Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 31

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

→

Archive 35

This was previously proposed at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 9#G9?. A new CSD criteria was suggested, for Legal threats. I'm not sure why this got off the ground, as such legal threats should be removed without the need for a minimum of 5 days in PROD. Just in the past few weeks, I've seen multiple cases of legal threat pages being made. What do others think? Xclamation point 21:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• The proposal faded away last time because it didn't seem to occur often enough to justify the instruction creep of yet another CSD criterion. (See bullet three of the 'new criteria' standards at the top of this talk page.) A few over the course of weeks doesn't yet seem like enough to me. Can you give us actual numbers? How many per day are you seeing? Rossami (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

A page that is entirely legal threat would easily qualify as an attack page, G10. I have modified the wording of G10 to clearly include this. [1] ~ JohnnyMrNinja 02:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yet the same can be said for G10 and G3. Rossami, maybe 0.333 per day? Xclamation point 03:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it can be plausibly said that any legal threat can be considered an attack page, though not every legal threat or attack page can be considered vandalism. Some instances are just non-NPOV. Though I do agree that there is some overlap between G3 and G10. Is there a reason that G10 shouldn't be used for legal threats? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 03:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

And if not, would it be a valid idea for a new template criterion? Template:S-fic/doc is what provokes this question. Waltham, The Duke of 01:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Might be worth mentioning directly there, but evidently it does (had a fair few of these deleted under G6 myself, so it's already in operation). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

As I've stated before, I dislike this increasingly common habit of using G6 as a catch-all criterion for everything not covered by the other criteria, but I do agree that these should obviously be speedied. Heck, I'll be bold and add it as T4. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

My main question was to see if the criterion was used in a wider sense than what the phrasing indicated; I did not know if there was such a precedent. Personally, I agree with Ilmari Karonen that the interpretation of the criteria should be stricter, as there is less potential for abuse this way. I didn't expect the addition of a criterion to the list to be conducted so matter-of-factly, though, even if uncontroversial.

In any case, this is not over yet. There is infrastructure to be created; doesn't each criterion have its dedicated template? Waltham, The Duke of 03:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, right. {{db-t4}}. (I feel old... I still remember when we only had a handful of these and mostly got by with plain old {{deletebecause}}.) Also listed it in all the obvious places; please fix or let me know if I missed any. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 04:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I have in turn been bold and created {{db-doc}} as an alternative to {{db-t4}}. I believe it is the most intuitive name. I have also premièred the latter template at Template:S-fic/doc.

Now at {{db-templatedoc}} to avoid confusion with {{db doc}}. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It's funny how many things are as they are for historical reasons. I remember some time ago looking around to find out why these templates are named "db"; "delete because" is a reasonable enough explanation, but surely one would expect these templates to be named "csd", "sd", or "speedy". (In other words, if they were created now, I expect they would be named in this vein.) Waltham, The Duke of 06:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that instead of creating a new criterion (WP:CREEP applies), we should rephrase G8 to cover these, as well as template subpages and other places where one page is entirely dependent on an XfD-deleted page. How about the wording "Pages dependent on a non-existent page. This includes talk pages with no corresponding subject page, documentation or subpages for nonexistent templates, 'infrastructure' for deleted or nonexistent projects and processes, and image pages for files on Wikimedia Commons. Such pages should not be deleted if they contain useful information, such as talkpage archives or image pages with enwiki-specific content." This could also incorporate R1 if desired. (also)Happy‑melon 06:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

G8 should simply be adjusted to include talk pages and WP:SUBPAGES of deleted pages. I think that any deleted page can likely have its' subpages deleted, not just templates, and not just documentation. The proposed T4 seems overly-specific. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

And by that I meant I didn't actually read what User:Happy-melon just said, but I agree entirely. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say the amount of policy creep is pretty much the same whether the words "documentation subpages of deleted templates" (or equivalent) are added as a separate criterion or appended to G8. Indeed, that was pretty much what I was going to do in the first place, but then I thought: "Heck, this is a specific case that applies only to templates, so it should go under Tsomething. And besides, G8 is long enough as it is already."

JohnnyMrNinja's "tl;dr" remark above is, in fact, rather illustrative. Here's a quick test for anyone reading this: without looking up, can you recall exactly what Happy-melon's proposed "expanded G8" says? For that matter, can you recall exactly what the current criterion G8 says? Now how about T4 — easier, isn't it?

(Going slightly off on a tangent, it's kind of interesting that we've gone backwards on this in some ways: the earliest revision of CSD had a separate list spelling out in detail what counts as a "technical deletion". These days we lump it all under a vaguely worded criterion G6, with the result that nobody's quite sure exactly what it covers. Perhaps an alternative solution would be to start splitting the broader criteria into bulleted lists of "subcriteria". Indeed, we sort of do a similar thing already with the {{db-*}} templates: {{db-g6}} and {{db-a7}} both have at least five more specific subtemplates.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Broadening G8 to apply to sub-pages sounds like a good idea. Another use is for subpages of portals which have been deleted. (Often, such subpages are merely intended for transclusion to the page deleted.) - jc37 18:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that WP:CREEP warns against proliferating overly specific individual guidelines, trying to cover every possible specific situation. The correct response is to make guidelines as broad as reasonably possible so they can cover more specific cases - this is what I'm trying to suggest with G8. My wording above is just an example; if you can think of a more concise wording, please do suggest it. (also)Happy‑melon 07:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there support for this over T4? I fully support this, including redirects to non-existent pages. The only part I question is "image pages for files on Wikimedia Commons". If this is meant to mean "image pages for files deleted from Wikimedia Commons", I would support it, as that is how WP categories are given to Commons images, esp. featured images. This upgrade to G8 will expand its narrow focus, as well remove the need for R1 and the proposed T4. The wording can possibly be made simpler, but my "tl;dr" was more based on the amount of sleep I'd had than the quality of the proposal. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I really mean images which have been moved to commons but where the original image description page remains, usually a duplicate of the commons page. Situations such as you suggest, where the page contains valuable en-wiki-specific content, should be excluded, as I've tried to say in my wording suggestion. (also)Happy‑melon 07:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Images aren't moved to commons, they are copied. This creates an exact duplicate, but leaves the original image intact on Wikipedia, which is covered under I8 (specifically {{ncd}}). I am happy with all parts of this proposal except for any image page for which an image exists, be it on WP or Commons. This wouldn't fit with the "non-existent" part of the reasoning. An image page for which no image exists (on WP or Commons), should fit under the "Pages dependent on a non-existent page or file" umbrella. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

How's this for G8 -

"Pages dependent on a non-existent page. This includes talk pages with no corresponding subject page, subpages with no parent page (such as documentation for a deleted template), image pages on Wikipedia for files that have been deleted from Wikimedia Commons, or redirects to nonexistent targets (including redirect loops that do not end with a valid target). This excludes any talk or subpage which is useful to the project, and in particular: deletion discussions that are not logged elsewhere, user talk pages, image pages or talk pages for images that exist on Wikimedia Commons, and talk subpages (such as archives) whose corresponding "top-level" page exists."

I was also thinking about adding something like "Generally, talk pages of deleted pages in Wikipedia namespace with potentially useful discussion should be moved to an archive of a related active WikiProject, for potential future reference.", but that is just a thought. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 02:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmn, we now have the usual problem of the wording growing undesirably long, but without there being any obvious place to cut from. How about:

"Pages dependent on a non-existent page, such as talk pages with no corresponding subject page or subpages with no parent page. Also image pages without a corresponding image, and redirects to nonexistent targets. This excludes any page which is useful to the project (such as talk archives), and in particular: deletion discussions that are not logged elsewhere, user talk pages, and image pages or talk pages for images that exist on Wikimedia Commons." ?? (also)Happy‑melon 10:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Done, G8 updated and R1 merged into it. I can't touch the templates as someone edit-protected them.... Hopefully they are moved to semi soon, or an admin will reword the templates and redirect where appropriate. I really don't feel like throwing a bunch of {{editprotected}}s around right now. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

What about C3? A template-category that's template has been deleted would seem to fall under this umbrella, no? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 09:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with merging R1 into G8. R1 is a criteria everyone is pretty familiar with and a lot of deletion summaries have used it. Whilst I agree that it is generally better to have fewer broad CSDs, I don't see the point of removing them for the sake of it. It also leaves the numbering particularly silly if we have R2 & R3 but not R1. WJBscribe (talk) 10:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree, R1 should not be merged. Where the other pages under G8 are dependent on other types of pages (subpages dependent on pages, talk pages on articles, etc), a Redirect is an article dependent on another article. In many cases, I'll change the target of an R1 rather than delete it, because the R1 designation specifically says that "this article had a valid redirect target, and now does not", which indicates that there might be another such target out there somewhere. A talk page can only have one article page, and once that's deleted, there isn't another article page that might fit. The R1 criteria is useful in itself as a cleanup criteria, and should remain separate. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I would first like to point out the above text "The criterion should be nonredundant: if the deletion can be accomplished using a reasonable interpretation of an existing rule, just use that." I do not feel that it can be argued that an R1 would not qualify as a page dependent on another. Does the fact that it is an article somehow change that it is a page? Also, all DBs Should be checked to see if they can provide a valid function. Many talk pages are moved to talk archives, for ease of searching. many subpages are moved to historical pages of WikiProjects and the like. And many redirects can be altered to provide valid an plausible targets. R1 will still redirect to this CSD, and the template can even be preserved as a specific instance of G8, but I do not feel that a separate CSD for an instance of G8 in a redirect would qualify as "nonredundant". ~ JohnnyMrNinja 19:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm of mixed feelings about merging in R1, although I don't agree with WJBscribe's comments. We have already merged A4 and A6 into G-series criteria, so we'd leave a similar note at R1 and not cause any confusion for readers of deletion logs. We're not just removing criteria 'for the sake of it' - as Johnny says, R1 is currently a subset of G8, and CSD criteria should be nonredundant. On the other hand, R1 deletions are common enough that it might be valuable to retain a distinction for filtering purposes. I'm honestly not sure, and honestly don't particularly care. It's one fewer criterion to remember, though, and KISS principle applies here as everywhere else... (also)Happy‑melon 13:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

What about the templates?

The table of deletion templates has not yet been updated, so I thought we could discuss the new arrangement a bit. Since G8 now assumes a wider role, shouldn't its dependent templates reflect that? Look at G6, for example: it has {{db-g6}} and another six templates as shorthands for specific tasks. Shouldn't G8 have a few as well? I'm not saying they should follow a pattern (or we'd have to add seven templates), but {{db-talk}} certainly fails to be representative. The new {{db-templatedoc}} could redirect to {{db-g8}}, for one, as could {{db-redirnone}} (if R1 stays merged with G8), and a few others could be created, like {{db-subpage}} and {{db-imagepage}}. Waltham, The Duke of 13:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that several easy-to-remember redirects would be useful, though I do feel that {{db-t4}} and {{db-templatedoc}} should be deleted as unnecessary and possibly confusing. T4 only had I think one deletion before it was marked as proposed. I'd rather delete those templates and save T4 for the next candidate. I've been trying to think of a clever and easy redirect name that would cover the whole thing, but the best I can come up with is {{db-dependent}} or perhaps {{db-depend}}. I haven't been able to start editing the other ones, as they are still fully-protected (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive169#CSD Template Protections and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#CSD templates still fully-protected?). ~ JohnnyMrNinja 20:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

{{db-t4}} should certainly be deleted, but that doesn't mean we couldn't change {{db-templatedoc}} to redirect to {{db-g8}}, or even be a proper template in the vein of the specialised ones used for G6, does it? Waltham, The Duke of 20:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

{{db-templatedoc}} could be kept, but I think {{db-subpage}} would serve the same purpose but would be easier to remember. Of course, redirects are cheap, but Category:Speedy deletion templates is already a little over-populated. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 20:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I see what has been done with {{db-subpage}} and I agree that {{db-templatedoc}} is no longer needed; I should support its deletion. I also see {{db-imagepage}} has been created as a redirect; since it exists, I don't think it would harm to make it into a proper template like {{db-subpage}}—{{db-g8}} has too much text. I have updated Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Deletion templates to remove T4 and {{db-templatedoc}} entirely and add {{db-subpage}} and {{db-imagepage}} to G8. (I haven't changed R1 yet, seeing there is still disagreement.) Are there any other new templates or changes I should be aware of? Waltham, The Duke of 11:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to look into this some more, but I'm sorry, I don't think this was done in an ideal way. I'd like to get Happy-melon's opinion too.

As I understand it, you wanted to create a new {{db-talk}} that is related to {{db-g8}} the way {{db-move}}, for example, is related to {{db-g6}}.

I would have preferred keeping the page history of db-g8 at db-g8; I see no rationale for moving it to db-talk. (Let's not suddenly move it back without thinking about it a bit, though.)

Note that db-move transcludes db-g6. I think db-talk should probably similarly transclude db-g8. It makes sense to me for db-talk to be subsidiary to db-g8 rather than being another separate template transcluding db-meta.☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmn... I agree that this was not an ideal solution. We now have a proliferation of independent templates, none of which are categorised, none of which have documentation, and all of which are very similar but slightly different, a recipe for confusion. I agree, first of all, that the history of Template:Db-g8, now at Template:Db-talk, should be returned to that page. The criterion text has been modified, so the template history should reflect that modification. Looking at the current history it is easy to conclude that the current G8 criterion was created out of nowhere, which is simply not the case. A history merge might be appropriate, but sidelining the old history certainly isn't.

I also have to take issue with the proliferation of separate wordings - we now have {{db-talk}} and {{db-subpage}} as entirely separate templates. Why is it not acceptable for these to be hard redirects? At the very least, these templates should form a hierarchy on {{db-g8}} in the same way that the G6 and A7 subtemplates are based on {{db-g6}} and {{db-a7}} respectively, as Coppertwig suggests. Having them as separate templates is just plain messy. (also)Happy‑melon 12:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and Template:Db-t4 should definitely be deleted to free up the number for a future criterion; it never got enough airtime to warrant retention. (also)Happy‑melon 13:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I had no idea about the move, nor about any transclusion features; I thought the "child" templates were completely independent, and that {{db-talk}} was simply created in that location. The present arrangement with regards to {{db-talk}} and {{db-g8}} does look strange and suboptimal.

(new part) Yes, I agree with moving the template back. Now, about the redirects, I think that for criteria like G8 that describe several different cases it might be better to have more specific versions of the wordy {{db-g8}} template available. Since there can be such hierarchy as has been described, of course, that would be much better than the relative chaos of separate templates. And they shouldn't be too many, either; there are three at the moment (one a redirect), and at most one may be added if the merger of G8 with R1 goes forward. Waltham, The Duke of 13:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the page move was silly. This is why I left a message for Coppertwig hereasking for help. I realized the db-g8 page move was not a great idea right after I asked an admin to do it. I swear I thought it was a really good idea right before that. A history merge would be ideal. Apologies. As far as {{db-t4}}, when the speedy I put on was denied, [2] I decided to move it to {{db-subpage}}, to preserve the history and get it out of the way of a new T4. I would take no issue with it being deleted, and {{db-t4}}, which is now a redirect, can certainly be deleted. I was not thinking to create a dependant template at {{db-imagepage}} simply because I do not think it will come up all that often. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 17:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I wrote an article about Charlotte Ronson. No, she's not the most well known person in the world, but anyone involved in the fashion world at all, many that live in New York, and people who know of the family in general know who she is. She's a designer and showed at Bryant Park, pretty impressive and pretty well known obviously. Yet, for some reason unknown to me, my page was deleted. I used sources, etc. etc. and as far as I know, didn't do anything wrong, yet the post is now gone.

Somebody please explain this to me. 65.32.130.128 (talk) 23:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You're going to have to provide us more information before anyone can investigate this. No page has ever existed at the title Charlotte Ronson. Your contribution history shows some work done at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Submissions/Charlotte Ronson but again, nothing has ever been deleted. (An established editor did review your work and declined to move it from that draft space into the main article space but he/she already left you a detailed explaination of the reasons for the decline.) Rossami (talk) 00:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I must also point out that anonymous editors through IP addresses can't create articles on Wikipedia. The author for this article is Theydiskox. Is that you? (That can be rhetorical.) ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 11:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

As a photographer who uses watermarks to protect his work in the internet age I am finding that some of the MODs at Wiki are citing a "no watermark" policy. I do not see this listed here. I am given section 3 as the main reason for image deletion (Improper license. Images licensed as "for non-commercial use only", "non-derivative use" or "used with permission" that were uploaded on or after May 19, 2005, except where they have been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. This includes images licensed under a "Non-commercial Creative Commons License". Such images uploaded before May 19, 2005 may also be speedily deleted if they are not used in any articles.) however when I quote the section back, because it clearly says ...except where they have been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. This includes images licensed under a "Non-commercial Creative Commons License" the reason for the deletion suddenly changes from CSD I3 to the watermark. I am sorry but I have read and re-read and I see nothing about a watermark being a valid reason for deletion here. It has been suggested that if an image has a watermark than is most likely not the persons image who uploaded it and in my case that if I wanted to "prove" I am the photographer I have to give a clean copy to Wiki. There are two basic "wrongs" with that - one asking for someone to give away their work to "prove" something is just stupidity. The other is, again, I do not see this "reason" listed here. In doing a search I find something that I 100% agree with, however it seems some Wiki mods are 100% opposed to. Copy attack has the following: In some scenarios, a digital watermark is added to a piece of media such as an image, movie, or audio clip, to prove its authenticity. If a piece of media were presented and found to lack a watermark, it would be considered suspect.

So thusly my suggestion is to rewrite the licensing rules (I was told by one mod there was only one license used here so if this is now true you must delete all other ones from all pages) and the CSD rules as it relates to images. Also either purchase non-public domain images from the photographer for use here or allow professional photographers to choose a license that suits their work rather than have a mod force only one choice upon them - "give it to us or don't". That elitist attitude does not make me want to help out Wiki Soundvisions1 (talk) 05:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's not about watermarks. Your image has been deleted three times because is was never uploaded with a licence acceptable for Wikipedia. Wikipedia aims to be free content, reusable by anyone, including for modifications and commercial use. CC-BY-NC-ND is not acceptable for this. So thank you for your offer, but we don't take it. Conscious (talk) 06:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a question, is there any deletion criteria for an image with a watermark? Or do we allow those? Matty - (Talk) 09:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no speedy deletion criterion but Wikipedia:IUP#User-created_images forbids it.

To the original poster, there are many acceptable licenses for Wikipedia: see WP:ICT/FL for a list. Stifle (talk) 09:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone reading Wikis own guidelines? I have tried make it easy and even guide people to the spot that is given as reason for deletion yet also shows what is allowed. Once again:

CSD I3 : Improper license. Images licensed as "for non-commercial use only", "non-derivative use" or "used with permission" that were uploaded on or after May 19, 2005, except where they have been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. This includes images licensed under a "Non-commercial Creative Commons License". Such images uploaded before May 19, 2005 may also be speedily deleted if they are not used in any articles..

To respond to Conscious. You said: Your image has been deleted three times because is was never uploaded with a license. Wrong. It was uploaded with a license. You than state: CC-BY-NC-ND is not acceptable for this. Wrong. Please take a moment a read the Wiki guidelines that we are discussing here: CSD I3 and please note the wording of what I am specifically asking/discussing: except where they have been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. This includes images licensed under a "Non-commercial Creative Commons License".

To respond to Stifle: That was my point, that currently Wiki allows for various type of licenses yet I was told by a mod that there was only one license. Thusly, if that is true, my suggestion of rewriting all Wiki pages that say there are other forms of licenses. CSD I3, the section of this discussion, clearly talks about more than one license.

Matty re-asked what I also did and was answered by Stifle that "There's no speedy deletion criterion" for an image to be removed because of a watermark. Thank you for acknowledging that there is currently no policy on the CSD I3 page. I feel that Mods can not, nor should they, cite this page as reason for deletion because of a watermark when there is no mention of that being a criteria for speedy deletion. As for the other part of the response - acceptable for Wikipedia was never an issue because it has never been cited by anyone, at anytime, other than right now. This discussion is about CSD I3 and how it is being cited in order to delete images that do not meet any of the criteria listed for speedy deletion. I will take time to read acceptable for Wikipedia and comment on that particle discussion page if need be.

Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The issue you're having is that you're misunderstanding I3. Noncommercial licenses are not acceptable for images hosted on the English Wikipedia servers. This is because all content (including images) en.wiki is licensed under the GFDL, which does not stipulate that reuse must be noncommercial. Unless I'm mistaken, however (which I may be), the Wikimedia Commons should accept CC-BY-NC licenses. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken I'm afraid, Commons doesn't accept images for non-commercial use only either. See here for example. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 14:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. lifebaka++ 15:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

As for the OP, you're misreading WP:CSD#I3. "This includes images licensed under a "Non-commercial Creative Commons License" means that CC-NC licences are included in what can be speedily deleted, not what cannot. Possibly by itself the sentence is a little ambiguous, but it should be clear from the context of the criterion as a whole (which allows speedy deletion of material licensed "for non-commercial use only", which obviously applies to CC-NC), and from the quote linked immediately afterwards, clarifying that NC and ND licenses are not acceptable. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 14:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

First to address the "you're not reading correctly" type comments. I have re-re-re-read the section I am talking about. It does not say only one one thing (speedy deletion of material licensed "for non-commercial use only"), it says several. It first lays out what the criteria are for SD. What comes next seems to be what most people are missing. There is very important word that puts what follows it into a clear context - that word is except. Unless the definition of that word has changed it means that the 1.rules are 2.EXCEPT 3.exceptions to the rule. It is very clear and there is not a way to misread it as written. And I, again, am only pointing out here that if there is, in reality, with no exceptions, only one license and that it does not have any "exceptions" than this section needs to be re-written. lifebaka asked about Wikimedia and I have already explored that option however, as Iain99 mentioned, they have a clearly defined set of rules with no grey areas or exceptions. To summarize - If it isn't free for all we won't accept it. Wiki is not that black and white on the issue and that is really why I created this topic. (And I want to mention I did read the acceptable for Wikipedia page and will be adding a discussion there because, again, grey areas exist. I will not get into those here only to say that as far as watermarking goes it appears to be another "Exception" rule, although an unwritten one. In my case the fact I want to protect my work is reason for deletion the "exception" is in the other watermarked images the watermarking is allowed because there are no copyrights on the image, or the photographer released it into public domain. However, as stated above, the CSD page makes zero mentions of watermarking being a reason for speedy deletion, if it is it should be added here and it should be clear as to either all watermarked images go or what the "exceptions" are.)

Just a little edit here - Iain99 posted a link to a "quote" however it is not a quote from this section. It seems to be a comment on a page about an image on Wikimedia, which has a separate (and IMO, more clearly defined set of rules).

Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Right, right, I'm sorry. I'm not terribly up on my image CSD. Still, the deleted version don't appear to have had fair use rationales, which means that they did qualify for I3. I have no idea if a claim for fair use could be made, as that is not an area I'm very involved in, but I suggest having the fair use rationale ready to go before uploading again if you plan to. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

There are two considerations here:

• Previously unpublished, user-created images cannot be used under a fair use rationale, per WP:NFCC#4. Thus they must be released under an acceptable free license, such as CC-BY-SA or GFDL.
• User-created images cannot have watermarks, per Wikipedia:IUP#User-created_images.

Any user who is not willing to release their original work under a free license without watermarks will not be able to contribute that original work to Wikipedia. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

My take. Almost all watermarks do not have reliable sources discussing the watermark. The watermark by itself may be enough to prevent a user-created images from being used under a fair use rationale, per WP:NFCC#8. Where no reliable source material discusses the watermark, the watermarked image cannot be shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content per WP:NFCC#8. Without meeting WP:NFCC#8, the image has no reasonable basis for being used in an article. In such cases, the watermarked image may be removed from an article and CSD I3 and CSD I5 may apply. The watermarked image may be viewed as a derivative work and both the underlying image and derivative work/watermarked image would need to meet WP:NFCC. There is the additional issue of copyright holder approval to make the derivative work, which seems to be a separate copyright issue outside of WP:NFCC#8 that would need to be resolved before allowing the image to be displayed in Wikipedia. Expressly prohibiting watermarks except where the image is intended to demonstrate watermarking avoids these and other issues. -- Suntag ☼ 17:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't follow what you're saying. User-created images can never be used as nonfree media, watermarked or not, because of WP:NFCC#4. But I don't see what WP:NFCC#8 (signficance) has to do with it. I think it's a red herring. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Watermarked images cannot meet WP:NFCC#8 without reliable sources expressly discussing how the watermark or image with watermark would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. In otherwords the watermark itself cannot be ignored in applying WP:NFCC#8. Also, images with watermarks fail Wikipedia:Image use policy unless, of course, the image itself is intended to demonstrate watermarking. -- Suntag ☼ 18:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all so far for the input, I appreciate it. I want to try and keep this topic on two facts as it relates to the main article, CSD, and they are:

• CSD I3 and its exceptions as written, including the links to valid CCL.
• The lack of a CSD policy being in place for images that have watermarks of any kind.

It is fine to cite where the information can be found, and why is exists, but how do "the powers that be" clean it up so Mods (and other who make Image CSD requests) can more easily locate it rather than the CSD being cited because...well, just "because".

As for the other issues that Suntag, CBM and other mention you might want to take that part of the discussion over to Image use, grey areas, confusion and Photographer rights.Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I've rewritten I3 to express the intention of Jimbo and the current practice that CC-NC images are deleteable and not acceptable. Stifle (talk) 10:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Should new criteria be drawn up for speedy deletion of talk pages? Simply south (talk) 10:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

What is not presently covered? All the "G" criteria (G is for "General") cover talk pages. fish&karate 10:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you have in mind? Stifle (talk) 10:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Blanked talk pages, talk pages covering redirects and disambiguation pages with no discussion, talk pages as redirects Simply south (talk) 11:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why any of those pages need to be deleted, except talk pages as redirects perhaps, those could be misleading. I'm particularly thinking that talk pages of redirects and disambiguation pages with no discussion do not need to be deleted—they're not doing any harm by existing. Darkspots (talk) 11:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Darkspots here. Is there a specific advantage to deleting them? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. When a page and its talk page is moved (by a non-admin) the talk page automatically redirects to the target talk page, IIRC. There are also cases when a redirecting talk page with a topic page that isn't a redirect makes sense to keep the discussion centralized, e.g. Template talk:Fact/doc or User talk:ClueBot.
Talk pages of redirects aren't worthy of deletion. We have a WikiProject Redirect that tags pages like Talk:METALLICA, many talk pages of redirects have an {{oldafdfull}} notice or some other discussion preceding a merge that should be kept. Blanked talk pages can just as well be kept, or often be tagged with a wikiproject banner anyway. --Amalthea^Talk 20:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

At Conserve School DRV, there are opinions that all schools to not qualify for A7. However, it doesn't seem reasonable to say that all school articles contain a reasonable indication of why the school might be important or significant. If schools qualify for A7, the question then is whether schools are an exception to A7. A7 now reads "If controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead." In other words, schools do qualify for A7, but if the particular A7 school deletion is controversial, then list the article at Articles for deletion instead. As now worded, A7 does not provide a clear exception for all schools. Speedy delete says "These criteria are worded narrowly, so that in most cases reasonable editors will agree what does and does not meet a given criterion." However, some reasonable editors can interpret A7 as not applying to any school and other reasonable editors can interpret A7 as applying to each school on a case by case basis. A7 does not appear to be worded narrowly so that reasonable editors may not agree on what does and does not meet the A7 criterion. Additionally, "controversial" adds a layer of speedy delete analysis beyond the standard "Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead." This is not a request to reevaluate the current A7/schools consensus (whatever it may be). If there was consensus that all schools (or, more precisely, primary and secondary schools but not Joe's school of auto repair) should be an A7 exception, then that should be explicitly provided in A7. In other words, the wording of A7 should be change to reflect current consensus on the speedy delete school issue so that A7 once again becomes worded narrowly to where reasonable editors will agree what does and does not meet a given criterion. -- Suntag ☼ 17:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The idea is that simply being a school is good enough to no longer make A7. Whether or not a school is notable deserves more time than speedy is built to utilize. The current wording says this, though perhaps it could be clearer? Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it could be clearer. How about replacing "Other article types are not eligible for deletion by this criterion. If controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead." With

"Other article types, as well as school articles, are not eligible for deletion by this criterion."

Schools could be focused to mean only primary and secondary schools, but that should be done only if needed (or applicable). -- Suntag ☼ 18:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I never felt that schools or other "social institutions" count as organisations. In that spirit I'd widen the exception, like "If controversial, as with public organisations" or something. --Amalthea^Talk 19:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the current wording is also meant to capture the idea that even if an article is in one of the A7 categories (org, bio, group, web etc.) and you do not believe it asserts importance, it should not be deleted under A7 if you are aware that it is controversial such as for a school. A school is certainly an organisation and if they were not mentioned on this page then they would fall under this criteria. However most schools do not get deleted at AFD - Keep/Merge/Redirect are much more common outcomes - so speedying schools which would likely not get deleted at AFD is not a good idea. I would like the wording to retain the idea, in this criteria in particular, that speedying articles which would be not be very clear cut at AFD should not happen, with schools used as the example. Davewild (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

A7 already reads "Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead," which can be added explicitly to A7. The additional "controversial" test reraises the issue each time. Yes, schools were controversial, but how about today? Consensus can change. That schools are controversial is a settled issue. I would be fine with replacing "Other article types are not eligible for deletion by this criterion. If controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead." With

"Other article types, as well as school articles, are not eligible for deletion by this criterion. If controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead."

This makes clear that A7 does not apply to schools, avoids determinine whether schools are an organisation or social institutions, and makes no substantive change to A7. -- Suntag ☼ 20:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• The question of what institutions or organizations should be eligible for A7 is a more general one. There's been instruction slip here--the word "organisation" was added without discussion during one ofthe many rewritings about two years ago. Personally, I think that it was a mistake altogether. DGG (talk) 00:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Except for web content, A7 seemed to apply to importance/significance human activity rather than products and services produced by humans. Institutions and organizations are hybrid human activity resulting in service output. If the human activity predominates an institution or organizations, then A7 should apply. If the service output predominates an institution or organizations (as with a school), then A7 should not apply. Muddy? Yes. -- Suntag ☼ 14:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Resolved - Between this discussion and Conserve School DRV, it is clear that A7 does not apply to school articles. I revised the policy to ensure that everyone is on the same page and DRV doesn't keep seeing these A7 school article deletions. -- Suntag ☼ 14:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Minutes after creation, the stub Route choice (orienteering) was tagged for speedy deletion. Hello? Speedy tagging (ahem) seems like a good way to waste time: the tagger's own time and the stub contributors' time too. --Una Smith (talk) 22:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

When you created the article [3], you were presented with the advice "As you create the article, provide references to reliable published sources. Without references, the article may be deleted." While the reason for tagging this article was a lack of content (CSD:A1) rather than a lack of sources, in practice articles that include sources are rarely tagged for deletion by the new page patrollers. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Nonetheless, tagging it as "lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article" is very debatable – and BTW I'm still convinced that the incorrect description as "Little or no context" in Twinkle is in great parts responsible for that. Amalthea^Talk 22:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at this revision it is impossible to tell what "Route choice" is. That is A1. NPPers are not psychic; they can't tell if someone is going to further expand an article or leave it as an ambiguous one-line stub. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 23:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

disagree totally--that it every was a no context--the very first revision gives the general subject in the very title of the article, links to two other articles to establish context, and has a number of see alsos. That;'s context, by my standards. Not the least ambiguous. Not by itself more than a dicdef at that point, but by no means a speedy A1. INEVERHEARDOFIT is not a reason for deletion ,regular or speedy. The twinkle wording must be changed to no context to match WP policy. In any case, this was one minute after creation. We need to build in safeguards against people doing that. I can think of at least one that does not require programming--take away twinkle if they repeat after a warning. DGG (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Per that revision, it's about the choice of route in orienteering and related sports (rogaining, adventure racing). The wikilinks alone gave context – compare it with the A1 example "He is a funny man with a red car. He makes people laugh."
It was little more than a DICDEF, notability was very questionable, and if it'd stayed that way it should've been redirected somewhere, but I could easily identify the topic from it. --Amalthea^Talk 23:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This tag for speedy deletion was wrong. The very first revision has a see also section. Maybe this is not references exactly, but gives an idea that this is a subject that people have something to write about it. A fast Google check for "Route choice" gives thousands of hits. A tag for expanding would be more appropriate. A prod tag could be the last resort, but not a speedy deletion tag. I have seen tenths of bad first edits, but this is not the case at all. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

"Route choice in orienteering and related sports (rogaining, adventure racing) is an important aspect of competition tactics. See also: Navigation Route assignment etc. etc." has about as much context as "John Doe in music and related arts is an important person. See also: Pop Rock, Drummer". Did the first revision identify the subject? No. It said that it was important and gave a few links. The argument is moot though as the article was expanded and is still there. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 00:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with this, and it certainly could have been tagged. However, I believe a {{context}} tag (and/or other maintenance tags) could have accomplished the same thing. I encourage people to err on the side of caution, as without improvement the CSD will still apply alter and there's always PROD and AfD. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The speedy delete tag was applied when the article was 3 minutes old. That is a waste of editorial energy. --Una Smith (talk) 01:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The reason for the quick tagging is that there are people who patrol all newly created pages. The pragmatic solution is simply to avoid creating one-sentence stubs. Take the time to write a whole paragraph, and include a source or two, and in practice I think it's very unlikely your new page will be tagged for deletion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

many of those one sentence stubs are improvable. People with bad connections, who are also likely to be inexperienced at WP, and sometimes not fluent writers as well, tend to write a sentence at a time. To get world-wide coverage, we need to encourage those people not fluent here but with local knowledge and access to local sources, to contribute here as long as they can write understandable English, even if they do it slowly. If you want a new speedy criterion, that articles of a single sentence are subject to speedy deletion for that alone, propose it. DGG (talk) 14:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing in favor of the deletions. I'm just pointing out that one practical way to avoid this problem is not to create one-sentence, unreferenced substubs. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Right. I agree that the eds who introduce articles should do a better and more complete job. But as it is, we never actually warn them in a prominent way. should we? If we do, how can we word it so it doesn't creep into being a requirement? Should we perhaps try to publicise the "underconstruction" tag? DGG (talk) 18:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I would start from the other end. Rather than telling a (presumed newbie) editor of a stub what to do, how about helping by (ahem) contributing to the article? Tag it a stub, add a see also, wiktionary link, image, commonscat, or a sentence of relevant content. Do something, anything constructive. Do not scold. In other words, act more like a peer, less like a boss. --Una Smith (talk) 06:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Re DGG: the message when you start a new page (you can edit adsfada to view it) included for a long time a note that said "As you create the article, provide references to reliable published sources. Without references, the article may be deleted.". I tweaked the working a couple days ago to be slightly stronger, but still written as advice rather than as a requirement. There is a balance in advising editors who create new pages without overwhelming them with text (which they will instinctively skip if it is too long). I think the present message is about as long as it could be before people would stop reading it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I came across an article today which was written in German and which has been deleted on de-wiki. Does A2 cover such instances as well, i.e. can we say that an article that has been deleted on another language wiki, cannot be translated and placed on en-wiki? Or should such articles be translated and then put up for deletion? Or should they be considered as G4? Regards SoWhy 11:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No, since it doesn't "exist on another Wikimedia project". If it doesn't fail any other CSD criteria it should be kept and put up for translation.
I'm unsure if it violates the GFDL though since the original history of the de article is inaccessible – but that's a problem with all translated articles. --Amalthea^Talk 12:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it did exist there. For example what would happen if some article is deleted here as A2, then at de-wiki? Is the A2-deletion invalid in retrospect and does the article have to be undeleted? SoWhy 12:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah. If an article was speedily deleted and an editor requests undeletion, it should always be restored if the original criterion no longer applies (and no other criterion of course). So in your case, it's no longer a copy of an article of another Wikimedia project, so I think it should be restored. WP:Deletion policy#Deletion review doesn't mention this case yet though. --Amalthea^Talk 12:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. The idea of the A2 deletion is to avoid unnecessary duplication inside the project. Editors should be directed towards WP:Translation. If the original isn't available for translation, the translation should be declined, whether or nor someone has created copy in between. The deletion at another project does not really invalidate the deletion of what has been deleted here once as mere copy. Moreover restoring it would in most cases incur GFDL problems.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The different language wikipedias have different standards. deWP accepts some articles which we would not accept readily here, and we have content they would not accept. Similarly (but different) for frWP, the other one I know a little. We naturally do defer a considerable amount to local knowledge on some local topics, especially about things like hoaxes, but we are not bound by them. DGG (talk) 14:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Which means one hand that in some cases we will actually decline to translate articles that exist there, but if on the other hand something has been deleted there on a topic that might fit here we should either start from scratch or should ask for some from of transwikiing of the original but not necessarily resurrect or keep our copy. --Tikiwont (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm attempting to create a document providing an overview of the image deletion process to expand on Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Deleting_images (which needs to be revised anyway, as it is no longer current on the handling of copyright issues). Since a good many of the avenues of deleting images are speedy ones, I figure folks here might have valuable feedback on the need and/or form of such a document. I've just placed a notice at village pump. The conversation started here. Current version of the proposed document can be found at Wikipedia:Guide to image deletion. I'm not in the habit of launching such discussions, so I really have no idea where conversation is best conducted. :) Since I have myself scrambled to figure out where and how to handle things (and have seen even other admins list items at WP:IFD that should be at WP:NFR), I think the document would be a good thing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The text that gets transcluded by {{db-bio}}("This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion as an article about a real person that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Note that books, albums, software etc., or schools, are not eligible for this criterion.") does not include the words "organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content", which are present in the policy, so the tag is thoroughly confusing for a newcomer. VG ☎ 17:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

db-bio is for use on biographies. For others, use {{db-a7}}, {{db-org}}, {{db-band}}, {{db-club}}, {{db-corp}}, {{db-web}} etc. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

In other words, {{db-a7}} is the 'main' template for the A7 criterion, not {{db-bio}}. {{db-bio}}, {{db-org}}, {{db-band}}, {{db-club}}, {{db-corp}}, {{db-web}} etc are all versions that use more specific wording for specific types of articles. You shouldn't put, for instance, {{db-bio}} on an article about a website - either use {{db-web}} or the general {{db-a7}}. Happy‑melon 14:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess Twinkle needs to be fixed then. It puts a {{db-bio}} whenever I choose a A7, even though the explanatory text in Twinkle's message box correctly reflects the current A7 criteria. Thanks for the detailed explanation. VG ☎ 17:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It's the explanatory text that needs to be changed. This selection should still insert db-bio. There are other selections for the other A7 categories. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a display of the speedy selection box. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I've fixed that. Try it and let me know (I don't use Twinkle myself, so can't check). Happy‑melon 17:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, now it doesn't work at all. I stays stuck trying to read tags from the page. The other TW A7 criteria radio boxes work though. Also see: Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle/Bugs#TW-B-192_.28open.29 VG ☎ 01:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Draft proposal "Articles purportedly about a recent financial market crash should be speedily deleted unless they include a verified quote that there has actually been a financial crash from an exceptionally reliable source in financial journalism, such as the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, the Economist, or the New York Times."

