Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 9

message: I just saw User:Tawkerbot add a Talk:IP that I watch to :Category:IP talk pages for speedy deletion. It refers to WP:CSD#U2 on this page:
:Recycling IP pages. User talk pages of non-logged in users where the message is no longer relevant. This is to avoid confusing new users who happen to edit with that same IP address.
# Adding the category sends them a "new messages" box, doesn't it? If this is to avoid confusion, then any list of to-be-deleted pages should be managed externally, not through category edits to the talk pages.
# Is deleting the pages going to be at all necessary in the first place? I think the history of an IP may present useful information. After all, the edits of those IPs are preserved in the edit history. The related warning messages should be too, even if years old.
Shouldn't irrelevant old messages simply be removed by blanking the page (thus essentially archiving it)?
Femto 12:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In reference to your second point, I've always thought that CSD criteria U2 was odd for the same reason, i.e. old IP talk pages should simply be blanked. That fulfils the stated purpose of avoiding confusion for new users of that IP address, whilst also keeping the history of the page if needed. Petros471 13:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Femto's propositions and resolution seem perfect. Any objections?? --Gurubrahma 13:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objections to blanking, it probally is easier on the admins too (those 2500 pages are less than 1% of the bots run) -- Tawker 19:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  After giving this some thought, page blanking would be much preferred over speedy deletion of a talk page.  Some of our best vandal fighters are anonymous editors, and if we delete these pages outright, they and other non-administrators will have no way of to telling if there is any relevant history associated with a recurring vandal.  Best regards, Hall Monitor 19:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  I agree; blanking makes a lot more sense. android79 19:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Likewise here, blanking is better, and asked a few other admins as well, there's no need of deletign the talk page (and thus hiding its history). I'm removing U2 since consensus seems to be that blanking is better. --  ( drini's page ☎ ) 20:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Yep.  Mainly because I think it's impossible to determine when an IP talk page message has become "irrelevant"; I've often seen IPs repeat the exact same kind of vandalism after gaps of several months or more.  Postdlf 20:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, tawkerbot has been adding this to user pages with useful templates on them such as User talk:213.84.230.131, which has an informational sharedip template. --DDG 22:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Why were we deleting in the first place? Blanking makes so much more sense. In fact, we could probably add a header that says something like "This IP Talk page has been/is periodically recycled by blanking. To see older comments, please view the (link to history page)history(/link)." We'd need some good constraints on what constitutes a talk page that needs to be recycled though, to avoid unscrupulous vandals blanking their talk pages to hide previous warnings. Werdna648T/C\@ 08:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Users blanking their own talk page (when it contains warnings) is generally considered vandalism anyway, I don't see why this should change. Talk pages should only be blanked by RC patrollers and include a good edit summary for reference. Petros471 11:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP talk pages 

message: I want to propose CSD A9, which states
9. A page that is blatantly unencyclopedic, i.e.:
**Clearly a blog
**A discussion of what happened in school
**An obvious hoax, including facts that are impossible to happen in reality
**An attempt to start up a website on a Wikipedia page
-- King of Hearts | (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "unencyclopedic" is too vague. Also, some blogs are clearly notable. —Guanaco 20:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect (correct me if I'm wrong) that King of Hearts means a page being treated as a blog, rather than an encyclopedia article about a blog.  Right? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with this CSD 9. It seems to imply one thing that I like: topic's merits=/=article's merits. One problem is that a BS article on a worthy topic is kept as a "potentially good article" and then nobody does anything (fixes it). Either fix it now, get a taskforce, or delete it and put it on Request for Creation, but please lets not just leave blogs here. And when he said blog, I think that he meant the article IS a blog, not about a blog.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 20:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, by "blog" I meant some guy writing a blog on Wikipedia; basically almost everything that has nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 01:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Absolutely not.  Again, the more we speedy, the less chance encyclopedic topics can be reviewed by other authors and fixed, even if they're being used incorrectly to start.   is perfect for this. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 03:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm with King of Hearts on this one, except I'd reword it as "Articles that are blatantly and unredeemably not suitable for an encyclopaedia". Basically, a page in articlespace that is not an article. This could cover Resumes (most of these can be speedied under A7 anyway, but for the resume of a notable person we need something), source texts, instruction manuals, et cetera. Interestingly enough, perhaps many of these should be "speedy transwikied", as many of these types may not be useful on Wikipedia, but may be interesting on Wikibooks, WikiSource, et cetera. An interesting proposition, but one that needs to be objectively defined. Werdna648T/C\@ 08:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Speedy-transwiki used to be the normal interpretation of transwiki.  Any page that was moved from one WikiMedia project to another was not considered "deleted" because it could easily be recovered (by transwiki in reverse) with no loss of content or history and without the use of any special administrator powers.  The leftover page in the source project was immediately deleted by default unless there was a compelling reason not to.  In fact, that was the origin of speedy-deletion case A2.  It standardized what had already been the existing practice.  (The case is worded specifically to the foreign language projects but remember that at that time the only other WikiMedia projects were the alternate language encyclopedias.  We hadn't yet created Wiktionary, WikiSource, etc.)  Over time, that meaning got lost and people began to believe that we had to both transwiki and go through a formal deletion process to get rid of the leftover.  I would like to return to the original interpretation of the transwiki process.  Rossami (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I was trying to revert this addition, but  NickelShoe beat me to it.  I think the criteria is to vague.  Also, now that we got PROD, we have an effecient way of eleminating obvious cases, that don't fit a speedy criteria.   -Rob 06:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: This is too subject to interpretation to be of any use. And indeed, as Rob says,  is perfect. Stifle (talk) 10:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for blantantly unencyclopedic articles 

