Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 18

message: CSD A5 for transwikied articles reads, in part "Any article that has been discussed at Articles for Deletion (et al),..." (emphasis added), while the "Used for" entry in the deletion templates table reads merely "Transwikification completed." I've been told that even dictdef-type articles must go through AfD first, but these entries can easily lead one to believe otherwise. I couldn't find anything in the archives, but can any "oldtimer" here clarify what the vague "et al" is meant to include? Askari Mark (Talk) 05:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Other *FD processes; probably MFD is the only relevant one.  The original wording can be seen at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/10. —Cryptic 05:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Cryptic. Think anyone would mind if I made the "et al" a little more explicit? Askari Mark (Talk) 18:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification on CSD A5 

message: How to stop a maintenance category from being speedy deleted if it happens to be empty for more than four days? Jogers (talk) 10:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note somewhere on the page that it is a maitenance category, and should not be speedy deleted just because it's empty. -Amarkov moo! 05:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Thanks. Jogers (talk) 10:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maintenance categories 

message: An anonymous  IP nominated User:LymanSchool for deletion claiming that it is spam. Is this Legal? And if it is not can I (a non admin) remove the speedy deletion tag? -Mschel 22:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  But G11 can apply to user pages, if they are really advertisements.  Mangojuicetalk 15:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, okay. —Remember the dot (t) 16:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  User Page Deletion 

message: This page was created as an attack page that would qualify for G10 (likely a recreation of Rooper after CSD G10) and there are still traces of it left. There were no additions that don't qualify for G10. Additionally, I can't find any references to this being an actual word. Should this be G10 or prod/AfD for neologism or whatever it is? Squids'and'Chips 00:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qualify for G10? 

message: I have a request for someone who knows what they're doing with templates - is there any chance that the default G4 speedy template can automatically generate a link to the corresponding AfD that it's noting?  --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It could auto-link, but what if it wasn't a first listing? Or listed under a different name? ^demon[omg plz] 08:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template suggestion for G4 

message: In the  template, the "reason" is currently garbling some of the text in the deletion notice box.
There is a sentence which is supposed to say, "Administrators, remember to check what links here, the page history (last edit), the page log, and any revisions of CSD before deletion." However, the reason, or all but the first word of it, is being inserted between the words "before" and "deletion". 
You can see this illustrated on a test page I created in my user space. The "reason" used on that page is "this is being used to test the "db" template, I don't actually want it deleted now".
This results in a sentence in the box reading as follows: "Administrators, remember to check what links here, the page history (last edit), the page log, and any revisions of CSD before is being used to test the "db" template, I don't actually want it deleted now&action=delete deletion." 
The source of this problem is apparently in a template which (a) is edit-protected and (b) I don't understand well enough to fix even if it wasn't edit-protected. --Metropolitan90 03:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is interesting. I've checked everything, I know how to check well enough, and nothing is wrong. Except that it doesn't work. Maybe some database coding was tweaked? -Amarkov moo! 03:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Found the problem; fullurl doesn't like long wpReasons. I'll try to find an exact character limit. -Amarkov moo! 03:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, so what it doesn't like is most punctuation. -Amarkov moo! 03:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Including spaces, apparently. It's got to be removed from the template now. -Amarkov moo! 03:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with "db|reason" template 

message: Continuing my thoughts on disliking the encouragement to “assert”, how about, in A7, changing “does not assert” to “contains no evidence of”.  I think that this doesn’t change the apparent intent, shouldn’t hinder its proper use, and properly emphasizes evidence, not assertion.  Good articles contain evidence, not assertion. 
Also changing the second sentence (deleting “the assertion is likely to be”) The new text would read: 
Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that contains no evidence of the importance or significance of its subject. If controversial, or it there has been a previous AfD, the article should be nominated for AfD instead.
                SmokeyJoe 04:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So what is "evidence" in your mind?  If "evidence" = "sources," that's been soundly rejected already. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds OK to me.  I still like the insertion of "even", to avoid the implication that the mere (plausible) assertion is enough, where it is only enough to avoid speedy deletion.  SmokeyJoe 01:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ee further discussion below. DES (talk) 02:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Plausibility is not something that should be decided by one or two people. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A7’s requirement to assert

message: I don't even know where to begin to make a template, and coding and other technical things aren't really my forte. So, can someone made a db template for A5 (transwikied articles)? Natalie 03:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Already done:  Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sweet. Could this go in the sidebar where a bunch of the other db tags are? Natalie 04:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It already is there; it is also called , which is on the desired position. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 07:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  template for CSD A5? 

message: The G4 criterion states: "This clause does not apply in user space". Does this cover articles that were moved to user space to "save" them from an AfD that resulted in a deletion? If not, does the copy have to go through its own MfD? In the past, I've had articles restored into user space through WP:DRV and was told I could not keep the article there indefinitely; this seems like a similar situation, except worse in my mind because the copying was done purposefully to circumvent the concensus to delete. Mike Dillon 17:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The advice you were given (that content can not stay in your userspace indefinitely) was correct.  The userspace is a place to research and build articles when their appropriateness for the main article space is either unproven or has already been contested.  If you stop working on it or if the space begins to be used in a deliberate attempt to impersonate the articlespace, the userspace version can be nominated for deletion via MfD.  Speedy-deletion case G4 would not generally apply.  Now, if the article were deleted from the userspace after an MfD discussion and someone reposted it, then I think that G4 would apply.  But I don't think I've ever seen that happen except by one person who was  indef-banned as a vandal shortly thereafter (for lots of other reasons, not merely for that edit).  Rossami (talk) 01:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. This particular article, User:Salix alba/Cycle studies, hasn't been touched for almost a year. In my own case, it was actually just one article and I didn't end up doing anything with it; it was later incorporated into someone else's draft article for a parent topic and deleted. Mike Dillon 01:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing as I was the one who removed the tag, I'd just like to clarify the criterion. Recreation within the same namespace is obvious. If an article is transferred to userspace to avoid deletion, it goes to MfD. If, after that, it is recreated again, it can use G4. Am I right? Harryboyles 05:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if it's recreated with substantially identical content, but yes. -- nae'blis 03:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It's meant to make an exception for stuff that's been userfied after deletion, for an editor to continue working on the content to get it up to an includable standard. I've altered the wording to reflect that. --bainer (talk) 06:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about G4 

message: Does anyone think that it would be a good idea to include the name of the respective deletion template, or at least a link to it, at the end of each criterion? This might be useful, although I can think of a very weak reason or two why it shouldn't done; mainly related to the function of WP:CSD. As an example of this, adding  next to G7, or perhaps t. GracenotesT § 02:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind about this, I think I have another idea. GracenotesT § 20:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding template names inline 

message: I recently had a conversation on IRC with someone who appears to have rather dramatically misunderstood A7. I'm reposting anonymously because I want to focus on clarification of the rule and not put down the specific person, who is not responsible for these misunderstandings.
:Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content.
: (Me): You didn't read the whole thing.
:that's the only part in bold, it's the only part i have to read
:i figured "unremarkable" and "doesn't assert significance" were, as far as wikipedia is concerned, synonymous
:And I figured "assert" meant "from a reputable source", as per WP:RS.
Suggested clarifications:
* Clarify that the assertion of notability may be in the article itself. New, undeveloped articles are not required to be well-sourced.
* Put does not assert the importance in bold text.
* I would say clarify that merely unremarkable subjects can still have an assertion of notability, but I thought we already do this quite explicitly in several places. Perhaps this can be made more visible in some way.
Thanks for your consideration - and let's try not to get into a fight over repealing A7, as we'll never agree to do that. Dcoetzee 00:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *We definitely don't want to say that new articles aren't required to be well sourced. They are, it's just that failing that won't in itself get the article deleted. Jay32183 03:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: **I don't think a lot of folks who spend time reviewing new article creations would agree with you on the notion that failing the well-sourced criterion for a new article should not be translated into a justification for deletion.  There are plenty of folks out there who would gleefully delete every stub article that lacks a citation on the basis that all unsourced material should be speedily deleted.  I'm not among those who would do this, I'm just channeling. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The misuse can be partially prevented by clearer criteria. "  does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. " is no better, when there is not particularly clear indication of what importance or significance means. We   will continue to get speedies when there is a two or three paragraph description of someone's career, and the question is whether or not it meets notability. Or, on the other hand:   this is my elementary school. I assert it is important because it is the only    school in town. . This technically meets the requirements. DGG 18:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Here's another, from the current list: Chris Churchill (born July 18, 1988)is the best up and coming cricketer in the U.K who will surely go on to represent his country in the fine sport." Obviously doesnt meet N, and speedied under A7, but certainly asserts notability, DGG 18:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misunderstandings of A7 

message: I recently find some problem image uploaders removing warning notices (like no source or license) without ever correcting problems. Should the seven-day counting be from the original warnings or restarted from a new warning? As I am unsure I now give a courtresy warning rather than deleting them even though more than seven days have passed from the original warning.--Jusjih 09:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem image uploaders removing warnings without correcting problems 