Rational - Twice this year, we've had articles stating that a financial crash is currently happening. Compare the recent renamed version January 2008 stock market volatility with The same day version [4] and notice that the crash stuff is mainly given via templates at the bottom of the article. See also Talk:Black Monday (September 2008). People tend to panic when markets are volatile, and our editors are no different, so this type of article can be expected to reappear on a regular basis. But financial market crashes only appear 4-5 times per century. This would be no problem, except that, when we have an article saying that a financial crash is currently happening we are potentially multiplying that panic, and costing our readers a lot of money, as well as lowering our credibility.

I'm not saying that there should never be articles on financial crashes, only that we get an exceptionally reliable source to say that there is a crash, which in effect will give us a full day to think about it (and not panic). Another reason to use exceptionally reliable sources is that headline writers at lower quality sources use the words "crash" or "Black Monday" without backup in the article, or that the writers will state something like "so-and-so thinks this might be a crash." The exceptionally reliable sources (above) have been through real crashes (and non-crashes) and know the potential problems on panic and credibility, thus do not use the term "crash" lightly.

Why speedly deletion? Going through the regular deletion process would take several days, by which time the non-crash is over, but any reader who put their trust in us has already panicked and lost money, and Wikipedia has lost any credibility on financial articles.

Smallbones (talk) 16:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh no. This is not a good idea. First off, it opens the door for speedy criteria of the sort "does not include sources", which is not and never will be a speedy criterion. Second, twice a year is far, far away from often enough to make a special speedy criterion worth everyone's collective while. Third, we've got disclaimers for a reason. People shouldn't be coming to Wikipedia for advice of any sort, be it financial, medical, legal, or anything else. You should try going to for speedy closes at AfD, or else PROD. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Again AfD will be too slow. Remember people are panicking and there will be some controversy. Financial markets are different from most subjects of Wikipedia articles - lots of money is involved, and people panic. Of course people know that they shouldn't trust financial advice from Wikipedia - but in a panic situation, many are likely to forget that. Also please note, this proposal is not so much about deletion, but about a one day delay. How else to realistically stop this type of article? Or is it just not important enough? Smallbones (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have any moral duty to keep the markets from crashing. Besides, I doubt that "Wikipedia spreads panic on Wall Street" is ever going to be a headline in any serious publication, especially when that gigantic red tag appears at the top of any Wikipedia article going through AfD. VG ☎ 16:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

IMO, those articles should be deleted on sight as WP:OR. Encyclopedia articles can't be written without reliable secondary sources. lk (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

We don't speedy delete articles because they are original research. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see the benefit here. If somebody is going to make a poor financial decision based solely on an unsourced Wikipedia article with a big red deletion discussion notice at the top of it, well, you just can't protect people from their own stupidity sometimes. And the idea that such an article could actually precipitate a crash is a notion I find ludicrous. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

As a long time watcher of the financial pages, I would agree with the sentiment behind this proposal. Whenever the markets get volatile, we see a bunch of WP:RECENTISM get dressed up in a full-fledged article. I'm not sure that speedy deletion is always the right course here, but I do think there should be some firmer guideline about notability in these cases. Ronnotel (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

N.B. I have proposed such a guideline. Ronnotel (talk) 17:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not a good speedy-deletion criterion but this is an excellent example of why we need to beef up WP:NOTNEWS (or at least begin to enforce it better). Wikipedia should not make the mistake of trying to "scoop" anyone. Encyclopedias have the luxury of being able to wait for perspective. We sacrifice that advantage when we start to think that we're also newspapers. People who desperately want to write these 'breaking news' articles should be politely pointed to our sister project, WikiNews. Rossami (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see the proposed guideline, but frankly this and a couple of essays aren't enough. How can we keep editors from panic-pushing? The question is not "will wikipedia precipitate a stock market crash?" but "When should an encyclopedia say that there is a crash going on now, which may contribute to a general panic?" I say that Wikipedia should never do this, it's simply unencyclopedic and it may cause (or contribute to) harm to its readers. Do please note that the January 21 "crash" was linked to from the main page for a week (even though the market went up during that time). This type of thing just makes Wikipedia look stupid. So far the only practical suggestion I see here is to put up a big red template on the page saying "this article is up for deletion." I'd like to be able to do something more than that! Smallbones (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Still, see the third point about proposed criteria at the top of this page. Your proposal will not arise frequently, and therefore should not be one of the listed CSD. Feel free to make use of the template {{db}}, however, as I believe a good case could be made for WP:IAR. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The third point - frequently is a relative concept, so please excuse me if I didn't know exactly what was meant. Actually I think that since it might be used a couple of times per year rather than everyday would make the application of this much easier. Rule 3 seems to be written more for administrator convenience, than for solving a real problem. I'd like to solve a real problem.

I still don't understand the suggestion. I'm supposed to put up the {{db}} template, fill in the reason with WP:IAR and presumably text similar to what I've put on this page, and then you will speedily remove the article? I'm guessing it wouldn't work that way. Smallbones (talk) 23:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The point is written because speedy deletion is designed only to work in incredibly obvious and uncontroversial places, and is supposed to take loads off of [{WP:PROD|PROD]] and AFD, where the articles would also be deleted. If it's not going to take a substantial load off of either of those processes, there's no need not to use them. Still, we've got WP:IAR for a reason, and we haven't deleted {{db}} for a reason. Creating a specific disclaimer to put at the top of the article/talk page isn't a bad idea either. I'd suggest heading elsewhere to see if those are acceptable, to get a wider audience. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Write a {{do not panic; markets will rebound}} template if that makes you happy. VG ☎ 19:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't appreciate the attempt at humor. As far as "Wikipedia doesn't have any moral duty" from above, I think you're blowing this way up - instead of "moral duty" I'd rather talk about "common decency" or maybe just a simple rule like "an encyclopedia should attempt to tell the truth."

Please consider the following situation: You work with an organization that regularly misleads its customers in a way that may cost its customers money, without in any way benefiting the organization. Wouldn't you think it best for both the customers and the organization, that you make an attempt to correct this situation? That's all I'm trying to do here. If anybody has a positive suggestion, please let me know. Smallbones (talk) 23:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Smallbones, but I can see that the Speedy Deletion criteria, in order to function on a project wide basis, need to be kept manageable, general and few. I'd also be extremely reluctant to beef up NOTNEWS type restrictions in the speedy deletion criteria, because writing high-quality encyclopedia articles based off current events is something that Wikipedia does better than anyone in the world. Many editors, unfortunately, don't understand the difference between encyclopedia articles based off current events and news articles. In the specific case of sudden stock market volatility, I'd think a better approach would be a smart, and simple, guideline. 1) Wikipedia generally has articles on a variety of economic trends. When somebody starts Black Sunday (Nikkei) Dollar Crash or something, it would be better to swiftly redirect this to somewhere like U.S. National Debt (or whatever the cause). The problem with speedy deletion is that people are going to add the information somewhere. This week's Dow dive showed up in several different articles. And CSD doesn't get at the real problem, whereas a guideline could. So, 2) the guideline should spell out not to use phrases like crash or panic anywhere without the sort of sourcing Smallbones outlined. It could also provide better guidance on dealing with market volatility in general. I'd think if we write this guideline we could get consensus for it, and then bring it to the attention of enough editors who are familiar with markets. I do think we can address the problem without adding a CSD criteria. Not sure the next step here. --JayHenry (talk) 02:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Just no on this proposal - it's true that the financial market may respond adversely to misinformation. By the same token, people may get bad advice about medicine or their health from Wikipedia, or even commit murder based on misinformation they read on Wikipedia. These people are responsible for their own actions. Recentism is a problematic phenomenon in many ways, but it is also in the heat of the moment that many of the details about a topic are most easily available, and that many editors are willing to commit resources to expansion in that area. We currently take advantage of the recentism tendency to create detailed articles that later get pared down to essential information. This is better than hoping to locate this essential information after the event has passed, and I believe ought to be encouraged as an effective wiki-style methodology. Dcoetzee 01:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Given that CSD I8 has been modified quite a while ago to allow immediate deletion, I suggest we merge Category:Images on Wikimedia Commons and Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons into Category:Candidates for speedy deletion to streamline and facilitate such deletions. Comments welcome. (cross-posted here, CAT:NC, CAT:NCT, and CAT:CSD) —kurykh 19:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see any real problem here. Xclamation point 21:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, CAT:NCT is out of control. Conscious (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree - less is more when it comes to different places to go to find CSD candidates. Happy‑melon 09:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Why do I8 deletions at all? Doesn't help us. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have implemented this proposal, but it was reverted. Conscious (talk) 09:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• An article may be speedily deleted if it only contains information that is already contained in an existing article, there is no content to merge, and the title would make an implausible redirect.

The wording of that sucks, but the idea is, well, pages like this. It's an exact copy/paste of another article (Huzzah), right down to the reference numbers. The other type of pages I've seen that fit this mold are pages where someone has started an article without knowing there is an existing article, and the name happens to be an implausible redirect...in the past, I've actually been able to get some of those deleted under R3 criteria, but it doesn't seem right.

Again, the wording of my proposal sucks, but the concept is, quite simply, that if the info is already on Wikipedia, it should be able to be speedily deleted because no reasonable person should have an objection to it...seeing how the info will still be on Wikipedia. Comments? --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The articles like the one you pointed to as an example fall squarely into the category of vandalism (G3, misinformation). A complete copy-paste would fall under G6, since there is no obvious need to keep it, and it probably violates the GFDL. Beyond those, I don't really think there is a need for a broader class of speedies. An article that is only a partial copy paste, but not obvious vandalism, could just be the start of a spin-off (see WP:SUMMARY). Someguy1221 (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If someone took the time to create a duplicative article at a different title, my first thought is that it's probably a plausible redirect candidate - maybe just following a title logic that's not immediately obvious to me but that might be very obvious to someone else. Speedy-deleting those good-faith contributions will will result in one of two outcomes. Either the newcomer will see that their new page was deleted and feel bitten or they will incorrectly think that our database is unstable and "ate" their contribution - leading them to repost it, have it speedy-deleted again and the situation escalates from there. A redirect solves that problem neatly by pointing the new contributor to the right page where their contributions will be appreciated.
If the duplicate title is blatantly inappropriate or if the page truly is an exact duplicate and it's apparent that the user must have copied the text from an existing Wikipedia, then you have a probable case of vandalism on your hands. (Note, however, that merely being a copy-paste may not be proof of bad-faith. A new editor might have copy-pasted the text from one of the many Wikipedia clones without recognizing that we were the original source of the text.) The vandalism charge can often be verified by investigating the creator's contribution history. If it's substantiated as vandalism, that's already speedy-deletable without creating a new CSD criterion.
I think that once you weed out the vandalism cases, there's not enough need for a new CSD criterion. Rossami (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Per this proposal, someone in the midst of expanding content from an article into a new article may be find a speedy delete on their new article. Ouch. --Una Smith (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

All these proposals require too much consciousness on the part of contributors. I see a trend here to shift from writing rules for speedy deleters (yourselves) to follow, toward writing rules for everyone else to follow, if they want to protect their work from being speedy deleted. --Una Smith (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I so commonly have to tell new newpages patrollers that G4 doesn't apply to article only previously speedily deleted that I created a template to save time. I imagine others have similar experiences so please see {{notg4}}.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There's also {{sdd}}, {{sdd2}}, and {{sdd3}} which provide more general templates for why a speedy deletion was declined; these require parameters though. Stifle (talk) 14:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest a new category for speedy deletion: "no assertion of reality". I have come across a few articles that have been written by a single author and that serve to propose their own invention, society, etc. They make no assertion that the subject actually exists or is known to others, but mistakenly create articles all the same.

This is not vandalism as it is meant in good faith, and nor is it a hoax as that would imply an attempt to give the impression that the subject is real. It has elements of Original Research, Vandalism, Hoax, Advertising (self promotion), No Assertion of Notability and Nonsense, but doesn't quite fit into any or those categories.

I'm not happy with my use of the word reality to describe such articles. I'm not contending articles on sujects of disputed reality (God, Soul, etc), nor articles on fictional subjects (Captain Jack Sparrow; Captain Ahab). Even though contentious or fictional, at least the thought of these subjects is genuine, and information can be distilled into an artcle.

In practice, I've nominated such articles for speedy deletion anyway, and admins have been kind enough to bend the rules. I've also explained the issue on the authors' userpages. However, I'd like to check that there is agreement that such articles are CSD.

swyves201.230.43.196 (talk) 06:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I like to call these "coherent nonsense." They usually snowball at AFD very quickly, although many of them happen to fall into a speedy criterion by describing a group or something. I'm just not sure this can really be pinned down accurately enough for CSD. The criteria here are supposed to be at least remotely objective. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Good term! My key defining feature is that there is no assertion of non-nonsense-ness (say that ten times fast). If the article is purporting to be about something real, it deserves a fair shot, but you do sometimes see articles that are written as first proposals. It's almost a "no assertion of notability", if you really strain the definition of notbility. These things would generally be notable if they weren't figments of their authors' imaginations. But then.... 201.230.43.196 (talk) 07:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose making such articles CSD, There have been too many cases of one person writing a wholly inadequate article not explaining the notability in an adequate way, and it turning out that, yes, its actually well known to people who know the subject and there are sources if one actually looks. A common example of this is college students writing an article about their instructor, saying what courses he teaches & how good he is at it, and it turns out he's famous as a scientist, only they don't know it. Now those are A7s, and some get deleted because people don't know, but usually not , because its easy for an admin to check sources. Other topics are harder. The list of topics is deliberately restricted to those where one person can easily tell even without special knowledge. The only check against deletions on Ineverheardofit is exposure to the community. That's the purpose of prod and afd. There are not enough definable groups to make a list that would not be subject to overuse. As it is, I'd support removing companies and groups in favofr of specific sorts of groups. The proposal is going in the wrong direction. DGG (talk) 00:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this CSD proposal even is about, but it's fair to say that "when in doubt, take it to AfD instead of CSD" is a good principle. The concerns here seem to revolve around a certain type of WP:OR articles that are not obvious hoaxes. These articles constitute a tiny minority of the stuff sent to AfD, so devising a new speedy criteria for them is IMHO a waste of time. VG ☎ 00:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Strong oppose - after all, many of our articles - including some of our featured articles - are about fictional characters. There's no easy way to tell whether an article is about something that is a figment of the author's imagination, or is the figment of many people's imaginations. Dcoetzee 01:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Would articles like this be covered under such a category? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, already speedied it. In my view articles which give a biography where all the events are clearly fantastic (eg claiming to be the President of non-existent countries, to have invented impossible devices, or like here where every date is decades in the future) are already speediable. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Fails points 1, 2, and 4 at the top of this page. Anything that's clearly a hoax is speediable under G3, and anything that may or may not be a hoax should not be speedied. Stifle (talk) 14:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I feel an obligation to add a qualifier to Stifle's comment. Just because you think something is clearly a hoax or has "no assertion of reality", you should still send it to AfD in almost all cases. Our history at the project has shown that as individuals we are not very good at telling the hoaxes from the poorly written or especially obscure but true topics. When we decide as a group (the AfD process), our success rate is much higher. Speedy can, of course, be justified if you see a pattern of vandalism in the editor's contribution history. Rossami (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not exactly understanding the second sentence of this criterion: "Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion." Can someone explain that? MuZemike (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the intent is to distinguish between verifiable (as in, a product exists) and notable (as in, someone other than you cares). --Una Smith (talk) 20:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Not every article about a company or product is blatant advertising. I think that's all it wants to say. --Amalthea^Talk 22:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

IBM, as a random example. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Or as products go Windows 98 would not speedable. --70.24.176.182 (talk) 01:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. So in other words, it's a failsafe to prevent dubious/bad faith G11 taggings of notable company/product articles. Is that right? MuZemike (talk) 07:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Almost, but I would not assume bad faith in those tagging. It is to prevent over-eager tagging of new articles, in most cases created by users with a conflict of interest. So it says: Just because it's about a company or product and sounds like an advertisement, it does not mean it can be speedy deleted. That's why the word blatant is included and that's why {{ad}} exists. G11 is just for such cases when there would be no article left if you cut all the POV and ads. SoWhy 07:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Short time after G11 was implemented (pretty much handed down from the foundation, although speedy deletions of obvious spam was commonplace already), one administrator went ahead and deleted dozens of articles on cookie brands, even though the general consensus was that the articles were not spammy. DRV discussion. The qualifier in the current text is probably to preempt that interpretation of G11, and that it is pages which try to market or advertise a product, as opposed to merely describing a product, which can be G11-ed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

not quite, it is, according to WP:CSD: Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic.. In practice, if the product is reasonably notable, the promotional part can often be removed. A great deal can be done by simply deleting addresses and phone numbers and names of minor officers--and unsupported blurbs. If there is an informative core, it is not a speedy. DGG (talk) 02:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the emphasis DGG put here. For example, here's an article that I don't think it's advertisement, even though some other editors do think it is. Had this been speedily deleted as advertisement, I wouldn't have gotten the chance to add those references (I didn't touch its contents otherwise). The article might still be deleted, but at least it got debated seriously. CSD#A7 should be used when it's obvious that the company/product would have a hard time being notable, and no notability claims are made. For companies this generally applies to mundane local shops, e.g. a parking lot or a cell phone dealer would have a hard time justifying notability, so in the absence of any claim for extraordinary fame, I'd speedy it as A7. CSD#G11 is for those cases that could otherwise survive the A7 test based on advert-like claims, e.g. "the cheapest parking lot in the area", "has the best deals on XZY", or "fast-growing startup". While these are claims for notability, and may even be verifiable, they are obviously adverts and have no encyclopedic value. If the only claims to fame are of this variety, G11 seems the most appropriate way to rid Wikipedia of those articles. Similar examples can be given for products. Basically when some product is fungible, I'd expect some references or at least a claim about that it stands out somehow, or else I'd speedy it as A7. However, G11 type claims can be made about products too: "the yummiest cookies", "the screwdriver recommended by experts" (without saying who they are) etc. A more subtle form advertisement is encountered is some WP:COATRACK articles; these are not always speedily deleted. A recent example was Freelance_Academic_Assistants, a notion which was made up to promote certain sites and services. For articles with claims that are not of the garden variety of advertisement, AfD is the safer recourse, because when WP:DELSORTed properly, an article usually attracts knowledgeable editors. VG ☎ 06:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

an additional advantage of afd, is the possibility of removing repeats with G4. spam of this sort, in my experience, tends to repeat. DGG (talk) 04:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course first person plural is is an obvious G11. If I see "WE", it's G8+3. (unless an unknown king is writing about himself then it's A7) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

as I see it, FPP is more likely an indication of copypaste, and can generally be removed easily enough if that's the only problem. Remember the option of stubbifying. DGG (talk) 04:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Editor !votes "Redirect" in an AfD discussion, but discussion is closed as "Delete." Despite this, same !outvoted editor recreates the deleted page as a Redirect to some other page. Shouldn't the recreated page be subject to a G4 speedy, because it is contrary to the result of the deletion discussion? UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, not really, although this has always been a gray area. Deletion does not imply salting, and recreation of deleted titles in a form not substantially similar to the deleted version is generally allowed. The exception would be if there's an explicit prior consensus that the title should not be redirected, either in the form of a RfD discussion or as a clear and unambiguous consensus among those commenting on the AfD. Someone merely !voting "delete" in an AfD discussion should not, in itself, be taken as an objection to redirection: it is just as likely to simply mean "the content on that page sucks, get it off Wikipedia". If there's any doubt, I'd recommend simply RfD'ing the redirect. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Eh, redirects are cheap. If it is a likely search term, it gives a subtle nudge to new editors (more than the edit notices do, honestly) that the community has already looked at the article, as they are delivered to a parent article when they type in the previously deleted one. And plenty of fictional character AfD's end in "delete and redirect over deleted article" to leave the redirect but prevent editors from just reverting it to bring the article back. Protonk (talk) 02:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, if there are speedy deletions for redirects if needed. But I agree with Ilmari Karonen, if redirects were not specifically discussed in that AfD but just overlooked, there is nor harm in having them :-) SoWhy 07:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Ilmari on this one. The CSD only covers deletions of substantially identical material. The consensus for or against the redirect is a separate issue. Frequently redirects do get discussed in deletion discussions, and contributors generally ought to respect that, but there's no speedy recourse if they don't. Dcoetzee 04:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If there is a logical article to redirect to, there's generally not a compelling reason to delete the revisions. If any of the content is merged, the revisions ought to be undeleted to preserve at least some form of attribution as required by the GFDL (yes there are other ways, but they tend to be non-standard and quite ugly). Plus as a practical matter, any editor scrutinizing the merged content has a legitimate need to see who contributed what prior to the merge. — CharlotteWebb 11:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

A new user created FORMOZA and FORMOZA - Navy Special Forces based in Gdynia (the content is ripped off [5] which is copyrighted and allows use with attribution, but it's not the point). I cannot find the appropriate CSD for removing the duplicate - is there such a thing? Is G6 applicable? NVO (talk) 10:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I've used G6 in the past for duplicates where both were introduced by the same author and have (almost) identical content, and one of the topic names was not useful as a redirect, yes.
In my early days, I've also first converted one into a redirect to the other, and then marked it as a R3 misnomer/implausible typo, but I don't think that's the way to go. ;) --Amalthea^Talk 11:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I would redirect one to the other as redirects are cheap. Stifle (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If the copy is exactly the same (and the new name not worth a redirect, i.e. completely non-sensical), it might be deletable as G2 (if the user is new and such does not know about moving or cannot do so due to not being autoconfirmed) or G3 if there is reason to assume bad faith. But I think Amalthea is correct in this case to apply G6, I cannot see any reason for controversy. I think redirecting FORMOZA - Navy Special Forces based in Gdynia to FORMOZA creates a redirect deletable as R3 in FORMOZA - Navy Special Forces based in Gdynia because I cannot see any reason why anyone should search that term. On a side note, i think deletion of non-redirect-worth-copies should be included into G6's definition. SoWhy 20:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Being an unlikely search term isn't even a valid reason for regular deletion much less for speedy-deletion. Redirects do far more than merely support the search engine. Unless there is evidence of bad-faith in the user's contribution history (in which case G3 applies), the project is better off just making the page into a redirect. Rossami (talk) 14:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

How does that redirect help searching for the article? As far as I know it only helps if you type the exact article name?
As far as I can tell the article creator copied the title "FORMOZA - Navy Special Forces based in Gdynia" from the article Polish Special Forces. I don't see that it is related to a full name of those forces, and would have filed it as an obscure synonym (WP:R#D7) at best. --Amalthea^Talk 14:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not say that the redirect helps in searching. What I said was the redirects do far more than merely support searching. See all the other WP:R#Ks. Whether or not any of those other functions apply in this case or are sufficient to justify keeping a particular redirect is debatable. But merely being an unlikely search term is not and never has been a strong justification to delete a redirect - and it's certainly not sufficient justification to support a speedy-deletion. Rossami (talk)

Sorry, I misunderstood you there. Anyway, I guess it is a judgement call whether this is a misnomer or merely an unlikely search term. I would have gone with the former, since I believe it's based on a copy&paste mistake, and not on anyone calling it that. --Amalthea^Talk 18:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Is CSD R2 limited to redirects from the article space only? If so, then the language should be revised to read something like:

Redirects to the Talk:, User: or User talk: namespace from the article space only. Other cross namespace redirects are not eligible for deletion by this criterion.

This would help clarify R2's application. -- Suntag ☼ 17:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily. It's plausible that an essay or something could be moved from project space to user space and the redirect deleted afterwards. Hut 8.5 19:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It's possible, even likely that such a page would be moved and the redirect deleted but that would generally be with the author's consent (in which case G7 applies). Otherwise, essays are so frequently moved from the Wikipedia space to user space and back that the redirects are generally left alone. If you don't you risk breaking literally thousands of talk-page links. R2 definitely should never be applied to those redirects. R2 is carefully and deliberately worded to be restricted to article-space. Rossami (talk) 14:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

What CSD template should be used for template pages that are created accidentally by a new user, or pages that a user created but didn't understand what "template" space is. I've run across this many times, and there are currently only three T:CSD templates, none of which apply. (They aren't inflammatory, they aren't duplicates, and they aren't misrepresentations of policy, they are simply mistakes.) An example would be This page, which was created by a brand new editor who had no idea how to archive his talk page. He had previously created multiple pages in article space, template space, etc., and did not understand that this was not the same thing as userspace. He does seem to understand it now, but the "template" he created (which is simply an archival of his talk page) technically doesn't fall under {{db-author}} because he's not the only editor, and it isn't in article/user space. Should I just be using a generic {{db}} template with |reason? Ariel♥Gold 06:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

In the particular case of the example you cite, the tag you placed, db-author, is spot on because he blanked the page and there are no other substantive edits. But for cases where there is no blanking, {{db}} with a tailored message invoking G6 works just fine. The actual deletion template for G6, {{db-g6}}, doesn't work because these types of deletions need an explanation for the deleting admin to go on. There is also {{db-test}} which would not be completely wrong where the mistaken creation is patently clear, but it's also not quite right. I suppose a new template could be created to invoke this particular species of G6, but I don't think there are enough of these that we need anything more than the generic db|reason. Ultimately, so long as the page really is an error that should be deleted, and is deleted for the proper reason, there's no harm.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

If the pages should go into his userspace just move them there, have the redirects deleted, and inform him about it. Otherwise, as Fuhghettaboutit said, look at the general criteria. --Amalthea^Talk 15:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but he had already created the proper page archive page in his userspace, by the time I noticed the mistaken creation of the template page, so moving the page wasn't an option. I guess the {{db}}(explanation) works, if the admins are happy with that for template space CSDs :) (And Hi Fuhghettaboutit!) Ariel♥Gold 12:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Over at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_October_13, there's an ongoing discussion of several redirects from article space to the Image: namespace. As I read it, there's a general consensus developing that such such redirects are never useful. Now, that's certainly my opinion - I can't think of any situation where they are generally useful, and, as I noted in the linked discussion, they can be potentially harmful. I'd like to suggest amending R2 to read:

Redirects to the Talk:, Image:, Image talk:, User:, or User talk: namespace from the article space. If this was the result of a page move, consider waiting a day or two before deleting the redirect

(new text is in red).

I realize that expanding R2 to more types of cross-namespace redirects could be controversial, but I don't believe that this particular expansion would be, with the possible exception of that last logical comma. Thoughts? — Gavia immer (talk) 19:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

In 3 of the 4 cases, it appears the consensus is leaning toward retargeting. In this case, deletion is more of an alternate option, in the case that there is no suitable target for retargeting. I don't think I've ever seen a case of a Image talk->Article redirect. Mr.Z-man 19:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I included the Image talk namespace mainly for completeness; I've never seen a redirect like that either. As far as retargeting goes, it's more or less implicit that speedy deletion needn't be done if the relevant page title could be used for something better - the lengthy introduction to our two remaining redirect criteria says exactly this. The point of expanding R2 would be to apply it when there isn't any better use that the page could be put to. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Per the exhaustive list at User:MBisanz/RfD there are no Article -> Image talk redirects, but I would support the change regardless, good alteration idea. MBisanz ^talk 20:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

While I don't have any reason (or desire) to defend that redirect, I don't think that it should be a new speedy-deletion criterion. It appears to fail requirement three at the top of this page. This scenario just doesn't arise that frequently. In fact, I'm tempted to say this is the first time that the issue has ever come up. I don't even see enough justification to expand the existing one. It should be completely uncontroversial at RfD. The costs of expanding this page (which is already far larger and more complex than any of us would want) outweigh the potential benefits in my opinion. Rossami (talk) 21:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with some of that, but my interpretation of instruction creep is where we attempt to legislate for or against specific instances, instead of being more general. So let's step back and rethink. What kinds of redirects from the mainspace to other namespaces are useful? Happy‑melon 12:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting question. There are two examples that come immediately to mind.

1. Old redirects left over from when some of our major policy pages were written in the mainspace. (They were written there because at the time, there was no Wikipedia space.) Many old pages and many thousands of historical pages still reference the old locations. In some cases, those policy pages were externally linked, especially by academics who were studying the emergence of social software at the time. Deleting those old redirects would break all those external links.
2. The other is a soft redirect from a Wikipedia page to a Wiktionary page (usually made after the move or merger of lexical content to the right project using {{wi}} or equivalent). But soft redirects aren't really what you're asking about. And anyway, that's a redirect from one mainspace to another mainspace. So maybe this second case doesn't fit your definition.

Rossami (talk) 14:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so maybe there is a historical reason for Article -> Wikipedia and Article -> Help redirects, but what about Article -> Category or Article -> Template or Article -> Any talk namespace. Where is the benefit in those? Could it be re-written in the negative sense:

“

Redirects to any namespace other than Wikipedia: Help: and MediaWiki: Namespaces from the article space. If this was the result of a page move, consider waiting a day or two before deleting the redirect

”

That should fix the historical concern and cover most situations, without giving more instruction creep.MBisanz ^talk 17:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Why MediaWiki:?? I don't really think that the two redirects we have are at all valid - .css should redirect to Cascading Style Sheets, as probably should Common.css. I'm not even sure about Help: redirects; there are probably better targets for those too (with suitable self-referencing hatnotes to the appropriate off-mainspace page). The mainspace really should be isolated, with no way for readers to accidentally fall into the 'backstage' areas. There are a few problems with this, however: the large number of 'shortcut' redirects like CAT:CSD, P:A, etc. If you want those cleared up, please come and comment at Wikipedia:VPR#Namespace aliases. There's an issue we have to sort out there too, of course, which is articles like t:kort and p:ano, but that's yet another story. In summary, I'd support (eventually) prohibiting all new cross-namespace redirects from the mainspace, but there are a number of steps we have to take first. Happy‑melon 17:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I figured there are the same historical reasons to redirects to Help and Mediawiki that there are for redirects to Wikipedia. I may RFD the 2 Mediawiki redirects to eliminate that though. MBisanz ^talk 17:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that :Help and :Wikipedia are useful for the convenience of new readers, e.g. Edit summary or Speedy delete. They should be tagged with an appropriate redirect template, e.g. {{R from shortcut}} or something to make them "unprintworthy redirects", but not speedily deleted.
All redirects to :User, :Image, :MediaWiki and the talk namespaces should be deleted, although I'm unsure if "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" or "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." are of historic use. There are also redirects to talk pages that are used and linked to quite often, namely T:MP, T:DYKT, and T:TDYK. Those could be excepted and edit-protected.
Controversial namespaces are:

• :Categories – we have a lot here, e.g. Prominent marxists, List of 1888 films, NFL Commissioner. I guess we'd always prefer a seperate "List of ..." article instead.
• :Portals – we have a lot of those too, but I'm not sure if they are really useful for the encyclopaedia. Do we want Current events in Canada or New Zealand portal? Most here are in an unofficial pseudo-namespace :P.
• :Template – We had 165 here as of September 12. Some using an unofficial pseudo-namespace :T (T:AIV, T:AC, T:CENT), but most aren't. Some for editors (Cite_web, Uncited), but also some for readers like List of Chaldean dioceses, Regional Capitals of Sweden or Cleveland Indians roster. I think that the ones that can be useful for readers are very easily turned into articles, even if they don't do much more than transclude the template.

