Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 19

message: I've always heard that anyone but the author may remove a speedy tag for any non-vandalous reason, and it can't be put back. However, some people have started to say that only admins can remove the tag, or that non-admins may only remove it if the article clearly does not fail a CSD. Since people are starting to oppose RfAs over this, it needs to be clarified. -Amarkov moo! 04:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone except the author can remove a tag, but there is no basis to say that "it can't be put back". The removal may very well be wrong. Obviously, revert warring about it would not be productive, etc., but the simple removal of a speedy tag is not some binding decision. —Centrx→talk • 05:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and I  don't see that being an admin has anything to do with it. There can be no basis for anyone reinstating a removed speedy which is contested in good faith, since speedy is only for incontestable deletions. Edit warring over a speedy is not appropriate--it should go to AfD, which exists for the purpose of conducting such debates. If something is not clear, its not a valid speedy. If in doubt, it is not a speedy. if there is any grounds for doubt, it is not a speedy.   In the case of someone gaming the system by contesting nonsense, on the other hand, I think an admin is justified in deleting anyway, as long as the admin is prepared to defend the action if challenged.  We have previously discussed some examples on this page. DGG 05:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, no. Many pages should be deleted but are "contested". In such case though, it should be brought to the admin noticeboard for immediate deletion. Some extreme examples are attack pages and copyvios. Some person edit warring over the tag does not mean that the deletion is in doubt or that it is not a valid deletion. —Centrx→talk • 01:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even for copyvio, I have seen tags put on when deletion of a paragraph would have sufficed. But I agree that there are cases where the fact that it's contested can be ignored, which I could sum up as Bad Faith Hangons. There are quite a number, and the proportion seems to be increasing.   DGG 02:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I quite agree. Removing a clearly valid tag is wrong, whoever does it. Removing an invalid tag, or expanding an article so that a previously valid tag (such as "empty", "no context", or A7) no longer applies improves the encyclopedia, and is thus a very good thing. Anyone can do this, and anyone who is willing to do a good job of it should, and should be praised, not criticized, for doing so. Of course, some cases are borderline, but that is the nature of things, and non-admins are as free to weigh-in on borderline issues as anyone. DES (talk) 20:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It is explictly request that the article creator not remove a speedy tag, but use  instead. This is not because the creator owns the article, s/he does not. It is because the creator has already expressed an opnion by creating the article, and endless revert wars can too easily happen if creators remove tags, or perhaps worse, validly placed tags are removed, and the page falls off the new pages lsit, and is far more likely to be missed. Thus removign a speedy tag from an article you crfeated is considered vandalism, and ther is a whole series of uw (user warning) tamplates for it. DES (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of tags 

message: I wasn't sure what to do when I saw Template:صندوق just now - evidently it doesn't belong here as it's a foreign language template, but at the same time I figured it wouldn't fall under A2 (foreign language article) as it's a template, not an article, and there are no other criteria which suit it. Why is A2 exclusive for articles? Surely someone could just as easily copy over a category, template or userpage from a foreign language Wikipedia, would they not be speedily deletable as well? - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 14:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are some cases where templates in a foreign languages are considered useful, such as Template:User it (which I presume exists on other projects). Tizio 14:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: There are also cases where a person whose primary language is not English, or who doesn't speak English at all but only does edits that doesn't require speaking English, may wish to include information about themselves or what they're working on in their first language on their user page or a subpage, or discuss something on a discussion page in their own language. I for one have frequently left messages regarding Commons-related activities on talk pages on other wikis in English. A2 should certainly apply to categories as well, though. Dcoetzee 22:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why isn't A2 a general criterion? 

message: Why does this page have different time limits from NFC? NFC states, "If an image on which fair use is claimed is not used in any article (Criterion 7), it may be deleted immediately." CSD I5, however, requires a tag and a seven-day waiting period. Pagrashtak 16:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure, I know I8 was discussed further up the page in terms of waiting time, but as for I5, I'm not sure. However, when I'm clearing the image backlogs and it turns out I5 applies better than another criteria (such as not having a source, I4), I typically IAR and I5 it on the spot. ^demon[omg plz] 17:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The image may have recently been uploaded and is intended for use in a particular article, or the image may have been removed from the article by vandalism or some content dispute, for example. If a fair use image is actually not used in any article then it can be deleted, but in practice the absence of an active inclusion of the image in an article does not mean that it is not "used" and that it should be instantly deleted. —Centrx→talk • 17:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It's NFC that's out-of-date in this case. The waiting period is required so that interested parties such as the uploader can be made aware of the problem and have an opportunity to correct it, particularly since as Centrx noted the rule can be exploited to destroy images otherwise. On the other hand, if the image claims fair use and fair use is probably not realistically possible, i.e., it's being used only as protection from deletion, then a quicker deletion may be warranted. Dcoetzee 17:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't understand why the image deletion subcategories are considered "speedy" at all. It generally takes at least two weeks to get images deleted this way, up to a month if further delayed by some technicality. — CharlotteWebb 10:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Speedy" means no discussion required, not necessarily the time period between tagging and deletion. howcheng  {chat} 18:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, "streamlined" or "straightforward" deletion might have been a better use of the acronym. -- nae'blis 18:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disparity with [[Wikipedia:Non-free content]] 

