Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 20

message: :Banned user. Pages created by banned users while they were banned.
I think the implication of this  should be better explained. Banned users should not be making edits. How about "pages created by ban evading users" -- Cat chi? 17:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or "ban violating".  But I think the current wording says the same thing.  Remember than bans and blocks aren't exactly the same thing, and I don't take G5 to mean that any block-avoiding creation should be spedyable.  Mangojuicetalk 18:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to think of it as both. Blocked users shouldn't even be editing. -- Cat chi? 20:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, but an editor that's evading a block can be blocked, but I don't think there's consensus to wholesale revert or delete everything they do while evading the block.  Others?  Am I wrong?  Mangojuicetalk 22:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always viewed G5 to apply only to banned users and indef-blocked users whom no administrator is willing to unblock (and who are thus effectively banned). The latter is per point 1 of Wikipedia:Banning policy#Decision to ban. I've never thought of pages created by users while temporarily blocked as speedy-able per G5. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 23:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  G5 clarification 

message: How, exactly, do you delete a picture?
:You can't, unless you're an administrator. The picture I think you're referring to will be deleted in a few days by an administrator because its copyright status is unknown. Hut 8.5 08:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About [[Da Volunteers]] picture 

message: A7 currently only lists people, groups, corps, and web content.  I was wondering if this should be expanded, as i have sometimes encountered unremarkable software programs and other things that don't neatly fall into the specific A7 langauge.  It wouldn't be a major change, just something like "does not assert the notability or significance" in a more general fashion.  Is this a good idea? hbdragon88 22:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it isn't.  See above for the basic reasons why it's really not a good idea to expand this further. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Allow me to expand on badlydrawnjeff's point. Many editors think that A7 is already too broadly applied by some. Regardless of one's position on the matter, it is almost guaranteed that any proposed extension will generate significant opposition. Another issue is that it is often difficult to recognise what constitutes an assertion of notability when one is not educated about the subject. This is particularly true when it comes to specialised topics such as chemistry, physics, biology, and even software programs. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 23:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even as something as simple as "so-and-so is a software program"?  Well, I guess that could fall under A1 territory. hbdragon88 23:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It could fall under A1 depending on the actual content of the article. However, I don't think most one-sentence software stubs would be speedy-able per A1, as they seems to consist of "X is a software program by Y for Z", which provides enough context to definitively identify the subject of the article. I think  would probably be better for such cases. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 00:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: In general the danger of deleting unfamiliar things is already great enough with people, and even worse with corporations. Once we get the process running with greater precision, then we can think about expanding it. DGG 04:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't believe this is a problem, as from my experience, 90% of "non-notable software" or "non-notable product" articles fall under G11 anyway. In the few cases that they don't, PROD, or in dubious cases AFD, is fine. - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 16:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I am in favor if adding "products" to the A7 list because of the situation mentioned above. A company article can be deleted under this rule but any number of its product articles remain standing. I propose inserting the word product after company as in "… club, company, product, or web conten …". It logically follows that if a company is unremarkable, its products will also be unremarkable. With the proposed software notability guideline having fallen through the cracks, it would be convenient to have another tool to use with software articles that consist mainly of a feature list, a long list of one-name developers and a link to a download or purchase site. Perhaps tagging with  and using an edit summary of "db-corp: product of unremarkable company" is sufficient? ✤ JonHarder talk 16:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extension of A7 

message: Something I've come across a number of times is an image which has been uploaded for the sole purpose of identifying or mocking someone on an attack page. I generally just delete these images as "attack only" even though that's not literally set out in the image criteria. Would it be useful to explicitly state that images uploaded for this purpose should be speedily deleted? Mak (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: G10 or G3 is fine for these. Remember that the general criteria apply across all namespaces. - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 16:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that this is the main reason why "attack pages" was changed from an article criterion to a general criterion. >Radiant< 16:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New image criterion 

message: I don't know how many of you watch templates, so I'm posting a link to this here. I've just posted a message on Template talk:Nonsensepages proposing to reword the template that some of you might be interested in offering your opinions on. Cheers! - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 23:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reword proposal of G1 template 