I personally think that none of those are useful enough to keep them in the long run. Before any XNRs are declared as speedily deletable the existing redirects need to be cleaned up manually or by bot though. --Amalthea^Talk 18:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm not sure myself that we need to expand this to all CNRs. I don't think most CNRs are needed, but in many cases they are debatable and ought to go to RfD. I'm mostly concerned about this one specific case, where there doesn't seem to be any use in them. I'd rather see an incremental expansion than get hung up in discussion of a general expansion, which is why I made the narrow proposal. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree to extend it to redirects into Image: and Image_talk: right away, per your initial proposal. --Amalthea^Talk 22:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

As would I. WODUP 00:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

All right; with due respect to Rossami, whose objections are noted and understood but don't seem to me to be blockers, I'm going to wait a bit for last-minute objections, and if there aren't any more I'll make the change. Needless to say, I'm open to any further discussion, objections, etc. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC) Update: I went ahead and made the change. We'll see if sticks, as is the usual practice. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I note that the A7 requirement of assertion of notability only applies to some article types: "real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content", but not others. Is there a reason for this? In particular, it's unclear to me why a website is subject to this, but a software program (which might be nothing beyond a program downloadable from the author's website) is not?

I feel that A7 is one of the more useful speedy delete criteria in getting rid of random spam articles without resorting to AfD, and it's not like it's hard to fulfil - so it's a shame only to have it for some article types. Is there an example of an article in one of those other categories which should be on Wikipedia, but couldn't fulfil this criterion? Mdwh (talk) 10:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You might want to scroll up on the page to the "Extending A7?" subtopic. Soundvisions1 (talk) 11:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, remember that PROD is available for any article that hasn't been previously prodded. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, it should be noted that A7 requires assertion of importance, not notability, which has a special meaning in Wikipedia context. A7 requires that an article merely give realistic reason why a subject may be important (So-and-so serves on the city council of Tinytown; so-and-so has won three awards, so-and-so holds the patent on several inventions), with no statement as to whether these claims of importance amount to notable claims of importance. Notability is always debatable as it must be applied against a somewhat subjective standard. A7 is meant to give us a way to speedily delete all of those articles like "Johnny Smith is a student at Nowheresville High and is the best soccer player at that school" and that is it... Its not meant as an end-around to delete articles which are borderline or which are likely to be open to debate. If there is ANY question AT ALL that ANYONE may find the subject possibly notable, then use a more deliberative deletion process than CSD. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, sorry, I mean importance. I'm not fan of the trend to delete material merely for not being notable enough, but I think the requirement that an article should at least assert its importance is a useful one. I entirely agree with your interpretation of A7 - and I feel it would be just as useful with all article types (or at least, more than it's currently restricted to). Mdwh (talk) 01:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The arguments I've always thought of for why A7 only applies to those specific things is that they don't rely on other things for their importance (at least not always) and are not generally contentious. Some things, such as schools, religions, churches, etc. (which don't qualify for G3 or some other criterion) generally have a much higher probability of in fact being notable and shouldn't be speedily deleted out of hand because the article doesn't mention any importance. Frequently, even if the article lacks the notability to stand on its own, these types of articles can be easily merged and redirected to the town or area they are located in.

Most other things articles are written about are some sort of works, whether they are creative works, products, or anything along those lines. These sorts of things aren't covered by A7 because their importance is generally dependent on some outside other thing (the author of a book, artist for an album, company which makes a product, etc.), and it takes more time to properly evaluate the importance of the thing than speedy deletion should take (generally, if I have to think about it for more than five seconds, I don't speedy it). Therefore, it is more appropriate to use the WP:PROD or WP:AFD processes than this one. Hope that helps, and I didn't confuse my language too much in there. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I see it slightly different, but compatible: the utter lack of possible notability of some things in the defined classes can be really obvious. Even I can tell that a band that has not yet released a recording is not possibly notable. Anyone can tell that a local grocery is not going to be notable, & there's almost no chance of being wrong. Any one can that a 11year old describing his accomplishments in junior high school is not notable. They can be removed without possibility of error. For many other things, like books, it's harder to immediate recognize. Almost nobody will have instantaneous recognition for a children's book except children of the right generation and the parents of those children & no matter how absolutely unimportant such a book sounds, one maqy easily be wrong, and so it's better that people have a few days to look at it. The question is whether 2 people can safely decide, or whether it takes more. DGG (talk) 23:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the reason the CSD process assiduously avoids the word "notable" is because it is a term of art for wikipedia but has connotations in the rest of the world that can be easily confused for its real meaning here. We could say, were you and I to meet on the street, that the lightbulb was a very notable invention. However, if we were discussing the Incandescent light bulb at a deletion debate, it wouldn't make sense to say "it is very notable", just "it is notable" or "it is not notable". This is a difficulty that I had hoped a rename of WP:N would have helped to solve, but that got bogged down a month or so ago. Protonk (talk) 00:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point about schools (and I guess places too) - these are things that are likely to be mentioned in 3rd party reliable sources, but might not be "important" in any obvious sense. But, for creative works, it's still unclear to me why creative works are any different to websites. In the case of a notable person/group who creates a work, then "This was produced by notable person/group with Wikipedia article" ought to satisfy the assertion of notability. Surely the point about A7 is that we don't have to spend time evaluating it, if the person who wrote the article can't even merely assert a reason for its importance? PROD is only of limited use, as even the original author can remove the tag. Mdwh (talk) 01:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You'll likely be interested in the newly minted WP:CSD#A9 then, which is starting down that road. There has never been consensus to add creative works to A7 itself, but this new criterion is much better received. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Me too with this and the other section. A7 should be across the board. Although I can see DGG's point, A7 is not about notability as such, but for those articles which don't assert the importance or significance of the subject at all. For those who know how to look for WP:RS, finding whether something is completely lacking in notability is not difficult, i.e. if there are no even borderline sources to be found at all. And for those articles with a couple of borderline sources, if they don't say why they are encyclopaedic due to some significance, they're A7-able. What's included/not included seems random at the moment and I was thinking of proposing changing it myself. Sticky Parkin 00:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• A7 applies to topics where a human (or humans) is the primary subject. My guess is that web content was added because every non notable website wants the publicity Wikipedia can bring to it. -- Suntag ☼ 06:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I am tempted to say these taggers are a new breed of vandals here on Wikipedia.

What is it with page patrollers who go around fighting editors who create legitimate new articles, tagging their work for speedy deletion and other issues only minutes after its creation? For example, User:Waterden on Jan Kjellström and Road magazine. I start many new articles, often in collaboration with others. While I take a short break so the other contributors can add content without an edit conflict, some page patroller jumps in and starts tagging. That is a waste of everyone's time: my time, my collaborators' time, an admin's time, and the tagger's time. What would be helpful is for the would-be tagger to do a little rudimentary research and improve the article. Practice constructive editing. Or go tag the many old stubs that have not been improved in months or years. Better yet, practice constructive editing there too, and improve them. Less telling other editors what to do and more doing it yourself. Please. Thank you. --Una Smith (talk) 16:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Lest the problem is not obvious, hasty tagging of new articles is off-putting. The new advice displayed to editors creating a new article also is off-putting. It says in effect If you don't do it right, some officious person will delete your work. Is that really the message you want to convey? --Una Smith (talk) 17:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Almost everyone agrees there is a problem, but nobody really has an overall solution. The final step in speedy is the admin deleting it, and since there are admins who will in fact delete anything they think is ultimately not worth an article regardless of the deletion policy, perhaps the solution is to be able to get some of the buttons removed, so one doesn't actually have to deadmin people. In practice, nobody will do that to a generally respected admin no matter how bad the work is, short of real outrage. And most people seem to think that such negligence or even deliberately acting on a personal view of policy, is not an outrage. DGG (talk) 19:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

If the nomination is for notability and there is nothing asserting notability, then clearly it can be deleted. Not every admin in cases like this is going to know that the subject may in fact be notable. A poorly written article is not the fault of admins, but the editors. I guess that knowing what is involved in deleting is why any stub I create usually will include references from at least two sources. I think one had about 6 sources. Maybe one solution is to somehow let editors know that they can tag the article if it is still being worked on. Don't know if that is possible, but it can at least be considered. Or maybe the better tack would be to more strongly encourage citations. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Yes, heaven forbid administrators use their discretion when using the tools. Its not like we choose them for their judgment or anything. Mr.Z-man 23:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Road magazine is a horrible example to pick, Una. It was a stub about a brand new web "magazine" with neither assertion nor evidence of notability and no links other than to the web content itself. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

... and Jan Kjellström was never tagged for speedy deletion, only as {{unreferenced}}. --Amalthea^Talk 20:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Both were perfect examples of ordinary new articles being jumped on. Jan Kjellström was minutes old and did not call for tagging. That article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Orienteering's drive to improve its top article, Orienteering, and all tagging did was incite one contributor to slap in the first ref he could lay his hands on (not the best ref). Road magazine may not merit being kept, but that does not justify deleting it before the creator had a chance to respond to the speedy delete tag. Where is WP:AGF? And furthermore it was deleted despite a {{holdon}} tag. --Una Smith (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, when creating the article it did say in bold face, directly above the edit box: "Articles that are created without references, or have extremely little content, are likely to be deleted very quickly. To avoid this, include references to reliable, published sources immediately when creating a new article."
I'm with you in principle that articles with potential shouldn't be deleted A1, A7, and possibly G11 after a reasonable time, say 1 hour, has passed. Recent change patrol is however vital for Wikipedia, and it makes sense to tag articles along with it as they come in, especially since attack pages, copyright violations, blatant vandalism and the like should be disposed quickly.
Furthermore tagging an article with issue tags is in no way an attack on it, it's a categorization for improvement. An {{unreferenced}} tag also isn't immediately followed by a deletion request, we have articles that have this tag since June 2006. --Amalthea^Talk 02:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see hasty tagging as an attack, only (in many cases) a waste of time for all parties. Hasty tagging of ordinary new stubs, followed by hasty deleting, is a problem. Re the message "Articles that are created ... deleted very quickly.", how is a new editor supposed to know that "created" means "saved" and "very quickly" means minutes? New page patrol has an important function: deletion of attack pages and vandalism. But in my opinion new page patrollers should not be tagging stuff that is not an attack page or vandalism. Copyright infringement is something that cannot be judged adequately in an instant; I have seen so many cases where the patroller got it wrong. I had one this week, in fact. I split some content off an old article into a new article, which was immediately tagged for speedy delete because it matched a web page somewhere else, a web page copied from the old Wikipedia article. --Una Smith (talk) 02:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

What else could possibly happen if I click create, enter some text, and then click save? Also, did you note it in your edit summary when you split the article, per WP:SPLIT? Otherwise it was a copyright violation of the GFDL (assuming that you didn't write all of the previous text yourself), if one that should of course not have been repaired via speedy deletion since it wasn't blatant at all.
Lastly, hasty incorrect CSD deletion is the problem, not the hasty deletion itself, and we should talk to editors and especially admins if they don't apply the CSD by the book – or, if that doesn't help, delay the tags that are most often misapplied. It's really not that difficult to get a potentially notable article past A7. Just assert why the topic is important. --Amalthea^Talk 12:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is one that is not just limited to speedy deletion. It's the general sense of false urgency that pervades the entire project. I've had an editor complain that I swapped out his CSD tag for a PROD because, while the article was an uncontroversial deletion, it didn't fall into any CSD. I mean, who cares if it gets deleted today or 5 days from now? Why is that worth fighting for? For some reason, many editors (and some admins) feel like if an article doesn't get deleted as quickly as humanly possible, something terrible will happen. I don't quite understand it myself, but that's what you're fighting here and I don't really know how to fix it. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

One person who cares is the person who created the article. --Una Smith (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The point is valid. Problem is not the taggers though, although I think a new kind of warning template might be helpful. For example I encounter massive amounts of G11 taggings on anything that is remotely promoting a product. So I think those who use certain tags completely wrong, not reading what the criterion actually says, should be warned accordingly. But as DGG points out, the problem is with those admins who do not review the tagging and just delete away. The tags themselves would not be that harmful, as a declined speedy will actually tell the creator that he does not have to fear speedy deletion. SoWhy 21:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem is this project, which encourages the taggers. This speedy delete project is training editors to fight, not help; to knock down, not create. Just turn it around. Reward editors for how many articles they save from a speedy delete or a PROD. Keep track of statistics such as how many speedy deletes and PRODs are executed per day, strive to reduce that number, and give barnstars for outstanding work developing stubs into start class articles. Reward the more desirable behavior. --Una Smith (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

While I strongly disagree that this project encourages taggers (it in no way "rewards" anyone for tagging or deleting articles), Una's comment did bring something to mind. One reason I don't spend as much time as I used to at speedy deletion was how frustrating it got having an article speedily deleted by another admin while I was doing 30 seconds of basic research to see if the article was salvageable. (Half the time it was, and I'd have to restore the article before applying CPR). What if there was a tag similar to {{closing}} at AfD, where I could slap it on saying to other admins "Hey, give me five minutes to see if this should be deleted or rewritten"? Obviously it could be abused by people trying to game the system, but if it could be applied only once and only for 5 minutes, it might encourage appropriate rescues.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

There is {{Hasty}}, which should help. Or {{inuse}}. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Or how about {{Holdon}}. Except that won't stop some admins. --Una Smith (talk) 22:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as an admin who does speedy patrol on occasion, quite a few holdon tags are kinda' crap. The reasons provided don't have anything to do with the criterion the article's tagged with (tons of A7's get "THIS ISNT SPAM" on the talk page) or otherwise don't refute it. Also, stupid brain forgot to remind me that, since you're not the author, you can just remove the tag while you're working. </facepalm> lifebaka++ 22:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

After a tagged article I was reviewing got deleted before I could remove the tag, I started removing the tags myself with the edit summary "reviewing, will retag if necessary". However, I got screamed at once for doing that by the original tagger who felt my edit summary was "vague" and I didn't notify him. All this happened when I was in the process of composing a message on his talk page recommending AFD. Some new page patrollers take it personally when their tags are removed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Yea, the use of {{Holdon}} is in most cases not supported by facts on the talk page that would support keeping. It is very common for an editor to add this tag and then hours later the admin still finds nothing on the talk page. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the justifications often are not to the point. That is new editors just doing what (they think) they're being told. They don't understand what is wanted from them. They need help, not a slap. --Una Smith (talk) 03:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

This project encourages and rewards tagging in the following ways. The speedy tag displays text putting the onus on someone else, anyone else, clearing one more task off the tagger's imaginary desk. And deleted articles are a reinforcing pat on the back: "an admin agreed with me that the article merits speedy deletion." How about keeping score? The tagger gets +1 if the article gets deleted; -2 if it doesn't; and -10 if it gets deleted and then restored. Keep a similar score for admins who speedy delete. --Una Smith (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Two things. First, this isn't a project. It doesn't reward editors, it doesn't punish editors. It lays out the criteria themselves. WP:NPP is that way.

Second, how would you propose we "keep score"? Any system for doing it would be blatant creep and would frankly be a pain for admins to keep track of. People already get told off for misusing speedy tags repeatedly, anyways. lifebaka++ 22:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

There's already massive creep here, and it's about time to apply some of it to admins, and admin assistants like page patrollers, not just contributors. --Una Smith (talk) 03:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Fabrictramp's suggestion of a five minute wait tag seems like a good one to me to round out {{hasty}}, so I took a stab: {{CSD5}}.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I just shoved a plate of cookies in my USB port -- you should have them on your hard drive soon. :)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Already made use of it. Resulted in a delete, but it gave me time to check the quality of the sources in the article to determine that the lack of claims of notability wasn't just a poor writing issue or misunderstanding of the requirements. Nice!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You're most welcome. Like I said, it seems like a very good idea. Feel free to tweak of course.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is not just the taggers. For every Jan Kjellström-type article that actually does get improved after creation, there's probably 2 dozen such articles that never get improved. Category:All articles lacking sources has almost 150,000 pages in it and thousands of pages are deleted every day, mostly speedy deletion. Massive amounts of unsourced low-quality articles is a problem. People putting speedy deletion tags on possibly legitimate articles too quickly is a problem. Punishing taggers for putting cleanup tags on too quickly is not a solution. "Blaming society" is not a solution. Mr.Z-man 23:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreement here. The cleanup tag on Jan Kjellström was perhaps a little hasty but I really don't see a) how it was offensive and b) why that would be one of the contributing factors to Una Smith's frustration here. I think we should add to the top of the page: "To make a general complaint about speedy deletion, editors must demonstrate through their contribution history that they have spent at least one hour adding cats, stub tags, cleanup tags, and/or speedy tags at Special:Newpages". (The CSD5 template is brilliant btw, I get frustrated when an A7 I'm reviewing vanishes) Darkspots (talk) 00:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I spend a lot of time adding cats and tags to pages. I even use the speedy delete tag now and then, but not on an article that is merely too short or has no proof of notability. I didn't know Special:Newpages existed. I just tried it. It has a link to start with the oldest new article first (FIFO) but when you're done you see the LIFO list again, newest at the top. It is much harder to work FIFO. Also, I think part of the problem is the instruction to leave the "can't decide" pages for another patroller to look at. How many of the articles that are about to expire from the list have been looked at over and over again? --Una Smith (talk) 03:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the pages that are about to expire from Newpages are pretty tough to figure out most of the time, they've been picked through pretty thoroughly. I think most of them will end up in one of our cleanup categories; Z-man pointed out one with 150,000 articles. Una, I bring it up because if you look at the new pages as they're created, any time of the day or night, for an hour or two, I think you can get a pretty good idea why we delete (what is it?) some 40,000 articles a month using speedy. It puts it into perspective for me. Darkspots (talk) 03:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I do understand. When I'm bored, I look at Special:RecentChanges and I always spend some time tidying up. I have now spent some time on Special:Newpages. My conclusion: Criteria for speedy deleting are way too numerous, way too complex. Why not cut it back to the essentials: housekeeping, vandalism, and attack? If a page does not clearly fit one of those categories, page patrollers might just as well leave it alone. KISS. --Una Smith (talk) 04:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

So we just let the project fill up with crap, as long as it isn't blatant vandalism? I don't think that's really a viable option. Mr.Z-man 04:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I think keeping crap out is not a job that Newpage patrolers should be doing. Crap, manure, is good for growing strong articles. --Una Smith (talk) 05:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, WT:NPP is that way. This page has zero control over how the CSD get used, it just lays them out. lifebaka++ 15:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I have a narrow proposal that I believe would be effective: instead of tagging new articles as A7, we tag them with a template that says something like this: "This article does not currently describe why its subject is notable. Please add this information. If this information is not added within 3 days, it may be deleted under Wikipedia's speedy deletion policy. If you believe this article does describe why its subject is notable, please discuss this on the talk page." We then have a date-organized category of articles tagged with this, in the same style as the fair use templates. I don't really care whether it's 3 days, some other number of days, or hours, as long as the contributor has warning and a chance to react. Dcoetzee 00:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Change it from 3 days to 5 days and you've recreated WP:PROD. Why are we making this even more complicated than it already is? Rossami (talk) 00:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

A speedy PROD? Slow Speedy? Should be something far less than 24 hours I think, and is probably just as warranted with A1s.
Personally, I'd prefer starting to template the taggers, though, per SoWhy. Maybe create a (admin-only?) "Decline CSD" twinkle script that asks for a decline reason and posts it on the taggers talk page. --Amalthea^Talk 00:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

To clarify: Not all taggers of course, only if a tag is blatantly misapplied. --Amalthea^Talk 00:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem with slow speedies is that it requires the tagger to watchlist and monitor everything they tag for 3 days, or whatever the time limit, to make sure the creator doesn't just remove the tag. This is a problem currently, but with most pages being deleted within a few hours, not a major one. Mr.Z-man 01:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

What it sounds like to me, is that we are saying that if you do not have a good understanding of Wikipedia and a sound layout for a new article, you better try building it in User name space instead of Article name same to allow enough time to get the article past the speedy delete stage and then move it to the Article name space. This just does not sound like the spirit of Wikipedia to me, but is sure seems to be the practice. Dbiel ^(Talk) 04:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• I don't do NPP. If that is the result in practice (and I don't know that it is), then we are messing up, big time. We should allow total trainwrecks of articles to come into being, in article space, so long as they don't hit any of the CSD tripwires. I am inclined to believe that we aren't speedying poorly formatted articles wholesale but that the volume of speedies mean that good and bad articles get nominated and deleted. I also think that some editors claim that an article just needs cleanup where it is really a G10, G11 or A7. So we need to take a close look and see what our practice really is. If we can actually make some claim (not just anecdotal), then we can probably agree that we have a problem, that it is this problem and that we should move toward a strong solution. Protonk (talk) 04:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly the result in practice. I have even been told to write articles in the sandbox, meaning in effect that if they are not start class they aren't good enough for anyone else to see (or fix). --Una Smith (talk) 05:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, that is a bold claim and I am going to need more evidence than your say-so before I believe it to be true for a significant portion of new page patrollers. I mean, I've personally seen it (An A7 tag was applied to this Revision of Terra Nova (blog)), but I don't think it is widespread enough to be a serious problem. I am open to evidence to the contrary. Protonk (talk) 17:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Broader perspective?

Una, my advice is that you do some new page patrolling yourself, so you get broader perspective on this issue. Your examples aren't even that extreme or shocking. I can easily give you examples of articles that were (initially) speedily deleted and then WP:SNOW kept at AfD. I've also seen articles that have survived for a month, and then properly got speedily deleted. If this sounds shocking, it shouldn't be. It only takes too people to speedily delete something, and only one of them (the admin) is (in theory) supposed to have some experience in the area. My rough estimate is that 90% of the speedy deletions are apropriate, and that about the same percentage of hopeless topics get properly speedied. Also, I often found myself adding {{unreferenced}} sometimes together with some flavor of stub to articles written by new users, which I also "template" with friendly. As someone who was a Wikipedia newbie not so long ago, I don't find these actions a waste of time. Many new articles are written by new users, and informing them of the Wikipedia standards via the article or talk page is not a waste of time. VG ☎ 06:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Been there, done that. --Una Smith (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any solutions. I think there's a balance, and I have a lot of sympathy, but no solutions. Myself, I do all my articles in sandboxes or offline, until they're solid enough not to get speedied. Julia Morton, which I did yesterday, appeared to pop into existence at 9K in size, 5 different references, and a bibliography... with one edit! Obviously I was working offline. It would survive AfD easily, I'd bet anyone. So for experienced editors, working solo, this is THE way to go, get an article to a big enough size not to be speedyable. But for collaborations, for new editors? I don't know. I know it's a problem. I also know the NPP guys mean well and it's not solvable by just saying "don't speedy things". Some clever solution is needed. ++Lar: t/c 16:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you're overly paranoid. The Honors section in that article is sufficient to pass WP:PROF, and A7 doesn't apply just because an article doesn't have references to back up those claims, although you'd have to provide them at AfD. VG ☎ 17:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you miss my main point, which is that there is an issue that needs resolving. I'm just demonstrating how to avoid even a tiny doubt. This is how I've done 30+ DYKs, they always get done in a sandbox or offline. ++Lar: t/c 20:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You're claiming that your editing behavior is caused by the abuses of others. But I don't see cause and effect here. I've always edited on-line, and nobody nominated for deletion the few article I've started, even when they were stubs without references. It's true that having to deal with other editors is harder than doing all the writing by yourself and then, "poof", here's the awesome GAC/FAC article. But that's an argument for regression towards the mean (editorial skills) of Wikipedia articles — a completely different problem. VG ☎ 20:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it happens. User_talk:Orangemike/Archive_7#Frog_Legs_Rag And of course, this is only a high-profile case involving admins and experienced editors. New editors would probably just get discouraged and leave. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

@VG: I say there is an issue that needs resolving. I never used the term "abuse". It doesn't fit. I don't think that speedying things is "abusive". Most speedies are exceedingly valid. I just say there's an issue. It may be an insoluble one, because it's, like many things, a balance... if we speedied less, we'd get a lot more cruft that had to be dealt with later. My strategy of avoidance is not because of "abuse". It's just a strategy that happens to work for me. And it very much misses out on collaborative editing. That's all. ++Lar: t/c 22:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it happens. I have had several new articles I created tagged for speedy delete / PROD / AfD. All survived, except some that got deleted before I logged in again. A couple of times I have had an admin undelete the article so I could continue from where I left off. (Do I really need to defend these statements with diffs?) I do not like the trend toward discouraging editors from collaborating. In my experience, speedy deleting does discourage editors and on the whole it is more destructive than constructive. --Una Smith (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break to discuss an example

New example: Sally's Krackers (google cache version), deleted as an A7 band. Was covered in a local news article and has alleged TV appearances on "A-Channel", yet has a snowball's chance at AfD. I believe that it has a very "reasonable indication of why it might be notable", with the one possibly reliable coverage alone – am I alone with that and just not getting A7? I noticed since the user is complaining about it. --Amalthea^Talk 13:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Boy, the claims of notability in there sure are vague, aren't they. :) I just had a similar article where I declined the speedy because there were some incredibly weak assertions of notability (again, an alleged television appearance), but wound up taking it to AfD myself. I know I'm not in the middle of the bell curve on this, but I'd rather have an article with little chance for survivial hang around for 5 days and still get deleted than have an article with potential get deleted. (Yes, I'm perfectly happy to speedily delete an article with no chance for survival. *grin*)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I usually just replace the A7 tag with a {{prod}} for things like these (maybe watchlist and AfD if the tag gets removed). This process generally works just fine for me. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

That's my normal MO too, but Helgason had multiple {{hangon}} tags, so I figured prod would be a waste of an edit. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Well besides the self-promotional nature, which suggests either COI/spam or a copyvio, its basically a tiny bit of notability wrapped in a ton of fluff sourced mostly to the band's website. Only one of the refs in the article might possibly establish notability. Not an ideal speedy candidate, but hardly an argument of a broken system. Mr.Z-man 16:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Example: Pawtuckaway State Park

The wasted work that results from a hasty speedy delete tag spreads through Wikipedia in a ripple effect. For example, Pawtuckaway State Park has been created 3 times, patrolled 4 times, and speedy deleted 2 times (see log) for insufficient content. Meanwhile, editors (including me) who tried to expand Pawtuckaway Lake to include Pawtuckaway State Park got their contributions removed from that article. Over and over again. --Una Smith (talk) 14:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

As an admin and a member of WikiProject Protected Areas, I would have deleted it the first time; maybe tried to stubbify it the second. But I am familiar with the subject matter and wouldn't expect other admins too. Despite your claims, even the second time it was deleted it contained only 1.5 useful sentences out of a total text of 3 sentences. Something like that is no loss if it is speedy deleted because it is not really useful for anyone writing an actual article on the topic and the presence of a red link may do more to inspire a real article to be created than an awful, useless substub. Rmhermen (talk) 16:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me show you the text of those deleted articles:

July 2007:

Pawtuckaway State Park is a great place to go for the day or for camping!

At the state park, there are many trails that you can venture into. Also, there are many fishing spots where you can catch some :great fish, frogs, and sometimes snapping turtles.

Its a really fun place to go

April 2008:

Pawtuckaway State Park is a great family oriented park. With a variety of activities to choose from, the state park is a great :outdoor experience. Located in southern New Hampshire in the town of Nottingham, Pawtuckaway State Park is a nature filled place.

Articles like these do not improve the credibility of Wikipedia. Hut 8.5 15:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

"Meanwhile, editors (including me) who tried to expand Pawtuckaway Lake to include Pawtuckaway State Park got their contributions removed from that article. Over and over again." - Where? I looked through all 26 revisions of Pawtuckaway Lake and saw no instances of content being removed except for a stub template. You've made 2 edits to the article and are the most recent editor. Mr.Z-man 16:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, A1 still does not apply. Unless there are multiple Pawtuckaway State Parks. I honestly think that the number of problematic deletions would drop dramatically if editors/admins actually followed the criteria we've set up. There are too many admins who will delete an article simply because they think it shouldn't be there, regardless of what our deletion policy says. -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Una, it seems to me that you went from this mild conversation to your assertion above that: Meanwhile, editors (including me) who tried to expand Pawtuckaway Lake to include Pawtuckaway State Park got their contributions removed from that article. Over and over again. I have also looked through the history of Pawtuckaway Lake and find nothing there to back up your assertions of being stifled. Darkspots (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, change "removed" to "rejected"; then the talk page discussions count. --Una Smith 18:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Except it was just one user who disagreed with you about adding the content to the article once. He also agreed with you that the article about the state park should be created, and was the one who created the current version. Its not like editors were ganging up on you to keep the content out; it was a minor disagreement that didn't even need a compromise to resolve. Saying that your content was "rejected ... over and over again" is blowing it massively out of proportion. Mr.Z-man 23:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I've never interacted with the user before, but just based on this he seems like a really nice guy. Even included a bit about orienteering in the article that he created because of your discussion. I don't know what to say here, but this has veered, in my opinion, very far away from any real attempt to improve speedy deletion policy into something else entirely. Darkspots (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a example of poor quality content in an article being used as a reason to delete the article. I think that use is inappropriate and contrary to the spirit and letter of Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia invites anyone to edit, and many editors who accept the invitation are novices. I think they should be welcomed, tolerated, encouraged, and gently led to more and better contributions. Speedy deleting has no role to play there. --Una Smith 18:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion removes content, and it should be used to remove inappropriate content. The first version of the article provided essentially no useful information to the reader, and the second one was little better. We're not talking anything drastic, just basic principles like provide useful information to the reader. The fact that we allow anyone to edit doesn't mean that we have to allow every edit to stand. Hut 8.5 20:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, anyone can edit, that doesn't mean we have to keep what people edit and let people edit anything feel like. Neither of the users who created the 2 deleted versions were blocked, they can both still edit. Its possible to educate new users without keeping crappy articles around. Imagine you're a new user who doesn't yet understand the concept of a page history, is there really a significant difference between your content being deleted and your content being completely removed then a new article with entirely different content put in its place? In most speedy deletion cases where the topic is actually salvageable (a minority of cases), the only way to save it is to rewrite it from scratch. In most cases though the article subject and article content are both unsalvageable. Mr.Z-man 23:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It is an affront to the contributor, to speedy delete the contribution instead of improving it. Those were clearly good faith contributions, in the scope of the article, and they were so small that arguments about being beyond repair do not persuade me. --Una Smith (talk) 14:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

(To illustrate with a recent AN/I issue in which good faith isn't in much doubt) Una, in your opinion, what should we do about Ramu50's edits? He is obviously very offended when they are removed. VG ☎ 15:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

We revert good-faith edits all the time if they are unhelpful or unconstructive. That an edit was made in good faith is hardly the sole criterion as to whether or not it will stay. We're trying to build an encyclopedia, not the world's largest collection of random thoughts. Unfortunately we don't have enough editors willing to spend the time to rewrite all the crap that streams into Special:NewPages 24/7. Mr.Z-man 19:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I have restored G12 to the existing version. Nothing much has "happened to it" (in reference to edit summary). It has been relatively stable since at least December of 2007, and possibly much longer. I only looked at the last 500. (See [6]) However, at some point the words "(see also List of countries' copyright length as a guide)." were added. I think we should discuss it before such alterations as that of today are made to the policy, particularly as I worry that some contributors will misunderstand language like "Usually the the page can be recreated with any free-content material from the deleted revisions." and fail to realize that the creative text contributions of other editors to Wikipedia are not free-content material, but copyrighted material licensed by GFDL. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Erm, the GFDL is a free content license. Text released under the GFDL is free content. The author does hold the copyright, but has released the content under a license that allows anyone to use it as long as they meet the terms of the license. As long as it doesn't include any text that isn't released under a free license or public domain, and doesn't cause the attribution history to be incorrect, we can certainly restore it. Mr.Z-man 04:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It really hasn't changed? Wow, it's so not how I remembered it! Regardless, I think my point still stands: most of the content of the G12 wording is unnecessary technical detail, duplication, and the blindingly obvious. "Copied from another website or other source" is essentially the same as "copied" - the two clauses serve to encompass all possibilities. Most of the instructions for administrators are just specific duplications of policies that already exist: it says just a bit down the page that the page's creator should be notified. Regardless of how long the wording has been in place, it's still very poorly constructed. For reference, my version was:

“

Blatant copyright infringement. Text pages that contain copyrighted material with no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a free license. Only the revisions of a page which contain copyright violations should be deleted; only if the history is unsalvageably corrupted should the entire history be deleted. Usually the the page can be recreated with any free-content material from the deleted revisions. Remember to check that the 'source' of the copyright violation is not itself a Wikipedia mirror!

”

What specific concerns do people have with this wording? Happy‑melon 09:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

←I don't disagree that the language could be improved, but I think it needs to be improved cautiously. :) While I agree with you, Happy-melon, on some points (yes, "copied from another website or another source" is the same as "copied"), I think that the change that you propose introduces one substantial alteration to existing practice, runs the potential of misleading contributors into GFDL-violations and obscures the notification requirement.

With respect to GFDL concerns, Z-man, attribution is my point. Restoring isn't an issue. The issue is recreation. I have more than once seen people create new articles in temporary space on copyright violations that contain text from earlier versions of the article without giving credit to the contributors of that content. I've seen people recreate deleted articles by copying & pasting them from Wikimirrors. I fear that contributors who do not understand the requirements of GFDL to attribute will themselves violate the copyright of our contributors in recreating articles with previously existing content. Current wording is not clear on that point, either, but at least it's directed to administrators who are hopefully experienced enough to understand the difference between public domain text and text released under a license. If it's going to be changed (and it probably should be), I'd like to see it improved. :)

In terms of the substantial alteration, Happy-melon, your revision says, "Text pages that contain copyrighted material with no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a free license. Only the revisions of a page which contain copyright violations should be deleted; only if the history is unsalvageably corrupted should the entire history be deleted." This is a change from existing policy, which excludes from G12 articles with "non-infringing content on either the page itself, or in the history, worth saving." Your revision is more inclusive. For example, if copyrighted text is introduced into a pre-existing article in July 2008 and subsequent improvements were made to the article, we may simply remove the text and put a note on the article's talk page. (Policy at Wikipedia:Copyright violations instructs contributors to do just that.) These shouldn't be listed for CSD even though they do contain copyrighted material with no credible assertion.

