Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 10

message: Just thought you guys might want to know that you can use  for images without fair use rationales uploaded after May 4, and  for their uploaders' talk pages. Johnleemk | Talk 08:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like we've had some duplicate work. Rory096 got a little ahead of you, see the top of the page. Since he created them first and they are slightly more in line with existing tags, I'm going to boldly redirect some and propose the extra categories for deletion. I hope you don't mind. Stifle (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, no problem. The templates actually stemmed from a discussion at the talk page of the fair use wikiproject, which led me to believe we didn't have any such templates yet. Johnleemk | Talk 13:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates for CSD I6 

message: :Would anyone mind if I added another criteria on images: Vandalism-only images, that is, images that were used to vandalism the article, either by parodying the subject; like, quite a popular one, Bill Gates. What do you think? Kilo-Lima|(talk) 20:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessary. Images can be removed from articles as nonsense vandalism. The images are then orphaned FU images and can be flagged for deletion as such. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 20:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Vandalism-only images can be immediately speedied under G3. No need to wait for the 5-day orphaned FU grace period. Besides, the original image might not have been fair use. Angr (t • c) 21:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: (Yet another) proposal

message: A proposed new criterion:
: Templates that are intended for use in user: namespace which are either not transcluded at all (orphaned) or are only transcluded by one user or on a list of templates.  If the content is acceptable for a user page, the deleting administrator should "subst" the template before deletion.
Comments? --Tony Sidaway 15:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (1) I don't see any reason to limit this to userspace-intended templates. It should apply equally to any unused template. (2) How can the admin seeing whether this speedy criterion actually holds quickly determine whether or not it's being widely substed? Angr (t • c) 16:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: That's a good question.  In general, however, user: namespace templates are not intended to be substed, so I don't think there is necessarily a problem with that.  Perhaps a subst-only template could be placed in a suitable category so that its intended usage is obvious. --Tony Sidaway 16:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If WP:MACK passes, then most User: namespace templates will be substed, and it will be a very big problem. Angr (t • c) 16:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought the whole idea of substing under WP:MACK was so that they could then be deleted.   Isn't it the intention that userboxes be removed from template space and should be propagated solely by code copying? --Tony Sidaway 16:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not just userboxes, all templates intended for userspace, except the ones that have to be updated regularly. Come to think of it, if WP:MACK passes, this criterion will be almost moot, because the only any templates intended for userspace will be things like  and  that are widely used and have to be updated regularly. Angr (t • c) 17:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Speedily deleting orphaned templates is not a good idea. Only unused templates should be deleted. Whether an orphaned template is unused (nobody uses it for subst) is non-obvious, so it should not be a speedy deletion criterion. "Intended for use in the user namespace" is also not a good way to classify templates, they should be classified by content, not intention. Kusma (討論) 16:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed that they should be classified by content.  So how about "orphaned non-encyclopedic" templates can be speedy deleted.  We're not putting the encyclopedia in any kind of risk of damage by getting rid of unencyclopedic stuff.  --Cyde↔Weys 16:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Determining what is and isn't encyclopedic has always required discussion. Neither articles nor images are speedied for being unencyclopedic; rather, they're taken to AFD/IFD where they can be discussed. The same should continue to apply to templates (regardless of their intended destination namespace). Angr (t • c) 17:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. However: One could argue that all userspace templates are inherently unencyclopedic - but then we've just gone full circle. -- grm_wnr Esc 19:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Oppose completely. Don't speedy orphaned templates - an orphaned template might still be useful, but just not currently in use. We have to evaluate it for usefulness, and since that's subjective, TfD is necessary. Don't speedy templates used by only one user - they might legitimately use a template that nobody else knows about to organise information in a useful way in both article and user space. This kind of proposal in my opinion overlooks the point of templates, which is as a tool for organizing information - readers do not browse our templates looking for things to be offended by, and I see no reason why we should artificially restrict the purposes for which templates can be used beyond the ordinary restrictions placed on content. Deco 19:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Oppose, why put people's backs up by speedying their templates which are harmless? Stifle (talk) 00:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Orphaned templates

message: We seem to be in the middle of an influx of CSD proposals where the proposer appears to reason directly from "X is a nuisance and should be deleted" to "We must have a CSD item for X". Folks, even when the premise is true, the conclusion is usually not. CSD is not, and should not, be the first recourse for cleansing Wikipedia of unwanted things. We have regular XfD processes for that. CSD is for things that not only deserve to be deleted, but that can be deleted with a minimum of fuss and red tape because the outcome is not in doubt anyway. The perfect argument for a new speedy criterion would be something like "There has been many X's passing through XfD for some time. They all consistently end up deleted without any substantial discussion. Conducting and concluding poll on X's are a significant drain on the available manpower for XfD. We should streamline the easy cases to free up resources." But some of the proposals above seem to be fueled instead by "There are many X's on Wikipedia. They are harmful and/or do little good. We must do something about them!"
Henning Makholm 20:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think people are thinking they can make policy without making policy. If you're tired of articles about, say, noodles, but you know that you have no chance of getting a WP:NOODLES adopted, it's easy to think "if only we could just speedy articles about noodles!" and voila, the idea of CSD N1 is born. · rodii · 20:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that we don't need more criteria.  I don't think we really even need the ones we have, honestly.  I think most speedies are done by common sense rather than the letter of the rules anyway.  The inability of written policy to adequately cover what can be speedied has been pointed out many times before. Friday (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny that the response to a broken XfD process is to break the CSD process as well.  This could be part of a more ambitious scheme to remove editors from the deletion process altogether.  Watch out - soon only administrators will be able to weigh in on deletion.  You heard it here first.  --71.36.251.182 22:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: We don't need many more CSDs.  is a perfect solution to most of the articles that shouldn't be there. The kind of new CSDs that work are things like , because literally dozens of band articles were hitting AFD daily before the criterion came in. That one worked. I don't know if there have been any CSDs since that have been neither instruction-creepy or discord-causing. Stifle (talk) 00:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And note that  as a CSD came at the end of a long process of discussion and consensus-crafting, not at the beginning. It was a solution to a problem that was widely recognized and processed upon, rather than an first reaction to a perceived problem. Proposing a new CSD as a quick and dirty policy proposal smacks of "premature closure" to the problem-solving process. · rodii · 01:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with this. I suggest that we put big bold letters at the top of the talk page stating that Any proposed speedy deletion criterion should be both objective and involve a significant proportion of articles currently handled by other processes. But then we'd have to remove half of the ones we got. Deco 08:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please think twice before proposing new criteria 

