn't lead me to believe there's consensus for any such restriction. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: First of all, the non-criteria section is supposed to be non-normative, not policy, so there's no need to edit war over it. Second, A7 does not apply to schools - regardless of how it's misapplied. But schools can still be deleted under lots of other criteria. This is the state of things and we shouldn't misrepresent it. If you want to add schools to A7 (like enough people have attempted to do recently) that's another matter. Dcoetzee 06:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Groups and organizations have always fallen under A7, including nonprofit and governmental organizations. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose that's interpretation - is a school a "group"? I didn't think so but I can see how you might. Dcoetzee 06:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Back when CSD A7 was first expanded to cover more than just individual people, the proposed wording of the expansion was "small groups of people" — the idea being that if Jack the high-school kid was speediable, then Jack the high-school kid and his brother Joe or Jack's group of high-school friends should not require the full AfD treatment either.  Of course, A7 has been further expanded since then, so I don't really know if this expansion of the meaning of "groups" has actually been discussed and agreed upon, or whether it has just gradually crept in.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy deletion of schools 

message: What's the official process when an editor attempts to circumvent CSD? Long story short; I created a userbox ages ago. I moved it to my userspace per WP:UM and had the original template deleted. An editor has recreated the original userbox (at a slightly different url). I tagged it with the appropriate speedy-delete header and informed the editor. The editor removed the template and continued to edit the template. I've warned the editor for this behaviour but given that the editor is carrying out this practice for a number of related userboxes against the advice & warnings of other editors I don't believe he/she is inclined to listen or stop. Is this something to take directly to WP:ANI? Thanks AulaTPN 22:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Upon further investigation, this user is way more disruptive than I had previously thought. Have referred straight to WP:ANI. AulaTPN 23:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick Question 

message: Here's a radical idea. I think what is needed is for commons to be administrated by admins from all the projects, rather than have its own administrators. It makes no sense to share the pictures, but to have separate bureaucracies. In other words, Commons bureaucracy should be a meta-bureacracy. Any admin on any project using Commons images would have admin rights on Commons. Would that have a bat's chance in hell of flying? Carcharoth 00:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would probably not have a chance of flying.   Recent policy decisions at Commons have strengthened the idea of "adminship for active editors"; administrators of other projects are not necessarily active at Commons.  --Iamunknown 02:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt it would go over either. Many admins on many projects really never deal with images, copyright issues, and so on, I don't think Commons would be comfortable with them being able to just jump in anytime they want with admin privileges. Commons also has different policies and practices than many other projects, so admins from others may not even know what's going on there. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Not likely to pass. As it is, administrators can be shared between projects (I'm an admin both here and on Commons), but it should not be an instant switchover of permissions, just as being an administrator on another edition of Wikipedia means that they can be an administrator here. If someone wants to administer Commons, they should invest the time to get involved there. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course that's not quite analogous, given that no part of the English Wikipedia currently resides in another language Wikipedia. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't the language part that is supposed to be analogous. It's the fact that each site, even if they're in the same project (ie: the English Wikipedia compared to the German Wikipedia, or Spanish Wikinews compared to Greek Wikinews, etc.) is different from the others, and experience on each individual project is needed before becoming an administrator there. Commons is no different in that regard; just because you're an administrator on an edition of Wikipedia doesn't mean that you're qualified to be an administrator on Commons. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that different editions of Wikipedia don't overlap, whereas many parts of Commons are also parts of the English Wikipedia. I wouldn't expect to be able to protect a page on the German Wikipedia; I'm not an admin there. But I might expect, as an English Wikipedia admin, to be able to protect images included in this encyclopedia, such as . The broader point is that, to the extent that Commons is an independent project, it becomes less useful as a warehouse for the other projects. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but if you have interest in administering Commons, why don't you actually participate there? :P That's my point, really; if an admin here can't be bothered to actually edit there enough to successfully achieve the admin bit, they obviously don't have the need for it. Me? I have the need, and so I put in my time there to become an admin. Easy breezy. The requirement is 200 edits; it's enough to show that, yes, you are active on Commons, and serves to acclimate you to the differences between the way Commons operates and the way Wikipedia operates (keep in mind that Commons is used by more than just Wikipedia; Wikinews, Wikispecies, and Wikisource come to mind, and the differences between those five projects are significant). EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have an interest in administering Commons; I just want to protect [this picture which appears in Apple. (Or block people who are edit warring over it, etc.) It's part of the English Wikipedia; the fact that it sits in Commons should be irrelevant. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The image you're talking about, :Image:Koeh-108.jpg, hasn't had anything happen on it since the 29th of January. There's no reason to protect it, and "just because you want to" isn't a valid argument (ironically, that bit about protection is common to both Wikipedia and Commons. Nothing quite as fun as shooting holes in my own argument...) EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it was rather obvious that I was speaking hypothetically, but perhaps not. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I figured you were, but it's largely irrelevant (in my mind, at least). If you want to be an admin on Commons, become active there. Being an admin on another project is very different from being an admin on Commons, and to just automatically grant adminship has just as much potential for harm as the existing system. The fact that Wikipedia uses Commons is irrelevant. Pretty much any vandalism on Commons can be reverted without the admin bit, and non-admins are welcome to use the existing systems to request protection or report repeat offenders. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that Wikipedia uses Commons is quite relevant -- the fact that en.wp policies and administrative rules aren't applied to the images we move to Commons is what makes Commons such a poor provider of services. As the editorial standards and policies of the two project continue to drift apart, that will become an increasing problem. My overall point is that maintaining this one-way relationship is not worth our trouble. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What policies and administrative rules aren't applied? The same rules about free images apply there (even more stringently, actually) as they do here.I think you've got a rather limited outlook on the "one-way relationship" itself; Commons shares its images with all the Wikimedia projects. Allowing any admin from any project to do whatever they please there is not particularly constructive; too many cooks in the kitchen, shall we say.A similar situation exists with Meta-Wiki; all of our Help-namespace pages come from there, making us dependent on Meta's content (not to the extent that we depend on Commons, but it's still comparable, and both are multi-language projects). Should en.wiki admins automatically be administrators there so that we can preemptively resolve any content disputes on Meta, despite the vast differences between the projects (both the scope and the structural organization)? EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Commons admins

