Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 2

message: I don't quite understand how to apply criterion 5 for speedy deletion, "Reposted content that was deleted according to Wikipedia deletion policy". I wanted to list an article that's recently been recreated, title-wise, after having been deleted in January 2004, but how can I know that the content was the same in January? I don't have access to the January text, because, well, the article's been deleted. The article as it now stands fulfills several criteria for non-speedy deletion, though, so should I forget about the recreation issue and just list it on VfD? Bishonen 02:38, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're describing a fairly infrequent example of when case 5 should be applied.  Most times when the deleted content reappears, it's fairly quick (a few days) and we all still remember it.  When in doubt, though, I think you are right to simply relist it on VfD.  Add your suspicions, though, and perhaps someone with the right access can check on it.  Rossami 23:56, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Reposted content that was deleted according to Wikipedia deletion policy

message: Case 7 currently reads "Foreign language articles that already exist on another Wikimedia project, as a result of having been copied and pasted in to Wikipedia after their creation elsewhere, or as a result of having been moved via the transwiki system."  I believe this case was drafted before Wikibooks, Wikiquotes, etc became popular.  In order to be able to speedy delete the other leftovers of the transwiki process, I propose the following update.  Builds and corrections requested.  Rossami 16:35, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "Articles that already exist on another Wikimedia project which have been copied and pasted into Wikipedia after their creation elsewhere or as a result of having been moved via the transwiki system."
*Unfortunately, that wording allows a lot of vagueness.  Many Help: pages, for example, are copied from :meta:.  Personally, I would rather see a short stub description and a link to the other project page, rather than deletion – especially of the speedy kind.  Is this case even needed?  Does anyone have examples of where this is a problem? -- Netoholic @ 16:56, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)
** Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Fried meatballs.  I see your point though.  As a sidenote, I've since found that m:Transwiki says simply "The original page may be deleted as soon as it has been moved to the transwiki area."  No equivalent comment or cross-reference is in the speedy list.  Perhaps that's the page that should be clarified because your recommendation about Help: pages makes a great deal of sense. Rossami
***This is just a bad idea to plain delete pages if this type. If people come to Wikipedia, and search for meatball, they must find the information. Even if you (wrongly imho) decided to move the information to wikibooks, then DELETE the article, then it may be that the information is saved, but it is unusable, because the link to the recipee disapeared. You might have preserved the information, but an information which cant be found is just useless. Now, if you succeed to prove me that wikibooks is as well known as Wikipedia, and that the  reader who do not find the information on wikipedia will have the idea to go and look in wikibooks to find the missing information, then I will not complain of deletionist behavior. But ihmo, you will not succeed to do so, hence link to information must be preserved. To do so, either keep the article, or at least save the information is another (probably more generalist) article. This is what I did in including the fried meatball information (and link to recipee) in the meatball article. Again, information hidden and impossible to find is just worthless. Do not hide information. Classifying does not make sense if it results in information being hidden. SweetLittleFluffyThing 12:52, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  case 7 

message: Some time ago at some policy page I proposed to introduce the notion of quarantined pages. The idea was quickly drowned down the other talk. I guess, here people are more intersted.
This idea comes from my understanding that the urge for speedy deletion comes from the desire to keep garbage away from wikipedia. At the same time, the primary opposition is that the notion of "garbage" is well-defined only in extreme cases. Other cases must have a fair share of benefit of doubt, if only because of limited experience of any of us. Even "no google hits" criterion is not always valid, e.g., for notable persons from non-notable countries that are still far behind on the road to computerization.
Hence the suggestion: The articles that may be reasonably classified as garbage must be moved into some space away from normal article space (I am not familiar with technical details and have no idea whether and how it can work) so that only logged in editors may see them and  deliberate whether they are garbage or not, without rush.
Is this idea worth further elaboration? Mikkalai 18:01, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem, Mikkalai, is that one of the big things about Wikipedia is that anyone can edit a page. Your solution would be a good one if that weren't true. Dr Zen 01:01, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not true. Protected pages may be edited only by admins. Therefore I guess the mechanism to limit access exists. Moreover, if I don't log in, I simply don't see certain functions in menu. So there are no technical problems. Mikkalai 07:47, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  You rather missed my point, which was not that it's technically impossible to exclude some would-be editors, but that it is entirely contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Dr Zen 02:26, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see anything contrary do the spirit. Registered editors  can edit anything they want. Admins can block users and protect articles. Vandals can be banned. There is no such thing as total freedom to do what anyone wants. IMO it is much more in the spirit of wikipedia to keep an article for a while than a desire to immediately and single-handedly delete  an article that looks suspicious. Mikkalai 00:14, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Actually to make it happen I think we need nothing more than a new namespace, like, oh, "Quarantine:" or maybe "Evaluation:" or something. Just that is enough to appropriately suggest the text is not yet an article. Good idea, Mikkalai. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:44, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quarantine