message: I have been working on a new template. It is a communication aid, and not in the same boat as the uw-vandalism things. This template deals with improper speedy deletion tags apllied, which through sifting a bit through Cat:CSD, I find it becomes more and more useful. The template is temporartily here. It is the first level warning, however. I'd appreciate some feedback as to whether it really has any use, and ways to improve, etc. Evilclown93 22:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that has much use. Either the user thought that it did qualify for speedy deletion, in which case a templated message is useless for explanation, or they knew that it did not qualify, meaning they're doing it in bad faith and won't care about a templated message. -Amarkov moo! 23:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't say a templated message is useless at all, it might give good faith users the incentive to re-read the criteria. Should only be used in instances where they've seriously made a mistake though, for instance tagging a hoax article as patent nonsense, which I see a lot, and that's clearly outlined in the criteria. As for the bad faith taggers, these should be treated as vandals, who are still warned with template messages at all other times, regardless of whether they care about it or not... - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 01:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've got right now three basic message templates. One is a simple "I've removed your speedy tag.", serving as a notice (almost like the "I've put your page for speedy deletion" ones), a newbie one, which guides a newbie to WP:CSD and related pages, and a plain pre-vandalism warning (bad-faith things like tagging Lemon for speedy deletion, which in a way assumes good faith, before starting with vandalism warnings. Here are the templates: 1b ; 1a ; 2 . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evilclown93 (talk • contribs) 
*Let's not use that. It sounds condescending. >Radiant< 08:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  I like your template, but I honestly don't like at all "I request", because I feel it sounds too commanding to the noob placing the improprer template. Evilclown93 00:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I used the word "request" precsely not to sound like a demand, adn to be polite. This mirrors non-tempalted msgs I have left in teh past. How would you suggest wording this to be more polite and less threatening while making it clear that reapplying the tag without discussion may be a poor idea. Perhaps "please consider not..."? DES (talk) 17:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Fortunately most  users of speedy would not  even think of replacing the tag, so I would be reluctant to suggest it to them. Perhaps the template could simply have an optional part at the end for special messages as needed, in addition to the required space for reason. Otherwise I think it's great. DGG 05:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have encounterd quite a number who have replaced tags, or even deleted, after a tag was removed with a reson why IMO the tag did not apply. Want diffs? But I'll edit to reduce the strength of that. I'll be editing a bit and testing soem more, then i'll move this to tempalte space and announce that here and on the user template msgs page. DES (talk) 21:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new user warning template 

message: Does CSD Images/media 5 (Unused unfree copyrighted images) applies for the talkpages of the deleted AFDs like this one? ----♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 17:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (I assume you meant to link to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Rajkumar Kanagasingam/Archive.)  Yes, it still applies; our non-free content policy allows such images only in the article namespace, where it must appear at once.  See Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, especially points 7 and 9. —Cryptic 17:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much :-) --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 17:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question over I5 

message: "What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so." -Mark Twain
I was convinced that when tagging an image with  ( WP:CSD#I5 ) required notification of the uploader to delete.  I've just spent an hour and a half trying to determine for sure one way or the other.  Can anyone point me to canon on this?  Even better, which (if any) CSD criteria require user notification?  
Thanks! ~ BigrTex 18:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image CSD notification - Second set of eyes? 

message: Hello, I have a question regarding the policies and a definite case... You see, recently "The World Online" video game has been renamed to "The Secret World", and a newly registered editor created a new page instead of renaming the old one. Naturally, the edits history is lost this way, so I'd like to move TWO to TSW properly, thus requiring a quick deletion of the current TSW to "free" the article name. All relevant edits made by the above mentioned user were incorporated into the old article, so no information would be lost with this deletion.
The problem is, I haven't found any SD criteria matching the case and, since it's just a technical misunderstanding, I don't wanna initiate a complete AfD procedure. Can someone help me out here? Thank you in advance. --Koveras ☭ 22:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This actually falls uner CSD G6 (Houskeeping) but usually this sort of thing is handled by posting at requested moves or on WP:ANI or just flagging any handy admin. Or use  if there is new info to be saved. I'll look at this one. DES (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! ^^ --Koveras ☭ 22:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguous case 

