Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 8

message: Could we make a G10 - advertising? --M@thwiz2020 22:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that often an advertisign page can be NPOV'd into a decent article, if the company/product is notable. DES (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but there arent nearly enough people willing to invest time making these kind of articles good. Plus to NPOV one of these you essentially have to re-write it completely, hence the original content is worthless and should be deleted. Consider also that I just trawled the last datadump, and found there are ~15,000 articles with less than one link, no tags and no bold text, in other words there are ~15,000 totally unwikified and untouched articles, a good portion of which are spammy crap, but just not speediable. We really dont need any more of this. Martin 22:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: DES is unrealistically optimistic, I'd agree - but the real problem here is that it makes admins make subjective judgements - and we are janitors not judges :\. WhiteNight T | @ | C 22:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (after Edit Conflict) I have edited several pages ther were obvious ads when submitted into reasonaple NPOV stubs while on new-page patrol, so i think I know whereof I speak. This can't be done with every ad page -- far from it. But enough that a speedy criterion is a bad idea IMO. I also agree with Martin, CSD's ashould be very clear-cut, bright-line sorts of rules. DES (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe we could adopt a tag n' bag policy (a phrase I stole from David I believe) on this kind of stuff then, whereby admins can only delete this when it is tagged as such by someone else. In other words it would mean 2 pairs of eyes see each deletion. Martin 22:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  G10? 

message: *So many website articles are deleted on a regular basis that it's at least worth brainstorming about. However, unlike for e.g. people, we have a very easy test for websites: Google. While I'm not saying that google should ever be the all-end test of websites, it sounds safe to state that an article about any website that gets less than 1000 google hits is delete-worthy. And it would catch some of the junk on AFD. Or would anyone have a counterexample? Radiant_>|< 00:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Google Test is never, ever suitable as the sole means of judging the notability of a topic. Deco 01:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Google isn't appropriate for, say, an 1800's musician from Iran, but applying Google to websites, I think I more or less agree with Radiant.  Is that the total number of hits, or with very similar search results ommited?    --Interiot 02:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not exactly about notability... this is about a criteria that seperates the unanimous delete AfDs from the ones that actually might meet WP:WEB if discussed.  Can you think of any websites that don't get 1,000 google results but meet WP:WEB?  I can't either.  I thought the google criteria seemed awful at first glance, but it actually makes sense. --W.marsh 02:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I continue to oppose. I can't think of an example, but I'm entirely certain that examples would materialize if such a rule were instated. A rule like this would allow a website with limited Google hits to be deleted without the slightest consideration given to mitigating factors. Deco 02:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *If you can't think of an example, your assertion is probably false. Also, your claim that anything that is a candidate for speedy deletion is in fact deleted without further consideration is most definitely false. Articles are rescued from CAT:CSD and improved on a daily basis. Radiant_>|< 11:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: An obscure, yet notable, subject is going to get low Google hits.  Not worthy at all. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 16:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The point of CSD isn't to worry about the articles that pass (eg. reward the SEO's), the point is to choose objective criteria that makes sure almost no article fails when it should have gone on to AFD instead.  Small-time websites that start their SEO campaign with Wikipedia, instead of at least starting by spamming other sites first, will at least be caught by this.  --Interiot 03:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To the contrary - if they're spamming Wikipedia, they're probably also bombing Google with all sorts of fake sites. I expect them to have plenty of Google hits. Deco 03:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *Look over AFD and you'll see this generalization is false. Most articles on webpages in WP aren't about googlebombers, but about Joe Average people who create a l33t fansite or forum about whatever and expect a Wikipedia article will impress their friends. Radiant_>|< 11:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Go by the Google

message: My counter (for the above) would be for reference sites. Consider the Google result for pghbridges.com This site gets 140 or so inward links (some from us) as you can see.  But it's a rich vein of material, well sourced and thorough, if  you are working on bridges (Coraopolis Bridge for example, which I just did a lot of work on tonite) and tunnels in the Pittsburgh area. The HAER Library of Congress source, that it gets some of its material from, has a lot of great material but you have to OCR the .tifs... this site author already did that. So this is an awesome, and easily verified as correct, (because you can go check HAER and see if he OCRed them right or not!) reference site. I am of the opinion that it needs a writeup, if only to document why it's a good reference, and what sort of stuff it can be relied on to have, how far out it covers,  and how to use it. Now, I'm still a newb, maybe that's a wikipediaspace thing rather than main articlespace but that site is, I allege, notable and verifyable, but fails the google test utterly (it also has no forums and therefore no users to count). I wish there was a site like it for other areas (BTW: other sites I like for bridges are structurae.de and bridgemeister.com... both would also fail the google test badly but both deserve mention, perhaps in our bibliography if we have one rather than in articlespace???) DO we have a bibliography or a place to document references (these are documented in the bridges wikiproject already I think) that's generic? ++Lar: t/c 05:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference sites

message: *There's an overemphasis on the Google test, and invented article titles are often deemed "neologisms" deserving deletion even when the topic itself is quite notable and a rename is more suitable. The Prime Number Shitting Bear was a very popular meme that I was sorry to see vanish for no well thought out reason. Deco 23:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neologisms

message: See here for a discussion of how C1 applies to stub-categories, in particular when they contain (only) a stub template (and no articles), and whether it should be clarified as regards said application, on way or another.  Alai 00:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  C1 and stub-types 

message: I thought it germane here, so please notice Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Mass_PDF_upload. Would it be wise to try and develop some kind of CSD for images that violate WP:NOT in this manner? Thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 17:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image deletion 

message: I am not sure what to do when I come across potential images that fall into this critera. Should any image with the "with permission" or "commercial use only" uploaded after May 19, 2005 be labled for speedy? This is what assume from Jimbo's message regarding the manner. I'm looking for clarification so I can feel free to label such images for speedy. Thanks. --Zsinj 08:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSD I3 

message: This is a proposed very simple way to deal with non-controversial article deletions. The proponet propses a live test in the near future. I think the idea is a good one, but that some degree of community support is needed to sanction a live test. Please visit Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion to express your views. DES (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion]]

