Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 7

message: We could just decide to speedy delete all unwikified new (< 48 h) articles that are cut-and-pasted from another website.  After all, it takes no effort to (re)create such articles, so no work is really lost if they're deleted.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously, it has turned into a vote because otherwise, someone would be saying "How can you be talking about changing policy without polling," as Trollderella is doing just a few paragraphs below.  Obviously, if through this poll we discover that there is broad-based support for this measure, than your characterization of this as "completely unacceptable" is in error. Nandesuka 15:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: My reading of it is cut and paste copyvios. If the material is PD or GFDL, fine. What is completely unacceptable is the retention of copyright breaches, or, to put it another way, theft. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Please see the section above.  This is what already happens due to the excuse that the word "copyvio" already appears on WP:CSD, except that wikified ones are getting deleted too.  Either reality needs to be brought into sync with policy, or policy needs to be brought into sync with reality. —Cryptic (talk) 16:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Wouldn't something along the lines of "This material has been copied from a source believed not to be public domain or GFDL-compatible..." sum it up consisely and appropriately?  Doesn't specifying "commercial content provider" imply that a non-profit organization, for example, is less entitled to copyright protection, or am I misunderstanding? — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 16:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't limit the proposal to copyvio articles, since accurately determining the copyright status of a source often takes more time and effort than is reasonable for speedy deletion — in fact, probably more effort than creating the article took in the first place — and since it's not really necessary.  Obviously most such articles will be copyvios or otherwise inappropriate for Wikipedia, but even if some appropriate content gets deleted under this criterion, the original contributor can just paste it back in.  (See also Wikipedia:Public domain resources#Please don't data dump!)  Of course, admins are supposed to exercise some common sense here; I wouldn't be opposed to wording such as In case of encyclopedic content from public domain or freely licensed sources, consider using  instead. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: That seems a little over-worried. Every copyvio article should be deleted. If someone mistakes a mirror as the source, the problem is quickly fixed. -Splashtalk 07:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

text: ...and which can be recreated in a few seconds.  Really.  Or perhaps we have a clarity issue here?  Can you think of a (real or hypothetical) article that you think would be speediable under this criterion and would take more than a minute to recreate?  (I'm honestly asking, because I don't want to propose a policy without knowing how different people will interpret it.  The question is for the rest of you too.)  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A radical proposal: delete all pure cut-and-pastes

message: Comment: I originally threw this proposal to the table just to spark some discussion, but it seems to be getting a surprising amount of support.  I'm thinking of turning it into a proper policy proposal if as we can hammer out a wording that seems likely to gain consensus approval.  I don't expect the approval to be unanimous, but I'm hoping this one might actually pass if it's simple and narrow enough.  For now, I'm seeing support for the following requirements for speedy deletion:
#unwikified
#cut-and-pasted verbatim from another website
#less than 48 hours old (could be relaxed if the source is verified not to be Wikipedia mirror?)
#no assertion of permission
#not from a known public domain or GFDL-compatible source
I think these can be condensed into a fairly concise criterion (not a bloated monstrosity like A8).  If you have issues with any of these numbered points above, or feel that additional requirements are needed, please post your comments below.  Also, there's one more big issue we'll need to decide: should this new criterion, if approved, replace the current A8 criterion?  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems a little over-worried. Every copyvio article should be deleted. If someone mistakes a mirror as the source, the problem is quickly fixed. -Splashtalk 07:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

text: ...and which can be recreated in a few seconds.  Really.  Or perhaps we have a clarity issue here?  Can you think of a (real or hypothetical) article that you think would be speediable under this criterion and would take more than a minute to recreate?  (I'm honestly asking, because I don't want to propose a policy without knowing how different people will interpret it.  The question is for the rest of you too.)  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Preparing for a formal proposal

message: # If an article about an individual that doesn't assert his importance is unencyclopedic, it is reasonable to assume that an article about two individuals, or a man and his dog, is also unencyclopedic. Are there any good reasons to think otherwise? (And please don't come up with the obvious slippery slope fallacy here)
# Band vanity articles are very high-numbered among the articles that regularly appear on AFD and get unanimous delete votes. On AFD, it is frequently asked "why can't we speedy those?" Are there any good reasons not to?
#This is not a way of making WP:MUSIC policy; that is simply a straw man. The idea is simply that WP:MUSIC lists examples of importance or significance, but that is by no means all-inclusive. Are there any good arguments against this?
#m:don't vote on everything. Normally, policy is not generated by voting on it. Radiant_>|< 22:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Any speedy deletion may be challenged by any editor, and deleting administrators are expected to react to all good faith challenges by undeleting the article, and listing on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion or Wikipedia:Copyright problems, whichever is appropriate.  Undeletion should not be refused without good reason. 
This would make our approach to deletion a lot more flexible, in my opinion, and address some very real qualms about summary deletion of good articles.  It would also ensure that speedily deleted articles subject to challenge get at least one proper deletion discussion on AfD. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Restating the case

message: *The reasons we shouldn't delete band vanity articles: (1) individual administrators are not qualified to determine whether an article is in fact band vanity, (2) probably more importantly, whether or not an article contains an assertion of notability is not a strong indicator of whether or not we should have an article on that topic. AFD is much better suited to determining whether or not we should have an article on a band. That said, I would support any such expansion of CSD if it was made clear that if any user contested such a speedy deletion, it would automatically be undeleted and sent to AFD. That would be an improvement over the status quo, in terms of efficiency, and IMO would have minimal potential to do damage. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Any speedy deletion may be challenged by any editor, and deleting administrators are expected to react to all good faith challenges by undeleting the article, and listing on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion or Wikipedia:Copyright problems, whichever is appropriate.  Undeletion should not be refused without good reason. 
This would make our approach to deletion a lot more flexible, in my opinion, and address some very real qualms about summary deletion of good articles.  It would also ensure that speedily deleted articles subject to challenge get at least one proper deletion discussion on AfD. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sensible words