message: : An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject.
Just what constitutes an assertion of notability is unclear when (as happened with Institute for Mathematics and its Applications) someone asserts that mention of a $19.5 million NSF grant constitutes an assertion of notability but the material that was in an earlier, now deleted, version is not an assertion of notability.  Just what is and what is not an assertion of notability would therefore seem to depend extremely heavily on familiarity with the subject.  No one familiar with the topic could have considered that article a valid candidate for speedy deletion.  To treat it that way is the height of unreasonable behavior at best.  The policy might as well say "If you lack an understanding of the subject so that you cannot understand the various assertions of notability that were already in the article before you saw it, then delete it without discussion and don't notify any of the people who have edited it and who do understand.  Most especially, don't ask for their advice on what is considered notable in their field and what is not." Michael Hardy 23:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Michael, I wasn't involved in the deletion, but I'll say a bit about it.  I wouldn't get too bent out of shape over this.  There are many times when an "institute" within an establishment of higher learning is merely a handful of folks who have sufficient political clout within the institution to achieve name status.  This might have been where the person who deleted the article was coming from.  I can sympathize with the deleter, as most such "institutes" do not rise to the level of notability that one would desire of articles.  However, it is very cavalier to delete out of hand without having proposed (or effected) merger into University of Minnesota and converted the potentially deletable article into a redirect labeled with Template:R from subtopic.  Hence, though I can sympathize with the deleter in holding that the stub might not have withstood a notability test as originally created, I think the wrong action was taken, i.e. deletion wasn't warranted.  It was the lazy way out, to delete the article. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMA 

message: I was patrolling special:newpages recently, and I found a redirect that linked to a page undergoing copyright violation study. Please can someone either tell me what criterion to use in this case, or create a new criterion that can be used in this case. Is it wise to wait until the copyright violation goes through, and then request a deletion to a non-existant page, because I wish to let others know this if I am not online, or tag it with something that can lead me to do it myself. Thanks in advance! -- Casmith_789 (talk) 13:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tagging such a page is kind-of pointless, though, because the admin who deletes the copyvio will check its what-links-here and delete redirects to it too. There's not much point in adding something like this to the speedy criteria either, as it'll be covered by 'redirect to a nonexistent page' when its traget is deleted. And if it's target is despeedied (say it isn't a copyvio), the redirect probably shouldn't be deleted either. --ais523 14:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So I should just leave it? Will do, if this ever comes up again. -- Casmith_789 (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New proposal for Redirects for Speedy Deletion

message: Ugh, I just had the wonderful realization that the last 100-or-so deprecated png-maps now on Commons as svg-maps are not eligible for speedy deletion per I8 because they are not bit-for-bit identical copies. I guess, then, that my only option is to list them in a mass nomination at IfD, no? Just asking for clarification. --Iamunknown 06:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why bother?  Rossami (talk) 06:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  My inner-wikignome.  I find tedious tasks and get them done. --Iamunknown 06:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IFD is the correct venue for this lot, as conversion of png to svg is potentially contentious (it certainly is on a semi-regular basis on Commons). It might be worth tweaking CSD I8 though, to more closely match CSD I1. Specifically, a Wikipedia thumbnail version of a full-res image on Commons should be speediable.--Nilfanion (talk) 07:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I figured. They are county locator maps that were in png but are entirely unused and are superseded on Commons by svg maps. Hopefully no one will object at IfD. --Iamunknown 21:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From this thread it's clear that I've deleted many dozens of images improperly.  Is it true that the majority of images in :Category:Images on Wikimedia Commons are not speedy deletion candidates but should, in fact, go through WP:IFD? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Inasmuch I understand, yes it is true. I am now going to go back through my contributions and revert all of the incorrect tags I applied to county locator maps. --Iamunknown 22:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just got through all the incorrect taggings of mine that I could find and all I have to say is, "Blargh."  --Iamunknown 06:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I8 and "bit-for-bit"-ness 

message: Hi. I don't usually use speedy deletion a lot, but I was wondering if I could speedy Template:Rise of Legends, since it has been superceded by Heroes in Rise of Nations: Rise of Legends. I was going to cite no content, or maybe housekeeping. Can I do this, or must I nominate it for deletion?--Clyde (talk) 14:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Speedy what? – Steel 15:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very funny, Steel - you deleted it yourself (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Template:Rise_of_Legends). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it kind of is. Anyway, what would I tag that with if this happens in the future?--Clyde (talk) 17:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is only one criterion applicable specifically to templates for speedy deletion - if they are divisive or inflammatory (WP:CSD#T1.  All other templates should go to WP:TFD.  Any of the general criteria that might apply are, such as WP:CSD#G7 (author requests deletion).  It might well be that the template in question here was improperly speedied because simply being unused or orphaned is not a valid speedy criterion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Superceded templates generally go to TfD, where they are usually but not always deleted (sometimes the template wasn't superceded after all). --ais523 17:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (sigh) So I do have to go to TfD after all I guess. I thought this was maybe G6. No one mentioned that.--Clyde (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you don't have to go to WP:TFD after the damage is done.  Steel has chosen to ignore all rules on your behalf. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Regardless of what should happen generally, can we not process wonk over Template:Rise of Legends please. – Steel 18:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I'm aware this is a special situation and to let  bygones be bygones, but in the future if I ever find a completely unused template (like this one) can I put a speedy tag with G6 or must it always go to TfD?--Clyde (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, such cases should go to TfD. It sometimes happens that a template is actually being used, via subst, and so no uses show up via what links here. It soemtimes happens that a tempalte is a work in progress, or that pages which use it are underegoing re-edits. If the case is a clear-cut as the one above seems to have been, the cost of going through TfD will be minor, and the few days delay will cause no probelms. Unlike articles that might be seen by casual readers, unused tempaltes do no harm in the shrot time needed for TfD. DES (talk) 22:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay cool.--Clyde (talk) 04:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can I speedy this? 

message: Someone nominated Institute for Mathematics and its Applications for speedy deletion, alleging that it contained no assertion of notability.  User:Coredesat deleted it on A7 grounds.  That looked to me like vandalism and I said so, and that offended him and he cited A7.
:
He should have realized that he was not competent to judge what is and what is not considered notable in that subject area.  He could have asked those who had edited the article and communicated the concern.  It could then have been edited in such a way as to make notability more apparent to a broad audience.
:
A7 led to an absurd result in this case.  If someone blanks the page titled William Shakespeare, everyone will call it vandalism.  If someone deletes Institute for Mathematics and its Applications, I'd have expected a similar reaction.  A7 in its present form caused the problem. Michael Hardy 21:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone deletes a page titled William Shakespeare that reads "William Shakespeare is an English playwright who wrote 'To be or not to be.'  He was affiliated with the Globe Theater, where his plays were performed." and contains no other substantial history - more or less the state Institute for Mathematics and its Applications was in when it was deleted - he would be entirely correct to do so.  Calling this vandalism is beyond the pale. —Cryptic 21:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What prompts this concern 

message: When checking A7 by the standards laid out in the beginning of this talk page, A7 seems to fail the second criterion (bolds from me) Sjrsimac 21:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is still the misapplication. If an article does not claim any notability, then no reasonable person would say that it should be kept, and an admin would ignore them in an AfD closure anyway. But when it starts being applied as "this is not enough of an assertion of notability", you do run into that. -Amarkov moo! 23:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it is difficult to differentiate between any assertion of notability and little assertion of notability, why should the article's assertion of notability be a requirement? I know we are trying to avoid Wikipedia's transition from an encyclopedia to a forum, but as long as the information is credible and clearly marked for what it is, then there is no reason to prevent different kinds of knowledge from becoming a part of Wikipedia. Sjrsimac 04:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Catch-22