message: If you look at the vast number of pages created every hour, a substantial number of them are just defining some new word.  It seems like a primary thing people new to Wikipedia want to do is define some term they and their buddies use.  See Syck for an example of what I mean... it's just like "Hey, I made up some new word, here it is, Wikipedia!"  Now while I personally think the article creation process should be overhauled to help inform people that creating articles like this isn't a good idea, that's beside the point here.
Is there any good way to speedy delete these articles?  In practice they often are speedied, but technically they don't usually fall under a criteria for speedy deletion at present.  If a word gets 0 Google results, and like in the case I cited above the article pretty much admits it's a freshly coined term not used by anyone but the creator's buddies... it's kind of silly to have to go through the process of AfD with something that will never survive it.  But is there a clean way to add these to CSD, to reduce the load on AfD? 
I know people aren't very keen on using Google as a criteria for deletion... so what would people think of:
:Dictionary definitions that do not assert a word has ever been used outside of the limited social group that coined it
That would cover a lot of ground, really... but preclude anything that might meet WP:V or be something Wiktionary would want (by the way, they speedy delete stuff like I'm talking about). Of course this is a very rough idea and I'm just looking for comments at this point. --W.marsh 04:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like a good idea, but I oppose on the general principle that I don't think there are enough of these articles around that AfD would significantly benefit. It's important to minimize CSD to avoid having to remember a bunch of rarely useful conditions. Deco 05:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As you can see from this my example (I had no idea this would happen when I posted it), when they do get to AfD they get sometimes as speedies even if they don't break WP:CSD.  Anyone, just from patrolling newpages, it seems like a whole lot of these are created... perhaps so many are speedied already that they don't shop up all that much on AfD. This isn't really a formal proposal though... just trying to see if my idea is totally stupid or not. --W.marsh 05:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *This seems quite reasonable. But looking over the past 3000 entries in the deletion log, I see only three articles deleted for being a neologism, two of which came from AFD. So I'd like to see a little more evidence that this actually problematic, and not already covered by existing speedies (e.g. lack of context). Radiant_>|< 09:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Point taken, I'll try to create a list the next time I'm working on newpages during peak hours.  Maybe I'm overestimating the trend. --W.marsh 15:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps, but people who create pages for neologisms tend to be the same ones that delete  with no comment and no edits to the page to make it better, and you end up having to AfD it anyway. --Rory096 18:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Prod has also only been in place for a few days.  I do worry a bit about speedying them when they could be legitimate just because a new user might not know exactly what it takes to reach our notability standards --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 18:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even in a speedy, an admin decides whether it is (or can be) notable, it's not just deleted with no thought.  Besides, if it is legit, somebody else would make an article that would meet the standards. --Rory096 18:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With the former, not that I don't trust the admins, but I'm wary of that kind of control over content.  The more we can reign that in, the better we are.  For the latter, we both know that's not exactly true. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 18:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Umm, no.  Admins do not decide if the subjet of an article is notable.  Such decisions require research, and snap judgements about notability when RC or newpage patrolling leads to mistakes and good articles getting speedied.  Admins read the article and decide if it qualifies for speedy; if the article asserts some form of notability I'm not going to say "well, I still think he's non-notable" and delete.  If the article asserts nothing of the sort, then he could be the President of Uzbekistan and the article would still be speediable. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not even neologisms yet 

message: I'm trying to figure out how to maximize the usefulness of my RC patrol time. I've been watching recentchanges and newpages trying to catch the most egregious vandalism (blanking or insertion of obscenities at major topics) and obvious newpage speedies ("Zobbo215 is the ultimate in coolness!"). It occurred to me that I might be wasting my time, because the most obvious vandalism and almost empty newpages are probably flagged by bots. My question is: are the bots so effective at catching these types of problems that I'm just wasting human resources to do a job a robot can do better? If so, how could I modify my RC patrolling to be more useful to the encyclopedia? Ben Kidwell 09:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not aware of any bots that tag pages for deletion or revert pages. Sometimes humans use bots to assist them in these tasks, but it seems like figuring out whether an edit was made in good faith is a very difficult problem to solve automatically. Deco 09:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Best use of scan time? 

message: When I was creating , I found that there is no A4, what happend to that? →AzaToth 02:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A4 was merged into A3 (A4 was about attempts to contact the subject of the article) – ABCDe✉ 02:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A4 

message: A number of people have been arguing that the expanded A7 allows the speedying of companies.  (There's a snooty note from one such person on my talkpage now, but that's okay because my answering note was no less snooty).  Now, this was clearly not the intent of the change, and even people who've played fast and loose with the CSD criteria in the past accept that; for example, User:Mushroom is above arguing that it should be expanded to include companies.  Now, "groups" is kinda vague, so I propose that, if we don't want articles on corporations to be speedied for failure to even assert notability, that we make it explicit that companies aren't included.  Alternatively, add corporations to the list of subjects which require an assertion of notability to avoid being shot on sight. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See here: WP:CORP. A guideline at present. Marskell 12:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But WP:CORP is related to AfDs, not CSD.  See also: WP:MUSIC. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, of course, and what doesn't get Speedied often winds up on AfD instead. So you work backwards from criteria re the latter to arrive at explicit statements here. Marskell 12:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *Before discussing this further I would like to see some links to articles on companies that (1) were AFD'ed but didn't stand a chance, or (2) were speedily deleted but arguably shouldn't have been. Radiant_>|< 14:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *The one that prompted this was Dekid, but it's certainly not the only one I've seen lately.  Arguably should have been deleted and wouldn't have survived AfD, but was also definitely not covered under A7.  I'd like to see either A7 expanded to cover corporations, or modified to explicitly note that a corporation doesn't count as "a group of people" for A7. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: **Actually I would have speedied that one myself on grounds of lack of content and context. Radiant_>|< 15:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: ***I do appreciate that.  But you see the point, surely? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  companies 

message: Are there any plans to create the Wikipedia:Lost images article, or should it be removed from this project page? (Lady Serena 23:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lost Images link? 

message: These Two Images, Pwsafarijacket.jpg and Trenchcoatinuse.jpg have been identified for source information properly now, so they should be kept.
Michael 15:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have not already done so just add this info to the image page and remove the speedy tag then, people rarely check this page before speedy deleting stuff, so better to use the talk page for the page/file in question. --Sherool (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  These Two Images- 

message: ;CSD§I6:Image with sole purpouse of vandalism. →AzaToth 20:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO G3 already covers that nicely. --Sherool (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for new critreria for images 

message: I want to expand/clarify I#5 to state:
:Unused copyrighted images. Images that are not under a free license or in the public domain, which are not used in any article, and which have been tagged with a template which places them in :Category:Orphaned unfree images  for more than seven days.  Reasonable exceptions may be made for images uploaded for an upcoming article. The templates , , and  place an image in this category.
instead of the existing
:Unused copyrighted images. Copyrighted images uploaded without permission of the copyright holder, or under a license which does not permit commercial use, which are not used in any article, and which have been tagged with a template which places them in :Category:Orphaned fairuse images  for more than seven days (so-called "orphaned fair use images").  Reasonable exceptions may be made for images uploaded for an upcoming article. The templates  and  place an image in this category.
Obviously, the necessary templates and category would be created.  The criterion already seems to imply the expanded version by saying simply "uploaded without permission of the copyright holder" but this is contradicted by referring to "orphaned fair use" later.  Thus, I'd like to state outright the broader meaning; I can't see any reason orphan non-free images should be around, and this would make the gargantuan task of Wikipedia:Untagged images faster.  I am aware this template originated from one of Jimbo's mysterious IRC/mailing list proclamations.  However, I still think this change is legitimate. What do people think? Superm401 - Talk 01:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you need to discuss this with Jimbo and/or the Wikimedia Board, because it's an important legal issue. It seems wrong to change "not under a free license or PD" to "under a license which doesn't permit commercial use". >Radiant< 02:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's the reverse of the change I'm proposing! However, I'll notify Jimbo on his talk. Superm401 - Talk 00:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I've made the word "article" bold, but I'm really not a big fan of being bold, except in article space. Superm401 - Talk 01:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made the change. Superm401 - Talk 07:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphan "Fair Use" 

message: At least for a little bit, I advise everyone to chill about this.  Let's take some time to reflect on this issue as a community.  That means: don't make any crazy userboxes designed to try to trip this rule, and don't go on any sprees deleting ones that already exist.
A thoughtful process of change is important.
And whatever you do, do NOT wheel war about this.--Jimbo Wales 07:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the new Template CsD 