message: I'm suggesting once again that the time limits in the criteria for images be removed.
For those who may have wondered at some point or another why the speedy deletion criteria for images have time delays built into them while all of the other criteria do not, the MediaWiki software has only recently (since June last year) supported the undeletion of images. Prior to that, if images were deleted then they could not be restored (indeed, one admin was emergency desysopped when he deleted a bunch of images). This was a very good reason for having delays built in, so that images would have to be tagged before deletion, giving an opportunity to make certain that the images should be deleted.
However, with image undeletion available, this is not necessary at all. If an image is mistakenly deleted, then it can simply be undeleted. There is only one good argument I've heard in favour of delays, and that relates to giving bots an opportunity to do things with images slated for deletion, such as orphaning them. But that can be catered for by using holding categories, and deleting images once the bots have finished their work. --bainer (talk) 00:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That assumes that someone is going to notice the deletion of a legitimate image from an article. I don't see what the disadvantage is to waiting a few days before deleting. —Centrx→talk • 00:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If that is the case, then why aren't there waiting periods on all of the other criteria? --bainer (talk) 00:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because page history can and should be checked to see if the other criteria were met at one point. There is no file link history to see if the image was removed from a page, so there needs to be time for people to notice on the page itself. -Amarkov moo! 00:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Time is a good thing. I'd actually advocate allowing a bit more time to let people correct the problems, but thats me. —— Eagle101Need help? 23:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, surely in CSD I6, the 7 day countdown clock should be starting from the time of tagging, not the time of upload? Jheald 15:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time limits on image speedy deletion 

message: Talk pages for nonexisting pages are often useful...
*  If they contain interesting discussion about a topic that should exist, but the article at that headword was so bad that people decided on AfD to delete rather than blank (a better fix would be to blank more often as the result of AfD, but this doesn't happen atm)
*  If they contain non-deletion discussion about the topic that is relevant
*  If they contain discussion that began separate from the article's existence and was moved to the article talk page when it seemed relevant (in which case the page should be merged elsewhere, not deleted).  
In general, speedying something by association is dangerous, and should be treated here with more care.  +sj + 07:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe an admin could explain.  It seems to me that if a deleted page is validly recreated, then the talk page could be undeleted upon request.  People might not know to ask, but it would solve some of the problems you raise. Placeholder account 07:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Right. The great majority of these pages have no relevance after the original page is deleted; the contain mainly templates from the various assessment teams and the like. To a considerable extent, retaining them in general would obviate some of the virtues of having deleted the usually spurious article. But there are times to do it, and there are examples of such pages where this has been done. . Just ask either of us. DGG 03:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  G8 needs revisiting. 

message: Images #6 should say that boilerplate fair use templates DO constitute a fair use rationale, IF the boilerplate contains enough enough rationale. For example
or 
if it's used only on the page about the game or album in question, the image is low resolution and no free alternative can be made. Comments? I'm bringing this up because someone is flagging thousands of images for deletion. --Apoc2400 09:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Already being discussed several places, please don't start another parallel thread here. See Template talk:Non-free album cover#Hard coding the fair use rationale in to the template for one such discussion. --tjstrf talk 09:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale and boilerplates

message: See WP:AN#Deletion summaries for attack pages.  Given the relevance to this policy, I thought I ought to post a pointer here too.  To summarize, I think that using prefilled deletion summaries for G10 deletions should probably be avoided.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion summaries for attack pages 

message: The text on Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Deletion templates for  suggests a fair use rationale is the same thing as a fair use tag:
:"Bad fair use rationale - image tagged for fair use under a rationale that is patently irrelevant to the actual image, like  on a photo of a celebrity. Please notify uploader on their talk page using ."
Besides a copyright tag, each fair use image needs a fair use rationale explaning the purpose of use on Wikipedia. Either there should be made a difference between a bad fair use rationale and a bad fair use tag. I suggest the text is changed to:
:"Bad fair use tag - image is tagged for fair use with a tag patently irrelevant to the image, like  on a photo of a celebrity. Please notify uploader on their talk page using ."
– Ilse@ 11:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Support. Good call. Well spotted.  Jheald 15:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale is not fair use tag 