message: G2 currently says:
:Test pages (e.g., "Can I really create a page here?").
I propose to qualify this with:
:This excludes speedy deletion of test pages created by logged-in users in their own user space, except with the consent of the user in question.
Any objections? Arbitrary username 20:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does that happen a lot? And while it is polite to ask before deleting even a test page in user space, does its deletion do any harm? Kusma (討論) 20:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the deletion may do harm: the user may be in the middle of testing something!  I've no idea whether it happens a lot, but just think it would be good for the criterion to contain a safeguard against it being used to disrupt other users' tests.  Arbitrary username 21:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think that no admin would be careless enough to delete a sandbox user subpage without first checking to see who had placed the tag there, and asking the obvious question if that person turns out not to have been the user who created the subpage. Kirill Lokshin 22:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think the exclusion does any harm. User subpages that can be speedied should be at the user's request, which is a different criteria. Maybe a simpler wording is "Test pages (e.g., "Can I really create a page here?") outside of the user: namespace." -- nae'blis (talk) 01:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, but I think the status quo is better than any wording which excludes test pages created in someone else's userspace. Arbitrary username 16:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: No need. Nobody's going to speedy userspace pages anyway. I credit most admins with some common sense. Stifle (talk) 10:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stifle and the others are, I think, correct.  First, where a subpage is being used for at least a tangentially encyclopedic purpose, no one is likely to tag it for speedy (except, perhaps, a vandal or other user with whom one has had a serious conflict); G2 wouldn't apply in such a case, and an admin coming to the page would surely observe this.  Joe 18:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your replies. My summary is that there is consensus that the change is unnecessary although not harmful. In view of this, I will not make the change. If frivolous nominations of user sandboxes ever become an actual recurrent problem, then this can be revisited. Arbitrary username 16:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refinement of G2 

message: CSD G1, is rarely used properly. For example let's say I wrote an article on why the sky is green, backed up with pseudo science, such as that 'reflections from lettuce cause it to be green'. It is 7 sentences long, and well written. Would you:
#Speedy delete it under G1
#Prod it
#Send it to AfD
If you would do 1, YOU ARE WRONG. CSD G1 refers only to patent nonsense, and that article would not be patent nonsense. In fact patent nonsense is a useless CSD, as the things that it would include are already included under CSD G2 and G3. Should the patent be taken out, leaving only nonsense? The only downside I see is that this gives admins more power to interpret the policy. However, this interpretation is already available in speedy deleting under CSD G3. What do you think, are there other reasons not to do this I haven't thought of?
Prodego talk 15:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why the thing shouldn't just be deleted as rubbish.  It's possible to be too pedentic about these things, you know. --Tony Sidaway 15:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because people don't always have good judgement as to what's rubbish.  I've seen at least one article written by an advanced physicist AfD'd because it looked like pseudoscience; in fact, it was on a notable topic and had been written at too technical a level. -- SCZenz 15:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: But if so, it should have a category. This page is a list of every reason something can be speedy deleted, correct? Prodego talk 15:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that makes sense; I've run into blatant and deliberate rubbish just this morning. However, I worry that although mistakes are reversible, they may never be caught in the case of speedy deletion.  That's why I tend to favor following the CSD pretty strictly; so that something that could be controversial (even if the deleter doesn't think so) has a chance to be reviewed. -- SCZenz 16:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Prodego is altogether correct; if we are to make something eligible to be deleted speedily, we ought at least fairly specifically to enumerate what precisely should be so deleted (and why).  When patrolling new pages, I often find pages almost exactly as that which Prodego describes, and I find differentiating between patent nonsense and other unencyclopedic but not speediable content to be exceedingly difficult.  But I can't abide Tony's suggestion that admins simply use their discretion here: first, because process is important, and it would be good for us to delineate exactly what obvious bilge should be deleted (and how we might identify such bilge); and, second, because admins aren't, on the whole, supposed to act discretionarily (rather, they act, in most cases, ministerially).  I certainly understand for myself the difference between that which is nonsensical (even if well-written) and that which is only unencyclopedic and thus ought to be PRODded or AfDed, but I'm certain that others view the dichotomy differently, and it would be to our advantage to have a consistent criterion, though I fear that any we write will invariably be nebulous and invite discretionary deletions in any event.  Joe 18:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the key of our difference is "admins aren't, on the whole, supposed to act discretionarily (rather, they act, in most cases, ministerially)"  I don't believe this to be true.  I'm a sysop because I've got a brain and I'm expected to use it.  I don't think it's possible to delineate all the instances in which administrator actions are beneficial, and so we have discretion and our written policy follows behind at a much more conservative pace. --Tony Sidaway 18:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is easily one of the most abused speedy policies. People use it for good content poorly written, content they don't understand and content they disagree with. Admins don't always have good judgment as to what's rubbish and what isn't and unfortunately many times when this happens it involves a new user so you get BITE thrown in as well. More than just about any other criteria, G1 one should be followed pretty close to the bone. That's one of the reasons Prod is such a good idea, it takes the pressure of off having to interpret speedy criteria in cases where it doesn't quite fit. Rx StrangeLove 18:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: In the case presented above, speedy is definitely the correct course of action.  When I see jokeshop articles come up on AFD, I tag them with CSD.  For example, JIMMY and X-Treme Napping, even if as in the AFD for Jimmy, others seem to disagree on the application of G1.  I fully expect admins, as mentioned above, to use some parts of their brain.  It is perfectly reasonable to delete hoax/vandalistic articles, even if G1 didn't exist.  However, like the 2 examples I have given, they would have to be pretty outright stupid/hoax.  Admins who delete good content poorly written or content that they don't understand or disagree with, its a problem with the admin and not with the liberal application of this rule. - Hahnchen 01:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I also believe that case G1 should be interpreted and applied very narrowly.  Vandalism is speedy-deletable.  Hoaxes are not.  The reason we've never established a speedy-deletion criterion for hoaxes is that, as individuals, we have proven to be very poor at identifying them.  Too often, something tagged as a hoax has turned out to be a true though poorly written article about a particularly obscure topic.  I made a hobby of collecting examples for a while.  But when you run a hoax through the full AFD process, we find that collectively we are very good at sorting out the hoaxes from the garbage. Tony is partially right.  We are supposed to use our brains.  Admins are not supposed to be automatons.  However, we must be very cautious about the risk of hubris - the assumption that we know best.  Decisions which do not fit the narrow speedy-deletion criteria should be dealt with through our other channels.  Rossami (talk) 13:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I see G1 applied to all kinds of articles that are not, in fact, nonsense; probably the only more-abused CSD is . Patent nonsense actually means something very specific, and Tony's exhortations aside, it's rife with abuse. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree too. I see all kinds of things deleted as G1 that aren't--Monster raving loony party just the other day. It was a crap article but not patent nonsense, and it should have gone through AfD or at least . Increasingly I think admins are using G1 to indicate "article I consider stupid." Saying "If we make a mistake, it's reversible" is too glib--that mistake might be the one that turns a potentially valuable contributor away from this place, in a way that's not reversible. Why not try not making the mistake? · rodii · 17:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That one should have been speedy-redirected to Official Monster Raving Loony Party, which is a pretty decent article. --Carnildo 18:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And ultimately it was. My point is just that all kinds of stuff gets the G1 treatment because an admin just doesn't "get" the page. It's not really a fault of the admin, but we should be careful. (And I just picked that example because I was familiar with it, having brought it up in deletion review, not because I thought it was a big huge hairy deal.) · rodii · 20:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. The CSD criteria is clear (and always has been) on what is "patent nonsense". Patent nonsense does not mean "does not make logical sense to you". It means that is unintelligible or unreadable. I could tell you the earth revolved around the sun and you could tell me that this was nonsense, which is a subjective qualification. However, it would not be patent nonsense, which is an objective qualification. As WP has grown, this incredible inability of some of its members (including among admins) to separate subjective qualifications from objective qualifications has been the very plight of CSD. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 20:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Precisely.  Joe 16:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said, Keith -- Samir   धर्म 02:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSD G1 

