Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 22

message: I think a CSD#R4 should be passed, which allows the deletion of any redirect caused by moving a page into the proper namespace. Od Mishehu 08:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats routine housekeeping, and falls under that criteria.. ViridaeTalk 08:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually there are exceptions. When a person creates a draft articel or template in userspace, and later moves it into article or tempalte space, it may be desireable to retain the redirect. If there was discussion on talk pages of the draft that linked to it in userspace, the redirect will have value. It also allows finding such pages via special (all pages with prefix) for a given user. I, for example, have several such redirects in my userspace, and i see no reason to delete them. DES (talk) 23:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New CSD proposal 

message: I've seen several templates come up for speedy deletion as "unused", and subsequently deleted under G6 (housekeeping). Is this a valid use of that criteria? If not, should one be added to cover the speedy deletion of unused templates? Thanks. Mike Peel 08:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. The problem is that many templates are supposed to be used with subst, and so "no incoming links" does not mean that a template is not used. If you restrict to navigational templates that are likely to be transcluded, there is still the risk of vandalism that removes a template from a couple of pages, then nominates it for deletion. TFD can deal with the current amount of template deletions, there is no need to expand existing CSD. Kusma (talk) 10:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps we should consider expanding proposed deletion to cover other types of pages, like templates. --bainer (talk) 11:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like this; some templates have non-obvious uses and can use the extra eyes of TFD, which is performing okay and not as overworked as AFD is. Kusma (talk) 11:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A navigation template that contains only redlinnks, and some or all of the links are to deleted pages 9as opposed to pages never created) can probably be deleted as houskeeping. But aside from that kind of very very obvious case, it is better to use TfD than speedy on tempaltes, IMO. DES (talk) 22:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy deletion of unused templates? 

message: There are sometimes articles created holding only a image, and the rationale for placing it, a present one listed for speedy is :2nd Communication Battalion. I think they have probably been created in error--the person didn't know an image could be uploaded independently of an article. How should these be handled? 
If they should be deleted as A3, perhaps the wording should say so explicitly? DGG (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A1, A3 or even G2. I don't think it needs to be made explicit. howcheng  {chat} 20:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: One problem with adding "no content except images" to A3 is that it would cover image galleries. Which I think shouldn't be articles, but sometimes these get kept at AFD somehow. See  for what I mean, and I'm sure there are others without the prefix. I think this is potentially a good idea but the gallery thing needs to be discussed. --W.marsh 23:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What me and others have been doing to Gallery of x flags is that we transwiki them to the Commons and make it a soft redirect to there. I don't expect it to work every time for every gallery, but that is something you can do. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds about right... but the danger with rules like this is people could use it as an excuse to just get rid of the content, rather than move it somewhere... which isn't good. --W.marsh 23:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with howcheng, is this a super common problem? It seems likely to be a mistake, I'm not sure we need more instruction creep just for this rare/mistake type of event. - cohesion 00:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need instruction keep, the speedy was a good one and I think what happened is just a newbie mistake on the creator; it happens. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  image-only articles 

message: I might not be in the right place but... Be bold was the underlying criterion… Neil Armstrong… eat your heart out!  I’m taking Wikipedia not the moon!
As far as I know Gibberish is spoken in Gibraltar, being a mix between English and Spanish. Their daily newspaper does, or at least used, to have a back page written entirely in Gibberish.
In this day and age is it right to refer to a people's —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jmrtn13 (talk • contribs). means of communication and refer to it as, basically, rubbish.
Personally it doesn’t worry me but it would be interesting to hear how those that speak Gibberish think about it.
My sincere apologies for not signing earlier but clearly I had not finished and got interrupted along the way.
Jmrtn13 22:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: Two images were deleted for WP:CSD#I6 without any warning on the main article. (diff).  Previous times we were given a warning on the main MapleStory page that the file was up for deletion and we should put some rationale, however this had no such warning.  Can the images be undeleted and give us a chance to put some rationale? -- Prod-You 16:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked the images (:Image:Maple0495.jpg and :Image:Maple0123.jpg). Both were tagged on July 9 and deleted on July 22. If you think you can address the reason for deletion (missing fair use rationale), you may contact the deleting administrator (User:^demon). Although a warning on the article is provided at some times, it is the exception rather than the rule. Black Falcon (Talk) 16:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted images without notice 

