Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 3

message: Now we have the ability to use commons images it seems sensible to do so.  I believe there is going to be an easy way to move images to commons in the future.  But in the mean time, I think any images moved manually to commons can safely be deleted here (if they otherwise comply with the speedy criteria - i.e. the moved image is exactly the same as the image to be deleted).  Thoughts? -- sannse (talk) 17:19, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically agree, but if I've understood correctly, using images from the commons is just a search preference: the software first searches locally, and if it doesn't find an image, it tries the commons. Has anybody thought about the new opportunities for vandalism or just plain confusion in this scheme? Assume an image doesn't exist on en:, but on commons, and is used in an article. The article thus shows the image from the commons. If somebody now uploads an image with the same name on en:, the article will show a different image. And that image page on en: will give no indication whatsoever that in fact some other image should be used. Or have I misunderstood the way things work? Lupo 19:21, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: I agree; anyway it seems to be just an application of the speedy deletion rule: "An image which is a redundant (all bits the same or scaled-down) copy of something else, and as long as all inward links have been changed to the image being retained" Thue | talk 20:01, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm told by Eloquence that this suggestion is a bit too early.  It is not yet possible to provide images for download from Commons that are specific to a particular Wikipedia - which is needed for distribution to others using our content.  So it's probably best to wait on this for now.  He also said that he would add a warning that will appear if an image is uploaded here, if the same name is already used by an image on Commons.  Which will solve the problem Lupo pointed out.  He's going to put this into the new version of Mediawiki though - so it won't be available for a while -- sannse (talk) 00:32, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: A warning when uploading is better than nothing, but only solves the "confusion" part of the problem. If somebody goes ahead despite the warning, the resulting image page on a local wiki should have some indication that an image with the same name exists on the commons. For instance, an interwiki link could be added automatically. That would help dealing with the "vandalism" part. Lupo 10:00, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep - that sounds sensible too. -- sannse (talk) 16:30, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, just wanted to point out that the "vandalism" case is not just theoretical: something like that just occurred on :Image:RalphNader.jpg. Lupo 13:34, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: To me the easiest way to solve this is for the software to automatically add a prefix to the image. So if someone tried to upload an image called RalphNader.jpg to Wikipedia when there is already an image by that name on commons the user would get warned to that effect. If they still persisted with the upload the image would be renamed WP-RalphNader.jpg Thryduulf 09:41, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed - Images moved to [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Commons]

message: See my formal proposal at Wikipedia:Proposal to expand WP:CSD. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 15:10, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Formal proposal

message: The following cases are proposals only, and until a vote to approve them has been held, they should not be used as reasons for a speedy deletion.
# (Proposed) Extremely short articles which add no information beyond what is obvious from the title (e.g. Swazi embassy to Mozambique which said "The Embassy of Swaziland is the home of Swaziland's representative to Mozambique.")
# (Proposed) Any article whose contents consist only of an external link, "See Also" section, book reference, category tag or template tag. 
# (Proposed) Extremely blatant vanity articles. (e.g., bands that have never released an album, contain no members that are famous for reasons other than being in the band, and have no press coverage—also, people where the article makes no claim of notability and the person gets fewer than two Google hits, not including any of Wikimedia's websites or mirrors.)
# (Proposed) Obvious joke, prank, hoax, or fabrication.
Of course, the Sandbox is exempt from these rules and should not be deleted even though it may satisfy some of the criteria.
:Athought I agree with proposals, IMO listing them along with actual policy is creating confusion. Several admins unilataraly delete articles falling into proposed catheories. Read VfD. --Wikimol 08:17, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed cases

message: I've created :Template:isd ("images for speedy deletion") for tagging redundant images that may be speedily deleted according to the current policy.  This template adds images to :Category:Redundant images, which is a subcategory of :CAT:CSD.  Perhaps  could be listed here and/or on :Template:Deletiontools.  Any objections? --MarkSweep 09:28, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: <nowiki>{{isd}}</nowiki>