message: How about a rearrangement of the "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name" box to include a link to Wikipedia:Deletion review, and possibly make the deleted section of it more prominent - SoM 00:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A thought or two

message: It's a beautiful thing, isn't it? PJM 13:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New tag

message: Would you all please stop this insane revert war?  I've lost track of the number of violations we've had of the three revert rule in the past week.  Make your case here and then go cool off somewhere while the rest of us read and digest the respective arguments.  Give us some time to think instead of this constant and repetitive bickering back and forth!
<Rant ends>  Thank you for your patience.  Rossami (talk) 23:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there's several formal methods available to us, but participating in an edit war is definately not one of them, SoM! I've seen you do it twice now. Since this can lead to you being blocked , would you care to talk about it? Kim Bruning 05:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that edit warring is bad, but, um, didn't I see you name several time here as well, Kim? - brenneman(t)(c) 05:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes you did. I admit to shamelessly keeping cool :-) Kim Bruning 05:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  STOP THE REVERT WAR!!! 

message: I'm a little annoyed about this, but part of a currently-live argument was archived while I was trying to add a comment to it.  Aren't we supposed to archive only dead discussions? Chris talk back 00:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Live arguments archived 

message: I've added the following to the copyright criterion: " If the deleting admnistrator is subsequently notified of an error, the article should of course be immediately undeleted."
Really I only added it out of a feeling that there was a misunderstanding of our copyright policy that should be cleared up.
This has been reverted by User:Cryptic with the edit summary:  Absolutely not. We don't undelete copyvio pages because someone makes an unsubstantiated claim of permission.
I think this misses the point.  Of course one wouldn't revert unless facing a good-faith reason to doubt one's judgement.
If there is a claim of permission, then there is a dispute, which should be resolved.  I don't think we should give administrators carte blanche to  ignore their errors.`
Whether my wording remains in the policy isn't that important, really, because obviously administrators who abused this deletion criterion would get into hot water pretty quickly.  But this is a very controversial area of deletion policy, so we should probably spell out the fact that speedying probably isn't the best way of dealing with disputed claims of copyright infringement. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put cryptic's version back until there is further discussion.  "Use the talk page" doesn't mean "leave a notice that you've blindly reverted to your version". - brenneman(t)(c) 23:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

text: It is not controversial that we delete copyright infringing articles. It is also not controversial that, if permission is asserted (in any kind of sensible manner at all) that we follow that claim up. Eventually, anyway. I think we'd be wrong to restore articles just because an IP address says "I wrote it", which is all they usually say without indicating the fact that we need to confirm this claim. The most I would be comfortable with is a restoration, and a blanking with {copyvio}, the usual listing and the sending of a confirmation email. Assuming good faith doesn't extend to random people on the internet claiming they have permission to copy and paste. -Splashtalk 23:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright

message: I think this should be added to the criteria, after seeing a revert war between an author and everyone else on a CSD notice at an article that was an obvious hoax.
:There is no CSD for hoaxes. They should go to AfD. -Splashtalk 03:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  To expand on that thought, the reason there is no CSD is that we've found it impossible to write a clear definition of "obvious" hoaxes.  Too often, they turn out to be real topics which are either extremely obscure or just poorly written.  I don't mean to say that all of them are but we've seen enough false positives that we've made a conscious decision not to have a CSD criterion for hoaxes.  AFD, on the other hand, is quite effective at sorting out the hoaxes from the obscure but real topics.  For a while, I even made a hobby of collecting examples of articles which were initially tagged as hoaxes but which later turned out to be real.  Rossami (talk) 04:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are exceptions, though. For example, I recently closed an AfD early because the original author admitted on the AfD page that the article in question was indeed a hoax. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 07:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: There is a CSD for hoaxes!  Extremely obvious hoaxes (e.g. "Dave has won Nobel prizes in all categories, including mathematics") are silly vandalism and can be CSDed under G3.  G3 requires only that an article be "pure vandalism" (in other words, that every part of it be vandalism); although people sometimes mix it up with the requirements mentioned in the 3RR, as I did once before, G3 isn't limited to simple vandalism. --Aquillion 07:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Per Aquillion, I think the existing policy covers hoaxes that are so obvious that one could question whether they are seriously intended to be hoaxes or properly categorized as hoaxes. And I don't think anyone engaged in silly vandalism of that sort, who engages in a revert war on the CSD notice, is going to be deterred by a clearer articulation of policy, since these people are not sincerely engaged in encyclopedia-building, but rather in trolling or breaching experiments or whatever. No matter how policy is phrased they will find some pretext, or no pretext, for removing the speedy notice anyway. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Yep.  And, for those who consider the hoax/vandalism rule not clear-cut enough for them, there's another way around it.  Obviously implausible claims not backed up by reliable sources can be removed by anyone, and it's a completely legit edit.  Once the implausible claims are removed, often the content that's left is speediable without having to stretch the rules at all.  Of course, as pointed out above, some "hoaxes" have turned out to be legit.  So, rather than removing implausible claims and immediately deleting, I'd move the contested section to the talk page and ask for sources.  Deletion should happen only if sources are not produced in a reasonable amount of time.  And, of course, if the claim is "Bob is president of the Universe and married Queen Elizabeth and Salma Hayek", we won't sit around holding our breath waiting for sources.  Friday (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What if the page is an obvious hoax? 

