Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 4

message: It seems that attack pages ("john doe is an idiot", stuff like that) are usually speedied, as libel. Should this page be edited to reflect that? Radiant_* 09:00, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
*That makes sense, go for it. Thryduulf 09:20, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy attack pages? 

message: There si a discussion on this topic Wikipedia_talk:Images_and_media_for_deletion#Deletion policy for images on both Commons and another Wikipedia that may propose a change to criteria for speedy deletion.  helix84 19:50, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion policy for images on both Commons and another Wikipedia 

message: I propose that whoever deletes a page marked for speedy deletion must include the deciding reason for its deletion. I have had a page deleted twice now that was marked for speedy deletion on the basis of one man's POV. Whoever deletes an article must identify themselves and their reasons. They must be accountable. 80.229.14.246 00:02, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reason to be supplied on 'Talk' page

message: Maybe it's just my browser (Internet Explorer) or the screen definition (1400 \times 1050), but the  template is shown right over the first paragraph in the article! I think it may be the "float: right;" section on the style of the table that composes it, although I have not changed it because I might be wrong. Jotomicron | talk 16:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template over text 

message: On 13 May 2005, the Implied section was added to the list.  Now that it's been up a month and we have some experience with it, I think it's appropriate to reevaluate.  Is it useful or is it instruction creep?  Bullet 2 caught my eye tonight and, for some reason, struck me as redundant to General case 3 (vandalism).  Do others find it useful?  Can we trim the list without losing any of the meaning?  Rossami (talk) 21:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implied Section 

message: Recent activity in the deletion log, on VfD, and on [[WP:VFU|VfU] (in particular, WP:VFU#Chetan Patel this listing) has persuaded me that the new CSD criterion A7 (short bios without a claim of notability) needs some clarification.  Specifically we need to come to a clearer agreement on what kinds of statement consititute a "claim of notability" The examples included with the original proposal are not sufficient. Therefore, I am proposing the following examples, not as policy, but as guidance in apply the existing policy. Once we reach a consensus on them, they can be used to guide future action under CSD A7.
I hope that people will comment on these proposed examples, and we can come to some sort of consensus on what is and is not a claim of notability. DES 04:33, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Examples for A7 (non-notable bios) 

message: *Okay. This sounds like a good idea. However, I would prefer it split into a part for things that are claims, and one for things that aren't. And a few concrete examples wouldn't hurt I guess. What may be useful as a rule-of-thumb is the question, "how many people have done the same?" If the answer is "a lot" (as with being, say, a scientist) then it is not a claim to notability. If the answer is "very few" (e.g. an astronaut) then it is. Oh by the way point #2 should make an exception for such elected offices as president of the local chapter of someone's frat house. Radiant_>|< 07:48, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
*Oh by the way this should be moved to Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles which already has an example or two. Radiant_>|< 08:19, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
**you are probably right that I should re-factor this into pros and cons.  You may also be right about moving this. I intend this to be entirely about the application of the speedy criteria. An article that clearly includes a claim of notability by these standards, and so is not subject to being speedied, may still be deleted on VfD as vanity.  My thought was that if a consensus is reached, this would wind up at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Examples, but that is just a suggestion. As to point two, by "elected office" I meant an actual governental position -- i will revise. DES 16:40, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of the proposed examples

message: I got a complaint from another admin for deleting an article about a flash animation created by two sixth graders. This admin believed that it should have gone to VFD on the grounds that it did not explicitly meet the terms of 1.2.7 (which only covers biography of a non-notable person). My argument for believing that CSD 1.2.7 had been met (and hence my deletion) was if a person meets 1.2.7 (ie. is a non-notable person) then the work they create is also non-notable. 
I get to this by working in reverse - can the work of a single person be notable, and yet the single person involved not be? (Obvoiusly the work of a large number of people - eg. a movie - can be notable without all the individuals involved being notable). 
Another messy reason to argue policy... oh dear. As it stands - I can't bear the thought of listing a flash animation by a sixth grader on VFD... I mean - c'mon guys. If that logic holds, we would need to VFD every article that explains the significance of Jimmy Brown's latest love poem to the girl who sits next to him in history class, because CSD fails to explicitly allow its deletion. Manning 13:35, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
*There were proposals to make other sorts of non-notable things, such as web-sites, bands, etc, subject to speedy deletion. They failed. I think that the CSD ought to be read strictly, and that speedy-deleting the article you describe was incorrect. Indeed I weould argue that a compute program might possible be notable, but a poage about its creator, if not notable for anything else, might not survive VfD, although it wouldn't be subject to A7. And yes, the kid's poem would have to go through VfD IMO. If such cases are common enough to cause a problem, we can consider how to include them in the CSD. For the moment, I'd like to work on getting a band CSD witten and passed. DES 18:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further Issues with CSD 1.2.7 