message: Currently, criterion R2 states that:
Redirects to the Talk:, User: or User_talk: space from the main article space. If this was the result of a page move, consider waiting a day or two before deleting the redirect.
I would like to provide an exception clause for pages in the so-called "article space" that are shortcuts; i.e., pages that begin with WP:. I think that, if we use common sense, this criterion was meant for redirection of regular article names to user pages. For example, page about person Foo Bar, written by User:Foo Bar, gets deleted, so User:Foo Bar recreates the content at the page User:Foo Bar, then redirects from Foo Bar, a page in the article space.
However, it is pointless to delete redirects like WP:VPRF, since those pages are actually accessed and otherwise treated like a page in the project namespace—except they aren't. In my opinion, we should establish that redirects, from shortcuts, to pages of utility in the user namespace, are okay. Whether or not this is instruction creep, we still have the problems of these redirects, which all apparently violate policy:
*WP:ACR
*WP:AFDOrg
*WP:AFDSUM
*WP:AIVER
*WP:ARV
*WP:AU/G
*WP:AVB
*WP:AYB
*WP:BEARDMUSTGO
*WP:BEEFSTEW
*WP:BOAR
*WP:BOBA
*WP:BOOBOOS
*WP:CDVF
*WP:EXTENT
*WP:ER!
*WP:DELAWARE
*WP:ChsC
*WP:COLLAB
*WP:COLLABORATE
*WP:COLTRUMP
*WP:CGC
*WP:GAPS
*WP:HELL
*WP:IKNOWBEST
*WP:LTBDTW
*WP:LAVT
*WP:NART
*WP:NOA
*WP:NPW
*WP:OWB
*WP:P&S
*WP:PARROT
*WP:PBOT
*WP:PGKBOT
*WP:PRODSUM
*WP:RETF
*WP:RFAsum
*WP:SNIPE
*WP:SNARK
*WP:StS
*WP:UPDC
*WP:UPA
*WP:UPD
*WP:VANDPROOF
*WP:VC
*WP:VDLP
*WP:VF
*WP:VNPF
*WP:VPRF
*WP:VS
*WP:VandalProof
*WP:Vandalproof
*WP:Vandal Proof
*WP:WDM
*WP:WHYBOTHER
*WP:WIKED
*WP:WIKIED
*WP:WONK
*WP:WPDE
*WP:WPDEL
*WP:regextypofix
If you thought, upon viewing this list, "Ah, here's a neat resource I can use to unilaterally delete these shortcuts, because they clearly violate policy, duh", you're missing the point by a couple of football fields (either type). I think that, using common sense, this policy is not serving us well, and should be altered. Granted, we don't want WP:GRACENOTES redirecting to my userpage, but that can be RFD'd and snowballed. GracenotesT § 04:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You found all that but didn't find the most important one: WP:JIMBO?  In all seriousness, I concur with the change - WP shouldn't strictly be for just WP, but for things that aren't in the mainspace, like Jimbo's talk page. Hbdragon88 05:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh. The script that I wrote only checked for the user namespace, not the user talk :) GracenotesT § 05:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought R2 was there to clean up after userfication? Anyway, the WP: 'namespace' should be treated as a separate namespace (either using WP:IAR, which would seem reasonable, or by writing it into policy somewhere); in fact, the equivalent is a separate namespace on some Wikimedia projects (wikt:Special:Prefixindex/WT:, for instance). --ais523 15:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Interestingly, there's a thread a bit similar to this one: Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 8#R2 clarification, started by Interiot. I guess I missed a few. I'd suggest writing this into policy, though. (Note: the reason I brought this topic up was because of WP:WPMOVIE; so there's a little conflict of interest, but objectively this clarification seems like a good idea.) GracenotesT § 15:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Eh, while I have yet to be told why this is a "hopeless case" for an "unneeded changes to this policy", but that's hardly actionable, so I'm implementing it. GracenotesT § 16:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alerting criterion R2

message: (cur) (last)  11:36, April 6, 2007 Grandmasterka (Talk | contribs) (No, he means deleting a talk page that only serves as a redirect, which often happens with page moves.)
This is indeed what I meant. Yonatan talk 10:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand.  Why is a redirect from one Talk page to another Talk page a bad thing?  And specifically, why is it such a bad thing that it should be speedy-deleted?  Yes, those redirects are automatically created when the article's page is moved to another title.  That's intentional.  People often link to discussions on the Talk page as they work out differences on the article.  The redirect keeps those links live and consolidates the discussions.  We ought not to be deleting those redirects at all, much less speedy-deleting them.  Rossami (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay then how about the following phrasing, "Talk namespace redirects which aren't linked to with the exception of user talk pages from similarly named user names." This means User talk:Jimbo wales will be kept and User talk:Yonatanh (I usurped this account) will be kept. Yonatan talk 09:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk namespace redirects 

message: There seems to be not so clear if not notable schools falls or not under the A7, as groups/companies. In my opinion, we should add  schools to the a7 criteria. They aren't different in any way from companies or groups. Snowolf (talk) CON COI -  22:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They don't.  Is there a pressing need? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the general rule suffices:if the deletion is likely to be controversial, Speedy is inappropriate. All deletions regarding schools are in fact controversial, and all are contested to AfD. The attempt to speedy something to get it deleted before another ed. has a chance to comment is an abuse of process. At various times the feeling has  changed for various types of schools, but it is clear that there has never been a sufficient consensus to judge any opinions unreasonable. Such proposals have been uniformly rejected. DGG 07:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While my personal belief is that private schools are businesses and should be subject to WP:ORG, there's no way there will ever be consensus to include or exclude schools from A7, so one should avoid tagging schools with any of the A7 tags. If there's a school article that you think should be deleted,  it or send it to AFD unless it happens to meet one of the other criteria. --Coredesat 12:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agreee with Coredesat. I have often suggested deleting school articles at AfD, and I do not at all accept the "all schools are notable" arguement. But a significant number of editors do, so it is unlikely that any school article deletion will ever be non-controversial enough for a speedy (except perhaps db-repost in proper cases). Furthermore, while I dont agree that all schools are notable, a good many are, and we do not suffer the kind of plague of vanity school articles that we do on bands, individuals, clubs, and companies, IMO. So I don't think there is a need for A7 to cover schools, and it would be riskier than for those other categories of arts. In shoet, do not try to extend A7 to cover school articels. DES (talk) 14:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A7 & Schools 

message: Having just spent ~20 minutes deleting 8 (eight) items from :Category:Images on Wikimedia Commons I have concluded two things:
#The categories are dangerously populated;
#The process is massively time consuming;
#The process is essentially unsuited to shoot-on-sight;
#The process is therefore a time sink with minimal return.
I offer as evidence the following:
#I found 1/8 images (that's nearly 13%) correctly tagged, but explicitly forbidden from speedy deletion :Image:HongKongfilm.jpg. It's got a different format on Commons, so is not bit-for-bit identical. ##How many images get nuked here because of an overlooking of the requirement?
#I found 1/8 images (so 25% so far wrong) that did not have the proper uploading of all prior version to Commons. In fact, it was PD-Gov, so it didn't matter. But if Commons ethusiasts are not going to do the job properly, even when using tools, then really I'd prefer they not bother.
##Is the requirement meaningful if I just redirect the usages to the newer version in the first place?
#It took me >2 minutes per image; and these require no content evaluation, unlike article speedies. It requires so damn much second-checking of tags, formats, licenses, redirects, copypastes, edit summaries, minor-edit-ticking blah blah yadda...
#Per the 4 above points, it's not suited to a speedy criterion in any way other than "may be deleted at any time".
#It does little for us. Let's us import-down the tags from Commons. Whoopee. We can manage without the time sinking it takes to get them. It saves no server space. It provides essentially zero benefit to readers.
Would anyone care to tell me why we should continue flagging these categories as backlogs worthy of administrator attention? Splash - tk 20:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to agree. I used to be be a big proponent of clearing out that backlog, but given the sorry state the majority of movies are in (failure to copy relevant history, and sometimes even source info resulting in image deletion from Commons) I don't rely see the need for the dated subcats and stuff. Just keep everyting in one big category and amend the criteria to allow admins to delete at any time at theyr leasure once they have verified that everything actualy checks out ok on Commons. I still think we should be moving our free licensed images to Commons, but we rely need a way to make the process easier to do properly. Idealy a "copy to Commons" button that guided people though the process with some kind of "Wizard" system that also automated the tedious bits of copying history and such. Well I can dream can't I. --Sherool (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already a tool that does it for you.  See Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons, or, for a direct link, http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/commonshelper.php.  This tool copies the image, the history, and if possible, adds commons categories.  Sometimes, you need to help it out.  For example, if it doesn't recognize one of the Wikipedia tags as being an "I, the creator of this image" tag, it will incorrectly attribute the commons image to you as opposed to the original uploader.  So you may have to help it out a bit, but it makes the work EXTREMELY simple.  You can even use it to correct incorrectly uploaded Commons images.  Just run it, but then don't perform the upload - copy and paste the generated text into the existing image page. --BigDT 23:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Executing I8 

