Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 1

message: # Deleting a redirect (which has no useful history) to make way for a non-controversial page move.
# Temporarily deleting a page in order to merge page histories after a cut and paste move.
I added these because we already do this. Any objections? Martin 13:28, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  more speedy deletion 

message: One of the rules for speedy deletion is Very short pages with little or no definition or context (eg "He is a funny man that has created Factory and the Hacienda. And, by the way, his wife is great.").
The Cunctator changed this to say Very short pages with no definition...'.
I replaced the "little or". Any objections? Angela 14:08, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)
I think that saying "little definition" is fine as shown in the example given in the guideline. Angela 00:12, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)
But I think you are wrong. Since "little" is such a subjective word, when an administrator finds that something with "little" context, he or she should be in doubt and follow another "rule". "Rule" since the "rules" you talk about someone trying to change are at most 1.5 months old and werent meant to be "rules" to begin with. BL 01:21, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I just wasn't in the mood for an edit war that day. . Angela 00:40, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Little or no content?

message: I suggest we should add "Dictionary definitions" to "Candidates for speedy deletion." Kingturtle 19:45, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't disagree with this suggestion, but I expect others will strongly oppose it. Angela 20:30, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  dictionary deletions 

message: This seems fine to me - though I wonder if it would be better to leave the redirect hanging around just until the user in question has seen the new location? Otherwise they might mistake the move for a delete, which would be bad. Martin 18:39, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I think moving it and leaving them a message explaining on their talk page would be sufficient without the need for the redirect. Angela 18:59, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

text: As long as they are not kept permanently I don't mind. I feel strongly they should be deleted after seven days at most though. Angela 21:18, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can agree on that, definately - maybe even less than that. Martin 21:29, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

text: I did move the history: I just checked. But I forgot to move the history of the talk page. I'll fix now. Martin 02:52, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for explaining. I suppose I must have somehow ended up looking at the history of the wrong page... Anyway, in light of this I have reworded the bit on user pages to say that people should move the whole page using the "Move this page" tool, rather than just cutting and pasting the content. I hope that's not a controversial change... -- Oliver P. 03:08, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  home pages accidentally created in main article space 

message: I've added "Articles which have already been moved via the transwiki system" to the candidates for speedy deletion. My reasoning is explained more fully at m:talk:transwiki. Angela. 03:21, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just moving, as most of the information in the edit history is lost. (The edit history contains the full text of every past version of the article, not just the list of authors, and can be used to work out which author wrote which section.) But I won't comment any further until I've got to grips with how this "transwiki system" works... -- Oliver P. 04:00, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: Perhaps we should recommend people copy the info, and then list the articles for deletion to turn that copy into a move? Dunno. Martin 18:41, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: Delete them, and delete them quickly.  A page can always go through the process to be undeleted if the old history is needed.  Atributing the authors is easy enough by copying the page history from the old location, thus no FDL problems.  We have had data forks occur to articles that have been moved to the new project but not yet finished their time at VfD that then recieved a concensus to delete, meaning the article had to be transwikied twice. Gentgeen 14:02, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not only the history which may be desired. It's the work itself. One work wanting an item does not mean that the other doesn't want it. You're assuming that the original work will always want to delete it. That's not the case. I trust that you are copying the history over both when copying and listing on VfD, because the history will not always be available via undeleting and in any case has to be available for normal inspection, not admin-only inspection. If I recall correctly, every deleted item and all of their history was lost during the database problem in early June - deleted items and their history weren't backed up. I forget how long the deleted items are normally retained for but it's not life plus several decades. Jamesday 14:49, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[m:Transwiki|Transwiki]]

