Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 14

message: Recently, I've modified  to offer an optional parameter, like so: =The speedy deletion of this page is contested. 
Note that this request is not binding, and the page may still be deleted if it is considered that the page unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if the .
To the author: Please place this notice on the article itself, not the talk page. 
This doesn't change the parameterless form of the template, but it does do the following:
#Allows an editor to provide the viewing admin with a short explanation of why the  tag is in error without resorting to the talk page
#Helps point out which articles are hoaxes and which users are up to no good (specifically, the ones who add "")
#Gives legitimate editors a tool in fending off ridiculously quick deletions with faulty reasoning
#In many cases may eliminate the need to create a talk page
#Mirrors the  tag's optional "open-ended response"
#Counterparts tags in support of deletion like 
My introduction of this parameter can be said to be intended as a solution for the problem of overlooked reasoning against deletion on talk pages. At least one other editor has agreed that administrators do not always check talk pages before deletion, especially in cases where an article should seemingly be deleted without question.
As I do a lot of recent changes patrol, I've seen my share of deleteworthy articles as well as a lot of frivolous s. However, this new functionality does not just cater to vandals or inexperienced editors – it is a possible timesaver for everyone involved.
The reason I'm bringing this up on this talk page (in addition to fear of it going all but unseen at Template talk:Hangon) is because it somewhat changes the whole speedy deletion plan that's currently in place. It has a likelihood of replacing the "see talk page" concept in a lot of situations, but it may also be needless, since there's only so much thoughtful argument one can fit in a  box. Thus, it runs the risk of eliminating the thoughtful process of "taking it to the talk page" in favor of hasty, ill-conceived pleas wedged below a speedy deletion tag. Still, it's all that is needed in many cases. Many articles are deleted before the  process is completed, and many editors who don't want their articles deleted simply enter their reasoning below the hangon or speedy tag on the article page.
I think this is a good change for the reasons above and because I think the  tag could have used some more planning right from the start; if a person is to remove the tag after his or her explanation is written, for example, then how does the expedient deletionist administrator ever know it was there in the first place? I'm bringing this discussion here – and it certainly doesn't have to be a long one – because if this parameter gains general acceptance, I plan to add usage instructions to it on the  template, meaning this idea will be reflected in every mainspace speedy deletion tag.
So – does anyone have an objection to the placement of anti-deletion arguments inside the  tag in lieu of longer arguments on the talk page, as speedy deletion templates currently suggest? To clarify, this would not eliminate the ability of an editor to post to the talk page of a speedied article if desired.
And secondly: is it okay with everyone to just do away with the current practice of removing  tags after talk page discussions are completed? It seems to me an unnecessary practice, as  tags don't create much more overhead, if any, nor do they necessarily insist on extra consideration from an administrator before he or she decides to delete. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 04:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Place 'an additional explanation may be present on the talk page', linking 'talk page', inside the parametered version of the template, then I'll agree with this. Your second solution is definitely a good idea, as long as admins remember to always check the talk page when doing a deletion (as it'll normally be a redlink, this shouldn't be too much trouble). --ais523 12:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, sure. I should've mentioned that I do intend to preserve that phrasing, except in another tag. Here's my sandbox concept for , by the way: User:Omicronpersei8/sb/Db-meta -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 13:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, I've just added(Admins, please be sure to check the talk page for further explanation if applicable.)to  (a sandbox copy of it). Will that do it? -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 13:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Support this. However, I'm not sure why this discussion's on WT:PROD; make sure nobody objects on, say, Template talk:Hangon and Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion before you make the change. --ais523 14:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Why did I put it here? (Moved from WT:PROD; I'm a little off today) -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 15:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I noticed this change yesterday, I'm in full support of it.  Good move. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm against it.  There has been a lot of shifting lately towards having commentary about the article on the article page: the hangon tag has to go there or else admins would always have to look on the talk page to see if one was there.  But the reason, just like any other discussion (and especially defense of content another editor finds objectionable), should go on the talk page only.  Besides, most people who have to use the hangon tag would just leave the reason empty.  Mangojuicetalk 17:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: That's true, I suppose.  I guess this would have the benefit of not listing the talk page for speedy deletion as well as the article page... Mangojuicetalk 05:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have very good points above, obviously.Regarding the placement of the tag (parameterized or not), I don't see it as being any more inappropriate on the article page than a  already is. On the talk page, it would create an extra entry at :CAT:CSD, and this functionality is unavoidable since a lot of new editors delete speedy tags to replace then with . That's not really a major problem, though.About it placing more commentary on the article page, I again see a parameterized  on an article's main page as being only a little more out-of-encyclopedic character than  or . It certainly runs the risk of putting semi-nonsense in large letters on the article page, but it doesn't have to. Editors can also use this parameter to cite policy in a formal and rational style as well. In a case where an article may be saved by a quick mentioning of relevant and sensible policy, I don't see a reason for creating two different pages to delete. If an editor (i.e. the speedy-tagging one) disagrees with the reason, he or she can take it to the article creator's talk page or can at least use the creator's talk page to point them toward article talk. This seems a logical enough process to me to make explicit mentions on templates unnecessary. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 18:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{[[Template:hangon|hangon]]}} revamp / somewhat major {{[[Template:db-meta|db-meta]]}} modification 