message: I think the nonsense tag is overused (it should only be used for stuff like keyboard mashing). However, there are a lot of articles that clearly are CSD, but don't quite fit into a criteria. These are usually in jokes, such as made up languages or games. I'd use the nocontext tag, but that's really only for short (one or two line) articles, and sometimes some of the pages are more elaborate. --Darksun 22:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen some in-joke articles that were quite clearly nonsense. I don't think creating a new criteria is warranted at this time. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why must you say "a criteria" instead of "a criterion".  Write "This criterion is..." or "These criteria are...". Michael Hardy 02:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If nonsense or context doesn't fit these, why not use WP:PROD instead? DES (talk) 22:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  'Joke-articles' are, by definition, nonsense. HalfShadow 22:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...but not always patent nonsense, which is what is necessary.  No need to expand the criteria, I rarely come across in-jokes in my CSD patrolling. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I patrol CAT:NSD frequently and there are frequently pages in there that don't meet the letter of the law but obviously need to be done away with.  For example, if you have an article that talks about Bob Johnson, the king of Earth and inventor of the plasma torpedo.  (The plasma torpedo was the main weapon he used when he conquered Earth late last year.) It asserts the importance of Bob Johnson, so it meets A7.  It uses complete sentences and is quite understandable so it isn't nonsense.  But I don't think anyone would have a problem deleting it. --BigDT 23:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Bob Johnson example would definitely be deletable but might not be speedy-deletable.  It might, for example, be a case of a poorly written stub about a piece of established fiction.  The standard for patent nonsense needs to be strictly followed.  "Joke" articles are not the kind of immediately identifiable content that we want for a new speedy-deletion criterion.   On the other hand, if you find a piece like that and look at the contributor's history, you can often demonstrate a pattern of vandalism, making a speedy-deletion under case G3 entirely reasonable.  Rossami (talk) 13:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I have a problem with you speedy deleting it, as it's moving the bar without gaining consensus in what's a highly volatile policy to begin with.  Actions have consequences. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Rossami: cases like this can easily fall under CSD G3, also, A1 can apply (and would, IMO, to the Bob Johnson example).  But I have actually run across, on occasion, some CSD G1-tagged articles that were about fictional characters; in one case, I could only discover that by checking what linked to the article.  Mangojuicetalk 13:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *For such articles, it goes like this. Step one: remove all original research from the page. Step two: hey, the page is now empty. Delete as lacking in context. This would be appropriate for e.g. Bob Johnson as mentioned above. But as Jeff says, this kind of articles aren't nearly as common as e.g. band vanity. >Radiant< 13:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, what's the problem in speedily deleting an obviously bogus article? (question largely directed at badlydrawnjeff) Perhaps I'm gripping my snowball a bit too tightly, but I fail to see a reason why we should give articles like Bob Johnson any more time on here than necessary. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have several times found an article tagged "db|Hoax" or soemthing of the sort, and it turned out that it was in fact a strange-bu-true situation, or an article about a piece of fiction written from an in-universe PoV. No one person can be expected to get these judgemetns right all the time, so it is bettr that these things go through AfD or at least Prod, so that there is a chance for more eyse to see them, and for valid references and context to eb found if they exist, and a clear-cut deletion decision made if they don't. I would authomatically remove a speedy tag in such a case, and if I happened to notice an article speedy-deleted on such grounds, I would automatically restore (and list on AfD if I couldn't validate). Mind you, most often an apparent hoax is in fact a haox, but it is better to be sure. DES (talk) 20:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I too often come across pages whilst newpage patrolling which just look like the author's confusing wikipedia with urbandictionary. And when they're not attack pages (G10) or full of obscene references (G3), I never quite know where to put them except the nonsense category. I would support the introduction of a new criteria to include these kinds of articles, surely it wouldn't take more than one admin to decide whether they should be deleted or not. The "remove all original research, then the page is empty" method could work on any other kinds of speedy deletable pages, you could do that to attack pages and most A7 pages as well, but they have their own criteria, so why shouldn't general nonsense? - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 17:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe we should have a "criteria=>criterion" bot if it bothers you so much (just kidding...) 68.4.3.209 04:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Goes to show that prescriptive grammar doesn't always describe evolving conventional usage. Dcoetzee 17:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Criterion - In Jokes 

message: This image is licensed under the Creative Commons Attributions-NoDerivs 2.0 license (see ) which does not allow derivative works to be created, and not under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 license as claimed on the image page. As such it should be speedy deleted under CSD I3. However currently there is no appropriate template to mark the image page, since Db-noncom template talks only about non-commercial use and not about the problem with "no derivatives licences". Can someone point me to the correct template for this purpose, and/or update the text on the Db-noncom template ? Thanks. Abecedare 22:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could mark it with db-noncom and just add to the description page "Please see the flickr page where the image is licensed only under a no-derivs license".  HOWEVER, it may be worthwhile to attempt to contact the flickr user.  I have had some success contacting flickr users and asking them to re-license their images.  Frank Beamer has an image thanks to a flickr user who allowed me to use a crop of his photo.  You may want to contact the user and ask if he/she would relicense the image for us. --BigDT 22:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the suggestion. Searching on wikipedia I found that the Cc-by-nd-2.0 served my purpose perfectly (and perhaps should be mentioned on the CSD page). I'll leave a message for the user who uploaded the image and suggest that he can request the photographer to re-license it. Aside: the image in question is pretty generic and has only incidental and minimal encyclopedic value IMO; so its deletion should not be a big loss in any case. Regards. Abecedare 23:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template for "no-derivative" images ? 

message: This situation commonly arises on TFD in which we have a template that is wholly redundant to another. It has the exact same information and yet is not being used. Someone mentioned today that a CSD for this would help decrease the workload at TFD. I propose the following:
:T2: Any template that is redundant with an older template and is not being transcluded at all.
Thoughts? Concerns? Rewordings? ^demon[omg plz] 08:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for new T2 

message: I recently tagged too images for speedy deletion because they were claiming to be public domain due to age (life of the author plus 100 years, according to the tag) and were obviously not that old (one had a computer in it, another had many cars). I was surprised to find that obviously incorrect copyright assertions were not a speedy criteria - what do people think about adding that? I though I3 or I7 might be an appropriate place, or a new criteria, if there's a reason for I3 and I7 for being as specific as they are. Natalie 18:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it, they need to be investigated along with any other alleged copyright claims.  As many images and media can fall into the public domain even though they wouldn't under normal circumstances, they should get more eyes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that images can fall in the public domain for a variety of reasons, but there are also various reasons images can be fair use. Yet we still have a speedy deletion criteria for a "clearly invalid fair-use tag". I my mind this is in the same vein. Natalie 19:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the invalid fair use is when we know that the image isn't free.  You're talking about issues where the image may, in fact, be free.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  addition to I3 or I7? 

message: Hi.  I thought it was worth pointing out to editors here that there has been some preliminary discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fair_use#WF_Licensing_policy_and_grandfathered_images about taking a look at the grandfathering clause here.  The initial conversation seems to have died down, so it may make sense to widen the discussion.  Jkelly 00:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Grandfathered images

message: I'm not sure if this is worth codifying here, but I should point out that with some regularity templates are speedily deleted because they misrepresent policy. For instance, any "speedy delete" template that does not match a speedy deletion criterion, or any "stop doing this or you'll be blocked" template for anything that isn't actually vandalism or disruption. >Radiant< 10:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have memories of TfD being used for the deletion of such templates. When they're speediable, it's usually due to G3; otherwise, a TfD discussion is normally worthwhile (although there are probably some cases here in which IAR would be needed, but they wouldn't come up too often). --ais523 14:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, which is why I'm not sure if it's worth codifying. >Radiant< 14:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As it was brought up above, what about just prod'ing them? ^demon[omg plz] 18:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't that, um, misrepresent policy?  :)  Prod is not supposed to be used for templates.  Mangojuicetalk 19:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't realize that til about 10 minutes ago...might want to revise policy *hops over to WT:PROD* ^demon[omg plz] 00:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates 

message: I've spent a significant more time than usual with CSD for my own purposes recently, and was inspired to write something for it.  What it can be used for, I'm not entirely certain yet, but it's my attempt to explain the CSD criteria in a simpler way, as well as provide better explanations as to when a CSD is inappropriate: User:Badlydrawnjeff/Field guide to proper speedy deletion.
If people have any input, either on the essay itself or on good ways to use it, please share.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try the virtual classroom of User:The Transhumanist. YechielMan 20:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Field guide to CSD 

message: Somewhere, while I wasn't watching, the word "mistaken" slipped out of G7. The problem with not having it in is that some people will try to tag all their contributions for speedy deletion when they leave, which isn't intended to be allowed. Requiring good faith does nominally cover that, but in reality, no CSD cleaning admin is going to analyze good faith. -Amarkov moo! 03:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it does say "in good faith."  I think someone leaving the project tagging everything with G7 would not be in good faith.  Mangojuicetalk 18:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think its much of a probem. G7 isn't made out if others have substantially edited the page anyway and admins won't deleted pages that are beneficial to the encyclopedia simply because of a G7 request. Also, its a far more useful tag for people who want to delete images they have uploaded (e.g. because they are now on Commons) than others available. The upload wasn't a "mistake", but its much quicker if these are dealt with as G7s rather than being added to other backlogged image deletion cats. WjBscribe 15:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  G7 

message: Some created articles are clear autobios... can those be deleted under CSD? If so what template do I use? W1k13rh3nry 20:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If no claim of notability is made, A7, using  otherwise this is for Prod or AfD, there is no absolute rule agaist autobio, although WP:COI strongly discourages it. DES (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Autobiographies

message: This edit and this one changed (without discussion) the long established wording in the lead. I'm not going to revert war over this, but I strongly disagree. This was justifed as "Nothing is "governed" on Wikipedia; this page does not rule your actions as some sovereign document." Howver I would say that this document does goveren the speedy-delete procedure in the sense that a deletion not included in one of the criteria described here is not authorized or justifed by this policy. I also think this wording is important to emphasize that the speedy delete criteria should be interpreted strictly and narrowly -- if somethign is not clearly covered, it should not be speedy deleted, rather Prod or XfD should be used. So I ask for agreement to restore the previous wording. DES (talk) 02:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like the word "governed" (Wikipedia doesn't have a government) but that doesn't mean the wording should imply that this document doesn't describe how things can be speedily deleted.  TBH, I don't see a big difference in meaning from the change. Mangojuicetalk 15:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My concerns is that the change weakens the idea that the CSD are narrow and limnited, and to be applied strictly, and implies that new criteria can derive from practice. I have substitued the word "specifies". DES (talk) 05:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "governs" 