message: I would like to expand the CSD for User pages to include the following. Occassionally a user will have a red-linked user page (i.e., no edits to it) and sometimes incautious or ignorant users (no offense intended) will leave messages there instead of on the talk page. I propose that the message should be moved to the talk page and then the user page deleted speedily. There's no point in submitting it to AfD and it's nice to know at a glance if someone doesn't have a userpage (based on color of the link). Also, blank pages are useless. This strikes me as non-controversial. I hope I'm right. :) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New criterion proposal: User page 

message: The disaster of this imposed policy is that it has unleashed a plague of petty authoritarians on the project.  What gets edited — and therefore what gets deleted — is always going to be self-selected by volunteers.  The mere presence of this vague criterion among the current criteria has emboldened people to delete certain userbox templates they happen to disagree with.  Even assuming good faith, it's always going to be a whole lot easier for someone to see that those boxes are "polemical" or "divisive".  Obviously polemical or divisive but relatively popular boxes (e.g. :Template:User no meat, with its offensive "meat is murder" slogan) will stay.  No one wants to call down the wrath to come on the person who dares to label it so, much less delete it without notice, as the policy seeks to legitimize.  I'd do it myself, but that would be WP:POINT, seemingly legitimize the criterion, and besides, I don't want the hate.
The only NPOV way to do this would be to disable all templates on user pages.  Nothing else will get the job done and be truly neutral.  Even claiming a language might be inferred as making a political statement; happens often enough in real life.  
The proposed policy as it stands increases divisiveness tenfold, and increases pettiness a hundredfold.  It has distracted the community from its purpose far more than the boxes themselves ever could.  Mr. Wales, I beseech you from the bowels of Christ to consider you may be wrong. -- Smerdis of Tlön 22:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree fully, although, but just so you know, user no meat has in fact been deleted, which only proves you are right about this. I had mine deleted, as well as my ape equality box, my anti-death penalty box, my anti-imperialist box, and even my one of my two pro userbox userboxes, and the only reason the other one isn't off is because I put the source code on my userpage before the template could be deleted. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The Ungovernable Force 08:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The disaster of this imposed policy

message: I hope no-one objects to this.  Quite clearly the criterion that was created as T1 applies equally to all namespaces.  For this reason, I have transferred it over.  If anyone wants to add any détente comments, I'm not going to stop them. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Categories, too? Oh well, there's always common sense and Deletion Review for such things. Ashibaka tock 22:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A category can be divisive and inflammatory!  Why not?  Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My point was that categories are necessarily divisive because they apply labels to articles :) For example, you could delete :Category:Fascists because it is accusatory. Ashibaka tock 23:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's pretty much the reason why categories that label persons to a particular political ideology have been banned from German Wikipedia (see :de:Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Kategorien, die Personen nach politischer Ausrichtung zusammenfassen) --84.137.19.238 01:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmmm, I really don't think that's what's meant.  If you can rephrase it to exclude that, great!  Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Part of the argument that templates (specifically userbox templates) should be speedied is that they can use included categories to organize Wikipedians, and that sometimes some people (i.e. Jimbo) won't like such groups of people to be able to organize so easily. So, it seems that e.g. :Category:Aryan Wikipedians or maybe :Category:Wikipedians who think subjectively defined speedying is crap would be divisive and therefore just as reprehensible. Therefore in all sense it should be just as subject to speedying. I'm sure we will all be able to agree on what lines of organization are "bad", or trust AFD/TFD/IFD to decide it for us. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 01:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I would think project-space application of this could get slightly more interesting.  Is a deletion nomination divisive?  Is an RFC inflammatory?  Maybe I'm just being pessimistic about this, though ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 23:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I moved it back to T1 so it no longer applies to userspace. See my comment above, which links to a campaign to move all userboxes into userspace where people can freely express their opinions. Ashibaka tock 00:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see - so the move to general was yet another power grab. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SPUI, this is a wiki - moving stuff is not a power grab. Folk can revert, as they did. Less of the paranoia. --Doc ask? 01:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah. I understand the reasoning but Jimbo put it in template space. Ashibaka tock 01:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, userboxes are only used in userspace, so the intent behind T1 effectively makes it U3. And this is why the whole thing stinks -- it's an attempt to regulate userspace by the end-run of attacking userspace templates. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 01:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *No, T1 only applies to Template:s.  There's a difference between a userspace template and a normal template.  This is a userspace template: .  This is a non-userspace template:  .  As it stands, the first one is not covered by any CSD, and is only covered by Wikipedia:User page.  --Interiot 04:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: **That's an amusingly convenient distinction, but disingnenous. The only reason T1 is here is because of userboxes. Which are only used on user pages. "Divisive templates" wouldn't be a problem if they weren't being used somewhere. No one reads or searches templatespace for any information other than template administrivia. This goes for all templates. Template space is not a coherent content space in itself; its content is specifically intended to be used in other coherent content spaces (mainspace, userspace, projectspace). Each template has an intended target space in which it should be used. So regulating templates used in X space has the end effect of regulating that space. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 18:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *** I had assumed that CSD-T1 does not explicitely apply to any page in the User: space, even pages that are transcluded in another (especially because another user can turn any of my pages into a transcluded page without my knowledge).  Is that incorrect?  Also, while userboxes may have been the motivating factor behind T1, as it's currently stated, T1 by itself doesn't explicitely cover subst:ed templates, or anything else in userspace that might more or less resemble a userbox.  Is that incorrect?  --Interiot 19:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: **** No, but I don't think it matters. Pushing userbox templates into userspace does 2 things: 1. Eliminate the current organized-ness of userboxes, and 2. encourage templating (i.e. transcluding) from non-template spaces. Furthermore, subst'ing userboxes destroys the whole purpose of templates. As I say on my page: "This user does not subst userboxes because they may improve over time, as is the power of Wikipedia, and subst'ing prevents benefits from such improvement." - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 17:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  T1 &rarr; G10 

message: Why just delete redirects to the User namespace?  How about redirects from the article space to the Template namespace, or Category, or Wikipedia?  Why are those treated differently? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Among other things, the various project-page shortcuts (like WP:NPOV or WP:AFD) are actually redirects from article-space to Wikipedia-space. —Kirill Lokshin 03:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  See the discussion above.  All shortcuts, even those to userspace, are counted as exceptions to CSD (eg. WP:ANONX, WP:AYB, WP:BEEFSTEW, WP:BOMB, WP:CCW, WP:CDVF, WP:CUNT, WP:INT, WP:JVS, WP:LAVT, WP:LVAT, WP:PCW, WP:RAUL).  As far as I can tell, CSD-R2 is mainly to make userfying clearly within policy?  --Interiot 04:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I saw that before posting here.  I was asking more about things like Mr. Treason, which I just speedied after it was created by a career vandal.  I doubt it will be missed, but it didn't technically fall within any speedy criterion.  Seems like it should. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, Mr. Treason was recreated, so now it's at WP:TFD I mean, WP:RFD. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  R2 for other namespaces 

message: gun article can be deleted info put in mp5k article.(Uber555 03:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but what exactly does this mean? howcheng  {chat} 07:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe this person is trying to tell us that they merged MP5K PDW into MP5K and wish to delete MP5K PDW. A redirect is of course more appropriate and I'll take care of it. Deco 07:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: mp5k pdw