message: I was doing some image-related work today: see Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Images in TFA archives (redux). While there, I found some examples of images that were moved from here to Commons, and later deleted, and examples of images that were deleted on Commons. Because many of the links were in protected TFA subpages, they weren't removed by the Commons delinker, which was  unfortunate. Some may also be examples of Commons enforcing its more strict policies. Some may be examples of Commons picking up problems that Wikipedia did not. I didn't have time to research them fully, but here are the examples in case anyone wants to investigate further and pronounce a verdict on whether moving the images to Commons without keeping a copy here was ultimately helpful or not. Carcharoth 21:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible examples of advatanges and disadvantages of Commons

message: Do files not in a format specified by WP:IUP#Format fall under one of the criteria? Would it be I2? --- RockMFR 07:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media in unacceptable file formats 

message: I would like to propose adding the following line to CSD I8 (in light of various discussions on WP:AN/WP:AN/I):
:If an editor requests a copy of the image remains held locally, for whatever reason, then please allow it to remain.  Server space is cheap.
Thoughts?  Objections?  Comments? Neil ム 12:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The proposal is a bad idea, as is the concept of keeping duplicate images on En and Commons. The latter needs to be avoided for several reasons. Someone operating on only one wiki may easily update one image but not the other, particularly as part of a batch edit. Depending on which copy is updated, either En or all other wikis won't receive the changes. It's also easy for a Commons editor who doesn't speak English to forget to check En. Comments about the image and updates to the metadata and license should only need to be done on one page, not many. This problem is compounded when many wikis having local copies. Local copies are an endless source of maintenance trouble. Dcoetzee 22:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that having local copies is more trouble than it is worth. But equally, I can see how it is frustrating that editorial and admin control over images appearing on Wikipedia is lost when those images are on Commons. Imagine if the template namespace was a separate wiki, and anyone changing things on that wiki changed the appearance of the transcluded templates on Wikipedia (similar to the Help namespace example that Evula pointed out). Also, to repeat what I said above, it makes no sense for the Commons bureaucracy to be separate from the projects that it shares images with. I would want admins on Commons (and maybe meta as well) to be approved by the entire community of projects that both Commons (and meta) serve, rather than risk the culture on Commons and meta diverging from the culture of the projects they serve. Carcharoth 01:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *I suppose you could try and motivate a substantial amount of enwiki users to make an account on Commons and participate in the local equivalent of RFA, that'd get you the input. Perhaps we can have a template like the one on WP:BN that instead lists all people nominated for adminship on Commons. Or Meta. Or both. >Radiant< 07:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSD I8 addition 