message: It is undeniable that the number of articles being created as myspace-style personal webhosting pages have increased incrementally in relation to the rise of Facebook and Myspace.
I think it is fairly obvious that administrators should officially, by CSD policy, delete such articles on sight.  They are obvious to sight, and very unlikely to be abused as a CSD reason.  Frankly, I'm tired of ignoring all rules for these entries.  They are in no way contestable or encyclopedic.  This does not apply to bands or celebrities. Teke 05:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Addendum: I know that these entries fall under A7.  But frankly, that just doesn't cut it for leaving a talk message to the creator.  Having this as policy would eliminate the entirety of A7 to one specific reason.  It happens hundreds of times a day. Teke 05:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've not provided any examples - which would be useful. Shouldn't such content be userfied rather than speedy-deleted? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 06:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you suggesting that active, productive editors commonly create MySpace-like pages in the main namespace? —Cryptic 07:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That depends on your definition of 'productive'.  If I look at the authors indicated in the examples provided below, one editor has ~75 edits spanning Aug 2006 to the present against only a couple of articles (newbie-like editing behavior), while the other two don't have any surviving edits (i.e. all articles they might have contributed to have been deleted).  So one could stretch and call one of the actions a very mild case of newbie biting.  I can sympathize with (but not 100% agree with) the notion that blanket treatment of all such cases by deletion rather than userfication doesn't do much harm to "newbie relations".  I can also sympathize with (but not 100% agree with) the notion that tolerating juveniles isn't in the best interests of building an encyclopedia, that they should learn appropriate editing behavior before coming here rather than learn it here step by mistake-prone step. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Diffs of three articles I deleted last night , ,  (requires Undelete access).  The pages are unencyclopedic, always will be and no they do not really fit userfication as they don't have anything to do with Wikipedia and we also don't know that the subject is the author for certain. Teke 13:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, sounds like your complaint is that the standard A7 warning doesn't sufficiently warn against creating MySpace/Facebook-esque vanity pages. In that case, I'd suggest... uh, not using the standard A7 warning...Sorry, I'm failing to see the problem here. As Cryptic pointed out, these aren't regular editors making these pages; they're just silly kids who don't know any better. Pretty much any warning will likely get them to stop, as they probably just make the page for shits and giggles and then don't pay attention to it after that. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with EVula.  What is needed here is, perhaps, a better warning template.  And WP:NOT covers the issue pretty well, too.  Mangojuicetalk 15:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Exactly, I don't like to coverage in the warning.  A7 does cover it, as they are absolutely not notable and there won't be assertation to follow, but slapping (A7 no notability) as the deletion reason just doesn't quite sum it up well to communicate with the demographic making these pages.  Strictly speaking, WP:NOT is not a valid criterion for speedy deletion.  It's the type of common sense deletion that we don't seem to cover well (such as hoaxes not being the same as nonsense, so it doesn't fit under G1). Teke 19:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So slap it with an A7 (because that's what it is), and leave a note with the creator about non-notable articles and that we're not a social networking site.  Problem solved. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never really considered it a problem, just seeing if there is a way of handling the communication of that sort of speedy deletion without tossing a bunch of links and acronyms at the users.  I also started this thread late last night after working through the CSD backlog and getting some rather impolite emails so consider this topic dead unless someone has additional thoughts. Teke 19:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do they ever write back?  I wouldn't stress out too much over what to say to people who make such contributions: most of the time they vanish right afterwards and never return.  Mangojuicetalk 20:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I emailed the users back and explained my rationale.  It was based on my deletion summary of "Wikipedia is not Myspace" as not being a valid criterion for speedy deletion.  I didn't cite A7 in my summary, should the single purpose accounts come back and want a simple reason without wading through policy.  No big deal in regards to the emails, I certainly feel the deletions were within my discretion.  Happy editing to all. Teke 21:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia is not Myspace

message: I'd like to suggest a CSD U4, a criterion for deleting user and user talk pages.  I don't have a formal wording, but the idea is to delete any page used exclusively for conversation with other people, which is obviously totally unrelated to Wikipedia.  I've already seen three of these in my user page patrolling, and I know that there are more.  Regarding the conventions for making a new CSD, it's clearly worth deleting, and it can be worded to be unambiguous.  It's not so common, but I don't think that's a particularly serious objection.  Any takers? YechielMan 23:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Saying "exclusively unrelated to Wikipedia" could be too easily interpreted. Not to mention, people would probably try to throw those autograph books into that. While I think they're dumb and serve no purpose, there seems to be a developing precedence for keeping them.  ^demon[omg plz] 23:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps.  Regarding the specific example of autograph books, those do have a clear and obvious relationship with Wikipedia because they collect signatures of Wikipedia users.  We can debate their usefulness, but they would not be included in CSD U4 for that reason.  I'm also not saying any user page unrelated to Wikipedia.  I'm saying, any user page that appears to be in conversation with one or more specific individuals, as opposed to a general personal page or diary.  Many legitimate user pages look like MySpace pages in the sense of being personal collections of miscellaneous paraphernalia and userboxes.  What they all have in common is the basic premise that these are created primarily for the user in his role as a user.  There are a few pages I have seen which are not like that.  They are clearly meant to be rudimentary discussion forums, chat rooms, email, whatever.  That's what I'm trying to deal with. YechielMan 00:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Here's an example: .  It's vandalism, so I reverted it, but otherwise it would be CSD U4 according to my proposal.  Perhaps CSD G1 covers it, but if not, it would not be speediable as of now. YechielMan 02:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ultimately, how does that page's existence harm Wikipedia? It doesn't, and that's a lot more important to keep in mind than "I don't like seeing overly personal pages". For all intents and purposes, User:EVula/sidebar/personal is largely unrelated to my Wikipedia work; according to you, it can be speedily deleted.Long and short: if it isn't harming anything, just leave it alone. If a user is doing nothing but work on their userpage, drop them a line to remind them that they are here to work on Wikipedia, not their userpage (that is when the "This isn't MySpace" line is relevant). If they've got a bit too much personal stuff on there for your liking, there's an easy way to ignore that. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem isn't userpages that only involve "chat," it's users who don't contribute to anything but chat.  This doesn't make any distinction between the two, and there's no way anyone in good faith could make that distinction, nor could a possible speedy criterion be handled properly regardless of how it's worded. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see a reason to delete the pages, in all honest, though I do hate them so much.  Deletion would be in order should they become attack pages, but the effort of administrative need to these kinds of pages is of little value.  The odds are that the user(s) are being unencyclopedic and so will probably meet a friendly administrator in the near future to clean up the other problems.  These problems tend to take care of themselves without a bit more policy. Teke 04:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps "User and User talk pages whose content is limited to non-Wikipedia-related discussion, and the user has little to none contributions to other namespaces besides User and User talk". --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest new criterion for chat pages 

message: Can we change I7 so that it's 7 days for everything? It's needlessly complicated to handle this exception for all the templates. We're always backlogged anyway, nothing gets deleted in 48 hours. That or make it a speedy. :\ - cohesion 01:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no reason why we can't make it 7 days, it's overly complicated this way, and necessitates two different sets of backlogged categories.  Mangojuicetalk 01:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't do image deletions, but I agree - why not?  There is no deadline. YechielMan 02:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm for it as long as it doesn't cause ay undue legal issues. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with jeff; as long as there's no legal reason for it to be 48 hours, let's go ahead and make it 7 days. Like you said, it's not like we're hitting the target as it is... EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have time to look through the archives at the moment to be sure, but it was my understanding that the 48-hour clause was to expedite deletion of the very worst of unfair use - AP press photos grabbed and posted on Wikipedia immediately after they appear on cnn.com and the like. —Cryptic 02:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But nothing gets deleted that fast. We've got 15 day backlogs... – Riana ऋ 02:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, if it's a clear copyvio it can be deleted sooner (under G12), this 48 hours right now is being used almost exclusively for images that get auto-tagged at upload as being replaceable. - cohesion 03:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Things do get deleted that fast — I think the fastest I've seen something speedily deleted was <15 minutes (I'm talking generally, not specifically a CSD:I) without a planned set-spike; I couldn't point at the example of that right now, but the point is that the actual time between tagging and deletion can vary wildly and as far as I know we don't have any good statistical analysis of the flow - not that we really need one, just making an observation that in the absence of a FIFO stack, you'll see this kind of variance. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the main thing we have to rule out is the legal aspect - a 7 day window will certainly give better context within an obviously copyrighted image's "historical value," too, which is important to consider. It's probably sound policy to extend it if possible. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When I say nothing gets deleted in 48 hours I mean the cases where a more specific tag is used, such as , obviously if someone uses one of the speedy tags it could happen sooner. (under G12) - cohesion 03:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: No way, the 48 hours is set by policy in WP:FUC. This is not something we should remove. This isn't saying it has to be deleted in 48 hours, it's saying it can be deleted in 48 hours, so who cares about the backlog. -- Ned Scott 02:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, so can we change the templates so that we treat them all the same? My only issue is having to treat these groups differently from a workflow point of view. - cohesion 03:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't follow.. -- Ned Scott 04:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Is the inconvenience that great? I'm concerned that changing the template in a manner that doesn't reflect the policy, even if it reflects how it might practically play out, is only going to spawn confusion. TewfikTalk 04:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: there is no point in setting unrealistic deadlines that the admins can not keep up with. They just get people angry and they dont actually help the workflow. DGG 06:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  48 hours 