message: Is anyone involved in the CSD G11 creation/development working on an appropriate message to leave on users' talk pages?  Where should such a discussion take place?  (Forgive me; Wikipedia is extremely byzantine when it comes to certain aspects of policy changes.)  For the G11 I've deleted, I've left a note on users' talk pages about how Wikipedia is not a soapbox, but it's a bit tedious to type out all the time.  A templated warning would be great. -- Merope Talk 20:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume you mean for users whose articles were speedily deleted under CSD G11?  No discussion is necessary, just make one (or I will if you want, I kinda like making templates).  You can even make your own version in your userspace if you want. :)  Mangojuicetalk 20:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You like making templates?  Then have at it, my friend!  And, yes, that is what I meant.  Even though the people whose articles we're deleting are likely to be single purpose accounts, I still believe in WP:BITE just in case.  And I think explaining why the article gets deleted repeatedly may help in stopping its recreation.  (Or in justifying a block later.)  If you want my input, just drop a line on my talk page.  -- Merope Talk 20:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also encourage anyone to make more templates :) Mathiastck 17:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Made one at User:Mangojuice/spam.  I'm just not sure what to call it, so I didn't put it in template space just yet.  :Template:Deleted-spam, perhaps?  Choose a name and move it there.  Mangojuicetalk 05:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like Mangojuice's message, but personally I'd replace "and Wikipedia content must be neutral, not promotional" with "not an advertising service". -- Steel 17:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia articles promote things merely by existing.  Many users create or edit articles with the goal in mind of promoting the topic of that article.  Why was wikipedia created in the first place?  To promote something I'd bet.  We just have to make sure we promote without violating any other guideline.  Mathiastck 17:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What nonsense. Wikipedia articles don't promote things just by existing. -- Steel 17:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why is there a passionate DRV over Diane Farrell? Articles do promote their subjects, at least in the sense "There's no such thing as bad publicity". Septentrionalis 19:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I kind of thought that was self evident.  I trust a company just a bit more if it hasa  good wikipedia page, with lots of edits, etc..  The wikipedia article on said company thereby helped promote the company, merely by existing.  Mathiastck 16:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, I've moved the template draft to :Template:Deleted-spam.  Be WP:BOLD if you think anything needs updating.  The template is not currently worded to imply that the person leaving the message was the one who deleted it, though there is the bit about "feel free to leave a message at my talk page," which implies that the message-leaver is the one to discuss the issue with.  Mangojuicetalk 04:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  G11 user talk warning 

message: Why is there a need for "statute of limitations" for A8:db-copyright, which says that "The page was created less than 48 hours ago and is almost or totally un-wikified"? The article creation time, or whether it has been wikified is irrelevant, as far as the purpose and procedure of CSD is concerned. Given that about 2000 articles are created each day, most such violations won't be discovered within days, if not weeks.--Vsion 07:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia mirrors.  Articles created less than 48 hours ago are almost never picked up by mirrors, so any other copy of the article is likely the original.  With older articles, it may be neccessary to investigate which came first: the Wikipedia article, or the purported original. --Carnildo 07:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This explanation should be added to the guidelines. Otherwise, inexperienced admins will make mistakes. Carcharoth 09:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks. I added the link under "see also". Carcharoth 17:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A8: statute of limitations? 