message: I sometimes come across disambiguation pages that only link to a single page, sometimes followed by a list of links to non-exisiting pages. I propose that these pages fall under R1, and a line is added to the policy and template. --Edokter (Talk) 00:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the disambig page points only to one other page, it can be deleted as routine housekeeping (CSD G6). If it also includes links to non-existent page, I think  may be a better option. When the redlinked entries are notable, it may be worth creating one or more stubs rather than deleting the disambig page. In addition, the situation does not (as far as I know) arise all that frequently and so may not be needed as a CSD criterion. Just my opinion. Black Falcon (Talk) 00:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind... guess what I found... --Edokter (Talk) 00:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but do take the time to consider whether you are only deleting something that might get recreated later anyway... If there is a list of unlinked stuff, do you take the time to try and see if pages on those topics exist? For people in particular, with the same surname, it can be tricky to find where an article is if it exists. For example, have a look at Famous people with the surname Smith, and then compare this with the various attempts made to find the names of articles on people with the surname Fry. See Fry (surname). There are 63 listed there, but this only came about after the discussion here. This should be powerful enough evidence that if you have a name disambiguation page with only one link and several unlinked names, there needs to be a thorough investigation to make sure there are no other articles. In the case of common names, it is extremely unlikely that there will only ever be one article on a person with that surname, so this application of G6 seems to me to need refinement and shouldn't really be a speedy. Instead, disambiguation pages with only one link should be turned over to disambiguation specialists. Carcharoth 13:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The mention of one-link dab pages for a G6 treatment seems like a poorly chosen example, and not a well-reasoned policy. Why not just flag for cleanup with  and let an editor look at its history and perhaps expand it? For most cases, changing to a redirect is probably the most drastic change that would be called for. A dab page with one blue link and several red links may be pointing out the need for articles; this is a valuable function, and should not be casually discarded. Can't we find a better example for G6 tagging? Chris the speller 14:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I've modified the various G6 references to disambiguation pages by removing any reference to disambiguation pages, using the edit summary "remove disambiguation page reference from G6 - dab pages should be redirected or cleaned up, not deleted". Carcharoth 11:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for amandment to R1 (Redirect) 

message: The policy currently states: Please remove images and media from any pages they are used in before marking them for speedy deletion. If that is the case, why do we have templates like ?
I do not believe we should encourage the orphaning of images before an admin decides to delete them. Betacommandbot tags all orphaned fair use images for deletion per CSD I5. Thus, an image may be deleted as being "orphaned fair use" even if the original tagging was inappropriate. In addition, the practice discourages fixing of problem images. Why waste time fixing an image that's orphaned? The person doing the fixing can't always know where the image was used (or, in fact, that it was used) prior to being orphaned. For these reasons, I've removed that sentence from the policy. Black Falcon (Talk) 18:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's possible this was intended to get the attention of editors who are watching pages the images are used on.  Lots of people don't watch their images and categories for deletion (like me, actually).  —  The Storm Surfer 19:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaning images prior to deletion 

message: I have several times encounterd cases where users placed a  tag next to a notice of a speedy tagging on their talk pages, rather than on the page tagged for the speedy. I have just drafted  as a standard message to users in this situation. Fell free to use it as appropriate. DES (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its great, however I think we should de-embolden the page its self bit or possibly to italics as it is a bit bitey, Regards; — Rlest (formerly Qst) 10:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bold was just to try to make it clear to people (who have pretty celarly mis read once notice already) exactly which page was meant. if you think italics will do that, fine. The whole purpose of this template is to help users, not bite them. DES (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Starting it with that "i" logo and "Welcome to Wikipedia" might make it less bite-y sounding... overall a good idea though! --Jaysweet 17:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't do that becase oen of the cases which lead me to construct it was someone not new (or at least not brand new) to wikipedia, but probably new to articel creation, and clearly new to dealing with speedy delete tags. But if you think that image would help... How about the i logo but not "welcome to wikipedia"? DES (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Take a look at my latest revision, please. Is it an improvement? DES (talk) 17:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I tried that with . It was effectively rejected. Or more precisely, the people who maintain the Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings have certain standardized styles which that want to enforce on any and every template listed there, styles which I, for one, think would reduce the usefulness of these two templates. (For one thing, they don't want any of the uw templates to generate headers. For another thing, they want the first parameter of each to be an article or page name. Etc) I didn't want to edit-war over the basic format for , so I accepted it being removed from that page. I similarly presume that  would need to be significantly altered in the name of standardization, in ways which i think would be detrimental. However, anyone is free to create a fork at  -- or even to move it. But in the latter case, i suspect that I will create a fork, perhaps in my userspace, because i really think that these templates are better when they include section headers, for example. In the mean time, there is :Category:CSD warning templates to which both of these belong. DES (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New possibly helpful template 