message: As you may or may not know, the parts of WP:N relating to assessment of notability are currently disputed following loss of consensus support.  A re-write and adjustment of it is in process at the moment. However, this leads to the problem that there is currently no working guideline on Notability.
I suggest that A7 be suspended until this is settled. It may also be an appropriate time to review A7 itself, as is often misused. --Barberio 09:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can suspend it for 30 minutes; if that is not enough time to fix WP:N I prefer to misuse A7 to a backlog of a couple thousand garage band articles. Kusma (talk) 09:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Or to give a different answer: a large number of A7's are uncontroversial and completely unaffected by what WP:N says. Suspending these deletions would be bad. Kusma (talk) 09:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yay!! Complete anarchy on Wikipedia! I always wondered what would happen if we put all the worst failed proposals into effect, just for a day... Grandmasterka 09:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  The odd thing is that looking at the current backlog for these, almost all of them could be nominated for other Criteria. (G1, G11 or A3) Generaly, if an article isn't asserting importance in some way, it's going to have content problems to hit another CSD criteria. --Barberio 10:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it, A7's "assertion of notability" does not depend on the precise definition of notability at WP:N. The definition of notability at WP:N has to do with sources that actually exist; A7's "assertion of notability" just means that sources might exist. (For example "John Smith is a professor at Caswell College" is an assertion of notability because appropriate sources might, or might not, exist on such a person, so that's not an A7 even though it might end up failing WP:N. On the other hand, "John Smith was born in 1987 and lives on Elm Street and is a student at Caswell College" gives no indication that sources might exist, so that is an A7.) On the other point that you just made, I have to say that when I do newpage patrol, there's a ton of A7's that would not fit G1, G11 or A3. Pan Dan 11:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but on DRV for instance, the "assertion" part of the phrase is interpreted differently by different folks. Deletionists tend to take "assert" as the actual presence of reliable sources, whereas Inclusionists tend to take "assert" as the fact that someone has claimed that the topic is notable. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 11:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, it's also if the definition of notability is objective or subjective, which *does* impact on A7. Since A7 has historically used the WP:N definition of notability. If A7 were altered to give a fuller definition of what 'assert the importance or significance' means, this wouldn't be an issue. Personally, I'd go with "Where important, significant or notable information on the subject matter is minimal or lacking, and the article is unlikely to be expanded upon." --Barberio 11:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: A7 predates WP:N, so this request makes little sense. A7 is a practical matter, WP:N and similar pages tends to attract people who believe they can legislate Wikipedia. >Radiant< 14:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: No, no reason to suspend A7 just because WP:N is a little up in the air. In looking over my deletion log, I found several articles I deleted under A7; one of them said only "Chris is a professional Quad rider from Salinas, California." The idea that I would have to not delete similar articles because a borderline-related guideline is in a state of flux at the moment is a little silly (and yes, WP:N is only barely related to A7; the vast majority of articles I've deleted under A7 were so mind-numbingly obvious that only if WP:N said "subject must exist in some form, and then they're notable" would it actually be applicable). EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: A7 doesn't even mention notability, so I'm not sure why we would do this. In fact, most problems with applying A7 come from people who equate it to "article has a non-notable subject". -Amarkov moo! 14:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd say that people in the field disagree? :-) --Kim Bruning 08:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suspend A7 until the issues at [[WP:N]] are settled. 

message: After all this discussion of A7, I've added the language above to it.
:
Recently, two administrators deleted Jeffrey Adams (mathematician), which they said contained no assertion of notability.  But in fact, the article said that Adams
:: 
:: led the project that calculated the characters of the representations of E8.
::
Given that that project made headlines in the New York Times and all other newspapers and all over the web in March 2007, that is an assertion of notability.  I think those two administrators should have at least realized that they did not understand the quoted phrase. Michael Hardy 20:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I learned very fast to stay away from sports figures. I've since been learning progressively more things to stay away from. This is why I've always felt it should take  2 people, not just one admin, except for blatant vandalism.   It should be 3 -- I hope someone monitors the deletion log like people do the newpages.  The best of us working carefully might have a 5% error rate. For two people in succession, it goes down to 0.25%, which is one or two per day.  DGG 04:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't delete if you simply don't understand the assertion of importance or significance; delete only if you ''know'' that there is none. 

message: I have created two new notification templates.
 is used to notify/warn someone that a speedy delete tag that s/he has placed has been considered inappropriate and has been removed. 
 is used to remind editors that when placing a speedy delete tag it is a good idea to notify the creator of the article involved that it has been tagged. 
Both templates were discussed in earlier threads on this page.
I have tested both templates in my user space before moving them to template space. I expect that they will be most useful to people patroling :Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. I hope people find them useful.  DES (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 templates connected with speedy deletes 

message: I'm not sure where this conversation initially took place, so please direct me to the proper place if this isn't it. I don't think the 4 May 2006 deadline is necessary anymore. In practice, images uploaded before that are just tagged with  for the same reason, and usually end up deleted in the same timeframe. There's no reason to duplicate process here, so the deadline should no longer apply. Thoughts? (ESkog)(Talk) 16:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSD I6 (fair-use rationales) 

message: I wish to no longer be associated with Wikipedia; remove my user and talk pages immediately.  Carajou 20:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not the place to make such a request. You could explain your request by putting  on the pages. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove my user page and end my account

message: We do have to consider dividing A7 between the trivial nonsense that can be gotten rid of quickly, and anything which might possibly be taken more serious--personally, I think the first approach is to use a G1 db-nonsense   or G2 db-test on the sort of one sentence junk from hopelessly nn high school students and the like. I think giving them a a7 notice makes them thin k they are being taken seriously, and by far the better course is to dismiss them out of hand--instead of saying we don't thing you're notable enough, just saying we know it's stupid play. When someone writes "my girlfriend kim is beautiful" and we say "does not assert the importance or significance of the subject". they're probably laughing at us.  
::Then we can think what to do about the other half--that'll be a little harder . DGG 05:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please remember that G1 Nonsense is restricted to patent nonsense which is ratehr more limited than many suppose. A7 was inveted for precisely this kind of thing, if it didn't exist there would be IMO no justification for A7 at all. DES (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you must use a different criterion, A3 would also apply to "my girlfriend Kim is beautiful". -Amarkov moo! 16:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: If you feel really stupid giving them an A7 notice and taking them seriously, you could always go for another option like . - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 18:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: And so I do if they bother to look. A3 sounds good. The other point is that deleting this sort of stuff takes very little time, and deleting a more complicated and longer but still possible speedy is another matter--if it sounds in any way conceivably plausible one ought to check Google etc, or look at user contributions, so it would help to be able to sort them out. (and make errors a little less likely).  04:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: trivial A7s and what else to call hem