message: I'd like to propose another criterion for speedy deletion of user pages. I believe that all pages of users with no encyclopedic contributions whatsoever, and being used as a Myspace substitute should be deleted. Many of these pages have been nominated on MfD, and they're pretty much cluttering up the place. —Crazytales (public computer) (talk) (main) 14:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a tough matter to determine clearly though, and since it's userspace, it's almost always worth asking the user to stop first. How would you propose wording it, and how busy is it really making MFD? Last I checked it was maybe 10-15%, and that's not a high-traffic page. 64.126.24.12 14:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The wording I'm proposing is: "User pages of users that have made no contributions outside of their own user space and that contain no information that could be considered encyclopedic" - that should cut down on the MFDing traffic, while getting the most obvious violations. It's about 30-40% at the moment as far as I see. —Crazytales (public computer) (talk) (main) 19:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to see a length-of-time since creation criterion for the criterion (boy, that's recursive), and your proposal (as written) isn't just for social networking pages, but anyone who does not use their userpage for drafting articles. Needs to be much tighter. 64.126.24.12 22:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my heart, I like the idea, but I don't think the practical implementation will work.  I routinely tag long userpages with prod, using a summary like "User's only edit; WP is not Myspace."  Only in rare cases does it need to come to MFD.  Also, MFD is not really cluttered; it could easily handle double the traffic it currently sees.  Basically, I've seen test pages in userspace from 2004 and 2005 when that was the user's only edit, and I've blanked them or tagged them G2, and admins have advised me not to bother with these. YechielMan 08:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PROD may be a more suitable venue, I actualy haven't seen many prodded userpages. Maybe because Ihaven't been checking CAT:PROD. —Crazytales (public computer) (talk) (main) 13:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: That might have a false positive though. SOme editors value communication between people very highly, and thus have a higher usertalk then mainspace edit count. (Though of course the useratlk edits are relevent to encyclopedia building) For instance, I have 1700 mainspace eidts and 1100 usertalk on my main account. It's not much of a stretch to see that I may have more usertalk than mainspace edits if I communicated a lot. —Crazytales (public computer) (talk) (main) 13:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: An effective new page patroller is supposed to have more non-deleted edits to user talk pages than to mainspace. Let's try to use common sense instead of a perfect definition. Kusma (talk) 13:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSD U4 proposal (myspacing) 

message: Some time ago, I added to the page the advice that an editor who nominates an article for speedy deletion should always mention that fact in the edit summary.  I thought this would be non-controversial.  Shortly thereafter, however, another editor weakened my phrasing to "it is a good idea to...".
I do not understand this.  There does not seem to be any good or legitimate reaon why anyone should ever nominate an article for speedy deletion without mentioning that fact in the edit summary.  
The guidelines at Help:Edit summary say:
:Always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline.
I have strengthened the wording again, to say "Please be sure to supply an edit summary that mentions that the article is being nominated for deletion."  
If there is actually an issue here for debate or discussion, I would be glad to discuss it.  But at present I cannot see what the other side of the argument could possibly be; it seems to me to be a completely unobjectionable request.   -- Dominus 17:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A possible objection might be that this slows down deleting of large numbers of articles, but there are tools to deal with this, really. Dcoetzee 18:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it should always be mentioned.  I think the concern is that it's not like forgetting to mention it in the edit summary makes the deletion request void or something. NickelShoe (Talk) 18:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I was the editor that rephrased Dominus' edit, and that's exactly what I was trying to avoid. When we use "must" and "always", we make it sound like they have broken process if they do not do so. Wikipedia's definition of "guideline" is not well-understood by everyone. 64.126.24.11 19:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Clearly identifying editing activites, especially when nominating a page for deletion (XfD, prod, speedy) should always trump the "but it's easier" argument. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support saying that one should always do this.  I just wouldn't support punishing someone for ignoring this issue, as long as they're still trying to help.  Mangojuicetalk 20:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The article isn't gone forever; you can always submit it to Deletion review if you feel that it was unfair, or you can ask an admin (yo) to restore the article if you've got substantial edits to make that would address the speedy deletion criteria. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did already get it back, thanks.  But that is an orthogonal issue. -- Dominus 00:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I completely agree that proper edit summaries should be used; I just wanted to make sure that you were fully taken care of. Glad to hear you are. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit summaries 