message: Please see this proposal to add the A3 reasons to the db-empty template here. cmh 06:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose to change template ''db-empty'' 

message: What we do for orphan images which were obviously uploaded solely for an article which has now been speedily deleted?  In particular I mean this one which was only placed on a non-notable vanity page, now deleted.  Do we speedy these images too?  And should we consider adding this as an explicit speedy deletion criterion for images?  --RobertG ♬ talk 17:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I generally use common sense and just speedy them. Unless they are definitely free images. Those *might* some day be of conceivable use, so it's probably best to leave them alone. Johnleemk | Talk 17:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh.  I'm surprised this isn't already a CSD.  It seems relatively non-controversial an idea (though I've always been surprised at what turns out to be controversial).  What's the proposed language?  Something like "Pictures which were used or explicitly intended for use on pages that have been speedily deleted, and which have no reasonable use on undeleted pages"?  (Obviously, tweak as you will...) Of course, Johnleemk is right: common sense typically does prevail here.  JDoorjam     Talk 17:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I thought it was common sense, and I'm pleased to see others agree.  If no-one objects, I propose tweaking JDoorjam's wording thus: "Images used on speedily deleted pages may themselves be speedily deleted if they are of little encyclopedic value" which removes the requirement to guess at the uploader's motives.  Meanwhile, I'll speedily delete the image in question per Johnleemk!  If this gets approval I'll add it as a criterion some time next week (unless someone else gets there first).  Thanks.  --RobertG ♬ talk 17:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That image looks like a probable copyvio anyway.  While I'm not opposed to a more general criterion such as suggested by JDoorjam above, simply waiving the seven-day requirement of I4 and I5 for "images uploaded for use in a deleted article" would probably suffice in most cases like this.  Generally, if an image is free and properly sourced, we might as well let it be and see if anyone finds a use for it.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If they're fair use, then there's already  to deal with them. If they're free use, then they should probably go to IFD, but I don't see any real objections to people WP:IARing. Stifle (talk) 09:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy deletion of image uploaded for speedily-deleted article? 