message: Despite the discussion in Archive7 on the difference between CSD A2 and , it's not clear at all to me why the former merits speedy deletion (ie. deletable-immediately-on-sight) while the latter merits a 2-week wait before being merely listed for deletion (according to the template).  The current state of affairs becomes especially strange, when one considers that any  can easily be transformed into CSD A2, merely by having someone cross-post the untranslated text into the corresponding foreign-language Wikipedia.  The fact that merely copying the untranslated text into the corresponding foreign-language Wikipedia would lead to the untranslated article in English Wikipedia being allowed to be deleted on sight, before anyone has a chance to translate it into English, that seems a little illogical to me--unless a similar article already exists in English Wikipedia, but that's a different deletion criteria altogether.  I would expect that a CSD A2 article be also merit a 2-week period before any deletion.
If this has been discussed in detail before, please point me to the appropriate pages.  Thanks.
If what I said above makes no sense or indicates a clear misunderstanding, please clarify the truth for me and others.  Thanks for your patience.
67.160.10.87 09:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If something is in another language-wikipedia, there's no harm in speedy deleting it here.  If somebody moves the article to the non-English wiki (hopefully only if they can read the language), then that article may still be translated back to English at any time in the future.  I think in many cases, the chances of a proper translation being done, are higher in the non-English Wikipedia.  I'm not even sure why keep articles if the language is known.  Ideally we'ld transfer them to some sort of project-space in the other wiki immediately. --Rob 09:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, AFAICT the point of the "must exist on another wiki" provision is to prevent irrevocable loss of the content. The rule A2 just helps to erase redundant content of little immediate value. That's not to say you couldn't create a stub with an appropriate interwiki link, and leave a note on the talk page encouraging translation from the foreignpedia. Deco 10:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I still don't understand CSD A2 

message: I'm starting to tire of the number of completely made-up word and phrase definitions which are created every day; there must be literally hundreds.  Most of these are clearly unsupported nonsense, and do not deserve the dignity (and nonnegligible effort) of being brought to AfD.  Two examples this evening are Poison fingers syndrome, which gets zero google hits and which the article claims "starting to catch on", and Kurushinism, which is utter nonsense.  I sometimes tag these, perhaps unfairly, as , but I think we need a CSD category for "obvious unsupported neologism with no claim of widespread use or encyclopediacy".  Even applying  is giving these article too much credit.  Any other support for such an addition?  bikeable (talk) 05:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but I don't think they should be speediable, since often words that seem made up and bizarre to one person turn out to be legit (and bizarre). Instead, I suggest you use the experimental new Wikipedia:Proposed deletion process, which has already been used to delete many neologisms. Deco 05:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: thanks, Deco, and I appreciate the problems of "seems made up; is legit".  However, we have the same problem now for db-bio, and we are essentially asking admins to use their own judgement in those cases as well.  I trust that they speedy delete bios when they seem to obviously fail WP:BIO, and I believe we can similarly trust them to judge obvious neologisms.  In fact, I think there is a weird assymmetry in these two: recently I have seen nn-bios speedied, then recreated, then speedied and protected with  -- all at the action of a single admin with a strong opinion about the subject's notability; yet obvious cases that at best might be dicdefs must instead go through AfD (or prod).  I've been using {prod}, but I would swear that things I've prod'ed are being CSDed... in which case admins have the same view on obvious neologisms that I do, and are working outside the CSD criteria.  If that's true, and I believe it is and I support their actions, we should just have a tag for it.  I also think that tagging something so obvious with {prod} gives it too much opportunity to sit around, get de-prod'ed, and end up back on AfD -- that could easily be ten days an obvious neologism waits around for deletion.  Tonight's examples include embetter, deprovement, and islamophobiaphobia (note the extra -phobia).  argh!  bikeable (talk) 05:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what the big deal is about the time?  I understand the annoyance of sending something to AfD after it's been prodded and deprodded, because it's a little tedious.  But why is time a problem for neologisms?  Are we afraid of people reading them?  If people are searching for them, they probably don't need to be deleted.  The only things that seem like time is such a huge concern about are attack pages (speediable) and hoaxes (can't speedy because they could be true, but have a warning template).  NickelShoe 00:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neologisms, again 

message: I think it would be good if we added to "I5" something like this: 
:If an orphaned fairuse image was replaced with a free image of reasonable quality/suitability, the fairuse image may be deleted, without delay by the admin, if its felt there's no reasonable case for the fairuse image.
This way, when somebody replaces a fairuse image, with a free one, they don't have to "babysit" it, to ensure the fairuse isn't swapped back by another editor (often an anon, who would be unable to re-upload the fairuse image).  If the quality/suitability of the free image replacement is debateable, then the normal 7-day wait period could still apply. --Rob 05:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with this.  Determining what's reasonable and suitable is far too subjective.  If someone keeps swapping it back in, that probably means there is debate warranting an IFD. Superm401 - Talk 04:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  fairuse replaced: should they be speedied faster? 

message: I've had an instance of someone trying to recreate unacceptable templates in another namespace and arguing that T1 doesn't apply outside template space.  Because it doesn't matter which namespace a template is transcluded from (template: is simply the default location if an explicit namespace is not provided in a transclusion) I've clarified: pages created in any namespace for the purpose of transclusion, --Tony Sidaway 09:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Alright, It looks logical enough though, how come Tony's clarification isn't a plain shoo-in? Could you explain? (Though I do have some ideas myself too :-) ) Kim Bruning 10:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually no.  It was Blue Aadvark's recreation of a speedied T1 in his userspace that prompted me to change.  Crotalus Horridus seems to have undertaken a more extensive project, of which I was not aware until I saw the announcement later. I'm satisfied that there is no reason to treat templates differently just because they don't happen to have the prefix "template" in front of their name, so I'll restore the text, which Crotalus removed. --Tony Sidaway 11:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: You may not do that. See your talk page. Kim Bruning 11:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification of ''templates''

message: I have placed in WP:CSD the following, under the heading "Templates":
:# Templates that are divisive and/or inflammatory. Please note that this is a brand new criterion and should be discussed before widespread use. See talk page.
While we may disagree over the intended reach of the rule and its applicability to the various spaces, the rule itself, in its simplest form—that templates which are divisive and/or inflammatory may be speedily deleted by a Wikipedia administrator—derives its authority from Mr. Wales, who as Chairman of the Wikimedia Foundation has "ultimate authority on any matter" on all Wikimedia projects, subject to decisions of the Board. As the Board, to my knowledge, has not disapproved of the T1 criterion he placed , it retains its validity; any removal of the rule from the CSD page is tantamount to vandalism. I understand that some parties to the disagreement may at present feel aggrieved; this is quite understandable. I urge that these disagreements be aired in the appropriate fora, and that some resolution be attained through civil discourse—not via revert warring, which is unlikely to bring about agreeable results. I have acted as an ordinary Wikipedian. I bear no other authority. I am neutral with respect to the precise wording of the template. Regards ENCEPHALON 13:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with the examples, as long as they are listed as material which has been deleted, rather than should be. Anything restored by deletion review should probably be taken off the list, though. —Andux␅ 04:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I'd rather like to see the text of User admins ignoring policy listed there. ;) —Andux␅ 05:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it's appropriate to list examples that have been subject to speedy deletion under this criterion.  It's early days yet and we're just feeling our way, so a few examples are good.  I'll restore to Mark's version because I do sense that we're going to go with them. --Tony Sidaway 08:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I've added This user is pissed about admins ignoring process. (which was the wording of the Admins ignoring policy userbox at the time it was deleted. --Tony Sidaway 08:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm confused about this as well. I wish he had a User:God-King account/signature and a non-God-King  account, as it's hard to tell what is holy writ and what is just Jimbo being an editor sometimes. The very fact that he didn't create T1, only restored it, makes this whole thing surreal. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The most obvious solution to this is to ask Jimbo. If this is anything like his past proclamations, he'll want it to stick around for a "test period" and then the community can put it on the table for consideration. Deco 22:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:CSD]] T1 