message: They both essentially say the same thing, except that U1 is limited to user subpages and G7 is used generally. Also because almost all the time, user subpages are created by their user (thus qualifying them as the author of the page). Sr13 19:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A user could create a subpage that several other editors use (and edit) to help coordinate editing efforts. By definition of G7, it couldn't be speedied by the author's request if other editors have been particularly active on the page. Yes, there is a bit over overlap there, but it's still handy enough to warrant separate criteria (in my opinion). EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree,. It is a nuanced point, but significant. Anyone can request the deletion of any page s/he has created in any namespace, and if no one else has made significant contributions, usually get it. But in one's own userspace, the deeltion is normaly approved even if there are significant contributions by others. In some rare cases it might be moved elsewhere instead. DES (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge U1 into G7 

message: Often times, a nn band or author gets an article and the same editor creates a category for the albums or books. The nn band or author gets speedied (A7), so do the albums or books (if articles about them get created) but the category is stil there, hasn't been empty for four days - hasn't been around for four days usually. Is it a test page (G2)? Well, seems as close a reason as we've got; I'd shy away from (G6). Any way, should we clear this up or just carry on? Carlossuarez46 03:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would add a clause to A7 to allow them to be deleted together. --After Midnight 0001 18:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Carlossuarez46, I'm curious ... why shy away from CSD G6? I think that would be the most applicable case. I doubt anyone would objection to a deletion summary like, "CSD G6: Housekeeping (empty category created to house articles that were speedily deleted)". Black Falcon (Talk) 19:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I think G6 would be the best criteria for something like that. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: G6 can be applied when one of two or more cross-namespace items gets deleted, and all could be considered part of a "bundle". GracenotesT § 19:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the comments: I could warm to G6, but it does say non-controversial housekeeping, presumably someone who has created the cat would not consider its deletion in that light. I'm new as an admin, and because some have said that I appear biased toward deletionism, I may be bending over backward to not interpret the narrow CSD G6 so broadly. But if such interpretation has support, I can warm to it. Carlossuarez46 22:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, welcome to the wonderful world of en.wiki administration, where everything you do has the possibility of pissing off somebody. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Here's a good example, imho: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 July 10#Template:Baker Street (band). It was a navigational template, and all the articles in the template were speedily deleted. GracenotesT § 02:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A change to C1 or addition of C4 or just shut up, Carlos? 