message: Everytime I edit a page of Ana Johnsson, whether it's an album or single, a message comes automatically asking for a speedy deletion, while I haven't written anything about it nor emptied the article.... Anyone knows what's going on with this? -- Luigi-ish 15:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was an edit to the album info box template, placing a speedy delete tag on that template, and thus on every page that uses it. The tag has been removed, but it affects the articles until they are edited and re-saved -- any edit at all, even one that changes nothing, will do. DES (talk) 22:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Strange edits

message: What does it mean by "no context"? I've seen some very short articles which simply state a basic definition of the subject in a single sentence without explaining it further. Do those have enough context? I'm a bit confused when I look through the list of "dead end pages". Can someone clarify please? Thanks in advance.--Kylohk 22:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It means that you don't know from the information given enough to do research to expand the article.  For example, if the article is about someone with a fairly common name (like John Smith) and the article says, "John Smith is an author", that isn't enough information to even begin trying to do research to find out who he is.  There have been thousands of people named John Smith and certainly more than one of them authored a book. But if the article says, "John Smith is an author of children's books, including the award-winning Blah blah blah blah", that gives you a starting point and provides sufficient context to do research to expand the article. --BigDT 22:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. "XYZ is a novel by Q.R. Author" has virtually no content at all, but if the title/author combo is pretty much unique, it has pleanty of context. If you can tell what the article is about enough to have a fair idea where to find more info, there is context. If that is hopeless, thre is no context. DES (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I far too often see sub-stubs with very little content being speedy-tagged as having no context, where there is all the context anyone needs. DES (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "No context" would be closer to "The Green House is a book with a ghost in it." >Radiant< 12:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Particularly if there are multiple books by the same title, so a simple amazon or google search will not reliabely give more info on the book that is the subject of the "article". DES (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The meaning of no context 

message: When does an article meet criterion G4 (a recreation of content deleted after an XfD discussion)? The reason I am asking this is the article Franchise Circle. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franchise Circle was closed early, when the article was speedied per A7. The article has since been recreated. Does it qualify for G4 or not? The article may obviously still be deleted via A7, ofcourse. AecisBrievenbus 21:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure G4 only applies to pages which are an exact repost of the one which has been through the XFD process. This diff's edit summary seems to confirm that, as does the wording on  ("If you can indicate how  is different from the previously posted material...") - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 07:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But obviously, a very small rewording, or other minor edit to the page, is gaming the system and the article will be speedied anyway. --ais523 10:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In this particular case, the article seems substantially expanded, but it reads rather doubtful to me so I'll throw it on AFD once more. >Radiant< 12:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Either open a new AFD discussion, or retag it with the former speedy criterion if it still fits. G4 seems inappropriate when the discussion is short-circuited, and is only there to prevent the gaming discussed above; the page wasn't actually deleted according to the XFD discussion, after all. -- nae'blis 19:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about cases where the speedy deletion of an article was upheld in Deletion review? I'm in discussion with  over the speedy deletion, recreation and current AFD on Whyville. It was deleted by  on May 15. The deletion was more or less upheld in Deletion review; the request was rejected but the deletion itself was neither endorsed nor overruled. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 16. My take is that it doesn't qualify for G4, since no XfD discussion took place. Any thoughts? Note: this might be some cross-posting, since Corvus cornix has raised this matter at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#Whyville. AecisBrievenbus 22:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we don't allow db-recreated to be used for speedy deletions which have been upheld at DRV, what's the point of having DRV?  So what if a speedy is upheld, if the user just recreates the article and it's forced to go to AFD to get deleted?  Corvus cornix 22:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, Deletion review never endorsed this particular speedy deletion. It didn't speak out on this deletion, it didn't consider the request for deletion review. If an A7 article gets recreated and recreated and recreated, the page can be protected. If it continues, the user may be blocked. There are a lot of ways to prevent recreation sprees. But G4 is not one of them. AecisBrievenbus 23:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of G4 

message: I have seen several cases, recently, where a template is tagged with a DB tag, thus putting all pages that transcude the template into :Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. This is usually a bad thing. Perhaps the project page should include a warning that tagging tempaltes currently being transcluded will have this effect, which may be undesireable. DES (talk) 15:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The projetc page already tells people to noinclude the tag for templates. Kusma (talk) 15:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So it does. obviously some people miss this. Is there anythign practical that can be done to help? in at least one case, a generic  was used, not any of the more specific tempaltes (and IMO it was an invalid tagging anyway). DES (talk) 15:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably there's not much we can do except tell the editor who tagged the template not to do it again; a large warning would probably violate WP:BEANS... Kusma (talk) 15:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking, could parser functions be used so that if (and only if) a DB tag is placed on a page in template space, a big red warning appeared about the use of noinclude? legit tgging of tempaltes for speedy is rare, after all, and the people who do this improperly don't read the CSD page in detail anyway. I'm thinking of the same sort of thing that  does if you forget to subst it. DES (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's possible.  The code would be something like .-- Visviva 06:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy tags on templates 