message: The explanations for A7 states:
Which seems to be in direct contradiction with G4
I must be missing something, could someone enlighten me? -- lucasbfr talk 08:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A bit puzzled by the wording in A7, in regards to G4 

message: What should be done in the case of a copy-and-paste of an existing page, not as an attempt at a cut-and-paste move? I have tagged them as test or vandalism pages before, but that really doesn't seem right. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess that would fall under criterion G6, non-controversial housekeeping tasks. You could also consider simply turning one article into a redirect. - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 21:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If an attempt at a fork, I'd probalby make it a redir, or possibly delete under G6 as suggested above. I would probaly look hard for evidence of an attempt at a C&P move. But placing a copy of say George W. Bush at Son of the Devil is obvious vandalism and should be dealt with as such. DES (talk) 23:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The most recent example I can think of was copying Kobe Bryant into something like Kob Bryant, obviously not an attempt at a move, but not necessarily bad faith either. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I saw that I'd just turn Kob Bryant into a redirect, despite what the intent of the creator may have been. It's probably not an implausible spelling error, and like you say it's not really possible to assume bad faith there. - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 04:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy and paste of an existing page 

message: I had an admin reject a G10 tag that I placed on a Category.  The admin asserted that it was inappropriate to tag categories for G10, only articles could be tagged.  My assertion is that the General criteria apply to all namespaces. If this applied only to articles, then it (G10) wouldn't have been created and superseded A6.  Comments? --After Midnight 0001 18:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting point.  I think you would be correct if WP:CSD#G10 weren't specifically focused on Wikipedia:Attack pages.  That restriction scopes G10 to "article, page or image"; I don't think a category could qualify as a 'page', though the text associated with the category could.  It's not a bad idea to consider expanding to the scope of what an 'attack page' is to accommodate all namespaces, or to expand the scope of G10 to cover all modes of attack that are admin-deletable. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: for clarity You are referring to :Category:Victims of Islam, correct? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the category that started this discussion, but I am not trying to force that category's closure.  I am more trying to remove any ambiguity that may exist here.  I know that I have seen redirects speedied for G10, and I think that I have seen categories as well.  I would have to go through the archives to find some. --After Midnight 0001 01:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did the admin tell you categories can't be nominated under G10? The only thing I found that was close was the edit summary of that revert, where he said "speedy deletion requests are inappropriate when a CFD is ongoing", which isn't saying you couldn't have speedied a category, but while there's an ongoing discussion which hasn't reached a conclusion yet the category can't be deleted until the discussion is closed. Categories certainly can be nominated under general criteria, I've never seen any tagged as attack pages but I've seen a few nonsense categories so tagged. - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 02:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That discussion is here. --After Midnight 0001 10:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, fair play. Well I agree with you, surely a category is a page.. - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 16:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  G10 question 

message: Many users upload images with the original name (like 000102012.jpg or IMG001.jpg) and don't rename them to something easier to understand. They also disregard overwriting warnings (thus they overwrite existing images with such names with their own images, sometimes several times (in example, :Image:Aaa.jpg had three different images). Is there a criteria for speedy deleting them? What people would think about speedy deleting them, leaving a note in the user talk page about using generic names? -- ReyBrujo 16:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there is no such CSD. The image CSDs all boil down to redundancy (either an other image at Wikipedia, or at the Wikicommons), corrupt (I2) and copyright problems (no tag, invalid fair use claim etc.). Any image which doesn't fall into those criteria, or the general criteria, it isn't currently CSD material. Od Mishehu 09:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's a free image, then move it to Commons under a better name.  Use Commons Helper to make sure that the necessary information is moved.  You may want to let the user know so that (1) they can find it and (2) they won't make the same mistake again.  Once the waiting period expires, the WP image can be deleted. --BigDT (416) 13:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think there's no need.  If someone uploads a useful image to a generic name, anyone can re-upload it with a specific name and put up a CSD I1 for the other image.  If someone uploads a useless image to a generic name, it doesn't much matter if it gets overwritten.  Mangojuicetalk 14:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If an image title is so generic it gets overwritten by accident, just upload some irrelevant content and protect it from further uploads. See :Image:Logo.png for example. — CharlotteWebb 09:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Anyone know if any thought have been put into a "rename image" feature? I mean it can't use the regular page move code, but it would not be rocket sience either. --Sherool (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *That would be a reasonable feature request. Please go to bugzilla and tell the devs :) >Radiant< 13:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *A quick search reveals that they already know, and have for some time: bugzilla:709. Aparently they are brewing on some major changes to the image backend and don't want to work on things like this untill that's done. --Sherool (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images with generic non descriptive names 

message: There is a gigantic backlog of images that have been moved to Commons.  They basically fall into three categories: (1) the same contributor personally uploaded the image both to Wikipedia and to Commons, (2) Someone moved a Wikipedia image to Commons using Commons Helper, or (3) someone did a manual move.
There is already an exception allowing images from case #1 to be speedied instantly.
What would everyone think about allowing instant deletions of images moved with Commons Helper?  When you use Commons Helper, you are guaranteed that the file history is going to be copied.  In the case of an admin moving the image using CH, is there any real reason not to simply delete the Wikipedia image immediately?  That would save the trouble of someone else having to check over your work in a month.
Images in case #3 need to be checked over, or, in most cases, simply re-run with Commons Helper.  But even then, there is no need for a waiting period - if that backlog ever gets cleared out, we could re-run them immediately - they need to live in their own separate queue, though, so we aren't blindly deleting them at CAT:CSD.
But the biggest thing would be to add an exception for images moved with Commons Helper.  If we could simply delete images that we ourselves move, that would take a huge load off of the backlogs.  Any thoughts? --BigDT (416) 12:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any thoughts?  Anyone?  Are there any objections to adding text to the effect of "images properly migrated with Commons Helper may be deleted immediately"? --BigDT (416) 23:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, seems fine to me, I'd take out the waiting time all together. Why is it even there? The deleting admin needs to check to make sure the file is there on commons, as long as they do that then who cares if a week has gone by? I don't think we should blindly delete any moves to commons, they aren't right a lot, but I don't care when people check. - cohesion 00:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With regards to someone checking over the image, if I move 20 images to Commons using Commons Helper, is there any reason for me to not just delete them right then? I think we need to use the category for non-admins who move images to commons so that we don't flood CAT:CSD with them, but I think as long as the move is done correctly, anyone should be able to delete them immediately, including the person who moved them. --BigDT (416) 01:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, this policy was probably written before image undelete. If the move is done badly we can always restore it. In my experience most moves are done ok though, sometimes the NCT tag gets places on images that weren't moved at all, but that's another issue. - cohesion 11:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, that is a good point. We no longer need so many safeguards before deleting an image because it can now be undone. >Radiant< 11:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the one week delay is a little pointles for these images. I guess there is a microscopic chance that the uploader will object to having an image moved to Commons for whatever reason, but again if it's a legitemate concern we can always undelete. --Sherool (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You shouldn't delete images you yourself have moved.  It is better to have at least two pairs of eyes.  A backlog is not a problem as there is no urgency.  Plus, it is already annoying enough sorting through images people inappropriately move to commons and even CommonsHelper is not enough as the history of the image description page is useful.  Kotepho 20:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Admins delete plenty of things without a second pair of eyes examining the issue ... so I don't really understand why the benefit of a second pair of eyes would outweigh the cost in admin time.  If the history of the description page is needed, maybe Commons Helper can be modified, but that's not a reason for a waiting period or for the admin to not delete the image themselves - that's a separate issue.  --BigDT 21:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: People using Commons helper are not always infallable. It may always ensure proper copying of file history, but we do still need to veriyf that the license makes sence. I've seen several copyvios moved to Commons via Commons helper so we still need to do some sanity checking regardles of method used to move the image. Let's just say something to the effect that once all the criteria have been verified to an admins satisfaction (list all the things that must be checked) the image can be delted.--Sherool (talk) 09:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, remember also not everyone using commons helper is an admin, the wording should reflect that. Rather than "the image should be deleted as soon as the move is complete." something like "the image may be deleted". I don't have any objection to any other part of this though. If the image can be moved to commons it's freely licensed, so the uploaders objections aren't relevant. Also, if it is licensed incorrectly and people on commons notice and delete it, well, it probably should have been deleted on enwiki anyway. You're almost always going to have a few eyes looking at it, here and on commons, with image undelete one person making a mistake isn't the end of the world. Consistent mistakes are worse of course, and we don't want to shove off a ton of work on commons. I like Sherool's idea of listing the things that have to happen rather than any timeline. Say something like, the image can be deleted from enwiki after it has been moved correctly, where correctly means: 1) the image is actually on commons 2) the license makes sense 3) the history is maintained 4) inbound links have been redirected (if not the same name). Anything else? - cohesion 00:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe... all the points listed already listed directly above that point? Seriously, why list them again? -- grm_wnr Esc 01:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I just removed the waiting period. I don't really like the idea of tying the policy in with any particular tool (i.e. commons helper). As long as the admin does the move correctly it shouldn't matter when. There is no reason to think they will do it more correctly after 7 days has gone by. Anyway, feel free to give this change more nuance of course if people think it needs more (I don't really) :) - cohesion 20:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the waiting period for images moved to Commons? 