message: It has come to our attention lately that some users oppose WP:UM (formally known as WP:GUS) because of this criteria. Therefore, I propose that there is either a line added to that criteria to state that it does not apply to any userboxes userfied per WP:UM, or something to the effect of that.  Maybe add that userfied userboxes can only be deleted through community consensus at WP:MFD. Thoughts? Suggestions? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 02:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me like a commonsense exception that people can't just have a subpage of theirs speedied on demand if other editors are using it for transclusion.  At the very least, one must check for incoming links before speedying, which would certainly raise a flag.  That said, I don't oppose amending the criterion to reflect this contingency. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that any well respected editor who has userfied boxes would do it, but people who oppose UM still cite that as one reason. If it is added that you can't, it might make them feel better, and maybe will get more people on board with UM. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 04:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: U1? Are you talking about T1 (divisive and inflammatory)? I don't see how U1 applies, but that said, T1 would still apply whether I made User:nae'blis/The Pope screws goats or Template: User The Pope screws goats. Userbox migration allows latitude, not carte blanche. -- nae'blis 22:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, U1, which allows a user to ask for the deletion of their subpage. Userboxes are migrated to user subpages per WP:UM. People keep saying they don't like it because the user could possibly adopt a ton of userboxes, then request speedy deletion of them. Again, I don't believe that anyone with an archive would do so, or that any admin would do the deleting, but it still scares some users silly. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 23:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh. I hadn't even considered that conspiracy theory... -- nae'blis 03:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And really, if anyone ever did, then there would be an uproar across several project pages (VP, AN, ANI, multiple talk pages, I'd imagine ArbCom). But, people still think we're going to do that. We mine as well calm everyones mind, and just put in what is currently practiced into U1. If nobody opposes it in the next week, I'll go and do it myself. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 03:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not aware of more than one person making the argument.  Still, I can't see any harm in adding a mention of the common-sense exception we're talking about. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't it this sort of situation that WP:IAR is for? --ais523 09:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been my experience that IAR is used for "things the rules say I can't do/don't say I can do, but need to be done", rather than "things that I won't do, but that the rules say I can do", at least when it's cited explicitly. Still, I don't think the exception does any real harm (would they go to TFD or MFD?), just largely superfluous. -- nae'blis 13:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Back in the Dark Ages (okay, not really) when userboxes were in templatespace,  was useful for keeping the disruption down to a minimum. Maybe something similar could/should be created at ? -- nae'blis 21:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be a good idea. Would we have modify the deletion process to have that inserted? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 18:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: This seemed noncontroversial and optional, so I was bold and made it (at , actually, to keep it in line with the main template. -- nae'blis 17:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there has been no opposition on this page, I have added the line to CSD U1: This does not include userboxes that have been userfied per the Userbox migration. I have also added it to the explanation page. If anyone thinks that it isn't clear enough or that it should be added to, I won't be at all offended. And I believe anything imflamitory on a userfied box would be included under attack pages. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 22:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSD U1 and [[WP:UM]] 

message: The word "vanity" in deletion discussions causes us real problems. I would strongly suggest we avoid such in deletion logs too. Unless you can prove they were in fact personally responsible (which isn't very speedy), such usage would likely be defamatory in conventional English discourse, and asserting "no no we were using a local jargon term" would I suspect not cut much ice. The note is clunky, please reword without losing the important point - David Gerard 10:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Has anyone ever been sued, or even had suit filed, for calling someone "vain"? Surely that is too much even for the US! -Splash - tk 00:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I also see many edit summaries just saying CSD G8, CSD G11, CSD A7, etc. That could equally be too much jargon, but this is a 'no brainer' change. Being more civil does not cost anyone anything. Carcharoth 09:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSD A7: Avoid the word "vanity" 

message: Following on from the above, does anyone object to the following expansion of the admin guidelines (the bold bit at the end of the lead section). The changes should also apply to the section at the end, called "Procedure for administrators". My proposed additions are in italics.
*"Note that administrators should always verify the legitimacy of a speedy deletion candidate before taking action. It is the administrator's responsibility to make sure that speedy deletion tags are accurate; to do this the administrator must examine the history of every page , the talk pages, 'What links here', and the page logs before deleting it."
This should, of course, be done anyway, but I don't think it does any harm to remind admins, as they may be rushed or inexperienced. I realise this is meant to be speedy deletions, but these are basic checks that really, really should be carried out. (Talk page may have additional information, 'what links here' will show what will become red-links and provide more information, and the page logs may reveal that the article is a recreation, and why previous pages at this title were deleted). I realise most CSD candidates won't have previous versions, or links from elsewhere, but you can't say for sure until you check. If the deleting admin doesn't do this, and someone else does and uncovers a reason why the CSD shouldn't have been performed, it just shows that the decision was too speedy and embarasses the admin. Carcharoth 13:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you seriously saying that if a talk page exists, that you don't look at it before deleting? I will quote what Aaron said above: "Any adminstrator who doesn't check the talk page when deleting needs a good kick up the arse." I will also quote a good piece of advice I saw someone else give once: "if you don't have time to do something, let someone else do it!" Seriously, rushing things is nearly always bad. One click on the talk page, one click on the history of the page, one click on what links here, one click on the logs. If you carry out speedy deletions faster than this, then it is probably too fast. As for being bold, I see below an example of what happens when you do that. How much time will now be expended on those AfD debates that you could have spent doing other stuff? Carcharoth 15:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can quote people too. I already read what he read -- I'm sure we have better things to do than quote ourselves and others at each other :) There are times that I don't read talk page, and as noted above, there are times that I don't think it's necessary. As for time being spent, spending time establishing sensible policy now is time we're saving for the future of the project, so it's worthwhle. If you disagree, why are you spending the time here disagreeing? :) --Improv 15:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, on similar lines, you could just agree with me. :-) Let's wait and see what others think. Carcharoth 16:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanding admin guidelines 