message: This has bothered me since it was added:
#* Please use "what links here" to check if a parent page provides context.
and I finally decided to remove it for talk. My issue is that a page linking to an article should not have to provide context. An article should be able to stand on it's own to enough degree that the reader can tell what it is about. History of Elbonia doesn't need to include all of the information in the Elbonia article, but it should be be possible to tell that History of Elbonia is about Elbonia and not just a timeline of seemingly random events. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 03:07, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
*Agreed, but the point is I think that it suggests that instead of deleting it you should fix it. In my opinion it should perhaps remain as a hint, but I agree that just because you can construct what the hell the author is on about by checking the links does not mean it stops being a CSD. --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 03:10, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)
**Yes I believe these should be fixed and not deleted because they've generally been created by someone clicking on a red link and being invited to fill in the information. If you delete the article you'll probably lose a potential contributor at the same time. Kappa 05:46, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parent page context 

message: Several people asked about the transwiki process and specifically whether the article needs to be submitted for VfD at the end of the transwiki or whether it can be immediately deleted.  Please comment at Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion#Deletion at the end of transwiki.  Thank you.  Rossami (talk) 22:56, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion at the end of transwiki 

message: At Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Images/Media, it says
:An image which is a redundant (all bits the same or scaled-down)
I propose to change "bits" to "pixels".  That way a GIF version of a PNG image could be speedy deleted.  Also, should we clarify what "scaled-down" means exactly?  Like, if you ask MediaWiki to thumbnail the bigger image to the width of the smaller, it produces the same image.  (Of course "same" here means "identical", not just "looks the same".  In principle one would have to use some program to check.  On Linux, pnmpsnr does the trick.)  dbenbenn | talk 21:00, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I second the proposed change of "bits" to "pixels". I don't think "scaled-down" needs further clarification. If you ask MediaWiki to thumbnail the bigger image, it will use ImageMagick to scale down the image. It is quite possible that ImageMagick will use a different interpolation method than the one used by the program that produced the duplicate thumbnail in the first place, which means the MediaWiki thumbnail will not match the existing thumbnail pixel for pixel. I would still support speedy deletion in situations where the thumbnails don't match 100% but where it's reasonable to suppose that we are in fact dealing with a thumbnail (often one can tell from the filenames). --MarkSweep 05:42, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image criterion 

message: If a user has accidentally listed a page for speedy deletion how would that user go about undoing his mistake? The page in question is Wikipedia:Once upon a time... Jaberwocky6669 03:37, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
:Hi!  To undelete, all you have to do is revert the page to its previous content.  Pages filed for speedy deletion aren't manually listed anywhere; it's the  template that adds them to a category.  --Fbriere 04:30, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not actually undeleting (which only sysops can do; see Wikipedia:Viewing and restoring deleted pages by sysops for further information). If you've listed something for speedy deletion and it hasn't been deleted yet, simply revert it to its previous content. If it's already been deleted, then leave a note for the sysop who deleted it (which will be recorded in Special:Log/delete, and s/he will probably be kind enough to undelete it for you. — Dan | Talk 04:36, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: If asking the deleting sysop fails, try Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:07, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Undelete a page...

message: Shall the assertion that the subject of an article is "non-notable" be grounds for speedy deletion? 
Poll is open. 00:55, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
:NB This pole was created by Xiong who opposes the measure proposed (as do I) Kappa 18:12, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The issue brought on by this poll was resolved several weeks ago.  I'm marking this poll closed so future readers don't feel that they are obligated to continue to add votes.  Rossami (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll: Speedy criterion: "non-notable" 

