Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/New criteria

message: I don't see any reason we shouldn't add a CSD for obvious spam. There are many instances of clear copy/paste or loosely paraphrased press releases that are clearly worthy of deletion that clog up AfD and take a week of time to delete, accomplishing what these people want to use en-wiki for, which is being mirrored across several different sites and increasing their Googlerank.  RasputinAXP  T C 17:29, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#On deleting pages (#4). The text is saved somewhere. And anyway, in that case, what's done for attack pages then? Or nn-clubs/bios that could possibly be referenced somewhere else? Grandmasterka 22:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An attack or nn-bio page has, by definition, no salvagable content (if the nn-bio is mergeable in an useful way, it shouldn't be deleted because it isn't nn). I didn't say I'd like to see no advertisements speedied, I said that I'd like to see this policy adjusted to take the possibility of using the content elsewhere into account. For example, the content has to be an advertisement and the subject non-notable, though I'm wary of all notability-related CSD criteria, since no two users agree on what is and what is not notable and this may just be opening a new can of worms. -- grm_wnr Esc 22:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. On some occasions, a nn-bio is merged with another article, though (for example, a notable organization's founder can be merged into the organization's article if the founder isn't notable for anything else. But then again, that would make the bio not eligible for speedy deletion.) Since it seems like 99.9% of the ads we get here are for non-notable things, I don't think it would be too much of a leap to require the subject to be nn as well. I'd like to hear from others though. Grandmasterka 23:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Ha, whoops! I didn't know about that page... Should this discussion be merged into there? Grandmasterka 12:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I guess your proposal would belong on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. But note that, as per Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/New_criteria, this seems to have been discussed before (you'll probably be able to find it in the archives somewhere). Sandstein 12:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds eminently sensible.  There is definitely a lot of this sort of thing on Wikipedia.  Benefit cosmetics is possibly a recent example, though I have removed half the article to minimise the advertising. - Runcorn 10:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Support - I, also a regular new page patroller, see a lot of new pages just for advertising.  Most of the time, I throw  on it and leave something on the creator's talk page.  I wish I could speedily delete those, but there's never a real appropriate  to put there.  Great idea!  Later, zappa.jake (talk) 05:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Support - We already have  for the specific case of band self-promotion, and it's both needed and used.   It makes sense to generalize this.  I would suggest, as recommendation, not policy, that before using , the editor should check the contributions of the article creator.  If this is their first posting, a message should be placed on their talk page along the lines of "Welcome to Wikipedia.  Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that does not accept advertising.  Please read...  You are welcome to add non-advertising articles to Wikipedia." This won't bite the newbies as hard.  Advertising, though, is generally a newbie problem.  It's relatively rare that a user with a few good articles then adds an advertisment, so in such cases  would be appropriate.  They'll probably reword and fix it.  --John Nagle 17:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Support As per reasons stated above, I can't add much. porges 11:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Support.  We may want to qualify it with a 48-hour time limit or by excluding articles which have multiple editors, but blatant spam is easy to spot and should be killed on sight without prejudice against later creation oif a proper article. Just zis Guy you know? 09:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Support, advertisements don't belong here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Obvious spam

message: ...please remember that even a spam article can be used as a GFDL text source for a better article or partially merged into another article. The only really useless article is one that only or nearly only consists of an external link, and those are already speedyable as "no context". This proposal has to take that fact into account somehow. -- grm_wnr Esc 22:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#On deleting pages (#4). The text is saved somewhere. And anyway, in that case, what's done for attack pages then? Or nn-clubs/bios that could possibly be referenced somewhere else? Grandmasterka 22:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An attack or nn-bio page has, by definition, no salvagable content (if the nn-bio is mergeable in an useful way, it shouldn't be deleted because it isn't nn). I didn't say I'd like to see no advertisements speedied, I said that I'd like to see this policy adjusted to take the possibility of using the content elsewhere into account. For example, the content has to be an advertisement and the subject non-notable, though I'm wary of all notability-related CSD criteria, since no two users agree on what is and what is not notable and this may just be opening a new can of worms. -- grm_wnr Esc 22:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. On some occasions, a nn-bio is merged with another article, though (for example, a notable organization's founder can be merged into the organization's article if the founder isn't notable for anything else. But then again, that would make the bio not eligible for speedy deletion.) Since it seems like 99.9% of the ads we get here are for non-notable things, I don't think it would be too much of a leap to require the subject to be nn as well. I'd like to hear from others though. Grandmasterka 23:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good idea in principle, but... 

message: I applaud the intention, but I'm concerned that this would result in too many false positives. In my editing career at Wikipedia I have been able to "rescue" (or help rescue) a number articles that were tagged for AFD as "advertising" by simply stripping out the POV assertions; e.g. Al-Muhaidib was nominated here, TOS TrekMUSE was nominated here, and Reuters messaging which was was nominated here. And who can forget Sollog, which was initially pure advertising, but is now an excellent debunk article? GeorgeStepanek\talk 23:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: False positives

message: ... because there is just no consensually accepted criterium for speedy deletion for adverts. What policy would the template link to? Compare , which I believe is a valid attempt at interpreting CSD A7 (but see also its TfD discussion.) I also echo the above concerns about false positives. Sandstein 11:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha, whoops! I didn't know about that page... Should this discussion be merged into there? Grandmasterka 12:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I guess your proposal would belong on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. But note that, as per Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/New_criteria, this seems to have been discussed before (you'll probably be able to find it in the archives somewhere). Sandstein 12:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's probably better to [[Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion|discuss policy]] first, templates second... 