message: OK, have a look at User:Carcharoth/Sandbox. The immediate conclusions that can be drawn from this, and which suggest speedy deletion was unwarranted for several of the articles, are the following:
*List_of_Nestlé_brands was a spin-off from Nestlé (this can be found by looking at the creation, or first, edit). This should immediately give pause for thought.
*Six of the articles have over 40 edits, a fair number, which suggests that maybe they are not spamvertisements (Famous_Amos, Pepperidge_Farm, List_of_Nestlé_brands, Passion_Pop, Tim_Tam), Chips_Ahoy!).
*Two of the articles had WikiProject Australia templates on the talk pages (Tim_Tam and Iced_Vovo), which sugggests that the people at that WikiProject might not want the articles speedy deleted without discussion.
*One of the articles had a previous AfD result of keep on its talk page (Anna's_Swedish_Thins) - again, this suggests that speedy delete is not appropriate.
*Five of the articles had over ten links from other articles (Pepperidge_Farm, Arnott's_Biscuits_Holdings, Toll_House, Tim_Tam, Chips_Ahoy!) - not conclusive evidence that they are notable (could be a walled garden), but enough doubt to avoid speedy deletion.
I hope I've managed to convince you (Improv) that looking at the history of the articles a bit more might have avoided some of this speedy deletion controversy. Carcharoth 22:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Boy, thanks for the great effort. Pascal.Tesson 23:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Shows just fine for me, today. -- nae'blis 13:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. They've been corrected. What happened was that red links popped up everywhere when Improv deleted articles without fixing redlinks (something clicking on 'what links here' would have told him), and people recreated the articles, naturally thinking "Why doesn't Wikipedia have an article on that?". Those two articles were recreated. In each case, the page histories of the articles before and after deletion have now been merged by Thrydulf, so everything is fine now. Carcharoth 13:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Detailed analysis

message: A lot of the cookie debacle could have been averted, I think, if we had something similar to this in the criteria:
:If established users disagree with such a decision in good faith, the article should be restored and sent to the proper XfD
Obviously, the wording should be better put together, but it would be a good way to avoid a flood of DRVs. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You do not need to add that to G11 because that is an explicit requirement for all the speedy-deletion criteria.  The speedy-deletion process was established to clear out those cases which are completely obvious and non-controversial.  Any speedy-deletion which is contested in good faith is to be immediately restored and nominated to the appropriate XfD.  That was a non-negotiable control which the community insisted upon before approving the concept of speedy-deletions.  Rossami (talk) 05:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is natural to think that, isn't it? But the deletion review I'm involved in (you have participated in it) was over a CSD, and I made precisely that argument (I was prepared to move it to MfD) and got met with an insistance that G5 was not contestable. It is true that G5 is so terse it doesn't allow any wiggle room at all, and I think that is bad, as it encourages those who stick rigidly to procedures. Carcharoth 10:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: if that were indeed the case, it wouldn't be such a struggle to get speedies overturned when requested.  I did just that w/Improv on his recent deletion spree, and he said no.  I did the same with an A7 a month ago, User:King of Hearts said no.  It needs to be explicit. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unfortunately, a number of people do seem forgotten the promises we all made when the speedy-deletion process was approved.  Nevertheless, that is the rule for all CSDs and will remain the rule until it is explicitly overturned.  Rossami (talk) 11:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then it needs to be made much more explicit.  Admins aren't doing so, and deletion review is endorsing said speedies regardless of good faith protests. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another addition to G11 

message: There seems to be a large disconnect between the amount of admin discretion allowed by A8 (don't delete if it's older than 48 hours, because admins supposedly can't figure out whether the other site is a mirror or the original source of the data -- most cases I've seen were basically 100% clear with not much time spent) and the amount of discretion required by G11 (determine whether the article creator is an established user with no history of spam, determine whether the original author intended to spam or whether they're just trying to fulfill notability criteria (A7) and went a bit too far, determine whether the backlinks existed long before this article was created, ...).  Maybe people are just fishing by nominating articles that might be deleted under G11, but I'm seeing a lot of nominations that are pretty iffy.  I know I've written prose that was later removed as inadvertantly sounding too much like an advertisement, so I'm a bit hesitant to make a call on what the original creator's intent was. 
Would it be possible to make G11 only apply to new or anonymous accounts, or accounts whose talk pages indicate an obvious problem with spam? --Interiot 18:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or (as suggested above) maybe have a 'quick restore' option - something like 'if three users in good standing...' (we could use the foundation/arbcom election suffrage rules) '...request it, the article will immediately be undeleted and listed on Afd'. This would avoid tying up admins in useless red tape, but act as a safety valve against misinterpretation/abuse (depending on your opinion). Cynical 19:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd have to define 'good standing' much better than is currently done to avoid a flood of sockpuppets. I think our effort would be better spent on refining G11 than trying a distributed load system, at least at present. How would an admin know a talk page had garnered three opposers? Categories can't count the number of times a template is included... -- nae'blis 19:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as I said we could use the Arbcom/WMF Board suffrage rules (which I can't remember offhand, I think it has an editcount and a minimum time requirement) which have (I presume, since we're still using them) proved fairly successful in fending off sockpuppets. It wouldn't necessarily need a talkpage message for the article itself. There's no real reason why we couldn't set up a page specifically for speedy objections (WP:SDR anyone?). Then admins could simply monitor one page, and any article which was listed (with the necessary support from established users) could then be restored and AFD'd. I'm not sure if three is a high enough threshold though - thoughts anyone? Cynical 19:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC, ArbCom election said three months and 150 edits; Wikimedia board said four months and 400 edits, although "good standing" has a different definition sometimes; see Wikipedia talk:Established Wikipedian or  (specifically as its used in CAT:AOR. I'm not sure this is a necessary process though, DRV does already speedily-undelete articles on occasion when the consensus is clearly against the original deletion. A separate page just adds more process to our system, which is already overburdened for the new editor IMO. -- nae'blis 22:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't mind being aggressive on A8, as copyvio is copyvio, but I would rather a preference of copyvio text being removed, the article being stubbed, and then, if there's inclusion issue, taking it to AfD.  Copyvio deletion seems to be an easy way to remove otherwise useful material just because people don't understand the GFDL and our need to be aggressive on copyright.  With G11, unless we're going to remove it entirely (which doesn't seem to be on the table yet), some common sense has to factor in.  Outside of that, I'm becoming a larger proponent of a "good faith challenges get undeleted and AfD'd" than anyhting else, because, otherwise, they will be sent to DRV and we'll see more shitstorms like with Improv's deletions. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  G11, A8, admin discretion 