message: I've made the template  (based on ) for templates that may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. I hope that someone will find it useful. --Ixfd64 00:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On TfD's talk page, it appears as though this is not a good idea (I tried and failed a similar template with ).  I'm off to TfD to nominate it... --Wcquidditch | Talk 13:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  templates for speedy deletion 

message: Criterion G4 reads: "Recreation of deleted material. A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted according to the deletion policy, except if it is in userspace, or undeleted per the undeletion policy. Before deleting again, the admin should ensure that the material is substantially identical, and not merely a new article on the same subject."
I remember that in a recent vote it was decided that recreation of a speedily deleted article is not automatically a speedy deletion candidate. It may be subject to speedy deletion under the same criteria as in the first deletion, but it also might have been deleted in error. When (if ever) was this change reversed? - Mike Rosoft 22:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the policy and practice is still the same.  That particular text was removed as part of an edit on 24 Nov 05 by Radiant! who commented "Cleaned out the dirt and cobwebs with a heavy-duty flamethrower. See talk page."  I presume he meant that this rule is so well understood that it's not necessary to actually include on the page.  If that was his intent, I agree that it's a widely understood rule.  I also would agree that the CSD page was badly in need of rewrite though I don't have strong feelings about the inclusion of that particular rule either way.  Rossami (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I maintain that it is not understood well enough. Just recently there were two articles deleted as recreations after being speedily deleted: Hacker standard time and Bwn0x. (In my opinion, the first one was a speedy deletion candidate in the first place, while the latter one wasn't.)  - Mike Rosoft 14:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I think that it is widely understood. I also think that the misunderstanding arises often enough to justify having that clarification in there. It is not a change of application, just a clarification. -Splashtalk 15:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: You can just make a new section here with your proposal in, or test the water at the relevant project page if there is one. -Splashtalk 15:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Deleteagain" for speedily deleted articles?

message: Someone keeps speedily deleting an article I started before I can add anything too it.
The article was "Danish Pedophile Association" Articles need some time to cook as a stub. I didn't even get a chance to add the stub tag before it was deleted the first time. Someone newer to wikipedia may not even know how to put in a stub tag.--Gbleem 05:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What vandalism? --Gbleem 04:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I think you you should give me more than a few minutes to finish an article.--Gbleem 04:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: You deleted it before I could add anything else. Are you sure you are following the deletion guidelines? Wikipedia:Deletion policy --Gbleem 04:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: From Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion--"Note that some Wikipedians create articles in multiple saves. Avoid deleting a page too soon after its initial creation, as the author may be working on it."
----
It is the admin who is in error here (unless of course your page was intended as a personal attack). The inflammatory nature of the article may have biased their judgement. However, it's sometimes difficult for an admin to tell whether an article is still being edited. To avoid this happening in the future, you may want to make more judicious use of the Preview feature, particularly while writing controversial material. Deco 06:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy delete is too speedy. 

message: Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.   User:Zoe|(talk) 04:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What vandalism? --Gbleem 04:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I think you you should give me more than a few minutes to finish an article.--Gbleem 04:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: You deleted it before I could add anything else. Are you sure you are following the deletion guidelines? Wikipedia:Deletion policy --Gbleem 04:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: From Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion--"Note that some Wikipedians create articles in multiple saves. Avoid deleting a page too soon after its initial creation, as the author may be working on it."
----
It is the admin who is in error here (unless of course your page was intended as a personal attack). The inflammatory nature of the article may have biased their judgement. However, it's sometimes difficult for an admin to tell whether an article is still being edited. To avoid this happening in the future, you may want to make more judicious use of the Preview feature, particularly while writing controversial material. Deco 06:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Danish Pedophile Association

message: Template:Tsd has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Tsd. Thank you. --Wcquidditch | Talk 13:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is probably the wrong forum for this rant. Criteria for speedy deletion are supposed to be clear-cut, and do not include your example. Non-notability is never a valid justification for speedy deletion, mostly because it's so subjective. We also don't establish criteria for keeping articles on this page – maybe one of the VfD discussion pages or Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) is more appropriate. As for what we can do about it, I'm sure many inclusionists sympathise with your position, but we are a community of many viewpoints and I doubt your arguments would significantly shift the standard for inclusion. Deco 03:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:Tsd 

message: A number of articles and topics are significantly worthy without being notable, popular, or even very well known.  So long as the account is verifiable, and it has historical significance, I do not see why we must establish that they are making a claim of current notoriety.  For example, there was an article not long ago about a woman who was a natural conductor of electricity, something which affects 1 in 4 billion people.  There were only 2 google hits on her, and only 1 newspaper article.  However, it was true, verified, incredibly interesting and of immense historical significance.  Therefore, I think that requiring for an article to make a claim of notoriety should not be a definite criteria for deletion full stop, let alone for speedy deletion.  There is much debate as it stands as to whether an article can be deleted purely because nobody has heard of it (or not enough people).  If an article's only claim to fame is popularity, then yes, that is relevant.  But the best articles and best topics do not aim to be encyclopaedic because of popularity at all.  For example, firsts of things are rarely popular.  I bet nobody had ever heard of UNaXcess before, but its 100% worthy of my books.  Many things are notable because they lead to things, and so forth.  In other words, what I am saying is that this should not be a criteria for speedy deletion at all.  It can be a guideline for deletion, but one which is not always applicable.  However, under no circumstances should it be a reason for speedy deletion.  Not in my opinion. Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 01:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is probably the wrong forum for this rant. Criteria for speedy deletion are supposed to be clear-cut, and do not include your example. Non-notability is never a valid justification for speedy deletion, mostly because it's so subjective. We also don't establish criteria for keeping articles on this page – maybe one of the VfD discussion pages or Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) is more appropriate. As for what we can do about it, I'm sure many inclusionists sympathise with your position, but we are a community of many viewpoints and I doubt your arguments would significantly shift the standard for inclusion. Deco 03:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability should not be *only* criteria for an article to be kept 