message: Is it possible we could now look at removing the time constraint on I3, which allows 
Images licensed as "for non-commercial use only" or "used with permission" that were uploaded on or after May 19, 2005, and for which no assertion of fair use is provided.
Given that the date is over one year ago, I would suggest there has been ample time to source alternatives for any such images. Thoughts? Hiding Talk 20:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We would need to ensure that the categories are clear first. I'd favour listing them on WP:PUI (and have done so quite a number of times). Stifle (talk) 22:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: How about adding something allowing speedy deletion of orphans in with those criteria?  They're not actually used, so they don't need time to find a replacement image. --Rory096 06:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds OK. Any objections? Stifle (talk) 22:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Due to the lack of objections, I have added this. Stifle (talk) 08:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I3, remove the time constraint? 

message: does stuff like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Webserver_directory_index&action=edit&oldid=54293158 come under the pure vandalism category? I presume it does but it could perhaps be mentioned explicitly. Plugwash 14:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pure vandalism is criterion G3.  If the list had been visible, I would have said that the page did not apply under that case.  Spam is not the same as vandalism.  The fact that the anon user who created the page took the extra steps to attempt to hide the text, however, is a clear sign of bad faith editing.  I think the vandalism case could apply in this situation.  That's a case-specific judgment call, though.  I think amending the wording of the speedy-deletion criterion based on this one situation is probably not appropriate.  This is especially true because the contents clearly did fit criterion A3 (No content except a list of links) regardless of whether the edit was made in good or bad faith.  It probably also fit criterion A1 (No context for expansion).  So it was speedy-deletable without any changes to policy necessary.  Rossami (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But it was a talk page not an article page, so surely stuff in the "articles" section doesn't apply Plugwash 18:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  spam 

message: What about adding non-notable sites as a CSD. This may fall under A7, but it needs clarification. Computerjoe's talk 19:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mean websites that don't claim any notability (not just "are non-notable") and don't have any association with a company that's notable, then it might work. But in general,  works. Stifle (talk) 22:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Non-notable websites was a proposed CSD about a year ago at the same time A7 was proposed, but failed to get consensus.  The idea of notability is actually rather slippery; even A7 refers only to "evidence of notability" or words to that effect.  I agree that prod works very well for this. --Tony Sidaway 04:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Notability can sometimes be hard to discern, and I don't think one admin who thinks something is non-notable should be able to speedy delete a page. I've seen plenty of notable pages go up for AFD for non-notability because some people had never heard of it, but in the course of a few people looking at it, they were able to determine it was notable. Doesn't seem smart to let that one person who may not have heard about it delete a page on sight. The Ungovernable Force 06:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:WEB]] 

message: I've removed two lines about checking the articles history and using Google to check context.  Every little drip and drab goes towards making this page fatter, and if you're not already checking the history of things than please stop speedy deleting. - brenneman {L}  03:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of two "notes" 

message: Should there be a policy created allowing speedy deletion of articles that are blatant advertisements? I cannot seem to find one anywhere. --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?, on WHEELS?!) 11:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because what one person calls "blatant advertising" another person calls "an informative article about a company". PRODding (or, if that's contested, AFDing) gives people a five-day grace period to change an article from blatant advertising into an actual encyclopedia article. Angr (t • c) 11:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It's a matter of judgement. Some things are blatantly spam; I delete those. Others, as Angr suggested, can be prodded or tossed to AfD. There's no real need for policy here. Mackensen (talk) 12:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're really keen turn that blatent ad into an actual article.  I know, adding content is too much like hard work, but someone should do it. - brenneman {L}  12:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe there should be a 'fast delete' which is, say 2 days, to give authors a chance to shape up. My concern is that Google seems to scrape and pick up WP very fast nowadays, and puts the adspam at the top of the search list, mission accomplished for spammer. Any ideas how to beat that strategy? Crum375 01:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just remove the external links in the article, and any inappropriate internal links to it. Henning Makholm 01:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What if we have article for small company A, with one short paragraph describing it, and links to its web site. No link or ref to any neutral site mentioning it. If we delete their link, how does it make the article any better? (See this as case in point.) Crum375 02:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing the link negates the benefit the spammer would get from a googlescrape. The article can be deleted using ordinary process afterwards. Henning Makholm 11:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is easy to see in the History for this case in point, where the spam promoter sits on top of the page and keeps reverting changes, and could bring up sockpuppets if needed. It is too wasteful for serious editors to engage in revert wars with a dedicated spammer. If admins are needed then it's wasteful of that resource also. A simpler delete process, shorter than the Googlescrape time window, would solve it, at least for clear cut cases like this one. Crum375 15:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Mackensen, many of the articles in question are about companies which fall so far short of WP:CORP as to make the effort of saving them a waste of energy.  I have been known to fix spam articles for genuinely notable companies.  Just zis Guy you know? 12:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One possible solution for these is immediate AfD (no prod). If the company is actually notable, people will notice during the time the article spends on AfD and it will be cleaned up. If the company is non-notable, the AfD tag (which cannot be removed) serves as a warning to everyone, the user responsible is likely to give up before the AfD page is complete, and it increases the chance that someone will notice an A8 and speedy it. --ais523 08:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertisement 

message: After watching and participating in CFD for a few months, I've developed the opinion that an empty category shouldn't be a criteria for deletion much less speedy deletion.  Because of the way categories are implemented it is nearly impossible to know what the contents of a category were in the past so someone could empty the category and put it up for speedy deletion unless someone checks his edit history, which no one does.  And two people could do it with no way of anyone else finding out.
It isn't really all that important anyway if a category is empty or not.  What's important is if it is a logical category with a good place in the category bush.  If it is a good, logical category, people will eventually put articles into it.  --JeffW 22:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly will, and CSD is NOT SALT.  If a new article comes along that fits a logical category, it will create it in the process of writing or categorizing it.  Although I would love a "category history" of some sort from the category's POV, I don't think the code supports it now. — xaosflux Talk 02:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Someone could blank an article and then put up new text that falls under one of the CSDs.  In all deletions, the administrator doing the deletion needs to check the edit history.  If admins are being too lazy to check edit history, it seems like overkill to remove a CSD to compensate... kmccoy (talk) 02:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A category isn't like an article.  If a category is empty it is impossible to find the edit history of the articles that were in the category yesterday, since there is no way to find those articles.  --JeffW 20:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: This criterion used to stand as having been empty for one day, but because of the concerns you raise now, it was felt that four days would be sufficient time for people to check that nothing "suspicious" has happened.  Category deletion is no big deal.  You are right that it's impossible to know what was in the category, but as User:Xaosflux states, if a category was wrongly deleted, it's quite simple to recreate it.  Hiding Talk 20:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSD C1 