message: I think we should add to this list: Articles that contain *only* one or more external links. On Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, #12 says Wikipedia is not "mere collections of external links." Letting such articles linger send a message to users that such posts are okay. Such posts should be deleted immediately. Kingturtle 03:34, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: It's kind of already there, just not in the list. Just below the list it says "Opinions differ as to the correct approach to pages with only external links, and also to pages that are perceived as purely trolling", which I took to mean that you can't be accused of deleting out of process if you delete it but that some people might complain anyway. Angela. 03:37, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: I was already deleting such articles. I considered them covered by exception #4 : 'Very short pages with little or no definition or context (eg "He is a funny man that has created Factory and the Hacienda. And, by the way, his wife is great.").' -- Cyan 03:39, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: I suppose I can't really complain if people do this, because "little or no definition or context" does seem to cover it. (However, I don't think it's the best course of action to take, as expanding into stubs would be better.) -- Oliver P. 04:04, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: : Deleting something that is an exact copy of something else.
I may have missed the discussion on this - but wouldn't a redirect make more sense in these cases? If someone is just pasting random text under random titles, well that's vandalism. What are the use cases for this?
I'm a little concerned about cases like the death camp/extermination camp thing - such issues would not be improved by delay-free sysop deletion. Perhaps we should restrict such deletions to uncontroversial cases? Martin 00:37, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This was added in relation to an issue that arose over the deletion of a duplicate image. Obviously a redirect couldn't happen there but for articles, I agree a redirect would normally make sense. However, are there GFDL issues of someone just copying a whole page without attribution to another title? It might be better in such cases to delete and then redirect. Angela. 01:24, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)
OK - shall we change "something" to "images"? I think that makes perfect sense, and it means that sysops can handle trivial cases of images uploaded with wrong name/wrong format without bothering wikipedia:images for deletion. Martin 01:33, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exact copies 

message: Cant we promote Vanity Pages as Kilian Knote to Candidates for speedy deletion? If a mistake is made and the person is indeed famous, the article will reappear anyway. This could help reduce the size of VfD. Muriel 08:19, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why, sometimes its difficult to tell the difference between a vanity page and an article on an encyclopedic subject thats badly written and looks like vanity. Saul Taylor 08:37, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Of course not.  Most "vanity pages" aren't actually vanity at all. The person may reappear, but all the previous information would be lost. Anthony DiPierro 12:38, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah! Ah! Muriel 22:24, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: I oppose this ideal Muriel. Perl 13:29, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Oppose. Some people don't do enough checking of what are vanity pages, one example being . The reasons for the deletion listing were both shown to be wrong. Not doing even basic checking before listing on VfD is way too common and making these speedy deletions woould get these things inappropriately deleted. Jamesday 17:15, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Other so called "vanity" pages were Sidney Morgenbesser (deleted as a copyright violation from Vanity Fair magazine), Richard Haynes (TIME magazine once referred to him as one of the top six criminal lawyers in America), and Pei-Yuan Wei (creator of one of the first graphically-based web browsers). Anthony DiPierro 17:43, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: From the current VfD:  Adam_Jacob_Muller, James_S._Baker, Trevor and  Lemuel Longley, Daniel_Pak, Derek_Arnold... All of these are clearly pranks/nonsense, in the sense that I would stake my future reputation as arbiter of 'patent nonsense' on my claims that they can be speedily deleted.  It would be nice to allow for quick (1-day?) VfD listing and deletion of pages, which could then be viewed for another five days (they might get their own page w/a link from VfD) and commented on only if people thought the deletion had been inappropriate.
Is there some kind of rush? Martin 21:44, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Vanity Pages

message: After some concerns about the speedy deletion of two clitoris images, I changed the speedy deletion text for images to add the text in italics: "Deleting an image which is an exact copy (all bits the same) of something else, redundant, and unused. To assist those reviewing the deletion, please edit the image description page first and identify the alternative image and the article where it is used". The intent here is to avoid unnecessarily wondering whether the deleting party is acting properly and reduce unecessary friction between admins. Please see Wikipedia:Speedy deletions and the talk pages of those involved for more background.  Jamesday 03:19, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't make a lot of sense when that image description page is about to be deleted. Perhaps suggesting using a decent edit summary when deleting it mightbe more helpful? Angela. 02:11, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  The image description page is only going to be deleted if the image is a candidate for speedy deletion. The information is intended to assist with assist with confirming that it is an eligible candidate. A good comment to go with the deletion would also be welcome, of course. Jamesday 14:53, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand. You're about to delete a page, so why on earth would you edit it and then delete it? Do you mean this instruction to apply to non-sysops adding the  tag? If so, perhaps that instruction should go to Wikipedia:Speedy deletions. There is no requirement for sysops to edit a page they are about to delete. Angela. 06:15, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Identical images