message: C1 currently says "Empty categories that have been empty for four days." How can we check to make sure that they have been empty for 4 days? As it stands, I can't find any mechanism that lets you do that. Can I suggest that we either remove the four days bit, or set up some sort of system whereby categories nominated for deletion are held in some sort of speedy deletion limbo for 4 days (similar to how things like :Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons are done)? Mike Peel 09:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I use two mechanisms: (1) bookmark the category and check in four days whether it's still empty, and (2) if the category was recently created, check whether 4 days have elapsed since the date of creation. If either of these criteria are met, it's generally safe to delete. Given that relatively few categories are tagged/deleted per C1 (and most cases are completely uncontroversial), I'd prefer to avoid a "limbo"-type system. — Black Falcon (Talk) 18:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never been comfortable with C1.  I think that it would be easier to slap a prod tag on the category.  When the prod expires, if the category is empty, then delete it. --After Midnight 0001 01:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  C1: Empty categories 

message: Why is I7 a criteria for speedy deletion? Many of the fair use criteria (particularly 1 and 8) are extremely subjective, and seem more appropriate for community consensus to decide via IfD than a single administrator. Evouga 18:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I7 is only a criterion for speedy deletion if the rationale is blatantly invalid. Otherwise, the image is tagged and left for 48 hours for the uploader to contest or explain before it can be deleted. - Zeibura (Talk) 18:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But if it's contested, and the single administrator does not share the opinion of the contesting editor, the image is still deleted without community consensus-forming. I would think IfD would be the appropriate place for such discussion, instead of the inevitable deletion review. Evouga 20:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My view is that if contested, it should always be sent to IfD. Most of the time, they're not contested, and there really are too many of these images for IfD to handle. - Zeibura (Talk) 21:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of them are also uploaded by "drive-by" users, the use is clearly invalid, and the uploader is never to be seen again. There's no need to clog up IfD with those, that's exactly the kind of thing speedy is designed to prevent. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSD I7 

message: These officlal policies are inconsistently worded, and incorrectly summarized at [].  I6 is written with no stated requirement for notification instead weaseling with "Offending images can be tagged with /{/{s ubst:nrd/}/}, and the uploader notified with /{/{subst:missing rationale|Image:image name/}/}. ".
I7 is clearer, stating "may be deleted forty-eight hours after notification of the uploader ".
Problem: As written, I6 lets bots and drive-by taggers not notify uploaders and delete images with relative abandon.  The deletions are of course closely followed by missing image bots deleting links to the now-missing images. 
Solution: I6 should read "shall/must be tagged" and "uploader shall/must be notified", or rewritten to mandate same.
Consensus?
--Lexein 07:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with stating it must be tagged and the uploader must be notified, if you think that's clearer (although in practice that's already the case), but what bot has not been notifying uploaders? BetacommandBot is the main one, and it actually notifies not only the uploader but also leaves a notice on the talk page(s) of the article(s) the image is used in. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSD I6 and I7 harmonization, notification requirement 

message: "Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If controversial, or if there has been a previous deletion discussion that resulted in the article being kept, list the article at Articles for deletion instead."
This is being used to delete content based on a 100% subjective criterion. The articles should be flagged, or an Internet search done to look for references. Things don't have to be the biggest, oldest, or smartest. Thats for inclusion in Guinness World Records. See Talk:Edison Medal --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is subjective to an extent. But if I write an article saying my dog is lazy and sleeps all day would you suggest keeping it? Of course not. Unfortunately, pure objectivity is impossible else a quick python script could handle the tasks. The goal here is to write a useful encyclopedia not a collection of non-notable material. If we do overstep, any single editor can take the delete to the wider community at deletion review. --JodyB yak, yak, yak 21:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A7