message: Is there a speedy deletion template that says the page is pure vanity? Please direct me to it if there is. If there isn't, I'll be happy to make it. -Kitty the Random 01:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (etc) is the closest we have. Note that "pure vanity" is not a recognized speedy criterion: vanity articles tagged with db-bio that do claim notability are routinely refered to prod or AfD instead. Henning Makholm 02:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Userfy them and tag the redirect for deletion as a cross-namespace redirect.  The template  is handy for this. Just zis Guy you know? 12:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vanity Template 

message: I sometimes work on drafts like Talk:Interstate 10 in Texas that aren't ready for an article yet. I was concerned to find out that these can be speedied - where else should I put something like this so others can find it? --SPUI (T - C) 02:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Userspace is probably a good place - I think just move the page afterwards should do the trick. RN 02:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And if I never get around to finishing it? If I put it on the talk page, others can find it and complete it. --SPUI (T - C) 02:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: IIRC, I think the CSD was changed from Talk pages of only deleted articles to all Talk pages without articles because anons can create Talk pages, which had been problematic because some anons were creating undesirable content in that namespace.  I don't know whether that's a problem anymore, though. --AySz88^-^ 03:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You think Talk:State Highway 550 (Texas) would be suitable for an article? --SPUI (T - C) 03:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but why not just create a stub for the article? I could do it in 10 minutes and I've never even heard of State Highway 550. Then people can improve the actual article if they want, or discuss on the talk page. --W.marsh 03:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Here's the issue - I make some notes on the talk page and don't necessarily get back to it, let alone realize it's been deleted. --SPUI (T - C) 03:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Hm, my experience is that page deletions do not appear in one's watchlist; the deleted page simply disappears quietly. One can see them as redlinks in the "list all watched pages" view, but even that does not distinguish between recent and old deletions. Henning Makholm 05:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah... I get an error trying to load my 28,787-page watchlist. So I can't check for redlinks there. --SPUI (T - C) 15:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: That's just wrong.  What else are talk pages for if not for working on the article?  If we insist, SPUI can probably pretend he's "talking" to people, "Hey, I'd like to do this, any objections?"  And if there isn't even enough information for a stub yet, use .  Those we are meant to keep the talk page for. - brenneman {L}  14:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that there is not a reason to remove this CSD; it, like all others, just needs to be tempered with common sense.  If you see an orphaned talk page that looks like notes or a draft, you probably shouldn't delete it, at least userfy it.  The same goes for a talk page archives. Kotepho 14:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SPUI, you'd probably get a lot of mileage out of a cear boldface note at the top of the page announcing that it contains some draft material for the as yet non-existent page. You could ask that admins not delete it without tugging on youyr sleeve first, and maye invite contribution from passers-by.  You could problably design a template for it -  or something. -GTBacchus(talk) 14:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This suggestion works just fine.  As does creating a stub, which is hardly challenging.  Let's not change the rules to handle a single editor's preferred way of working. Just zis Guy you know? 12:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: There is no consensus to remove the criterea, but the tweak he did seems fairly uncontroversial (at least no one have reverted it yet). I mean I would encourage people to create stubs rather than dump notes on talk pages for yet-to-be-created articles, but if there is some good starter info there I see no particular reason to blindly delete it either. The potential usefulnes of such notes seems to outweight the need to avoid orphanded talk pages at all costs... --Sherool (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Orphaned talk pages - why?

message: All,
Please remember not to edit protected pages, but also not to merely revert when asking the original errer to revert himself would be so much more conducive to happiness.
James F. (talk) 18:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How are users able to edit protected pages in the first place? --68.190.51.99 18:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  All 800+ admins. Unfortunately we are not above edit warring... Petros471 19:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually 900+ User:Prodego</sup> 19:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I asked James to take a look because of the rather tense circumstances.  I had self-reverted after inadvertently editing the page while it was protected (an easy mistake for a sysop to make).  Another admin then made the same mistake, so I informed him on his talk page and asked him to revert.  Meanwhile a third admin had reverted the second, which in the circumstances could have led to an edit war between administrators on a protected page--the kind of activity that tends to end in immediate temporary desysoppings and arbitration cases to confirm them. --Tony Sidaway 14:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A friendly reminder 

message: Please see Wikipedia:T1 and T2 debates and Wikipedia talk:T1 and T2 debates, where you'll find everything that's suddenly missing from here.  Please proceed in an orderly fashion, no pushing. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although this move might be controversial, I think it's a great idea. The T1/2 debate generate noise for as long as the rules exist and make it impossible to effectively discuss anything else here. I hope others won't mind. Deco 08:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: And there was much rejoicing. Thank you! Henning Makholm 08:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also announced the new page at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) -GTBacchus(talk) 08:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to be a reasonable move in general, but I have some minor concerns. The new "summary" page also includes a "Discussion" section. That seems inappropriate to me.  If the page is intended to be an NPOV characterization of the debate, then the continued debate belongs on the talk page.  Also, I would have preferred the summary to be a subpage of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, since that's it's main topic. That way, a bread crumb link would be at the top of the new page.  Rfrisbietalk 21:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: T1 and T2 debate has a new home

message: How does one propose new criteria? If this page is the location, I would like to propose to add the following criterion for speedy deletion of redirects:
:A redirect to a page of which the subject is neither the same as nor extremely closely related to the subject one would expect to see under the title of the redirecting page.
- Andre Engels 07:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The proper procedure for dealing with that is to edit the redirect page either to point to something more reasonable, or to be a stub for the topic indicated in its title. If neither of these make sense, take it to RfD instead. Are there so many meaningless redirects left after the two first options that it is worth the trouble to have a speedy criterion instead of following the standard RfD procedure? And can the class be defined sufficiently objectively that it is safe to delete them as speedies? Henning Makholm 08:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well put. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal new redirect criterion