message: (Sort of.) In our new spirit of intolerance to advertising, and just because it makes sense, would anyone object to adding "product" and "service" to the possible targets of an A7 deletion? This is from the G11 criterion which allows for not just companies, but these two, and it follows logically from the spirit of A7. Dmcdevit·t 03:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me. I always thought it should include obvious hoaxes also, but ahwell. ~Kylu (u|t)  03:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind on principle although I'm worried about how this will be used in practice. CSD is mostly used by people patrolling new pages and I'm afraid that this will lead to frustrating deletions of valid stubs, especially as far as products are concerned. Pascal.Tesson 03:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  (edit conflicted) If the product or service isn't notable enough to qualify for your suggestion, then it already qualifies under G11. I don't think this is needed. If A7 and G11 are to be compared so much due to their involvement in recent controversial events, they should be combined, otherwise their differences must be kept clear. I don't think advertisements are notable, hence any G11 could qualify for A7. --ZsinjTalk 03:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm for it, and even more remove G11 and incorporate company, promotional, and organizational articles in one all inclusive A7. Teke (talk) 03:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm for that. --ZsinjTalk 03:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I would note that there is a difference between lacking an assertion to notability, and being blatant advertising. Dead people, ruined businesses, and discontinued products can all lack assertions of notability per A7 and strictly qualify as advertising, but only the latter doesn't currently qualify. (Note it could just be questionable whether it's advertising, but without an assertion of notability. That's where this is helpful.) Dmcdevit·t 04:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I could write an article on Target gift cards. I've got a bunch of them at home (lots of gifts), and the designs are nifty, but while it'd be non-notable, it wouldn't really be spam, do you think? A7 non-notable products/services might be a good reason to delete my article on Target gift cards... ~Kylu (u|t)  04:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The biggest question I would ask is why is it reasonable that these things can be identified on sight, as all the other speedy criteria can be. Making up new criteria, or expanding old ones, which are not clearly based on that presupposition is making a total mockery of the process. Ansell 07:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The implementation of new criteria might in part be motivated by the belief by some admins that AfD is 'broken', and the idea that extending CSD is the best way to get things deleted. See what Improv said further up this page: "The point in speedy deletes is to allow it to be fast in cases that are either 1) Obvious, or 2) Allowing us not to deal with the brokenness of AfD.". I agree with (1), but not with (2). Carcharoth 11:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Absolutely not.  Can we please stop trying to expand A7 so it becomes more and more controversial with every use? --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanding A7 

message: Shouldn't "incorrect article name" be added to general criteria? In many cases (like Red Book of Endangered Species, waiting for someone to merge the info to an article on the same subject with the correct name is unnecessary and wastes editors' and administrators' time. I suspect many normal users often notice the problem of two or more articles being created on the same subject, but because there is no user-friendly method of informing administrators, they don't do anything. As a result, editors waste time creating the same article more than once instead of in collaboration. And then later, huge merge discussions and possible edit wars waste huge amounts of administrator time.
As i've proposed before, WP needs a new tab called "report problem" in a prominent place, for example to the right of "watch" to be able to tap the huge dormant reservoir of help with basic, serious problems that normal users could provide. Normal users are quite capable of explaining in normal English what's wrong with a page but it is ridiculous to expect them to look for cleanup and delete templates. There are thousands of discussion pages with comments about serious problems that nobody does anything about for very long periods of time. Such a "report problem" tab can then have buttons for the templates addressing the most important problems, many of which can be quickly solved by administrators. --Espoo 11:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  incorrect lemma  