message: :Sounds eminently sensible.  There is definitely a lot of this sort of thing on Wikipedia.  Benefit cosmetics is possibly a recent example, though I have removed half the article to minimise the advertising. - Runcorn 10:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Support - I, also a regular new page patroller, see a lot of new pages just for advertising.  Most of the time, I throw  on it and leave something on the creator's talk page.  I wish I could speedily delete those, but there's never a real appropriate  to put there.  Great idea!  Later, zappa.jake (talk) 05:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Support - We already have  for the specific case of band self-promotion, and it's both needed and used.   It makes sense to generalize this.  I would suggest, as recommendation, not policy, that before using , the editor should check the contributions of the article creator.  If this is their first posting, a message should be placed on their talk page along the lines of "Welcome to Wikipedia.  Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that does not accept advertising.  Please read...  You are welcome to add non-advertising articles to Wikipedia." This won't bite the newbies as hard.  Advertising, though, is generally a newbie problem.  It's relatively rare that a user with a few good articles then adds an advertisment, so in such cases  would be appropriate.  They'll probably reword and fix it.  --John Nagle 17:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Support As per reasons stated above, I can't add much. porges 11:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Support.  We may want to qualify it with a 48-hour time limit or by excluding articles which have multiple editors, but blatant spam is easy to spot and should be killed on sight without prejudice against later creation oif a proper article. Just zis Guy you know? 09:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Support, advertisements don't belong here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: I'm seeing a LOT of admins speedily deleting pages as adverts. Usually the subjects of these articles are not notable, and we already have a speedy category for attacks (regardless of whether the subject is notable.) This needs further discussion. Grandmasterka 19:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-open discussion

message: Hah! It's officially a speedy deletion category!! Nyah-nyah. Grandmasterka 22:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Succeeded

message: Why not expand A7 to say:
An article about a real person, band, website, group or organisation that does not assert that its importance or significance. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead.
*I think that would be a neat solution, not adding any intruction creep, and hopefully not to controversial. Maybe we could add a phrase like "and is clearly unencyclopedic" or something as well. Martin 19:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *I would, however, add animals, silly as it sounds. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rocko the Jack Russell Terrier. Somebody wrote a little essay about their dog. The admin who speedied it was willing to stretch the meaning of A7, but it should be spelled out as an acceptable usage. Fan1967 02:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Expand A7

message: Is it permittable to change Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/New criteria?  It would make more sense to say "An article about a website that does not meet WP:WEB" or "An article about a band which does not meet WP:MUSIC" in the cases where these sort of guidelines already exist.  With regard to bands and musicians, the verbiage "assert the importance or significance" seems somewhat vague in comparison.  Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would wholeheartedly support a general "importance" SD criterion for anything man-made, but of course this may be hard to swallow. However, since non-notable bands and other groups were already generalized from non-notable real people, I don't see why websites should not follow. Unencyclopedicness is another issue, though if something is not important/notable, it immediately follows this it is not worthy of an encyclopedia article.
Some other WP:NOT items should be discussed as speediable. What I'm seeing in particular is neologisms and slang terms which at most should go to Wiktionary, and usually not even that. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Permission to change

message: I recently stumbled upon an article that was incorrectly titled (misspelled) but contained information on a notable topic (CVTT). Upon further research, I found the page where this information should have been (and is) (CVVT). The mistitled page, however, serves no further purpose, and should be deleted. Beyond this, I beleive that pages like this should be subject to speedy deletion and that this criterion should be listed in Criteria for speedy deletion. I am looking for other people's opinions on whether it should be a criterion or not. MadScientistVX 01:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That can just be merged/redirected into the correct article, I believe -- Avi 21:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misspelled title 

message: Taken from here
After searching through the new pages, one of the biggest pain in the neck are neologisms. Simply enough, if a neologism is hardly used, then why keep it? 
I'm going to explain a prime example I have seen again and again which annoys me. This example was from earlier on this year and can be found here and I will be referencing to it during the next paragraph. 
This sorry excuse for a word was a word which had less than 20 related google hits and easily got deleted in Afd. But the problem is during the time it stayed on as an article, people may of seen it, giving this pathetic word publicity. But most annoyingly, it now gets a free billboard to post this useless advertisement to the world using a dead AFD when it doesn't even deserve anything.
Now you may think that was just one example, a rare occurence perhaps. But when I can find that example and these two within two days, isn't it obvious people are using Wikipedia for billboard space.
My solution is to either make a category for speedy deletion called  or  to quickly and promptly delete neologisms. A Half way agreement is to change Template:Db-nonsense so that neologisms can be added to that category for speedy deletion. 
J.J.Sagnella 15:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neologisms as A speedy Deletion Category 

message: (As posted on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
I've come across material which was uploaded to Wikipedia just to (usually temporarily) store it there. I propose modification to the speedy deletion policy to allow speedy deletion of material uploaded to Wikipedia just to store it there. Nwwaew 22:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia used as file hosting