message: I see that there has been some discussion of hoaxes before, but I feel that this issue should be revisited. Right now at AfD, there's a series of articles which are obviously hoaxes. The claims made in these articles (about a made-up band) are preposterous; #1 singles, smash-hit albums, and various other accomplishments are listed, despite the fact that the band, its members, and its albums get no relevant Ghits. However, despite the fact that these articles are so clearly unencyclopaedic hoaxes, they will remain on the mainspace for the next five days while the AfD runs its inevitable course. Perhaps if there is solid evidence that an article is a hoax, it can be considered for speedy deletion? I don't see any reason to leave these articles (or others like them) on the website any longer than we have to. Cheers! The Disco King 19:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "solid evidence that an article is a hoax" as a criterion is far too dependent on discussion and review to be well suited as a speedy criterion. A single AfD case is very far from being reason to add speedy criteria, and there is no particular cost associated with letting a hoax sit in article space for a few days while due process runs its course. As long as they are conspicuously tagged and the rest of article space can be kept free of gratuitous wikilinks to the hoaxes (through ordinary editor vigilance), what immediate harm does their temporary presence in the database do? The reason you ask for is that proper process is what keeps your article about some obscure corner of your hobby from being speedily deleted as a hoax before you get a chance to explain yourself and provide references. Speedy deletions are basically a weakening of process by relying on single persons making correct judgements. This is a necessity sometimes when the process (relative to the number of cases) is so bulky that everything would grind to a halt by following it each time, but it should not be extended lightly. Henning Makholm 20:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  According to WP:HOAX, "Hoaxes in Wikipedia are considered vandalism, and the originator of a hoax is subject to blocking and banning." WP:VAND clarifies that vandalism includes "insertion of bad jokes or other nonsense". Thus, a blatant hoax can already be speedied as G3.  A hoax is NOT G1 patent nonsense, but according to both WP:HOAX and WP:VAND, a hoax would fall into G3.  I agree, though, with User:Henning Makholm that you don't want administrators having to immediately evaluate whether or not something is a hoax. BigDT 01:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AH!!! I smell wikilawyering! *runs away* --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 00:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd say that allows sufficient leeway to delete the blindingly obvious, and the balance need to go through a process of review (several supposed hoaxes have turned out to be valid but obscure, and the converse is also not unknown). Just zis Guy you know? 13:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Absolutely not.  The problem is that many apparent hoaxes are not at all obvious.  Speedy-deletions are deleted on the view of a single administrator and get no oversight.  Our own history has repeatedly shown us that as individuals we are not very good at sorting out the hoaxes from the poorly written stubs about real but very obscure topics.  Too many such articles have been tagged as hoaxes only to be later verified.  As a community, we are quite good at sorting them out but that's what the AFD process is all about.  For a while, I was even collecting examples of such discussions.  There's still a partial list somewhere on my userpage.  Now, I'm not defending the articles which are patent nonsense (in the narrow way we use that term here) nor am I defending clearly identifiable vandalism.  But an attempt to set an absolute rule that "all hoaxes are speedy deletion candidates" will do more harm than good.  The AFD process works.  Let it take its course.  Rossami (talk) 13:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, AfD's triumph is the five day discussion that can be used to distinguish a hoax from a verifiable subject.  We don't want to telescope that to a single administrator.  Afd provides the opportunity for rigorous research prior to declaring a hoax, but it would be too onerous to require a single administrator at RC patrol to do it all. --Tony Sidaway 13:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Tony - and if it takes a while to prove that something is a hoax ("I've never heard of it" isn't proof), different admins could start the research, come to different conclusions, and revert each others actions.  This is unadvisable.  AfDs can and do close early if the research is done and everyone agrees that it is a hoax.  Sometimes an apparent hoax is real, sometimes something apparently real is a hoax.  GRBerry 14:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hoaxes

message: The current wording might not be consistent with the current interpretation by (some? most?) administrators. There is a small discussion going on at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Many Speedy Deletions of talk pages. Ardric47 22:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSD G8 needs clarification 

message: Would it be possible to have a speedy deletion criteria for images that have an obvious watermark on them indicating their copyright? --Hetar 00:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Copyrighted images, whether watermarked or not, might be legal to use under fair use. Kusma (討論) 00:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if they might be legal under fair use, do we really want images with glaringly obvious watermarks on them? --Hetar 18:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's wrong with glaringly obvious watermarks? --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 00:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Obvious copyvios, even though they can be trimmed the trademark. Someonebay 02:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The purpose of a watermark is not to assert a legal copyright but to give credit to a particular entity. We don't really want them in images for the same reason we don't usually credit authors in articles. But we certainly don't need to delete them - they're not hard for any halfway-decent clone brusher to remove, and there are techniques for removing them even if they cover the whole image. Deco 04:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Image Criteria 

message: Since the page is currently protected due to the editing war on T1 and T2, this is to remind myself to add a very brief, digested note of the exemptions listed on WP:UP#How do I delete my user and user talk pages? in which user pages and talk pages do not qualify for speedy deletion. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which would be more efficient than just having "See Wikipedia:User page for full instructions and guidelines". Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, a working sentence I was thinking about adding to CSD U1 is, "This does not apply to user pages that contain evidence of policy violations or significant abuse, or pages in which there is an administrative need to retain the personal information" or something like that. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSD U1 

message: I'd like to propose a CSD criterion for image description pages when the image in question is on Commons. Exceptions would be for IDPs for Featured Pictures when the picture is on Commons. Otherwise, there's really not much use for them as far as I can figure. Please correct me if I'm wrong, though. howcheng  {chat} 19:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been deleting these anyway. They seem unhelpful as the obscure any changes to e.g. licensing that may occur on Commons, and the purpose of Commons is to have a centralised resource. This is a comparatively rare occurance, though, and it probably doesn't really need its very own CSD. Still, I'd not object. -Splashtalk 19:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well for some kinds of images it can sometimes be usefull to add Wikipedia spesific info to the page. For example adding  to flag images and such. If the description page is blank or otherwise serves no usefull purpose I'd say "blank image" (I2) applies since there is no image on the actual page you delete. --Sherool (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I've occasionally seen pages used to add images to categories. --Carnildo 22:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder about the usefulness of that -- why keep that metadata local?  Jkelly 22:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because when you browse Wikipedia categories you don't get to see Commons categorization (and in general Commons categories are differently specified and named than Wikipedia ones)? Henning Makholm 23:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Image description pages for images or media that exist on Commons where the page serves no real purpose. 
--howcheng  {chat} 22:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: Image description pages for Commons images 

message: I just saw a notice on a userpage that referred to 'CSD U2', but there is no such criterion that I can see from the main page.  The notice was added by User:Tawkerbot to the page User talk:130.88.171.226 on 3 March 2006.  :Category:IP talk pages for speedy deletion was transcluded and the text of the notice states "This page has been automatically marked for deletion under the criteria for speedy deletion U2 (recycling IP talk pages). If you are adding a new message, please remove this notice".  Looking at the category in question, this appears to have been an experimental speedy deletion criterion.  Is this criterion still in force or under debate?  Thanks for the input. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was an old criterion that was in effect until people realized that IP talk pages should be blanked, not deleted. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSD U2 

message: this page has been unprotected. Play nice. Homey 03:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotected 

message: I propose the following criterion:
No encyclopedic value whatsoever. Images used solely on pages deleted per A7, attack images, and images depicting unnecessary obscenities can be deleted immediately.
This image criterion would reduce the backlog on WP:IFD, and it would reduce the amount of time that obscene/inflammatory images would stay on Wikipedia. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: G1 doesn't seem to fit the bill. G3 could be applied, but if I were an admin I would feel uncomfortable applying it unless there was a precedent to do so. Maybe we should just clarify G3 to include the proposal above. --Bachrach44 16:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is some merit to a CSD for images which were uploaded and used only on pages deleted per CSD:A7 (i.e. vanity images). Stifle (talk) 09:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed CSD I8 