message: Articles that are apparent hoaxes are not speediable, but when a vandalism-only account creates what looks like a hoax I tag it with  and that almost always convinces an admin to speedy it. So I was sort of surprised that there was resistance to speedying an article like this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delta Bombing Division. I wonder if we could make explicit that an apparent hoax from a vandal account should be speedied. We could add it to wp:csd#g3 as something like:
:Pure vandalism, including redirects created during cleanup of page move vandalism and apparent hoaxes created by vandal accounts. Pan Dan 15:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some hoaxes can be considered simple vandalism already, if they're pretty blatantly false. If there's any doubt, even if it was created by a vandal, PROD/AFD is better. But sometimes there's just no doubt that it's vandalism. --W.marsh 15:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the hoax itself is "pure vandalism" then it is already covered under G3. If it is not obviously pure vandalism, then it is aan apparent hoax, and there are good reasons for not allowing these to be speedy-deleted. This change would only encourage the misperception among many that hoaxes obvious top the tagger or deleting admin should be subject to speedy delete. I see only harm coming from this change. DES (talk) 15:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: hoaxes obvious top the tagger or deleting admin should be subject to speedy delete -- pardon? My brain is not succeeding at parsing that. Pan Dan 16:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, "top" should be "to." Got it. Pan Dan 18:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, because nobody in their right mind would call their child Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116, so that just has to be a hoax. >Radiant< 16:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not questioning the policy on apparent hoaxes in general, just apparent hoaxes created by vandal accounts. Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116 was not created by a vandal account, so it's not really relevant to the proposed change. Pan Dan 16:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *It was, however, created by an account less than a week old, so how exactly would you propose to tell the difference? >Radiant< 16:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Identifying whether the creator of a suspected hoax article is a vandal account should be done by looking not at the suspected hoax article, but at the creator's other contributions. The Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116 creator's other contributions were not vandalism edits, so he would not have been identified as a vandal account. Pan Dan 18:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree - especially if a google search does not return any relevant results. → Aktar (talk • contribs) — 16:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apparent hoaxes created by vandal accounts 

message: (crossposted from WP:AN)
After *quite* a bit of work, I am proud to announce CSD AutoReason. After installing, it gives you a drop down box of all the CSD criteria when deleting a page. Also, it links to them, so it provides a link for those not sure was csd g1 means. Hope you all enjoy ^demon[omg plz] 21:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSD AutoReason 

message: Can we have a speedy delete because the page is a duplicate template? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ajuk (talk • contribs) 18:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no need for that. You can either (1) just do  or (2) redirect it to the other template. howcheng  {chat} 18:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You're usually better off redirecting duplicate templates, because redirects work (so  will still display the content of its redirect target), and if it's been made/used once, it's likely to be so again. Redirects are cheap. -- nae'blis 19:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for a template 

message: Just to clarify, under what circumstances should a template be tagged with T1, and not G10? "Templates that are divisive and inflammatory" just sounds like attack pages to me, so perhaps I'm missing the point with T1 slightly... - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 00:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An attack page is directed toward someone or something. A divisive template may not. In example, a "This user is a rapist" template is not an attack template, unless it is applied to others; if the user himself puts the template in his user page, it is not an attack against himself. However, it is of bad taste, and creates more tension than any advantage it may provide. -- ReyBrujo 00:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I understand now. Cheers! - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 00:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slightly confused about T1 

message: What is the policy (or established practice) on images which were uploaded for articles that were speedily deleted, and are not used anywhere else? (Mainly, this refers to A7 articles making no claim of notability of their subject; vandalism, attack pages, patent nonsense, spam, and copyright violations are general criteria.) Personally, I speedily delete them if they lack copyright information (the category is cluttered enough even without such pictures), and nominate them for regular deletion otherwise. Perhaps an addition to the criteria is in order? - Mike Rosoft 10:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any reason for such a criterion. if such images lack source or copyright info, tag them properly and move on, they will be gotten to in turn. if you want to help out, jsut start with the oldest items in the relvant backlogs, ther is no particular advantage in doing these first just because the article happened to be speedy-deleted. And it is possible (although i hope rare) for a speedy to be overturned, and parhaps more likely for a very recent speedy. So I don't see a reason to rush. There is no policy Ikn ow of that treats such images any differntly from other orphaned images. DES (talk) 12:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I speedy delete the images that were obviously just uploaded as part of a vanity or vandalism article... which are quite a few really. It's not technically in CSD but I've never gotten any complaints. I just don't see the point of adding more work for other people when there's really no need, especially as image deletions can be reversed. --W.marsh 13:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I normally wouldn't just delete them, but nearly 100% of the time, there's something wrong with the image upload: no source, no license, no copyright, or if it's fair use, it's probably orphaned.  So I'll tag the image with the appropriate delete-next-week tag and move on.  Mangojuicetalk 14:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Images in speedily deleted pages

message: ...that articles are not speediable once they have gone through XfD and been kept? People seem to like to do that a lot, and it's not good. -Amarkov moo! 20:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends. If an article turns out later to be a blatant copyright violation it should be speediable. Garion96 (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I knew that someone was going to come up with a case where that shouldn't apply, and I still didn't see it. G12 would have to be an exception to this, of course. But copyright violation supercedes every other rule anyway, since it is illegal, so I don't think that's a big issue. -Amarkov moo! 21:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Barring the G12 exception noted (and future cases of equal validity), I think this is a valid extension of protection against unwarranted speedy deletion.  However, the same question that arises around repeated AfD—namely "how long after an AfD do I have to wait before re-nominating"—apply to this post-XfD protection-from-Speedy period.  This reminds me of a thought I had a while back that Wikipedia would benefit from an article life cycle management framework, not a major revision of any of the policies, but placement of all of them in a framework that allows them to better mesh, so that the article and its life cycle become the focus rather than application and refinement of the individual policies.  (Part of my day-job is dealing with software application life cycle management in a corporate research environment and there are similarities in the shape of the problems between that domain and here.) --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why that question applies. A new AfD is valid because consensus may have changed. But speedy deletion is not meant to overrule dissenting opinions, much less a consensus, so an article which passed an AfD ever should be immune from speedies. -Amarkov moo! 04:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: No article with an unspeediable revision in its history is speediable (just revert it instead). As such, the only way an article passing AfD can be later deleted is via renomination. Dcoetzee 17:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that an article which passes an XfD isn't a blatant copyright - and if it's a copyvio it should be processed under the  process. Od Mishehu 07:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That process is broken. An article could be a blatant copyvio from a book source and go undetected virtually forever. If you become aware of such a page either revert to a non-copyvio version, or edit the page to remove the plagiarized portions, or tag it for speedy deletion, regardless of whether it survived AFD in the same condition. — CharlotteWebb 10:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we clarify... 