message: I propose a new addition. Articles which do not have at least one secondary source within the article, either as a footnote, reference, or external link, should be speedily deleted as they are origional research.--SefringleTalk 03:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A lack of sources does not inherently make an article original research. There is no objective way of determining that such an article is genuinely original research. SamBC(talk) 03:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to WP:OR, origional research is "is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories" I think it is pretty obvious that if the article doesn't have even one source it is origional research.--SefringleTalk 05:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about the hypothetical article: "George W. Bush is President of the United States."? Obvious original research? I'm not seeing it. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I wasn't even able to get that to go over as a prod-style deletion (see WP:PRODUS), you might want to reopen discussion on that or something similar though. There did seem to be some support for userfying totally unsourced stuff after a period of time to the person who created it, I think that might be workable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: A lack of sources is an indication that sources should be added, not that the article should be deleted. How can we improve a deleted article? EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, sometimes an article is best improved by deleting it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, that much is true, but completely wrecks my argument, so I'm ignoring it. ;)(seriously, though, whether an article needs to be deleted or not is not dependant on whether it has sources or not; an article with crappy sources can still be deleted, and an article on a notable subject that, somehow, doesn't have source may still be kept) EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Though if the topic is notable, it should be possible for someone to easily source it. The unsourced version is crap, and should be deleted, and someone who actually can source it, then should re-create  and source it.--SefringleTalk 05:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't differ in opinion in that sources should be added to an article if they can be found. Where we differ is that I see no reason to just suddenly delete an article just because it has no sources; why make someone rewrite an entire article when simply adding a properly filled-out  would suffice? EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite often there are no sources to cite something, because the creater just made it up. If unsourced material can be removed from an article, why can't the entire article just be removed?--SefringleTalk 05:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unsourced material shouldn't be removed, at least on a general scale, without making some effort to find sources, unless that material is extremely doubtful or potentially harmful. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: so we are supposed to just assume that whoever created the article actually knows what the truth is, and that they didn't make it up? How can wikipedia be a verifiable encyclopedia when the content cannot be verified because it is origional research?--SefringleTalk 05:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I can easily see that being well covered by existing criteria (A7 comes to mind). We're dealing with hypotheticals, however; can you provide an example of an article that would fall under your proposed addition that wouldn't be covered by an existing one? (I'm not asking for a real example, though that would be nice; if you can conjure up an example, that would suffice for a better discussion) EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By random article, some examples are The Boy Who Found Fear At Last, The Legend of the Lone Ranger (1981 film), St. Peter's Secondary School, Huntingdon, and City of Greater Dandenong.--SefringleTalk 05:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fourth item is inherently notable and therefore ineligible for deletion (by your proposed CSD or any other deletion process). The other three... notability is more of an issue than references. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However it is also origional research, and would probably be better if deleted and later re-created by someone who cited the sources in the article. The other three do lack evidence of notability, but wouldn't be deleted by A7, because while non-notable, they do assert the importance or significance of its subject.--SefringleTalk 06:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are unsourced claims, which can be tagged with . Just because something is unsourced doesn't mean it is actual OR; it just means it is unsourced. Whether it actually is original research is something that has to be determined on a case-by-case basis; it's not an automatic thing. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: PS. Your original statement said "or at least one external link" - so why did three of your examples contain external links? Carcharoth 16:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed my original statement to secondary source. If there are only primary sources, it is pretty much OR anyway.--SefringleTalk 22:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are misunderstanding the differences between the fact-checking part of verification and the correct attribution of opinion part of verification. The presence of only primary sources is in no way a good indication that something is OR. You need to learn the difference between verification of facts using primary sources (not a problem), and sourcing of opinion and claims to secondary sources (also OK). What is bad is when people use primary sources to back up a claim they make. The correct method is to find a secondary source to provide the opinion, and to paraphrase them. And the spelling is 'original', not 'origional'. Carcharoth 23:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: So it is better to have crap on wikipedia, where because it may or may not be verifiable, but rather made up, and is unsourced, rather than speedy delete it. No wonder why wikipedia's critics say wikipedia is an unreliable source; little gets deleted, even if it is garbage!--SefringleTalk 22:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a very odd bias around here, that I've seen. I understand that when I submit work here, it is not mine, and it may be altered or even cut by others at will. That's fine, that's a standard part of the editorial process, and that includes cutting. Indeed, the best editors are always prepared to cut heavily, if need be. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hang on. Seraphimblade, do you seriously agree with the examples Sefringle used. Sefringle was asked for examples. I have looked in detail at all four: The Boy Who Found Fear At Last, The Legend of the Lone Ranger (1981 film), St. Peter's Secondary School, Huntingdon, and City of Greater Dandenong. They are all real, and verifiable. The fairy story is public domain and can be found online here (among other places). The film is for sale at Amazon: here. The city has a website here. The school has an OFSTED entry here. Using words like 'crap' and 'garbage' to include these articles with ones that are crap and garbage is irresponsible. Until Sefringle comes up with better examples, all of which will probably fit better under existing CSDs, I cannot take the ides of a speedy criteria for so-called unsourced articles. Particularly in light of the failure to understand how external links can provide verification. Carcharoth 23:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. It takes too long, often origional research is kept because of comments not based on the actual content of the article, and it just wastes everyones time when stuff that should obviusly be deleted has to be voted on. Then there is WP:SNOW, another obstacle to origional research being deleted.--SefringleTalk 05:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Give an example of something that went to AfD that you would have preferred to see speedied or PRODed. AfD does have problems, but seriously, just use WP:PROD to see if anyone objects. If they object, AfD should work. If that fails, try and understand why people have argued for something to be kept. Your spelling is still origional research, by the way. :-) Carcharoth 07:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, how about that school there? If all there is is some "OFSTED report", which I understand exist for all schools in those areas, it needs a merge to a parent district article (if such exists) or deletion. The OFSTED report, being a government requirement, is not a nontrivial source, any more than my birth certificate is a nontrivial source about me. Everyone has one. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means PROD or merge it, but please make clear to Sefringle that this is not an example of original research. The founding in 1870 is unverified, but if a source can be found, this could be of interest. What if, for example, the founding of the school occurred before the district was created? What then? Where does the history of the school go? Carcharoth 08:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: That page does not constitute original research, nor is it entirely unverifiable.  The demographics can be verified by checking the 2000 United States census, and a simple Google search reveals many possible sources.  All one—either me, you, or someone else—needs to do, is add inline citations.  --Iamunknown 04:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look carefully in the text, you will see that it has inline references:  and . But these aren't called out in a "references" section. --Alvestrand 06:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I also reject this proposal, I think that Sefringle meant like obvious WP:NOR infected essays which I am seeing alot on. The now deleted About Polish Houses is a perfect example. That article I speedied as copyvio, but if it wasn't a copyvio, it was going to be let rotted in prod for five days. I support a speedy critera for that but not for articles that is unsourced only. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 14:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: While created with good intention, and not after long discussion, I see lately that this criterion is becoming wildly abuzed by a swarm of fresh admins who mistake their own ignorance for artcile notability. In my wildest dream I could not imagine that IEEE lacks notability, but lo! For someone it is so. And someone else think he is right. Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Unwarranted_deletion_spree_of_Butseriouslyfolks. 
Someone well versed in policies, please introduce reasonable safeguags. Of course, IEEE will not suffer from this kind of activity. I guess it is beyond dignity of IEEE fellows to fight teenager's arrogance. But the image of wikipedia suffers. And potential experts are drawn away with muilitant disrespect.  `'Míkka 21:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that someone misused or misunderstood it does not indicate there's anything wrong with it. That's rather like suggesting we change our guide to editing because someone ignored it and vandalized instead. That issue was already corrected anyway, at what point can we lay off BSF, figure it for a good-faith mistake, and move along? We got DRV if someone screws up. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This is one instance, likely brought about by ignorance of what exactly the IEEE is. The correct solution to misapplication of a policy is not "ZOMG BURN TEH WITCH!", however satisfying that is. -Amarkov moo! 00:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd rather not send every article here (44 at the time of this edit) to AFD or let them sit around for 5 days as a Prod.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Z-man (talk • contribs) 00:52, August 27, 2007 (UTC) 
*If one person misuses policy (as alleged here), that is grounds for educating that person, rather than for changing the policy. >Radiant< 09:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Radiant, just because an admin did some bad deletions, he needs to be taught why, if it's obvious just undelete and if it's borderline take it to WP:DRV, also I reverted your wording change, that needs to be discussed here. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 15:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  csd:A7 do be removed or severely conditioned 