message: Comment A recent data point. Jessamyn West was recently nominated for deletion. And, by the way, I have no problem with the nomination whatsoever. The entire content of the article when nominated "Jessamyn West, AKA the Rarin Librarian. One of Library Journal's Mover & Shakers, West is best known for her 'blog, librarian.net." The question I'm asking is: if non-notability were a CSD, would this article have been at risk for speedy deletion? Because it turns out that a) there is a clearly notable author named Jessamyn West on whom, for some reason, we had no article, and b) on investigation, I'm inclined to think that the activist librarian herself is probably notable, too. 
But before wringing hands too much over this possibility, it's worth noting that had the article been speedy deleted it would not have been a epic tragedy. I don't think it would have impeded creation of an article on the Indiana Quaker novelist, and the activist librarian could have been VfUed. Good-faith mistakes and accidents are usually corrected without much dispute or animosity.
But it does show how things can crop up. In the case of "notability," it sometimes takes a certain level of expertise to recognize a person as being notable, and five days and a chance for more than one person to participate in the decision is not a bad thing. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:12, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're missing an important point: bogus deletion might not impede the recreation of an article, but it will be a bitter introduction to Wikipedia for the article's original author. When the deletion is bogus anyway we might not care, but being told "your article is worthless" and it being a bogus statement of worthlessness does put editors off even bothering. VFD and CSD are Wikipedia's immune system, and of fantastic importance - I just did a Special:Newpages patrol and it was about fifty percent clearly speedyable utter shit - but I submit that putting editors off contributing in the first place is not really the right solution - David Gerard 22:36, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:49, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: The poll is still open, but it seems that considerable opposition exists to the criterion. The grounds given by Kappa Netoholic for his deletions to policy (deleting the notice that this criterion is not policy  ) were that this criterion is policy. That point appears to be debatable, and during the debate, I suggest it is unwise to take action difficult to reverse on its basis. 
As a temporary measure, I restore the deleted notice to this policy page. The poll is still open, and there is always the possibility of a groundswell of support for this criterion, at which time we can figure out What To Do Next. Meanwhile, I ask that the notice remain.  — Xiongtalk 09:22, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
*I'd like to point out that I didn't make any "deletions to policy", and that this poll was not my idea. Kappa 12:15, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Geez, am I the only one that reads?  That poll above is whether to add "non-notable" as a reason for speedy-deletion, many people oppose.  The poll was not about whether to add the phrase "Note that vanity, non-notability, and dictionary definition are not criteria for speedy deletion at the moment." to the page.  There are TONS of things that are "not criteria", that doesn't mean we should list every single one.  Keep this page purely to the universal criteria and the established exceptions only, not random "this doesn't count" items. -- Netoholic @ 16:25, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
If I mis-stated the controversy, I apologize.  Looking from the outside, it did appear to be a confrontation between User:Xiong and User:Netoholic.  
To Xiong's other comments:  
* Xiong's analogy to a "sharp curves" sign is well-taken and reasonable.  To the extent that such advisory comments elaborate on and clarify the policy, they can be valuable.  However, we must balance those gains against the dangers of instruction creep.  Unnecessary elaboration will dilute and ultimately damage the very policy we were trying to clarify.  
* I am not yet convinced that the current policy is actually in dispute.  The poll above did not ask the people voting "support" if they already consider non-notability to be a speedy criteria.  It asks if it shall be considered a speedy criteria.  Several people have long argued that it should.  That does not mean that they are acting on their opinion.  Xiong alleges that speedies are being conducted with this as the given reason.  And I'm sure that newbie mistakes are made by users who don't yet understand the difference between speedy and regular deletion.  I can find no evidence that those nominations are being acted upon instead of being corrected.  (I'll change my tune if someone can provide evidence that the current policy is being misinterpreted in a way that is having actual and systemic impact on behaviors or decisions.  Remember that we have VfU to resolve the occasional bad calls.)
* I'm afraid that I also have to disagree with Xiong's interpretation of the poll above.  The poll asked only if non-notabiliy shall be a speedy criterion.  I (and many others) have consistently held that it should not.  The poll did not ask whether this particular clarification should be added to the list of cases.  There is not "a 4-to-1 majority" for keeping the notice.  So far, only 3 people have expressed an opinion on whether the notice is an appropriate elaboration on the policy page.  That count stands at 2-to-1 against.
I'm really not trying to be obnoxious but I feel very strongly about the dangers of instruction creep.  Adding these few counter-examples will set a precedent allowing others to add their own favorite counter-example.  Then the next person does the same.  The process continues on and on until the original list becomes unreadable.  The final result becomes less clear than the original version.  This has been a plague to many of our policy pages over time. 
If this particular danger is demonstrably real, let's post the warning sign.  If people are not skidding off the road, though, we should be very conservative about adding text to the policy page.  (Okay, I've probably pushed that analogy too far but it was hard to resist.)  Rossami (talk) 17:23, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temporary measure 

message: I think that speedy criterion #A2 should be changed to:
Articles that already exist on another Wikimedia project, as a result of having been copied and pasted in to Wikipedia after their creation elsewhere, or as a result of having been moved via the transwiki system.
In other words, remove the "Foreign language" requirement, as the criterion was written before Wiktionary, Wikibooks, Wikisource, ect. were started. – ABCD 17:50, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change #A2? 