message: I've just been told that an article dealing with obscure elements of popular fiction which have no notability on their own are not speediable. I've re-read the criteria, and shockingly, I have to agree. To address this terrible loophole that allows for torrents of non-notable cruft, and yet allow for "valid fancruft" which is notable in its own way, I propose the following ammendment:
;7.
;a. :Unremarkable real people or groups. An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead.
;b. :Unremarkable fictional subjects. The determining factor between remarkable and unremarkable fictional subjects is the question of notability relative to the genre or work from which they arise. Non-notable subjects would include characters or places in a story which have no impact on its plot or the establishment of the setting or tone of the story. However, if the article title refers to a discrete character, event or setting, it may be of value as a redirect. If this is the case, the article should be merged and redirected to the appropriate work of fiction rather than deleted.
Without this additional criteria, the door is left wide open to waste the time and effort of those debating truly controversial notability of other articles in the AFDs. It also wastes the time of those who, like myself, attempt to patrol new articles. -Harmil 19:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or, you could see if it has no chance of becoming more than a worthless stub and merge with the article for the work of fiction, or you could use  to see if anyone's capable of expanding.  Why rush to speedy? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 19:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, you bring up a valid point, and I'll modify the above inline to reflect it. However, as an example of an article which explains my point, see Typical Earth Alliance Permanent Space Colony. I'm almost tempted to request a new criteria: so many separate violations of Wikipedia policy that cleanup would present a serious mental health risk. ;) But aside from my distaste for the article, it is clearly about a topic which, even as a redirect, would have no value for Wikipedia. -Harmil 20:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What makes you think it holds no value? Genuinely curious. I dunno, I just feel like we're looking for excuses to speedy stuff, as opposed to fixing these things. Fictional information only exists via a fictional universe, and most works of fiction that would have individual articles for characters, major and minor, would at the very least have a page for its source material to redirect to. The smaller ones can be redirected to that article or to a list of characters, the larger ones kept. Speedies just tend to create ill will and warring, when a redirect with merging worthwhile info keeps the info and discourages recreation. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 20:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with BDJ on this one.  I find that crufty stubs (which sounds like a skin condition) are better as redirs if the articles don't warrant standing on their own. JDoorjam     Talk 20:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree that it's sily to speedy them.  Just redirect. I don't see what the deal is with people wanting to speedy delete everything, like it's the end of the world if it exists as a redirect or takes five days to get rid of. NickelShoe 21:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Jeff as well; redlinks encourage recreation of crufty stubs (how's that for a medical condition?), whereas redirects encourage people to find the main article. -- nae'blis (talk) 23:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Tooootally already made that joke three postings ago. ;-) JDoorjam     Talk 23:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, I think someone very much missed the point. I know that there's a lot of the same coversations over and over here, so I imagine it's easy to assume that you can categorize any request and give a standard answer. However, you've missed the mark here. We're not talking about deletions that would cause redlinks here. Let's throw out some examples. I might create a page called, Earth Alliance Space Colony. Ok, now that clearly meets the above criteria for redirecting. It's just not terribly notable within the genre nor impacting on the plot of the show (though there are specific colonies that are notable and have pages, as they should), but it's something that people might link to or otherwise reference. On the other hand, Typical Earth Alliance Permanent Space Colony is not referenced external to Wikipedia. It borders on (but isn't quite) original research. We could create hundreds of thousands of this sort of article per genre, I'm sure, but they have no encyclopedic value, even as redirects (since no one is going to be looking for that name). Next: to the point of hyperbole. I do not "want to speedy delete everything, like it's the end of the world if it exists as a redirect or takes five days to get rid of." Please lay off the hyperbole and evaluate suggestions on their own merits and the contributions of their suggestors. Thanks. As for the question of why speedy vs. AFD/prod? I like to think that we involve the community for articles where their value is in dispute (or could be), not just to serve as a distraction. How many users respond to the average  these days? How many  are added on a typical day? Could a user reasonably visit and read them all? half? -Harmil 21:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it borders on OR, then start hunting people down who can give sources?  The more we use prod, the more people will respond and the more useful it becomes.  No need to speedy most stuff whe it can be prodded. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 23:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say that the page given as an example, Typical Earth Alliance Permanent Space Colony, is a perfectly valuable and valid Wikipedia and I personally have no problem with it remaining on the site. John Coxon 13:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Porposal for expansion of Articles item #7 

message: Hi all. While working on the untagged images project, I've come across a number of images that were uploaded to the Commons, and then had their description page here modified. In some cases, this is warranted, such as adding the image to a category on Wikipedia. However, occasionally there are images (for example, :Image:Platform Sandal wood Buffalo brown.jpg) whose description page replicates the Commons description, or does not include any new information.
I think that we should add a criteria for speedy image deletion that would allow administrators to delete such images (presuming that they would look through the history and ensure that there hadn't been any vandalism, removing categories and such) since I can't really think of any reason not to delete them. Thoughts? ~MDD4696 22:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That particular image is a special case: it has never been uploaded to enwiki. The image is only present on Commons and the page here is redundant entirely. I have deleted it since having, effectively, a fork locally means that any updates to licensing/soucing/wording will not appear here. That is bad for obvious reasons. Perhaps this very particular case needs a CSD to make it clear, or perhaps it's just occasional enough that (what I hope is) common-sense is enough. Note that what I just did is very different from deleting the image: I am not able to do that, since it is not present on this project. -Splashtalk 22:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. I would think that admins would know enough that it qualifies for speedy deletion, but it might help non-admins to have a specific item addressing this issue when determining whether or not to add the  tag. ~MDD4696 23:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New image criteria proposal 

message: How about articles that are patently original research, and by that I mean they explicitly state that that is the case in their text? I have seen a few of these lately and they seem like common sense speedys to me. Has this been discussed before?  Ramanpotential (talk | contribs) 00:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not use , with a note as to why? I've seen some of these, and the authors often don't know about WP:NOR, and apologize when they find out. The trolls who post OR should probably see the consensus of AfD anyway, so they don't come back. Septentrionalis 15:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed CSD 