message: §C3 specifies: "Template categories. If a category is solely populated from a template (e.g. Category:Wikipedia cleanup from ) and the template is deleted per deletion policy, the category can also be deleted without further discussion.". But, when the template is getting deleted, then the category will probably be empty, and thus deletable per §C1. I know a long time ago, the categories wasn't updated directly, but now adays, they are, so there is not a big problem. I believe it's a rather unnecessary criteria, and could easly be removed. →AzaToth 19:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well C1 technicaly says you have to wait 5 days though (not sure to what degree that is actualy followed, for one there is no way to tell how long a category have actualy been empty), anyway I would think it would just be common sense to get rid of such categories without much fanfare, but then again a lot of the criteria are common sense things, so I guess there is no harm in having this written down either. --Sherool (talk) 21:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to comment on the uselessness of the "wait 5 days" limitation. If a category had members less than five days ago, it's difficult to prove. You'd have to find individual diffs showing the more recent removal of category links from one or more pages (which may or may not be by the same user who marked the category for deletion). If a category has actually been empty more than five days, you couldn't prove that at all (not without doing fully searching the next database dump to see that no revisions within a certain time range contained a link to the category). This is because Special:Relatedchanges only shows edits to pages which are currently in the category, not ones freshly removed. — CharlotteWebb 01:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lets remove C3 

message: I agree with the idea, but I think the wording needs to be better. Instead of "For the same reasoning as templates, user categories that group editors by position on a divisive or inflammatory issue" how about "...user categories that explicitly advocate a particular point of view on a divisive, inflammatory or controversial issue". This is less open-ended, seems more in line with what actually got deleted. Moreschi  Talk 19:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't make sense. That covers none of the deletions that were endorsed. Categories don't advocate a point of view, they categorize people according to point of view. That was my initial version, which was changed. Dmcdevit·t 20:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary section break

message: Can we reword this to emphasize that it's meant for exact copies of the deleted article?
Any recreated article is, by definition, going to be about the same topic.  That's certainly not a criteria for speedy deletion; it should go to a regular AfD.  This criteria is only for articles that are exactly the same; copied before deletion and pasted back in afterwards, with a minimal number of edits since then. — Omegatron 20:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They would not necessarily be on the same topic either, especially less likely if the title is a person's name. But yes I see your point here. If an improved version of an article on the same topic is posted, it should not be speedy deleted. In fact the old deleted edits should be restored underneath it if the new version is obviously derived from the old one (containing any of the same sentences or paragraphs). I think the phrasing "substantially identical" is clear enough. If you can look at the two versions and immediately notice the difference, it's not "substantially identical". — CharlotteWebb 23:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: "Substantially identical" means "identical in every way that matters".  In other words, you can't just change one word to escape G4.  I'm not sure what wording needs to be changed - the criterion already means what you are seeking to change it to. --BigDT 01:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with BigDT here, I'm not sure what your criticism is here. Trying to be more specific will just generate ruleslawyering. -- nae'blis 02:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I may be --for a change--a little less permissive than some about this:  think it ought to mean, a copy which is the same in substance by not having addressed any of the problems which got it deleted. What would be permitted, for example, is that if it was deleted because there were no references, and you added some, if because there was copyright material and you removed it; it it contained BBLP and you fixed it; it it was loaded with spam, and you removed it. What should not be permitted, and continue to be speediable, are trivial changes: if there were paragraphs full of spam, and you removed just a little, if all the references were from the subject, and you added another one but also from the subject, if it was intrinsically non-notable, and you changed the wording around.   Let's face it, there will always be people trying to slide by essentially unfixed versions, and there will on the other hand always be people who were strongly opposed to the article, who will call any reworking, no matter how satisfactory, a re-creation. wherever we draw the line, there will be problems. (I'll mention one special case: trivial changes in the title do not avoid the ban on re-creation. Nothing is more  common than for someone to add or remove a middle initial and try again.)DGG 07:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Even that would need to go to a normal AfD, to determine whether the original problems have been addressed.  Speedy should only be applicable to articles which are based exactly on the deleted version, with almost identical wording.   If the article's been rewritten from scratch, it's not good enough that one admin considers it to be the same article; it needs to go to a normal AfD and be determined to be a copy by consensus. — Omegatron 01:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then every article is going to get 50 AfDs. —Centrx→talk • 02:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Frequently it is a matter of obvious fact (rather than opinion) whether the "problems have been addressed". For instance, if an article is AFD'ed for lack of sources, it is easy to see whether a recreation does or does not have sources. >Radiant< 07:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "provided that the copy is substantially identical" 