message: I suggest the highlighted clarification.
:people, groups, companies and web content. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject, neither directly nor by verifiable association with notable subjects.
Rationale: A7 has become one of the major route of misuse, as I see from this talk page. Speedy Deletion is especially destructive, because  it does not show in the watch list,the authors do not have neither time not even a short notice to defend the page. 
It seems that quite a few admins don't exercise due diligence in verifying possible notability of the subject, judging from their limited knowledge. I observed this for quite some time, but, understanding human nature I was't worried much: if a subject is notable then someone else will write the article back into wikipedia.
But a recent event pissed me off tremendously: an admin deleted a huge number of IEEE-related articles writing "notability not asserted".  For authors of these articles the very word IEEE is notability, and it even didn't cross their mind that they have to enter some popularity contest so that the article wins the hearts  of teenage wikipedia admins. What is more while undeleting them, I notice that some of them were deleted multiple times! Indicating that this is not only laziness and ignorance of a single steel broom here: it is a widespread attitude of "IDontLikeIt".
Therefore I propose this extension, as a reminder for due diligence. Please notice that "verifiable association with notable subject" is not a criterion for survival of the article: it is a red flag for more careful attitude for deletion. And in most case a direct association with notable subject is a valid reson to have the content merged/redirected. `'Míkka 15:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A7 guideline clarification 