message: There are those of us (you know who you are) who tirelessly sit through the CSD pages, deleting all the nonsense, checking up on the ones which need more discernment, moving the non-CSD ones over to VFD, and writing warnings to the people who list stuff on CSD as vandalism. It is hard work.
Now those who do this are going to OCCASIONALLY get one wrong and overstep the line. Usually they are judgement calls - and usually some nameless garage band from Omaha. We really don't need some "holier-than-though" message from another admin about "Do you happen to know we have a deletion policy here at Wikipedia? You are over-stepping the line..." Blah blah blah.
Guys - back off. Anyone deleting a page is an admin, and no-one gets to admin status without putting in the hard yards. There are very few admins who behave irresponsibly, and they are easily sorted out. However, everyone makes mistakes and errors of judgement, and if you really disagree with a CSD decision, by all means explain your position. But cut out the whiny-arsed "holier-than-thou" crap. Show the respect you expect to receive. Manning 13:45, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
*Unfortunately, at the moment, there is no article about a "nameless garage band from Omaha" which is subject to speedy deletion. This is clear-vut, not a judgement call. The proposal to  ake many such articles subject to speedy deletion failed. Some people are discussing a revised proposal. I hope it passes, and allows much of the flod of articles on bands that will never pass VfD to get speedy deleted. But that hasn't happend yet. Until it does, Admins shouldn't speedy such articles, and should expect complaints and VfU listings if they do. DES 18:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  And one more thing 

message: A Hoax is clearly not going to survive VfD. Neither will an attempt to use Wikipedia to publish fiction. But it seems to me that neither are subject to speedy deletion under the current CSD. Some think differently. This recently came up on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gus Roberts, where I wrote:
*I don't see anything on the Wikipedia:vandalism page that says that a hoax is a type of vandalism, although it might be implied on the grounds that it is a bad-faith edit. However I would be opposed to making (or considering) a hoax as a reson for speedy deletion , because there are too many false positives. I have seen several articles nominted for VfD listed as "hoax" where it turns out that they are accurate but unusual. For example, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Elizabeth Foulstar where someone incorrectly thought the page might be a hoax. Too many pages are inaccurately identified as hoaxes for this to be a safe reason for speedy deletion -- let them come to VfD where several people can give vbiews, and if somehting is infact not a hoax, a citation will no doubt be provided. DES 17:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The CSD serve two ends.  First, they allow rapid removal of content that is harmful to the project's image.  Second, they reduce the number of pages that have to go through VfD where the page will clearly eb deleted anyway.  These principles should be borne in mind by anyone seeking to amend CSD and to a lesser extent by anyone involved in the deletion process.  I routinely remove pages that contain implausiable material that appears libellous and unencyclopedic, such as the frequently seen pages that expound upon the sexual tastes of some non-notable person.  These pages are harmful to the project's image.  Other possible hoaxes should (IMO) be VfDed, and marked as a hoax.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hoaxes and Fiction 