message: I'm still a bit foggy on csd for images.  This :Image:Clemensatyankeestadium.jpg was uploaded with a claim for public domain, but the meta-data shows its copyrighted to Getty Images.  Can this be speedy deleted or does it sit around for a week like other images?  —Gaff ταλκ 22:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think G12 (Blatant copyright infringement) would apply. -- Ned Scott 22:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh good grief ... what Real Man of Genius (tm) took a pd-self license from an spa named Mike123454325 seriously and moved it to commons? --BigDT 04:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bogus license, copyvio, is this a speedy? 

message: I propose to change the header of that section to
:For any user pages that are not speedy deletion candidates, use Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion or Wikipedia:proposed deletion if the user has made few or no contributions to the encyclopedia.
WP:PROD#How_it_works states that Only articles may be proposed for deletion. The only exceptions to this rule are pages in the User and User talk namespaces which may be proposed for deletion if the user has no recent edits and has made few or no contributions to the encyclopedia, this should probably be reflected here also. -- lucasbfr talk 08:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that, if there are no other objections, I'd have no problem with you adding it. GracenotesT § 21:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  small (I hope) change at User pages 

message: This talk page gets long quickly with all of the comments that are posted. I think it might be helpful if we added , perhaps set to 7 days after the last comment. Anyone else agree? -- kenb215 talk 23:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually if the template and bot had enough customizable features it could be used everywhere. But I'm not aware of any way to get it to move to the next archive once the previous one reaches a maximum size, other than watching it like you would a gas pump. — CharlotteWebb 23:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we use Template:AutoArchivingNotice here 

message: A question regarding CSD A2 (article that exists on a foreign language wikipedia), does this exclusively mean a foreign article which has been copy-pasted over from (part of) a foreign language wiki article, or do foreign articles which appear to have been written from scratch, but an article on the same topic exists on a foreign language wiki, also meet the criterion? The example which has brought this up is Palmares, Pernambuco, which appears to have been written from scratch, but an article about the city also exists over at :pt:Palmares. - Zeibura(talk) 08:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess nobody answered yet.  The idea of CSD A2 is that there's really no point having this article in the wrong language wiki because it already exists where it needs to be.  If the article doesn't exist in any of the wikis but it's in the wrong language, usually it goes to requests for translation unless it's clearly useless.  So if another language has the article, even if the text is not the same, that's a valid CSD A2.  As it happened, someone translated the article into English, and I added the interwiki links, so everything's in good shape. YechielMan 06:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSD A2 

message: What speedy deletion criteria would userpages in CAT:TEMP fall under? They don't fit exactly into any of the criteria, but they still need to be speedily deleted. Sean William @ 19:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't say they were speedy candidates. The category text says "these pages should be deleted after a suitable period of time", so that's not speedy deletion; placing the userpage in the category marks it for deletion at a later date. It's a separate deletion method, so to speak. - Zeibura(talk) 20:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After said time expires, then it would be fair game for somewhat speedy deletion. That's what I'm referring to. Sean William @ 01:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the most appropriate speedy deletion criterion would be CSD G6 (uncontroversial housekeeping), although perhaps Zeibura is right that it constitutes a de facto separate deletion method. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 01:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:PROD accepts userpages now, I could see tagging it there if  doesn't fit... -- nae'blis 03:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, housekeeping cleanup (or G6). Note that "speedy" in this context does not mean "immediately", it means "without the need for further discussion". >Radiant< 16:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curious 

message: That was fast.  KP Botany 23:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks 