message: Surely G11 is the kind of situation PROD was meant to deal with. Brad states that VfD (sic) isn't working, but is he aware of PROD? In my view we simply need new page patrollers and others to be slightly more aggressive in prodding spammish articles. The obvious crap gets deleted, acceptable articles get contested, kept and possibly some cleanup attention. Sure a spam article might stay for 5 extra days in a backwater of Wikipedia where no one is likely to see it, and even if they do it has a big notice saying "we intend to dump this". But in my view this is infinitely preferable to articles such as Penguin biscuit being speedy deleted. the wub "?!" 09:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Spammers promptly unprod articles, resulting in a five day formal deletion debate about unsalvagable crap. And you cannot prod userspace spam. In fact, since G11 came around, I've tagged about 200 user pages that were nothing but spam. But there are teething problems as have been described. Since  and  were implemented, the workload on AFD has dropped by about a third. MER-C 09:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Citation please on the "spammers promptly unprod articles" claim? The last data I saw spotchecked prod and found 80-90% deletion rates, but maybe spammers have gotten more savvy since then. Also, why does "a third" link to MD's RFB? -- nae'blis 22:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the argument from bureaucrats is that even waiting 6 days to delete spam is a concern and in effect fails to discourage spammers. I often patrol new pages and G11 is really handy for a number of articles I previously had to prod and I believe will eventually deter at least some of the spam. Not sure where you got your stats but it's pretty interesting: I would have thought that % would be much lower than that. On the other hand you have to be careful about using it as an argument that spammers don't bother removing PROD tags. I think PROD tags are most used by Newpage patrollers and people cleaning up articles tagged with importance or notability and linkless or orphan articles. In my experience the percentage of PROD tags removed in the second case is definitely below 10% but I'm not sure that's the case for newpage PRODs. Pascal.Tesson 23:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's wrong with [[WP:PROD|PROD]]? 

message: These are templates that redirect to .  Unlike db-bio, "nn-bio" has a connotation that implies that CSD criterion A7 is for deleting any article on a non-notable subject.  The text of A7 has, for a long time now, used the wording "does not describe the importance or significance of the subject", and WP:CSD, under the heading non-criteria includes "non-notable subjects with their importance asserted".  Obviously, this misuse occurs with db-bio, not just nn-bio, but I want to get rid of nn-bio as a speedy deletion tag because (1) I have never, since becoming an admin in July, seen nn-bio used appropriately, (2) about a quarter of the time I see this misuse of CSD A7, there's a nn-bio tag, and (3) even the existence of nn-bio as a deletion tag perpetuates this misuse of speedy deletion.  I was going to list this debate on WP:RFD, but (1) using an rfd tag would break the template for now, and (2) this is the community that should really discuss the issue, and (3) I want to have these redirected to :Template:Notability, just as  is: having them disappear would just cause confusion: since I'm not seeking deletion, listing for deletion doesn't make sense.  Mangojuicetalk 14:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I was not aware that these templates existed but it sure is misleading that the templates  and   would result in utterly different things. Actually I would be in favor of deleting all speedy deletion templates and template redirects that are not of the form , including . Pascal.Tesson 22:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't have a strong opinion on the actual templates but do have a strong opinion on the process.  These tags are widely used or referenced throughout the project.  If you are going to obsolete some of these templates, do not just delete them.  Instead, tag them with  or some other marker to show that they are no longer to be used.  That way, users know not to continue using them but new readers/editors will be able to follow the old discussion threads and see what was actually being discussed.  Rossami (talk) 22:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Second Rossami. Carcharoth 23:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course I think both Mangojuice and I were not proposing to just zap them to oblivion without some care. Although I'd like to point out that there is much less risk of serious mistakes being made if we change the nn-bio redirect from a CSD tag to a notability warning since the worst that can happen is that some nn article escapes the axe temporarily. The other way around would have had some people screaming bloody murder. :-) Pascal.Tesson 23:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to address Rossami's concern even more strongly.  Does anyone have an idea how to make an "officially deprecated" template?  Mangojuicetalk 01:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably one of the templates at :Category:Template_templates will do. I like the look of :Template:Tdeprecated. It doesn't mention 'officially', but that is probably as official as you get on Wikipedia. See also :Category:Deprecated_templates. Carcharoth 01:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Try looking at nn-bio's deletion discussion for some background on this; it was closed as 'no consensus', possibly because it was nominated at TfD rather than RfD. --ais523 08:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I think it failed because a fair number of people didn't understand my point, and thought I was trying to get rid of a legit speedy tag.  Ultimately, I think neither WP:RFD nor WP:TFD are the right venue (I chose TFD before so that I could avoid breaking the template while the discussion was going on): this is really about speedy deletion rules and how they are used, so I think the discussion belongs here. Mangojuicetalk 12:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thinking about just that problem, I invented  (along the lines of ) to file a mass nomination of speedy templates inspired by this thread (on RFD); they're all redirects to  (so I've left nn-bio, etc., out; if another discussion is wanted, that can be done separately, but I'd like to see how this one turns out first). --ais523 12:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agred, certainly.  Do you think there's a better way than using :Template:Tdeprecated on it?  Mangojuicetalk 10:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: **There should be. People with tabbed browsers or some extensions can just place a template somewhere and not look at the result much (since they assume they know what the result is). I'd say advertise it in a lot of places (because unfortunately we don't have a central advertising place either, we have several). >Radiant< 08:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|nn-bio}}, {{tl|nn-band}}, et cetera 