message: People shouldn't post speedy deletion templates on substubs.  Sometimes, a substub can be based off of factual, notable culture that somebody dosen't generate much detail about (e.g. Monika, Angel of Mine, Men in Black (song).
The difference between a stub and a substub is that it has some value.  If it shouldn't be deleted, it's not a substub. john k 04:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: People shouldn't write substubs and expect the rest of Wikipedia to fill in the blanks. Please add requests to Wikipedia:Requested articles or spend some time doing actual research before writing articles. Rhobite 04:16, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
*Men in Black (song) was an adequate start to an article. Kappa 17:22, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Substubs 

message: I notice that there are no specific criteria on this page for deletions of templates, but I see several votes for "speedy" on WP:TFD for templates that don't match the general criteria for speedy deletion.  For example, there are the templates Template:= and Template:*, which are obviously unnecessary but not really covered under any of the "General" criteria.  While these are extreme cases, are there any guidelines we want to set down as to the Criteria for speedily deleting templates?  I use this guide frequently when deciding how to process articles in :Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, and some additional guidelines on how to handle templates would be appreciated. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 03:06, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
: For things like Template:=, people don't necessarily intend for "speedy" to mean "meets the WP:CSD".  It's usually more like "This is so dumb it shouldn't be necessary to wait five days".  Not a technically valid vote, per se, but it certainly makes the point. I can think of one potential addition to the CSD's :
::Templates containing prose intended for use in articles. - Wikipedia:Template namespace says "Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article.".
: I'm not sure how to phrase something to cover Template:=, since occasionally these seemingly non-sensical templates do survive - see Template:-, which lived through a TFD vote. -- Netoholic @ 03:22, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
* How about 'template is short and has no non-trivial content'? E.g. if template:dot contains a dot. So what? It's easier to type a dot.  Radiant_* 16:22, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
==="-Stub" Templates===
Just today I have seen about a dozen templates for storing stubs up for deletion. Often there is no need for them, which is why they're up for deletion anyway. Perhaps the server should auto-tag any new stub templates for speedy deletion consideration before the well-meaning creator goes adding them to 50+ pages? I don't know how well that would work, but considering the small number of stub-storing templates that are actually useful it seems that this would work better. If it could be scripted, I don't know about the technical limitations or anything. Master Thief Garrett 06:28, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates 

message: Just today I have seen about a dozen templates for storing stubs up for deletion. Often there is no need for them, which is why they're up for deletion anyway. Perhaps the server should auto-tag any new stub templates for speedy deletion consideration before the well-meaning creator goes adding them to 50+ pages? I don't know how well that would work, but considering the small number of stub-storing templates that are actually useful it seems that this would work better. If it could be scripted, I don't know about the technical limitations or anything. Master Thief Garrett 06:28, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "-Stub" Templates

message: I boldly moved the bolded warning "the appropriateness of this item is disputed" to the end of the sentence because it was too easy to misinterpret. It made the whole thing read as "Redirects can be immediately deleted if they have no useful history and: the appropriateness of this item [what item? the redirect I want to delete?] is disputed." For the same reason, I changed the word "item" to "criterion" to make it more clear that the warning applies to part of the process. FreplySpang (talk) 11:16, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  R1 

message: It has struck me often that the example for #A1 isn't ideal. if somebody really had created an article for Anthony H. Wilson that said...
:He is a funny man that has created Factory and the Hacienda. And, by the way, his wife is great.
...my instinct - and, I think, that of many editors and admins - would be to wikify it and add . This example contains at least two notable and verifiable facts, and is can clearly be expanded to an encylopedia article. This criterion, IMNVHO, was really intended to stop somebody adding and article for, say, Hednesford Town...
:The greatest footy team in the WORLD!
Can we change the example on WP:CSD accordingly, so it better matches how things really work? sjorford →•← 09:27, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improved example for #A1? 

message: Athough I've noticed that speedying redirects to nonexistent articles is debated, an issue was raised on WP:AN regarding redirects to articles that have gone through VfD.  Normally those redirects should be deleted when the main article is, but some admins forget to check for incoming redirects.  A number of those redirects have consequently appeared on RfD recently.  Could we add those to the list of speedy deletion criteria for redirects?  Perhaps something along the lines of
:#They refer to pages which have been deleted through the normal Votes for deletion process.
The wording is of course quite open to revision. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 23:08, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Per 
policy, these are already speedyable. The issue raised by the WP:AN posting was simply that some admins doing VfD deletes are forgetting to delete incoming redirects as well as the article (which makes more work). Noel (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah; okay.  Someone had marked the relevant passage in WP:CSD as contested when I posted my message; it's since been fixed. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 15:37, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects to deleted articles 