message: The statement that "anyone" can remove a speedy tag was removes, on the basis that it shouldn't just be by a whim. That point is well taken, but Ido not think that removing it altogether had consensus, and nonetheless a statement is needed that admins and nonadmins both--anyone but the author--can remove a tag--I have therefore restored it pending discussion. 
It would be useful to say what follows this, if we can agree. What I would like to say that if the original speedy placer disagrees, and if the tag was removed with some degree of reason, the next step is AfD, not another speedy. 
I'd also like to specify what follows a hangon tag, and how much time should be allowed, and what to do if the copyvio permission takes longer than expected.  I am not sure about what should be said here, however.  DGG 04:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Perhaps we need to keep the speedy deletes to non-controversial matters. Certain things should qualify regardless, no questions. Often, I think a few of the CSD fall into a gray area. Obviously, editors who post the db feel the article is above repair, but given the proper motivation, the author might not feel that way. As far as I can tell, and this is just my opinion, G11 and 12 can contain some gray area, as they're not concisely defined. Thinking of examples where G11 and 12 are obvious isn't hard. Thinking of examples where there might be some controversy is a different story. Perhaps we should attach a caution note, with some extended time to certain CSD? A1, A7 also come to mind. I'm not sure if there are any other CSD that might even be controversial enough to warrant a removal. In summary, what I'm suggesting is we make the existing CSD more bulletproof, and remain a speedy delete, and provide a clear line when AfD should be used instead. -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 06:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed; it's speedy deletion, meaning an admin can delete it at any time without the need for any process. Tagging is only for non-admins to bring things to the attention of admins, or admins to bring it to the attention of other admins if they want a second opinion. The exception is images, for historical reasons only (in the past it wasn't possible to undelete images; that should really be changed now). --bainer (talk) 10:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is a good idea for almost every deletion to have at least two opnions. Thus, except in cases of obvious blatent vandalism (or houskeeping, for stuff like fixing C&P moves), I never speedy-delete a page unless some other editor has tagged it, instead I will tag for anothe admin. i promised this in my RfAS and I have stuck to it. i urge othe admins to strongly consider doign likewise. DES (talk) 14:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will tag some speedies for a second opinion, but most of the ones I opt to deal with are extremely clear-cut (attack pages and nonsense). I respect your decision to be more cautious, but I don't think it should necessarily become standard practice. -- nae'blis 14:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree with removing the exception for images; don't agree with taking out the language explaining that anyone except the author can remove tags. -- nae'blis 14:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd agree with Naeblis about the articles he is talking about, but for anything just a little less obvious, I frankly do not altogether feel comfortable about relying on any single person, including myself. I know I occasionally don't see everything, and sometimes make a careless mistake. If anyone were to say he makes no mistakes, I'd ask him how he knows if nobody reviews his actions. What we have not succeeded in doing , is finding a way to word it that makes the distinction between what any one admin can safely do singlehanded, and the others.  DGG 19:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: removing speedy

message: I am suggesting a new CSD candidate: Article about a video game and/or video game content that does not assert the importance or signifigance of the subject.  In my experiences patrolling, I have come across a few articles that would fall under this criteria, yet I am forced to either tag them as patent nonsense, which is untrue for most of these articles; very short articles without context, which again most do not fall under or ProD them, which the majority will be contested, thus bringing them up to AfD.  By expanding CSD for this candidate, it should help reduce the amount of AfDs that are brought up.  Examples of articles that would fall under this category: Teru-Sama, Monster Hunt, List of Monster Hunter Monsters(deleted under AfD, but would have fallen under this criteria) and List of Spectrobes(again, deleted under AfD, but would have fallen under this criteria). SuperDT 05:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How often does it turn up?  I rarely see them during my patrols, and I'm automatically wary of adding to the already-too-subjective A7 criteria. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the past two days, doing about 2 hours of newpage/randompage patrolling a day, I can count four articles off the top of my head that I believe would fall under this criteria: Teru-Sama, Monster Hunt, Adventurers Guild and Naruto: Battle of Death (Now deleted under patent nonsense, which it really was not). If this is not enough to warrant a change in criteria, I completely understand. SuperDT 05:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Four really isn't much of anything, really.  At least in my opinion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A suggestion for a new CSD candidate

message: Have we considered a split of CSD I2 before?  
*Corrupt or empty image. Before deleting this type of image, verify that the MediaWiki engine cannot read it by previewing a resized thumbnail of it. This also includes empty (i.e., no content) image description pages for Commons images.
Here is the template: :Template:Db-noimage. 
I find that editors worry the actual image is going to be deleted as "missing or corrupt" when it is marked as CSD I2 because it is an empty description page for a Commons image.  I'd like to reduce some of the worry and questions about the deletions when they should be fairly uncontroversial deletions. --Strangerer (Talk) 13:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there's a consensus to delete keep description pages for commons images (last I looked it was up in the air), why not just write that in as an exception to I2? -- nae'blis 14:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: CSD I2 split