message: I have noted more than a few articles on bands or musical groups that appear, and go to VFD for being non-notable and unverifiable, with absolutely NO hits on any search engine. I'd like to suggest that the criteria be expanded to include any article on a band or musical group that turns up less than five results on a popular search engine. I'm aware of the recent failed proposal regarding bands failing to meet WP:MUSIC criteria, but thought that this might be a compromise that might work. In either case, I'm not sure how to go about proposing this change, other than listing it here. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 12:21, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please call by Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-C. -Splash 13:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: The CSD for vanity allows speedy deletion about a real-world person that does not make a good-faith assertion of notability.  Obviously, Wikipedia cannot contain a bio of all 5-billion humans, so there has to be some threshold.
Should we have a similar rule, similarly reasoned, with respect to obvious spam?  I could see an aggressive deletionist interpreting the above rule to include corporations (which are persons in the eyes of the law), but that would be stretching a point.  The reason, IMO, to include spam under CSD is that there is an incentive to create such articles, even if they are only short-lived, and that most companies now have a staff with the time and creativity to come up with new titles and ways to avoid the "substantially identical content" rule.  A fail amount of VfD is spent on obvious advertisements, it seems to me.
This, of course, would not apply to good-faith attempts at NPOV articles about actually notable companies. Robert A West 14:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does/should spam come under CSD? 

message: What was wrong with the blank sign picture?  Are we really to the point where we're being stuffy just for the sake of being stuffy? It'd be one thing to say "this is distracting" or "this is cluttering the page and making it hard to read", but I object to removing something amusing just because the page is Official Policy and "not the place for jokes".  Lighten up. Isomorphic 02:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: Sometimes pages that did not meet criteria as a CSD are voted on under VfD, receive a consensus to Delete and are duly deleted... and are then recreated by the original editor.  Shouldn't such reincarnations be CSD?  Sorry if this is in the rules, but I can't find it; it seems to me obvious that it should be.  seglea 00:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This applies only if the article was "A substantially identical copy, by any title, of an article that was deleted according to the deletion policy.". It is WP:CSD G4. So if they've simply recreated the deleted page, yes it is speediable and it should be tagged with  so the admin can see why it is speediable rather than VfDable. -Splash 00:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Previous agreed deletions reincarnated

message: Shouldn't another criterion on speedy deletion be that an article has been determined by a non-admin closing a VfD debate that the article should be deleted? Obviously an admin would doing the actual deletion would need to check that the non-admin had not gone mad - but such a criterion may encourage non-admins to deal with the VfD workload (it certainly wouldn't do any harm), jguk 20:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if I would exactly call that a speedy deletion, but surely paged validly designated for deleteion by a VfD (or a TfD or a CfD) process are deletable. I think a passage in one of the VfD policy pages on "what if a non-admin acts as closer" might be the better place to haandle that. DES (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I'd tend to discourage non-admins from closing the delete votes on VfD.  Since the admin doing the deletion would have to check that the debate had been closed correctly anyway, there's not much effort saved.  And there are lots of deletion debates that can be closed as keep or merge votes; there's no reason why a non-admin can't show their stuff working on those ones.  (Keep and merge votes–the latter especially–require more work to close anyway, so admins would probably most appreciate the help there.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree with TenOfAllTrades, especially when an admin does not really know the user who closed the VFD. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Kim Bruning was encouraging non-admins who are experienced editors to clsoe VfDs on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway as part of the discussion on what it takes to do a good job on VfDs. DES (talk) 21:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  One more criterion 

message: When is it ever appropriate to have a redirect from the main article space to a user page? I can't think of any reason to do this that isn't just vanity - e.g. if I create redirects from Freply Spang, Freply Ann Spang, Freply A. Spang, F. A. Spang, etc., to User:FreplySpang. I propose that "they redirect from the main article space to the User: space" should be an explict Criterion for Speedy Deletion of Redirects. FreplySpang (talk) 20:59, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
*Good point. I believe that is the intent of #R2 (but not the present wording). WP:RFD doesn't like cross-namespace redirs in general, and into or out of userspace sounds like something that would be deleted by default. Radiant_>|< 00:00, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
**One such redirect I recall was from Wikipedia space to Dpbsmith's BEEFSTEW criteria. I thought it was a reasonable redirect, but it has since disappeared. Denni☯ 01:12, 2005 August 14 (UTC)
***WP:BEEFSTEW (technically from the main namespace) and Wikipedia:BEEFSTEW are still around. —Cryptic (talk) 01:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  redirects from article space to User: space 