message: I think admins have to be alerted that while deleting under G7 one has to make sure no other editor has edited the page, and while deleting under A3 one has to make sure that earlier versions of the article also satisfy some CSD criteria. As explained in User talk:Wavelength, List of environment topics:F-G was deleted after the page was blanked but other people (including me) had edited the page and hence it didn't fall under G7, and its earlier versions didn't satisfy A3 and are actually important to preserve the history of List of environment topics:F and List of environment topics:G. -- Paddu 09:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is in the order of "stop or I'll say stop again."  Admins are already meanto to do everything contained in the new notes.  If they aren't then telling them to do so again when it's written everywhere else (templates, admin how-to, etc) isn't going to help. brenneman{L}  01:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Handling G7 and A3 

message: G5 is for banned users. But what about proven sockpuppets of permblocked users? Shouldn't they be speedied as well?  (example: User:Doe, John) `'mikka (t) 20:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  It's the user that's banned, not the account. --Carnildo 02:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  G5 clarification 

message: The CSD currently has no criteria for Portals, although the policy page for these states that "Portals are not appropriate for every topic. Only create portals for broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers." However, we currently have on MfD Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Malaysian expressway system and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Famous Slaves (both leaning heavily towards deletion as inappropriate for a Portal), and we have recently deleted Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Arlington, MA and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Family Guy as too narrow (compare Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Oz, kept). In Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Kenya, the Portal was deleted for being a stub which had not been touched in months (compare Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Uganda, kept). In light of the much higher standard imposed on Portals as opposed to articles, I propose the following criteria for speedy deletion of Portals:
<H3>Portals</H3>
For any Portals that are not speedy deletion candidates, use Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
# Any topic that would be subject to speedy deletion as an Article.
# Any Portal based on a topic for which there are not a non-stub header article, and at least three non-stub articles detailing subject matter that would be appropriate to discuss under the title of that Portal.
# Any Portal created as a skeleton, a stub, or a simple collection of links for which no other work has been done in over 60 days
This is more or less a seed, and I seek the consensus of the community in this proposal. Cheers! BD2412 T 15:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One and two look good, but I don't quite like number three; simply because something hasn't been worked on shouldn't automatically qualify it as something that should be deleted. Perhaps take off number three as a speedy criterion and instead ask that such portals be taken to MfD? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For articles I would agree with you completely, but portals are supposed to appeal to a community of interest. If no one cares enough to work on them, they should disappear... however, I see your point. How about putting portals under #3 in prod (presuming they have no sub-pages)?  BD2412 T 23:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I support the first two proposed criteria. I would hesitate on the third one. Most portals in such a state should probably be deleted, but probably isn't good enough for speedy deletion. --TantalumTelluride 21:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I too support the first two, but would not include the third in its present form as a CSD.  Sure, most portals it describes ought to be deleted, but most =/= all; let WP:MFD handle them.  --CComMack 11:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll support all three. We had a crude Portal:South Park hidden away for ages that was a no-brainer that couldn't be no-brained.Hiding  talk 17:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined at this point to say definitely post the first two, and seek greater community input on handling apparently abandoned portal skeletons/stubs. BD2412 T 18:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have posted the first two criteria. The third I've raised for discussion at WP:PROD. Cheers! BD2412 T 20:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed CSD criteria for Portals 

message: Maybe I'm missing something, but in the guideline
"Very short articles providing little or no context (e.g., "He is a funny man that has created Factory and the Hacienda. And, by the way, his wife is great."). Limited content is not in itself a reason to delete if there is enough context to allow expansion."
is there a reason for the underlining? An explanation would be appreciated... >> \\/\//esleyPinkha//\/\\ | 00:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically, it's ok for an article to be short, i.e., to have little content.  It'd be nice if it could be expanded, of course, but shouldn't be deleted just because it's small.  However, and article that doesn't explain what it's about isn't very useful.  If you read the article and have no idea what you just read about, then there's not enough context, not enough grounding the article in such a way that it can be understood by people who aren't already familiar with the topic.  The underlining is to express the important difference in changing that one little letter, from content to context.  I hope that helps, JDoorjam     Talk 00:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  See the various discussion starting about here for the need to emphasize the difference between a lack of content and a lack of context.  Until we added the underlines, it was a source of considerable confusion.  Rossami (talk) 12:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random underlines? 

message: In an effort to reduce the number of copyvio images on Wikipedia, I'd like to suggest the following new criterion for speedy deletion:
*CSD I6: Missing fair-use claim.  Any image uploaded after April 13, 2006, tagged only with  or , with no fair use rationale, may be deleted seven days after it was uploaded.
--Carnildo 01:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This really needs to happen.  Our current system means that any user who knows that those tags exist can upload any copyright-infringing media that they want, tag it with one of those tags, and thereby avoid all of our otherwise automated copyright problem systems.  Images with any kind of reasonable fair use rationale would still go to WP:IFD, but all of this media belonging to to someone else that no one here has taken responsibility for need to be treated exactly the same as incompatibly-licensed images. Jkelly 01:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. No need to make this retrospective for now, but we need to stem the tide of new images that have the potential to get us in hot soup. Right now it is damn freaking easy to game the copyvio system by claiming any copyvio to be fair use. Johnleemk | Talk 08:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's try this again 

message: I often come across newly created pages which I'm sure are infringing a policy, but due to not being an admin and having not read the policies thoroughly I can't pick the right CSD template. Furthermore, there are often pages which, due to your unfamiliarity with the subject matter, you cannot tell whether they should be deleted or not. For instance, sometimes you come across a brand new stub, and it may not be obvious whether this is a stub on a notable, encyclopedia-worthy subject, or whether its just plain vanity or something else.
The proposed template is: / or similar. It places the page either the CSD category or a subcategory called "Suspected CSD's" or similar. The idea is that you are bringing the page to the larger attention of the admins at CSD, because you suspect that it's a CSD, but you dont have the expertise to say exactly why or you require a CSD peer review. In short the proposal is a template that "brings a page to CSD's attention". -- Alfakim --  talk  16:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If prod weren't having technical difficulties, that would be a good time to use prod.  Also, you could simply use db-reason.  No one should be deleting it if it doesn't qualify for speedy even if it's improperly tagged. NickelShoe (Talk) 16:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarifying, this is more of an "I'm not an expert on this subject, but someone more knowledgable would certainly know whether this was CSD, so I'm bringing it to their attention"-template.-- Alfakim --  talk  17:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can't be bothered to check the speedy criteria, don't use speedy.  If you're not sure of the names of the templates or want to be more clear about your concern, use db-reason.  If the article looks bad but you lack the knowledge in the relevant subject area to tell, notify the article creator, add maintenance tags, and/or submit to AfD or prod. NickelShoe (Talk) 17:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there anywhere I can get a list of maintenance tags? Please reply on my talk page if so. -- Alfakim --  talk  15:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup.  Putting on your talk page too, at your request. NickelShoe (Talk) 16:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for new CSD template 

message: This is a proposal that seeks to change our approach to the deletion process by removing content of a page as a criterion for deletion, only the topic can be judged in deletion debates. Please discuss the proposal at the talk page. Thanks a lot. Loom91 19:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Ammendment to deletion policy]] 

message: Please discuss the TFD nomination of  (a newly made speedy deletion tag) at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Db-web.  --Rob 05:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  db-web 

message: Note: It could be I2 if the other are bumped down, but that would probably annoy people who have to rememorize the numbers, so in my opinion I1a is best, since it's very similar.
#a.  Any image tagged with  that is public domain, or any image that is GFDL with the description and file history of the page copied to Commons.  
This should allay any fears of messing up the license.  PD images don't need anything at all, and GFDL just need to show who created what when.  By copying the file history, it does meet the requirements.  This only applies to , though, because  would require that all uses be replaced (though we could add something where "if all uses are replaced then it can be speedied" or something). --Rory096(block) 21:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly object to the proposal.  Until such day as we have a tool to automatically migrate history and information to Commons, I don't trust people to reliably migrate information or the admins to check that it was migrated correctly, which in my experience with my own work, it almost never is (e.g. links to en.wikipedia material are broken, file histories and dates are deleted, attribution is messed up, etc., etc.).  Also, I am opposed to the idea that having an image on Commons inherently makes an image on EN redundant, since EN can have an English description and be watched for vandalism here while Commons ought to have multiple language descriptions and can't be watched for vandalism.  Dragons flight 21:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As for the first part, I can't make you trust anyone to do things, but right now, it rarely even gets checked at all; it's moved to Commons, well or sloppily, then listed on IfD and almost invariably deleted in a few days.  Making it a CSD would help bring an admin's attention to it and hopefully check, rather than just seeing that it was on IfD for 5 days and just deleting it.  For the second part, we can still have our own image description if we want, and why can't we monitor it for vandalism?  If we see that the image isn't what it's supposed to be, we can just go to the commons page and revert it.  If anything, it would make it less likely to be vandalized for long because there are less vandals on Commons AND there would be any countervandals on both Commons and other projects that may be using the pic watching.  --Rory096(block) 23:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Going through IFD gives the image uploader time to see the tag and make corrections/protest/etc.  Secondly, the way the software currently works, if an image is on Commons but not here, it will display the Commons' image, the local image description page (if any) and then the Commons' image description page which creates ugly redundancy if both places are using image descriptions.  Having a full local copy ensures that only the local image description is used.  I'm not worrying about the image appearance being vandalized, but rather the image description being vandalized, which is much more common in my area of work (global warming/climate change).  Moving an image to Commons makes it much more difficult for me to monitor changes to the image descriptions.  I also disagree that it is substantially less likely to be vandalized, since it is just one extra click to get to the Commons page after finding the image used on an article in EN.  Dragons flight 23:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Object, for one thing CSD is already backed up most times without having to go through a time-consuming check on whether the history has properly been migrated, for another it isn't really necessary since most images under this category can go through IFD normally. Stifle (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While true that images can go through IfD (though I'm not so sure about CAT:CSD being backed up much), it's a real PITA.  One has to notify the uploader, format a template so it has both the uploader and the reason in it, then enter it onto the page, for EVERY image.  There's a reason CAT:NCT is backlogged. --Rory096 05:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: I1a 

message: The current policy allows speedy deletion for
:Any page for which deletion is requested by the original author, provided the page was edited only by its author and was mistakenly created. If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request. Note: Please check the page history to make sure there is only a single author.
I suggest to add, after "edited only by its author", the following phrase: 
: not counting edits which call for (1) deletion or (2) speedy deletion of the page, or which question the (3) importance or (4) veracity of the page
I think that at least (1) and (2) are uncontroversial -- an edit that adds  or  obviously should not prevent a speedy deletion that is requested by the author.  Also editors who add  or  would probably be happy to see the page go, if the original author him/herself suggests that. 
--Austrian 22:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  author requests deletion 

message: I would like to add some more examples to A7's description because I do not feel that the current wording encompasses the full scope of the policy change that was approved in December 2005: "In short, my proposal is to expand CSD A7 to include non-notable groups of people as well as individuals. This would apply to bands, clubs, organizations, couples, families, and any other collections of individuals that do not assert their importance or significance."  (my highlighting) Specifically, I would like to add the following words (in bold) to the current description:
:7. Unremarkable people or groups / vanity pages. An article about a real person or group of people—for example, a band, club, family, online community, company or other organization—that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead.
I want to emphasise that this is not intended to change the agreed-upon policy in any way. But I would like us to use our existing policy to its full extent. Why? Because it's doing an incredible job, but it could do more. About 90% of deleted articles are deleted via speedy deletion. But AFD is still overflowing with 120-150 articles per day, and many of those are obvious deletions with no opposing "keep" votes.
Two of the new examples—families and organizations—are copied directly from the proposal. The other two—companies and online communities—are also included in this policy, but it is useful to mention them specifically:
*A company is "an organization of individuals conducting a commercial or industrial enterprise", but it is also an entity that stands to gain financially from using and abusing Wikipedia. As Wikipedia grows in prominence, it is increasingly becoming a target for blatant (and not so blatant) self-promotion. Currently the most egregious examples are being dealt with by the (mis)use of the  template, but strictly speaking it is not "blatant copyright infringement from the website of a commercial content provider"—it's advertising material being copied with the   full permission of the copyright owner. In A7 we have the appropriate tool to deal with this. Let's use it.
*An online community is also a "group of people", but it is one that can (and often has) mustered its members in an attempt to overwhelm Wikipedia's defences. While these attempts rarely (if ever) succeed, they can waste a tremendous amount of our time and effort. We could save ourselves an awful lot of hassle if we could deal with these cases swiftly and decisively, where appropriate.
Please comment, and share your thoughts and opinions below. Thank you. GeorgeStepanek\talk 09:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding more examples to A7 

message: Hi, I rewrote the opening paragraphs, because I found them a bit disorganized and unclear.  I was careful not to make content changes; I hope it's an improvement, and my apologies if it is not.  Kaisershatner 14:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyedit

message: Why isn't blatant absurdity a ground for speedy deletion?  I find it really annoying that a user can create an article about himself, claiming (say) that he invented time travel and is the king of the universe, and there is no official justification for tagging this for speedy deletion (after all, these claims, if true, would certainly make the person notable).  Thus we have to go through the prod (and probably) AFD process, wasting everyone's time.  It makes no sense to me.  dbtfztalk 19:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's  and  for situations like that. --ZsinjTalk 19:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   covers patent nonsense, which that is not. Blackcap (talk) 19:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I don't think anyone's going to argue with deleting articles where the claims to notability are obviously false. If nothing else they can be deleted as vandalism (G3). Of course, this requires being a bit of discretion... absurd claims like you mention can be safely declared obviously false... but seeking out verification, or using Prod/AfD is more appropriate for claims that are merely dubious. --W.marsh 19:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the input.  I think db-vandalism works for the situation I've described, so I'll use that from now on.  dbtfztalk 19:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, I am talking only about claims that any sane person could immediately recognize as obviously false.  I agree that prod/AfD is the right course of action for other cases.  dbtfztalk 19:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to understand what to do quite well.  Don't be afraid to tag common sense speedies, whether they exactly fit a category or not.  We don't have an official policy for this stuff but the deletions of obvious junk are fairly uncontroversial.  Friday (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. --ZsinjTalk 19:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the good advice.  :-)  dbtfztalk 19:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  db-absurd? 

message: CSD R4: Redirects in any talk namespace caused by a move, where the associated article (project page, template, whatever) was changed from a redirect into a distinct page.
A case in point is Talk:Nickel (coin), which is a redirect to Talk:Nickel (U.S. coin), but the article it's attached to is a disambig page also including the Canadian coin. Clearly the redirect is inappropriate, and deleting such a redirect should not be controversial in the slightest, especially since there is no edit history to worry about, because that was moved at the same time.
There is already precedent for this: Talk:Lingua Franca was boldly deleted by Commander Keane - it used to be a redirect to Talk:Lingua franca. Lingua Franca was moved to Lingua franca because its capitalisation was wrong, but someone later created a distinct page on the old name. At that point the page you got when clicking on "discussion" on Lingua Franca no longer bore any relation to that article.
See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#Multiple_pages_with_differently_capitalised_names.
Hairy Dude 15:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or you could just blank the redirect.  That seems like a complicated rule when it's not like you need to get rid of the history. NickelShoe (Talk) 18:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New criterion proposal for redirects 

message: Privacy vio should be on the list, e.g. personal details, private correspondence etc. Phr 01:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Private correspondence needs a very limited scope to prevent abuse. --Avillia (RfC vs CVU) 05:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Privacy vio 

message: The CfD debate at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 27#Category:Online Soccer Project Alpha made me wonder whether we should add to C1 a permission to speedy delete categories which have become empty as a result of an AfD debate — or, more generally, the deletion (rather than recategorisation) of all articles under the deletion policy. Perhaps with a grace period of four days of emptiness? —Whouk (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't categories be deleted on their own merits, not whether they're being used?  Who's to say they wouldn't be used again?  And if they're redundant for whatever reason, why does it hurt to send it to CfD and make sure the consensus is there? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 15:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a case for not having any CSD category criteria, isn't it? My point is that if a category that's empty and never been populated can be deleted under C1, a category which has only had as content articles/templates which were deleted could potentially be considered as analogous. —Whouk (talk) 17:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure there is any sort of reason to speedy delete categories outside of attack categories (i.e., "Category: People who think badlydrawnjeff is a moron") or nonsense cats.  But maybe I'm missing something here. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 18:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How can we tell if the category has ever been populated?  (This is not a rhetorical question.  I'm not a Wikipedia expert, but I don't know where to look in the logs for that information.) I think there should be a CSD for categories; but G1 should take care of most of the cases I've run across. — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories relating to AfD deletions 

message: I would like to add a clause to G4 to say that articles deleted under WP:PROD and then re-created should not be speedied under G4, but rather taken to AFD, as the re-creation of a PRODded article amounts to the same thing as contesting the PROD. I think this is common sense, but it doesn't seem to be explicitly stated anywhere. Any objections? Angr (talk • contribs) 09:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems logical; incidentally, G4 already covers the case for articles that were speedy deleted (saying that the administrator have to check whether the article actually meets WP:CSD), so this is a natural extension. - Liberatore(T) 10:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds like a good idea. No objections here. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Support. —Ruud 15:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Generally support, although I believe it should be up to someone else (perhaps even the prodder) to take it to AfD.  Removal of PROD doesn't automatically mean AfD, and articles shouldn't just be AfD'd just because they were prodded once upon a time. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 15:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right of course. By "taken to AFD" I meant "taken to AFD if you want it deleted". Leaving it alone is of course also an option. Angr (talk • contribs) 16:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Support. Snoutwood (tóg) 15:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition to G4 

message: Although I've posted this on AN, I'm posting it here again so that all of you notorious vandalfighting lads are sure to hear about it.
If you have a IP address that has been warned, blocked, blocked again, and still keeps coming back, list him at the page mentioned in this header: WP:ABUSE. This is a process, similar to WP:AIV and WP:RFCU, that contacts the ISP of an IP address that is a repeated abuser. The page went live about ten minutes ago, and we're itching to try it out. Please read the guide and the main page before posting, that's all we ask. Thanks, lads. Snoutwood (tóg) 23:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Abuse reports]] 

message: It is my impression that CSD criteria should be sufficiently clear and follow consensus opinions enough to have one person able to objectively decide on an issue. Since Notability has not been decided on how can someone justify using criteria pre-emptively developed using the essay to delete without discussion in an objective way. I propose that the guideline be scrapped as it does not fit the consensus model currently. Ansell 07:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A7 is for articles with no assertion of notability.  If there is any reason to suspect someone might disagree, it can't be used. -- SCZenz 08:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How low an assertion is "no notability", considering that the tag can be used after the first edit to a page while it is still in a stub stage? Why are their tags called nn-bio if they are not really referencing the notability criteria, only the lack of any part of it? If the criteria are not used at all then how is notability able to be determined by an isolated individual, as in the CSD process? Ansell 10:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Somewhere, perhaps on WP:YFA, there ought to be an advice to article creators that if they create an article in multiple edits, they should start by writing the part that explains why the topic is notable. But in any case, an article does not even reach stub state until the notability is explained. Without information about why to care, the arctile fails to fulfill even a stub's function. You are wrong in assuming that the criterion calls for anyone to determine notability itself; it just says to look whether there is any claim in the article that if assumed true, even though unreferenced and unlikely, would constitute notability. Henning Makholm 11:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And the bar for potential notability should be quite low.  If someone thinks an article has an assertion of notability that they think wouldn't save it from AfD, that does not mean it can be speedied. -- SCZenz 17:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: An article on a person (or group, band, club, etc.) can only be speedied under A7 if it does not contain an assertion of notability. "Katie won the spelling bee in 1993" is such an assertion, and an article with that line could not be speedied under A7. (It might be possible under A1, but that's another discussion.) Once an assertion of notability exists, it must go to prod or AFD. Stifle (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Katie won the spelling bee" could (and should) most certainly be speedied.  We also speedy things that contain assertions of notability like "Bob is the Ruler of the Entire World", and this is hardly controversial.  We just need to use a bit of common sense here. Friday (talk) 17:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Friday and Stifle are entirely correct.  We do, I think, set the bar for assertions fairly low, and I suppose that's altogether appropriate.  Katie won the spelling bee surely qualifies for    or   , while Katie won the 2006 Kansas state spelling bee and represented her region at the Scripps National Spelling Bee seems to assert notability, even as I'd surely support "delete" at AfD (per WP:BIO).  I do think common sense can properly dispose of 99 per cent of entries to which a speedy tag is appended; it's not difficult, IMHO, to differentiate between an article without an assertion of notability and an article with such assertion, even where the achievement/characteristic adduced to demonstrate notability does not fit within one's own defintion of WP:NOT; in the other 1 per cent of situations, inasmuch as one isn't certain whether an assertion is really made, speedy is likely inappropriate (in those cases, I think the admin removing the speedy tag might do well to refer the article straightaway to AfD—with no recommednation if one wants—although surely the initial tagger ought also to watch the article).  Joe 06:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A7 too subjective for CSD

message: Notifying the original contributors to an article before tagging it should be an enforceable policy, not simply an optional nicety. This would ensure that people thought clearly about what they were doing when placing such a powerful tag on a page. Ansell 07:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I politely disagree.  We are not required or expected to notify anyone about any other kind of edit (including a complete rewrite).  As it says very clearly and in bold at the bottom of every edit page, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it."  The original contributors have no more rights to the article than every other reader/editor in the project.  See WP:OWN for more.  Rossami (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it policy or simply practice that a contested CSD tag should become an XfD nomination instead? If the former, it would certainly be polite to give major contributors notification. (And either way, this page should say something about it.) Septentrionalis 16:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles go to AfD if someone nominates them.  I don't know of any policy other than that. -- SCZenz 17:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: To contest a CSD tag you need to make a comment on the talk page of the relevant article, optionally placing  on the article while you type the comment. However, if the article meets the criteria, it can still be speedied by an admin. If the article does not meet the criteria, or is improved after being tagged, the tag can be removed by anyone except authors of the page. In any case, if the tag is removed, the page can optionally be taken to ?FD. Stifle (talk) 17:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree with Ansell. This would be exceptionally time-consuming procedure. When I go on new pages patrol, I can speedy up to five pages a minute. Requiring me to come up with a notification for each and every one of the authors of those pages would cut this by 80% or more. The articles shouldn't be there, my deletion summary gives a clear and concise reason why I deleted the article, and people can put a message on my talk page at any stage if they need another explanation. This proposal has come up a few times; I regret that it appears to be instruction creep. Stifle (talk) 17:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Stifle.  However, you COULD encourage it by adding a template for the user's talks to the bottom of the CSD notice (similar to how  has  at the bottom). It shouldn't be mandatory, but it would make it easier. --Rory096 06:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A very simple method,  ~~~~ is already available for userbox deletion review, how much harder would it be to integrate a method of this type into the current process for speedy deletion. I cannot really accept the fact that it will slow the process down as a factor, as I consider this to be the most vulnerable of all processes to be possibly abused and should be totally transparent. It is the transparency that would be increased by mandatory notification, as this could possibly be the only non-log record for the deletion in any part of wikipedia. Ansell 07:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notifying contributors should be enforceable policy