message: I'm trying to nominate the article Shammi sampat for speedy deletion (as patent nonsense). The how to instuctions in the side-bar only appear to refer to normal deletion. So far I've have substituded in the appropiate template. What else do I need to do to follow up this nomination. -- Rehnn83 Talk 08:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just wait for an admin to come by and delete the article. You don't have to do anything anymore. Errabee 08:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Cheers -- Rehnn83 Talk 08:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Boing! >Radiant< 08:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  Thank You :-) -- Rehnn83 Talk 08:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to nominate for Speedy Deletion 

message: I would like to propose adding articles that do not assert the notability of products to the A7 criteria. Products are quite similar to corporations; if a corporation isn't notable, neither are its products. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm strongly against this.  "Product" is too broad, would need caveats for valid sub-articles (such as books and albums, for instance), and assumes too much.  Anything blatantly promotional is already covered by G11, so this would be an unnecessary shift. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's untenable to add this because the notion of significance would be too ambiguous.  Take, for instance, books.  Why should an article about a book have to make claims about importance in order to escape speedy deletion?  If a book exists and is really published, it probably needs debate.  If someone thinks it's a vanity-published book, it probably still deserves a PROD tag.  And then albums would make a whole other class of articles.  And software.  And then you'll get someone deleting an article like Pulsar 590.  CSD G11 will take care of the serious problems, here, no need to expand it.  Mangojuicetalk 20:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Mangojuice above. This would be a bad idea, we alrady get too many dubiuous A7s, this would just make the problem worse. DES (talk) 22:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As to Mangojuice's comment about software, why could non-notable web software (doesn't necessarily have to be advertising) be speedily deleted while other types of software have to wait the entire length of PROD or AFD? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, we should probably remove "web content" as well.  It's very vague, and anything vague in the CSD will be pushed as far as it can be pushed.  It used to be "websites," I thougt - that was at least well-defined and limited.  Mangojuicetalk 05:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I wasn't paying attention when the wording was changed, but I'm guessing it's meant to include single-page content like web games, youtube videos, and the like. It's not a 'site' per se, because it's only a part of some larger site. -- nae'blis 17:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then it should say "site or page" -- "content" is too vague. DES (talk) 05:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it back to "site."  If you look at  you'll see a list of other things this criterion is supposed to refer to, including blogs, podcasts, webcomics, et cetera. We should probably make sure it's line with A7.  And in response to Nae'blis, I think web pages can be considered web sites, people aren't going to be too semantic about that.  Mangojuicetalk 12:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think just saying "website" will lead to a lot of lawyering... people arguing a blog, a forum, a video on youtube or whatever is not a "website". 'web content' never meant downloadable software, at least I never thought it did. If it says other things in db-web, we should mention that in A7. --W.marsh 12:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But... we just ignore that kind of lawyering, don't we?  A blog or a forum is a kind of website.  A video on youtube isn't, and frankly does probably need wider evaluation.  Most internet memes like that end up deleted for lack of sources, but it could stand for debate.  The wording in , in my view, just explains what is meant by "web site" a little more.  (And looking over it, I do think it's in line.  All those things can be clearly thought of as websites of some type.)  Mangojuicetalk 13:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it's kind of a stretch to call a podcast a website, personally. But all of those fit under web content. I guess it's semantics, but I think the db-web template should closely match A7 just so to reduce confusion. --W.marsh 13:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's my general philosophy with the CSD rules, though, that admins will push these rules as far as they can be pushed.  Hence, we should stick with "website" and let that be pushed to include podcasts, rather than "web content" which could be pushed into areas A7 isn't appropriate for.  It might be worth taking "podcast" out of db-web if you think it's confusing.  Mangojuicetalk 15:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A7 for non-notable products 

message: should be removed under CSD A7. Purgatory Fubar   Converse or Snafu 23:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed it. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 05:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Purgatory Fubar   Converse or Snafu 17:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Er, just for the record, templates can't be removed under A7; the "a" in that stands for "article". I'm not saying it shouldn't have been deleted (it failed its TfD, after all), I'm merely pointing it out. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure he was referring to the fact that it was a speedy template that misrepresented A7. Either that or he just meant "under the section A7". -Amarkov moo! 17:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Red link template

message: I think that speedy deletion warnings may be trolls' food under certain circumstances (such as blatant vandalism, obviously blatant nonsense, etc) because it attract them back to the questioned article, and they may realize about a deletion and repost it under a different name. What is the consensus about this? (Of course, I am for WP:AGF and WP:DONTBITE, but these are not absolute requirements). Rjgodoy 04:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will not delete a page unless a notice has been placed on the creator's page (if the creator was logged in). Sometimes I place the notice and then delete. I also never place a db tag without placing a notice. If I see that a particualr editor has a habit of taggign withotu placing notices, i will usually ask that editor to do so. If the habit persists, i will noramlly not delete anything tagged by that editor. I would favor making notification mandatory. If the creator is a troll or a vandal s/he eill probably notice anyway, and a talk page full of notices helps establish this for otehr editors. And in the very common case of a good faith creation of a very poor article, a notice is a very good teaching tool. DES (talk) 05:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point!! So I will... Rjgodoy 09:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with DES. It's an act of courtesy, as well as a way of introducing new editors to the way we operate around here. – Riana ऋ 09:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree as well - it is a courtesy to people who create article in good faith, and a visible indication of bad behavior for those who create articles in bad faith (attack and vandalism). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree too; it's a courtesy to good-faith editors, and it's a record of behaviour for vandal editors.  Mr Stephen 11:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree with a hard requirement to inform users.  I don't think it's necessary, really: polite, helpful, welcoming, yes, but it's not important.  And I wouldn't want to discourage someone from page patrolling by making a big deal out of their not informing users.  I personally never place the warnings or check for them, it's too many steps for me and there's always such a huge backlog.  Users should be encouraged to leave the notes, and that's as far as it should go.  Admittedly, there are times when I'm checking into a user's bad behavior and I wish there was some record of what their deleted article edits were, but that's not a strong enough reason (see WP:PPP).  Mangojuicetalk 20:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I confess I have sometimes not done it with obvious trolls and test pages, but I have been convinced by the arguments above that it makes sense --if only for the record if they ed. comes back. The way for make it easier is to do it automagically; usually the first editor is the key one for a speedy--there's often nobody else, and this can be selected by a program. We need procedures for doing good speedies with less work. do we need a developer, or can in be done with templates? (I like the prod template as a starting point for this, though it isnt automatic)DGG 10:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to notify the first editor to every speedy-tagged article, I suggest that a bot would be the best route forwards; you can request one at WP:BOTREQ. (If I remember correctly, there's already a bot doing something like this at AfD.) --ais523 10:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have requested such a bot, and I understand that one is being created. DES (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Add, unfortunately, NPWatcher remains windows only.DGG 06:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that notifying the author is something which should usually be done, but should be left up to the tagger - and if someone tags it and doesn't notify the author, other users (including the deleting admin) may do so themselves (but are not required to do so). There are situations where a user may reasonably decide not to inform the user, or he may choose to`do so in some other method than using the standard messages (including as part of some other message). Od Mishehu 07:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, ideally people should. But newcomers often do not know how to watchlist articles, and experienced users with large watchlists can have things slip through. (my own watch list has several thousand entries) I feel that notification serves several very useful purposes. 1) It helps avoid biting the newbies when new editors have invalid articles suddenly deleted, and it can help educate those same new editors in wikipedia standards; 2) The creator of an article, particularly a very new article, may often have information that is relevant to whether it should be deleted or not. On a number of occasions i have seen editors, clearly attracted by notification tags, add info that makes a probable speedy into a valid stub or article, to the benefit of the project as a whole; If an editor makes a habit of creating articles that are speedy deleted, notifications leave a record on the editors user page, which can be very helpful to others dealing with the user; 4) It helps avoid the feeling that deletion is an impersonal, mysterious process. In no way do I suggest that the creator owns the article, but the creator is responsible for the edit that creates an article, just as any editor is responsible for his or her edits, and being informed is both useful and polite. DES (talk) 22:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The deletion of an article won't show in a watchlist, so watchlisting will do you no good here. It's not that people have a right to notification, it just that it leads to less confusion and wheel-spinning if a clear notification is made. --W.marsh 23:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've had that issue a couple of times too. Perhaps article deletion should show in watchlists? --Kim Bruning 15:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's one of the more popular feature requests, which developers haven't gotten round to yet. See bugzilla:5546 (to stop people filing yet another duplicate bug on the subject). --ais523 15:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that even if code changes are made so that deletion shows in watchlists, notification would still be valuable for several reasons: 1) new editors often do not know about watchlists and how to sue them, and new editors disproportionately create invalid articles in good faith; 2) the educative function of a notice is lost or much reduced with a simple line in a watchlsit; 3) If the crator ha  information relavant to whther an article actually should be speedy deleted, that info is more useful before the deletion happens (although undeletion is possible), and a notice is far more likely to elicit it in that timeframe. DES (talk) 16:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The only problem being that doing so grants recognition to article WP:OWNers. Is it possible to sidestep that issue?  --Kim Bruning 16:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see notification as granting or implying that the creator (person who made the in ital edit) in any way WP:OWNs the article, and i agree that no such recognition should be given or implied. The reasons for notification is that, in effect, a question has arisen about the quality of an edit, and the best person to ask is the editor who made the edit. If there is a good reason why the article should not be deleted, but that reason is not yet apparent, the creator is particularly likely to know it and be able to edit it into the article. if the article was in fact invalid, and should not have been created, the person who created it is the person who needs to be educated, or if acting willfully, warned. perhaps the wording of such notification templates can be changed to make it clear that their use in no way implies that the in inital creator in any way owns the article, has veto power over its deletion or future course, or is in any way privileged over any other good-faith editor. Would such changes serve to ally this concern on your part, do you think? Please not that while not mandatory, notification of article creators has been recommended and customary for at least 2 years, and i think longer. Please also note that IMO at least, it applies (or should apply) far more strongly to relatively new articles which are likely to be on fewer watchlists, and to be considerably more likely to tagged for speedy deletion. DES (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notify authors about speedy deletion?