message: Today, I came across :Wii v. PS3, which is a redirect to Wikipedia:List of Humourous Articles/Wii v. PS3. Would CSD R2 apply for redirects from mainspace to the Wikipedia namespace? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 08:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, although this particular one doesn't seem necessary. Cross space redirects can be useful though, for instance shortcuts such as WP:NOT and C:CSD are technically both in the mainspace. - Zeibura(talk) 08:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had always assumed that shortcuts were using "quasi-namespaces" and as such, were okay. So you're saying that if I put  on :Wii v. PS3, it wouldn't necessarily be covered under CSD R2, but would probably get deleted anyway? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 13:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably best to take it to WP:RFD. There might be a reason behind it being here. - Zeibura (Talk) 15:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification of R2 

message: This needs greater clarification. What is "divisive and inflammatory" is very vague writing. Virtually anything can be considered inflammatory to somebody. This section definently needs expansion and rewriting.--SefringleTalk 21:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a known problem however any attempt to fix it is likely to cause way more  problems than are solved.Geni 23:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the easy solution would be to remove something vague; probably not going to be agreed upon, so I think it needs to be discussed. Otherwise anything can be deleted if somebody doesn't like it, and that is just censorship.--SefringleTalk 23:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is however the last userbox wars were bad enough and we could do without them being restarted.Geni 23:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, especially since any political userbox is at risk of being deleted per T1 apparently, even if majority consensus is against it.--SefringleTalk 06:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: As I've stated before, I believe T1 creates conflict rather than avoids it, resent its installment by decree, and believe it's far too subjective to be a CSD. I'm all for making it more objective and/or weakening it, but ultimately wouldn't really settle for anything other than its elimination. 08:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I would also be in favor of removing it. Look at the recent Deletion Review involving a user box. Some editors are treatin this as "Any userbox that expresses a persona opnion may be speedy deleted." When this was proposed, it was said that such user boxes as "I am a democrat" or "I am a Republican" were of course safe, but at least links to such have recently been deleted. Deletions under this criterion are and have been far more "inflamatory and devisive" than any of the user boxes deleted. This ought to go. DES (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. I propose changing WP:CSD#T1 to: "Templates that are divisive and inflammatory should go to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion and judged by consensus." Opinions?--SefringleTalk 04:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Like what do you suggest?--SefringleTalk 04:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:CSD#T1]]

message: Does anyone else think it would be useful if A7 was expanded to include articles related to a non-notable band (e.g. "The new single by...", "Our up and coming album", etc.)?  Many times such articles will fall under A1 or G11 as well -- but even in my small length of time patrolling Newpages, there have been many exceptions.  Several times I've had to A7 a high school band's entry and PROD related pages that were also created by the editor in order to fully comply with the rules.  Thoughts? Iknowyourider (t c) 17:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt it's necessary.  If you feel that PROD doesn't work well enough, why not just merge those pages into the A7-tagged band page, and then tag them with  after it is deleted?  Mangojuicetalk 17:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a very good idea.  Thanks!  Iknowyourider (t c) 17:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet another A7 scope-widening proposal 

message: After patrolling new pages, I've noticed pages about non-notable events, ie: a walk that a school holds annually. It obviously should be speedily deleted, but I didnt know what tag to place. I think A7 should be expanded to include non-notable events, and a corresponding "db-events" or the like be created. Just my opinion. What does everyone think? Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  An example  of possible overuse of the present criteria is now at  Deletion Review . The first sentence of the article read: "CLSA is an award-winning brokerage house ..." DGG 20:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One, by a very experienced admin, is CSD a7 for an author of a book--the article says it was o the NYT best sellers list for a number of weeks. A concurring voice at  Del Rev from an equally experienced admin. give the reason, promotional in tone"  If we can't stop this sort of thing we should remove A7. DGG 13:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An expansion to A7 

message: I must suggest to split "This also includes empty (i.e., no content) image description pages for Commons images." from I2. Either move that clause to either I8 or G6, or create a new I9 for that. →AzaToth 16:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest making it part of I8 as its always going to be in cases where images are on Commons. It doesn't really make sense lumping that in with I2 as it has nothing to do with corrupted images. Also I understand that various scripts orphan images deleted under I2 (which obviously shouldn't happen if its just an empty description page for a Commons image). This seems a pretty uncontroversial change. WjBscribe 16:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split I2