message: Why is I6 restricted only to images tagged specifically with  or ? It should apply to every image tagged with a fair use tag, as every fair use tag screams "provide a rationale" already. TheProject 05:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some don't. We gain nothing by everyone writing copying and pasting the same fair use rationale for every album cover used in the article about the album. -- grm_wnr Esc 05:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The main reason is maintenance overhead. Slapping a  tag on a page doesn't take any thought, other fair use tags do. I agree that it should, eventually, be migrated, but not right now. Stifle (talk) 00:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanding I6 

message: I added a section listing some types of articles that are either frequently mistakenly deleted under misapplication of CSD or frequently raised here on the talk page. I hope I roughly captured the consensus of the community in doing this, but please feel free to edit it. It's not intended to be normative, i.e., it doesn't make new rules; it just clarifies how the ones we have are to be interpreted. Deco 05:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like this a lot.  I edited the bit about non-notability somewhat. -- SCZenz 14:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It's broadly good, but the userbox one incorrectly implied that divisive templates cannot be speedied, so I've removed that one. --Tony Sidaway 14:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, thanks for the edits. I don't want this section to be contentious. Deco 17:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: These are great, except that I don't understand how the PNG/GIF one has anything to do with speedy deletion, pro or con. · rodii · 02:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These images are sometimes deleted under I1. The claim is that this shouldn't be done. Deco 04:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't parse how it says that: "PNGs/GIFs replaced by JPEGs: Even if an image is a photograph or other continuous-tone image, JPEG encoding discards a variety of information that could be important for further editing. These are not redundant." Could the wording be made clearer? · rodii · 23:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it's too technical. The point I'm trying to make is that when you convert a PNG or GIF to JPEG format, the resulting image (although visually similar) is not the same, and so the original PNG or GIF should not be deleted because it contains information lost in the conversion process. Deco 23:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha, now I get it. I thought it was saying that the jpeg version shouldn't be deleted, even though it discards information... which didn't make much sense. I don't think it's too technical, just a little unclear. Actually, I think your explanation clarifies the issue completely. · rodii · 23:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-criteria 

message: When doing NP patrol, I frequently come across a page that looks like the following: "John Smith is the coolest person ever. Born in 1989 in Wichita Kansas, he currently attands whatchamakalit junior high school. Everyone should respect John because he's the coolest person ever and has single handedly discovered a cure for cancer."
Now, this is obviously a load of junk and should be deleted, but the truth is it doesn't fit the criteria for nn-bio. A7 says "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." technically, the above article does assert it's subject's importance - John Smith is the coolest person ever - if true that would be notable. I sometimes flag these pages as nonsense if the claims within the article are nonsensical, but GQ explicityl does not include "implausible theories or hoaxes," which is essentially what this is. In practice I've always seen those types of articles deleted, but I think we should expand the policy to reflect what we've been doing in practice. Maybe we could add a sentence to A7 which says something like "or whose only assertions of notability are nonsensical or entirely false". Thoughts? --Bachrach44 16:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Such things are, in my view at least, "[an] addition ... made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia" i.e. WP:VANDalism. Thus they may be deleted by any administrator on sight, either simply for being vandalism, or more technically CSD G3. Of course, the line betwixt vandalism and "I've never heard of this person/thing he does" must be judged carefully by the deleter. -Splash - tk 16:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Arguably, these edits were not made in order to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia, but rather for fun. If I saw your hypothetical article, I would remove the claim that they cured cancer from the article, which is clearly false, and the claim that he's the "coolest person ever", which is POV, and then PROD it for non-notability. Deco 17:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: IANAP, but surely the element of fun is derived from seeing if you can get such an article into the encyclopedia, knowing and intending that it's trash? It would be no fun if it weren't trash, and then it wouldn't be a speedy anyway. (NB: Hoaxes are intentional trash, too, but that's not the question here.) -Splash - tk 17:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: WP:DVAIN uses the phrase "remotely plausible assertion of notability" (emphasis mine).  I consider this a very important distinction.  We don't need to consider patently absurd assertions, such as owning a cottage on Mars, in determining whether an article is an A7 speedy or not.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I would put it this way: if after you have edited out the nonsense and POV, there is no assertion of notability left, then CSD would apply (provided the removals were obvious and noncontroversial). Deco 23:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I've worded a db tag like this: . Using multiple criteria at once seems to be legitimate nowadays (for instance, see ; A1 and G7. --ais523 08:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  where nonsense and nn-bio meet 

message: Has there been any discussion relating to speedy criteria specifically for spam?  I want to propose the deletion of User:Mike McCracken, but finding speedy criteria to delete a user page seems tricky.  In this case, the account was only used briefly to vandalize, but the user page remains and is nothing but spam.  It would be nice to have a template such as . -MrFizyx 21:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be working under the misconception that speedy deletes are the standard way to get someting unwahted removed from Wikipedia. They are not. If you feel strongly about getting rid of that userpage, go to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, observing the procedural advice at the top of the page. If MfD gets overwhelmed by a torrent of userpage spam for which the discussions always, consistently, result in deletion, then we can discuss relieving it by a speedy deletion criterion. Henning Makholm 22:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Or, alternatively, speedy it, and then put it up at DRV. If the speedy is consistently sustained for a few instances of this sort of page then it's clear that consensus is for the policy that a page that is nothing but linkspam needs to go and go quickly. I think putting stuff through the full process with every expectation that it's going to go away is excessively process wonkish. And I think I have some standing to say that!  Policy here is made by people doing stuff boldly and seeing what sticks and what doesn't. ++Lar: t/c 04:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  See, this is what sucks about Wikipedia.  Admins can delete whatever they want while DRVs take a long, long time with an uncertain result.  It'a slso more based on who actually hangs around DRV (which, naturally, is a lot of admins).  Template:User admins ignoring policy survived three TFDs and two DRVs and then an admin just speedied it, where it got killed on its third DRV.  So, even after five long processes, an admin just speedied it anyway, and because DRV was tired of debating it over and over again, it remained deleted. Hbdragon88 06:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, but we're in this instance talking about a page that is nothing but linkspam, not about a controversial userbox. It is difficult in my view to argue that we need to go through long elaborate processes to get rid of spam when the common sense right thing to do is speedy it right away. To argue for process in the face of glaringly obvious deletion is excessive process wonkery. And again, I think I have standing to say so, as I am one of the biggest process wonks here. ++Lar: t/c 10:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  An article which is nothing but linkspam is already speedy-deletable under case A3.  More ambiguous cases should be sent through the xFD process.  The specific example cited above should go through MFD as a violation of the user-page policy.  Given the user's contribution history, you might be able to "prod"-delete it but speedy-deletion is inappropriate.  Rossami (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to do about spam. 