message: I've just been bold and added another bullet to the non-criteria list:
* Articles which do not assert the importance or significance of the subject, but which are not about people, groups of people, bands, companies or web content. A7 only applies to these groups, and nothing else.
One was recently removed from the list about "schools", which was a little confused but did make the point that schools can't be speedied under A7. This seems like a good way to put this point across, especially seeing as there is a lot of A7 tagging/deletion going on which doesn't concern the affected subjects. - Zeibura (Talk) 10:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *EVula is right, we have WP:IAR for a reason. Until(1 == 2) 15:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *You both make good points, A7 does not allow for it, and it is appropriate to A7 such an article. I have made a proposal below. Until(1 == 2) 15:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the line of discussion about Fluffy suggests that I was not totally out of line in saying that the proposal above significantly constricts the scope of A7.  However, another way to look at the Fluffy addition is as WP:BJAODN, which falls under  G3.  The commentary about the certainty of such an article not surviving AFD implies that WP:SNOW could be applied in some fashion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I honestly can't believe there are admins seriously encouraging abuse of CSD policy. You are entitled to delete anything you want to - but have to be willing to face the consequences. CSD allows you to delete within the rules and avoid the scrutiny and punishment that would accompany an unjustified deletion, and by citing a CSD where it does not apply, you are deceiving the community, hiding an action that requires review, and spitting in the face of the consensus process. I have no problem if you delete "Fluffy" by IAR and cite IAR in your deletion summary - but to cite A7 amplifies the deterioration of CSD into vigilantism. Dcoetzee 09:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are definitely not assuming good faith here.  You're suggesting that admins who desire expansion of CSD criteria are hungry for more power of which a taste just isn't enough.  Personally, I remove from the CSD process quite a few articles that I don't think fit the criteria rather than blindly punching delete-delete-delete; I'm sure I'm not alone in that.  At least half the problem is in the nomination process, non-admins who nominate articles for deletion via CSD without understanding what the process is actually for or what the limits of applicability are.  What we're talking about here is seeking consensus for expansion of criteria in a measured way based on observed characteristics of articles entering the process, not a request to allow CSD to be a way to justify deletion of any article we don't like on the spot. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it useful to remember here that CSD and PROD were developed to take pressure off of AfD. If an article does not fit the CSD criteria, then the article should go to one of the processes. I also believe that the CSD criteria should strictly construed, and that they should not be expanded unless a particular type of article is clogging the other deletion processes and there is a clear overwhelming consensus that these types of articles should be deleted. Dsmdgold 18:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully agree, expansion of the CSD should, be done only with care, and only when a particular class of article is actually causing a significant problem. This is IMO doubly true for A7, since it, has, in practice, required more judgment calls and created more controversy than mot of the other speedy criteria. The criteria are intended to be "bright-line", so that insofar as possible most or all reasonable admins will apply them the same way to the same article. There is judgment needed, and no bot yet developed (or likely) could do the job, but when things are "controversial" in the sense that of 100 admins, 60 would go one way and 40 another, then a process that allows more eyes and more discussion than speedy deletion is in order. This is not the case for the vast majority of deleted articles IME, but I still see far more speedies that I think are incorrect than I think i should. DES (talk) 20:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another non-criteria 

message: Since it is common for people to make articles about their goldfish or cats, and these are commonly deleted under A7, I suggest we add animals to the list of items that need at least an assertion of notability. Policy should be descriptive of community behavior, and A7 is indeed used this way all the time without any objection from the rest of the community. Opinions please. Until(1 == 2) 15:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec)I've no objection, although perhaps one should say "individual animals" to ensure narrow wording and prevent misinterpretation. SamBC 15:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *I had the idea because of the previous discussion, but the problem is real and I have seen animals being A7'd. As long as we have people that say policy is policy is policy, we should attempt to bring policy into line with action. We should only IAR as a stop gap measure, when something is just going to keep happening, we should do something about it. Until(1 == 2) 15:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Elements, countries and species are all notable by default. The issue with "non-notable anything" is that not all subjects have notability guidelines as specific as those for bands, companies, web content and biographies. - Zeibura (Talk) 15:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I wonder whether common sense can be applied to A7. Using common sense to determine what is notable or not, and acting on that... -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Common sense should always be applied to any CSD. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Nice verbal joust. 1-0 EVula. But you see what I mean; leave it open, but make sure common sense is used. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: That's probably the most sensible thing, as that meets with the suggested rationale regarding specific notability guidelines (I think). SamBC 15:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed, that is quite sensible (and a fairly safe expansion of scope). It doesn't address my personal problems with the criteria (I would, obviously, prefer it to be opened up more), but that's a good step in the right direction. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to add animals to A7 

message: This isn't stated anywhere, and I'm beginning to think it should be. Reading over the history of the CSD, and a lot of opinions and so on, it seems that the point of CSD is to be largely mechanistic; it can't be done by a bot or a script simply because no software can make these judgements, not because they're subjective but because software can't recognise the criteria themselves.
Yes, there is a judgement call involved in many of them, but this should be kept to a practical minimum. I would thus suggest adding some sort of wording somewhere in the project page, bolded, to clarify this fact. SamBC 15:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia typically deletes about 2,000 articles per day, the vast majority by speedy deletion.  Broad discretion will always be exercised, whether it's written in this document or not.  The alternative processes are not equipped to handle the volume. --Tony Sidaway 16:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, the policy ought to say that, to prevent bad feeling and pointless arguments/discussions. Policy and behaviour should not differ greatly for any great period of time; one should be altered to match the other (which way around that should be is a separate discussion). SamBC 16:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: If you really want to minimize admin(human) discretion in CSD, I can just write a bot to handle it all. Oh wait, the community has rejected such an idea and insists that admin actions be taken with admin discretion. Until(1 == 2) 01:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:CSD]] should rely ''as little as possible'' on admin discretion 