message: * Well, one of the problems with Speedy Delete is there is no record of it. All evidence of the event is erased, and no one is notified, so its very difficult to document abuses. I only found out that the :Edison Medal was deleted when my redirect to it was flagged for deletion, and that transaction was recorded in my watchlist. When I tried to recreate the article, the only information I got was "no assertation of notability". That recreation message is a recent innovation, all other information on speedy delete, is not archived. There is no central repository to peruse to look at what has been speedied and determine whether they were justified or not. It would help if there was a page that showed what was speedied, and the lede paragraph from each article. Everyone can review the AFD process, no one can review the Speedy Delete process. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A7 and archiving the hidden process and transparency in the process 

message: Looking at this page, I'm glad something good came of my error.  I'm the "happy idiot" (Mikka's words) who deleted the IEEE-related articles.  I'm just popping in to add this possibly relevant topic to the discussion.  Maybe the answer to the A7 debate can address some of the concerns expressed there.  Enjoy, and let me know when you're done so I can follow the right procedures! :-)  -- But|seriously|folks  18:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, "presently unsourced" has repeatedly been rejected as a speedy deletion criterion. It is even often rejected at  or AfD. I don't support Mikka's proposed addition to A7, but I think your interpretation of A7 was a bit too broad. Most of the articles you deleted were journals and awards. Although an argument could be made that the online journals constitute 'web content', the articles on paper journals and awards did not fall under any of the categories covered by criterion A7. In general, I think speedy deletion is problematic when it comes to handling a relatively large group of related articles. That's just my perspective on the issue. — Black Falcon (Talk) 18:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the page reference. It seems that there was some good work underway there.--JodyB yak, yak, yak 18:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking at this page . . . 

message: I noticed at some point in August (I haven't traced the actual date) that the criteria for A5 had changed. It currently reads: "Transwikied articles. Any article that either consists only of a dictionary definition, or that has been discussed at Articles for deletion with an outcome to move it to another wiki, after it has been properly moved and the author information recorded." On July 31st, the criteria read, "Any article that has been discussed at Articles for deletion, where the outcome was to "transwiki" – move the article to another wiki – and where this has been properly performed and the author information recorded. Alternately, any article that consists of only a dictionary definition, where the transwikification has been properly performed and the author information recorded." I used to somewhat routinely walk dictionary definitions through transwiki and, once they'd been transferred, nominate for speedy deletion via the 2nd provision of A5. As it is written, A5 seems to suggest that articles can be nominated for speedy deletion simply because they are only dictionary definitions, but this is contradicted by "Wikipedia is not a dictionary"" under Non-Criteria further down. I'd be grateful for clarification on the policy. I could not find sign of a discussion of the change, so I'm unsure the rationale. Please excuse me if I'm missing the obvious. :) --Moonriddengirl 00:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have modified the criterion so that "dicdef" is no longer a speedy deletion criterion (so many supposed dicdefs are actually articles about concepts or end up becoming disambiguation pages) unless it is accompanied by an AfD consensus to transwiki. Let's see if it sticks. — Black Falcon (Talk) 03:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *Thanks for your responses and for clarifying. It was the intention I was wanting to explore, to be sure that I understood the application. :) I believe that my uncertainty with the re-write rises out of the simple use of a comma before the parallel relative clause "or that has been discussed." Since relative clauses are not separated by commas but independent clauses are, it left me uncertain if there were meant to be two criteria here: (a) dictionary definition; (b) dictionary definition discussed AfD, transwikied. I've always been uncomfortable with A5 anyway because the corresponding template specifies AfD--and, in fact, the table below sets out "Transwikification completed (applicable only if transwikied per an Articles for deletion discussion)." I've used the template otherwise, but added a note when applying it. Recently, I've been PRODding instead. I try to be scrupulous about the use of speedy deletion. So next question, then: is there a reason that the template for A5 only covers AfD and not routinely transwikied articles? --Moonriddengirl 12:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: **That would seem to be an oversight. The A5 template is not used all that often, because most people who do the transwikiing are in fact admins and don't need the template. >Radiant< 13:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Is this a case where be bold applies? I'd be happy to revise it, but don't know if further discussion is required before such a change. --Moonriddengirl 13:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: **Yes, feel free to fix it. >Radiant< 13:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Done. And easily undone, if A5 changes. :) --Moonriddengirl 13:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification re the revision on  A5 