message: Please stop altering policy pages like you did here. If you disagree with existing policy, please discuss on the talk page. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 04:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with the examples, as long as they are listed as material which has been deleted, rather than should be. Anything restored by deletion review should probably be taken off the list, though. —Andux␅ 04:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I'd rather like to see the text of User admins ignoring policy listed there. ;) —Andux␅ 05:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it's appropriate to list examples that have been subject to speedy deletion under this criterion.  It's early days yet and we're just feeling our way, so a few examples are good.  I'll restore to Mark's version because I do sense that we're going to go with them. --Tony Sidaway 08:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I've added This user is pissed about admins ignoring process. (which was the wording of the Admins ignoring policy userbox at the time it was deleted. --Tony Sidaway 08:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please stop

message: I am absolutely in favor of CSD T1, but I have a question about Jimbo's addition of this criterion making it unremovable.  Jimbo is the ultimate authority when he chooses to be, but in this case it's not clear to me whether he was acting as ultimate authority or an ordinary editor.  How does one tell? -- SCZenz 08:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm confused about this as well. I wish he had a User:God-King account/signature and a non-God-King  account, as it's hard to tell what is holy writ and what is just Jimbo being an editor sometimes. The very fact that he didn't create T1, only restored it, makes this whole thing surreal. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The most obvious solution to this is to ask Jimbo. If this is anything like his past proclamations, he'll want it to stick around for a "test period" and then the community can put it on the table for consideration. Deco 22:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about Jimbo's edit 

message: I've come across four of these this week through Special: Random. I'm in favor of articles on terms, including slang and l33t-speak; but there really shouldn't be an article on term #7836592 that someone just made up last week. Why shouldn't these be speedied- it's not like they're going to be expanded, as no one knows about them except the coiner, friends, and people like us who read about it on WP. EGGS 21:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Provided it specifies that UrbanDictionary must be checked, under as many variant spellings as reasonably imaginable.  And preferably the OED as well, but a general-purpose online dictionary could work as well.  In such a case, speedy sounds like a good idea. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree. If it's limited to single words, maybe, but you wouldn't find History of Germany in the dictionary, and even many single word terms are highly specialized technical, medical, or legal terms. Deco 08:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, Deco, I don't get your point -- surely no one would tag a page called History of Germany as a neologism.  Highly specialized technical terms are one thing, although a search on google scholar will generally uncover a reference or two.  The kind of thing I have in mind is completely obvious.  For example, I just tagged Nutcicles with .  The page says, slang term defining ice that would hang from a private area on a male during a really cold time.  We get dozens or hundreds like this every day, and it's painful to me that they have to wait a week.  I recognize, however, that there doesn't seem to be a lot of support for expanding CSD for this type of thing.  bikeable (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: History of Germany is just a really obvious example of a phrase that clearly deserves an article and yet is "invented", meaning it's not a widely accepted term for the topic. We use invented titles all the time, and I don't want to see anything deleted just because there's not a widely accepted name for it available. There's a thin line between "neologism" and "invented for a legitimate purpose" and this is the source of the subjective nature of such a rule. Deco 22:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a major difference is that "history of Germany" is an article about a concept that can be described as, whereas "nuticicles" is about, well, nuticicles, for lack of a better term.  "Ice that would hang from a private area on a male during a really cold time" is not a neologism, just really really stupid.  And, being pedantic, "history of Germany" is not a neologism but a coined phrase.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I see your point, Deco, but along with Sam Korn, I don't think that "history of Germany" is a neologism; it's a string of words which makes perfect grammatical and logical sense, and is no more a neologism than "string of words" or "slice of pizza".  Furthermore, the phrase has been used an extremely large number of times (267,000 hits on google), so no one would reasonably tag such an article with a neologism tag.  I certainly agree that it's worth writing language protecting phrases which aren't obvious to most, but which make sense to specialists, particularly technical or jargonish phrases, and when in doubt we should err on the side of caution (or AfD).  On the other hand, "nutcicle" didn't even attempt to pose as either technical, specialized, accurate, or widely used.  I may try to draft a more specific strawman proposal to address these concerns.  bikeable (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree as well. Specialized words should be sourceable somewhere, but sometimes the special knowledge/extra eyes that comes from AfD are worth it to catch obscure references. WP:PROD might work, but I have reservations on that process for this purpose. Outright nonsense, of course, is a different story. -- nae'blis (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that they should be speediable. The idea for speedy deletion is to avoid going through pointless processes to which WP:SNOW applies for articles where there is already a wide consensus to delete. Stifle 18:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neologisms (yet again) 

message: Wonder if you'd care to comment on this latest attempt to represent the feeling of the Wikipedia community on activities--mainly political advocacy, voting on everything, and political userboxes--that tend to split us into camps. --Tony Sidaway 14:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Divisiveness]]

message: At least for a little bit, I advise everyone to chill about this. Let's take some time to reflect on this issue as a community. That means: don't make any crazy userboxes designed to try to trip this rule, and don't go on any sprees deleting ones that already exist.
A thoughtful process of change is important.
And whatever you do, do NOT wheel war about this.--Jimbo Wales 07:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding the new Template CSD

message: ====What Jimbo said about userboxes in the Signpost interview====
: Today I took the opportunity of an interview on IRC, organised by The Signpost, to ask Jimbo about userboxes:
:: Feb 15 16:53:49 Ral315  Tony_Sidaway asks:  "In the past six weeks the number of userboxes on English Wikipedia has risen from 3500 to 6000 and, despite your appeals for restraint, the number pertaining to political beliefs has risen from 45 to 150.  Can the problem of unsuitable userboxes still be resolved by debate?"
:: Feb 15 17:11:57 jwales  eh
:: Feb 15 17:11:59 jwales  userboxes
:: Feb 15 17:12:00 jwales  eh
:: Feb 15 17:12:40 jwales  I'm looking at the political beliefs one now.
:: Feb 15 17:13:50 jwales  My only comment on the userbox situation is that the current situation is not acceptable.
: I think that puts it pretty plainly. It's not just that he doesn't personally like userboxes, but speaking as the leader of the project he finds the current situation unacceptable.  Something must change, one way or the other. --Tony Sidaway 21:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: comments