message: I'm still seeing a number of articles tagged as spam that don't, in my opinion, qualify.  Would it help to create a policy page containing spam criteria?  Since we're supposed to "know it when we see it", surely we can articulate some of the characteristics of spam and incorporate that into the speedy criterion.  Here are some of the criteria I've been using:
# article is written by user with same name as corporation/product advertised
# article is written in first person (e.g., "Our mission is to...")
# article addresses the audience (e.g., "Widgets will meet your every need")
# article contains only external links (instead of wikilinks)
# article contains inflated/PR language (e.g., "visionary", "ground-breaking", "incredible", etc.)
# article is copied from official press release or website (when CSD G12 doesn't apply)
Etc., etc.  Maybe I'm being naïve, but set rules like this might help cut down on the number of false positives I've been seeing.  Input?  Additions?  Invectives?  -- Merope 14:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the only thing that's really going to help is direct education.  I haven't been good enough about this myself either but we have to tell editors when we think db-spam is being misapplied: most of these people don't really read the CSD contents, they just plop "db-spam" down on a page and move on.  Mangojuicetalk 15:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: A point about your qualifier to (1): in cases of G11 (which purposely excludes articles about people), then speedying on this basis is probably OK - accounts named after a company or product are effectively self-identifying as single-use advertising accounts (and should be banned anyway). It is only in the case of biographical articles written by accounts named after the person, that WP:BITE should apply. Newcomers to Wikipedia do often write about themselves before they learn better. A welcome and correction (userfying the article) applies in those cases, with a follow-up later to delete the pages if the user does not add any further contributions (this identifies them as a drive-by vanity spammer). Carcharoth 15:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me!  I've amended my criterion.  But I think Mangojuice is right; I should contact the users who (likely in good faith) abuse the tags.  But these criteria might clear up problems with admins deciding to delete articles.  Maybe.  -- Merope 15:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet more talk about G11 spam 