message: I'd like to suggest a revision of G10 that I feel makes it less restrictive and more accurate of actual practice.  The current version reads:
10. Attack pages. Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity (e.g., "John Q. Doe is an imbecile"). This includes a biography of a living person that is negative in tone and unsourced, where there is no NPOV version in the history to revert to.
My proposed revision is:
10. Attack pages. Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity (e.g., "John Q. Doe is an imbecile"). This includes any page which cannot conform to the Biography of Living Persons policy.
I would not make such a change myself without support, so I'm placing it here first for comments.  Thanks.  --InkSplotch 18:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer the decision that a page cannot conform to BLP rest in an AfD discussion rather than the hands of individual administrators.  --Iamunknown 18:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The wording's a bit confusing, as it implies that all articles not meeting BLP standards are classified as attack pages. If someone wrote "John Q. Doe is the best person in the world", this wouldn't meet BLP standards either as it's still not written from NPOV, but can hardly be called an attack. - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 19:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They key is "cannot conform", as in, if a page could be made to conform it wouldn't be a speedy candidate.  But if there's no way it could be made to conform to BLP, it could be. --InkSplotch 20:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Normally I'd say CSDs should be applied with caution, but you're right in that this one reflects actual practice for quite good reason - David Gerard 20:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: This would be a welcome improvement, but may need some clearer wording. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone help me out...I'm not understanding the improvement.  Obviously just because we can speedy an article which could be made to conform to NPOV with little work doesn't mean we have to, even under the current wording.  If the article is unsourced and negative, deleting it forces a fresh start and gets anything possibly libelous out of the page history.  And what would it mean "cannot" conform?  That there is no way to say something NPOV about the person?  I don't understand when that would be the case.  So far, I prefer the current wording. NickelShoe (Talk) 21:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I'm trying to get away from is a strict interpretation of "attack page."  Several articles which have gone through recent deletion have been marked as BLP violations that are not pure attack pages, but still violate the protections to living persons that BLP is trying to protect.  I'm not sure I could explain better without pointing you to AFD and DRV. --InkSplotch 21:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, several articles have been recently deleted because people simply objected to their content, and used BLP as an excuse.  Some editors are far too quick to characterize articles as violating BLP. Unlearned hand 23:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Feel free to point me in the direction of a relevant AfD or DRV.  I'm still not understanding the "cannot" business.  Under what circumstances could an article about a person not be written from an NPOV? NickelShoe (Talk) 21:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BLP demands good sourcing, too, so if there aren't good sources, it can't meet BLP. -Amarkov moo! 00:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember we have A7 for these cases as well. G10 still specifies an "attack page", and I'm still unclear as to how you can have a biography which is classifiable as an attack page which isn't defamatory and negative in tone, which seems to be what you're trying to encompass with the new wording. - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 04:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: There are attack pages on other things than people. Schools, for example. I think the present wording is fine. The BLP part is implicit--the wording is pre-BLP policy, but it still fits. DGG 05:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed revision of G10 

message: I just left the following message on my User Talk page after I got a robot msg on an SD, but want to share it with the SD community:
"Just for the record, even though I'm talking to a robot, I want to say that I don't oppose the deletion of that article but I consider it absolutely pathetic that I was given notice during sleep time (07:43 local time) and even though I'm answering this barely one hour later and early in the morning (9:03 local time), the article is already deleted by an admin. If I wanted to halt the process, I couldn't because it was my fault that I was sleeping and didn't check this page for one hour. Pathetic."
Sorry about the strong word. --maf (talk-cont) 08:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I sympathize, but it's always sleep time somewhere in the world... -- Visviva 08:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Until recently you might well never have gotten any notice, only found that the arricle was gone when you noticed a red link, and had to check the deletion log to find out why it had been deleted, if you knew how. Speedy deletion means "deletable on sight" that is, without delay or warning in most cases. Notices are a courtesy so that you can find out what happened and why -- if it happens that you are in time to contest a speedy tag, fine, but there is no guarenteed right to do so. Any speedy can be reveiwed at Deletion review if you think it was imporper, or better, you can ask the deelting admin to reconsider if you have a good reason. This is one reaosn why the speedy deletion criteria are supposed to be narrow and adhered to pretty strictly -- if an admin is unsure that an article warrents deletion without time for discussion, then s/he should use  instead. DES (talk) 16:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Look at the clock! 