I also think we need to keep the point about notifying contributors within the criterion. I know that at the top of the page it says, "While not required, except for copyright concerns, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion." In the table, it says, "You can put {{subst:uw-copyright|page name|url=url of source}} ~~~~ on the user's talk page." (Can, not should.) But in my opinion it's an important enough step that it should be mentioned where the shortcut goes. Contributors who use Wikipedia to violate copyright law are potentially endangering us; contributory copyright infringement has felled web organizations before. Wikipedia addresses copyright concerns more aggressively than the DMCA requires, by removing copyrighted material when pointed out by any contributor, not waiting for the copyright holder to make note of infringement. Providing notice to copyright violators can also help defend against any potential charges of nonfeasance. I have no idea if that's what the policy contributors who made a special point of notice with copyright concerns had in mind. But it's a good idea, anyway.

What about something more along the lines of

“

Text pages that contain copyrighted material with no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a free license, and do not contain non-infringing content on the page worth saving. Only if the history is unsalvageably corrupted should the entire history be deleted; otherwise, earlier versions without infringement may be restored. Pages where infringement is not blatant or that contain non-infringing content introduced after the copyrighted material may be processed according to Wikipedia:Copyright violations. With a text page containing credible assertion not verified by specific note at the source or OTRS ticket, follow the procedure at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Remember to check that the suspected source of the copyright violation is not itself a Wikipedia mirror and to notify the page's creator when tagging a page for deletion under this criterion; the template {{nothanks-sd}} is available for this.

”

A change along those lines (I don't imagine it can't be improved) would eliminate some of the redundancy and keep the scope roughly the same. However, I have also introduced a sweeping change, by eliminating "or in the history" from this exclusion: "There is no non-infringing content on either the page itself, or in the history, worth saving." Given that selective deletion is specifically set out in the criterion (even before your revision), the exclusion makes no sense. If there's no non-infringing content in the history worth saving, there's nothing to restore. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we're making progress; certainly the long unordered list is not the way to set out the subcriteria. I'd say that since the processes for handling copyright problems are (or should be) set out more clearly in one of Wikipedia:Copyright violations and Wikipedia:Copyright problems, we'd be better to just say "For equivocal cases (such as where there is a dubious assertion of permission, or where free-content edits overlie the infringement, please consult Wikipedia:Copyright violations". The underlying clause is "if in doubt, go to WP:CV", the examples provide context. With a few more tweaks, how about:

“

Text pages that contain copyrighted material with no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a free license, where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving. Only if the history is unsalvageably corrupted should it be deleted in its entirety; earlier versions without infringement should be retained. For equivocal cases (such as where there is a dubious assertion of permission, or where free-content edits overlie the infringement), please consult Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Remember to check that the suspected source of the copyright violation is not itself a Wikipedia mirror, and to notify the page's creator when tagging a page for deletion under this criterion; the template {{nothanks-sd}} is available for this.

”

Improvement? Happy‑melon 17:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks perfect to me. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Woot! Happy‑melon 12:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't count the number of times I've found albums by red linked bands, in cases where the band was speedied per A7, such as this. I find it very strange that an artist can be speedied right on sight, but their albums usually have to plod through prod or afd (or in rare cases, an IAR speedy). Can't we do something about this? I would suggest maybe amending {{db-band}} or creating a new speedy criterion so as to include albums, but only in cases where the artist's article has a.) already been deleted, b.) never existed, or c.) is itself tagged for A7. Any suggestions? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Problem is, albums can be notable when bands aren't, e.g. when it's a one-hit-wonder project. But I think A7 can be amended for multiple things, and albums are one of them. But with the same criteria: No assertion of notability. If the article makes claims as to why the album is to be considered notable, it should still go to prod or afd.

Another similar problem is fictional characters which are not covered by {{db-bio}} for example. SoWhy 15:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

A very bad idea, rightfully rejected many times before. There have been too many cases where a work of art of all sorts have been in fact notable, but not recognized as such by the one or two admins dealing with it. Nobody has a wide enough background. The total unsuitability of many bands is much easier to judge immediately from the articles presented. As for fictional characters, I remind anyone who actually needs reminding that there is no agreement at all on what makes them notable. For clear cases, we have prod. It works most of the time if it really is clear enough. As for doing such things by IAR, I will be glad to discuss at ANB (or elsewhere as appropriate,) any admin doing this, for I think it a flagrant violation of wp policy. DGG (talk) 23:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how it is so implausible. I've never seen a one-hit wonder project where the album has a page but the artist doesn't, and it seems so unlikely as to be nearly impossible. Also, like I said, it just doesn't make sense that bands are speediable when their works aren't. I've seen so many orphaned albums by red link bands, including one that had been sitting around since September 2006, for crying out loud. In so many cases, I've seen these just plod their way through afd instead of being prodded, which only clogs up the afd backlog even more. For instance, this one is by a band with no article and doesn't even have a freaking track listing. The band was deleted 13 months ago and yet their albums are still sitting around. Why the hell is this happening? Are we really that careless? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Why don't we just extend A7 to cases where the article doesn't assert the notability of the album? Protonk (talk) 20:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

That was my approach as well, although DGG must have misread it. Like with artists, it should only apply when the article does not claim or assert any notability. A7 can never be used to determine if something is notable or not. SoWhy 20:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I think DGG was responding to TPH's suggestion that albums from bands deleted under A7 should be deleted as well. I don't agree with TPH on that one but agree that we should expand A7 to more items that "don't assert notability" Protonk (talk) 20:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Just noting, but A7 isn't actually about notability, but instead about "importance or significance". Generally, I take this to mean anything that, if true, would imply notability. However, the distinction is important because A7 doesn't at all require sources, while notability does. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

YEah, slip of the tongue. Another reason I think that notability should be changed to something that doesn't have an immediate connotation. Protonk (talk) 18:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't normally believe that unreferenced articles should be speedied at all. But articles on people and commercial enterprises are held to a higher standard of having to assert notability, and bands are included. If an album is notable, its band must be notable, and any such article should be about the band, and should describe its album. If there are articles about several "notable" albums that would survive afd, but no article on the band, they can all be merged. Sebwite (talk) 00:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd personally support a proposal extending db-band to cover albums with no assertion of notability and a non notable artist, but obviously not albums with either notable artists or an assertion of notability. The criteria would have to be very clear on this, or potentially a huge amount of current albums would fall under the criteria. All i'll say to this is to tread carefully. Matty (talk) 00:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Getting back to another idea presented eariler about the possibility of expanding A7 to fictional characters, I agree that it is a bad idea. In fact it has been so difficult to come up with a notibility standard for fictional characters that WP:FICT was downgraded from a guideline to an essay and has been fully protected for some time. In short, expanding A7 here would be to controversal. --76.66.182.242 (talk) 02:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

A while back (early this year, if I remember right) there was a flurry of proposals for creating a new criterion, A9, to speedy creative works. Have you taken a look at them, TPH? Links here and here. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The narrower A9 proposal linked by Lifebaka was even supported by DGG. So, why wasn't it adopted? The consensus seemed clear on that one. VG ☎ 21:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

To expand a bit on the reasoning: WP:MUSIC confers automatic notability to the albums of notable bands. The trouble is that when a band is deleted for lack of notability, this automatic source of notability goes poof, so normal notability rules should apply. If the article fails to even assert such notability (never mind sources), and relies only the automatic transfer of notability provided by WP:MUSIC when this is not warranted, some form of speedy (call it A9) seems appropriate. I'd prefer a separate criteria given the complication that comes with automatic notability and the loss thereof. VG ☎ 21:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a common misperception that WP:MUSIC confers automatic notabilty on albums by notable bands. If you read it again, you'll see that albums by notable bands may be notable. This is anything but automatic. (Because if may = automatic, I better stop throwing out those envelopes that say "You may be a winner!" LOL)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I would be strongly in favour of a criterion to delete albums/singles/EPs/etc. of bands which have had their articles validly deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I would support a citerion for albums/singles for bands where the article on the band has already been deleted and there is no assertion of importance/significance made. This should only be applied when the article on the band has been deleted as someone could create the article on the single before creating the article on the band which we should not prevent so would not support the 'never existed'. Davewild (talk) 16:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I would love to see a better set of criteria for album, EPs and songs, red linked or not. Actually a songs criteria seems somewhat more defined than for an album as far as inclusion to start off with. Albums and EPs - not so much. My one exception to this would be on a list. Also I 100% agree with Fabrictramp's comment that it is a "common misperception that WP:MUSIC confers automatic notability on albums by notable bands". I have had more than one Editor remove prod tags or notability tags on albums citing that the artist is notable and they are on a major. Talk:Looking in the Shadows and Talk:The Best Of (Osvajači album) (along with two other Osvajači albums) are from today/yesterday. I am considering if The Root of All Evil (EP), Route 666 (album) and The Iron Maidens: World's Only Female Tribute to Iron Maiden are really notable albums? Currently a CSD is out either way, although I may have used it had I had the chance. (How about a CSD that included criteria for cover bands and tribute bands releases? A7 or not) Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

CSD would be problematic anyway, as this policy notes that "Before nominating an article for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere or be handled with some other action short of deletion. If this is possible, speedy deletion is probably inappropriate." If the band is notable, even if the album isn't, a redirect would be appropriate. If there's material worth saving, so would a merge. But I have long been in support of speedying albums by bands that have themselves been speedied. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...interesting points. What about if the reverse is true - what if a band is not notable overall but one of their albums is? Or even a song? So if the artists is deleted could there still be good reason for the album or song to stay? We are all somewhat thinking forward when maybe we should think backwards. Right now the thinking is that first the artist must be notable, but what about if the single/song is notable first? "one hit wonders" for example are cases where an artist might come and go in a flash but a song they do would be a "hit". If there were more criteria added to A7 it should probably take that into account I would feel. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

A one-hit wonder is notable by dint of having had a hit (criterion #2 of WP:MUSIC) :) A compilation album may be notable where its contributors might not, I imagine, but at that point the contributors would be better redirected to the album than deleted, and previous suggestions for expanding to albums that I've seen usually incorporate a note that the album articles only qualify if they do not themselves contain an assertion of notability. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem I have with this is proposal is that it is possible for an album to have an assertion of notability, that is not immediately recognizable as such. How? Albums by notable artists have an assertion notability; they are by a notable artist. No one has a broad enough background to know every notable artist. "Three Men on a Log is an album by the Beatles" is an assertion of notability. "Three Men on a Log is an album by the Dave Stapleton Three." is not an assertion of notability. Dsmdgold (talk) 02:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

That's easily recognized by a bluelink to the article on the artists. Stifle (talk) 08:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Assuming that the band article was created before the album article. It is wrong to assume that we have articles for all important artists. For late 20th century and and early 21st century western pop, that may be so. For other genres, not so. The blue link test also assumes that the artist's article hasn't been deleted for reasons having nothing to do with notability, such as copyright infringement. Dsmdgold (talk) 00:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• I think that a pretty clear way to define a speedy criterion for albums is "It is an album or other musical work that does not assert notability because it is by an artist whose article has been deleted, is currently tagged for speedy deletion, or has never existed." or something to that effect. I have never seen a case where a song or album is far more notable than the artist. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• There is only one. Protonk (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• That's true, but at least Nena has an article. I have never found a case where a song has an article but the artist doesn't. Anyway, whatever wording my new proposal takes, we should make it clear that it's only in cases where there is no notability asserted and the artist is a red link or never had a page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• How about "this article on an album or song does not assert its significance and was not released by an otherwise notable group" Or something like that? Protonk (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I would change the wording more towards "It is an album or other musical work that does not indicate why the subject is important or significant and is by an artist/band whose article has already been deleted." To explain the differences, firstly importance or significance is in line with the A7 criteria, making it clear that it is the same standard as for A7 but with the extra qualification about the artist. I would also be opposed to any wording that allows deletion where the artist is only up for speedy deletion because the tagging of the artist could be incorrect but the album might be deleted before the speedy tag is removed from the artist page. I would also (a bit less strongly) oppose the never existed as someone could create the article on the album first before creating the article on the artist, as I stated further up this discussion. I have also emphasized the 'and' to stress that both elements must be met. Davewild (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• The wording I've been considering is something along the lines of

A9: An article about an album or single whose corresponding artist/band article has already been deleted and contains no other assertions of importance or significance.

• The bit about the artist needs cleaning up a lot, but I'd favor that sort of structure. Way I see it, there should be a short two-step process for this sort of criterion. First, has the artist's article been deleted? Second, does it otherwise assert importance? If the first part doesn't apply, there's no need to worry about the second. That's the idea, anyways. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Lifebaka's wording is better than mine, he is quite correct that we should encourage considering whether the artist's page has been deleted first before considering the other half of the criteria. The only change I would make is to change 'assertions' to 'indication' to keep the same word as A7. Agree that the artist part probably could get a better wording but agree with the gist. Davewild (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I like Lifebaka's wording too. I'm all for it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I like the wording that Lifebaka used as well but am wondering should "song" be put into it as well: An article about an album, song or single.... There are cases when a song may not have been a single but was/is notable. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Follow up - What about "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums"? Per guidelines for inclusion those items should not have their own article unless they meet a very limited criteria. I came across Category:Demo albums, Category:Unreleased albums and Category:Mixtape albums. Taking a quick look through some of them. I see potential CSD's staring back at me however there is not a CSD section for this. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

If it's just a one-sentence substub like "Name of album was a 2008 album by Joe Anybody, it was never released/was a mixtape/was a demo", then I might argue in favor of this new criterion extending to those as well. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

As an example I just randomly picked one of the first names on the list of demos. The parent is the Catharsis (metal band) article and there are three Demos listed and each one of them has their own article. Take a look. Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

In this case, wouldn't a redirect to the band article (or a discography spinoff) be appropriate?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

When the band article exists, there's no reason to delete non-notable articles on albums, singles or songs. Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Too logical Moon! Yes that would sort of "pre solve" the problem wouldn't it? But before we stray too far off topic here - per guidelines - singles, demos, EP's and even albums are not supposed to get their own article unless they meet a strict set of guidelines. In the example I just gave, and really I did not choose it because of this, every recording the band made has it's own article. So lets go back to the main concept of this thread - what if the parent article was deleted? There would be 12 orphan pages that, under the current CSD, could not be quickly removed. The wording that Lifebaka used would only pertain to the "album or single" articles left behind. It would still leave behind the three Demo articles, which, in theory, should not even exist in the first place. Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for including albums when the band article has been deleted.--Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

← So how about this:

"An article about an album, single, EP, or song which does not assert the significance or importance of the subject, where the artist's article has never existed, has been deleted or tagged for speedy deletion."

Stifle (talk) 08:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

And you can strip the final five words if you wish. Stifle (talk) 09:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: you probably want to say "is currently tagged for speedy deletion". VG ☎ 09:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL, VG. :D That does bring up another point. I'd like to think we could trust admins to actually look at the artist's article to see if the speedy deletion tag applies to it before deleting the album articles. Can we, or do we need to make that explicit? (Aside from that nebulous-to-me question, I like Stifle's wordings with VG's amendment.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I am going to be bold here and suggest something. Has anyone else noticed that some artists try to skirt the "format" guidelines? "demo" is "CD-R" in some articles. The label is "Self released/home made CD-R" in some articles. I have also seen "Mp3 albums", "Downloadable" and "iTunes". And it dawned on me - DVD's aren't listed - at least not in relationship to music. I have also seen Video CD's (VCD) in some articles. So with that in mind:

"An article about a recording of/in any format¹ which does not assert the significance or importance of the subject, where the artist's article has never existed, has been deleted or is currently tagged for speedy deletion."
^{1. Singles, songs, albums, EPs, Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, unreleased albums, CD-R, VCD, DVD, internet downloads}

It is dawning on me the more I look at articles on musicians that A7 was worded on the assumption that there would not be any separate/orphan articles for recordings because of a set of guidelines that are meant to "prevent" articles of that type from even being created. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this looks really good now. Way to go, Stifle and VG. Now where do we go from here? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's go with "music recording", remove "of/", leave the footnote to the template doc page, and make it A9 rather than an extension of A7. Therefore:

"A9: An article about a music recording in any format which does not assert the significance or importance of the subject, where the artist's article has never existed, has been deleted or is currently tagged for speedy deletion."

Are we agreed? Stifle (talk) 14:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. Shall I add it? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree - Add. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree - Add. VG ☎ 14:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree, and tag this one with it.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Concur, obviously. Stifle (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

←Consensus here is pretty obvious for it, so I went ahead and added it. I did switch the wording of "does not assert the significance or importance of the subject" to "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" to match A7, made some other minor wording changes, and added some non-functional stuff at the end like A7 as well (a bit copy-pasted, in fact). I'm going to build the tag, update the deletion reason list, and other such things presently. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Me late here, but I think the band's article should not just be tagged before the album is deleted, but already be deleted itself. So i'd drop the five words at the end as already hinted at by Stifle. Common sense says that people could still tag the album together with the band.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Right, right, brain. Shall go fix 'em now. Got all the stuff together, though. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

M'kay, I've got most of the template stuff figured out. We need a new version of {{nn-warn}} or to update that template, as it specifically references A7's article types. The lists and such of CSD templates (like the one on WP:CSD) need updating as well. Other than that, the criterion is up and running. lifebaka++ 15:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, this care of the CSD criteria focussing on the actual deletion. The template can then be worded in a way that that it can also be used to tag an album as dependent of an A7 tag.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I've created a {{db-album-notice}} to be used on user talk pages, since Twinkle will try to apply it. Basically, it's just {{db-bio-notice}} with the new rationale. Can someone have a quick look at it? --Amalthea^Talk 21:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Whil I insisted that the CSD deletion is dependent on the actual status of the band's article, both the tag and the notifcation are more conservativly worded naywyas, as e.g. "may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion" so I wouldn't mind if they are appllied if the band is "eligible for speedy deletion per CSD 7." I wouldn't know how to update db-album. Meanhwhile I've tweaked the notice somewhat .--Tikiwont (talk) 07:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Or just leave it as it is but allow people to tag the band and the albums at once. Stifle (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

With respect to the tagging, that's what I thought too, but we also have to consider the side of the editor who created the album, possibly with respect to a then existing article about the band and might not understand a message that refers to the already deleted state. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Late, Retroactive Endorse. I'd just like to say it's nice to see this a reality finally. I was hoping for something like this when I last ended up offline in June, and I know it's been talked about forever! ⇔ ∫Æ_S dt @ 09:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

the artist's article has never existed

• A9 is not about notability. It is about a defectively worded article - the musical recording article does not indicate why the musical recording is important/significant. Including "the artist's article has never existed" seems an attempt to compel people to write about the person when they only want to write about the musical recording. I think the wording and where the artist's article has never existed or has been deleted should be changed to read and where the artist's article has been deleted. -- Suntag ☼ 20:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't really make sense to me from a language standpoint that the criterion refers to an article on an artist having "never existed or has been deleted". If an article on the artist isn't on Wikipedia, there are only two possibilities: it never existed or it existed but was deleted. After all, deletion is the only way articles ever are and then are not. So using that language we appear to be carving out an exception to "never existed", implying there is a third (or more) 'article existence possibilities'. It should say "does not exist or has been deleted", which still covers all possibilities and to my mind, more neatly. This would not change what the criterion covers one whit, unless of course I'm missing that third possibility.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

To make it clear, I'd rather suggest "an article that has been deleted or never existed in the first place".

Your proposal is less clear, as "does not exist" means that it could've existed before, which also means that "has been deleted" is superfluous in that sentence. You could just use "does not exist", because it applies to non-existent articles, whatever the reason why they don't exist. But the current sentence makes a clear distinction between both reasons why an article does not exist and I think it should not be tweaked in a way to generalize more. SoWhy 20:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe the context of the wording was meant to show if a music release, on any format, had its own article and did not (does not) meet the criteria it should be CSD'd but only under the following two circumstances: "never existed" to cover those releases in which the artist never had their own article; and "has been deleted" to cover an artist who did have their own article but was deleted. I feel the wording as is makes sense. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Er, when was this criterion added? It's ludicrous. As noted in many previous discussions on this topic, there are cases where recordings are more notable than the artists who produce them, like many a one-hit wonder, and these certainly don't deserve to be summarily deleted. I move for A9 to be repealed. Dcoetzee 01:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Note the wording of the criterion; to be eligible for speedy deletion under A9, the article must fail to assert the importance/significance of the recording and not have an associated article about the artist. Articles about one-hit wonders are safe. --Rlandmann (talk) 02:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)In that case, then a claim of significance or importance can be made on the page. A9 wasn't made to delete all albums, it was just made because we could (before A9) speedy myspace bands all the time but had to send their albums/songs to AfD. that didn't make sense, so we made A9. The "artist" bit was to make sure we weren't deleting albums from notable bands (as their work is likely to have some coverage somewhere), not to assure that albums of artists who aren't notable are automatically deleted. Protonk (talk) 02:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

As the two above have noted, the criterion shouldn't be able to speedy recordings of that sort. Previous discussion that I've seen have generally been in favor of some sort of criterion to cover musical recordings, but all actual suggestions have been shot down for fear of false positives (the situation you've described). I believe the version we have worked up should deal with that issue, but please let us know if there's still something that could slip through. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a fan of the A7-style "assert the significance" language in general - I could make the argument that your average admin doesn't know enough about musical performances to assess an implicit assertion of significance - but if both conditions are required there is at least a way for these articles not to be deleted. I guess it's okay. Dcoetzee 20:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Why does the wording at {{Db-g12}} which says in part, "This criterion applies only if the material was introduced at once by a single person...", not match the wording at WP:G12 which contains no mention of the single person criteria. One needs to be changed to match the other but which is correct? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 06:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I never understood the single person part. If two different editors both added copyvio's I still think the article should be speedy deleted. Provided it passes the other criteria etc. Garion96 (talk) 11:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I assume it's a safeguard against deleting articles which end up being copied by other sites without acknowledgement, as happens quite a lot. If the material is introduced all at once by a single person, then that's a good sign that it's a cut and paste job. However, if an article is built up over a period of days or weeks by several people, and a copy of the finished version is later found on another website, it's far more likely that the other site is copying Wikipedia. Of course, if an article is created with a cut and paste from site A, then a few minutes later someone adds a cut and paste from site B, it should be deleted, but I can't imagine that happens very often. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 12:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC) Added - Hmmm, this point seems to have been lost in the latest rewrite of G12. I think it should be reinstated to make sure we don't get over-hasty deletion of perfectly good articles which have been around for a while just because someone notices another site which has copied them and put a copyright notice on them. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 12:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I never knew what that was in there for, either. Makes sense. What about editing the current version to read, "Text pages that contain copyrighted material introduced at once by a single person with no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a free license, where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving"? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

But again, what is the use of the one-person-one-edit criterion? If the whole copyvio is introduced in just one edit, then the article maybe doesn't need to be speedied - the edit can just be reverted if there are no complications. We already stipulate that they should check it's not a mirror or copy, so this extra 'safeguard' is completely unnecessary, and actually somewhat harmful, as it's some of the situations where the content hasn't been added at once by one person (eg one or two people constructing a new article over the course of a string of edits, all copyvios) that are most suitable for CSD. Happy‑melon 21:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I assumed that it another test for implicit significance; it may demonstrate that even one other person has heard of this particular and/or regards it as significant. --Rlandmann (talk) 02:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure you're in the right place? :D We're talking about copyright here, not notability... Happy‑melon 13:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

To Happy Melon: the point is that we have a perfectly good way of dealing with material of questionable copyright status at Wikipedia:Copyright problems; speedy deletion is for the most blatant infringements only. These are easy to spot doing new page patrol because the text is created with the cut and paste (hence there's no clean version to revert to - obviously if copyrighted text is added to an existing article you just revert it), reads as if it was written for a different purpose, and a quick Google immediately locates its source.

As for the scenario of two editors adding adding bits of copyrighted text to the same page; really, how often do we get two editors that clueless independently working on the same article? Has it ever happened? As I suggested, if it appears that this has happened, it's far more likely that the other site has copied Wikipedia. Theoretically the requirement to check that the site is not a mirror protects against this, but in practice it's not always straightforward to tell whether the site is a mirror or copy as many sites copy from Wikipedia without acknowledging us. So if if two people have constructed an article which subsequently seems to be a copyvio, it should go to Wikipedia:Copyright problems, as it can't be called a blatant case, and should really be looked at by more than one pair of eyes before it gets deleted. In fact, I can see a case for restricting G12 to recently created articles, to guard against the problem of unacknowledged mirrors. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 07:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

More common than multiple editors is multiple edits, as you say. But a string of sequential copyvios are just as deletable as a single copyvio edit if the history is corrupted. We shouldn't be denying ourselves the ability to CSD such blatant cases if they are, of course, blatant. I just don't think that "one editor, one edit" is a very good definition of, or criterion for, 'blatancy'. We already have much more rigorous and useful definitions within the text, so I just don't think that adding a restrictive criterion which doesn't map properly onto the set of deletable articles is a good idea. Happy‑melon 13:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Occasionally sites that infringe on Wikipedia are not specifically mirrors in the traditional sense but simply copy from us without credit. When investigating copyvios at WP:CP, I generally look to see if the material evolved here naturally. If it did, it helps contribute to the conclusion that the external site infringed on us. (Even more helpful, of course, are internet archives. But they don't always give a definitive answer.) From what Iain is saying, it seems that this one-person rule is meant to help ease the determination of natural evolution. Is there another way to convey that? Or is "Wikimedia mirror" general enough to cover instances of one-off duplication, along with blanket copying of multiple articles? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps "Wikipedia mirror or copy" would be more encompassing? Happy‑melon 16:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't think of too many situations where you'd have an allegation of multiple sequential copyright violations and still be able to call it "blatant". Those sound like situations which should be handed over to the more deliberative copyright investigation processes. I think the current exclusion from the speedy-deletion process is a reasonable balance. Rossami (talk) 22:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I am interested in the current thinking on deletion criteria regarding CSD A7's importance and significance requirement. Do or should A7 importance and significance requirements apply when the claim to importance and significance is minimally plausible and unsupported by available facts? I know there are a handful of WP articles which are true though initially thought hoaxes, but do those few examples force rigorous conservatism in speedy deletes? Bluntly put, how gullible need we be during tagging?

For example, the article Everything girl is a textbook WP:MADEUP and WP:SNOW delete, but there is an early claim of importance: that of there being a comic book in the Philippines about the person. It is a dubious claim and there is no online evidence I can find to support it, but it is not outright fantastical and perhaps there is a comic book based on this character. On that basis, strictly speaking, the importance or significance of the claim seems to be enough to save the article from being tagged A7. Do we have to run articles such as these through the AfD process? (Since another editor's speedy tag was already removed by the author, it's very likely a PROD will fail the uncontested requirement here.) -- Michael Devore (talk) 09:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I just had a look at that article. Prod it. And if someone contests launch a AFD. It has not got one reference to speak of. Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 09:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

But the general questions remain, not so much about the particular article. How silly do things have to get before we can A7 tag it? -- Michael Devore (talk) 09:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

In my judgment, silliness is not a criteria. It needs to assert why it's notable and important. If it does, speedy deletion fails. I think we should limit speedy deletion in dubious cases and use PROD and AfD instead. Keeping a hoax 5 days is less harmful than deleting something that an AfD would not have deleted - because the latter loses us information and most likely a newbie editor. So I think A7 has to be interpreted very strict and I often decline such requests if notability can be said to be borderline (for example see this discussion on my talk page). Regards SoWhy 09:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Extreme forms of silliness bring into question the importance and significance criteria, though. If an editor creates an article about Joe Sevenpack that, among general Facebookish chat and gossip about friends and teachers, mentions he is the bastard son of Prince Charles, then they have, probably inadvertently, injected an importance claim which precludes an A7 tag. This, even though any reasonable person would reject the claim as nonsense. Worse, people who write up these type of chatty articles can adopt the article for a time (I've seen pet articles with histories running months-long), and remove subsequent PRODs. So off to AfD the articles should go, even though their deletion is a foregone conclusion.

What's so bad about that? Well, besides a lot of extra effort to remove something that a SNOW decision would autofail, unfortunately AfD is editor time intensive and exhibits scaling issues. The number of articles listed strains resources, with re-lists being common. Must we then always avoid CSD tags based on the most remotely possible claims of importance and significance? If one must, one must, but I was wondering if there was any thought here at CSD discussion to the possibility of disregarding the most nonsensical of importance claims for A7, avoiding the PROD -> contested PROD -> AfD route. -- Michael Devore (talk) 10:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If the claims are completely ridiculous, then yes, it should be speedy deleted. But not anything that is likely. For those blatant hoaxes, we got G3 to deal with it as vandalism, which they usually are. SoWhy 11:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I commend you for picking up that comic reference. This particular article is about a fictitious person, so it's not an A7 in any case, I agree that it is most probably WP:MADEUP though.
What exactly amounts to an assertion of notability was recently discussed here, e.g. at WT:CSD#Arbitrary break to discuss an example. Per the statements there I continue to accept even a marginal claim of notability, and PROD/AfD it instead, to give the author a chance to show notability. If in doubt, it's not a speedy, the only harm keeping such an article around for 5 to 10 days is to one's watchlist. Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 13:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

There are very few A7s listed at DRV by someone wanting an overturn decision and where the DRV conclusion is A7 speedy delete endorse due hoax/improbable important/significance. Likely if the article is deleted via A7 and has a suspect important/significance, the people interested in the article get the message and don't pursue it via DRV. At DRV, anything that plausably can be understood to be important/significance listed in the A7 deleted article usually gets a good number of "overturn and send to AfD" !votes. -- Suntag ☼ 20:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I concur with SoWhy that speedy-deletions must be interpreted very narrowly. The risk of false-positives significantly outweighs the cost of putting the page through it's 5 days at PROD or AfD. As individuals, we are not very good at sorting out the hoaxes from the real but obscure or poorly written stubs.
The one exception I make is if there is evidence in the contributor's history of a pattern of vandalism. If you can establish reasonable evidence of vandalism, then you can speedy-delete under criterion G3 without needing to worry about the interpretation standard for A7. Most of the vandals creating the "really silly" hoaxes don't limit themselves to one page. Their patterns are identifiable. Rossami (talk) 22:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Time limits for ease of linking and future reference. Stifle (talk) 09:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Title pretty much says it all - this is another case of a page dependent on another deleted/nonexistent structure. Comments? Happymelon 23:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think it makes sense to merge a CSD for articles with one for categories. I'd prefer to see them continue to be dealt with separately. Reyk _YO! 01:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • It would be merging a category CSD into a general one. On first glance it looks reasonable. --NE2 01:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
• Please do. As it is now clearly redundant, I think the only real reason to keep it around is that people are used to it. As the old template title will still work, and this CSD isn't insanly common anyways, I don't think there's any real risk of confusion. A general CSD is always preferable to an overly-specific CSD that does the same thing. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
• Yes. Good catch. The category page is dependent on the non-existent template page for its content supply. Fits G8. Is there a way to find out if anyone has every used C3 (or how often C3 is used)? -- Suntag ☼ 06:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
• I've used it about once. Stifle (talk) 09:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
• Updated {{db-c3}} to specify G8 as the criterion used. I'm thinkin' we oughta' make a specific version of the G8 template for this, and point {{db-c3}} and its redirects at it. Can work one up without much trouble, if people want. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

  As it isn't a very high-use instance, I don't think it needs it's own template. If one is made, it should probably be a converted {{db-c3}} to preserve history. Also, as it seems clear that R1 will stay merged, that template should probably be redirected as well. And then the CSD categories can be speedied under the expanded G8! ~ JohnnyMrNinja 23:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I have set up seperate templates for all the subtypes of CSD G8. The main template for what used to be CSD C3 is now {{db-templatecat}}, and {{db-c3}} and its former redirect {{db-catfd}} are redirects to it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like the canned language to describe the subject as "an (apparently) real person" rather than "a real person" as it does now. In some cases, one has reason to suspect that the subject individual may be fictitious, and I'd rather not use boilerplate language that presumes the non-notable person is in fact real rather a figment of the hoaxer's imagination or some sort of local in-joke reference. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this a solution in search of a problem? I mean, has anyone objected to an A7 deletion with "No, I made this person up, so it doesn't qualify as A7?". The whole point of A7 is that people are under the mistaken impression that the minimum requirement for inclusion as an article in Wikipedia is that the subject of the article exists... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it's the blue-pencil barstard in me; I dislike imprecision of language, and this one always nibbles at the edge of my consciousness when I see it come up. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Meh. I don't mind the change. In the case of CSD, the community should always spell out exactly what we mean, to minimize confusion/imprecision. Protonk (talk) 22:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, I thought fictional characters weren't included! Remember that articles about 'fake' real people can be G3'd as blatant hoaxes; 'notability' of fictional characters is a huge can of worms that we definitely want to keep at least a bargepole's length away from CSD. Stick to real people for A7, pretty please? Happy‑melon 23:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

keep as is. An invented character is either a character in actual fiction or a hoax. If its a character in fiction ,these are essentially always controversial, and if they are hoaxes, we handle them normally under prod. Then there's vandalism & jokes, where someone uses a real name for a n imaginary bio. We can already deal with these under speedy if we are sure, prod or afd if not. I see once a week or so cases of people nominated here as real because the people placing the speedy don't recognize that they're in fiction, and other borderline cases. Borderline cases do not belong in speedy. I'd say nothing that required the wording apparently belongs in speedy DGG (talk) 04:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Would Accademia Militare qualify for either G11, G12 or A7? It is written almost like it is taken from a brochure about the school and the "training" section seems rather "advertising" like. There is an External link to the "official" school website, however it is in Italian so it is hard to determine if this would qualify for a {{copyvio}} or not. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it surely doesn't look like an A7, as "the first such military institution in the world", with a history tracing back to the 1600s. :) It doesn't read like WP:SPAM to me, either. If you have reason to be concerned about copyright, you might ask one of these people, though it's always good to look at contrib histories to be sure the person you pick is active and check which level of familiarity they have. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not an exact translation. Some parts look very similar and may have been indeed translated from there, while others are original. bogdan (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

This is something only other admins will care about, but usually when a certain tag is on a page and you click "delete", the dropdown selects the relevant reason automatically and the summary is blanked. I have no idea how that works but if someone does, could we get the same functionality for {{db-album}}? Regards SoWhy 12:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea how to do it myself, or this wouldn't be an issue right now. You might try hitting up Template talk:Db-meta with the same question, more template-savvy people watch there. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It's already been added. For your information, the dropdown is available at MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

This has been bothering me for some time. Blatant hoaxes and misinformation are often tagged G3 as "pure vandalism" and in some cases it's the right call because the creator is trying to bullshit us on purpose. The problem is that it can also be someone who believes the information is true. He could have seen something on a blog or a forwarded email and thought "hey, this should be on Wikipedia". The article he creates should still of course be speedy deleted but should it be called "vandalism" and should the editor be given the same warning as someone who replaces George W. Bush with a giant ASCII penis?