message: Okay, what gives, folks?  First off, why should we be deleting anything that's survived an XfD process speedily?  This is a no-brainer.  Second, the changes that people are removing were not at all contrversial when discussed a couple weeks ago, and added without a hitch.  What's going on? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Survived, no.  But the wording that was there implied that we shouldn't delete pages that were DELETED via XfD and replaced with a spam version.  I hadn't thought about that until just now... and honestly, it's kind of obvious that we shouldn't be speedily deleting anything that has survived an AfD.  Your wording is an appropriate clarification, but I think my version is more concise.  Anyway, about the SALT business: why should spam articles be immune from salting?  Whatever the reason, this isn't the SALT policy page; shouldn't that be covered at WP:SALT, not here?  Mangojuicetalk 16:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, and that was poor wording in retrospect regarding the XfDs, but the wording should have been adjusted rather than deleted outright.  Meanwhile, the idea behind not salting spam articles comes from the idea that a possible spam article can be made into a reasonable article.  Given how dififcult it can be to get articles undeleted and unprotected, there's no reasonable situation to salt them in this case.  Perhaps it should be mentioned over there as well, but given that these are instructions for the folks doing the speedying, it's worth the mention here, IMO.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally disagree on that: if a company was repeatedly posting a spam article (clear, blatant spam, of course), I think we should salt the earth to stop them if blocking the account is ineffective.  We should not salt the earth if what's happening is an honest but inadequate attempt to create an article that can survive speedy deletion... but that applies to ANY speedy deletion, not just spam ones: A1, A2, A3, A7, G10, G11, G12, all of them have that same issue... and after a certain point I'm not sure it's such a bad thing to salt the earth anyway; if someone's really having such a hard time passing speedy deletion criteria, they'll NEVER make an article that would get past AfD.  If there's one we should make a special point about, it's G7: we certainly should never salt the earth after a G7 deletion, no matter how many times it happens.  Mangojuicetalk 16:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Salting is a traditionally more permanent action.  Temporary protection?  Without a doubt might be necessary.  Meanwhile, to expect that new editors might know how to get an article past CSD/AfD is tough to say.  More reaosn not to.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, anyone can request a page to be unsalted. —Centrx→talk • 17:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't mean it'll be honored. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: A G7 salting is conceivable; Bad title was salt-redirected, and it's possible that it could have been repeatedly G7d due to a bug in the software (although G3 was more appropriate for many of the deletions). I can't think of any situation in which a  would need to be salted, though. --ais523 16:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Could you provide links to show us what is going on? Where is this big battle taking place? Carcharoth 16:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Could you provide links to show us what is going on? Where is this big battle taking place? Carcharoth 16:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the policy page, WP:CSD.  Last several edits. Mangojuicetalk 16:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh. That. Carcharoth 16:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *It stated that "G11 articles shouldn't be SALTed on a first deletion", but that's irrelevant as nothing should be SALTed on a first deletion. And yes, this belongs on WP:SALT. >Radiant< 16:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah!  I see now. That had me confused all evening! :-) Carcharoth 22:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Whether it may look like intruction creep isn't relevant to me, personally. It's unfortunate that people need things spelled out from time to time, but, and especially with the rush for things under A7 and G11, it only helps things to be abundantly, bluntly clear about when things shouldn't be done a certain way. If it's instruction creepy, it's for a good reason, but it's what has to be done when we rush into subjective CSD additions. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Sometimes salting on first deletion is warranted, if it fits part of a larger pattern of being likely to be recreated by folk unfamiliar with policy. In most cases, I'm inclined to agree with you though that salting first-time deletions is overkill. I again wish to disagree with Jeff -- CSD is sometimes an appropriate place to force compliance with policy when AfD (which isn't working so well on some topics) is broken. If something clearly stands against policy/goals of the project, and sufficient argument is made that it does so, it doesn't matter how many people "vote" to keep it - it needs to go, and speedying is appropriate. If AfD closers were doing a better job and managing that process as a debate with points to be made, discarding weak arguments, then we wouldn't need this kind of thing, but they're often dropping the ball. Surviving does not mean what it should - if something meets a speedy criteria, it should go. --Improv 16:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CSD should never be used to "force compliance," and SALTing should never occur on a first deletion.  My goodness, what's going on here?  --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jeff, take a breath and read what you're saying. CSD can absolutely be used to "force compliance" in cases of copyvio, personal attacks, and the like. Recreation of the article and SALTing falls under G4, not G11; your initial wording was weak, which you've admitted as such. Everybody needs to stop rapid-fire editing the criterion and come here to work out what the text should be, please. -- nae'blis 16:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm reading it quite well.  CSD should not be used to "force compliance" into something so subjective as an A7 or G11, that's patently absurd.  To say that "if AfD closers were doing a better job...we wouldn't need this kind of thing" is nothing mroe than forcing personal views on a subject via CSD.  Completely incorrect, and very, very scary coming from someone with deletion tools. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Either we accept that judgement calls need to be made, or we do nothing. Our notion(s) of consensus are judgement as well. Calling it absurd is not making an argument at all - a problem very similar to when people go on AfD and simply say Support or Oppose without much or anything more. Judgement is crucial to keeping a project like Wikipedia (itself with somewhat vague, loosely defined goals) from degenerating into anarchy. Either you allow people to use their judgement, even WP:IAR, or we have no project and just a place. --Improv 17:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are some areas where unilateral judgement is useful, encouraged, and helpful to the project.  Copyvios, attack pages, legal situations, all those are useful because they're clear cut and muddy waters give people enough pause to seek clarification or greater consensus.  Judgement calls on A7s or spam should not be encouraged - it's proven it doesn't work, as your 40 speedies on various products can show as an example.  You want to make judgement calls?  Stick to copyvios and attack pages.  Judgement calls on what could otherwise be encyclopedic or improved articles only causes strife and wastes everyone's time.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's contentious, but it does work. Quick individual judgement is what speedies are all about. You've stated you're not a big fan of speedy deletion, but they're necessary for the project, especially given that AfD is so broken. If nothing else, they're a way to provide a focus on discussion on what would otherwise be deletions using WP:IAR (of which I've also done a fair set over the years). Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy - to some extent we're a meritocracy, to some extent autocratic, and to some extent democratic, but all of these are means to an end, not ends in themselves, just as most of the rules we make for ourselves are not ends in themselves. Putting the community before the project or pretending that it has some kind of a "right to due process" (or that individuals have a "right to contribute") is a mistake. --Improv 18:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You do realise that you yourself are claiming that you "have a right to contribute", and that the contribution you are making is "exercising your judgement"? Never forget that we are all human, and that "exercising your judgement" needs to be balanced with the right for others to contest that judgement. My big problem with speedy deletions is that by the time people are aware of them, it is often too late to protest (and non-admins can't see what has been deleted - which is fair enough for libellous/attack material and copyvios, but for the other CSDs there is little reason to hide what has been deleted - it is also likely that archives of deleted materials won't be maintained indefinitely, so some unnecessary deletions will never be undone). It is also clear that for some of the CSDs, different admins have different ideas of what is suitable for speedy deletion. This will eventually cause problems. Carcharoth 20:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  G11 Addenda