message: : Today I took the opportunity of an interview on IRC, organised by The Signpost, to ask Jimbo about userboxes:
:: Feb 15 16:53:49 Ral315  Tony_Sidaway asks:  "In the past six weeks the number of userboxes on English Wikipedia has risen from 3500 to 6000 and, despite your appeals for restraint, the number pertaining to political beliefs has risen from 45 to 150.  Can the problem of unsuitable userboxes still be resolved by debate?"
:: Feb 15 17:11:57 jwales  eh
:: Feb 15 17:11:59 jwales  userboxes
:: Feb 15 17:12:00 jwales  eh
:: Feb 15 17:12:40 jwales  I'm looking at the political beliefs one now.
:: Feb 15 17:13:50 jwales  My only comment on the userbox situation is that the current situation is not acceptable.
: I think that puts it pretty plainly. It's not just that he doesn't personally like userboxes, but speaking as the leader of the project he finds the current situation unacceptable.  Something must change, one way or the other. --Tony Sidaway 21:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What Jimbo said about userboxes in the Signpost interview

message: The real problem is less about templates and more about divisiveness in userspace. Please consider my proposal, Wikipedia:Unacceptable userspace material, which is intended as a means to minimally quantify "bad" materials in userspace which the practice of including on userpages has a detrimental effect on Wikipedia, as opposed to making overbroad blanket restrictions. The goal is to maintain the liberal use of userspace while addressing concerns of divisiveness and objectionableness, avoiding template deletionism, and providing a defined standard on which compulsory userpage amendments can be based. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 21:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re templates, a proposal for the real problem 

message: I propose a new criterion for speedy deletion below (for attack redirects):
#It is a redirect that serves no purpose but to disparage the subject(s) whose name appears in the title of the current page or in the redirect-to page.
The template used will probably be .
Please add comments and discussion below. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could attack pages be made a general CSD? I have already tagged some user pages as attack pages (i.e. pages not created by the user that attack the user) that have been deleted, and would seem to make sense that any page of whatever sort created with "no purpose but to disparage" should be deleted. If there is a good reason it can't be made general (please say why) I would support the above proposal. Petros471 00:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this, though we should clarify that unflattering (but genuine) photographs do not count. Superm401 - Talk 00:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I support this proposal. This CSD would be a natural extension of A6 and R3, and it would help. I think it's needed because A6 can't be applied to attack redirects, and there's no need to send them to RfD. I also agree with the second proposal, a G10 could be a good idea. Mushroom (Talk) 22:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this. How can this be moved forward to a vote on making it policy? (The discussion on this page is largely being taken up by userbox debate, and this is being overlooked. Hynca-Hooley 09:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure it actually needs a vote (as there appears to be consensus). However before making this policy we should work on the exact wording and get support for that. Probably best to create a new heading at the bottom of the talk page for this, as it will be less likely to get totally drowned in all the userbox debate. I'll have a go at a first draft later if no one beats me to it. Petros471 10:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed CSD R4 

message: I'm really confused as to the extent of CSD T1 - people have been nominating userboxes that support recycling or ones that denounce profanity up for this, yet I don't see how either of those are highly problematic. Could we get examples of what's speedily deletable under CSD T1? enochlau (talk) 03:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's deletable is "whatever the hell any admin goddamned well feels like," evidently, since that's what's happening.  Being affiliated with a political party isn't inflammatory, yet there they all went.  Rogue 9 12:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are admins who simply object to all userboxes.  Period.  And they know that, the way the system is set up, no one has the power to stop them from deleting prettymuch any userbox that states an opinion.   will probably prove to be too divisive.  I've subst'd all my POV userboxes so that if they get axed, the code is on my page and not just the template.  (instead of , write , and it will deposit the code safely on your page.). JDoorjam     Talk 13:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While the above argument is more aggressive than I'd like to be seen as, it does reflect my own views as well. T1 has become a vehicle by which the small number of admins opposed to userboxes can simply swoop in and delete what they will. T1 itself has created far more divisiveness and bitterness in the community than all of the templates deleted under it could possibly have created. Of course, it has been helped on by unruly use of speedy deletion. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 00:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: agreed. The Ungovernable Force 04:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I just recently realized where the word "divisive" had been coming from - . --AySz88^-^ 06:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification on CSD T1 

message: I have added the following paragraph to this page:
:Speedy deletion is not a means of avoiding community input and consensus. Administrators should not speedily delete a page if they have any doubt as to whether the page would be deleted after a discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion or other appropriate page.
—Guanaco 01:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed your addition for the time being so that we can discuss it. The most obvious objection is that speedy deletion candidates represent policy whereas AfD votes represent various Wikipedians kicking ideas around. Policy comes first in these cases. If there's a situation where the *fD vote isn't going to endorse an obvious application of a speedy candidate then the criteria has to be changed. The obvious exception is when Jimbo has specifically endorsed the criteria (which he has). In that situation, the criteria trump *fD. Mackensen (talk) 01:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when did WP:CP involve discusion?Geni 06:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From time to time yes, quite heated discussion. Physchim62 (talk) 07:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition 

message: In addition to having criteria for speedy deletion for user page templates, there ought to be "criteria  for things to leave alone."  These criteria also should be a lot more specific than anything about "polemical" or "divisive" or "inflammatory" user templates. 
Some suggestions for things that should presumptively be left alone:
*Templates about language, ethnicity, and location;
*Templates about professional affiliations or academic degrees;
*Templates about membership in or affiliation with real-life organisations;
*Templates about participation in Wikipedia projects;
*Templates relating to editing philosophy or style on Wikipedia;
*Templates expressing personal interest or expertise in historical periods, artistic movements, scientific subjects, hobbies, and similar potentially encyclopedic subjects.
The idea being that all of these templates amount to user-volunteer suggestions about ways to improve the encyclopedia, and are meant to facilitate communication between users on projects to improve it.  They are related to the core purpose of the project even if someone decides to look at them funny. 
The idea being that even if an admin takes issue with such a template and decides to delete it, falling within one of these criteria would be grounds to recreate it instantly without prejudice or repercussion.  Any template that falls within one of these core categories should at minimum not be speedily deleted unilaterally, and the deletion of such templates should be viewed as an abuse of power.  — Smerdis of Tlön 03:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a very good idea, although I would not be certain that "anti-deletion" criteria would be widely accepted. I'd support it. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 04:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Good work! I think that these are some nice guidelines.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 05:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: * I don't think whitelists will work.  Whitelists would still clearly allow for things like "this user lives in region X and hates Y country for not giving them independence", "This user is a member of X organization" where X is an illegal organization or is morally objectionable to nearly everyone, etc.  --Interiot 06:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Membership of real world organizations is too controversial to go on a white list, viz. the political party templates: otherwise, I don't think templates covering these subjects are being speedy deleted, or even nominated for TfD. Physchim62 (talk) 06:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *The inclusionist and deletionist templates were deleted on Friday.  At least one admin believes that a template expressing basic agreement with one of these meta pages is "divisive," and under the current régime one is all it takes: if the templates are divisive and should be speedy deleted, so should the meta pages they pointed to.  Moreover, because of the way this was imposed, it just isn't feasible to object to a speedy deletion of a template and have anyone listen or pay attention.  If not consensus, at least accountability must be restored, and the way things are now it can't be done.Bear in mind also that the whitelist would only protect templates that fall within its confines from speedy deletion.  Templates subject to abuse could still be deleted; but this should at least require some opportunity to be heard.  — Smerdis of Tlön 14:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A slight suggestion about user templates 