Perhaps G3 should be split into 2 categories, one for "giant penis" type pages and the other for hoaxes/misinformation which assumes good faith. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

G3 is only for the truly blatant hoaxes (the "giant penis" types you describe). Vandalism can often be confirmed by looking at the contributor's other edits to look for patterns of disruptive behavior.
Anything less than that does not qualify under G3. That's why we put the second bullet in the Non-criteria section. Hoaxes that are not truly blatant need to be sent to AfD where multiple eyes can review the page. Rossami (talk) 04:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Occasionally, such an AFD will quickly produce proof that the article is a hoax. This is a much stronger situation than the "can't find sources" variety. Rather, it is a "sources directly contradict the contents of this article" situation. Back in 2005, when the AFD load was lighter, AFD debates such as this one would run the full process. Today, it might go on AFD to ensure a few eyes on it, but once the article is proven to be a hoax, it would probably be quickly deleted to prevent any more time being wasted on it. Whether proof like that warrants a G3 early close speedy deletion is a technical matter, but its not something which disturbs even this process wonk much. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. It's been brought up at the talk page of the proposed image deletion guide that template {{Di-replaceable fair use}}, which is used to mark articles for deletion under WP:CSD#I7, incorporates language that is not in the policy here. Policy says, "Non-free images or media that are replaceable by a free image and tagged with {{subst:rfu}} may be deleted two days after they are tagged, if no explanation as to how the images are not replaceable is added." The template says, "may fail Wikipedia's first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a free image might reasonably be found or created that adequately provides the same information, or which could be adequately covered with text alone" A contributor to the linked talk page raises the what seems to me reasonable question as to whether replaceability with text can easily be determined through a deletion process without discussion. WP:NFCC#1 does mention text. Either way we go, it seems that language in the template & the policy should be brought into accord. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I would point out that the admonition in WP:NFCC#1 to ask "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" is specifically addressed to the person adding non-free content. It calls for an editorial judgement that I think should be subject to the normal consensus process, talk page, then appeal to WP:IFD if necessary.--agr (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this will need to be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy? Perhaps there are not enough volunteers here interested in image handling. I know before WP:CP sort of roped me in, I myself typically avoided them like the plague. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the right place to discuss the issue, in my opinion. It's a question of whether a claim that an image is replaceable by text alone should be a basis for speedy deletion. I don't have a problem with what the Image use policy says. I'd suggest waiting a couple of days more and then changing the I7 template to remove the bit about text. --agr (talk) 00:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I challenged via a "hangon" tag the proposed speedy deletion of the image of a book cover (Image:Sarah- How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska's Political Establishment Upside Down.jpg). But instead of my challenge facilitating there being listed a discussion, the image was simply deleted, which action I wish to appeal as a process violation, due both its lack of transparency and its lack of providing an appropriate venue of discussion. How would I go about filing such an appeal? Thanks.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 18:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletions can be contested at WP:DRV, though it's often a good idea to speak to the deleting administrator first. Hut 8.5 18:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks!  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 18:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

This is accurate information. Though I am not the originator of this page, I do know the magazine and the information is accurate.----10/26/08 AH —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicalmans (talk • contribs) 00:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I placed that information and the hangon tag at Future Earth Magazine, FWIW, and left a short message at the user's talk page. --Amalthea^Talk 00:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I just made a clarification edit to A5. It stated: "Any article that either consists only of a dictionary definition, has already been transwikied (e.g., to Wiktionary or Wikisource), or has been discussed at..."

The problem is that by normal grammar rules the "or" appearing in the sentence made the first two segments disjunctive. When we say "1, 2 or 3," we are saying 1 or 2 or 3"; not 1 and 2 or 3. So by its plain language, it applied to articles consisting only of a dictionary definition or that had been transwikied, and unless I missed a big discussion, we don't currently have a speedy criterion for articles based on that they are dictionary definitions alone.

The change is to: "Any article that either consists only of a dictionary definition that has already been transwikied (e.g., to Wiktionary or Wikisource), or has been discussed at..."--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

That change, though, eliminates from A5 primary sources which have been transwikied to wikisource but which may not be dictionary definitions. :) Those shouldn't need to go through AfD. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I see what you're getting at but it didn't say that before either, or certainly not with any clarity, and left the first part about dictionary definitions dangling and impled they could be deleted without transwikying. If it applies to transwikied primary source material, let's say that. So:

Any article that consists only of a dictionary definition that has already been transwikied (e.g., to Wiktionary), a primary source that that has already been transwikied (e.g., to Wikisource), or for either, where it has been discussed at Articles for deletion with an outcome to move it to another wiki, after it has been properly moved and the author information recorded.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it wasn't written very clearly. Hmmm. Prior to this edit, policy indicated that even dicdefs had to have undergone an AfD. Wikisource was added here. I didn't remember the conversation, but it seems to have happened here. (Just checking to make sure I wasn't misunderstanding the intent. :)) "for either" may be too restrictive, as articles can be transwikied following AfD that are not dicdefs or primary sources. I don't do a lot of AfD closures, so I have no idea if it comes up at all often, but I once closed an AfD on a fictional topic where consensus was to transwiki it to a subject-specific wiki at (I believe it was) wikia. What about

Transwikied articles. An article that consists only of a dictionary definition or only of a primary source that has already been transwikied (e.g., to Wiktionary or Wikisource), or an article on any subject that has been discussed at Articles for deletion with an outcome to move it to another wiki, after it has been properly moved and the author information recorded. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

That sounds very good. In the interests of crystal clarity, I would still add "that has already been transwikied" to both the dicdef and primary source parts. The only risk is a mild redundancy. While the language above is much less prone to misinterpretation than the original, it still risks a possibility of a person thinking it applies to dicdefs alone.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I support clarity. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Are there any cases of other than wiktionary or wikisource for which this might also be appropriate? DGG (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Outside of such as might be decided at AfD (→subject specific wiki), I haven't encountered any. Could be, but not that I know of. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

This edit is so absurd and offensive that one may fear that we're heading back to the events of February and March 2008. I wonder if the speedy deletion community will ever be willing to become respectable? Michael Hardy (talk) 07:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

...Trout the tagger and move on? I'm not sure there is a cohesive "speedy deletion community". I would never tag an article like that and I'd decline any tag like it (I've seen them in the past). I wouldn't get too worked up about it, though. Protonk (talk) 07:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The very inappropriate tag was removed after eight minutes. The system works. I think if the article had been deleted we'd have something to discuss here. Darkspots (talk) 08:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a tool, not a people. If someone hits a wall with a hammer, do you blame the hammer community? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 14:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Steamrollers don't kill hammers; people do. --NE2 14:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

True. Perhaps we should do a background check before issuing templates. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 15:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Once again, would someone please point out the problem here? The article was mistagged; the tagging was reverted. Clearly the link between these events and the "respectability" of the "speedy deletion community" is about as comprehensible as the article in question. Happy‑melon 15:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

While I agree its not speedy deletable, the tagger did have a point. There was a massive discussion about this somewhere (which means it probably ended with no resolution) about how many articles about math and science are written so as to be completely incomprehensible to anyone who doesn't already know what the article is about. All the article said was that it was about math, then dove into expressions. Mr.Z-man 16:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

That's total bullshit. These are FACTS:

• I did not have a clue what the article was about; and
• It was completely comprehensible to me; and
• It would probably be completely comprehensible to most high-school students (except those not interested in math) and to any lower-division undergraduate (except those not interested in math).

Michael Hardy (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you calm down. Protonk (talk) 18:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but a cleanup tag (and making sure it had a math category) would have dealt with that a lot more effectively. Darkspots (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I just added a couple categories to the article, and I'm a math layman. I feel like this isn't the first Michael Hardy-initiated thread where I've added cats to the article held up as an example of speedy-deletion perfidy. Putting categories on an article is a really useful way of communicating with the rest of the editing community and general readers alike what the article is about (presuming the general reader wouldn't just click "random article" again). Darkspots (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Rather than trout the tagger, remove Huggle--at least as a second offense. I wouldn't count on admins catching speedy tagging like this, as I've known admins putting on such tags. (In fact, I'd like to remove Huggle from the universe altogether, and reverse everything ever done with it.) DGG (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, they can just move to scripts. And after that, to external scripts. Editors need to be held accountable for their edits, whether assisted or not.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

And that includes admins who make bad deletions on a regular basis. (Everyone messes one up once in a great while, and if it's dealt with gracefully, it shouldn't be a black mark.)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

David, I've never tried it but I think Huggle does have at least a few positive uses, so I wouldn't bother trying to uninvent it. Regardless, I've always believed if people are acting like idiots it doesn't matter what software they are using. My tendency has been to focus more on the what more than the how or the why. I know you and others have previously expressed a desire for wiki-process to be more tightly regulated by the software, but I don't see that happening (otherwise I'd try to stop it, for broader reasons). I can almost guarantee there will never be any technical means to prevent a specific user from applying a specific template to a specific article—other than blocking the user, deleting the template, or protecting the article (hopefully to be attempted in that order).

On the other hand would be pointless (though darkly comical) if somebody operated a bot to automatically decline speedy deletion requests from specific "blacklisted" users, perhaps those who have been "topic-banned" from db tagging.

Seriously. If a user is unaffected by repeated requests to stop trolling around with the pink boxes, what hope have we that they will contribute positively elsewhere? — CharlotteWebb 18:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I think a valid part of his point is that the speed we are able to reach when making mistakes is much higher with tools like that. We tend to view tools as agnostic/neutral in issues like this, but it really is possible to accidentally (or maliciously) rv good faith edits without comment in huggle much faster than in a browser interface. The faster the tool moves, the more concentration the human behind it must bring to bear in order to avoid messing up. I think that (for my money) huggle and twinkle are enormous net positives, but the drawback to semi-automated edits is real, at least. Protonk (talk) 18:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Two important points:

• Speedy deleters are indeed a community. That surprised me when I found out about it last year.
• "Respectability" as I intended it means transparency. There's no way to tell how many speedy deletions pursuant to idiotic tags like this one are happening.
  

And a lesser point:

• The article had style issues. They've been fixed.
  

And an important point on another topic:

• An abusive person is again suggesting that this is an example of an article that would be understood only by those who already know what it's about. That is obviously nonsense in this case: I had no idea what it was about and I had not the least trouble understanding it, and anyone who's had lower-division undergraduate math, and for that matter probably most high-school students (except those not interested in math) would probably understand it.
  

Michael Hardy (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• How is it not transparent? Unless the article is deleted, all tags, the account of the tagger and the state of the article at the time are preserved in the edit history. Should you wish to, you can check all of this person's speedy tags to see if they are unacceptable. As for the coherence, I really just suggest you drop it. That is one small element of a much larger debate and doesn't have any impact on this discussion now. We can agree that this article shouldn't have been speedied as incoherent--now the question becomes, how do we react to that? It isn't productive to return to the article itself and argue about who would or wouldn't understand the notation or the significance of the inequalities. Protonk (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• I can't vouch for the coherence as I don't know what it means (I do recognize a lowercase "n" above a capital Π "pi", which leads me here with the help of google if I really wanted to figure it out). Fortunately I realize my ignorance is not a good enough reason to delete. — CharlotteWebb 19:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

What's not transparent is what you suggest by the word "unless". I.e. how can I find a list of all speedily deleted articles bearing category tags for any of the various mathematics categories in the past year? Michael Hardy (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Admins acting on improper speedy tags is another matter entirely. I agree that if we send hundreds of rubbish tags that more will get through that if we send dozens, but those are two different issues with two different resolutions. As far as your second question, I don't know. The category that the CSD tags populate is temporary and hidden, unlike AfD or prod, no talk page mention is required when declining a speedy. But that doesn't mean that edit histories can't be searched for csd tagging (although it is not a requirement, it is strongly recommended that taggers note "tagged for speedy deletion" in their edit summary and both TW and HG do it automatically). Protonk (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You could offer Brion a case of beer in exchange for a dump of the `archive` table . I'll split the cost with you if money's tight. — CharlotteWebb 19:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, Talk:Mahler's_inequality shows a healthy discussion between the tagger and people on the talk page. He tagged it, people objected, he explained his reasoning, and they showed how his reasoning was incorrect. At the end he admitted he should read up on policies and everyone seemed happy. That seems to be a pretty healthy response to this mistake. I don't think "removing huggle" or engaging in some overarching change is necessary when it seems clear to me that the problem was solved by discussion with the person--who, I might add, should be brought into this discussion. Protonk (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I've now informed Tuvok of the existence of this thread. Darkspots (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I make one comment, and now I'm abusive? What am I abusing? I agreed with you that it was not deletable. I was simply pointing out an issue I and others have noticed in some articles, particularly math and science articles, that's present in this article. Tone it down. If you can't discuss civilly, nothing is ever going to come of these discussions. The article did have very little context: Title, expression, proof. Who is Mahler? Why is this inequality important? What are some applications of this? Even a summary in words like in inequality of arithmetic and geometric means would be useful, and probably would be required for articles in other subjects. Imagine writing an article about a city without saying where it is; sure I can guess given the name but I shouldn't have to. Mr.Z-man 19:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Both of you cool it, before either of you says something you'll regret. No point escalating this. The situation turned out fine in the end. Michael Hardy, I suggest you bring these sorts of taggings to the attention of the user making them or make comments at WT:NPP. This page is really not in and of itself capable of regulating the use and/or misuse of the criteria (at least not without some major changes). I don't know if you'll receive a warmer response there, but you are more likely to get things accomplished. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Speedy deletion/Noticeboard maybe. One more won't hurt, will it? — CharlotteWebb 21:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I am as fiercely against misapplied speedy deletion criteria as Michael, but there's little point in protesting here, because this is where the people who actually understand the criteria post. There are three good things we can do to help prevent this type of thing from happening in the future:

• Friendly warnings for people who misapply tags, explaining their misinterpretation. As new people arrive, there will always be new people who misapply criteria, but can be taught to apply them correctly.
• Revising criteria to clarify their intent and scope. This may be done by rewording, adding examples, and so on. Concrete suggestions for now to make the criteria easier to understand - and so more difficult to misapply - are good to discuss here.
• Encouraging people who choose to speedy delete articles out-of-process to not invoke CSD criteria in their deletion justification. Such deletions are permissable, under WP:IAR, but they must be carefully scrutinized, and the admin held responsible if they acted in error.

I think by combining these we can help to reduce incorrect speedy deletions. Dcoetzee 16:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed change in red.

1. Redundant. Any orphaned image or other media file that is a redundant copy, in the same file format and same or lower quality/resolution, of something else on Wikipedia should be tagged {{isd|Full name of image excluding the "Image:" prefix}}. This does not apply to images duplicated on Wikimedia Commons, because of license issues; instead see criterion #I8 below.

Thanks. (Pointed out to me by xaosflux) Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It sounds fine to me. If there's a larger version available, it'll be simple enough to orphan the smaller image. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, naturally we should not delete images that are still used just because they exist twice. I always found "redundant" to mean that the copy tagged is not of any use to the project because there is another file that is used instead and exactly the same. So adding "orphaned" would just repeat that it should not be useful anymore. But why not, making it clearer does not really hurt. Maybe we should also add a sentence that people should replace all occurences of this file with the one to be kept if it isn't orphaned, then tag it I1. Regards SoWhy 14:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Do it. And don't forget adapting Template:Db-i1 and Template:Db-redundantimage-notice. --Amalthea^Talk 13:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, phrasing it "Any unused image" is better, since we usually call an article "orphaned" if there are no links to it. And it's consistent with I5. --Amalthea^Talk 13:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Done, and using "unused" instead of "orphaned". Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't the GFDL licence issues of I8 apply here too? Suppose someone puts up a low quality image and someone else then made a second higher quality version of the first. Can the first be deleted and the history lost while section 4.I of the GFDL seems to require the history to be retained? --Rumping (talk) 18:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

We retain history so people's work can be credited. Who actually did the uploading isn't important, it's who created the work that matters, and that should be on the image description page anyway. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The upload history is in the logs still, so the GFDL would be satisfied either way. (Under current interpretations, at least...) Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

You mean like A finds a public domain image, does some non-trivial photoshopping, and uploads it under the GFDL. Then B comes along and does some pure quality enhancement, like removes noise or scratches, and uploads it as a new file.
I'd say that A's image is neither redundant nor unused in that case, since B has to declare the image as derived from A's on the image talk page, and A's is in any case still useful as a source image, thus not redundant. Maybe quality is the wrong word in I1 though, it should striclty contain less information to be an I1 candidate. --Amalthea^Talk 18:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It came to me when replying to the above: As Image: will be renamed to File:, shouldn't we rename the I-criteria to F-criteria as well? SoWhy 14:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

No reason not to, once the rename is done. Stifle (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Remember to keep the anchors for the names starting with I, so that links to the individual criteria will still work. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I propose we change R2 as follows

From:

1. Redirects to the Talk:, Image:, Image talk:, User:, or User talk: namespaces from the article space. If this was the result of a page move, consider waiting a day or two before deleting the redirect.

To:

1. Redirects to the Talk:, Image:, Image talk:, User:, User talk:, MediaWiki:, MediaWiki talk:, Help talk:, Category talk:, Template talk:, or Portal talk: namespaces from the article space. If this was the result of a page move, consider waiting a day or two before deleting the redirect.

Currently, there are only 3 pages that would violate this ruleset, T:TDYK, CT:INV, and CategorySchemesTalk and we could tag those pages with {{go away}} to prevent mis-identification. Doing so would make R2 more complete and easier to apply to various pagemove situations. MBisanz ^talk 19:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Last time I looked there were also (besides T:TDYK) T:DYKT and T:MP that seemed heavily used. {{go away}} sounds like a reasonable solution for those. --Amalthea^Talk 19:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
• I'm uncomfortable with your proposal but I'd like some time to think about it. In the meantime, though, it appears that you could simplify the wording to this. Rossami (talk)

  Redirects from the Article space to a page in User:, Image:, or any of the Talk namespaces...

  • Now that you mention it, Wikipedia talk: isn't in MBisanz' list. On purpose? --Amalthea^Talk 19:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
• Thinking about it more, you'd need to change the wording in order to exempt the Pseudo-namespaces like CAT:, MOS: and P:. I don't know of any examples that would parallel the WP:/WT: situation but I don't know for sure that none exist. Those would seem to be plausible enough that a speedy would not be in order. There may also be historical problems with the expansion to cover the MediaWiki namespace. I can't think of any that would affect MediaWiki Talk but there were pages moved to straight MediaWiki. I think some of those are ambiguous enough that they should go to RfD, not be dealt with via speedy. Still thinking... Rossami (talk) 19:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• None of the pseudo-namespaces redirect to Talk namespaces except the 2 instances I outlined above. CAT -> Category, MOS -> Wikipedia, P -> Portal. There are currently no redirects into the MediaWiki space. Given there is a substantial number of redirects into the Wikipedia talk: space because of pagemoves and historical issues, I did not think it should qualify for a speedy at this point. MBisanz ^talk 21:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I would support this change (to the version offerd by MBisanz, or any simpler version that has consensus). When I most recently proposed the expansion for images, I wanted to be conservative about it, but in general I support expansion to cover anything not actually used by the community where the effective restriction on creation would be uncontroversial. I think MBisanz's brute force list covers every namespace that meets these criteria. If anything in that proposed list proves to be controversial, then I still support adding whatever isn't. For the record, I also support the idea of adding {{go away}} to the few useful exceptions. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Is 3103 (number) actually a speedy deletion candidate? I would think that articles that are part of a larger series (in this case, the series of articles on natural numbers) establish context implicitly, and should be redirected instead of deleted Super Bowl XLVII is another example. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

A1, like G1 and G3, is a criterion that is often misused by people to try and delete articles they think completely useless and uncontroversial deletions but which do not fail other criteria. A1 should only be used when the information in the article does not allow to establish any context. Here there is context, albeit the article does not make much sense. Thus I declined the speedy. Regards SoWhy 23:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) No it was not a valid candidate and speedy deletion was declined. Tagging can be done by any user on his or her first edit, with or without an account. The actual deletion can only be carried out by administrators. As with most admins, I decline speedies all the time. So seeing that some page is tagged does not imply that any criterion actually fits or that the page will or is likely to be speedy deleted.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Under the list of "General" critiera, number 11, deletion for "blatant advertising" is too broad. Additionally, under "Articles", number 7 "not demonstrating importance" is too subjective, and far too close to notability, which is listed as a non-criteria, for comfort. These should be dealt with through proposed deletions or AfDs. If something is that subjective, it needs to be dealt with through consensus. For example, Simple Green was recently deleted as being "blatant advertising". What does that mean? The deletion was contested soon after by Neil916, who said "I'd really be surprised if there was consensus to delete". The admin responded by pointing Neil916 to deletion review, an area which attracts a considerably smaller and less subject-specific audience. Neil916 indicated that he was too busy with real work to go through the process of deletion review, which I don't blame him for.

I propose that we delete both of these criteria. II | (t - c) 23:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I saw that at ANI and well, it's nonsense. The fact that admins are too busy sometimes or that they make mistakes does not make those criteria wrong. The speedy deletion criteria are cases in which admin's may delete articles on sight, so many criteria are more or less subjective.

"Blatant" is "blatant" and if it's not "blatant" advertising, it should not be deleted. If it is, discuss with the admin in question or use DRV, that is what DRV exists for. But we do not need AfDs or PRODs for articles like "Product X™ is the best solution for xxxx, buy it today at xxxx!!!" and we do not have to discuss criteria just because someone thinks some admin has applied them incorrectly. Because even if they had, the criteria itself is not responsible for it. SoWhy 23:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that A7 and G11 are too subjective, and I've argued this on many occasions. For A7, the jist of my argument is that an assertion of significance is frequently implicit and requires knowledge about the topic and subject area to evaluate that not every admin has. For G11, I'd argue that it doesn't really apply to any article - that even the most promotional article could be stripped down to a stub of neutral facts without being "fundamentally rewritten." Nevertheless, consensus is consistently against repealing them. Dcoetzee 23:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Everything in the world is subjective, if you think about it hard enough. "Blatant" is a rather high bar, and together with the fact that speedy tags can be eliminated, articles recreated, etc., I do not see a great overall harm to the encyclopedia from having the blatant advertising category. Certainly less harm and fuss than letting promo ads into the encyclopedia and having to go through AfD or not catching them at all. Most people get the message that speedy is only for uncontroversial nominations.... Still, the article patrol people are trigger happy at times and I think advertising is one of the more abused of the AfD / speedy criteria - some people seem to think that anything describing why a business or product is successful, what it sells, where it is located it, etc., or describing a company's history in a positive light, is advertising. Given the need to sift large number of mostly useless new articles quickly, and our resource constraints, I think the best way to fix this is education, maybe some tweaking to the verbiage, or an essay one can point to on what makes advertising blatant. Deleting the category would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.Wikidemon (talk) 23:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

When I look at an article that declaims with great vigor that the product, web forum, or whatever is being described in the article is "THE BEST EVAR!!!one" or that the company is a "leading manufacturer" or something along those lines, that to me is blatant advertising - because I see it every day in press releases written by professional PR people. "Blatant" is pretty obvious, and is difficult to miss. As for A7, we need something to deal with the vast flood of articles about high school garage bands, minor officials, college students, and so on that are posted daily. Administrators are appointed based on the community's confidence in their ability to make judgment calls on things like these criteria, and we have deletion review if there's a case where an article needs rethinking. I would fight tooth and nail against these criteria being deleted. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, if A7 and G11 are removed, we might as well delete the whole page. Excluding image criteria, I would say that those 2 make up the bulk of speedy deletions; the system would be overwhelmed in several hours. Suggesting we send them through AFD is frankly, ridiculous. PROD would be an exercise in futility as most speedy deleted articles are tagged shortly after creation, making the likelihood of the author removing the tag and requiring an AFD high (as well as being just as subjective and consensus-less as speedy, PROD doesn't even require that you cite a policy in the rationale). Mr.Z-man 07:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Some statistics: in September there were about 13,000 A7 deletions and 3,000 G11 deletions. This compares with 3,000 under A1 and A3 combined, 2,000 under G1, 1,000 under G12, and about 2,000 under AFD and PROD (each). If we did get rid of A7 and G11 we would get nine times as many articles going through PROD, and since the whole point of PROD is to get community review of the articles this would weaken the process. Hut 8.5 10:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• I do not think they need to be removed but they might need to be re-worded a bit. I agree with Tony Fox in marketing/press releases being used to establish notablitiy. The key thing is that, if well written, they would not come off as "blatant advertising", and that is my issue. If the current reasons could not be modified I would be up for creating a new CSD that used a "di" based system (Such as {{di-no permission}} for images) on articles that violated the Wikipedia is not a soapbox, item 4, Self-promotion policy. There are currently various guidlines (WP:GNG, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP) that specify to not use "self published", "advertising" or "press release" for establishing notability yet numerous articles exists that are soley based on those items. If a music based article only said: "'Studio' was the first band to win the "best band in Anytown, USA" at the newly established "Anytown Arts Center". With the money the band won they recorded their debut EP in the basement of their drummers house. They have shared the stage with acts such as Bubble Breath, Fall on Down, and Yummy Hotdogs. Currently they are one of the best bands in the Anytown, USA area." and then used citations and links to a local paper article, a press release from the band on a "user submitted" news site, press release from the "Anytown Arts Center" of the contest from a "Community notes" section of a local paper, a link to an online store selling the bands self produced CD, a list "upcoming shows" and a myspace page it would survive a G11 as the article is clearly not "blatant advertising", even if some of the links are. It would not meet A1 because the article does identify it's subject. It would not fall under A7 because it the wording indicates it's subject is notable because they won a contest, recorded an EP, played with other acts and is "one of the best bands in the Anytown, USA area". An Editor could PROD it or take it directly to AfD, where it could survive because participants in the discussion may feel that the cited articles, concert listings and other links meet the WP:MUSIC guideline of "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself..." I think there might be a need for some sort of "pre-csd" criteria for those types of items. In the scenario I gave above the article seems to meet some of WP:MUSIC however upon closer inspection the citations should all be discounted, and would show the article is an "Advertisement" for the band. This is even more true if it was created and maintained by a SPA, and if one added on a possible COI I see no reason why it could not move to a CSD type of deletion. I am not sure how to best word something like that without crossing over into severe instruction creep but feel it is worth exploring none the less. For the most part policy and guidlines are already in place to support it. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• Except now that's getting into blatantly subjective analysis. Currently the speedy deletion criteria are based on the text of the article; you're asking people to disregard the text and start analyzing sources for quality and reliability, trying to determine whether the user who created the article was a good faith new user or an SPA, reviewing the article with regard to notability guidelines, etc. This kind of analysis is the kind of thing that AFD is for. Mr.Z-man 17:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe I am missing something in the Policy found at Wikipedia is not a soapbox, item 4, Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects in which you have a strong personal involvement. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about you. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. That seems clear. That policy, when combined with the subject specific guidlines it, in theory, makes it very clear that an article is not supposed to use marketing supplied by the subject, or marketing about the subject provided by someone involved with the subject (promoter, manager, publisher, company and so forth) as sole sources for an article. If all you had was that policy to go by, than outside of G11 - "blantant advertising" (which, as is being discussed, can be "disguised") what current CSD covers this? Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• CSD doesn't attempt to cover every possible deletion reason, only things that are blatantly obvious and arise frequently. If one has to evaluate sources with regard to WP:RS and users with regard to WP:SPA its no longer blatantly obvious. Those types of articles are candidates for WP:PROD and AfD. Mr.Z-man 21:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe it is use of the word "blatant". I think most everyone would agree that an article that said "Buy the book/cd/dvd/t-shirt/etc at this website for 9.95" would be "blatant". But if you look at an article and see "The new the book/cd/dvd/t-shirt/etc was released" and it has a citation that links to some sort of merchandise page on an official website, other online store, or a link with information on how to order it that, to me anyway, is also "blatant". I agree that if you have to research (evaluate) an article in detail it might be better to send it off to PROD or AfD. However if all you have to do is glance at links and citations and see they are all to myspace, facebook, "official" pages and online stores and than simply look at the article history and see that 90% or more of it was done by one Editor it should raise red flags. That is why I suggested some sort of "di" pre-csd tag. Maybe a "di-spam" tag that would combine elements of Template:Advert, Template:COI, Template:Self-published and Template:Db-g11 in a "Unless third party sources are added, advertising links removed and (COI conflicts resolved? SPA conflicts resolved?) the article will be deleted after (10 days?)" manner. Or perhaps better, use it in conjunction with one or more of the existing "warning" tags. For example if the Template:Advert has been used and there have been no changes made to the article in (one month? two months?) than the article could be eligible for CSD. Currently many of the tags do say/imply that "if" the changes are not made the article "might" be deleted. Maybe a little stronger wording could be used by adding wording such as "will be considered for deletion in". Again - following the "di" concept. Allow for the needed changes to be made before doing the actual CSD. Soundvisions1 (talk) 06:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Can we just reword G11?

Okay, here's an idea (emphasis added in italics):

Blatant advertising. Any content which is nothing but spam, such as an article that exclusively advertises some entity using promotional language, and would require a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion. Non-blatant advertising can be tagged with the {{Advert}} template. If the article can be salvaged, it is recommended that you do so.

With this, its a bit more clear, and most of the time this is what G11 deletes. ViperSnake151 18:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

That seems like an OK start. I would feel more comfortable with speedy deletes if the check to them, which is Deletion Review, wasn't so sketchy. Many of the deleted articles are not even viewable by general users because they are deleted. It attracts an elite deletionist crowd. There's nothing to be done about the crowd, and that has its advantages, but I don't see why regular users shouldn't be able to participate in the process. I've been around and know Wikipedia, and its users, a lot better than many. I put up 2 requests for someone to userfy Simple Green so that it could be viewed. Nobody did, even after 3-4 days. That's a rather flawed process. Simple Green had a Google cache available, but 8 of the 10 or so the deleted articles being discussed did not have caches available. Some of these were requests just for userfication, and admins were rejecting those requests. And those commenting were supporting those rejections, bizarrely. II | (t - c) 06:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That reads basically the way I always try to interpret G11. On the other hand, I find that I'm generally pretty lenient on what I call "blatant advertising" and more frequently fix articles where possible than at least some other admins. There's more I could say here, but basically it all boils down to "narrow CSD are good". Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't yet read the whole thread yet, but what to understand as advertising shouldn't be explained by referring to it as 'nothing but spam' because that doesn't really explain anything nor should we link directly to article space. The current version links more correctly to "Advertisements masquerading as articles" which is a section of WP:ADVERT that explains what we understand under it or at least should. Which again links to the policy WP:NOT#ADVERTISING and to advertising. It is just united with link spam under the common header Wikipedia:Spam. I'd also object to the wording at the end as not fit inside the deletion criterion itself which has to define when deletion is appropriate. We have at the beginning of WP:CSD a paragraph on alternatives to deletion that applies to all cases. Feel free to check that for possible improvements as well. --Tikiwont (talk) 20:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I frequently merge/redirect nonnotable articles that happen to have talkpages with a WikiProject banner and nothing else; nearly all of the mergers/redirects are done boldly and turn out to be noncontroversial. Quite a few WikiProject banners add the talkpage into categories, so the banners need to be removed after the merger. {{db-talk}} refers to a "Talk page of a deleted or nonexistent page." Does that mean I can speedy-tag the talkpages, or should I just cut the banner (leaving an empty talkpage behind). – sgeureka ^t•c 14:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Just remove the banner and leave an empty talk page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Better, redirect the talk page to the redirect/merger target's talk page. Rossami (talk) 02:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I am a firm believer that the talk page of a redirect should always redirect to the talk page of the target; anything else is irritating and confusing. Consequently I find Category:Redirect-Class articles to be both completley pointless and actively unhelpful, but that's beside the point :D. Just redirect the talk page to the talk page of the target. Happy‑melon 12:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Just playing devil's advocate here, but the cat could appear under the redirect code, so it'd still redirect. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Not as pointless as this --NE2 20:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

There was a discussion for that Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Empty talk pages of redirects. Converting to redirect wins. I always delete the banners and then redirect. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

There is an alternative, depending on the Wikiproject. If the project has chosen to use the redirect class for redirects in its scope. See Talk:Staircase locks for an example Mayalld (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we change subject but... tagging an article in the scope of a wikiproject it's not for categorision reasons -we have categories for that- but in order to improve it. How does a redirect improve? IMHO Category:Redirect-Class articles is pointless. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. Redirecting the talkpage as well is the perfect solution. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Category deletion policy#Speedy delete policy says empty cats can be deleted after 72 hours.
• WP:CSD says 4 days - in other words, 96 hours.
• {{Db-c1}} says 4 days

What's the correct answer?

Discussion is underway at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#speedy delete policy - 4 days or 72 hours?.

-Stepheng3 (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it correct that an article can meet WP:N, but still be speedy deleted as non-notable if the article doesn't specifically state why its subject is important or significant? This sems to be the general feeling at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 November 4#LA Direct Models. If so, should this be made clearer on the criteria page? Epbr123 (talk) 16:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

What you say is almost correct; just take out the "as non-notable" from your sentence. A7 is intended to keep out improperly wirtten articles (on subjects which may or may not be notable). I think the A7 criteria are pretty clear: nowhere does A7 use the word notability, and this was intentional, as was the clarification that follows. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

What makes it unclear to me is that the A7 criteria says it "is a lower standard than notability". This suggests that any article meeting WP:N should be safe from an A7 deletion. If this isn't the case, I think it should be clarified. Epbr123 (talk) 16:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, after thinking it through further, I agree with you. I think the text should say "is a different standard than notability." Let's see if anyone else has an opinion. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It says that "importantance" is a "lower standard than notability". That just means that things that are not notable might still fail A7. But it does have to indicate as to why the subject is important. So let me use a metaphor: Let's say notability is 10 and importance is 5. 10 always contains 5, so "different standard" would be incorrect. But the point to A7 is that: If the article says it's a 10 or a 5, you cannot A7 it (unless the claim is obviously ridiculous). If it does not state anything, then even a 15 might be deleted as A7.