message: The article spherocytosis describes a medical condition which results in abnormal shaped red blood cells spherocytes. However the spherocytes entry is just a dictionary definition and not an encyclopedic article.  Nor is it a stub, as all elaboration is correctly within the spherocytosis disease article.  I copied the definition across to wiktionary, but am unsure what next I should do in wikipedia:
#Do I tag the wikipedia entry for quick deletion, and if so, how?  But this allows someone to try recreate the entry in future. 
#OR try a redirect from the wikipedia entry to wiktionary:spherocyte.  But does actually work / is this acceptable?
David Ruben 21:58, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Advice on deletion/redirect to wikdictionary

message: Would it be possible to get a speedy deletion tag for non-notable website advertisements. The criteria for including web-sites in their own seperate Wiki page seems to have an easy to apply threshhold. Specifically this would be useful for pages such as Potterish, an entry for a webpage of a small Harry Potter fanclub. (which is already listed in harry potter fanclubs). 
It might also be nice to have something similar for product adverts, at least products which are currently unknown and ungoogleable, a VfD simply doesn't need to take place. --Darkfred Talk to me 13:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Speedy for NN Website advertisements

message: I want to be able to speedy articles of the calibre of AR!, which doesn't meet any of the current speedy criteria. Perhaps an additional speedy criterion should be Ultra-low Notability - something which is transparently unencyclopedic, but not quite patent nonsense. Similarly, transparent advertising could also be speediable. Rd232 22:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ultra-low Notability 

message: There seems to be some confusion about the policy that states that a redundant image "does not include pictures that are merely similar, such as JPEG versions of PNG images". So I added the line "or any other picture that has been saved in a different image file format" to make it more clear. If you can make it more clear, be my guest. The point, as I recall, is that different file formats each have their own pros and cons (which are listed on WP:IUP#Format), and thus when you convert an image from JPEG to PNG, some of the resolution and quality may change. That is why they are not candidates for speedy. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images in different file formats 

message: Currently, all pages using the template Template:Transwikied and Deleted are candidates for speedy deletion:
:Talk pages of already deleted pages unless they contain records of the deletion discussion and are linked from Wikipedia:Archived delete debates (this doesn't apply if the deletion discussion is logged elsewhere, like a VfD sub-page or other log).
Umm...so... shall we go ahead and delete these 100+ talk pages, and put the template up for deletion? Or add an exception to the criteria? I'd prefer the former. Coffee 10:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Transwikied and Deleted]] 

message: I don't imagine that this was the intention. That delete/restore conflict would be avoided if the article were either taken to VfU or the person who restores the article placed it immediately on VfD and notifies the deleting admin, as per existing policy.  That seems to be an entirely different basket of fish from Ring Foo's recreation.brenneman(t)(c) 00:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoring 

message: As almost everyone seems to agree with these well-reasoned clarifications, and as this does not change any policy, no polling is required, "Feel free to update the page as needed". brenneman(t)(c) 23:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, well, it's protected because people keep on debolding those letters. However, Tony is not (yet) persuaded there is any value to the rephrase, and since he spends much of his time digging through the speedy-deletes I'd like to hear him out. Certainly no poll is required; I don't think anyone suggested it. -Splash 00:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... yes. User:Aaron Brenneman receives 30 second block for spilling the beans.  Protecting a page for conflicts over bolding is a bit extreme, isn't it? - brenneman(t)(c) 01:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, what? If I have caused offense in some way, I apologise unreservedly. - brenneman(t)(c) 01:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Uh, sorry. I didn't mean to needle anyone. I meant it. Aaron was suggesting we go ahead and make the change, I thought it was fairly clear that you didn't think the change was necessary. And since you've said before that you spend a lot of your time on resurrecting speedies I figured it only sensible to let the debate run a bit.  I'm sorry if I gave some other impression. -Splash 01:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

text: That's ok by me. -Splash 01:50, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  No poll required 

message: And should be archived as soon as we tie off the G4 discussion.  (I.e. asking for anyone who objects to me archiving tomorrow to say so!) brenneman(t)(c) 00:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You can freely archive as far as #Ultra-low Notability. Above that is the speedy copyvio thing that is currently under discussion elsewhere so should remain visible here. -Splash 00:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that Splash, I'd missed that one.  I'll wait a while, then. - brenneman(t)(c) 01:41, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page is 135 kilobytes long