message: An article that I wrote was "speedily deleted", and I don't agree with the reasoning.  Is there a way to appeal the decision or resurrect the content? --JimBurnell 20:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out Wikipedia:Undeletion policy --Bachrach44 21:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appeal? 

message: What is the best SD criteria/template for when a new page obviously fails WP:CORP or WP:WEB? Such as when it is just a one-line description and link to a company's website, meant to be spam. Thanks. --mtz206 (talk) 13:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think A7, but you should really consider using  on them.  It's better than speedying because it allows more editors who might nkow more to take a look at it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually if it's just one line and a link, in many situations A3 (No content whatsoever) would be appropriate. No one's really going to argue with speedy deleting articles like "OfficoSupplies.com - Your office supplies choice!" that do pop up from time to time. But as they get longer and provide more context/content, PROD is more appropriate, since there might be something salvageable. --W.marsh 15:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Additionally, one of the standards under WP:CORP is being part of a market index.  Unless the article explicitly says that the company is private, that standard can't be judged without research.  The number of market indices has been proliferating like flies in recent years.  This makes company articles that have content and context almost require an AFD.  GRBerry 23:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, all. For "one line description and a link" I'll just do the A3. If there is more, but still just seems like an advertisement for one of a thousand software providers, then will consider PROD or AfD. --mtz206 (talk) 23:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If you look at the new section at the top of this page, there are some general rules for proposing new CSD criteria.  Philosophically, I agree that non-notable bios seem very similar to non-notable company blurbs or website stubs.  In practice, they present different problems to the project.  I draw your attention specifically to the second and third bullets above.  According to the second bullet, "it should be the case that almost all articles that can be deleted using this rule should be deleted."  We very rarely salvage a non-notable bio but we do occasionally salvage a company or website page.  It's not always and maybe not even most of the time but the odds are certainly better.  The third bullet requires that the situation arise frequently.  We get lots of non-notable bios but not nearly so many about non-notable companies or websites.  If we start getting flooded with non-notable company nominations and start to overwhelm AFD, we can consider it then.  In the meantime, there's a general attitude that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."  Rossami (talk) 23:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, and that's reasonable. But I'm curious if there is data to support your claim that that the quantity of nn bio pages significantly exceeds those of nn companies or websites. What are the numbers, and how do/will you know if/when you are "flooded" with nn corp AfDs. Not trying to push back, but just am curious. Thanks. --mtz206 (talk) 23:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, we don't keep detailed records, though I suppose you could dig through either current or recently closed deletion discussions if you wanted to get some real numbers.  Requests for new CSD criteria are usually triggered by an AFD "regular" who thinks he/she sees a pattern.  Then the rest of us do some digging and see if we see the same pattern.  It would be nice to have numbers readily available but in an all-volunteer project, categorizing deletion nominations is not what I call "fun".  I can tell you that on any given day, the New Pages patrol will turn up hundreds of new bios but very few new companies.  I think the websites are currently falling in the middle.  But that's based on rough estimates and memory.  Are you volunteering to do some analysis for us?  Even a point-in-time check would be useful.  Rossami (talk) 02:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly would have to defer to the experience and memory of "regulars" (such as yourself, I assume), and I agree it likely wouldn't be fun to tally these up. While I could see a value in having some kind of system tabulate the various deletion nominations (successful ones, at least) as they occur, but I don't possess the skills to automate such a process. Thanks for the insights, though. --mtz206 (talk) 02:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CORP or WEB 

message: I think we are wrong there fundamentally by naming this template as , mainly because no one owns pages on Wikipedia. All the pages are for the furtherance of the encyclopedia. I suggest renaming this to something like . What do you people think? --Nearly Headless Nick 13:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. Or ? Petros471 14:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  User is better than creator, because db-owner applies to user pages, but creator sounds like it could apply to articles. NickelShoe (Talk) 15:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're right, I was getting confused before with ... Petros471 15:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  However,  is quite confusing; perhaps move it to ? (standing for user request) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think we do give a certain degree of ownership over user pages. If someone wants to blank their userpage they can, if they want to put pictures of clowns for no reason they can, and so on. I think it's okay like it is. Deco 01:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My thoughts concur with Kingofhearts. I do not agree with the certain type of ownership we might be giving to users. Every page is in furtherance to the cause of developing the encyclopedia. --Nearly Headless Nick 15:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes furthering the cause of the encyclopedia means providing incentive for contributors to become members and be involved. Is it just a figure of speech when we say User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington is your user page? I'm not saying they have the right to do anything they want with it, but there are certain cultural expectations about how the "owner" of a user page is allowed to edit it as opposed to how other people are allowed to edit it which don't exist in articles. Deco 22:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but technically there is no such existence. People would not... err... trespass against my userpage, as I will not trespass against theirs. ;) So, should we get along with the change of the template? --Nearly Headless Nick 10:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding <nowiki>{{db-owner}}</nowiki> 

message: I have added U2: Permabanned user. User pages created by users who are now permanently banned. 
User pages are for the use of individual users; they are not maintained for community benefit. If a user has been permanently banned, then his pages are not likely to be of any use to him -- and are certainly not of use to us. We might want to retain talk pages that demonstrate the need for permabanning; others can simply go. See User:Germaine Hitler. John Reid 00:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Speedy?  Definitely not.  Anyway, isn't current practice to slap the "banned" tag on it anyway?  Why speedy them when they're going to get slapped with a tag and protected anyway? --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I have a related proposal for which I intend to open have opened a community discussion, per Wikipedia talk:Changing username#Proposal to warehouse insulting and offensive usernames Wikipedia:Offensive username proposal. BD2412 T 00:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This is a case that arises so rarely that I can't believe that it taxes AfD significantly. Deco 10:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This is probably undesirable as a speedy criterion. Indefinite bans have be reconsidered and changed, sometimes after appeals on the user talk page, which this would delete. Also, user page diffs are often useful to have to demostrate why X was banned. MfD is not so crowded that it cannot be used when there is some purpose to the deletion. Septentrionalis 19:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  U2: Permabanned user 