message: Does R1 apply to the User: and User talk: namespaces? --MZMcBride 20:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so, unless it is evident that the user in question wants them to exist for some reason.  Then again, what would be the point of a redirect to an empty page, even in those namespaces?  -- But|seriously|folks  20:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, though like any speedy candidate if there is evidence of controversy, it is best to pursue an XfD in lieu of speedy deletion. The difference between userspace and mainspace speedies of redirects in this case is that the user's voice has more weight in the matter, and more leeway should be given. In the mainspace, controversy would not include complaints of the content creator; in userspace if the creator is the user whose space the content is in, it does. Sorry if that's confusing, I tried to be as clear as possible. BigNate37(T) 21:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User & user talk pages should not redirect unless it is to an alternate account. You shouldn't click on a username in a page history and end up at a place that you cannot leave that user a message. It's confusing to new users. I've seen too many personal messages on an article talk page because of such redirects. However, I see no reason the page needs to be deleted -- just blank the redirect. -- JLaTondre 00:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That might be true for the main userpage and the talk page attached to it, but not to other pages (subpages). SamBC(talk) 01:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True. I was only speaking of the user & user talk page so thanks for clarifying that as the terminology isn't precise. -- JLaTondre 01:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I've got about 300 broken redirects in the User and User talk namespaces that need to be looked at and probably (in most cases) deleted. User:ST47 generated a full list of all broken redirects on en.wiki, however, I pulled out the User and User talk section and put it here to have some other people look at it. As it is, I've deleted over 1600 broken redirects in the past two days. Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah yes, when I think user namespace I tend to almost exclude the base userpage (though not intentionally), and I certainly do not consider it to include user talk namespace pages. BigNate37(T) 15:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:CSD#R1]] 

message: A7: "Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If controversial, or if there has been a previous deletion discussion that resulted in the article being kept, list the article at Articles for deletion instead."
* A7 is being used as a back door method for deleting personally objectionable material without supervision and without consensus. There is no objective criteria for deletion, just the subjective "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject". 
*Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Unwarranted_deletion_spree_of_Butseriouslyfolks. 
*:Guinness World Record interpretation of A7: It seems that A7 is being interpreted as the topic has to be the biggest, the best, or the oldest to be notable, instead of the usual "subject of multiple independent, reliable sources". 
*I propose that established content should never be deleted by any single person. It should go to AFD for consensus if its more than 24 hours after its creation. You could have a chance to speedy delete on creation and in the following 24 hours. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Multiple trustworthy editors you mean, I somewhat support this proposal with some changes. First a certain edit count like editors with at least 100 edits maybe, as I seen cases that the article is edited by the creator and their friends or co-workers, also not including users adding tags or reverting vandalism. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 15:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that at times multiple users will create and edit a clearly non-notable page, but it is, in my experience, rare. I think that it is better to suffer the rare example spending 5 days at PROD than it is to introduce the subjective  "trustworthy". (Personally I think that, until proved otherwise, we should consider every editor, from their first edit forward as trustworthy). I tend to take a stance that, aside from page history, no material, other than the page itself, should have to be checked, in order for an article to be deleted for A7 (and most of the other speedy criteria). If you need to check google, other articles, etc in order to determine if there is an "acceptable" assertion of notability, then the page should not be speedy deleted. That said, in this case I could see it reasonable to extend the "logged in editors" guideline to "logged in editors who have edited more than one article”. As a side note, I exclude edits by IP accounts not out of bias against anonymous editors, but because of the real possibility that edits by multiple IP accounts represent the work of a single person. I would also note that by "substantial" edit I would exclude those fine wikipedians who toil to add categories, sort stubs, correct misspellings, and address other formatting issues. Dsmdgold 15:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A7 abuse and a remedy