message: I protected this because you people are edit warring over it.  I didn't even read it before protecting it, so it might be protected at a version even I would not approve of.  My action is not an endorsement of the current version.  Kelly Martin (talk) 14:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I do not contest your protection, I think calling people "idiots" is pushing it too far. It does nothing to cool tempers but just stokes them further. --Gurubrahma 18:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:No personal attacks Ashibaka tock 03:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks, actually. --cesarb 03:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: RPA is controversial.  I stand by my original words. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone else see the humour in having the "attack" removed but that the comment below tells us exactly what it was? - brenneman{T}{L}  22:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could fix that one, too.  Then it would read "While I do not contest your protection, I think calling people people is pushing it too far", and no one would ever know that Kelly Martin called them idiots. --Aquillion 10:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: I'd like to propose another CSD category.  How about having T2 be for templates which do not have any pages linked to them two weeks after the most recent edit?  This accomplishes several things:
#Removes orphaned templates without the overhead of TfD.
#Gives template authors no less than two weeks to finish and integrate their product into articles.
#Is objective to the point that a database query can identify templates meeting this criteria.
Any endorsements? --StuffOfInterest 12:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, bab juju.  This could for example potentially delete the  tag.  Some things are (or should) always be substituted. - brenneman{T}{L} 
*Unless and until substed templates are recorded, then as Aaron Brenneman says, this would leave templates like afd, welcome, etc up for deletion. Thryduulf 13:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Some further thought here.  The page WP:SUBST lists templates which should always be substituded.  This page can act as a filter to keep false positives from happening on unlinked template checks.  Policy could read something like "is not included on any page, not listed in WP:SUBST, and has not been edited in the last 14 days". --StuffOfInterest 20:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: No, since, the subst stuff notwithstanding, this provides a means to sneakily speedy a template you don't think would be deleted through TfD. This could happen with basically no scrutiny. If you plan to effect the deletion of a template that is not a polemical userbox, take it through TfD. -Splashtalk 15:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But that's what speedy is about nowadays! Trusting admin subjectivity on vague criteria to speedy an article you couldn't possibly get consensus on in AFD. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 20:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. Pretty insiduous, if you ask me. Speedy deletions used to be reserved for cases in which consensus was guaranteed, such as vandalism and nonsense pages. Now they're primarily used in cases where they would never be deleted by process. Not a very promising trend, in my opinion. Sarge Baldy 00:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: No. The beauty of unlinked templates is that they avoid the server-overload bogeyman from all those people transcluding them in other pages. In fact, maybe we should simply outlaw transcluding entirely and force all templates to be subst'ed. More and more are pushed for substing seemingly every day. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 20:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: No way, as many other said, this would mark destory templates that are primarily subst'd. (Perhpas if a code change could tell you when the last time it was subst'd though) xaosflux Talk/CVU 01:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal - CSD-T2 - unlinked templates 

message: I don't have anything against the T1, but as it stands not, I think it's interpretation is a bit to wide and subjective. So my proposal is: "Templates with a clear intent to be divisive and/or inflammatory" (Perhaps my knowledge in the english language is a bit wauge, but or, is is execlusive or or and/or? ). →AzaToth 14:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Or" means "and/or" in everyday English. "Divisive or inflammatory" applies even if something is divisive and inflammatory. - Brian Kendig 18:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The word "divisive" is worse - even the inclusionist/deletionist boxes were interpreted as "divisive". --AySz88^-^ 18:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Gah, it looks like I missed when "polemical" got changed to "divisive". --AySz88^-^ 18:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for minor change of T1 to clarify 

message: When tagging an article as a criteria for speedy deletion, should it be marked as a major or minor edit?  x42bn6 Talk 08:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, for comparison, AFD tags are never supposed to be minor.  And it's hard to think of an edit less minor for an article than suggesting that it be removed from existance.  So I'd say they should never be tagged as minor. --Aquillion 12:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  The addition of deletion tags of any type should always be marked as major. NoIdeaNick 00:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major/minor edit? 

message: G5 is a strange criterion. If a banned user makes a contribution on George W. Bush, then that article is speediable under G5. →AzaToth 14:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Contributions made by a banned user while they were banned. – The way I read it, this should be a history delete (delete the page, then restore all edits not by the banned user). —Locke Cole • t • c 14:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is one interpretation and might be appropriate to the scenario AzaToth describes above. The other and much more common scenario is when a banned user creates a page and is essentially the only editor to the page. Banned users often try to return to Wikipedia with a grudge. We've had problems with banned users attempting to return to post rants, etc. This second scenario is what led to the creation of this particular deletion criterion. Rossami (talk) 14:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ahh, okay, in the case you describe I could definitely see deleting the page entirely. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It doesn't need to be removed, only clarified. It applies as Locke says, or to new articles created by a banned user. android79 14:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: This has been discussed before and I still disagree, but I understand why others don't like this criterion. Everyone's edits and articles are modified, reverted or deleted on their merits. If a banned user's edits get the same treatment, there is no difference between a regular user and one who has been banned. They can just keep creating new accounts to edit with, or edit anonymously if they are on a shared or dynamic IP. The time on their block, for those not permanently banned, would be reset, but that's it. However, in exceptional cases, such as an article that has been heavily modified following the edits the banned user made, it might be appropriate to leave the editor's contribution. -- Kjkolb 14:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't be silly.  You seem to be intentionally misreading the policy, which does not say "pages edited by banned users".  It says "contributions made by a banned user".  That is very clear wording.  A tiny bit of common sense tells you so, and I should imagine even the WP community can manage that.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that this requires a modicum of common sense. Stifle 17:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't my intention to missread, I just thought it was a strange criterion. →AzaToth 23:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for removal of G5 

message: The recent change to G5 to exclude the creation of pages by banned users from their ban is incorrect, per WP:BAN which says "Deletion: It is not possible to revert newly created articles, as there is nothing to revert to. However, such pages are a candidate for speedy deletion. Non-sysops can list such pages on speedy deletions instead, adding a  header". The exclusion of userpages is also incorrect since "Banned users are simply not authorized to edit Wikipedia". -Splashtalk 16:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change to G5 - banned users - is incorrect 

message: "Templates that have been in existance for more than one month and are used on only one page." Basically, so we  don't have to deal with all of the single-use templates on TfD - they should obviously all be substed and deleted. This shouldn't as controversial as T1. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 16:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a very good idea, in my opinion.  There are some series-box-type templates that link primarily to articles which don't exist yet; this wording would allow deleting them if only one of the listed articles happens to exist at the moment.  —Kirill Lokshin 17:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mean succession boxes, we have the generic .  Series boxes (such as on history of Germany should not be created where the majority are red links.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 18:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to get more specific, I meant the templates listed here.  They're something of a special case, I suppose—not really series boxes per se—but it's not uncommon to see them with many red-links. —Kirill Lokshin 18:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Kirill Lokshin. CSDs should only be established when there is no use to considering them in the relevant deletion process, rather than for things that are usually deleted by them. TfD is not a busy place, when people can keep their userbox rages in check, adn it can easily give them the loving attention they need. -Splashtalk 17:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I am fully in support of this policy.  Limiting it to templates not intended for use on articles also works.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 18:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is broken in its present form. At the moment, someone would have simply to edit out all uses of a template they dislike and tag it for speedy. It can be gone within a few minutes, and it is basically impossible for the deleting admin to determine what happened. -Splashtalk 19:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree with this idea. Subst'ing and deleting is a contradictory concept since it's easier to subst an existing template than recover the template code from elsewhere. I consider such moves backdoor attempts at phasing out unwanted templates, particularly in the recent case of Marksweep substing templates wherever possible and then asserting its newly established orphan status as acceptable grounds for speedy deletion. Sarge Baldy 20:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In this, MarkSweep was on the rampage last night, and got 3RR blocked. I found subsequently he had subst'd one of my templates on my userpage, which he knew he didn't have leave to do.  StrangerInParadise 20:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As an aside, while I agree that Mark was being a prat, it does bear mentioning that it's not a requirement that someone give permission for changes on "their" user page.  It's the foundation's user page. - brenneman{T}{L}  21:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a requirement (after all, my user page wears User:Mindspillage/userpages, thank you Mindspillage for creating it, to show I understand that), but it certainly is a long tradition  (cue music from Fiddler on the Roof) not to make changes that might be perceived as destructive rather than helpful to user pages of others. So I don't think I agree with the actions of MarkSweep in this regard. PS props to User:Haukurth for being bold! ++Lar: t/c 14:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  T2 