message: I've added a section describing three criteria for proposing your own speedy deletion criteria. They've been reiterated countless times here, but I think it's good to give them a highly visible permanent home so that hopefully we'll see better proposals in the future. Please feel free to edit this and offer feedback. Deco 11:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added one more, nonredundant. Deco 11:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Since it just involves proposals, perhaps it's better suited to this talk page. Also, I find that most people proposing criteria don't realize their proposal falls under one or more of those points... maybe a list of perenial proposals and why they fail would be a bit better? There's some potential here, though. --W.marsh 14:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't like "your own"--it just has the wrong connotation. How about "additional" or even "new"? I'll edit, change if you like. (Otherwise, great idea!) · rodii · 14:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This is a policy page, not a "how to", or a philosophy page. Provide links to Wikipedia:How to create policy or something. But keep this page on the CSDs, not things are not CSDs. -Splash - tk 14:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, would it be okay with you to have it at the top of the talk page or something? I really just want to help provide direction and avoid redundant discussion here. The content is specific to CSD, so it doesn't seem like the page you describe is the best place to put it. There is Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Proposal, but this is an extensive description of every vote ever, not exactly brief advice. Incidentally, I'm surprised I never came across Wikipedia:How to create policy before in the last several years. Deco 19:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  It's good thought but I agree with Splash.  Put it in a box at the top of this page perhaps and provide a link to it on the front page but let's keep the actual list of criteria as clean as we can.  The page is too long already.  By the way, remember to add a   excluding the instruction from the regular archiving of this page.  Rossami (talk) 22:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Top of this talk page sounds like an ok idea. By the way, I think what you wrote makes a lot of sense and is good advice. I thought when I read it, and am more thinking this now, that some (or all) of it ought perhaps to replace the current fluffy intro we have on the policy page. -Splash - tk 00:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added it to the top of the page, and made some edits. Please feel free to further refine it or move it or whatever. Thanks for your feedback. Deco 06:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section: Proposing your own criteria 

message: Changes to T1 are hotly debated.  If we are going to expand it, it is at least as important to expand upon the limitations to its use as it is to expand the areas where it can be used.  So I added the limitations that Jimbo has endorsed - and given that the community originally accepted having any version of T1 only because Jimbo endorsed it, his thoughts on what it means are still more indicative of policy than anything else.  GRBerry 04:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  T1 changes June 12-13 

message: I've reverted the addition of a link to Notability because, although we do have an A7 policy that refers to items "about a person or persons that does not assert the notability of the subject", we don't actually have a policy on what is notable and what is not.  The document referred to is a guideline and not really appropriate to the question, being largely concerned with how Wikipedians judge "notability".  The CSD criterion is about whether the article contains an assertion.  "George Scott was the first person to circumnavigate Piccadilly Circus ten times on ice skates" is an assertion of notability, but we'd probably want to take it to AfD to decide whether this really was a notable feat. --Tony Sidaway 03:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation of [[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]'s revert of a change by [[User:Srleffler|Srleffler]]

message: Since no one has bothered to link Wikipedia:Neologisms as a Speedy Deletion Category here, even after I specifically asked them to, well, there it is. Deco 08:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Neologisms as a Speedy Deletion Category]] 

message: I'd like to propose the following addition to A5: "... or the article is independently created at the target wiki". Sometimes, the target article already exists at the time of the AfD but nobody notice, and it is very well possible that the target article is created while the Wikipedia article is sitting waiting for being transwikied.
:Transwikiing is sometimes done for GFDL reasons; this may not cover the need to put the article history somewhere. Septentrionalis 19:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I was thinking of was the case when a different article is created at target, and this article contains everything in the article to be transwikied, so that a merge would be useless. For example, a Wikipedia article Maybe is a candidate for transwiki, but at some point a different Wiktionary article dict:Maybe is created, so that the original Maybe is useless for a transwiki. According to the current criteria, this should be still transwikied, but obviously would be deleted at target as redundant.  This could be formulated as "and the transwiki has either been done (with history recorded) or is not necessary because another article at the target wiki makes it redundant" - Liberatore(T) 12:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I added "or some other entity" to A6. I don't think this expands its scope in an unreasonable way. Somebody revert me if you disagree. Deco 13:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two (relatively small) changes 

message: This is in fact being done with G3, vandalism; but that is a dodge which is not obvious to everybody (and some attack pages strain the definition of vandalism). This should be stated. Septentrionalis 19:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A6 already covers articles. I don't think there's any reason to speedy delete, for example, user subpages, templates, or discussion pages created to attack somebody. Just blank them or put them up for deletion. How often does this happen anyway? Deco 19:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User talk:Brian Sucks was just speedied out of MfD; although you may be right to exclude user pages in the present climate. I see as much reason to delete an attack in an article template as in an article, if not more. Septentrionalis 21:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I might favor a rule for deleting "attack templates", if this gets to be a frequent thing. I can't perceive any legitimate purpose for such a template. User/discussion pages I wouldn't consider so lightly. Deco 20:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Attack pages as a general criterion

message: Recently, an admin deleted the project/portal page Wikipedia:Conservative_notice_board out of process because he thought it was "crap" while other admins disagreed and said it did not meet any criteria for speedy deletion. Should admins be allowed to ignore CSD and make subjective deletions? Please see Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Wikipedia:Conservative_notice_board Thanks. --Facto 20:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, administrators can take the initiative.  Also bear in mind that "out of process" just means that there isn't a process written down to describe what someone did.  The important question is whether it was the right thing to do. --Tony Sidaway 02:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Out of process and subjective deletions

message: I think that it might be beneficial if the patent nonsense criterion were renamed because it is so often misused. People think that the criterion covers things that are untrue, very unlikely, poorly written or a belief that is unpopular because of its name (the definition is below for those who are unaware of what it is). The criterion itself would not change at all, just the name. Some alternative names are "incoherent", "gibberish", "unintelligible" and "incomprehensible". "Nonsensical" is another possibility, but it may have the same problem as patent nonsense, although I think it might be somewhat better. Incoherent and unintelligible are my favorite alternative names. 
:"Patent nonsense, i.e. no meaningful content, unsalvageably incoherent page. This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, badly translated material, implausible theories or hoaxes."
This is just a suggestion and I'm not going to change anything without consensus, so try to stay calm. ;-) -- Kjkolb 03:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming of patent nonsense criterion 

message: I've been seeing a lot of images go by with clearly incorrect license tags, such as  on images where the specified source says "all rights reserved", or images retagged from  to  after OrphanBot complains about the lack of a fair-use rationale.  It seems to me that all images with incorrect license tags should be speedy-deleted. --Carnildo 04:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say revert them and block the person who changed them; but perhaps we need to extend A8 into the image space too? Stifle (talk) 09:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion of I7

message: Hi all. I'd like to encourage you to review recent changes to the templates MediaWiki:Noarticletext and MediaWiki:Newarticletext involving a reference to this policy page. I won't taint you with my thoughts on it, but I invite you to participate in the discussion on MediaWiki talk:Noarticletext and to invite any other users that you think might be interested to participate in finding a consensus on these changes. Thanks. Deco 09:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been dealt with. Thank you for your help. Deco 12:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference to [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion]] on [[MediaWiki:Noarticletext]] and [[MediaWiki:Newarticletext]] 

message: This is possibly not directly relevant, but I think it should be clarified to at least include User talk: in addition to User:, unless I'm being daft and this is already understood or covered by R3. I've seen instances where user talk archives were created in mainspace my mistake. –Dicty (T/C) 02:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Non-controversial, I've added it. -- Omniplex 21:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. I already interpreted the rule that way. Out of curiosity, do people actually wait two days until they delete the redirect after userfying? As I would otherwise simply forget about it, I just delete immediately and leave a note on the author's talk page. Kusma (討論) 05:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  R2 User talk