message: There are cases, such as Andres Labrakis, where the only content is an infobox with information.  Some infoboxes can be very extensive and contain information that would be contained in a substantial amount of free text.  I recall arguments in both directions in the past, that because infoboxes contain substantial information that A3 does not apply versus because there is no content except an infobox, A3 applies.  What is the current consensus on this matter? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you could fix up an article with just an infobox, unless the infobox contained nothing but a name and an image, by paraphrasing the content into a stub sentence. In that example, something like "Andres Labrakis is a professional wrestler from 1961 to 1975 known as Spiros Arion. He was trained by Andre Bollet." I still see no claim to notability but I don't think just an infobox should generally count for A3, if the infobox has content. - Zeibura (Talk) 10:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is an area of discretion. The big question is if the infobox provides enough context or not for its information be be useful. Until(1 == 2) 13:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Fine, except in order to do that you had to have some knowledge of the subject to begin with. Let's not forget that the responsibility is with the author to make the proper assertion in the first place. Not that of an admin to go make an article acceptable. The same identical information in single sentence would get a rapid A7 delete. The fact that those few facts are placed into an infobox should, in this case, be irrelevant. I certainly agree that with sufficient material it could be kept but not in this case. JodyB yak, yak, yak 18:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This particular article was tagged for lack of any content though, not lack of assertion of notability. --W.marsh 19:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It is about context folks. I have seen info boxes with every piece of information except what the sport is. If there is enough information to understand what is meant without further knowledge then it has context, if you cannot figure out what is being represented by the data then it lacks context. Until(1 == 2) 18:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. If it has some meaningful information, and enough context that you know what it is talking about, and can figure out where to look for more info if you so choose, then neither A1 nor A3 is appropriate. A7 might or might not be, depending. DES (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with DES. Carlossuarez46 21:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criterion A3 and infobox-only articles 

message: For the record, some recent changes to the wording of G12 following discussion further up the page:
* - "all" added to emphasise the need to look at all the parameters.
* - case of public domain assertion added, in addition to fair use or other assertions.
* - minor changes to wording of G1, G8 and G9, plus explanation and colour-coding (image stuff = green) for G12 which was becoming unclear due to recent changes made to it.
Any problems, please discuss here. Carcharoth 03:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  G12 changes 

message: I think we should have one for point-of-view pages. Not neccesarily attack pages but are violations of NPOV. Cheers, JetLover (talk) 02:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Violations of NPOV can be fixed though, by rewriting them neutrally. We already have two criteria which cover two more serious POV-related situations: G10 for attack pages and G11 for blatantly promotional material, anything else that doesn't fall under existing speedy criteria can surely be rewritten. - Zeibura (Talk) 02:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention the fact that it's incredibly subjective, and that's what AfD/ProD are for. SamBC 02:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, articles such as George Bush and other high-profile political figures tend to suffer from POV problems. I don't think deleting those is a good idea. >Radiant< 08:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think the criteria would be far to ambiguous to be a CSD criteria. Until(1 == 2) 14:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: I object to this recent change. In the process of trying to clean up wording, the substntive policy effect has been changed. The previous change exempted from speedy deletion as a recreation content that had been moved to user space, i.e userfied. The current verswion exempts any such content that is in userspace. This is a mistake. DES (talk) 15:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent wording changes 

message: Criterion I7 permits deletion of any non-free media that fails any part of the non-free content criteria, under the following constraints:
*If uploaded after July 13, 2006, the media may be deleted 48 hours after notification of the uploader.
*If uploaded before July 13, 2006, the media may be deleted 7 days after notification of the uploader.
*If tagged with the  template, regardless of when it is uploaded, the media may be deleted 7 days after notification of the uploader.
In addition, the criterion specifies that non-free media with a clearly invalid fair-use tag may be deleted on-sight.
The criterion, as worded, is unnecessarily complicated and even seems to contradict itself. Tagging an image as  is the same as asserting that it violates the non-free content criteria (NFCC). So, I propose the following changes:
#Remove mention of the specific case of  media and focus more generally on violations of the NFCC.
#Fix the wait-period at 7 days for all media, regardless of when it was uploaded (I think this is what usually happens in any case).
#Allow deletion 7 days after tagging as opposed to 7 days after notification, as is the case with I4-I6 (I think this more closely reflects current practice).
So, criterion I7 would become:
Invalid fair-use claim. Non-free images or media that fail any part of the non-free content criteria may be tagged for review with  and may be deleted after seven days if not corrected. Such images can be found in the dated subcategories of :Category:All disputed non-free images. Non-free images or media with a clearly invalid fair-use tag (such as a  tag on a photograph of a mascot) may be deleted at any time.
Please modify the wording as necessary. — Black Falcon (Talk) 16:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simplification of criterion I7 