But whether it actually will be deleted or not is the admin's job to decide - because all CSD are "may be deleted"-criteria; if the deciding admin thinks another way might be better, it is up to him or her to not delete the article. In the case of A7 it means for example that the admin has to check if some subject's importance is indicated anyway, googling the subject or suchlike. SoWhy 17:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The kind of article I have in mind is, for example, one that just contains the sentence "Joe Bloggs is a British athlete born in 1980" but also has a couple of references to The New York Times. The article doesn't explain why this is an important athlete, but it does meet WP:N. Epbr123 (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Taggers should of course look at references if they are provided. I'd even say that a name drop in a reliable source is already an indication of importance, but it depends on the source. A couple of NYT references that mention the topic are more than enough in my book. --Amalthea^Talk 18:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I am going to just cut and paste my example from above as it works here too. Pretend you came across this article: "'Studio' was the first band to win the "best band in Anytown, USA" at the newly established "Anytown Arts Center". With the money the band won they recorded their debut EP in the basement of their drummers house. They have shared the stage with acts such as Bubble Breath, Fall on Down, and Yummy Hotdogs. Currently they are one of the best bands in the Anytown, USA area." It would not eligible for an A7 as the article does "indicate why its subject is important or significant" - "Studio" is "important" because they were "the first band to win the "best band in Anytown, USA"" They are also "important" because they "shared the stage" with other acts that are better known than they are. And there is an assertion that the band is "one of the best bands in the Anytown, USA area" which would make them "significant". The question of if they actually meet the notability guidlines is another issue. Now if "Studio" were notable but all their article contained was "'Studio' is a band from Anytown, USA and records in their drummers basement" it would likely meet A7 criteria. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Good example, although you have to take into account that it might still fall to A7 if those other acts are A7-able and/or if Anytown, USA is too small for their art prizes or being the best in the area actually representing anything but vanity claims. Any band can win the prize for best band in Ghosttown, USA (population 4) and thus be the best band in the Ghosttown, USA area and yet their claims of importance would be void. But of course, if it reasonable to assume that those claims are at least not completely unlikely, AfD should deal with it. Regards SoWhy 20:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

There was a discussion a while ago about this at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 29#Speedy deletion of articles with sources; there was near unanimous agreement that any article which cited reasonably reliable sources shouldn't be a speedy candidate. The intention behind A7 wasn't, as I understand it, to remove badly written articles, but rather the most objective wording anybody could come up with to weed out "vanity articles" for the most blatantly non-notable individuals, such as articles written by schoolchildren about themselves and their friends (organisations and websites were sneaked in later). For some background, see here and the links therein. As such the barrier is no realistic indication of importance; intended to be a lower standard than any of our vague and contradictory notability guidelines to prevent individual admins making controversial deletions based on their own interpretation of WP:BIO etc. However, if an article cites reliable sources, it clearly shows that the subject is considered important by those sources (assuming they do actually discuss it); hence it shouldn't be a speedy candidate. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 20:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Short answer: No. Being WP:N-style notable is a pretty huge indication of importance. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

This comes down to the most essential limitation of A7: determining what qualifies as a claim of importance. There are a great many things which one admin might reasonably consider an implicit claim of importance, while another does not. This is the source of subjectivity in this CSD. This is particularly evident in cases like these, where notability guidelines written by topic area experts can clearly identify implicit claims of significance that an average admin might overlook. Attempting to define a "claim of importance" objectively is no easier than defining notability objectively. Dcoetzee 21:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that I'm having trouble sorting this out. For example, I'll see a 10-line article come across that says, "John Smith is an artist in New Hampshire who has won the following 10 prizes.." Nothing is linked, there are no sources, and it's not obvious if the prizes are real, fake, minor, or major ones for which we do have articles, but just no links were included in the stub. So it can be tricky and time-consuming to tell if dealing with a hoax, or a valid stub. On some of these I skip deleting them, but do watch to see what other admins do, and I usually see the articles being deleted as "A7, no indication of notability", even though there clearly is an indication of notability. Perhaps the wording of CSD could be changed to match actual practice, like, "no plausible or sourced indication of notability"? My own feeling is that very short and sourceless articles should be deleted on sight, but we don't seem to have a clear speedy criteria for those, even though the "Create page" screen clearly says, "Articles that are created without references, or have extremely little content, are likely to be deleted very quickly". I'd like if we could get that disclaimer synched up with CSD. --Elonka 21:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

OTOH, I'd like to see less use of speedy deletion. My view is that speedy deletion is an extremely valuable tool for articles of the type "Jenny is a cool girl", "Our garage band will be famous as soon as we learn to play an instrument" or "I like cheese". But for honest attempts at non-spammy articles, it can be devastating for a new editor to have their contribution deleted minutes after creation. Yes, articles should, nay must be sourced. But the encyclopedia as a whole is better if there was more emphasis on finding and adding those sources and less emphasis on who can delete something the fastest. Are there admins who are incorrectly deleting stuff? Absolutely. There are also admins (and others) who are declining those speedies. The nature of speedy deletion makes it hard to have any kind of meaningful statistics on what is actually going on.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a substantial amount of abuse of A7 (and speedies in general). For example, the first article that I wrote, Lundberg Family Farms had a reference to a NYTimes article stating it "is the number one organic rice brand in the US". User:Aecis tried to speedy it.[7] That's clearly an inappropriate speedy, but he didn't blush. II | (t - c) 19:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

That was one year ago, and it was declined. How is this an example for "substantial amount of abuse of A7"? I agree that it was incorrectly tagged though. --Amalthea^Talk 19:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes that was a bad tag, but if you want to prove that there is "substantial abuse of A7" it's better to look at articles that were actually deleted, since admins are expected to know the criteria well. There are about 13,000 A7 deletions a month, and even if 50 of those are bad that's still a very low failure rate (less than 0.4%). Hut 8.5 21:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

That article was only declined because I figured out how to use a watchlist. I've experienced firsthand maybe 5-6 speedies in my year and a half as a user. Of those, at least 2 were bad. So yeah, I'm generalizing, and I'll keep an eye on the category in the future, especially since it is so nicely displayed at the top of this page. My reasoning is that there are a few admins who regularly troll Special:NewPages, and if they have poor judgment in the cases that I've seen, then it seems plausible that they have poor judgment elsewhere. User:Aecis, for example, deleted 3787 pages since becoming an admin in 2006 (I know, that doesn't mean he speed-tagged them all). Maybe 80-90% were legit, but that leaves 300-400 bad ones. And actually, that wasn't my first article. I made a couple stubs before that and they were all either speedied or prodded, and I thought they were notable (and asserted notability), although I can't remember exactly what they were about. II | (t - c) 01:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to ask my question about the general case here, but if anyone wants to look at the specifics that led to this, they can check out this link.

I have a case where editor A added a number of well written articles to the project (transalted from another language wiki, I beleive). User A then became annoyed with the project and requested G7 deletion on several of these nice articles. As they were the sole author, I saw no problem with this, and completed the G7 deletions.

Now, I have user B, who has seen these nice articles via the Google cache, and would like them restored. To the point that they suggested possibly restarting them via the data in the Google cache. This last is to me a GFDL violatiion, and thus not a good option, but the issue remains, what could/should be done in this case? Do I continue to honor the G7 deletions, at the expense of several nice articles that now have a potential new main editor? Or do I go against the wishes of the original author and restore the articles? I'm at a loss for the proper path forward. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Explanations – "[G7] Does not apply to long-standing articles or quality articles not created by mistake. Such articles were duly submitted and released by the author and have become part of the encyclopedia, obviating others who otherwise would have written an article on the subject." I'd suggest undeleting to preserve the history. Bencherlite^Talk 14:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) The CSD criteria provide the limited places where an admin may delete; it provides the authority for this form of deletion, but it should not be taken as a right or mandate, i.e.. it fits under X criterion therefore it must be deleted or should be deleted or, in this case, to give the original creator the right to have it deleted or keep it deleted. All the musts and shoulds come out of underlying policies and guidelines. Here the user absolutely and irrevocably released his contributions under the GFDL. If they are encyclopedic, they should be restored.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Agree with what is said above. Also, if those articles were translations, the information, even if not the language, was not created by the translator and as such it is questionable if he can really be seen as the sole creator. I too think you should undelete them, given the fact that their content was released under the GFDL and as such noone can insist on their deletion. Regards SoWhy 14:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Undeletion is done. In case anyone now wants to look at the articles in question, they are Prize of the Ecumenical Jury, List of German companies by employees in 1907 and Chemische Fabrik Kalk. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I am the author of the german article Chemische Fabrik Kalk - and I have no problem if this in the English Wikipedia appeared. Furthermore, BlueSalo these also expanded. Please think about the GFDL license after. Sorry for my bad english... Regards --Rolf H. (talk) 15:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

We know that speedy deletion criteria are misapplied frequently by many different people, usually people with good intentions. This doesn't invalidate speedy deletion - but it may inform how it ought to be revised, when considered in aggregate. People frustrated with incorrect speedy deletions tend to highlight a particular example and try to raise discussion here, but it's difficult for that discussion to lead to targeted improvement when it's unclear whether the example is representative, or whether the criterion or the admin is at fault.

So I suggest we create a page for reporting incorrect speedy deletions that have been subsequently reversed and either kept or put up for deletion by PROD or AfD. Besides the purposes above, it would also be great for illustrating to new admins when speedy deletion is inappropriate. It could be something like Wikipedia: Criteria for speedy deletion/Incorrect deletion noticeboard or something. Thoughts? Dcoetzee 19:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, on considering this some more, perhaps a better word than "incorrect" would be "contested" - since the person who deleted an article may not always agree with the person who undeletes it. Dcoetzee 20:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

If you want to conduct a point-in-time analysis in order to improve the process, I would heartily support your efforts. If you're talking about a permanent piece of bureaucracy, I would have serious concerns about instruction creep. Who will monitor this new reporting place? How will disputes actually get resolved? Why wouldn't this be redundant with the current escalation process? etc... Rossami (talk) 02:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I echo your concerns about it being necessary and possibly WP:CREEPy. I feel that DRV currently works just fine for this. However, I don't really have data to back that assertion up. I'd love to see some data about how many speedies are correct. As for Rossami's questions, should we actually want a board, I believe the first two are answered easily. Most likely us here at WT:CSD would be monitoring it, as we know the criteria best and are closest to it. Disputes can be relatively easily sent to DRV, DR, or ANI if necessary. Of course, this would make the board redundant to all those other areas. So, again, I don't believe it would be necessary or useful. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a study of the correctness of speedy deletions (see User:Mangojuice/a7 and User:Mangojuice/a7.2). Hut 8.5 20:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

DRV is well-monitored, and fairly underused compared to other deletion process pages; though the deleting admin's talk page should always be the first step. Mr.Z-man 20:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(oops, slow response) To clarify I'm not talking about a noticeboard, which would be redundant with other measures; rather I'm just thinking of a record or log of such deletions, to be gathered and organized in one place over time for informational puprposes. Dcoetzee 20:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that DRV is the place. The new policy created by a recent edit over at WP:Deletion policy changes this a lot. If there's a good faith contest of a speedy by a non-creator, then the page should be restored for discussion. That alleviates some of my concerns. II | (t - c) 21:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that snuck through neatly, didn't it, and with not a lot of conversation over it... that definitely needs more discussion, considering it's only about five editors talking about it.... Tony Fox (arf!) 21:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Clarifying: That is emphatically not 'new' policy. Someone finally asked that we write down the policy as it has always been. Rossami (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:DRV. ViperSnake151 23:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted that DP change and suggest discussing it at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy. Stifle (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:Afc film says that it is in Category:Templates for speedy deletion. However it is not listed in the category page? What's going on I wonder. MSGJ 14:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Weird, since it's been tagged for a week now. But probably more of a question for VPT. --Amalthea^Talk 15:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

No idea why it was not in there, but I just did a null-edit to it, and it's there now. Very weird. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

That's even weirder, cause the first thing I did was purge it with Template:Afc_film?action=purge, which didn't help. --Amalthea^Talk 15:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Purge purges your browser cache, I think. Null edits force the DB to re-evaluate all the templates on a page, and everything that comes off of the templates. I see this regularly when things in the background are running slow, but never before *this* slow. When you add/remove a category from a template, there is generally a lag before it shows up on all the pages that use that template. Null edits can speedy things along on specific pages. But normally we are talking minutes worth of delays. Hours at the extreme worst. I have not yet found a template edit that might have caused this, though. So I'm still not really sure what happened here, even though I knew how to work around it. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Best I can tell a purge should do exactly the same thing as a null edit (WP:PURGE). It's definitely server-side, and it helps to fix a page nominated for deletion per script if the link to the discussion still shows up as a redlink, just as a null edit does.
Of course it's not the exact same situation, maybe a null edit does do more than a purge WRT categories after all. --Amalthea^Talk 15:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, note Help:Dummy edit#Null edit: "If a transcluded template has added or removed a category since it was last transcluded then purge will not update the category page, but a null edit will.". --Amalthea^Talk 17:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok. One mystery solved. We still have the questions of whether the {{Age switch}} stuff ever actually worked, if it did, why is it broken now, and if it did not, how did we go so many months without building up a huge backlog of these things.? - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

That's not the only one in that situation. I'm hitting more of them with null edits to force a re-eval of the categories. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

42 items in that category. I'll let someone familiar with template CSD actually process the things. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

{{Db-t3}} appears to use {{Age switch}} to decide whether to place the template in that category. Some sort of aging code, so that it does not go in right away. If so, then something may have changed that is preventing {{Age switch}} from being re-evaluated daily to decide whether or not to place a newly tagged article in the category. We're approaching the limits of my knowledge of wiki-code, though. And if something in the code base has changed recently to disrupt this, I'm not sure where to go to explore that angle. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you're right. What do you mean with age switch being re-evaluated daily? How would that be happening? Does a purge of a template force a reparse of the transcluding pages? --Amalthea^Talk 16:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Assuming this was ever working, and I'm not sure how they had it working, but for what they have in place to do what they wanted it to do, I'm pretty sure that regular automatic reevaluation of some sort would be needed. The code uses a date-based conditional coding to decide what categories to place the tagged article into. From the docs, the idea is that it'll be dropped into Category:Templates for speedy deletion seven days after tagging. For this to happen, regularly the article would need to be reevaluated to change the results from the template. On day 6, it's needing to be categorized one way, and a different way on day seven. Exactly how that automated reevaluation is/was supposed to happen, I have no idea. I never thought about doing something this way until I saw this here today. And again, that's assuming that this has ever worked how it was supposed to work.

As for purge, according to WP:PURGE, it should cause a reevaluation. Your purge did not do so, but my null edit did, so I'm not sure what is really happening there either. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say the age switch was working correctly because these templates were in the correct category. Why they weren't appearing on the category page is another question though. MSGJ 18:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Um. TexasAndroid has generally the right idea. Pages tagged with conditional code of that nature need to be regularly reparsed to implement the category links. In the past, this rerendering process has been performed on a rolling 'housekeeping' cleaning cycle, where each page is, every time a change is made to it, given an 'expiry date' after which is it reconstructed during a period of low server load. I have heard that the wikimedia servers have been under a lot of pressure recently; several resource-intensive processes (such as Special:ExpandTemplates and other special pages) have been disabled. It is possible that the 'shelf life' of rendered pages has been extended to improve performance. TexasAndroid is also correct about null edits verses purging: a purge is a browser action: it causes the browser to download new versions of everything it thinks it needs to build a page. This includes javascript files, style sheets, plugin files and, of course, the page itself. But the request is otherwise no different to a normal pageserve; the latest version of the page is output complete with any changes. But no modifications are made to the database. A null edit submits an instruction to MediaWiki to perform that usual housekeeping 'springclean' immediately. The entire page is rebuilt and any necessary updates to other tables are made at this time.

So in response to the issue, the real problem is the way wikipedia manages its interlocking database tables. A 'queued deletion' system (ie you flag an article for deletion, it is deleted a fixed period later unless the instruction is cancelled) has been in the works since hell last thawed. In the absence of a genuine solution, I don't really know what to suggest, bar a bot to go round doing regular null edits on all transclusions of {{db-t3}}. Happy‑melon 22:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, the solution used in all other similar cases is creating a unique category per day, with bots doing the housekeeping work.
And a purge per WP:PURGE really is a server-side cache purge. :) --Amalthea^Talk 22:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, you're quite right, the description above is for a browser cache bypass; sorry about that. However, the server purge is actually an even simpler event: it prompts the squid server that holds the page cache to ask for a new version of the page code from the main database server, renders it, and creates a new cache with it. The database doesn't do any updates itself, it just gathers the necessary bits and pices (template contents, images, etc) to enable a complete page to be recreated. So everything you see on the article is correct, which is why this issue invariably manifests itself as "category appears on page, but page doesn't appear in category". Happy‑melon 22:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering, but would purging the category page instead do the trick? It usually works just fine using the purge link already on CAT:SD. lifebaka++ 22:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

With CAT:CSD, you are dealing with refreshing the category for pages that are correctly updated in the DB. For this situation, refreshing the category won't help until the pages are updated/reevaluated, as the DB will still have no idea that they should even be in the category until the pages are dealt with. - TexasAndroid (talk) 23:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

What now?

Ok. From the analysis above, we have a system that worked, but is not currently working. The auto-reevaluation may (or may not) be restarted at some point in the future, but we really have no way of know if/when it will. So what are our options now? As I see them:

1. - Leave things as they are, hoping that the reevaluation system will be restarted at some point in the near future.
2. - Seek a bot's assistance.
3. - Scrap the current system and try to come up with another way to accomplise the desired results.

What are people's opinions on the possibilities, and does anyone see any other paths forward? - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

1. When I checked today there was only one article tagged for more than 7 days, but missing in the category. Just ignoring the problem for now is certainly possible, since there are relatively few articles ever tagged as a T3.
2. Would certainly work, shouldn't be difficult, not taxing for the servers. It would also make the age switch a more reliable tool for other purposes, maybe even other criteria.
   But I'm not sure if we really want this, if it starts to be heavily used then we depend on the bot doing a round of null edits every day.
3. Per above, create a category per day, and delete all in categories older than 7 days. Has the advantage of being a tested method, with bots doing the housekeeping in similar cases that could be adapted. Has the disadvantage of being a lot of fuzz for only a few templates every day. We should then think about estabilising more general speedy deletion categories, again one per day like Category:Candidates for speedy deletion on 17 November 2008, that can be used for all delayed criteria, no matter how long a delay they have. If I tag an article as a T3 today it will be categorized into Category:Candidates for speedy deletion on 24 November 2008. All pages in todays category can be deleted.

I'm actually leaning towards the first option for now, as long as there are some CSD admins who can be bothered to go through the list of transculsions from time to time (or regular editors doing the null edits), but I'd like to get a definitive answer of what exactly is going on, and if it's actually going to work as before again in the future. --Amalthea^Talk 00:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

So I just want to make sure... when you add a Speedy Deletion template to an article, you don't need to pay attention to it afterward because an administrator will see and deal with it, correct? Thanks. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to, but it can be a good idea to keep track of articles you tagged. It's true that the administrators will base their actions on your original tagging, without the need for more input, but sometimes they will deny speedy deletion. It also sometimes happens that someone removes the speedy tag for good or bad reasons, or contests speedy deletion using {{hangon}}. Other times, the page simply gets recreated - again, for either good or bad reasons. If you still think the page you tagged should be deleted, it's up to you to take action (but don't readd the speedy tag - use WP:AfD or the appropirate other page).

For all of these reasons, I keep pages I've tagged for speedy deletion on my watchlist, sometimes for quite a while, so that I can see what's happening with the page. This also means you get a watchlist notification when the page is actually deleted - a relatively recent feature that's very convenient. I find it's much better to watch these pages than not, but as I said, it's not required. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:Di-no permission-notice is fine but I would suggest to bold one part of one line. Currently the line I am speaking of reads:

• make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication

I am suggesting this:

• make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication

Some editor/uploaders are not getting that part and posting information on talk pages or on the image talk page. Thanks Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it'll help much. A lot of the time those notices just get ignored. Still, done. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I see that a whole bunch of church redirects are in C:CSD. My view is is such plausible redirects are not speediable as A1. Before I decline them all I thought I would check ... TerriersFan (talk) 21:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree, they're redirects, not sub-stubs. Bencherlite^Talk 21:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Decline away. I'd do the same.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

An redirect cannot be speedied as A1 because we got R-criteria for that. And if they are plausible, none of them is speediable. Regards SoWhy 21:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

An admin has been deleting these under WP:CSD#A3 - an obvious abuse of process as redirects aren't supposed to have content, and the "A" in "A3" means articles, not redirects. The standard way for dealing with articles on topics such as individual churches, primary schools etc. that don't have independent notability is to redirect them to a broader topic, which has been done here in complete accord wioth normal practice. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I see that many of them have already been deleted as A3 (but I think that the same principle applies) by User:Gwen Gale. This is a mess; I am reluctant to unilaterally restore the deleted ones because of wheel-warring implications but they were not validly deleted IMHO. Any views as to what to do with the deleted ones? TerriersFan (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Redirect#When should we delete a redirect?. We used to have an essay titled Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap but that now redirects to the main redirect guideline page... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Gwen Gale was invited to participate here, see this section on their talk page. As for what to do, I would prefer to restore them all because A3 does not cover redirects and thus they were not speedy candidates. SoWhy 22:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree that they should be restored (and then cleaned up like the rest) and agree with getting Gwen in on this discussion ASAP. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Particularly see

"The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are: a redirect may contain nontrivial edit history; if a redirect is reasonably old, then it is quite possible that its deletion will break links in old, historical versions of some other articles — such an event is very difficult to envision and even detect."

- some of these deletions are introducing redlinks into many articles, and are therefore harmful. DuncanHill (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

A3 specifically excludes redirects - "Any article (other than disambiguation pages, redirects, or soft redirects) ..." so the deletions clearly did not meet the criteris claimed by the deleting admin. DuncanHill (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Problem seems to have been Ardfern (talk · contribs) tagging them as A3 incorrectly and at least on one occasion I saw them edit-warring an admin for declining the speedy over it (see here). Gwen Gale has restored those redirects again as far as I can see, so the harm is reverted I hope. Regards SoWhy 22:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Gale has now restored them, which I think is jolly decent of her. DuncanHill (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I restored a bunch back to redirects, I would appreciate any help (start with A, I started with G). I left the creator of those articles a note as well as their addition of navboxes to the redirects caused the problem in the first place. Regards SoWhy 22:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

That would explain why those were already done when I got there. They should all be done, now. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I craeted a page entitled Business Model Innovation which was was subject to speedy deletion G12. I saw the notification after posting and immediately placed a Hang On, responded in the Talk page explaining the reason why the copyright issue appeared and seeking reactions to my plan to correct. By the time this was posted, the page was deleted. I have been in a Talk with the admin (Gwen Gale) and feel the rationale she is applying warrants further discussion.

The page describes a new business theory described in a new Harvard Business Review article, a new book, a forthcoming book and a commercial webpage. The theory is new and as such, there are only two primary authors of its content (the lead authors on the Harvard article). The two theorists also run the consulting firm where the commercial page is listed. It is this latter page that has created the copyright issue as, not unexpectedly, the summary of the new theory uses similar language from the commercial site. When I was alerted to this and saw that it could be addressed with a GNU statement applied to the external site, I stated that this step would be done immediately with the author's consent. I was unable to complete this step before the deletion took place.

With so many media outlets now, it is unavoidable that some objective, cited content could have appeared elsewhere. While I do not condone copyright infringement, I feel the actions of the admin were too swift in this case. I feel the guidelines for G12 should be reviewed to ensure the subject of the article is not the author of the purportedly infringed site. A simple review of the site would have identified the principal parties at the commercial firm are indeed the authors of the academic article and books. A grace period of a few hours should then be granted where such overlaps occur to allow the authors sufficient time to reconcile their own works and release the content properly to WP.Krbolen (talk) 23:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

That's why there is a {{hangon}} template. It is created to allow the creators to have time to explain their objection. If an admin ignores it or does not give it enough time, take it to the admin. But it is not a problem with the criteria themselves, so this is the wrong place. In future, you should post a short sentence fast, stating that you will provide more in short time, to avoid such problems (at least minimize them). Regards SoWhy 23:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Understood. My Hangon was posted less than 5 mins after the notice of intent to delete. Not sure I could have been much faster but I will try next time. In the meantime, I will continue to work with the admin. Thanks@=!Krbolen (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Were it any other criterion, I'll bet you'd get a much better response. But not with G12. We do not accept copyright violations ever and leaving them publicly available on the servers any longer than is necessary to find and remove them is, frankly, stupid. Seeing that the source of the violation is now released under the GFDL, this shouldn't be an issue any longer (assuming of course, that the license holders actually understand what the GFDL entails), and I'll ask Gwen to restore it based on that (I would do it myself, but I think there are other copyright issues involved; the cited page it was G12'd in regards to doesn't look like the whole story). However, putting in any sort of grace period for G12 is completely out of the question. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. When using the A9 speedy template, the text shown on the article says ....as an article about album that does not indicate the importance..... Firstly, surely it should be an album and secondly, does this mean this criteria is only suitable for albums (as opposed to singles, songs etc.) ? CultureDrone (talk) 12:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I was recently confused myself there: Per WP:CSD#A9 it is applicable to all recordings. You seem to be looking at {{db-album}} which I tried to fix, but there is also {{db-song}} and {{db-a9}} which is the parent of both.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

twinklespeedy should be changed, it currently will alway place {{db-album}} although the description says it's for any musical recording. Not sure if anyone here feels comfortable enough doing it, all three occurances of 'album' need to be changed to 'a9'. Otherwise I'll request it there.
It could also offer all three {{db-a9}}, {{db-album}} and {{db-song}}, but I don't think it's necessary there. --Amalthea^Talk 14:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. --Amalthea^Talk 18:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW, have other people come across as well incorrect speedy tags per A9 where the band existed but wasn't linked properly?--Tikiwont (talk) 12:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't, actually, but it does seem to be an inherent flaw of A9 when tagged in haste. Darkspots (talk) 13:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I was using Twinkle to tag the article as A9 - whichever tag that uses... CultureDrone (talk) 14:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't be too difficult to wikilink the artist to see whether or not it exists (assuming, of course, that it is located in the right place). Mistakes like that are easily corrected when pointed out, so it shouldn't be too big of an issue on this end. lifebaka++ 16:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. A very minor issue - I don't know if this is due to Twinkle or the A9 tag itself, but it's autosigning the page creator's talk page slightly incorrectly - one too many spaces I think. Have a look at User_talk:Trainthought re the 'Auraphonic' article. CultureDrone (talk) 18:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely Twinkle, not A9. Here's a manual warning using the A9 template as transcluded: [8]. Darkspots (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. One too many line breaks actually. As noted above, Twinkle currently uses {{db-album}}, not {{db-a9}}, so consequently {{db-album-notice}} is used, too. --Amalthea^Talk 20:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I wish to propose 2 new criteria for inclusion into the present CSD system. The reasoning behind these is that present SD criteria do not make adequate provision to remove articles of the nature I am going to cover.

• CSD A10 (Article Unsalvageable)

This criteria would be a sideline to G1 (Patent Nonsense), which presently does not include poor writing. Articles have appeared recently which despite being understandable and about a real subject, have been so poorly written and formatted that to all intent, they're a trainwreck.

CSD A10 would be applied to articles for which the possibility of salvage to make a decent article would be less than 20%, either because the subject is one about which hardly anyone else would have any knowledge, or quite simply because it is exceptionally poorly written and formatted and stands no hope of recovery.

• CSD A11 (Article is a Hoax)

This criteria would be used as a sideline to the present G1 (Patent Nonsense) which also does not include implausible theories and hoaxes. I find the present G3 used for theories and hoaxes a little strong, since people may find things and not knowing they are a hoax, create an article about them. This does not imply vandalism, simply an interest in expansion. The A11 tag would solve the system of giving people the label of "vandal" as opposed to saying "The subject of this article is a hoax - thanks for creating it, but it actually doesn't exist. Sorry :)"

A11 would only be applied to articles where there is clear evidence of the status of whatever the subject is, being a hoax.

Presently, there is a tag for suspected hoaxes as part of the {{ArticleIssues}} grouping, but an absolute certain hoax needs, imho, its own CSD.

I put this proposal out for discussion. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all, G1 is patent nonsense, not A1. Then, I am against both of them. Speedy deletions should be limited cases and not need much admin decision. Your proposed A10 does defy the reasoning for A1 to only delete something where nothing can possibly be understood. If it's just written in a bad form, we can still WP:PROD it. As for your proposed A11, G3 does cover it fine because it really only is for blatant cases where we can assume bad faith on the creator. If it's not blatant and if it's not clear to everyone, we should not leave it to an admin to decide it, rather using WP:PROD or WP:AFD. Regards SoWhy 16:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm with SoWhy here. Speedy deletion is for uncontroversial deletions; more borderline matters should be handled by other processes. There's no easy way to determine that the "possibility of salvage to make a decent article would be less than 20%" and, even if there were, no reason to presume that some valiant editor wouldn't want to {{rescue}} the article. Also, if we think that an editor has created an article on a hoax in good faith, there seems to be no real harm in tagging it with the "hoax" label and letting the contributor know, perhaps with the expressed suggestion of WP:CSD#G7. I'm all for not labeling people as vandals unnecessarily, but we can include them in the process of addressing the problem. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting the mistake in my CSD codes. I have amended this. I agree with both of your notes regarding the present processes. However, I still feel a {{db-hoax}} would be a good idea, even if the A10 does not go through. Just tagging as a suspected hoax doesn't really score with me when its pretty obvious its a hoax. Prod means leaving it for 5 days, and AFD means (potentially) leaving it a week, barring snowballs. Thanks though, I do understand where you are coming from. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 17:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, AfD is 5 days as well. And as you say yourself, if it really is that obvious, an AfD will snowball anyway. Point is that anything created in good faith does not harm to be kept for 5 days. Regards SoWhy 20:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) Even if its absolute cobblers??? :) Thor Malmjursson (talk) 20:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that one person's "pretty obvious hoax" is another person's "not obviously a hoax". This has come up a number of times, and a couple of examples I always use (because they come to mind so easily) are See-through frog and Joseph Coyetty (the inventor of toilet paper). Both were tagged for speedy deletion as obvious hoaxes, both turned out to be true.

If someone writes an article such as "Jason was the 56th President of the United States, cured cancer, and is having an affair with J-Lo and Angelina Jolie", it can be speedied as vandalism. Otherwise, if it's tagged with {{hoax}} and sent to PROD or AfD, no halfway sane reader will be fooled and we'll have the time to do enough research that will avoid deleting things that sound like hoaxes but aren't.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I still think it's possible for someone in good faith to write an obvious/blatant hoax. An example would be something that was deleted before as an obvious hoax but created in good faith by a newbie who heard about it in an email or read it in a blog and thought "hey, this would make a good WP article". I would argue for an AGF variant of G3. In any case, if there's the slightest doubt that something's a hoax, it should go to AFD. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering how obvious the hoax is if someone, in good faith, believed it enough to write an article.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 09:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I want to expand CSD A9 to Movies, books and computer games too. But if not it can be CSD A12. The Rolling Camel (talk) 23:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Proposed A10 is a terrible idea. A critereon for speedy deletion should be as close to an objective determination as possible. "Unsalvageable" and "poorly written" are just too vague to work as unilateral deletion crtieria. -Chunky Rice (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• • Two ideas that sound good, but just won't work out right. There is no way of telling if an article can be improved in advance of people looking for sources and trying to improve it. Almost anything is salvageable except utter nonsense, and we already provide for that. As for hoaxes, AfD has shown time and again that one or two people are not competent judges of whether something is a hoax. I've made positive statements at times--in both directions--and been totally wrong, and so have everyone else who tries to do this without thorough investigation and specialist skills. No one of us has all the skills, but as a group, we do. Even when an article looks extremely self-contradictory, it has been known to happen that this is because of vandalism of something genuine. DGG (talk) 03:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

To include movies, computergames and books in to CSD A9 dosent worked (see down the page) so i think whe schould have an CSD 12 that says: This page may meet wikipedias criterias for speedy deletion as an movie, book and computer games that do not indicate inportance or significanse. The Rolling Camel (talk) 10:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

After seeing multiple MFD's like this, this, this, and this, I think that we should establish a new speedy deletion criterion for stillborn Wikiprojects like this, something like "It is a WikiProject that has been established for at least x months, and has never had any established members besides its creator(s)" or somesuch. I think such a speedy criterion would be useful as it would sure cut down on some of the MfD backlog. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, John seems to have looked for those since they were all nominated at around the same time (and I believe all recent similar MfDs were nominated by him, too). I'm not sure if it's really enough of a burden on MfD in the long run to warrant a criterion. --Amalthea^Talk 19:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I seem to see one of these every time I go to MfD, though. I've been seeing at least one every week for quite a while now. I think it's probably enough of a recurring problem. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need a new CSD for this? It seems like PROD would be more than sufficient to deal with these. -Chunky Rice (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

PROD's for articles alone, WikiProjects live in the project space. --Amalthea^Talk 01:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you're right. Is there a reason that PROD are restricted to articles? -Chunky Rice (talk) 04:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Many! We just got it back to article space, let's leave it there for now.... The main reason is visibility. PRODs outside article space aren't seen very often, and only by Wikipedians. Also they can't be stumbled upon to request undeletion as easily as an article.... The other big one is that MfD is not as overrun as AfD. Also, we don't worry about deleting non-article space as much, because it's not reader-facing. PROD is a compromise, and honestly not ideal for articles either. Some other reasons probably too but I'm tired. As far as deleting half-baked Wikiprojects, that should always be a discussion, because you never now who might want to join. I've proposed a few for deletion myself, but I always ask around first. Sometimes it can be happily moved to a task force, although that is rare. Mainly, we don't have a criteria for inclusion in WP space. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 09:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, it should be noted that many times MFD returns a result of "tag historical" for WikiProjects. Even if there is only one member active on a project, they can still use that page to amass resources that could be useful to those editing in the future, and useful pages like that usually shouldn't be deleted. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I've posted at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(music)#Record_labels_and_speedies.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The title pretty much says it all. Is there any reason we need both, or should they be merged? Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Go for it! I9 is redundant. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd be interested in seeing the language for the merger. They both are fairly complex little nuggets as it is. :) Do you just propose to move the instructions from I9 into G12? How will the tags work? Will there be an "image" {{db-g12}} and a "text" one? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I would likely support a merged version as well, but it's a tough one to accomplish in practice. If you do manage a merged criterion text, I would definitely suggest keeping separate deletion tags for images and text. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, do it. But I want to say that, even though I am the one who brought this up as an example, I don't, overall, see a problem with it. Now if it is merged I propose a clean up of the overall wording. Sometimes the "general" nature is a bit more confusing. For example the policy on image use says "Images which are listed as for non-commercial use only, by permission, or which restrict derivatives are unsuitable for Wikipedia and will be deleted on sight, unless they are used under fair use" as well as "Licenses which restrict the use of the media to non-profit or educational purposes only (i.e. noncommercial use only), or are given permission to only appear on Wikipedia, are not free enough for Wikipedia's usages or goals and will be deleted" but in both cases it is in regards to user-created images. How this applies to I9/G12 is, as one example, I am finding flickr images being uploaded here under a free license when the original is under a "all right reserved" or a "non commercial use" license.

Beyond that CSD G12 states "Text pages that contain copyrighted material with no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a free license, where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving" and i9 sates "Images that are claimed by the uploader to be images with free licenses when this is obviously not the case." As currently written it is clear that an image from flickr that is not "public domain, fair use, or a free license" should fall under i9. But when these are combined how does one decide if an image is "worth saving"? A text copyvio can be fixed by changing the text, but an image can not be "fixed" so easily if it is a copyvio.

Ironically I came across an old IfD that relates: IfD on Ian brown 001.jpg. I have seen this scenario play out, where editors go into an image page and replace the tag with a "correct" one or otherwise "fix" the image. (In this case by cutting out the website url and © tag) That part may be another issue for another policy page but it does relate to how we define "Blatant copyright infringement", at least in regards to images. If a website, or an image, contains a copyright notice of some sort that shows the image to not be "public domain, fair use, or a free license" than should the image, uploaded by anyone, be tagged as a copyvio? I think at face value, it should. It becomes a bit more complicated if the uploader is claiming to be the creator. As the IfD shows at least one editor feels "If they say all rights reserved and then upload it themselves then thats is up to them, what are they going to do sue themselves" and, as a photographer, I agree with that because I feel I have a right to allow my images to be used as I determine. However as a photographer I also say, and strongly believe, that, first, Wikipedia policy regarding license's is the policy and that if an image is a violation of that policy, it should be deleted, per the policy and, second, in the case of potential copyvios, I don't think the "assume good faith" argument overrides the real world law(s). I hope I am not making a mess of what I am trying to say.