message: This page is not policy! You may like it to be policy, but saying it is policy does not make it so. The page is still in flux; different users are adding and subtracting criteria all the time. It is not appropriate to try to tag a page as "policy" without serious discussion right here in talk. 
Pleas do not try to tag this page as policy just because you think so. This is a group; we all have opinions; and concensus is how we set policy. 
Thank you. — Xiong熊talk* 09:30, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
* There are few pages that are better examples of "policy" than this page.  Of course it is still in flux.  This is a wiki.  The community standards are changing as we learn more about how to write an open-source encyclopedia.  But that's true of every policy page.  I'm not sure that the "policy" vs. "semi-policy" etc. tags are really necessary but to say that this is "not policy" is absurd.  Rossami (talk) 12:36, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Policy! 

message: In the lst few weeks I've hd a few articles that I've started, some marked inuse and some marked stub, have people (sub sorters or RC patrol) come in during the middle of the edits and mark it as nonsense, which puts it on track for speedy delete.  nonsense is for things like random characters and other real gibberish.  an inuse or stub article may contain outlines, silly statements as placeholders, etc, but these things are not random characters.  Might I ask what recourse is there for these occurences? SchmuckyTheCat 16:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you that the term "patent nonsense" is misused, and perhaps the template also.  Probably depends on what the articles looked like at the time, and how long you've left the {inuse} tag on it.  I'd suggest that if you're going to create a page which isn't ready, do it under your user: space or off-line and then post it when it's fairly complete.  If you disagree with any of the ones that have been deleted so far, try taking it to WP:VFU. -- Netoholic @ 16:53, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
* when it's done inuse I end up getting the "someone else has..." warning, in which case I just wipe out the template.  I've watched my stubs, and even a speedy delete usually takes long enough I haven't seen one deleted, but I'm sure other people have.  The other instance was when I was trying to create a dab page out of a redirect, the placeholder text got marked nonsense by a stub-sorter. anyways, I just wanted to raise awareness and say something. SchmuckyTheCat 17:46, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: misuse of patent nonsense template

message: Is it worhtwhile adding to the criteria those instances where an author wishes hisr article deleted ?  This would be restricted to instances where no substantive imptrovement has been amde by other suers, as then the article is quasi-public-domain, but would allow the speedying of items entered in a haze and later regretted. --Simon Cursitor 08:09, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already in the list.  See General Case #7.  There are two general caveats.  First, the definition of "substantive" improvement or change is a judgement call that must be made by the deleting admin.  Most people would say that anything beyond minor wikification and the addition or deletion of tags (such as vfd or delete) would trigger the need for a full VfD discussion.  Second, it does not imply a right by the original author to "revoke" anything.  The author released the content under GFDL when he/she hit the Save Page button.  If the content is factual, verifiable and encyclopedic, we get to keep it even if the author later decides that it's not very complimentary.  17:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Author's Choice 

message: Redirects from the Wikipedia: namespace into someone's userspace seem misleading to me: someone clicks on a link expecting to arrive at a community page and instead ends up at a page owned by one editor. For example, Wikipedia:Schools/Deletion principles poll currently redirects to Neutrality's private poll, User:Neutrality/Survey. Neutrality is only allowing himself to edit this page and is reverting changes made by others. This redirect seems inappropriate to me; I have attempted to remedy the situation, but Neutrality has reverted my edits. Thoughts? 
Update: someone else has removed the redirect for now, too. But my question stands: can such a redirect be appropriate? Lupin 04:08, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably just an oversight.  I've removed all potentially misleading redirects and whatnot. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects from Wikipedia namespace into userspace: appropriate? 

message: I oppose all proposals for new speedy criteria. Speedy is a bad way to handle most deletions and, by definition, leaves no room for comment. It is an open door to unilateral abuse. Speedy is appropriate in a highly restricted number of types of cases, and only then. Nobody should be editing Csd without extensive discussion and considerable lapse of time. — Xiong熊talk* 12:14, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
*The proposal above was intended to start discussion. If there is not much support by those who read this page there will be little point in putting it to the wider community. Conversely, if there is support here then it will be worth getting wider input. Every proposal has got to start somewhere.
*In this case Radiant wasn't proposing anything other than codifying what already happens - see special:log/delete. Thryduulf 12:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  No New Speedy Criteria