message: I would like to propose I9 to allow the speedy deletion of any unused free vanity image.  An example of such an image would be one that the user placed originally on their user page, but that user page was deleted through WP:CSD, WP:PROD or WP:MFD process. These images, despite being free, add no value to the project and are usually snapshots of the user themselves which belong more appropriately on myspace or some other webhost. --After Midnight 0001 15:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Vanity" is far too broad, and "adds no value to the project" is also a massive judgment call; any image can be used to describe something, even if it is adding an example camera phone quality photo to the relevant article. - Zeibura (Talk) 15:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so are you saying that the wording needs improvement, or that we should have unused pictures of users sitting in the image space, or that they should be deleted through IFD instead?  I have a hard time believing that a portrait shot of User:XYZ could ever be used on any mainspace article, or anyplace outside of User:XYZ's user page.  If that page is deleted for not#myspace concerns, shouldn't the image go with it? --After Midnight 0001 16:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The former. I'm not saying snapshots of users are all going to be useful, but to speedy something because it is "vanity" and "adds no value to the project" without actually discussing this viewpoint is too subjective. I guess this opens up the "images used only in deleted pages" debate again, which I think has been proposed before and would be a far better and less creepy way of adressing this issue. But then, a lot of potentially useful images will get deleted, when they really should be moved to commons. - Zeibura (Talk) 18:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification.  I am not looking to delete all "images used only in deleted pages" because as noted, some do have value for going to commons.  Unfortunately, there is no way to tell what namespace the deleted page is in unless the "orphaner" logged it on the image page, usually unlikely.  I guess I can IFD these, although I must confess that I have on occasion deleted them on my own judgment to reduce IFD backlog where I have felt them to be obvious.  It would be nice if there could be a criteria that would make sense, but if not, c'est la vie.  --After Midnight 0001 19:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I also think there is a need for a way not to clutter IFD with all these PD/GPL-self images. What about taking the problem an other way, and since these user pages usually go through PROD or MfD do "I9 - Images that were solely on an page that got deleted". -- lucasbfr talk 22:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I9? 