message: When is a single link an attack? I linked a self described pedophile to a pedophilia organization. Is there attack criteria? --Gbleem 18:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an attack criterion, but it only applies to pages created solely for the purpose fo disparaging their subject. The question is of intent — if your information is accurate and your intent is to inform, then you are not in violation. Just make sure you have your facts straight when adding controversial information, and include some verifiable quotes if you can. Deco 18:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single Link Attack 

message: WP:DRV#Right to exist showed a diversity of opinions on when a newly created article counts as being "a substantially identical copy" of a deleted article.  The DRV concerned an article that was rewritten by hand, but which seemed mostly to consist of claims that were in the deleted article , and which had roughly the same structure.  If G4 is ambiguous, we should probably tighten the wording, or provide an example. --- Charles Stewart 21:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ultimately "substantially similar" requires a judgement call on borderline cases. i can't think of any wording that wouldn't require a judgement call on borderline cases, that's why editors are humans, not AIs. If anyone can think of wording that makes the desired distinction clearer, and offers help to the person considering whether to tag for, or delete under G4, feel free to propose it. Note that a long legislative code is not going to be clearer, IMO. The only way never to have a disagreement is to have a single person whose judgement always rules, and that doesn't scale well and has other problems. DES (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, but it was surprising to me that admins who have spent a long time alongside each other on VfU/DRV should not have reached a working consensus on this.  Maybe a List of borderline CSD cases is a good idea? --- Charles Stewart 18:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: DRV in particular has a set of long-standing philosophical disputes, people on the same side of those may have reached a working consensus, but DRV as a whole has not. DES (talk) 18:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: CSD G4 ambiguous?

message: If an article which is listed on AfD (as indicated by and afd tag in the article) gets speedied, shouldn't the closing admin take care to close the AfD subpage as well?  From what I've seen this gets done about 50% of the time -- coudn't the software or a user script help?   Jamie 10:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes this should always be done. I have done it on several ocasions, and it doesn't take very long. A user script to more or less automate the process could be created, if anyone wants to. DES (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  close AfD when you speedy something? 

message: Because of the amount of garbage that comes up and has to be filtered through WP:AFD, we are seeing 
more and more  tags being used by editors for things where we don't have any matching criteria in WP:CSD.  The article usually deserves a delete, even a speedy, and admins often speedy on this basis.
The most obvious of these are spam, blatant hoaxes, and complete bollocks.  I'm guessing that the editors are interpereting these as vandalism under CSD G3.  My question is, if these are clearly valid speedies, should we update G3 to make this explict?  Part of the point in CSD is that the rules should be easy to apply, with minimal need for judgment calls, so that the deletion be speedy and uncontroversial.
Jamie 12:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of G3? 