How and image is licensed for sure ties into i9/G12 but, while, i3 deals with the "improper license" issue, it only does so in regards as to how it was uploaded to this site. And I get kind of miffed when an editor, who is not the uploader or author of an image, comes along and "fixes" an image under the "assume good faith" argument. Perhaps part if this is the use of i9/G12 seems to imply that the uploader knows it is a "blatant copyright", but in that case the actual tag being used becomes the issue, or at least the wording of it. Saying it is an "improper license" may work better at times because not all images that are copyvios are being uploaded that way on purpose and, on that level, I can see "assume good faith" being a valid point. But beyond that, the real world law is really the law, on, or off Wikipedia. I would hate, as would many editors, to see the Foundation release, for example, a book using an image that was either "fixed" by an editor or was saved from CSD deletion via the "assume good faith" argument only to be sued by the images creator because they never release it under a free use license.

In regards to the wording, at this second, I am not sure what the language should be in the combined CSD for i9/G12 but I feel it should reflect that a contradictory license can be considered a reason for inclusion in the copyvio CSD, even if it is the author of the article or image who uploaded it. (Currently i9 has, as an exception, "nor does it include images with a credible claim that the owner has released them under a Wikipedia-compatible free license." but this goes back to finding a source that says otherwise, which would include a website URL on the image) I also feel there should be something about imaged being uploaded "for" people who said it was ok. We have probably all seen wordings such as "Uploaded because the creator, who is sitting right here, is saying it is ok" or "I asked the webmaster and they said I could use it" This is what the OTRS is for (correct me if I am wrong). If something does not make sense let me know. Thanks Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to post a bit of a real time "update" to something that relates. As I suggested above about how editors try to "fix" possible copyvios here is a perfect example. I found Image:Arrows1974.jpg and tagged it a PUI because it seems to be a crop of a publicity photo and low quality. The uploader put in the summary "my photo of Arrows" and licensed it under PD. At the PUI another editor went ahead and CSD'd as a blatant copyvio but another editor requested it be restored and "fixed" the license as {{PD-Pre1978}}. I went ahead and reverted that editors licensing edit on the image and emailed the original photographer, who is well known in the world of music. (Another reason why I suspected this was a copyvio). I just heard back from the photographer and he said, in part, I do not contribute to Wikipedia and didn't upload any image of Arrows. There is no doubt that this image is my copyright as the original author and this is something I am quite clear about having taken legal advice from leading music business lawyers in the past. That is a perfect example of why editors should not try to "fix" images if they are suspected of being copyvios. Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I got an idea on how we could merge them all:

G12: Blatant copyright infringement: Any content that is a blatant infringement of copyright. Examples include pages that only consist of content copied from sources not licensed under the GFDL, with no non-infringing revisions in its history that can be restored, or images claimed to be freely licensed by the uploader, when a given source does not specify a free license, or it contains a watermark identifying someone who is not the uploader. This does not include images and text that can or will be used under a claim of fair use, nor does it include images with a credible claim that the owner has released them under a Wikipedia-compatible free license, or content which is in the public domain with a credible rationale declared for its status. For equivocal cases (such as where there is a dubious assertion of permission, or where free-content edits overlie the infringement), please consult Wikipedia:Copyright violations or Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images for images. If you have permission to use the content under a Wikipedia compatible license, please send evidence of a release to our OTRS system.

Like it? I added emphasis on the new parts. ViperSnake151 21:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I do. :) It's at least a very good start, though I think we should resolve one question I have, which results from an unresolved issue carried over. Dubious permission is not a matter for PUI anymore; it's a matter for its own speedy: DBI11. PUI does provide direction for how to handle dubious permission though. Is this already so dense with info that we should not complicate matters further, or should we avoid sending them to PUI to learn how to use another speedy? I also wonder if it would it be more comprehensible to n00bs if we subdivided into two bullet points, one for text and one for images? I can understand the above, but I don't know for sure if that's because I already understand the criteria. As a final point, instead of linking to OTRS, should we link to WP:Permissions? Opinions? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The "no permission" question is a concern of mine as well. i11 though seems to only apply if an image has a source listed that may not be the actual uploader. This is not always clear though. If there is a professional looking head shot of an Actor, for example, that says "I made this" under author it does not seem to fully fit i11 because the permission is implied by the uploader saying "I made this". But it may not be a G12/i9 issue either if we can not find an original source. Sending it to Pui, as I have shown, could lead to another editor trying to "fix" the image by editing the image or replacing the license. I would like to see the existing wording on the tag(s) changed and and workied into the Criteria. Two wordings: "If you created this page and or you disagree with its proposed speedy deletion, please add:" (from {{db-i11}}) and/or "If this page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with its proposed speedy deletion, please add:" (From {{db-i9}}) I am really not sure about the "intend to fix it" portion if it is a blatant copyvio however. That fits in better with the "di" tags where we allow a certain time to actually "fix it".

As for OTRS - we would need to make sure that wording was consistent. For example we say "Unless a link to a webpage with an explicit permission is provided, or an email from the copyright owner is sent or forwarded to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, the image will be deleted..." on the {{di-no permission}} tag but on the Wikipedia:Upload page clicking on "Entirely my own work" does not offer much in the way of options and there is no mention of OTRS. From what I have seen most image copyvios stem from use of the "Entirely my own work" uploads as the other upload options are clear in what is allowed. The "Uploading a file from someone else" page clearly states "If the copyright holder agrees to release the image under a free license such as the GFDL, please forward that letter to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org" if it is not apparent from the source URL of the image. This ensures that the Wikipedia Foundation has a record of the license in case questions should arise at a later time."

I really think there needs to be some specific wording added along the lines of "If images whose permission is not apparent from the source URL of the image (if one is given) and is given as 'I asked and was told I could upload here', or whose author is listed but is not the uploader, than the copyright holder should send evidence to our OTRS system at "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org". This ensures that the Wikipedia Foundation has a record of the license in case questions should arise at a later time."

And the bullet ideas would be good. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, for the dubious permission thing, let me try something:

I12: False claim of self-authorship. If an uploader has claimed an uploaded item to be self-made, but there are signs suggesting that the image may not have been created by the uploader and thus a copyright violation (such as a professional quality, staged shots, an angle that only press photographers could easily access for example, or later found on a copyrighted website with no evidence of a free license), they may be deleted 7 days after notification of the uploader if there is no evidence that the image was truly created by the uploader. If it is determined to be a blatant copyright violation, it may be deleted under criteria G12. If it is disputed by multiple parties, it is recommended that it be posted on possibly unfree images in order to reach a consensus. If you are truly the creator of the image, please send evidence to our OTRS system at "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org" in order for it to be logged

I also made a slight amendment to the "blatant copyvio" proposal above. ViperSnake151 20:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The G12 proposal above seems good to me. I'm not too sure about the "dubious permission" one; in my experience, images with bogus permissions either get deleted without a peep from the uploader (so a detailed speedy criterion isn't needed), or else the uploader uses every avialable means to make deletion a baffling ordeal for all involved (in which case a detailed speedy criterion doesn't help). I'm aware that the current I11 is already pretty long, but I don't see a need to make it more detailed. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we schould expand CSD A9 to non-notable Movies, Books and computer games too. For example: This article: Det stinker fisk! cant be an CSD A9 but not an other criteria either. But it still of course need deletion. Why not? The Rolling Camel (talk) 23:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend against putting books in a speedy category. Having worked on a number of AfD's for books, I can tell you that a number of sources need to be searched for notability, and most admins (most editors, too) aren't familiar with them. Heck, I'm not familiar with as many as I'd like to be. Having 5 days for research is a bigger benefit than the harm caused by having a vanity article stick around for a few extra days.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I recommend CSD a9 to be like this: An article about a book, movie, song, album ore computer game that dosent inicate why its subject is inportant or significant... The Rolling Camel (talk) 23:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

An extremely poor idea, though from time to time proposed--and always rejected. The justification for A9 for albums is that we can depend on the notability or lack of it of the artist as a basis for quick decisions. This is not present for any of the other types of material. For computer games, there is no equivalent. For movies, the responsibility is delete. For books, though one might think the author could be relied on, for older books, especially childrens' books, experience shows it cannot. My main experience here at such articles is with childrens' books. it frequently happens that a young person enters an article for a favorite book--and usually, they do not know how to do it well. The only way it can be recognized this might be a notable book is either if someone recognizes it, or if people actually checks carefully, and, to be frank, that step is almost always not done by the people nominating for speedy, and, alas, as admins, we don';t necessarily do it if the matter looks obvious or if we;'re being lazy or going to fast. We cant count of 2 people--or one single admin--recognizing it, because in practice people only recognize the childrens' books of their own generation. So ever week or so there are nominated for prod or afd some books that turn out to be really notable prize winners. They are there long enough that somebody sees them--5 days, not 5 minutes. DGG (talk) 00:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

But we cant take an homemade youtbe movie to Articles for deletion every time. The Rolling Camel (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The youtube movie could be deleted under A7 as web content. And there's always prod. It's commonly assumed that prods will always be contested; my experience is that happens only about 25% of the time. (And when it does, I just copy/paste my prod reason into the AfD and add a comment about the prod being contested.)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

"CSD A9" doesn't say anything about "notability" except that it's not dependent on notability. This is a common mistake. --NE2 00:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

But as i said at the top, Why not? Why cant we take books and movies too. Otherwise i think we schould have an CSD A12 for non-notable books, movies or computergames. The Rolling Camel (talk) 09:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Because A9 is restricted to cases in which the musical work, like in A7, does not assert notability AND in which the artist has no article as well, the latter often overlooked in tagging. With books, movies and/or computer games, it is often possible for the subject to be notable even if the creator is not. So we should avoid such taggings and rather use PROD and AfD to deal with it. Regards SoWhy 11:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. A9 has been a success despite some skepticism--including mine--precisely because that part of the criterion. I provides a reliable check on inadvertent deletions of things that are in fact notable, tho not obviously so. There's no equivalent for other genres of work. DGG (talk) 03:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Are we sure we need C3? I mean, it's a placeholder, and it's the last one. Removing it wouldn't mess up any numbering. Leujohn ^(talk) 08:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Common practice is to leave it, so that we don't create a new C3 criterion later and confuse everyone. A8 was exactly the same situation for quite a while (mid-October '06 to the creation of A9 mid-October this year). There's no harm preserving the number, either. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not that it's needed to preserve the numbering of later items, but that it needs to be preserved full stop. There are hundreds if not thousands of deletion summaries that link to WP:CSD#C3. If we remove the placeholder, then if we ever create a new category criteria it would take that C3 number, rendering all of those deletion logs (which we can't change) deceptive. Not good :D Happy‑melon 17:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

An AfD discussion ends with a consensus that an article is "original research" and should be deleted. In the course of the discussion, the creator of the article is told that if he can cite an authoritative published source outside Wikipedia, then the "OR" concern would go away and the article could be kept. After the deletion, he rewrites the article with the same title, verbatim the same EXCEPT that he now cites a published source outside of Wikipedia.

In my view, that is not a case of "recreation of deleted material" justifying speedy deletion.

(And I have so informed the administrator who did the speedy deletion, although in the actual case a complication arises that is not mentioned here. However, I anticipate that in the case of the article in question, the somewhat-but-not-entirely hypothetical situation above will become the literal truth as events continue to unfold.)

Opinions? Michael Hardy (talk) 14:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:CSD#G4 says "provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted" (emphasis mine).
So yes, absolutely, if the reason for deletion was based on the OR. It might be AfDed again, but it's not a G4. --Amalthea^Talk 14:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Amalthea, that's not a correct use of G4. Likely, however, it's just a mistake, if the only difference between the old and new versions was the addition of a citation. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this section requires more advice for handling dubious cases, i.e., to give more options, in addition to AfD-listing, to balance the deletionism bias. An example is what I did with the hoax case (may be not the best wording, though). `'Míkka>t 19:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to disagree (I reverted your change thus). The section is very clear - if admins are choosing to delete non-blatant hoaxes as G3 it does not mean the section that clearly states "do not do that!!!" has to be changed. No, then those admins have to be reminded to read and follow it. Regards SoWhy 19:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I edited criterion U2 to include IP addresses (i.e. users without WP accounts) as users who don’t exist. This was reverted with an explanation that this isn’t so and such users are permitted userpages. However, my IP address’s userpage was deleted under this criterion, so either I or the user who did so is a bit confused. What’s the actual rule? —76.110.173.70 (talk) 06:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see an actual rule, but Wikipedia:Register strongly suggests that userpages are for registered users. It might be worth inviting the admins who have already tacitly weighed in on what they based their decisions, since they may know some rule or policy tucked somewhere that I didn't pick up. That would be User:B and User:MZMcBride, though you probably already know that. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • The wording of U2 hasn't change since it was deleted in February, FWIW. --Amalthea^Talk 12:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
• It's my understanding that due to the mostly dynamic nature of IP addresses, they generally do not have user pages. Certain parts of the wiki software even reflect this (page histories, Special:Contributions, etc.). Looking at the old page history of WP:CSD, I'm pretty sure the U2 criterion was written with IP user pages in mind. (Even today it clearly states that the user must be listed at ListUsers.) --MZMcBride (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Disagree. There are some static IPs contributing that are having userpages like normal users. Heck, there is an IP that was offered adminship! We cannot go around deleting their pages as U2 because that would be controversial. But CSD is only for uncontroversial deletions, so there can't be a criterion that allows controversial decisions. I might accept a wording like "and user pages for IPs that are dynamically allocated" though... Regards SoWhy 23:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

    So, was my edit correct? —76.110.173.70 (talk) 23:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

    • No, because we usually don't change the wording without discussion. SoWhy 23:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Either way, it should be specified somewhere. If accountless users can have userpages, U2 should say something like, “not including IP addresses,” and it should be listed under non-criteria (and my userpage should be restored). —76.110.173.70 (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
    • No, because there would be exceptions. While most people have dynamic IPs, some have had long-standing static IPs, and these editors have been allowed to have User:<IP address here> as their "user" page. Beyond which, how many user pages are there for dynamic IPs? Unless the number is staggering, and filling up MfD, a change isn't necessary. In your particular case, the page was created by a registered user, was edited nearly solely by that user, and was about that user. Unless you really want it back, we can just leave things as is. Cheers. lifebaka++ 04:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, userpages usually are created and edited by the users whom they’re about… and like I said, if CSD U2 doesn’t apply to IP addresses, that should be included in this page. —76.110.173.70 (talk) 06:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
• Any objections to the following edits? Append to U2: “not including anonymous users’ IP addresses.” Add to non-criteria: “User pages of static IP addresses belonging to established anonymous users.” —76.110.173.70 (talk) 02:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

U2 was written to address the vandals (and novice editors who weren't aware that creating a user page wasn't creating an account) who would add pages in the User: namespace where there was no corresponding account registered. It's to address pseudo-user pages such as User:MZMcBride's left foot, for example. ☺ It wasn't directed at the MediaWiki account pages for IP addresses. Uncle G (talk) 15:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that this is the intent. There is no reason an IP can't have a userpage anymore than a usertalk page, which they almost all have (usually saying *"Welcome how about an account"*Warning1*Warning2, etc. but still a usertalkpage). Some registered users even note their normal IP addresses as Dopplegangers for those times when they forget to login. Also, if there's an easy way to tell when an IP that is not registered to a university or the like is static, please let me know, it would help a lot with block decisions - my experience is that it's a totality of the evidence sort of thing.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 15:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Recently, after discussing it on IRC some, I updated the G1 template slightly. After the fact, I told a user who I had seen speak out against the misuse of G1. Other users objected to the new wording that I used, so I updated it a little more and started a conversation here, as per their request. So, does anyone object to the changes I have made?

Also, if no one does object, is there any way we can change the Huggle/Twinkle notices from Nonsense --> Gibberish? - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 00:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I've got a better idea, why not be a bit more descriptive? I was thinking maybe "an article or other page that purely consists of unsalvageably incoherent and nonsensical text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history and no value in its current form. This does not include poor writing, vandalism, material not in English, badly translated material, hoaxes, etc" ViperSnake151 01:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I like being that verbose, patent nonsense is maybe too abstract. --Amalthea^Talk 03:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

As part of the inspiration for this change (per my !voting at RfA's on people who consistently misapply G1) I embrace any change that can get it applied properly.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Its somewhat wrong, patent nonsense is not just gibberish, but also completely incoherent content. Mr.Z-man 03:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Close but needs to be reverted. Complete gibberish is a subset of patent nonsense — there exists content which is patent nonsense but not complete gibberish. Stifle (talk) 11:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I prefer ViperSnake's version for the same reason Stifle put above, though you're correct that G1 could probably use clarifying. It's currently live on the template, and I believe we'll have consensus for it shortly. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Me too, I think the current version is clearer than the one NW proposed above. Regards SoWhy 19:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I like ViperSnake's :) Hey, Bold, Revert, Discuss does work :D - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Ugh! A seven word piped link?? :D I fully agree that the template wording could do with being tightened, but I'm sure we can do better than that. First, we can surely do better than a seven word piped link incorporating more adverbs than nouns. What is wrong with the phrase "patent nonsense"? It is clear, links to a project page of the same name that provides a more thorough definition, suitably broad, and is also the phrase by which this criterion has been known for years. "Gibberish", on the other hand, is sufficiently uncommon in english prose as to benefit from a link to wiktionary for a definition; I'm sure I'm not the only person who was not entirely confident with a definition until checking a dictionary. Secondly, there is far too much bold in the second section; there is really no need to bold each and every exception, especially since they occupy almost all of the content. How about:

“

... as a page that is patent nonsense, consisting purely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history. This does not include poor writing, vandalism, material not in English, badly translated material, hoaxes, etc...

”

Thoughts? Happy‑melon 19:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I can go for that. Stifle (talk) 11:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, too. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Changed. Stifle (talk) 14:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I stumbled across User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon and am wondering if it is a CSD-able "article" via G4? Or some other CSD? From what I can see it started off at Tony The Tiger (martial artist) and than was moved to Antonio Vernon where it was sent to AfD and than "Userfying to User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon" before the Antonio Vernon was deleted via R2. This "userfied" subpage has been here since June 23, 2006 and was last worked on November 11, 2008. I can understand a short time for working but it has been over two years. If the article will not exist in the main space should it stay "forever" in user sub space simply because it was userfied? The admin who moved it said, on the talk page, "However, if you'd like me to, I will gladly restore the article and move it into your userspace where it's quite unlikely to be deleted again." But that comment seems not to jive with userfication of deleted content which says "However, such content should not be kept indefinitely in user space, per Wikipedia policy regarding the third disallowed use of subpages." So I am confused at what direction to take. (And FWIW I stumbled on this because of Image:20081103 TonyTheTiger and Nate Parker just after close of early voting.JPG which the uploader, who is in the picture, lists themselves as the author and "I created this work entirely by myself" for the source) Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The article has undergone significant changes so it's in no case a G4. Also Tony is apparently still working on it (with pauses) and is an amazingly productive content creator. If a userfied article has a realistic prospect to become an article one day then it's not an uncontroversial deletion, it doesn't violate Wikipedia:Subpages#Disallowed_uses, and should if anything be handled at MfD. Also note that speedy deletion of the userfied article was previously declined.
If you want to take any direction though then your first stop is User talk:TonyTheTiger. --Amalthea^Talk 19:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

User space is noindexed. There is no harm in leaving works-in-progress there indefinitely, even if the chance of revival is slight. I'd rather see works-in-progress left in article space though, where other people can work on them should they be abandoned. Dcoetzee 19:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. And I did not notice the 2007 CSD nom. Thanks for pointing that out Amalthea. I am thinking that userfication of deleted content should be clarified as to how to define "...such content should not be kept indefinitely in user space" Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it is pretty clear. After all, that passage refers to the content that was sent to XfD. And as Amalthea correctly points out, in this case it is not the same content. After all, if I start working on an article in userspace and it took me 2 years, noone would delete it as well. Regards SoWhy 11:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussing "meta" for a moment (not at all to the specifics of this case), my interpretation of G4 is that the changes made to the content must address the reason for which the article was deleted. For instance, if an unreleased film with no reliable sources went through AfD and the result were "Delete per crystal and WP:V", I wouldn't hesitate to apply G4 to a new article on the same film that suffered the same problems. Do others interpret G4 differently? If so, we may need to tweak that language. Ore discuss its function. It seems like a waste of community time to have to run that unreleased, unverifiable film through AfD every time somebody rephrases it. (For an actual example, take Virtual Family Kingdom.)

Again, though, this is meta. As to the specifics, I would not G4 a nn article in userspace myself (promotional, attack, copyright--sure)...particularly not when it's hanging in the userspace of a very active and valuable contributor. (A contributor gone since 2003, I might be tempted.) I think we'd call this inherently controversial. :) If it had been abandoned, I might ask the contributor if he had finished with it and thought it appropriate to request deletion himself, but otherwise I'd be inclined to let it go. Requesting deletion by any process without discussing it with him first would be unnecessarily unfriendly. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You say it yourself, just not clear: G4 IS a criteria for speedy deletion. It follows the rules all others do and that is that any speedy deletion by an admin can only be done if the case is uncontroversial. In userspace, applying G4 can only be done when the page was previously deleted by an MfD and if its consensus is still valid. Everything else in userspace just leads to possible conflicts and should be avoided. As you say, asking the user in question is much easier and friendlier. Regards SoWhy 12:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, you and I seem to be in agreement on that point. :) Do you have input on the meta question? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I just had to do a bit of work while I am at work, otherwise my company might not want to pay me anymore ;-)

As for your "meta"-question, I think you are correct on your reasoning. If it is the same material, just phrased differently, there is nothing stopping us to G4 it. I think the language on {{db-g4}} is quite clear in this regard and so is WP:G4: If the new article is 1.) substantially identical and 2.) the changes do not address the reasons for deletion, it can be G4'd.

Imho noone understands "substantially" as "exactly the same text", it is more a question of the identical nature of the content. For example "the sky is blue" and "blue is the color of the sky" essentially say the same and should be treated equally, even if they use different text. Same applies to articles that were previously deleted. Of course this is not a free pass for deletion and the second criterion, regarding the changes, has to be considered as well. Regards SoWhy 13:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Highly unreasonable employers you have there! I'm glad to see I'm not the only one interpreting it that way. I had a conversation with a user long ago who seemed to think that "blue is the color of the sky" would be a clear pass on G4, and I presumed that my reading was the more common. Seeing note to significant changes in this thread does have me wondering if we're all on the same page here. Of course, "significant" as used might mean "addressing the reasons for which it was deleted." :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That's more or less what I meant by "significant changes", yes, that it was at least attempted to address the original reason for deletetion. Changing the wording or adding more rumors of similar reliability to a CRYSTAL article won't get it past G4 (it's still "substantially identical"). Good faithed and sincere attempts to heave it past WP:NOTE usually should (it's most likely not "substantially identical"). --Amalthea 14:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

All righty then, thanks. :) I'm back on firm footing with respect to interpretations of G4. If not for that earlier conversation, I probably wouldn't have wondered. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Just somewhat briefly (I know, for me this is hard to imagine) but one must remember that this is an article now being edited solely by it's subject and it was userfied in June 2006. It is not surprising that over the course of two years there would have been "significant changes" to the article. For example there was a section about "The Summer 2006 highlight video CD that will be available in deluxe (pictured left) and standard CD format has a production length of about 12.5 minutes." which has been updated to "The Summer 2006 highlight video CD is available in deluxe (pictured left) and standard CD format has a production length of about 12.5 minutes" Likewise one of the lawsuits he in invloved in used to read "Tony is also involved in ongoing litigation with the Illinois Department of Natural Resources regarding the use and display of martial arts devices in public places. You can follow along with the case at his press release page. Note that the March 1st hearing has been moved to March 7th. Due to Vista incompatibility issues Tony has not been able to update the press release page to reflect such while on business out of state." but now reads "Tony is also involved in ongoing litigation with the Illinois Department of Natural Resources regarding the use and display of martial arts devices in public places. You can follow along with the case at his press release page." All I am saying is that, as far as reworking the article so that the subject would now meet notability, I don't see enough "significant changes". But I think, as far as this article goes that is no longer the issue. (see my comments below) Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

There are a few issues coming into play here. First is the fact that, unless you are an admin, an editor can not actually look at what material was deleted and compare it to the userfied version. G4 would be easier for an admin to use/apply than for a non-admin because of that access. Next is where that material is being used. For example - if this were on the main user page and not a user sub page would it still be allowed? Also the use of the phrase "...should not be kept indefinitely in user space..." from the Wikipedia talk:Userfication guideline is too vague as "indefinitely" is not defined. (By the way please feel free to voice your opinion on the proposed wording at Define and clarify "indefinitely"). Next is having a personal main space article in your user space. Is the user "Tony the Tiger" the same "Tony the Tiger" that is the subject of the article? It appears to me this is the case, so than the whole COI issue "should" come into play but there is not a specific CSD that covers blatant COI articles. (Unless the COI = "Blatant advertising") Back to G4 for a moment, this article was deleted and sent sent to AfD because of the subject being non-notable. Based on the gist of the comments above the criteria for a main space article residing in user sub space being a possible G4 is based on not only the content, but the reason it was AfD'd. So if that reason was the subject was non-notable than shouldn't the issue be "Is the subject still non-notable?". As I mentioned above I discovered this article because of an image that was uploaded by the user. This now leads to another issue, really for another section and other guidelines, of does this image serve the overall project if it is only being used in a user page photo album and a userfied article that nobody will see unless they happen to stumble on it? (Same can be asked of Image:Summer 2006 CD Label.jpg, Image:Autograph Large T.jpg, Image:LT in Autograph.jpg and Image:AMRV061402-at Kukkiwon Stone.jpg) And a final comment about the actual discussion phase, if any userfied article was going to MfD, and how it would relate to this CSD discussion. Depending on the ultimate wording I am up for adding another "di-no" type of pre-warning for un-worked on, unused, or been sitting "indefinitely" userfied articles. Using "friendly" wording an editor would be warned that "Unless substantial edits are made to this userfied article it will be sent to MfD after seven days (date)". Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm having trouble keeping track of your many points and questions, so I'm going to try numbering. (1) That's a good point about comparison of content. Personally, I sometimes forget that one. :) (Editing to add: However, when content has been userfied, you should be able to see it in version in which it was deleted. Userfication generally requires restoration & moving the page in order to preserve attribution history.) (2) Presuming this is an autobiography, I think it would be iffy on the main user page if it were a contributor's only contributions, but it's not. WP:USER notes we grant latitude to active contributors, specifically allows short bios & personal images, and only precludes "Excessive personal information (more than a couple of pages) unrelated to Wikipedia". It also says that we should try to discuss the matter with the users first, so CSD would still not be the optimal approach. If there is conflict that can't be resolved, MfD is likely to be best. That document also says "test edits and the re-creation of deleted material (within limits) are permitted in user space." (3) WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY do not forbid editing or creating articles about yourself. They discourage it, but it is possible to do so within guidelines. That's why there's no CSD that covers blatant COI. If it isn't a G11, it's not necessarily a problem. (4) If the user placed the article in article space, the question of the subject's notability would be highly relevant. In userspace, not so much. (5) See point #2 re: personal images. :) (6) This probably is a question for WT:MFD, since it isn't a WT:CSD issue. I hope I didn't miss anything. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I was not disagreeing, just saying that there seems to be other issues at play here. My starting this thread was based soley on the fact this article had been AfD'd and has been in user sub space for over two years. My other "points and questions" were brought out by the continued discussion. You now also bring out even more issues. This goes to other threads in other areas where editors, other than myself mind you, are confused about certain areas because one policy or guideline implies one thing and another implies something else and then, in the case of an Afd or MfD, editors have their own readings that are based on other things all together. The WP:User section is a prime example of something that, I have discovered, is applied mainly to newbies who have no main space edits. This does relate to a CSD because if a newbie created a user page that was "blatant advertising" it could be CSD'd. If it was an editor who has made regular edits to the main space, irregardless of what their intent was/is, the "blatant advertising" would be dismissed as long as it is not "Excessive personal information (more than a couple of pages) unrelated to Wikipedia". I have said it elsewhere but will repeat it here, that just disturbs me. I really think the unwritten should be written, and consistent, across every policy and guideline. Which means, for example, that images that have no source, clear author permission or are possible copyvios be tagged with CSD tags that clearly list the unwritten exception of "ignore all rules and assume good faith if the uploader is a 'prolific' Wikipedia admin/user/editor" be explicitly laid out. However in this case there is a reason I asked here first and because of the answers here I started the Define and clarify "indefinitely" thread. It will clarify that these types of articles in user space are fine as long as they are actively being worked on. However if anyone feels the wording should also include a variation on "ignore all rules and assume good faith if the uploaded is a 'prolific' Wikipedia admin/user/editor" please suggest that at that page. And, I guess, based on this discussion, maybe there should be some wording, both here and there, about not doing a G4 nom on these types of articles. And just one other comment - the WP:User line about "test edits and the re-creation of deleted material (within limits) are permitted in user space" is clear in reguards to "test edits", however the "within limits" as it relates to userfication of deleted content or Subpages - Disallowed uses is not. I had forgotten this subject was touched upon at that guideline as well. *sigh* One step at a time. :) Thanks, really, for everyones feedback. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

In terms of your note that "If it was an editor who has made regular edits to the main space, irregardless of what their intent was/is, the "blatant advertising" would be dismissed" (italics added just for visibility), I wouldn't say that. At issue here, as I see it, is WP:MYSPACE. There are plenty of people who come to use Wikipedia as a personal website, and the userpage guidelines help to discourage that. I had nothing to do with the development of that guideline, but I'd guess that additional latitude for established users is built in because we can pretty well judge that's not why they're here. Personal information on user pages is meant, according to guideline, to "personalize" contributors...which actually is useful to the project, imho. :) Knowing something about one's colleagues can be a good thing. But if a regular contributor builds a user page that says "Buy my self-published book! Cheap at $14.95!!", I'm willing to bet somebody is going to object. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Currently an editor is removing CSD i9 tags and is bordering on a edit war by their removal. The current CSD i9 contains the following: "This includes images from stock photo libraries such as Getty Images or Corbis." The following should be added "and from press agencies such as the Associated Press (A.P)". Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The source is irrelevant - the images you tagged are clearly labeled as Fair use, and therefore not covered by I9. Removing incorrect tags is not edit warring. (I should point out that I removed the tags, whilst clearing out WP:CSD). —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 18:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The source is irrelevant - no it is not. And considering the criteria is specific about these images (and will hopefully be made more specific by the proposed addition), as were the links and the portions of A.P's contracts I provided to for reading, I would say you should not be "clearing out WP:CSD". (For others - L.A. Times v. Free Republic is an article I sent this editor to as well as Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-09-22/Dispatches - "Reviewers should consider the commercial activities of the image's copyright holder and the image's role in those activities. Example that fails: An image of a current event authored by a press agency. Certain press agencies market photographs to media companies to facilitate illustration of relevant commentary. Hosting the image on Wikipedia would impair the market role (derivation of revenue), as publications (such as Wikipedia) would normally need to pay for the opportunity to utilize the image." I would also might like to point out that, even though this image is tagged as being from from A.P and the article is was taken from at MSNBC states "© 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed." the above editor implied that MSNBC "borrowed the image from us or another source" and removed the CSD tag the first time. (Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 December 4#Image:Australian embassy bombing flag.jpg) Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Additional - I've raised the subject at the admin noticeboard —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 18:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Soundvision, I don't see how I9 could apply to e.g. this. The image had a fair use claim when you tagged it, and the uploader didn't claim the image had a free licence. There are many press agency images used with a claim of fair use here. --Amalthea 19:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

To everyone: In case i9 is not clear enough with the comment "This includes images from stock photo libraries..." perhaps it should be further clarified. Beyond that the Non-free content Policy, under Unacceptable use - Images, clearly states: A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. This applies mostly to contemporary press photos and not necessarily to historical archives of press photos. If there are "many press agency images used with a claim of fair use here" they need to all be checked over and deleted if they fail the policy. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• This doesn't mean that it needs to be deleted speedily. Speedy deletion is only for uncontroversial issues. If a press agency image has a claim of fair use then it's no longer uncontroversial. The mitigation "This applies mostly to contemporary press photos and not necessarily to historical archives of press photos" alone can't make it clear cut enough to be a SD criterion. --Amalthea 19:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• It is a blatant copyvio. PERIOD. It was sent to IfD as beng an image that was from A.P and not really fair use. I did the leg work and confirmed that it should not be tagged as fair use so I changed it to i9. There is not "Fair Use" allowable for these images. Not only is that clear in the A.P licensing terms it is also clear in the 19 criteria itself, the Non-free content policy and discussed at Dispatches. I am sure it has come up other places as well. My only suggestion here was to add that image from "press agencies" are to be i9'd as well because, clearly, people do not associated A.P with "stock photo libraries". I assume good faith that the uploader did not realize they could not tag these types of image as fair use, however I assume no such good faith when another editor says it is not a copy vio because a FUR is being used and further implies that MSNBC "borrowed" the image from "us" and then removes the copyvio tag. Also "contemporary" would apply to almost any image from the last decade, certainly the last five years. An image from W.W II would be somehting taken form a "historical archives of press photos". Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Why don't you just go make that argument at IfD instead of edit warring over tags? -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, good lord! Ok - someone pick a location!! This was being discussed at IfD before another editor started removing valid tags. I only came here for the clarification/addition of specific wording. The other editor than also brought the overall discussion here, as well as to another location. Now we have this in three places. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Umm, images with truthful sourcing and a valid fair use rationale are not considered to be "copyright violations" in the sense that requires immediate deletion. It may be that we should not be using some specific fair use image due to copyright, but it isn't a situation for speedy deletion, it's a situation for IfD - where, indeed, this is being handled. There's no problem with the process here. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, several issues at play. One - I started this thread because the editor who removed my tags did not/does not seem to be clear on what i9 means when it includes images from stock photo libraries such as Getty Images or Corbis. so I made to proposal to add the lines "and from press agencies such as the Associated Press (A.P)". Instead of discussion on that proposal it has become something else. I was not the editor who started a third thread at [[Wikipedia:AN asking for a second opinion of what this criteria is for/means. So - lets this discussion be solely about CSD i9 and how to make it more clear for people who may not understand it. I don't fully see why we need three discussion all trying to explain the exact same thing. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Look at the tag you used: It says "there is no credible assertion that the image is [...] fair-use [...]." Now scroll down to the section conveniently titled "Fair use rationale" for a good-faithed and credible fair-use rationale. It's really not an I9.
  Press agencies are not comparable with stock photo providers due to the very different subjects. I can hardly think of an example where a stock photo might gain enough notability to warrant an article about it, where a fair use claim would be acceptable. There are many examples of press agency pictures with a valid fair use claim, or for AP in particular: Image:Nguyen.jpg, Image:TrangBang.jpg, Image:The Falling Man.jpg, Image:Tank Man (Tiananmen Square protester).jpg, Image:764px-Vanunu-Hand big.jpg, Image:Kennedy salute.gif, Image:Pig person.jpg, Image:Birmingham campaign dogs.jpg, Image:1991 coup yeltsin.jpg, Image:The Catch.png, Image:Castro Khrushchev.jpg.
  Amalthea 20:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Press agencies are not comparable with stock photo providers due to the very different subjects. - yes and no. Getty is used to provide images for news use as well, it is just that A.P is more known for newspapers thusly the "news agency" slant. But in all cases one has to pay to use these images, different agencies have different use licenses but if they all allowed "fair use" every newspaper in the world would refuse to pay for any images as they could simply claim "fair use". I made this thread in order to propose wording that would make it more clear that images from "press agencies such as the Associated Press (A.P)" are part of this criteria. Maybe it would be better to leave out the wording of "stock photo libraries such as..." and just say "image providers such as..." Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

A sidenote: Soundvisions, I think you're confused about the nature of fair use (on this discussion page and elsewhere). Fair use has nothing to do with the license terms the AP issues. Fair use is specifically something you're allowed to do without the permission of the copyright holder. For instance, if you wanted to write a (non-Wikipedia) article about how the AP's photography was racist or somehow politically biased or something like that, you could reproduce their images in your article to illustrate your point (a pretty clear example of fair use), without paying them and without following their license terms. In discussions of fair use, we don't need to think about whether AP "allows" fair use, we need to think about whether the law allows it (and whether Wikipedia should allow it as well). Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Clever little response hiding out up here. I almost missed this. Not at all confused, although it is very odd how you are playing both side of this issue now. You made the nom that led to all of this discussion and you have also said use of this image is a violation of copyright law and does not have a legit fair use claim yet now you are making various posts about how it is fine to claim fair use for these images. Either you have changed your mind about the nom or you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. I think what is confusing several people, perhaps even yourself, is the part about "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work". My entire discussion of fair use as it relates to this image is based on the real world law followed by the Wikipedia policy on these types of image followed by the Wikipedia guidelines on these types of images. The secondary issue, once you get rid of the FUR (or the primary issue had there been no FUR), is how/where this image was obtained. And that brings us back to here and the entire concept that i9 is for both blatant copyvio and, as currently worded, these types of images. Fair use as a whole should not be the topic of discussion here - the criteria of i9 should be, and if i9 should be reworded to be made "blatantly" clear that a copyvio is only blatant if there is not a FUR attached. Also, secondary, should the exceptions (or inclusions) about images obtained from any photo agency be part of i9, or should they have their own CSD. That is being discussed below. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

"News Flash": I almost fell over when I saw this. We have have had proof all along sitting right here: Image:Marked-ap-letter.jpg. It is a letter from the Associated Press that is giving permission for two images to be used. But the very last paragraph should be extremely clear: "With respect to any and all other photographs in which The Associated Press is the copyright holder, The Associated Press reserves all its rights, and specifically does not agree that any Wikipedia publication of a copy-protected Associated Press photo in which a Wikipedia user chooses to upload would constitute fair use." Does anyone want to volunteer for A.P image patrol? Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• I'll volunteer to tell the AP to pound sand. With respect to them, what they feel would be fair use isn't the important qualifier. It is what we can argue within the law (and much, much, much more narrowly: within our policy) is fair use. AP photos listed under fair use here should be sent to IfD where they qualify. Protonk (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Notice the careful wording of the AP's statement - they do not say such uses would not constitute fair use, as neither they nor us can make that decision - only a court can. They merely say that they "do not agree" that such a use constitutes fair use, and we may have an honest disagreement about their interpretation. Fair use is a balance of concerns, quoting fair use:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

2. the nature of the copyrighted work;

3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Particularly in cases where the photo is of a real-world subject with relatively little creative interpretation, we're using a low-resolution of the photo, and it's illustrating commentary directly relevant to the subject of the photo, we can make a compelling argument in favor of fair use, even if we may be damaging their market - fair use exists because the public good sometimes trumps the interests of the market. The main point of these self-imposed limitations is to discourage legal action by the copyright holder that would be unlikely to be successful. Dcoetzee 12:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Does anyone have a minute to look at garib? I wouldn't normally be so pushy, but the article's author keeps reverting all changes and plastering his name and false "references" (to other Wikipedia articles -- clearly not acceptable references) back onto it. Anything like a speedy-delete template is therefore likely to disappear quickly. 86.131.91.163 (talk) 02:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• Sent to AfD. Protonk (talk) 03:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
• For the original poster: whenever there is a debate about CSD (or it is controversial), you can always send it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, which is what Protonk (talk · contribs) did. Please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garib. (EhJJ)^TALK 04:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not hate speedy deleters, but I agree with Balloonman’s initiative and realize that the system is broken. This is not some anti-establishment rant. I’m part of the establishment myself – I helped create this policy, and I was very happy with it then.