message: The current template is a very good design but could be improved by adding :Image:Keep tidy.svg:
id="delete" style="margin:0 5%; padding:.5em; background:#FEE; border:1px solid #999; text-align:left; font-size:95%;">This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion. The given reason is:  
Administrators, remember to check what links here, the [ page history] ([ last edit]), the [ page log], and any revisions of CSD before [ deletion]. 
I would like to gain consensus before making this change. It's a minor, albeit cosmetic one, but it could work.
Thanks, --SunStar Net talk 09:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a person throwing rubbish into a garbage bin. It's an offense magnet.--Fuhghettaboutit 11:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, the suggestion is just biting the newbies. Kusma (talk) 12:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've withdrawn this idea, it doesn't seem feasible. I was wrong, I admit. --SunStar Net talk 13:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Funny, the folks in Finnish Wikipedia don't seem to think so... =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template suggestion 

message: Is the sole fact that an article is a Double Redirect grounds for speedily deleting it?  I can accept that it may be grounds for deleting, but cmon, speedy deleting?  We can't let Deletionists determine the Criteria for deletion.  Mathiastck 14:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems unlikely unless it falls under the general housekeeping criterion. Usually double redirects are fixed; what particular redirect are you referring to in this case? -- nae'blis 15:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Surely if article 1 redirects to article 2 which redirects to article 3 then article 1 can just be fixed so that it redirects to article 3 as well. And if article 3 doesn't exist then they both get speedied under R1. - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 15:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think even a deletionist would argue against merely fixing the redirect. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Double Redirect]] 

message: People do not need to be informed about speedy deletions. Speedy deletions are not controversial, that is the whole point. This bot is doing nothing but cluttering up talk pages with huge warnings and getting people scared for no reason. By the time most people see the warning the page in question has already been deleted. This bot is useless and should be disabled. shoeofdeath 17:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. If someone doesn't get an explanation of why their page was deleted, they'll just recreate it or get pissed off (that isn't to say that both won't happen). We shouldn't bite the newbies. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The SD process and the bot msg are not in sync. The SD admins need to agree to either a) keep the  reference but not delete the article less than 24 hours after being tagged for SD (to allow me to sleep at night); or b) rm the  reference from the bot msg and delete on sight. The way it is now, to pretend to give a chance for hangon, does not work. --maf (talk-cont) 20:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That has nothing to do with the bot, the reference to  is in all the standard notification templates that editors are encouraged by the text of the various db templates to put on the talk pages of article creators. DES (talk) 20:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: "Speedy" is not defined as "no less than 24 hours", and is most certainly not contingent on someone's sleep schedule. I've deleted too many articles that in no way deserved a 24 hour "notice period" to think this is a good idea. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You are overestimating the number of "debatable" speedy deletions. Most are noncontroversial and a huge number are articles that were not created by newbies. I agree with you that this bot does some good in the cases where the creator of the article disagrees with its speedy deletion. This is by far the exception, though, and the majority of the warnings given by this thing are doing absolutely nothing but confusing regular users with a huge graphic and bold text. At first I thought this bot was relatively harmless (and useless) but now I am convinced that it is actually doing much more harm than good. shoeofdeath 21:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I would say it helps in more like 10% of cases. I am against page creation for brand new users anyway but that is another issue altogether. I am obviously not going to win this fight and am not going to argue about it anymore. In any case I would strongly suggest that the warnings given by this bot be toned down and be made more discrete, at least in blatantly noncontroversial deletions such as redirects or other housekeeping. shoeofdeath 21:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: How can you say that leaving the bot msg AND deleting on sight are good for the author? Where will the author put the  if the article's already gone? I don't understand how one admin says that hangons solve a lot of problems, and another admin likes to shoot on sight. Admins, get in sync and adjust bot or process one way or the other. --maf (talk-cont) 22:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly? Most of the articles I seen in CAT:CSD are absolute shit, and no amount of  placement will change that. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the article's creator disagrees with the deletion, s/he can use hangon if deletion hasn't happened yet. If the creator or anyone else disagrees after the deletion has occured, that person can ask the deleting admin to reconsider (link found in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log deletion log), or take the matter to deletion reveiw, where there are instructions about how to handle contested speedy deletions. DES (talk) 16:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Very well, i accept your statement. I had noted that on several occasions when a complaint was made on two talk pages when refering to the same complaint about a speedy tag you had placed, you siad something to the effect that the complaint wouldn't have occured had the bot not been active. You can perhaps understand how I got the impression i did. DES (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly, although "several occasions" was actually only one time. People are overly protective of any pages they create, even useless redirects. Again, I see that there is general consensus to keep this bot and understand why it exists. Thank you for your detailed responses. shoeofdeath 18:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: On review i find that there were such comments in only two, not "several" edits, and that both refered to the same notice, making this really only one "occasion". My apologies for the inaccuracy, it was a failure of memory. DES (talk) 21:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Android Mouse Bot 2|Android Mouse Bot 2]] 

message: I would like to propose the addition of some text to A2 to clarify things. The text would be "All articles in a non-english language that do not meet this criteria (and are not clearly copyvios or spam), should be listed at Pages Needing Translation (PNT) for review and possible translation." The reason for this is concern that has been brought up at PNT that too many articles are getting speedied without the needed review and consideration for translation. The way the process is supposed to work is that such articles are listed at PNT, and if nothing is done in 2 weeks, they get AfD, unless it is determined that they are copyvios or spam, inwhich case they are speedied. I believe that the problem is that many of the good folks who do NP patrolling - and even some admins who work the CSD mop closet, are simply unaware of the PNT project, and unaware that it is where such articles should be listed, and it is my hope that by adding this bit of text, a bit of education will be accomplished. Comments? Flaming darts? AKRadecki 01:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good idea, but rather than "and are not clearly copyvios or spam", i would just say "and do not meet any other criteria for speedy deletion". - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 09:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections, so added amalgum of my original proposal as modified by Zeibura. AKRadecki 18:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed text addition to A2