message: : A copy of this was also posted on WikiEN-L
It's been a while since I did a speedy patrol to check how our newpages patrollers were handling the A7 "no assertion of notability" criterion. I was rather shocked. by what I encountered in two short bouts of patrolling this morning and at lunchtime.
In the following, I list *only* the points of notability that were contained in the articles at the time they were speedied as"non-notable".
* Michael J. Skindell:  member of the Ohio House of Representatives, ranking minority member on at least one committee, co-sponsor of a bill to establish a universal health care plan for all Ohio residents.
* Brian Brolly: founder of the national UK radio station, Classic FM, former CEO of Sir Andrew Lloyd Weber's Really Useful Theatre Company.
* B C Joshi: Indian Army general, founder of a paramilitary counter-insurgency force, the Rashtriya Rifles.
* Sambit Bal: A Wisden and Cricinfo editor, founding editor of Wisden Asia Cricket.
* Jake Putnam: Emmy-winning journalist, has won other major awards.
* Michael Viscardi: child prodigy, winner of the 2005 Siemens Westinghouse Competition, won $100,000 in scholarships.
* Marissa Siketa: author put it up for deletion as a misspelt article. Should have been redirected to Marisa Siketa.  Actress in the popular and longrunning Australian soap opera Neighbours.
The patrollers performing these deletions are all good fellows and are doing an excellent job, but there seems to be a considerable price in collateral damage. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's seven articles out of how many, Tony? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Ever since this current experiment with anons not being able to create pages, it seems like for every dozen pages I see that are legitimately speedyable, I have to remove tags from at least two or three—mostly instances like Tony has cited where a clear claim to notability has been stated. So now I try to do basically what you've suggested. Most of what I delete is from browsing CAT:CSD, so I'm sure at least one other person has seen it. Likewise, I try not to delete pages that I myself have tagged, unless it's patent nonsense (which nowadays does not seem to last long enough for me to see!). My main concern now is no longer the volume of deletions (thanks to this experiment) but the number of people who are tagging articles but do not seem to fully understand the criteria.  —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-15 21:38:15Z
To err is human, to restore is easy. 4 those 7 were by Jeffrey O. Gustafson who has had quite a number of speedies reversed since his RfA, and I hope he is gradually learning. To call people fools when you disagree with them is usually the course of action to follow. -Splashtalk 15:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Just in case anyone is unclear, I'm not saying that I think those speedies were particularly good, although I can see why some of them attracted the "wrong kind" of attention. Maybe we should add an urging somewhere for people to stubbify rubbishy articles rather than tag/delete them. I do think, though, that A7 does serve the purpose for which it was created: to allow us to shoot-on-sight articles about boyfriends, girlfriends and the like. It also, when misapplied, catches innocent articles (and their contributors). That is the fault of the misappliers rather than the criterion itself. It's not clear to me how else we might phrase it, and I do note that other phrasings have previously been rejected. -Splashtalk 16:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Well then it's not speedy, is it?  That starts to smell more like an express-lane version of AfD.  I like the separate tagger and deleter idea better.  Perhaps if we didn't need to stretch the rules so much on A7 (for bands, groups, websites, companies....) it could be applied more accurately.  Jamie 04:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Speedy deletion is not (despite it's name) nessesarily about speed (except in cases of clear vandalism, copyvios and such). It's about not having to seek a consensus on each and every deletion first if the object falls within scertain narrow parameters. Changing a criterea to instruct admins not to delete articles under A7 untill it's at least 24 hours old (or whatever) or not rely hurt the "spirit" of speedy deletion (though some will cry "instruction creep"), we already do that with categories, and many image critereas require the image to be tagged for 7 days before they are deleted. Problem is it would require people to insert the date because there is currently no way to have a template automaticaly include the date of tagging, if you use subst or hard code a ~~~~~ string in the template it's expanded in the template and all subsequent use will be hard coded with that date, if you just put in a  it will change whenever the page using it is updated. --Sherool (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Even the admins who do cite CSD often do play fast-and-loose with the rules. If a subject is not notable they'll use A7, even if the article asserts that the subject is notable or even if it's not a bio. If they don't understand the article they might use "nonsense". They might delete a "copyright violation" that in fact is being donated by the person who wrote the content. You get the idea. Deco 17:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you think that admins are often just ignorant thugs. Tell us something new. -Splashtalk 18:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't insulting admins. I am an admin, and I have made unreasonable deletions myself. Just saying that there is reasonable justification for a double-check on speedy deletions. Deco 18:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Without making changes to the system, the only people who can do the patrolling effectively are fellow admins.  That 's just having the same people do what they've always been free to do.  I don't understand how you can suggest feedback to admins after deletion is a solution.  What is the basis of the feeback?  Without seeing the content, there's nothing to comment on.  --Rob 19:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One admin can feed back to another (tinc) and, out of courtesy in reversing someone else's deletion should do so. Also, oftentimes the salient parts of a speedied article are visible to everyone in the deletion summary, when MediaWiki puts it there. Other times, well, maybe a little trust here and there wouldn't hurt. The overwhelming majority of speedies are fine — but I don't really expect that statement to be trusted. We only ever hear about the ones that go wrong; don't extrapolate from that that every speedy is wrong. -Splashtalk 19:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For the substubs, they're often reviewable, as the contents actually fit in the edit summary.  But substubs are insignificant, as even if a mistake is made, little work is lost, and its easier to recreate then request an undelete.  The serious issue is for longer articles, where an admin may, in good faith, miss critical points.  Also, this defensiveness illustrated above, shows part of the problem.  One reason speedies aren't easily reviewed, is knowledge that the admin is likely to be defensive if any is questioned.  In this discussion an admin seems to be saying, "You can't see what we admins see, but if you could see what we see, then you would know that you don't need to see what we see.".  But, there's never been an explanation of why we can't see what's to be deleted, even for a breif period of time (as the 24-hour delay I suggested above).  Splash, I'm not suggesting you or fellow admins, are untrustworthy (as you seem to take the comments).  I'm suggesting you're human like me, make honest mistakes like me, and need actions with serious consequences reviewed by others, just as all my edits are and should be reviewable by *all* others like you.  --Rob 19:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a neverending question though. We have AfDs last 5 days, and people complain that isn't long enough. We have speedies sometimes in CAT:CSD for a number of hours, and people say that's not long enough. If we make it 24 hours (apart from having to hold on to "zOMG PWNED" for 24 hours), people will just say "but 24 hours isn't very long at all, why not make it 5 days like AfD?". Then, the mirrors and Google will pick up all the trash we get. Even 24 hours is long enough for content to get Google-spidered and mirrored. Speedy is there to remove the very worst, the most damaging content quickly, not deliberatively. Speedies are visible until they are deleted and many are partially visible after that; that's the best that can reasonably be done. Unless there is wholesale reform, but that's not being talk about here. And, yes, I think statements like "having the same people do what they've always been free to do" is a fairly clear implication that what they've been free to do is bad. -Splashtalk 20:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I certainly agree that virtually all speedies are good (and without it we would be in a bad place), and consequently that we are making a mistake in not allowing more articles to be speedied. But the problem, as I see it, is that our existing processes deliberately drive up the cost of contesting potentially bad speedies; for instance, by users demanding that such contests go through WP:DRV, which is patently the wrong place for such a discussion. Our processes amplify the cost of admin errors; this is why we only hear about the ones that go wrong, and is also partly why the community is unwilling to trust admins with greater freedom in making speedy deletions. See User:Christopherparham/DR for more along these lines and my proposed solution. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Perhaps there should be a required review of every speedy deletion afterwards, the speedy deletion would be considered tentative until seconded by someone other than the person to perform the delete? It seems like the Speedy Deletion rules should make it clear that AFD has priority over speedy deletion, and if objections have been raised about the speedy deleting an article, the CSD do not apply and it is necessary that Afd be the method be used instead of Speedy Deletion to decide on the disposition of the deletion request. --Mysidia (talk) 04:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: CSD A7 and collateral damage