message: Is "does not assert the notability or significance of the subject" really the most important criteria for speedying? For example, if there were an article that said "L1k5, MR. D00dz is duh meest S1gNiFicunt un4 c00l p5rson EVUR!!!!", it would clearly be speediable, but assuming it was long and detailed enough to not be subject to A1, nothing under the currect CSD would apply to it. 72.224.95.121 02:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know what you mean. I speedy stuff like that saying something like "No serious claim to notability." Haukur 09:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability

message: Some users just reconstruct divisice user boxes on their own pages. Images used solely for that purposed should be speedy deleted. ROGNNTUDJUU! 14:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images solely used for divisive user boxes 

message: I reworded A7 to clarify that a claim to notability had to be "serious" to be counted as a proper claim to notability, with the invitation to revert. As a result, I'm taking it here. AFAIK, most of the time admins speedy pages without a "serious" claim to notability, or one that has a believable base in current policy. What do you think of clarifying this criterion? Werdna648T/C\@ 05:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hard to clarify; there always have to be judgement calls.  My rule of thumb is that if I think anyone might think it contained a claim of notability, I don't delete it. -- SCZenz 06:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is controversial; I and many others already A7 articles whose subject's claim to notability is something like "he also has x-ray vision" stuck onto the end of a student bio.  "Credible" might be a better word than "serious", though, as the latter could be taken to mean a strong claim of notability instead of a believable one. —Cryptic (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "plausible"?  Still rules out x-ray vision.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer "credible", since Verifiability trumps Notability every time around here. -- nae'blis (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: No.  It already casts a wide enough net.  --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 16:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't mind this new addition. This is vanity nonsense vs. possible serious attributes/reputation claims. "He is the best SINGER ever...Soooo HOT!!!" is not good enough. Things like "He is a well-known tuvan throat signer in western Mongolia" may be obscure (and possibly made up), but it still is plausable and there is nothing about it that suggest jest/vanity.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 16:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I suppose JD has a point...I have always assumed that to be implied, so perhaps more wording will not add anything usefull. I guess we should just focus on T1 for now.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 16:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A7 - how believable does a claim of notability have to be? 

message: Someone deleted . He was cute, and I liked having him on my page. The picture was on the BBC half a year ago, and they said it was released by the World Gay Pride thing in Jerusalem, so it must be free.
And someone deleted , claiming noone was using it on an article, but I was using it on my page.
horseboy 17:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because an image is released to the media for distribution doesn't make it free. Also, we do not allow people to use fair use images on their userpages. Johnleemk | Talk 17:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And if an image is fair-use, as opposed to free, and it is used only in the Userspace, as opposed to in an article, then it may be deleted at any time (provided it has been at least 7 days since the upload - to give someone plenty of time to put it in an article). Johntex\talk 06:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

text: On a technical note, images are not able to be undeleted unless there is a server crash or some other massive problem, they are not contributions, they are files.  — xaosflux Talk 05:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do I get an image undeleted 

message: Now that we have Prod, can people go easy on the speedy deletes, please? Speedies should be reserved for straight-out garbarge, mostly. It doesn't take any more effort to send stuff to Prod. I'm still picking up stuff off the speedy delete list that doesn't belong there. I'd say about 20% of the speedies should be Prods or AfD's and half of those are likely keepworthy. And yeah admins are supposed to backstop speedies but it doesn't always happen. So remember: Prod. Herostratus 20:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A request 

message: Sorry, I didn't know where to ask this: Why the hell is the Nintendo article flagged for Speedy Deletion? AFAIK, it's well-written and has good sources. Seems to me like someone online vandal is playing console wars on Wikipedia... —This unsigned comment was added by 200.40.188.174 (talk • contribs) .
:Link please?  I couldn't find what you're talking about, but I'm sure no one will delete an article that was obviously flagged in bad faith. NickelShoe (Talk) 21:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nintendo flagged for Speedy Deletion? 

message: These are typically speedied as common sense anyway, but it may be helpful to specificly outline it here, as they appear on WP:RFD from time to time, but how about "Redirects that were created as a result of obvious page move vandalism"? There aren't too many of them, and they usually get speedied anyway, so this may not be needed, but nonetheless, it may also be useful. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 00:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is included in CSD G3: "Pure vandalism, including redirects created during cleanup of page move vandalism." —Guanaco 00:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *Oh, so it is. I don't know how I missed that. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 00:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed CSD R4 

message: A few words quoted from Jimbo which have not gotten enough attention in all this:
:*g* Funny isn't it?  I keep stumbling across pages ranting against my irrational vendetta and ban of userboxes when basically I'm just saying Everyone please relax a notch or two.--Jimbo Wales 02:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There seems to be an understanding that you have given the OK for mass userbox deletion. I think it would be helpful if you could make it fully clear that this is not the case. Everyking 04:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how I could be any more clear about it.--Jimbo Wales 14:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Well stated. I too support deleting divisive/inflammatory things (although as I have said before I find value in knowing what the POV of an editor is) but not via CSD. The process itself is too divisive. TfD is fast enough and gets to the right outcome often enough and soon enough. As to Jimbo saying I don't know how I could be any more clear about it., I think he COULD be clearer if he wanted to be... he COULD say "Don't speedy userboxes, put them through process". Some of what he says is a bit oracular sometimes. Of course I suspect that's deliberate, in order to not be dictatorial sometimes you have to be obscure... And you know what? I support that too. ++Lar: t/c 16:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why T1 should not be a Speedy criterion

message: Yeah yeah, no one likes the Scrooge who suggests doing something about April Fool's Jokes. But I think we need to speedy obvious April Fools jokes as vandalism while doing newpage/RC patrol on April 1st. We don't catch all of the hoaxes/jokes that are added in any random day, and they often stick around for months with potentially bad consequences... who knows how many hoaxes will join our million+ articles if we take a "Someone will take care of this tomorrow..." attitude towards April Fools jokes. --W.marsh 00:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  The problem last year was so bad that I wanted to recommend that we make a policy to lock out all editing on the first.  It seems like fun at the time but it's way too much work to clean up afterward.  Rossami (talk) 01:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  G3 Vandalism deletions on April 1 

message: Either that or a bit of stability?Geni 12:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Can we have an RSS feed for this page?