message: Criterion C1 currently states:
:Empty categories (no articles or subcategories for at least four days) whose only content has consisted of links to parent categories. This does not apply to categories being discussed on WP:CFD or WP:SFD, or disambiguation categories. If the category isn't relatively new, it possibly contained articles earlier, and deeper investigation is needed.
I interpret "whose only content has consisted of links to parent categories" to mean that any category whose description page has contained content other than parent category links at some point is not speedyable under this criterion – and that categories which have never had a description are. I've always followed it this way, but it seems a little odd and I believe it is routinely ignored, so is it actually necessary? The part about CfD doesn't entirely make sense either, as it would seem to disallow speedy closures, which certainly happen – Gurch 02:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This needs to be changed to reflect/clarify what is done (correctly, I think) in practice.  It should be changed to something like "Empty categories (no articles or subcategories for at least four days).  This does not apply to disambiguation categories.  Before deleting, make sure that the category did not become empty due to vandalism or by other inappropriate means". The whole part about "whose only content has consisted of links to parent categories" doesn't really make sense.  That would imply someone could get around the speedy criteria by simply typing a letter as the category description. The CFD part should also be removed as confusing, as speedy closes happen (appropriately) all the time. VegaDark (talk) 02:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification of C1 

message: I have seen several articles lately that have had a spam or other non-A7 CSD removed by admins claiming that an assertion of notability precludes any speedy deletion. This is simply not the case. It doesn't matter how notable a person or group may be, spam is spam. It may preclude an A7 speedy, but if it's still a candidate for any of the other categories, it should still be speediable. DarkAudit 20:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember, though, that 'spam' is only speedily deletable if it "would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic". Thus there may be spammy articles which are not speedies since what they really need is either cleanup and/or an appropriate tag. There are, of course, many spammy articles that do just need to disposed of on sight. Splash - tk 21:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken. But some admins are taking an assertion of notability to mean a complete disqualification from CSD, and that's not true. DarkAudit 21:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a SD tag that can be used for people like Steve Beverly, that are non-notable but have large articles b/c somebody is his friend? Stellatomailing 23:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not correct to say that notability is an exemption from other speedy criteria. But if something is demonstratably notable, it is rather unlikely that any of the speedy criteria will apply, so it should definitely be evaluated more critically. -Amarkov moo! 23:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Copyvio is a common tag for articels about otherwise notable subjects, as is blatent spam. In the latter case, though, if the subject is celarly notable a rewriute is usually better than a deletion, even if a spammy version technically qualifies, IMO. An attack page agaisnt a notable subject is obviously subject to deltion or drastic rewrite, and if the atttack is a the level of legally actionable defamation, deletion may be better. DES (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability does not automatically disqualify from other CSD criteria 

message: Would pages that were accidentally created, i.e. in the wrong namespace, fall into any of the current speedy deletion criteria? If not, what do we think about making it a new criteria, G13. -- kenb215 talk 04:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think that could be covered by either G6 (Housekeeping) or G7 (Author requests deletion), depending on who wrote it and who's trying to move it to another namespace. -Bbik 04:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming that the page has been moved to the correct namespace, the resulting redirect could be speedily deleted per G6 or G7, as noted above, if it has no significant incoming links (these can be repaired/replaced) and no GFDL issues are involved (i.e., a copy-paste move of content did not take place). In practice, G6 has a rather wide scope when it comes to pages that are not articles, but exist simply to ensure the smooth(er) operation of the project. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 04:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accidental creation? 

message: If an article was created as part of behavior that got a user blocked, would it be eligible for deletion under G5? the contributions of the editors in this sockpuppet case were what caused the blocking, not after. DarkAudit 06:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look closely at "G5" you will notice the the prepositional phrase "while they were banned" (emphasis not mine). I'd guess this was deliberately added and intentionally emphasized in response to previous requests for "clarification". — CharlotteWebb 10:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What counts here is as follows: If the user was violating a ban by creating this page, including by using sockpuppets, then G5 applies. Otherwise, it doesn't. Od Mishehu 14:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I would believe it does not where the users above are concerned. They were blocked after they created the articles and spammed their linkspam, because they created the articles and spammed their linkspam. Most of their 'contributions' are being deleted anyway through other, more applicable procedures. DarkAudit 17:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's heading for deletion anyway, it doesn't matter much.  On occasion, though, a banned editor makes a page that others find useful, and not always in bad faith.  (I remember seeing a couple of Wikipedia essays like this).  In those cases, only G5 would apply, so it had better strictly apply.  Mangojuicetalk 18:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Which reminds me that this would also apply to topic bans. If the arbitration committee had banned me from "all articles relating to sports in the U.S. state of North Carolina", the article Serge Zwikker could be speedy deleted, even when it was not created by a sockpuppet. — CharlotteWebb 17:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification on G5