message: Hi, I propose I6 as under
Temporary upload - Images uploaded from commons for main page images can be speedy deleted under this category once the image is definitely off the main page.
Reason: As of now, we use  for temporary uploads and speedy delete those once they are off mainpage as indicated on that template. But sometimes admins forget to do it. Also, it would be better to have a formal instruction/category for such a task. Having I6 helps non-admins to flag it off; also, admins can just quote a two-letter reason for deletion. Please note that I1 is for reverse direction and hence doesn't fit in. I2 to I5 look at totally different types of images. Hence, I propose I6. Thanks. --Gurubrahma 05:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This would include  images also. --Gurubrahma 11:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSD I6 - A new proposal 

message: (not using CSD I6, being discussed above)
I'd like to float the idea of having a speedy deletion criteria to couplw tih CSD A7 which allows admins to get rid of photos used in non-notable bios. These photos are rarely for semi-notable people where biographies are being written, but rather for autobiographies by web-bloggers or MySpace users. It just makes sense that if someone can have their bio speedy deleted as vanity, then putting up images to accompany those articles should also be covered. So, with rough wording:
CSD I7. Images of unremarkable people. Any image used to accompany an article deleted under CSD A7, which is not used in any other article, may be speedy deleted if used solely to illustrate an article about a real person or persons that does not assert their importance or significance. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to IFD instead. 
Thoughts? The wording can change if needed. Harro5 07:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "...if used solely to illustrate that article." It can stop there, the rest is necessarily redundant with A7. And, personally, I oftentimes take the view that such pictures are vandalism and remove them with the article. I don't see the need for pointless bureaucracy over a picture of a teenager in a monkey suit playing his dad's guitar. Or similar. One of the few times I might actually rely upon WP:IAR. -Splashtalk 18:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I too just delete these photos, knowing it's highly unlikely anyone would oppose this action, but it then sets the rule in stone. Anyway, it's just a proposal. I agree that the wording could stop where you suggest. Harro5 22:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I also delete those photos, and would like the short wording. r3m0t talk 18:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Many of these pictures can be deleted because the uploader doesn't specify a suitable license or the uploader has no authority to license the material, not being the owner. If they are the owner, however, and they do release the material, it might just be a good idea to keep it around and see if we can find a use for it, in cases where the image actually has marginal informational value. Deco 21:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSD I7  

message: I notice this recent change to A8, apparently per a discussion above.  The way I read the change, it seems that the 48h restriction has been dropped.  Is this inteded?  Jamie (talk/contribs) 14:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent change to A8 

message: Actually I support the removal of the last sentence of G4 - it is indeed rather redundant and confusing. Radiant_>|< 17:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  As I mentioned in the edit summary when I removed the line earlier, either the article you are deleting is a substantial recreation of previously deleted material, or it isn't.  If it isn't, you shouldn't be using G4 as a justification for deletion. → Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 17:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, well, it was in much better shape before the recent (imo rather unfortunate) masticating of the CSDs. See Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive4#Some thoughts on the G4 criterion for an earlier discussion, and the history for the perfectly clear phrasing it used to have. Despite the suggestion-free complaints of Kim Bruning, the CSDs weren't broke, didn't need fixing and were in worse shape after the edit than before, principally because they were the then-current iteration rather than a first iteration, and several important details got lost in the process. -Splashtalk 21:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  G4 clause 

message: A recent proposal to expand A7 to include groups of people (e.g. bands, families and clubs) on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Expansion of CSD A7] reached 76% support in three weeks' time. Also, some of the oppose-voters objected to the wording rather than the intent. In other words consensus supports the proposal. I've modified A7 accordingly; if people have concerns about the wording, please discuss here. Radiant_>|< 22:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: # 02:15, 21 December 2005 Jeffrey O. Gustafson deleted "William "Duke" Procter" (A7 - the subject is non-notable, no claim of notability is made) 
This makes me curious, and wander what the reason is.  Now, it turns out this was likely a valid speedy, as the person's only "claim to fame" was being one of the last WW1 vets (note: I'm speculating, as I can't see the article contents).  If the edit summary said "nn-bio: only claim of notability was being one of last WWI vets"; then I would be happy.  I and others could look at that, understand why exactly the article was deleted, and not have to waste time double-checking with a Google search to know this.  If more admins did good edit-summaries for good speedies, then we could all focus on the smaller number of potentially questionable speedies.  Instead, any mistakes are likely lost in a sea of unexplained deletes (valid deletes, but unexplained).  I don't see how we can have any discussion about the quality of individual A7 deletes, until we all know why things are getting A7 in individual cases.  --Rob 14:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A7