message: Several people have claimed that patently false information is not grounds for deletion.  This is a position I simply don't understand.  If I write "Superman's secret identity is Fred Doe" in an article titled Fred Doe, why CAN'T it be speedy deleted?  Why does this patently false garbage need to go through VfD?  RickK 18:43, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
:I believe the argument is something along the lines of "in case Superman really is Fred Doe". Angela. 00:30, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)
: Sometimes admins think something is patently false, and it turns out to be true. It's happened on VfD in the past, IIRC. Martin 21:45, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Is false information grounds for deletion

message: I think the following is a reasonable reason for speedy delete:
:Duplicate of existing article, or a duplicate of a previous version of an existing article.
See: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion#Minorities_in_U_S_and_IQ_tests_.97_Add_to_this_discussion
-- UtherSRG 20:21, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed new rule 

message: Should blatant advertisments be speedy deletable?  I've seen some ads that have grown into semi-encyclopic, ugly stubs, but for the most part they all get drowned in VfD.  It might be better for wikipedia in general if blatant advertisments could be speedy deleted.  —siroχo 00:21, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
* I have seen enough salvagable articles make it through and become good articles to be worth the trouble of listing them and asking for public comment.  Rossami 01:21, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ads and speedies 

message: I recently found a new user who made a cut & paste move.  I reverted the old page, sent the user a message, and listed the new page on Speedy Deletions.  Was this the right thing to do?  Cut & Paste moves don't seem to be specifically listed on Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion or on Wikipedia:Deletion policy.  Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves seems to be aimed at administrators.  -- Creidieki 23:50, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In most cases, the best solution is to redirect the new page to the old page. Martin 21:47, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cut & Paste Moves 

message: (William M. Connolley 18:39, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text of speedy-delete tag 

message: I've recently come across an article Frank N. D. Buchman with the contents "Sorry... I don't want to promote myself, but I'm active in the MRA movement since 1968. I do have MRA Sing-Out groups in our province in the Philippines, mostly students in different schools and we do toured to other places bringing out peace, hope, joy, togetherness, brotherhood via sing-out songs (speak-outs and drama). Today, for 5 years, again I have a group here at the University of Batangas in Philippines and we still alive singing, teach ins promoting the 4 absolute standards of MRA.
The students had some research about the MRA and even the parents let their children join the group. Thank you. UP, UP WITH PEOPLE!!!!
MR. DINDO Q. CATRAL- MRA COORDINATOR UNIVERSITY OF BATANGAS BATANGAS CITY PHILIPPINES- 4200
MY E-MAIL ADDRESS: d_catral@ub.edu.ph.
pls. send me a note"
and no previous history. Could we add such blatant misuses as a speedy deletion candidate? Proposed rule: Articles misused as talk pages or blatant advertisments (including a "drop-me-a-line" statement) may be speedy deleted. I really don't see what we'd gain by letting this article sit around on VfD.
Another rule that seems to be current practice but which I'd like to see codified is Copyright infringing /Temp replacements for already flagged copyright infringements may be speedy deleted if neither the talk pages of the article nor WP:CP show any indication of the suspected infringement being disputed.
Lupo 10:56, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Rules

message: Is there any reason not to make empty categories with no text speedy deletion candidates?  I would think they already fall under the "patent nonsense" definition, but apparently people disagree. anthony (see warning) 12:40, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories