Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 6

message: From the discussion above, the intention behind the phrase "commercial content provider" is to restrict A8 to cases where it's quite clear that the copyright owner will not give consent for the content to be used in Wikipedia.
Now universities are fiercely protective of their reputation - it translates directly into student numbers and thus income; copying papers and then submitting them to "merciless editing" translates into faculty reputation. How about extending A8 to academic publications? Is it a good idea or needless instruction creep? Pilatus 22:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Universities

message: I'm sure this must have been proposed before - so what's the argument for not having a CSD for non-notable websites to mirror non-notable people? eg No Mercy Zone. Rd232 talk 09:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: nn-bio is basically only useful for honest mistakes by individuals, who think they can have a personal page here for themself or a friend.  Anybody can dodge it by making a plausible but unverifiable claim of notability.  In a way, we're being nice to subjects of nn-bio's by not subjecting them to an AFD chorus of personal critics.   Also, many nn-bios contain rather personal information, that should be toasted before it's permanently adrift in cyberspace.  Pretty much any commercial web site makes a claim of notability, so wouldn't be covered by an equivilent rule.  Also, I don't see a huge AFD back-log on them (compared to bands, for example, which is a problem we need to fix).  --rob 09:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Non-notability is definitely not a speedy criteria for "any article" SchmuckyTheCat 01:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why notability is not part of deletion policy. Most of what people mean by this is covered by existing wp policy - there is no need for further instruction creep. Trollderella 09:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  nn-website 

message: I propose creating A9 as:
*"An article which is an obvious attempt at a hoax."
or similar. Has this been proposed before? Alphax τεχ 02:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discused before. I am opposed to any such idea. There are too many false postitives, real but obscure topics incorrectly labeled as hoaxes. DES (talk) 02:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps what's needed instead, is to allow early closing of hoaxes, after confirmed by more than one person.  This ensures everybody sees what's being discussed.  It's essential we delete these hoaxes early, so we don't aid their spread (more than we have to).  We need to get rid of these articles before they're cached/indexed by SEs and sent to infrequently updated  mirrors.  --rob 02:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I suggest speedily deleting articles that admit that they are hoaxes, which, surprisingly, many do. Also, anything that is extremely obviously a hoax should be deleted as well. For example, someone who claims that they can high jump 10 meters or that the president has been replaced with an alien clone (although that would explain a few things). -- Kjkolb 04:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I think DES may be talking about articles that can't be easily verified and might be a hoax. There's a big difference. A possible hoax article may claim that someone is a well known filmmaker, except there is no entry on IMDb. An article that says trolls live in the Earth's core is another matter. -- Kjkolb 04:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Truly transparent hoaxes, such as articles about trolls living in the Earth's core, or about a nuclear war between Uganda and Zimbabwe that "happened" on the day after the article was posted, can arguably be speedied under G3 as pure vandalism.  While we approved a whole separate case for attack pages, despite them already being speediable under the same logic, I'd be strongly opposed to making a separate explicit case for hoaxes.  Why?  Because speedy criteria always get stretched - articles are speedied under A8 as copyvios despite not being from commercial content providers or not being identified within the first 48 hours; under A3 despite having a sentence of advertising copy along with the external link; G7 when the only "reasonable explanation that the creation was by mistake" is that the creator blanked the page.  These are relatively harmless, but there's a very large possibility of error if an explicit "Obvious hoaxes are speediable" CSD is introduced. —Cryptic (talk) 04:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If those kinds of hoaxes can be deleted under G3, then it should be explicitly mentioned there. Some stuff like that ends up on AfD, often with the explanation that hoaxes can't be speedied. -- Kjkolb 06:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Here's an example of one. An article about a line of gnats that bisects Georgia is clearly a hoax. It was tagged as a speedy delete, but brought to AfD instead. -- Kjkolb 09:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Taking a closer look, it does say that it is fictional. In the part I glanced at, it talks as if a line of gnats actually exists. I wouldn't say that this would prove the point, as one would be more careful when actually deleting an article. -- Kjkolb 09:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Truly transparent hoaxes, and self-admitted hoaxes, i would argue could be speedy deleted as vandalism. However, an article about trolls at the earth's core might be a plot summery of a work of fiction -- i would look closely for cluse that thsi was so and maybe do a google search before speedying. (I have several times saved articels abotu fictional topics that fialed to explicitly indicate that they were a description of fiction, but gave enough cluses to find the context. This is bad writing, but should be fixed, not speedy deleted.) less probably, but still possible, it might be about the belifs of a weird but real group who acutually think there are trools, etc. if you didn't know it was a real group, would you think that the Falt earthers were a hoax? Therefore, even in what seem the most obvious trasparent hoaxes, i would advise thinking three times, looking for cluses, and doing a short google check. DES (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

text: And Yes, above I was speaking of of alleged hoaxes that were not self-admitted, adn not nearly as trasparent as the "trolls" example. DES (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

text: "Karlsson is a fat boy who has a propeller fastened to his back. Because of this propeller he can fly around. He starts this propellor by pushing a button in his bellybutton. And Karlsson is the best person in the world."
Speediable? What about reading Karlsson-on-the-Roof? Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

text: You might call me cynical and heavy-handed, but anything that looks sufficiently like a hoax or nonsense to risk speedy deletion needs sources. We are arguing that the closing admin mistakenly speedily deletes an article on a valid topic. Now chances are that most readers will consider the article a hoax, too. Pilatus 22:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is also much closer to an A1 than to a G3, and had I seen this after a "context was:" in the deletion log, I would have assumed that was the criterion it was speedied for.  There's no context whatsoever, though "very short" is pushing it. —Cryptic (talk) 01:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Criteria for hoax articles? 

message: I came up with some criteria for speedily deleting band vanity articles based on WP:MUSIC. They are much less strict than the other criteria, as past efforts to use WP:MUSIC as criteria for speedy deletion have failed. 
Articles will be deleted if all of the following criteria are met. The band:
# Hasn't been listed on any national music chart
# Hasn't gone on any tours
# Hasn't released any albums or singles, other than demo tapes or self-made releases
# Hasn't had even a minor mention in any major music media
# Doesn't have a notable member or a member from another band that is notable
# Hasn't become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (or both, as in British hip hop)
# Hasn't won an award bigger than the county level
# Doesn't have an All Music entry
The criteria will be judged according to the content of the article, the band's website, if available, and information found through Google and All Music. If the article or any websites claim that the band meets any of the above criteria, even if unverified, the article will be taken to AfD. The article will be deleted if it fails to claim that it meets the criteria and a search on Google and All Music is unsuccessful. -- Kjkolb 20:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Surely you mean that your former band fails at least one of those criteria? If it fails seven of the eight, I think that you do deserve an article, after all. NatusRoma 03:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *You're right - forgetting the double negatives :) It fails one of the criteria (we did a small tour) and possibly a second (we got a couple of minor mentions in this country's top music mag of the country of the time (Rip It Up)). No way we should have an article, though! Grutness...wha? 04:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedily deleting band vanity articles 

message: WP:PUI is now incompatible with speedy deletion criteria, which clearly say that any image that was marked as unknown, should be deleted after 7 days. WP:PUI proposes 30 days procedure, which is much more. 
Many people can become confused by these incompatibilities - e.g., I have wandered around Wikipedia: namespace for few hours before I found out clearly which are the rules for the unknown images and how these images should be marked.
I have proposed that page's templates for deletion; please check WP:TFD#Template:PUI. --Monkbel 18:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:PUI]] is incompatible with these? 

message: CSD and its talk page are very wikinomic-ish, could it be cleaned up a bit somehow? --Kim Bruning 23:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you meant archiving the talk page, please point to an example? To my knowledge all CSDs with exception of #A8 are very clear-cut, and there's good reason for A8 being as it is, as explained above. --Radiant_>|< 23:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for proving my point. :-) --Kim Bruning 23:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't understand you. --Radiant_>|< 00:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Kim, in her own round-a-bout way was pointing out that CSD has become very inbred and exlusionary, with an impenetrable jargon as a symptom.  To me, "To my knowledge all CSDs with exception of #A8 are very clear-cut" is goobledegook, unless I want to spend 20 minutes reading up on this. --Maru  (talk) Contribs 06:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't think, in practical terms, CSD can be simplified usefully.  Simplification works when actions are reviewable; speedy deletion, by its nature, can only be doublechecked by other admins.  These rules give the community confidence that User:DeletionistAdmin isn't quietly speedying school articles, and give guidance to non-admin RC/NP patrollers on what they can reasonably tag.  <beat dead horse>(We could simplify A8 by getting rid of it entirely; I've seen it misapplied dozens of times, and not once seen it correctly used.) —Cryptic (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Simplify, removed A8 completely. Re-write in common sense language. Trollderella 22:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikinomic

message: I've seen a lot of proposals to modify CSD here recently. I've summarized them all on Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/New criteria for convenience. I am not convinced as yet that this, or part of it, is a worthwhile policy proposal, but there has been enough of it that people may want to discuss. Radiant_>|< 00:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary

message: Perhaps I didn't notice, but I didn't see a speedy delete rationale for fiction, and I've seen a couple of instances of such articles lately. It would seem to me that if something is self labeled as fiction -- that is, the article consists of a short story, a script, a transcript of an animated cartoon, etc. -- that it is an obvious speedy. If there isn't such a criterion right now, should we be adding one? --Pmetzger 01:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Could we make this into, perhaps, a more general topic of "unencyclopedic topic" or some such wording? There isn't a need to be that specific..."unencyclopedic" fits the bill quite nicely. --BorgHunter (talk) 02:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New criterion: Self-described fiction 

message: *Someone added a comment to the article Richard Borcherds saying Borcherds had collaborated in research with a certain other mathematician.  You clicked on that other mathematician's name, and the article began by saying the person didn't really exist.  I deleted it and several links to it. Michael Hardy 02:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already unverifiable original research. No more rulecruft please! Trollderella 02:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's possibly a coincidence. Sometimes imaginary people are notable, and the person who added the link may have been referring to an actual person rather than that imaginary person. Deco 03:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ? 

message: I would like to see the criterion for speedy deletion of "copyvios" extended to cover any blatant copy and paste from any website, irrespective of whether it is commercial or not and irrespective of whether the contributor has permission or not. For example Jedi Assembly was first nominated for speedy, changed to non-speedy copyvio and now has a user assertion of permission (probably valid).
All such articles are in my view an insult to Wikipedia. Why should we be fobbed off with someone else's style? If the contributor cannot be bothered to convert to Wikipedia standards, the article should be deleted until someone willing to produce a proper article comes along.
By definition, a crude cut and paste represents very little effort on the contributor's part and so deletion of such articles is not destroying hours of work. -- RHaworth 13:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, more using deletion instead of cleanup is unhelpful. If 'needing substantial work' is now a reason for speedy deletion we're in trouble. Trollderella 18:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvios 

message: Let's drop the bomb on this one. Since CSD is now more byzantine than AFD ever was (by about an order of magnitude) I suggest we abandon CSD entirely, as its function can be entirely covered by AFD, + the 2004 speedy deletion rule: "obvious vandalism only", with less timeloss for most admins concerned. 
have a nice day! Kim Bruning 23:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I hereby second this proposal, primarily since it seems absurd we have so many XfDs present on Wikipedia which more or less cover similar functionality, each in varying stages of decay. In the interests of reducing instruction creep, and making the deletion process more rationalised, I fully agree with Kim's proposal above to drop the bomb on this one. Of course, I think if we do the Obvious Vandalism Only speedy delete rule will have to be made more prominently known; some people do appear to be unaware of it. However, if that is solved, then there is little to no purpose to this system remaining here. Let us work towards unifying, integrating and streamlining processes such as this one into single conglomerates. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Yeah, sending another 400 articles per day to AfD sounds cool. -Splashtalk 23:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Note that we'd still have the old&conservative speedy deletion rule above. It won't be 400 articles per day to AFD. Kim Bruning 23:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

text: But the extra articles going to AfD are the ones that everyone can agree we don't want. -- SCZenz 23:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

text: CSD is more complex than AFD at the moment. AFD is <cringe> actually superior. Kim Bruning 01:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Thank you for making my argument for me. Before this whole CSD mess, people would just speedy delete the dang article, and if someone was actually working on it, they could request it undeleted with little trouble. (I actually had that happen once when I was an anon, 'twas no problem at all! ) Kim Bruning 01:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, what?  How does that phrase make your argument?  The question is pretty simple - is there a problem with the current CSD operation? - brenneman(t)(c) 01:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was all ready type what Aaron said. Are you saying that the problem is that too many people tag articles for deletion without deleting them? That makes very little sense. The CSD aren't broken.--Sean|Black 01:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Before, if an article was obviously a mess, it could just be deleted after 5 days, or if it was blatant vandalism, it could be removed speedily. Nowadays, almost nothing may be deleted, unless you spend quite a while learning all about  this complex CSD thing. I think only regular RC patrollers even have time to learn this stuff. The vast majority of tens of thousands of wikipedians probably have better things to do with their time.Kim Bruning 01:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

text:  Hmmm, I'm sorry. Ummm, What's #A8? I sincerely apologise for this, but I think I got lost somewhere around trying to figure out what "CSD G1" means. The page is quite hard to understand unless you've been  working on this like forever. Could you explain to the layperson? Kim Bruning 01:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been here since June, and I can understand it just fine. It seems perfectly okay to me,--Sean|Black 01:38, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

text: *In all frankness, if someone doesn't understand the CSD then they shouldn't be applying them. As you've mentioned, AfD is still fairly simple, and plenty of people continue to use that. Everyone contributes in their own way, and tagging articles for speedy deletion is a drastic measure, that I am happy to leave to people who understand and accept the narrow definitions applied. - brenneman(t)(c) 01:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Exactly.--Sean|Black 01:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's not really the wiki way though. Anyone should be able to grasp what can and should be done. That way the burden of maintaining such a large encyclopedia rests on the largest number of shoulders. Kim Bruning 02:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an anarchy. Anyone should, but not everyon does.--Sean|Black 02:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  But wikipedia is not a nomic either! Perhaps we should try for middle ground at the least? Kim Bruning 04:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

text:  So you're saying we could simplify this page to just 'You can just write "deletebecause|attack page" if you see an attack page. ', with some slight embellishments perhaps? Kim Bruning 02:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's true in the sense that you don't have to use any of the special templates.  However, the reason for the speedy ought to be something with community consensus. (And those reasons happen to be reflected by the templates.) -- SCZenz 04:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Community consensus is pretty easy to gauge at deletion review. The problem we have now is that some folks there are commenting based on lots of silly little rules listed here, as opposed to building a consensus based on their own considerable insights. As you know, all significant editing on wikipedia must be done by humans. What pages like this version of CSD are trying to do is make an end-run around that, forcing humans to behave like bots; as opposed to letting them do what they do best (that is, apply their own intelligence and creativity to each challenge).  Kim Bruning 04:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is WP:NOT a democracy.  Kim Bruning 04:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, but it does make great use of community consensus, which CSD has. -- SCZenz 04:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

text: When I do RC patrol I make use of several basic CSD rules, but only basic ones, such as "obvious vandalism", "does not assert notability of its subject", "serves only to deprecate its subject", and "nonsense". I'm not comfortable with the rule about fresh copyvios, or else I might use it, as I come across a lot of those (I like to give the violators a chance to prove they're not the copyright holder). Do I want a more managable CSD? Sure, like the original set of a dozen or so rules wouldn't be so bad. But shrinking it down too dramatically is just overkill, and would only result in admins breaking the rules and AfD overload. Deco 06:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Note that a lot of people actually AREN'T following the rules. It's rather sad when you have rules that people aren't following, because it reduces respect for *all* rules. Kim Bruning 07:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

text: *Can you give an example?  Preferably a few examples, actually. - brenneman(t)(c) 07:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't for instance Tony Sidaway famous for this? Kim Bruning 20:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *So you're saying that Tony ignores CSD to make improper deletes? Or that Tony's behavior reduces respect for rules in general? Or what? Radiant_>|< 22:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

text: *Er, wait a second, you're one of the foremost promoters of WP:IAR and you complain that there are rules people aren't following? Also please give examples of the problem you see, rather than repeating mantras like "Wikipedia is not nomic". And also please note my earlier comment about how written down rules obviate the need for repetitive discussion. As before, if an article is an obvious mess, it can be deleted after five days. Also in several specific cases, five days of discussion aren't needed. Radiant_>|< 10:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm for Keeping It Short and Simple. IAR helps with that. Current CSD certainly doesn't. Kim Bruning 20:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I sort of see your point. Perhaps we need the obvious, clear-cut rules (nonsense, attack, etc) right at the top of the page, with the templates and everything later. Thoughts?--Sean|Black 21:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. Just icing over the rulecruft isn't going to cut the cake. It's time to clean up! Kim Bruning 21:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deprecate CSD 

message: :: So you're saying we could simplify this page to just 'You can just write "deletebecause|attack page" if you see an attack page. ', with some slight embellishments perhaps? Kim Bruning 02:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's true in the sense that you don't have to use any of the special templates.  However, the reason for the speedy ought to be something with community consensus. (And those reasons happen to be reflected by the templates.) -- SCZenz 04:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Community consensus is pretty easy to gauge at deletion review. The problem we have now is that some folks there are commenting based on lots of silly little rules listed here, as opposed to building a consensus based on their own considerable insights. As you know, all significant editing on wikipedia must be done by humans. What pages like this version of CSD are trying to do is make an end-run around that, forcing humans to behave like bots; as opposed to letting them do what they do best (that is, apply their own intelligence and creativity to each challenge).  Kim Bruning 04:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is WP:NOT a democracy.  Kim Bruning 04:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, but it does make great use of community consensus, which CSD has. -- SCZenz 04:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

text: When I do RC patrol I make use of several basic CSD rules, but only basic ones, such as "obvious vandalism", "does not assert notability of its subject", "serves only to deprecate its subject", and "nonsense". I'm not comfortable with the rule about fresh copyvios, or else I might use it, as I come across a lot of those (I like to give the violators a chance to prove they're not the copyright holder). Do I want a more managable CSD? Sure, like the original set of a dozen or so rules wouldn't be so bad. But shrinking it down too dramatically is just overkill, and would only result in admins breaking the rules and AfD overload. Deco 06:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Note that a lot of people actually AREN'T following the rules. It's rather sad when you have rules that people aren't following, because it reduces respect for *all* rules. Kim Bruning 07:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

text: *Can you give an example?  Preferably a few examples, actually. - brenneman(t)(c) 07:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't for instance Tony Sidaway famous for this? Kim Bruning 20:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *So you're saying that Tony ignores CSD to make improper deletes? Or that Tony's behavior reduces respect for rules in general? Or what? Radiant_>|< 22:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

text: *Er, wait a second, you're one of the foremost promoters of WP:IAR and you complain that there are rules people aren't following? Also please give examples of the problem you see, rather than repeating mantras like "Wikipedia is not nomic". And also please note my earlier comment about how written down rules obviate the need for repetitive discussion. As before, if an article is an obvious mess, it can be deleted after five days. Also in several specific cases, five days of discussion aren't needed. Radiant_>|< 10:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm for Keeping It Short and Simple. IAR helps with that. Current CSD certainly doesn't. Kim Bruning 20:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I sort of see your point. Perhaps we need the obvious, clear-cut rules (nonsense, attack, etc) right at the top of the page, with the templates and everything later. Thoughts?--Sean|Black 21:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. Just icing over the rulecruft isn't going to cut the cake. It's time to clean up! Kim Bruning 21:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Break to ease editing 

message: Whatever we have needs to be usable by and supported by the valiant poor bastards actually doing newpages patrol. We're getting 50% strangled-at-birth rate on new articles; I have no doubt that's actually about right. It's just that the current CSD rule set reads like Mornington Crescent.
There must be something better than this A6 B2 Q3 Z12 "MORNINGTON CRESCENT!!!" ruleset. It's inherently confusing and intimidating. And A7 is a REALLY BAD EXCUSE. - David Gerard 21:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, Please state the problemRather than all of us waffling on about this, how about some actual examples?  Can we see A) some articles that went to AfD that were speedies and B) some DRV discussions that made incorrect decisions based upon CSD?  </br>Otherwise we've just got a solution in search of a problem.  brenneman(t)(c) 22:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mu! Kim Bruning 22:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: With respect, Aaron, you're missing the point. The issue is not that CSB is turning out hopelessly wrong decisions. The issue is that it's overly and unnecessarily complicated, and that this is something that can be fairly easily fixed without damaging the process. Ambi 22:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

text: What exactly would happen to the hundreds of articles that presently get speedied every day then? Martin 22:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  They'd still get deleted, only quicker. Kim Bruning 22:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  How could it possibly be quicker? You havent satisfactorily explained any of your reasoning or claims, I am very open to change that I feel will make the process better, but I havent seen a single nugget of information that makes me think removing CSD would be anything other than highly inefficient. At the moment I can click "delete" -> give a reason -> click "delete page". thats it, how could it be quicker? Martin 22:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, can we see something other than "musings"?  If we don't even have a single case study to discuss we're wasting our time. - brenneman(t)(c) 22:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because rules-lawyering is intrinsically odious, and the Z9 X7 Q3 K42 version may as well be custom designed to confuse, even if that wasn't the intention - David Gerard 23:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you two (Martin and Aaron) are misunderstanding what this is trying to do; it's not trying to eliminate speedy deletion or make it harder, just to simplify the legalistic criteria. And how is that a bad thing? Ambi 23:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

text: On IRC, huh? Just about most weeks someone hands down a fiat from IRC that everything on-Wiki is crap and broken and that those cretins who go about actually working on-Wiki, especially those who delete things, should really have their heads examined. This week is nothing unusual. -Splashtalk 23:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, God forbid editors actually talk to each other quickly to sort stuff out with a view to writing an encyclopedia rather than running it past the committees committee for a vote on voting on a vote on the committee. PROCESS OVER PRODUCT! - David Gerard 23:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're as funny as ever, but I didn't really expect you to agree. -Splashtalk 23:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

text: For what it's worth, I delete without CSD open. I just use a simple subset of CSD and send the rest to AFD. They'll vote speedy-delete if they think it meets a criterion I missed. Deco 04:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: CSD reads like [[Mornington Crescent]]

message: On IRC recently, I came to a realisation that the reason why CSD needs to be quietly euthanased is that, at present, it is necessary for me to keep the CSD page open whilst I do speedy deletion and garbage collection work around the wiki. This is to check to make sure pages I speedy-delete meet appropriate criteria; if I failed to do this check against the letter of policy, and deleted things merely on my own recognisance rather on guidelines, I would in short order be accused of sysop abuse. But the thing to remember is that no set of steadfast rules could ever possibly cover all permutations of material that perhaps ought to be deleted, and after all even the judgement between individual admins on the application of the CSD criteria vary enough. Consequently, it is quite clear that the use of CSD does not permit IAR to be applied to speedy deletion, and also is not flexible enough in my view for the requirements of Wikipedia. This, in my view, inhibits editorial discretion and increases the propensity towards rules-lawyering on Wikipedia. Since we have other processes in place that could deal with such deletion without inhibition of editorial judgement, we ought to get rid of CSD entirely. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly would happen to the hundreds of articles that presently get speedied every day then? Martin 22:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  They'd still get deleted, only quicker. Kim Bruning 22:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  How could it possibly be quicker? You havent satisfactorily explained any of your reasoning or claims, I am very open to change that I feel will make the process better, but I havent seen a single nugget of information that makes me think removing CSD would be anything other than highly inefficient. At the moment I can click "delete" -> give a reason -> click "delete page". thats it, how could it be quicker? Martin 22:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, can we see something other than "musings"?  If we don't even have a single case study to discuss we're wasting our time. - brenneman(t)(c) 22:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because rules-lawyering is intrinsically odious, and the Z9 X7 Q3 K42 version may as well be custom designed to confuse, even if that wasn't the intention - David Gerard 23:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you two (Martin and Aaron) are misunderstanding what this is trying to do; it's not trying to eliminate speedy deletion or make it harder, just to simplify the legalistic criteria. And how is that a bad thing? Ambi 23:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

text: On IRC, huh? Just about most weeks someone hands down a fiat from IRC that everything on-Wiki is crap and broken and that those cretins who go about actually working on-Wiki, especially those who delete things, should really have their heads examined. This week is nothing unusual. -Splashtalk 23:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, God forbid editors actually talk to each other quickly to sort stuff out with a view to writing an encyclopedia rather than running it past the committees committee for a vote on voting on a vote on the committee. PROCESS OVER PRODUCT! - David Gerard 23:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're as funny as ever, but I didn't really expect you to agree. -Splashtalk 23:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

text: For what it's worth, I delete without CSD open. I just use a simple subset of CSD and send the rest to AFD. They'll vote speedy-delete if they think it meets a criterion I missed. Deco 04:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Musings on why CSD must die 

message: Hmm, I started rewriting, but actually this page is redundant with Wikipedia:Speedy deletion. Just these silly criteria can all be tossed. :-)
Kim Bruning 00:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hehe... well, summarizing isn't tossing everything out. And unfortunately, Speedy deletion refers back to here, so wouldn't it be too recursive? Titoxd(?!?) 00:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hey, give a man 10 minutes to write! :-P Done. :-) Kim Bruning 01:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is, of course, why you stuck  on it and tried to say it wasn't policy. - SoM 01:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh sorry, let me clarify: I just modified Speedy Deletion so that most of CSD was summarised well enough in about a paragraph or 2 there.  :-)Therefore we don't need this page anymore, and can declare it historical. Of course, now people still need to agree with the proposed change, so we can expect some reverting back and forth, I guess. :-/ *ducks* Kim Bruning 01:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I edited the page 3 times total, one was a rewrite, which was reverted (which is ok, because I was about to revert myself anyway) and oh drat an edit conflict while trying to mark as historical (notpolicy is no longer a template), um sorry about that one. Kim Bruning 01:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes. This isn't even lame, it's just stupid.--Sean|Black 01:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Redundant with [[Wikipedia:Speedy deletion]], scrap immediately

message: Hey everyone, cut it out with the revert war. I would protect the page except that most of you are admins to begin with, so that wouldn't actually help. Just cut it out, okay? Radiant_>|< 01:19, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. This isn't even lame, it's just stupid.--Sean|Black 01:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cut it out 

message: Please re-remove and direct me to a consensus to remove this section if their was one, but at first glance I'm not seeing one.  This section has been helpful to me when flaging, and has always led to swift review and deletion by admins when used. Xaosflux 02:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we're trying to make all of CSD redundant, including the templates. Tagging would still work as smoothly or more smoothly than before. (specially since you wouldn't need to look stuff up anymore :-) ) Kim Bruning 02:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't have to use the templates. Many people find them useful, some don't. If you don't like them, don't use them, or, if you must, take them to WP:TFD.--Sean|Black 02:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  One step at a time! :-)  I just got reverted on some changes, so I'm going to have to talk with those reverters first, before trying again. Kim Bruning 02:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

text: If the templates are not going to be deleted, yet editors still think they are taking up too much space on this policy page, moving them to a subpage would be fine with me, having a template to use not only allows people looking at the article to know with some detail why it is up for SD, but makes it clearer as to what should go for CSD vs AfD. Xaosflux 02:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh no, not even more pages! :-/ Kim Bruning 06:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Kim please don't say "we".  You don't speak for me, I'd prefer to keep CSD as it seem to be working just fine.  In fact, I'd like to expand it with some more rules, like for bands and fiction. - brenneman(t)(c) 02:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Deprecating CSD? You're not going to make me change my opinion, you haven't convinced me why having it is bad. Titoxd(?!?) 02:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll just say that I agree with Titoxd and Aaron.--Sean|Black 03:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  What is CSD actually *good for* that cannot be covered by other policies (perhaps with a bit of tweaking)? What I'd like to see is that people cut down on um well, rulecruft, so people can get back down to actually writing an encyclopedia. Rulecruft leads to wikistress. You're esperenza members, so I expect you know that already. :-) Kim Bruning 06:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Restored Deletion Templates Section

message: I'm not sure who marked this as 'deprecated' but I don't see how it is. If people want to deprecate it, take it to TFD, but it goes there every two months or so and ends up kept every time. In general,  giving a reason is preferable, of course. Radiant_>|< 12:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: {{tl|Delete}}

message: What's the point in removing numbers from CSD?  --Nlu 05:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In particular, it's making it far harder to put in justifications for actual speedy deletions.  It was much easier putting in a number than to give a description.  Since I don't see any consensus in the above discussions about removing numbers, I'm going to go ahead and put them back in; speedy deletions shouldn't take 2 minutes per deletion.  --Nlu 05:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm neutral on that, I want the whole of CSD gone, leaving SD. Kim Bruning 06:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbering 

message: Any particular reason why we can't just lay down a few guidelines and apply some common sense, along the lines of "attack page" or "patent vanity" (that patent vanity other than bio-vanity gets forced over to AfD where it has to fester for a week before getting killed)?  There's really no excuse for not allowing a little latitude in this, since it wouldn't (at least without the incessant legalism) prejudice a decent article that appeared in its place.  Very much in the same way that I don't expect to be subject to disciplinary action in work simply because I left a solıtary letter İ undotted. Chris talk back Chris talk back 21:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not too clear on what you're saying. This sounds like: let's agree a list of things we think should be speedy, including most of those we already have. We did that already, no? -Splashtalk 21:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking more along the lines of all teh stuff that comes to AfD saying "I would havae speedied it but for some horribly tiny and insignificant technicality which means this isn't technically a speedy" by doing away with the legalism that people get caught up in.  Applying common sense to keep to the spirit of the guidelines rather than the letter.  Take the case covering vanity articles.  The letter of the rule refers to articles about single individuals, and its spirit is to remove vanity articles.  An article comes up about two people that is patent vanity.  Because Wikipedia is not a system of law, the normal principle in law that there can be no crime where there no offence exists is meaningless.  After all, an article does not have to be about a single individual to be a vain attempt to get into an encyclopaedia.  Remember, only the guilty have need to rely on technicalities.  Clearer?  Chris talk back 01:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thank you. However, I figure where you are heading is toward nn-bands. Now I would personally support such a proposal. But all 3 proposals last time around were below numerical consensus (no lectures, thank you) and so it isn't reasonable to extend the application of A7 (sticks out tongue) to bands. To an extent, we are hobbled by the paranoia of history trying to read the future, and no amount of bold editing can do away with that. Less paranoia could, of course. -Splashtalk 02:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not thinking bands specifically, but any example of patent vanity (I'm thinking the obvious cases along the lines of "The Foo Company was formed last week ..."), be it about someone's band, company, club, society or parents (after all, if it's about both their parents, it's not an article about a person, and thus technically not a valid speedy, right?).  These are things which are not speedy candidates, but only on a technicality - just the sort of legalism we really need to be rid of.  Chris talk back 16:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Common sense

message: Why exactly is it controversial to be able to remove edits by a banned user, considering 1) the rarity of actual banned users, 2) our banning policy which concurs, and 3) the fact that you may remove them does not indicate that you must remove them? I'm aware that some people don't like this criterion, but that doesn't make it controversial. Radiant_>|< 21:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So a banned user writes a decent article, and then an admin with a grudge against that user speedies it? I don't think so. --SPUI (talk) 23:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, of course decent articles should never be speedied. That's just common sense. The point of being able to speedy contributions of banned users is that, invariably, those users got banned for a reason, the reason often being that they have monomaniacal tendencies and find it hard to contain their enthusiasm for their favorite subjects and theories. It's conceivable that a banned user may write an article that's problematic, but not enough to ordinarily warrant speedy deletion. I think it's Ok for an admin with enough background knowledge to speedy such an article, but this criterion should be used very sparingly. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 23:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Contribs by banned user

message: I'm not sure I understand this edit. I believe the point of Jimbo's mail was that we should avoid "fair use" images. Radiant_>|< 22:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? The point is that being licensed non-commercial or for Wikipedia only is bad. If the image would otherwise be fair use, and it is also marked with one of those licenses, it should not be deleted. For instance, if a company says "you are free to use my logo on Wikipedia", its use in the article about the company is already fair use, and this permission should not lead to its deletion. --SPUI (talk) 23:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I think the point is that we shouldn't automatically delete images just because they may have a non-commercial license tag, because this ignores the possibility that they may still be useable under another license or rationale. By decree of Jimbo, we cannot use images under a non-commercial license. However, for any given image, there may be multiple rationales or licenses for use (e.g., a PD image can also be distributed under a cc-by license or the GFDL). So suppose an image is available for use under a non-commercial license: we can, under limited circumstances, take that image and use it without a license by claiming "fair use".  The whole point of this edit is to limit the scope of CSD so that potentially useful and hard-to-replace images don't get speedy deleted. (Aside: Yes, this opens up another can of worms, namely the occasionally rather careless application of "fair use" claims. But, so far, "fair use" images are tolerated, and most definitely cannot be speedied.) --MarkSweep (call me collect) 23:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) If you read what Jimbo's mail actually says, you'll see that it's meant for images where we would have no other reason to use them.  He even says fair use should be taken into account when pruning the pre-May 19 ones.  Also see this bit in the archives. —Cryptic (talk) 23:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use?

message: I'm not an admin, and have (therefore?) not followed CSD very closely.  But I was alerted to a Deletion review discussion recently, and so became interested in an issue around it.  The article at issue is Judeofascism, and it was initially deleted, per VfD, 7 months ago.  Basically, back then, a narrow consensus felt that it was a non-notable neologism.  And now there's a review discussion going on that's probably going to leave the article deleted (rather than created as a redirect to List of political epithets, where the term is mentioned).
This particular article is something politically contentious, and people feel strongly about it.  Some feel that its existence would be a violation of WP:POINT.  But it concerns me that the voters on the deletion review mostly seem to be voting on the notability (or even political desirability) of the word itself, not on the administrative issue of re-creating a page that undewent VfD/AfD in the past.
It seems to me that sometimes something might very properly be deleted as a result of AfD, but subsequently become notable.  Take out the politicization, and let me give more neutral hypotheticals.  Someone might create an article on an allegedly forthcoming book, video game, music recording, etc.  Generally something like that that exists only at the level of tentative plans is deleted as non-notable or speculative.  And quite properly so.  Or similarly, a minor academic or musician might have an article deleted as non-notable vanity.  However, after a time—say, 7 months—that book or game might come out, or that musician might release a high-selling record.  And then the topic is reasonably notable.  For that matter, a neologism can come into wider use.
In cases like this, it feels wrong to me that an articles that is currently notable (and obeys WP:V, copyvio, etc) might get speedy deleted just because it was formerly deleted on AfD.  It seems reasonable enough that the new article might itself be nominated for AfD to establish whether it really is currently a notable topic.  But speedy just seems like too crude an instrument to decide the notability of something that may have been non-notable months or years earlier.  Thoughts? Is there a way to clarify this page to exclude such speedy deletions? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Short answer: apply common sense.  Chris talk back 21:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well now that's really helpful. -Splashtalk 21:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you implying we need a rule to suggest caution when a long time has passed?  Chris talk back 22:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I'm suggesting a rule something more like: If N months have passed since an AfD consensus and page deletion, and article is no longer subject to speedy deletion, but should go through the regular AfD process again, if deleted.  I'm not sure what N equals, but it just seems like any notability decision that is sufficiently old should no longer be presumed as current opinion.  Sure, something might well still be determined to be non-notable per regular AfD, but regular editors should have a chance to evaluate that. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: TBH, that's a case of instruction creep, not to mention an example of the sort of rules Wikipedia needs to be cutting out, rather than building up.  I have enough faith that the inhabitants of AfD aren't stupid enough to need to be told that it might be worth re-evaluating.  They reserve the right to still reach the same decision as they reached before though. Chris talk back 00:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like you're missing the point of my concern.  If something is speedied because it had previously been voted on AfD, "the inhabitants of AfD" never get the opportunity to look at the issue at all, independent of their non-stupidity.  Only the inhabitant of "deletion review" potentially look at it; but what they look at is not the whole new page that might describe notability, but only the page name (and comments by other deletion review inhabitants, of course).  Deletion review editors are non-stupid as well, but they are wearing administrative hats rather than content-question hats. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you're missing the point.  If it's been speedied simply because there was consensus to delete on AfD several months ago, that's a failing of common sense on the part of the deleting admin.  Of course, if the reason they've deleted it was because after examining the old deleted version and what they're presented with they saw no significant progress in the article (meaning it was similar to that which was deleted), then that is common sense well applied.  Your supposedly hypothetical argument is so transparent, that we can all see through it. ;-)  Chris talk back 23:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Better answer: yes, DRV is capable, despite the usual tiresome suggestions that it isn't, of realising that new information is now available and overturning the deleted nature of an article. That DRV does not think that to be the case in your particular example is just life. -Splashtalk 21:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

text: That is an example of both why recreations need to be a valid reason to speedy and rules-lawyer manipulation of the system.  Chris talk back 23:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acquiring notability 

message: I'd really like for a page like this: Super Sabado Gigante to be speedy deleteable. It's an advertisement for a local event, but I can't squeeze it into any existing speedy reasons. So, it gets at least five days as it goes through a fairly pointless AfD (pointless because the outcome is all but certain). Any ideas? Turnstep 15:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any evidence that this kind of page is occurring often enough to justify a new CSD criterion?  How many similar articles have we had?  Rossami (talk) 15:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Event advertising