message: I would like to ask all the admins doing deletes to *please* always include edit summaries.  A number of descriptions are only "CSD A7" (that's totally inadequate).  Or the text of the *rule* is given (I already know that), but not a sample text from the article.  Or simply give a concise statement of what the person is (e.g. student, prof, executive, politician, singer, whatever).  Example:
:# 02:15, 21 December 2005 Jeffrey O. Gustafson deleted "William "Duke" Procter" (A7 - the subject is non-notable, no claim of notability is made) 
This makes me curious, and wander what the reason is.  Now, it turns out this was likely a valid speedy, as the person's only "claim to fame" was being one of the last WW1 vets (note: I'm speculating, as I can't see the article contents).  If the edit summary said "nn-bio: only claim of notability was being one of last WWI vets"; then I would be happy.  I and others could look at that, understand why exactly the article was deleted, and not have to waste time double-checking with a Google search to know this.  If more admins did good edit-summaries for good speedies, then we could all focus on the smaller number of potentially questionable speedies.  Instead, any mistakes are likely lost in a sea of unexplained deletes (valid deletes, but unexplained).  I don't see how we can have any discussion about the quality of individual A7 deletes, until we all know why things are getting A7 in individual cases.  --Rob 14:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit summaries

message: The new A7 rules now make it possible to speedy the most common types of vanity pages beyond the traditional one-person .  Some new speedy templates might be useful in order to tag some of stuff that is newly speedyable.
I've created an  template for the most common case I've seen on AfD.  Please tweak the wording if it's not good.  I'm hoping that we will create a small number of these for the most common other cases. 
Jamie (talk/contribs) 13:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New speedy templates for new A7 rules 

message: I proposed at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Semi-speedy new unsourced articles which would allow us to start deleting new unsourced articles.  Please discuss it there.  I put it there, since I'm proposing something that would expand the scope of what's deleted (not just what's speedied).  I'm hoping to get some input.  --Rob 21:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-speedy new unsourced articles 

message: 2.    Foreign language articles that exist on another Wikimedia project. - Is this not already covered by ? either this criterion or the template in question need to be removed, as they give conflicting messages (One says we'll speedy delete any non-english article covered by another prject, the other says it'll go through the regular AfD process.) GeeJo (t) (c) 14:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They don't conflict at all.  A2 is only for non-English articles that are already present on another project.   is for non-English articles that aren't already on another project. —Cryptic (talk) 15:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarified it myself, to at least let anyone trying to help by tagging such articles know that the template exists. GeeJo (t) (c) 20:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign language articles 

message: I'd like to propose a new criterion for speedy deletion, Miscellany pages that are created for the sole purpose of votestacking should be speedied. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia. I don't have a suggested wording, in fact I'm not even sure which section it would fit in but I did want to bring it up. Apologies if the archives already cover this, I didn't read all of them. ++Lar 04:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly object to any such criterion  -- this is not something that can be safely determined by a single admin, or even a pair of them, and so should not be a speedy delete reason. i might add that the speedy that apparently occasioned this seems to me to have been way out of process -- i am strongly considering bringing it up at DRV or simply unilaterally undelting. 07:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote stacking organizations 

message: Dear administrators, I wanna write an article on Doosan, but the 'doosan' page informs 'cannot be recreated without a good reason'.
But I just want to talk about the Korean top 10~12 company Doosan with other users, and get more information and oppinion of the others.
So, please let me create the 'Doosan' page. 
Thank you. 
Sincerely, truism77
*It seems Doosan was protected because people continued posting copyrighted information. Please go edit Doosan Group for the moment, but use your own words, don't copy/paste from other sources. Kappa 11:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cannot recreat Doosan article for long?

message: I am sure everybody agrees that if somebody creates an article, then soon after that (before any other edits) blanks it, it was a test. I suggest:
: G7: Author requests deletion. Any page for which deletion is requested by the original author, provided the page was edited only by its author and was mistakenly created. → Author requests deletion. Any page for which deletion is requested by the original author, provided the page was edited only by its author and was mistakenly created. If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request.
All in favour say aye! All not in favour, say nay! All who want to tweak the wording, say your tweakings! :) r3m0t talk 00:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Author requests deletion.  Any recently created page edited (signficantly) by only one user who says creation was a mistake or blanks the page.  --Rob 06:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggested revised text, to deal with the "ownership" issue: Author requests deletion.  Any recently created page edited (signficantly) by only one user who plausibly claims that creation was a mistake, or who blanks the page provided the deleting admin concludes that the blanked page was a mistake.  DES (talk) 07:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  G7 - authors blanking their own articles 

message: In its current form, G7 provides a mechanism for unilateral deletion of good content at the behest of its original author. While I have never personally observed G7 being abused, it's dangerous to leave this kind of hole in our policy.
Let's describe a fictional scenario. User:ProlificWriter, an English professor, writes an article about a notable colleague at their university. They show it to the colleague, who says that while it's accurate and comprehensive, they don't want to be publically exhibited in this fashion. The colleague demands that they remove the article. ProlificWriter reluctantly complies to avoid creating professional conflict, adding the db-author tag. A new admin busy patrolling tagged articles deletes it without a thorough investigation, perhaps because they trust the original author as an established Wikipedian, or perhaps because they too have been coerced by the article's subject. In fact, there's nothing to say that the admin who deletes it could not be ProlificWriter himself. I can think of many other scenarios in which an author may wish to delete a good article, even one that they just wrote.
If this same article had gone to AfD, it would probably have received nothing but "Keep" votes. The policy calls for the admin to judge whether the article was mistakenly created, but although some cases are clear-cut, in general there's no objective way to establish this - the author's claim is clearly not enough, as they'll say whatever they have to to get it deleted.
More philosophically, this policy also makes an implicit assertion that the originating author has a kind of "ownership" over their newly written article, in that they can say whether it lives or dies. It's also strange that the policy is no longer applicable after even very minor edits by other people, such as adding categories. For these reasons, I suggest that either:
* The policy be eliminated, and such articles be treated individually on AfD, which is not unreasonable given their relative rarity;
* The policy be modified to explicitly require that the article was either clearly devoid of useful content, or that same content was published in another article, and also that the admin deleting it not be the original author.
Thanks for reading. Deco 19:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for elimination or limitation of G7 