message: This may have come up before, but I haven't seen it: is there a reason why A7 is limited to "a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject", so that (1) fictional people, groups, bands, clubs, etc., and (2) any content that is in any purported form other than web (be it micropress, a high school essay, on the radio, tv) are technically excluded from this criterion. What was the rationale for doing that? Is that rationale still valid? Carlossuarez46 06:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not honestly sure. I would prefer simplifying it to "An article which does not assert the importance or significance of the article subject." What would be wrong with that? Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of the problem with it is that for obscure areas there is no consensus as to what is an assertion of notability, so that such articles require a broader discussion. Another issue is that the speedy deletion criteria were created to relieve the pressure on AfD and unti it can be demonstrated that a particular type of article is clogging AfD then the critera should not be expanded. Dsmdgold 10:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, maybe my experience is from newspaper writing, but any good fact piece (whether it's on a well-known subject or a totally obscure one) should at least make an attempt to answer the ever-present reader's question—"Why should I care?" If I write an article on a proton, even if you don't have the first clue what a proton is, I can tell you that it's one of the basic building blocks of the atom, and is present in every single atom in the universe. You still don't know what a proton actually is, but you sure at least now know it's pretty damned important. If you don't know the first thing about calculus, I can tell you it's used frequently in fields from engineering to business management. Again, you still don't know a thing about calculus, but now you sure know why you might want to! It's not hard to assert significance. A7 doesn't even require any proof of significance, just that a reasonable assertion be present. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Seraphimblade on that, a claim - discounting the absurd (e.g., "King of the World") - which if true would meet the established notability guidelines, or at least raise significant issues towards meeting them should be required to avoid being a speedy candidate.  Carlossuarez46 17:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Personally, I'd see it as any of the above, provided the significance is reasonably explained. If the article states "This work was the first to use the Painting With Your Eyes Closed technique, which has been in wide use ever since", that's an assertion, and prevents speedy. If it's asserted to be an early work of Michelangelo, that's an assertion, and prevents speedy. If someone wants to assert that the Painting With Your Eyes Closed technique was only ever used infrequently and rarely, and has made no significant impact on the art world, or that the idea it came from Michelangelo is someone's crackpot theory with nothing to back it up, they can take it to AfD and argue that. That's not over-reliance on admin discretion (it's actually not any more reliance than currently, admins are already to delete a broad variety of articles upon determination that they do not assert significance, this would just make it an "any" rather than a "most"), and articles on products, theories, etc., clog up AfD because they can't (technically) be done under A7. (Or, frequently enough, they just are done under A7 anyway, leading to "policy follows practice" anyway. I've certainly done a few clear A7's that didn't quite technically fit one of the categories, none were ever DRV'd or questioned. And as always, borderline or questionable cases should go to AfD, but that's true whether it changes or stays the same. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that notability can be asserted for any topic, but we should consider that most articles are not created by experienced writers. Experienced writers know that the first sentence or two of an article must "hook" the reader by providing information about the subject of the article in such a way that answers the question: "Why should I continue reading this?" However, since we can't assume that most users are experienced writers, it may not occur to whomever creates an article, especially if they're unaware of the notability guidelines, to write "This work was the first to use the PWYEC technique, which has been in wide use since". They may just write: "This work was the first to use the PWYEC technique" and not think to actually explain the significance of the technique. I'm not specifically opposed to this kind of expansion of A7, but just want to point out some of the problems. — Black Falcon (Talk) 00:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: In general, I would (and do) tend to agree with your principle there, that if there's something you have to look up, there's a good chance notability is at least asserted. (Though in this case, I bet you that all of your notable artists there have Wikipedia articles which could be linked to. If that article says "X was a major painter of the Italian Renaissance", and the assertion is the work's from them, there's your notability assertion. If it says "X is an economic historian at the Moneygrubber Institute", or no article exists at all, there you go!) As to the fictional series, we're talking about an assertion in this case. "Luke Skywalker is a fictional character from Star Wars" contains no notability assertion. "Luke Skywalker is a major character in the tremendously popular Star Wars science-fiction movies" most certainly does. (That's only an assertion, we still shouldn't be having articles on fictional characters without substantial sourcing about the characters, though I'm sure such exists on Luke Skywalker, but this is only about asserting notability, not actually possessing it.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My point isn't so much that if something has to be looked up then notability has probably been asserted. Its that if you can't tell whether or not notability has been asserted without looking at other sources, then then the article needs more eyes looking at it.  I believe that there are articles that don't assert notability that should not be speedy deleted, but which should be deleted through PROD or AfDso that those article that can be saved get a full chance at it. When we see an article that reads "Bob is a high school student with a solid C- average." then we know that there is nothing in that article that asserts notability, because we all agree that being a high school student with a C- average does not confer notability on anyone.  If you see an article that reads "The death of St. Peter is a painting by Cipollo" our first thought is, "who is Cipolla?" If Cipolla is an important artist then his paintings might be notable. If he is an economic historian then his paintings are not notable. We can't tell by reading the article whether or not notability has been asserted. Perhaps we need an article on this painting, perhaps it needs to be merged and redirected, or perhaps it needs to be thrown away. We will get a better result if there is am oportunity for discussion than if we depend on the judgement of a single admin. Dsmdgold 02:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: IMO. it is a bad idea to use an example form a well known series here. If the Lucy Skywalker article was written as above and sent to AfD, it would garner so many "delete, hoax" comments within the first few hours that it would be closed as a WP:SNOW by the end of the first day.  The same can't be said about less familiar series, like my Hornblower example. In the case of less familiar works, yes I think that Wikipedia can bear the shame of having things around for a couple of weeks. I think it is more important to not loose valid material, and the contributors who make it than it is to get bad material out as quickly as possible. Even in the Lucy Skywalker example, it is unliklely that many people will see it since nobody would search for it and there would not be any inbound links to the article. If the creator tried to insert inbound links to relevent articles, they would be removed as quickly as they were put in by the tenders of those articles. Dsmdgold 03:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion of A7?