message: I'd like to propose the following as a CSD.  This looks like the correct place to do so.  If not, please forward to the appropriate department.  It's pretty simple and clear cut.  Speedy delete if:
:"It is an superfluous disambiguation page linking to one or fewer existing articles."
:notation:  or somesuch.
Example: Two or more people have the same name and are disambiguated by "NAME (PROFESSION)". All but one of them turns out to be hoaxes, nn-bios, etc., and are deleted, possibly after a week of mulling, leaving the disambiguation page to link to only one article.  Shouldn't the disambiguation page be speedy deleted and the remaining article be moved to the now-unambiguous "NAME"?  I feel that this would be preferable to having the all-but-empty disambiguation page sit on AFD the following week, tempting the creation or re-creation of articles by individuals acting in questionable faith, further stalling the process, and attracting further undue attention to the hoaxes/vanities in question. Is this unreasonable? — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 22:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good.  I've added it. --Carnildo 22:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this include e.g. Zevenhuizen? It links only to non-existing articles (if I only include the articles that are being disambiguated ), but is a perfectly valid disambiguation page. I have changed the criterium a bit to exclude this type of disambiguation page. Eugene van der Pijll 23:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

text: It seems to me that this is just the redirect criteria R3 (making way for a page move) as applied to disambiguation pages. --Carnildo 00:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. No More Rulecruft. Trollderella 01:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You said that already. -Splashtalk 01:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We already created a bunch of rulecruft we don't need as well. ;) Trollderella 02:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Do you realize how long WP:RM tends to take (especially for "trivial" things like this)?  Also, some people like to create new articles (hoaxes or sub-stubs) in the meantime to make the move proposer look like an idiot.  On the other hand, if the new article happens to be good, anyone can move the old page back where it was and create a new disambig page in a few seconds.  Disambig pages don't require that much depth of writing anyway.  It just looks awfully stupid (to the new reader especially) to see a disambig page in cases where they are clearly not needed. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 05:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unneeded disambig pages 

message: See my notes here: Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_of_vanity_articles#Scrap_this_policy_as_a_reason_for_speedy_deletion_-_AFD_onlyZordrac 11:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily. Suppose we didn't have an article already, and George Bush creates a stub about himself. We should expand and NPOV it, not delete it. It's contextual. Trollderella 18:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you know how much time that would waste just in case that bizarre scenario occurred? Martin 19:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

text: This is what policy says at the minute; only pages which make no assertion of important are speedies. The Land 19:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scrap vanity page as a reason for speedy - AFD only 

message: We're following consensus procedures, and I'd rather not deviate from that. (not that it's easy to deviate from a 20 lane highway, but...)
If you have specific objections to the CSD rule as stated, please state them, and people will listen! (or else :-P ). Please negotiate a consensus. -- Kim Bruning 18:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have stated them. This is an attempt to cicumvent the fact that the wp:music guidelines are not policy and sneak them in here. There has been no discuss of this, and there is no demonstration of concensus to add them. Trollderella 19:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, I thought there had been a discussion. Could you state or point to or link to reasons why this change should not be added to CSD? Kim Bruning 19:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't see how it has anything to do with WP:MUSIC.  It's about making the criterion reflect what's actually being done.  Friday (talk) 20:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

text: First of all, it doens't incorporate WP:MUSIC, the way I rephrased it. (Which I imagine was reverted without being considered.) Secondly, WP:MUSIC is a pretty successful guideline. -Splashtalk 20:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't matter whether it's "succesful" or not - by definition, a policy cannot take a guideline as a parent without becoming degraded itself. - SoM 20:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said, it doesn't. -Splashtalk 21:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

text: It was defeated, which is why there is so much resistance to voting on it. Let's slip it under the door while no one's watching. Trollderella 21:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It took you 1 hour longer than I expected to resort to accusations and namecalling. Frankly, you've only got to look anwhere to see wide support for including groups of people and little dissent. There's no reason everyone has to agree with it, and those who have staunchly opposed each and every expansion of CSD and each and every amendment to deletion policy shouldn't be too surprised when they aren't permitted to stand in the way of most others. -Splashtalk 22:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, I'm not accusing anyone of doing anything that they are not clearly doing. Secondly, this proposal has been rejected by the community every time it has been put to a vote. It grossly misrepresents the intent of A7. It has nothing to do with groups of people or bands, both of which were rejected as criteria for speedy deletion in precisely the same survey that confirmed A7. It tries to encorporate the failed policy of WP:MUSIC into speedy deletion without the consent of the community. Trollderella 22:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do point me to where WP:MUSIC was referenced in the more recent version? You must read the page before reverting it. Also, to suggest that 69% support constitutes rejection is just absurd. (That was what 3C got, I believe.)-Splashtalk 22:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Why do you say "It grossly misrepresents the intent of A7", the intent of A7 is still there, yes this is not what people voted on for A7, but we are trying to expand the scope of A7 on the basis that there appears to be many in favour of doing so. We could add a new criteria called A9, with similar wording to A7, then you couldn't say it mis-represented A7, yet it would have exactly the same effect as what we want to do now. Saying it misrepresents it is just a misleading phrase copied from Tony. Martin 22:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

text: It didn't meet the level of support required. You can't re-write the rule after a poll because you didn't like the result. Oh, wait a minute... Trollderella 22:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But your main concern has been over the incorporation of WP:MUSIC. The reason polls are evil is because afterwards people accidentally think that by being 0.5% short of some arbitrary number it has been rejected for all time and no part of it had any support. Except if you actually go and read the proposal and the voting on it you'll see that's just not the case. -Splashtalk 22:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  No edit war please