message: : Any page in template space that attacks a person, persons, or an organisation such as a corporation, religious sect, government, either directly or by reference to works uniquely associated with them.
: So this would cover, as well as direct attacks, attacks on Microsoft disguised as attacks on their software, attacks on Muslims disguised as attacks on dress associated with muslim sects, and so on. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is stronger, broader wording than I would have proposed, but I'm willing to accept it.  I just hope that admins can use it with a modicum of common sense; I'd hate to see Infoboxes with POV problems being speedied rather than edited. -- SCZenz 14:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I disapprove of the inclusion of "corporation or government" and I am not wild about "Organisation"> I also strongly disagree with "by reference to works uniquely associated with them." One must be free to comment on a work without being held thereby to attack the work's author. Unless we are going to have a general policy banning expressions of opnion from userspace, than this simply doesn't fly, IMO.  DES (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at this page I can't see any such consensus for a speedy criterion as Tony suggests above.    The opinion is fairly evenly split.  This issue is not about whether such templates are right or wrong, it is about the process for determining whether such templates are right and wrong.  It is far better to have a strong community consensus on a particular template's meaning than allow admins to delete based on their own point of view of what constitutes an attack.  We should not allow admins the ability to delete user content at will, we should allow reasoned debate to decide what is appropriate and inappropriate content.  Allow guidelines to be developed at Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userboxes and then list for deletion on that basis.  Hiding  talk 11:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, there appears to be some sort of consensus not to use Tony's original wording, but to use DES's revision. --- Charles Stewart 02:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose both. Speedy deletion on grounds involving judgment is a very bad thing, as Tony would be the first to say in any other context. The proper remedy is to ban people who put them up; and MfD. (I could be persuaded to encourage blanking, which is reviewable.) Septentrionalis 05:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a discussion, not a poll!  Please unbold oppose and keep it collegiate. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 05:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A draft wording

message: The current speedy criterion is not for the arbitrary term "attack page" but for the less arbitrary term "Articles which serve no purpose but to disparage their subject". The difference should be obvious. I don't think there would be serious objection to speedying templates, categories or Wikispace pages that serve no purpose other than disparagement. In fact, such deletion already happens, and is hardly ever contested.
*That said, a (well-formed) RFC, RFM or RFAr does serve another purpose, namely dispute resolution (as opposed to a badly-formed RFC that simply says "User:RogueAdmin is a moron", and indeed such pages are already deleted).
*A template "this user dislikes <ethnic group>" also does serve another purpose, namely to show the political (?) opinion of a user. If this is deemed inappropriate, TFD will suffice for now (as will the proposed guideline for userboxen). A template that says "User:RogueAdmin is a moron" does not serve another purpose, and can be speedied.
*Everybody happy now? Radiant_>|< 12:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary section header

message: In the last few days a series of Irish historical images from 1912-1914 were removed. The original person who downloaded them is no longer on WP and as a new member at the time did not state their origins. Obviously as that user was long gone they did not reply to a message on their talk page asking about the images, so they were deleted. 
Had any of the many Irish members on WP been asked about the images, they could have confirmed the dates of the images (they all came from a unambigiously certain time-frame that expired in September 1914) and helped trace their origins. However as no-one was asked, and users were unaware of the issue, and we cannot now see the images to begin tracing them, WP had now lost a valuable set of copyright-free images that were of major benefit to a series of historical articles. If images are from a clear location, as these were, it would make perfect sense for the noticeboard of that country to be alerted to the fact that there is a problem with images. Users from there could help get information for the images. But by notifying no-one but a user who was gone (and even that sort of notification seems all too rare) WP has quite simply shot itself in the foot, again, over mishandled deletions. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These images are assigend to a category by being tagged as no-source, but not an irish-specific one. You might see Wikipedia:Lost images to recalim these particular iamges. It might be good if the no-source and no-license tags were reflected on pages that use an image, if any, to alert peolle who might be intersted and knowledgable. DES (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, some (automatic) way to "flag" problematic images so people looking at an article know there is a problem would be good. WP:PUI have the  template that is supposed to be put in image catptions when an image is listed for example. There are some problems though. Firstly it's "labour intensive" (people often skip that step), and when it is used others will ocationaly remove it because "it looks ugly" or "it disrupt the layout of the article" and so forth. I'm not sure replacing the image with a placeholder would do the trick either. They do it on commons for redundant images, but I'm not convinced it would work for images you want people to provide extra info for. Most likely some well-meaning editor will simply remove the "eyesore" from the article altogether without even checking the image page, and if someone revert the image you can't tell unless you keep a close eye on the upload loge because it won't set off the watchlist. Idealy we should have some kind of "magic" tag like __IMAGEDELETION__ or some such that would automaticaly cause the MediaWiki software to render images tagged with it in a special way to alert people of the pending deletion. Then it would be an easy task to put that directive in all the relevant templates. Wonder what the chance of getting somethign like that implemented is. Worth submitting as a feature request? --Sherool (talk) 11:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it be technically possible that images within an article are also added to a user's watch list when a page is watched? Hiding  talk 12:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *It would be quite possible to give those popup tools many people seem to use an extra button for "watch this and all images" (bit of javascript, I'd say). Or you could ask the Devs to make it part of Wikicode, but that seems less likely to get a quick response. Radiant_>|< 14:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another set of mishandled deletions