I became aware of the problem when I noticed the speedy deletion of Pierre-Célestin Rwigema and André Ntagerura, which blatantly failed the criteria. I initially thought those were just mistakes. But when I politely asked the deleter to reconsider them, he did not do so, and instead gave me the adolescent spiteful reply "I will continue to do this." So I checked his log, and to my horror saw hundreds of blitz deletions – deletions at a rate of several per minute of articles. At that speed, there is no time for anything else but the mechanics of the deletion. No search for references, no checking of links in the article, no common sense. Any bot could do that!

To be fair, many of the deleted articles did fit criteria, but some seem to be about foreign politicians, sports people, and such. The problem is, retrieving the article and researching this takes more time than speedy deletion. You have to be able to rely on the criteria a deleter enters, but once you know that he or she refuses to take the criteria seriously, you have to mistrust all of their deletions.

I now think our fundamental mistake was to assume that all admins would apply this policy as intended: As a way to avoid the slow AfD process for articles that are not worth anybody's time. We just didn’t imagine blitz-deletions.

Blitz deletions hit Wikipedia at the core. They not only destroy hundreds or thousands of articles that took years to grow, but (as Balloonman points out) also frustrate their contributors, including many newbies. That damage is irreversible. Each bitten editor can not be called back because they simply won't look at their talk page. I have witnessed many such cases myself. (In a few cases, when users had e-mail enabled, I tried to contact them, but I never got a reply.)

We therefore need to act. I think we could do the following:

Finding abuse

Checking hundreds or thousands of blitz deleted articles takes more time than any one of us has. We therefore need a way to do this automatically. I believe, an admin-level bot could go through these articles and present them in a way that makes it easy to look at them with one quick glance. (I have some ideas for details)

Stop current blitz deleters ASAP

While this is the most urgent point, it’s unfortunately the one for which I don’t have a solution. I certainly don’t want to start wheel-warring, so it takes the community to stop an admin who says "I will continue to do this." RfC takes so much time that the blitz deleter can delete many more articles until it is resolved.

Supervision

We can not afford to leave this sensitive area to administrators of questionable maturity. Unfortunately, when contributors are frustrated or bullied by an admin, they often just vanish, and we normally don’t learn of the problem. Therefore, we need to regularly look at a certain percentage of speedy deletions. If a speedy deletion is found to not comply with policy, deleter is notified and asked to review their own deletions. If that doesn’t happen, deleter will lose right for speedy deletion.

User right

Currently the right for speedy deletion is directly connected with the user right "Administrator". To make it easier to revoke that right when it is abused, it may make sense to keep it as a separate user right. Although it stands to reason that an admin who abuses CSD and refuses to reconsider it should not be an admin in the first place, but this would be much harder to enforce.

Speedy repair

Once we identified wrong deletions with speedy review, we should have a way to undelete them with a single mouseclick. If it’s any more complicated then it will not get done. Since it took years for these articles to be created in the first place, it will take years for all articles to be created again.

If anyone has any better ideas to solve this problem, please bring them forward. — Sebastian 06:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

If an admin is making blatantly bad deletions, take a few of the really obvious ones to DRV. Show that a few of the deletions have overwhelming consensus to overturn, and the message should get through to the admin. If not, and he continues to make bad deletions, take it up a notch: If they're open to recall, try that, or else go for an RfC, or alert the Arbitration Committee. But the first step is DRV. --Elonka 07:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I forgot about that; I guess I have been too long on wikibreak. Still, that doesn't fix all the systematic problems. — Sebastian 07:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

(EC) I'm concerned you might be finding a "problem" based on two bad deletions. It's bad enough to have Michael Hardy howling stating that the deletion system is broken every time something he likes is proposed for deletion (even if it isn't eventually deleted), so forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical when "There were two questionable deletions" leads to "We need major changes". Note these weren't even necessarily bad deletions, the first one could be mistaken for a BLP problem, and the second is a BLP problem, stating that the person was accused of genocide with no sources whatsoever (as of this writing, I'll fix that once I'm done writing here). Granted, that can be fixed by taking out the offending text, but there's not much left without it. I don't see evidence of such a severe problem that requires drastic changes here, and I think Elonka's advice of using the current mechanism of dispute resolution is more the way to go. It's hard for me to see a systematic problem from what you presented. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not just about two articles. The problem is the combination of two things: (1) Some people abuse our trust and (2) it's not easy to find that out. (Regarding the two articles: I agree, they could be mistaken - that's what I first assumed. But my assumption was refuted by the deleter's reply. The association with the genocide is through the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, for which I added a ref here already. I must admit though, I didn't check the "acquitted" part.) — Sebastian 07:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Systemic? I know I'm crossing AGF now, but I do see a political bias in these recent deletions. This is a specific case that should be treated as such, regardless of any policy issues. NVO (talk) 07:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

You may be right about bias, but that's not the problem. There always will be some editors with bias. The problem, as I see it, is that the current system makes it ridiculously easy for people to delete for whatever reason they like, and hard for anyone else to check that. — Sebastian 07:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess what I'm seeing here indicates the system does work. There were some deletions that didn't need to be done, they got caught and reversed. Every deletion leaves a log that's visible to anyone, not just admins, and every admin's deletions are available for review in their own log. If we find someone has been persistently engaging in questionable deletions, another admin can also review what content the articles had in them when deleted. If someone makes an isolated bad decision here and there, that's to be expected. If they're making them frequently, they can be asked to stop, if consensus is that they should stop and they do not, they can as a last resort be made to stop. I do agree that speedy is an area where it's very easy to bite, even unintentionally, and it's necessary to take care in how one deals with (generally newer) editors who may see an article speedied, but again, those who consistently exercise poor judgment in that regard can and should find themselves counseled and, if unwilling to change their behavior despite consensus they need to, removed from the ability to do so. My concern would be, if we were to have some type of "one-click" reversal of a large number of deletions, what about the ones (especially attack pages/libel/copyvio) that were valid and would be indiscriminately restored by such a method? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me!? You’re using the fact that I accidentally found this and eventually reverted it as an argument that the system works? Nobody else saw it. Do you have an idea how many such cases we miss because nobody is looking? Or do you think they don't exist? I don't know what this is called in English, but in German, it's called "ostrich tactics": As long as I can't see it, it isn't there. — Sebastian 08:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'm asking for some evidence of a systemic, widespread problem. I acknowledge that such a thing could happen, but I don't believe it's an "ostrich tactic" to ask if such a thing is in fact happening on a frequent and regular basis. Now certainly, I see nothing wrong with a bot collecting a list of speedies in an easily-readable format. That wouldn't even take an admin bot, a bot that can read the deletion log and parse out CSD-style summaries (A7, G10, etc.), would be able to collect such a list and provide it in different searchable methods (by admin and/or by reason sorting would probably be two very useful metrics). I see nothing wrong with that, and making review easier would be great. My concerns do remain regarding "one-click" reversal, as even if an admin is deleting without adequate review or judgment, another action taken without adequate review of each undeletion would just compound the problem. I think the best way to address issues with a given admin is still to take it up with that admin, and if resolution cannot be reached, with the community. I'm also not clear on your proposal as to making speedy a separate user right, as I'm not sure the system could parse out "speedy" vs. "normal" deletions. The software doesn't really have a way to know if the admin pushing the delete button is speedying, closing an AfD, deleting an expired prod, lost their mind and deleting things randomly, what have you. As to bad deletions, they are reversible even long after the fact, and generally when someone is found to be making bad decisions they tend to get reviewed retroactively. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

You’re making a number of good points. Let me reply to them one by one:

I agree that the burden of proof should be on the person who claims that the system is broken. I also agree that this generally means providing a convincing number of examples. However, in this case, my concern is with the logic of the system. Allow me a comparison: Think about simple editing. Imagine most people could only see edit summaries, not the diff, and it was easier for rogue editors to replace the whole article with a four letter word, than for others to see that. You would not need examples; your reason would tell you that this system is flawed. You may still say that this is not a completely fair comparison, but please also understand that I'm not writing this because I hate the system, but because I feel some responsibility for it. — Sebastian 09:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Re your concern about "one-click" reversal: What I meant was no a whole-sale reversal, but only of those that have been identified as wrong. We can trust our admins there because this is not fraught with the same invisibility problems because anybody can easily see the effect. — Sebastian 09:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: a bot collecting a list of speedies: A non-admin bot would help somewhat, because it stands to reason that an article like “Sebastian is gay” might really be an attack page or silly vandalism, but the problem is that we don’t know for sure from the title. Assume a blitz-deleter sees the title Supernigger and deletes as attack page. How do you know that that’s actually the name of an album without seeing what has been deleted? — Sebastian 09:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: could the system parse out "speedy" vs. "normal" deletions? Hmm, you're right, it's at least not straightforward. Just an idea: I know that devs are currently discussing dividing page content from metadata such as categories or interwiki links. If the information that a page was nominated for deletion were kept as metadata, then it would be possible to implement that. — Sebastian 09:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Test. I checked one quite a quiet hour, 07:00-07:59 UTC today. There were over 400 deletions. But if you discard deletions of images having duplicates at commons, user talk, delete-restore maintenance sequences etc. it boils down to just ten article space deletions, one per AFD, nine per CSD. I googled each and they all seem uncontroversial. Most active admin had 5 CSDs. I suppose that at this rate, or even at ten times this rate, indeed, it is possible to build a robust warning tracker, as long as it is set to disregard the above-mentioned exclusions correctly. But what would you do against "sleeper admins" that do unsound deletions one at a time? NVO (talk) 08:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Elonka for notifying me of this discussion, since I see a lot of assumptions and accusations here without much basis in facts.

First of all, "political bias"? What political bias would that be? I am trying to check all our articles on living people to tag the unsourced ones as unsourcedBLPs. After a more or less random start, and a run through a number of two year old backlogs of unsourced articles, I am now going through all stub articles on people. Doing this methodically, i.e. alphabetically, I started with stubs about African people. Next, I'll tackle Americans, Asians, Europeans, ...

So far, I have tagged over two thousand unsourced BLPs (and a couple of hundred other unsourced articles). While doing that, I came across a number of serious BLP violations, including accusations of being a nazi camp guard, being a male porn star, being convicted for genocide, and so on. In the most blatant of these cases, I deleted the article: in others, I removed the offending lines. I will undoubtedly have missed many other BLP violations by only reading the articles diagonally, but that's besides the point.

Now, Sebastian, you make some blatantly false accusations without bothering to even let me know that you are doing this. This is a serious problem. My contributions and log are out there for everyone to check without any effort. Your contribution list stops at November 17, because you redirect your user to another user. Not the best way to be open and traceable... You state that

I became aware of the problem when I noticed the speedy deletion of Pierre-Célestin Rwigema and André Ntagerura, which blatantly failed the criteria. I initially thought those were just mistakes. But when I politely asked the deleter to reconsider them, he did not do so, and instead gave me the adolescent spiteful reply "I will continue to do this." So I checked his log, and to my horror saw hundreds of blitz deletions – deletions at a rate of several per minute of articles. At that speed, there is no time for anything else but the mechanics of the deletion. No search for references, no checking of links in the article, no common sense. Any bot could do that!

The did not "blatantly fail the criteria", they did blatantly fail our WP:BLP policy, and met the CSD A10 criteria: "a biography of a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced, where there is no neutral version in the page history to revert to". We do the same for copyright violations. Further, my reply "I will continue to do this" was not a "adolescent spiteful reply" (ever heard of WP:NPA and WP:AGF?), but a statement of fact. If I come across blatant BLP violations, and the page has no neutral version to fall back upon, I will delete the pages. As for your horror; too bad, but you may check my "hundreds of blitz deletions". You'll note that they are in fact normal "speedy" deletions during new page patrol, and that almost none of these have been overturned. You are free to go through them, but to insinuate out of the blue that I am an irresponsible deleter of hundreds of articles because you disagree with two recent ones is utterly ridiculous. Let's take the one before the contested two, another Rwandan minister:

X (12 March, 1952) is a Rwandan journalist and politician. He was made Rwanda's Minister of Information on 9 April, 1994. X personally helped incite hatred against Tutsis through the media and various meetings. Moreover, he personally assisted the attacks on the Tutsi population, and committed murders, mutilation and rape during the Rwandan genocide. On 16 May, 2003, he was found guilty of six counts of genocide and crimes against humanity, and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Together with a bunch of negative categories, and without any source, this was the full content of this article. It had existed since June 2005. Amazingly, instead of shame or outrage that such articles can exist for so long, I get attacked behind my back. You make some blatant personal attacks, unworthy of any admin (or regular editor), and make some completely baseless claims. Articles should be referenced on their own; I have not stated that the claims in the articles were false, this is not relevant: in the case of BLP violations, "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." No links should be checked, no references should be sought, the article should not be prodded: the offending material must be removed. In these cases, where the material could be found throughout the history of the article and was a major part of the article, the fairest, safest, solution under "do no harm" was to delete the article. I pointed out in the discussion on my talk page that I had no objections to these pages being recreated with sources, and that otherwise I would prefer them to go to DRV (which you "forgot about", even though I clearly mentioned it in the discussion on my talk page three daysearlier: it would help if you would read discussions you are involved with, instead of jumping to unfounded conclusions).

I invite everyone to go through my "hundreds of blitz deletions", and to challenge the mindless, botlike deletion of those. As far as I can see, most of my deletions were either empty categories or deletions to make way for a move, but feel free to browse around. As for the "To be fair, many of the deleted articles did fit criteria, but some seem to be about foreign politicians, sports people, and such."... since when did sports people or foreign politicians be exempt from CSD? The foreign politicians were CSD G10 like the example above. As for the sports people, I'll try and find some sportspeople I speedied. I do find a clergyman, which stated:

X (born 1942 in Kingston, Ontario) is a Canadian clergyman, who was the first Roman Catholic priest in Canada to come out as gay.

X was ordained in the early 1960s and spent most of his career at a parish in Kingston. He subsequently retired from active parish ministry and moved to Toronto.

In October of 2005, amid discussion of the Vatican's controversial new policy on the ordination of gay priests, X appeared on Vision TV's documentary series 360° Vision and discussed his experiences as a gay man in the priesthood. Clemens told 360 that while he has never violated his priestly promise of celibacy, gay identity is a state of being and not a matter defined solely by sexual activity.

In November 2006 X ran for school trustee for the Toronto Catholic District School Board. He did not have the permission of the Bishop of Kingston (the diocese in which he continues to be incardinated) or the Archbishop of Toronto (the diocese in which he lives) as is required by church law. The Archbishop of Toronto Cardinal Aloysius Ambrozic wrote a letter to Catholics which was read at all Sunday masses in Toronto, informing them that X did not have permission to run for public office. X garnered 29% of the vote for school trustee, losing to the incumbent Catherine LeBlanc-Miller.

Now, Sebastian, according to you, is this deletable under CSD G10 or not?

Or this one:

X is a Portuguese-born man who settled was sentenced in Mozambique.

He was the mastermind of Carlos Cardoso’s murder in November 22, 2000. He escaped from prison that he was convicted in absentia in 2003. But he escaped from prison again after 3 years, when he was retried and sentenced for 30 years.

Or this one: "X (AKA Huwwy Dee) is a well known music legend. He is well known for his inabilty to sing and enormous ear lobes."

Or this one: "X (22 August, 1949- ) is a Rwandan businessperson. On 27 January, 2000, he was found guilty of three counts of genocide and crimes against humanity for his role in the Rwandan genocide, where he committed acts of rape and murder. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. He is serving his sentence at a prison in Mali."

I can't find any sports people, but there will undoubtedly be a few. Apart from that, I stand by my actions. The article on Pierre-Célestin Rwigema was probably the least blatant of the BLP violations and thus the most debatable, but there is no black-and-white line of where G10 applies and where it stops, and being involved in a genocide is a rather heavy accusation. And when people who have previously edited these articles and couldn't be bothered to do anything about sourcing or removing the attacks then come to my talk page and start blaming me for the problems, I may get defensive. I can not understand why people prefer a serious BLP violation over a temporarily deleted article until someone with enough interest and knowledge comes along to recreate the article in a decent state. The time lost on these discussions could have been used much more productively by all involved. Fram (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing; the suggestion above, from the latest post from Sebastian, seems to be that I deleted pages without even looking at the contents. Could he please explain these blatantly untrue allegation? How, if I did this, did I decide to delete these few pages and to only tag the thousands of others in the last few weeks? Please consider my deletions in the context of my contributions, not just as a stand-alone manifestation. Fram (talk) 09:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It's getting really late for me, and I have to go. I will reply to the remaining questions tomorrow. Please bear with me. I realize this page is getting messy, and I realize it would have been better on a seperate page, as Balloonman did.

I have to reply quickly to Fram, though. (I have not read the whole statement, only the beginning and end.) First: This is not about you. This is about policy. You only happened to be the person that made me aware that there's something wrong with the policy. There are three reasons why I labeled your deletions as "blitz deletions": (1) In the examples I happened to see, you did not even google for the name of the people, or else you would have found the United Nations documents about their human rights abuse allegations. (2) You deleted at a rate of several per minute of articles, which supports the observation that you did not take the time to actually look how you can improve the article with references. (3) When I politely asked you to reconsider your deletions, you did not do so, but instead reacted like a spiteful adolescent. — Sebastian 09:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

1) It is not my duty to Google for the name of the people: a BLP violation is not dependent on sourceability, but on being sourced. It is up to the people creating, editing, or defending an article to provide sources. Again, I have never claimed that these persons should not have an article, or that any of the claims in the article were false. I don't care about this in these cases, and neither does our WP:BLP policy.

2) Patently untrue. On december 11, the day in case, I deleted articles at 10:41, 11:39, 12:27, 12:31, 12:40, 15:43 and 15:46. You should not count talk pages of these articles, or redirects to these articles, obviously. So that's seven articles, with gaps of three minutes up to three hours between deletions. I would appreciate it if you would check your facts before continuing these "blitz deletions" canards.

3) I reconsidered my deletions, but concluded that they were correct, according to both CSD and BLP, and so I did not revert them and made it clear that I would continue to delete those execptions in our BLPs which were blatant BLP violations. It is your opinion that this is the reaction of a spiteful adolescent, one could argue that starting a discussion about this without letting me know, and then acting as if "this is not about me". I'll let other people judge whose actions are the most those of a spiteful adolescent, the one that continues to uphold policy like he did before the discussion started, or the one that blows up one incident where he didn't get the answer he liked, while at the same time painting a seriously misrepresenting picture of the other party. Fram (talk) 10:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I took a liberty to reinstate Anibal dos Santos and pushed it to DYK. Maybe if you don't google you need a change. Check the newsreel, the story is all over place. NVO (talk) 12:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, googling has nothing to do with this. We delete negative unsourced BLPs on sight, that's standard policy. We don't delete negative unsourced BLPs after googling, prodding, and checking that we don't bite the newbies. Could you please discuss these things without making personal attacks? And could you either retract your statement that my deletions were caused by a political bias, or give serious evidence for that allegation? Discuss the facts, don't smear someone you disagree with. Fram (talk) 14:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Could I please request you move this somewhere else, like your respective talkpages? This has moved from the purpose of this page closer to a dispute between two users regarding some specific speedy deletions. Ironholds (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Rather than reply in half a dozen different places, I'll just put all my replies here.

Much of this thread smacks of a failure to AGF. "Some people abuse our trust" - You're accusing admins of abuse based on a disagreement over how policy applies to a page. Making claims about admin abuse in a dispute is generally just pointless well-poisoning.

"administrators of questionable maturity" - Pointless, generic character attacks aren't helping anything

What the heck does "blitz deletion" even mean? What's wrong with going quickly? The CSD criteria are specifically designed so as to only depend on the content in the article. Searching for sources, while nice, is not at all required.

A speedy deletion does not mean an article can never be created with the title that was deleted. It just means the page that was deleted was crap. It does not preclude the creation of a non-crappy article.

"devs are currently discussing dividing page content from metadata such as categories or interwiki links" - This isn't something that's coming remotely soon, certainly not something we can base new policy on (and most speedy deleted articles have no categories or interwikis).

"To make it easier to revoke that right when it is abused, it may make sense to keep it as a separate user right" - Not technically possible.

"If it’s any more complicated then it will not get done" - So the "blitz deletion" admins are too immature to be trusted with the "delete" button, but the "mature" admins have too short an attention span to click "Undelete," type a reason, and click the button? Its not like we make people fill out a CAPTCHA or something.

This looks like a whole lot of drama over a tiny dispute to me. Mr.Z-man 17:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

"A speedy deletion does not mean an article can never be created with the title that was deleted. It just means the page that was deleted was crap." - not true. Sometimes it means that, but sometimes (and far too often in my experience) it means that the deleting admin either isn't familiar with CSD policy, or lacks the ability to make valid judgements about notability. DuncanHill (talk) 17:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Recently I was quite surprised to find out that A7 now *does* have to do with "notability."

For a very long time, A7 said "This is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources." It appears that A7 was changed in April after this thread about Ingo Dammer-Smith.

It looks like on April 9, 2008, Taemyr changed A7. Iain99 commented here saying he didn't think those changes were an improvement, and suggested a new wording. Then Taemyr said he liked "Ians wording" and then Taemyr changed A7.

I disagree with Taemyr's alteration of A7.

I propose to change A7 back to this version from April 15. So instead of..

An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability; to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable. A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on. Other article types, including school articles, are not eligible for deletion by this criterion. If controversial, as with schools, list the article at articles for deletion instead.

..A7 will read..

An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources. A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on. Other article types are not eligible for deletion by this criterion. If controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead.

Thoughts? --Pixelface (talk) 04:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

In a DRV discussion, (Ironically one I filed for my own AFD close) I once got called for using the phrase "asserts notability" when removing a speedy tag. I had to point out this "new" wording to the editor and tell him that I was using it because "asserts notability" is shorter then "asserts importance or significance". After that, I started using "IoS asserted" when removing A7s. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggested that change because I wanted the wording to stress that the hurdle for A7 is lower than those imposed by any of our vague, contradictory and often contentious notability guidelines. In my experience (please don't ask for diffs - I don't have time to go trawling for them right now) there are now numerous new page patrollers (and probably admins) who don't know the history of the clause (which was basically brought in to allow "Joe Bloggs is a teenager at Somewhere High School" to be dealt with quickly) and use it to tag anything which doesn't meet their own strict interpretation of WP:BIO or whatever. Worse, I'd seen it asserted by someone who was not a complete newbie (sorry, again I don't have time to dig out the diff) that A7 required articles on people, bands or companies to meet a higher standard than notability; that they had to meet the relevant notability guideline and meet some additional "importance" criterion on top of that or be speedily deleted. Hence my attempt to clarify it. I'm open to suggestions on further improvements, but I think they should maintain the sense that it's a lower bar than any given interpretation of WP:BIO etc. I also don't really think there's much to be gained from maintaining the fiction that A7 has nothing whatsoever to do with notability; clearly it does, given that "notable" means much the same as "important or significant" (though I know we're supposed to pretend that it doesn't). Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 19:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this change as it makes it clear that "IoS" is a lower bar then "notability". However, the drawback is that when someone uses phrases like "assertion of notability", it's no longer clear on whether or not the editor using the phrase knows the difference between "IoS" and "notability". This may be important for some discussions such as RFAs. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The main point of CSD is to deal with things that are likely to be uncontroversial at XfD. Interpretation of whether something is notable is indeed controversial, and as such should not be reflected in a CSD criteria. - jc37 14:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think making it clear that it's easier to be considered "important or significant" than "notable" really changes anything about how A7 should work, and really that's the way it should work. There should be things that aren't notable, but still aren't A7 material. There shouldn't be things that are notable but are A7 material. The current text does state that pretty well, by calling it a "lower standard than notability". I'd guess most of the objection is actually to the next bit, and removing it should make everyone happy. So, is

An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on. Other article types, including school articles, are not eligible for deletion by this criterion. If controversial, as with schools, list the article at articles for deletion instead.

acceptable text? lifebaka++ 16:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. But, just to briefly touch on this, A9 was created for a good reason but numerous articles about a musical release, for example, simply state "This album/demo/single/mp3/whatever was released by this band" (or the slight variation "This is the first/second/third whatever released") followed by a track listing. Is there, or was there, a reason as to why this type of article can not fall under A7 as well? Or is it implied that, as long as there is a parent article on the creator of the subject, it has inherited notability and "their books, albums, software and so on" are exempt from A7? Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Mostly the objection was that there would have been too many false positives. There are plenty of album articles out there that only have their own articles because otherwise the artist page would get too big, and we wouldn't be able to find them all to put {{go away}} on them (besides that the template is more useful the less it's used). Basically, the possibility of false positives was too high for people to like until we came the current wording of A9, though they wanted something. The threads that lead to it are here, here, and here. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, such articles can (and should) be changed to a redirect to the artist if notability isn't asserted. When there is no artist article to redirect to, then a speedy makes sense. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks okay. I still don't see what's wrong with "This is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources" though. That could even read "This is unrelated to questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources" Maybe the sentence "This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability" would make those who think A7 required people to be more than notable think otherwise, maybe not, I don't know.

The problem I have with the current A7 is that before, articles about persons/organizations/web content did not have to "give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable" to avoid speedy deletion, but now they do — because A7 was changed. CSD is a policy, so when the policy is changed to say "just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable", editors will look at the "vague, contradictory and often contentious notability guidelines" because Wikipedia still, to this day, lacks a decent article about notability. Articles do not have to prove the subject is notable to avoid speedy deletion. Articles also do not have to give a reasonable indication of why the topic might be notable to avoid speedy deletion. As far as I can tell, A7 was added to CSD after this proposal, and "notable" was not in it. --Pixelface (talk) 09:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I also fail to see why schools should be specifically excluded, they are an organization and need to assert significance like any other. A7 has traditionally excluded "products", but I also fail to see why that should be—an article on a (book|album|what have you) that does not assert notability should be gone as fast as "John Foo is a freshman at Bar High School and is really cool" or "The Baz is a band which will be releasing its demo tape next year". To take this to its logical conclusion, we could use A7 to remove said article on The Baz, but not Demo Tape (The Baz), which seems rather patently ridiculous. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I am comfortable with the text proposed by lifebaka above. I join with Seraphimblade in wondering about some of the exclusions. However I do understand that schools have long been a contentious issue within the community and the thinking on their inherent notability changes often. I guess it is for that reason - the controversey surrounding them - that they are best sent to AFD. JodyB _talk 11:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

While I agree when it comes to products/creative works/etc., it would be very difficult to get the community at large to accept extending A7 beyond where it currently is. It's exactly for that reason that we have the current A9 for musical recordings. It would be far easier to extend it instead of A7 to encompass products and other creative works. JodyB is correct for why schools are excluded from A7. AfD is nearly always a better choice for schools. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is timely in that I was just saying to someone that I have concerns with the wording of A7 and would like to see about them being revisited. My chief concern is with the basis being "assertion". Does anyone think that people's time should be wasted with a full AfD review of articles about pet parakeets reading, "My parakeet Pauline is known around the world for the tricks she can do! LOL!"? That defeats the purpose of speedy deletion. I think that a useful criterion for speedy deletion would be that an article lacks information that (a) can't be discounted outright or with minimal research and (b) if true, would inherently imply notability or would be adequate to support at least the possibility that the topic is notable (or important or significant—I'm not involving myself in that aspect of the discussion). So, for example, the article on Pauline the Parakeet still couldn't be speedily deleted (at least, not for A7) if it also said, "I was invited to bring her on the Tonight Show after they learned that I bring her to hospital for sick children countrywide to entertain them," because that sentence, whether or not the author has provided a reliable source for it, would, if true, support the possibility that Pauline has achieved sufficient note. But the bald assertion that Pauline is widely known wouldn't bar A7. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

That would also mean extending A7 to animals. And your example is an A1 (although I'd still pipe it through google, it's possible that there is exactly one famous parakeet with that first name).
Nevertheless, I personally do require a somewhat credible assertion of significance. "My pal Joey is the king of the world" is certainly not credible. I'm not sure any article ending with "LOL!" can contain a credible assertion. I would however be very hesitant to water A7 down with subjective parameters. I'm not seeing that many persons, organizations or web contents with blatantly unbelievable claims of significance at AfD, I'm thinking that many are caught by PROD, since no PROD patroller would decline that, which only leaves the author. --Amalthea^Talk 17:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Granted, in my haste to create a scenario I chose a pet. Pretend I wrote "sister" instead of "parakeet". ;-P Anyway, the guideline doesn't say anything about "credible", and that would be no less subjective than my suggestion. I'm reacting to having been surprised several times by admins who've said "asserts notability" when there was nothing credible about the alleged assertion. But on the other hand if there was a more substantive indication of notability, some information from which notability could be inferred, then it seems reasonable to me to bar use of A7. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to explicitly state that claims need to be credible in the criterion itself, to deliberately keep the bar low (I don't want to encourage people to tag articles that are simply unsourced), but your suggestions are certainly worth discussion. I take it you want something along the lines of

A7. An article that does not give any credible claims which, if true, would assume notability.

Or something similar along the same lines, at least; my wording is far from ideal. This pretty well goes with the way I try to interpret A7 myself, though I generally give the benefit of the doubt as to whether or not a claim is itself credible (blanket assertions of "blah is important" aren't, usually). Also, your modified example is quite amusing. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, notability mustn't be a part of it, this would raise the bar significantly. If anything then a "credible indication of importantance or significance" should still be enough to get it past speedy deletion.
But I would definitely not want to change it. The reason why I said above that I personally require a credible claim is because my subjective interpretation of credibility is the correct one of course. ;-) Discounting certain blatantly incredible claims makes sense and has always been done, but if we really put it into the criterion like that then I'm sure we'd find many "I don't believe this"-tags erring on the side of deletion, which is not what we want. Maybe require a "remotely credible" assertion, to just discount the blatantly incredible stuff.
To get back to your example, "My sister Pauline Doe is known around the world for her many tricks, lol!" is blatantly incredible. If it says "My sister Paline Doe is known around the world for her skill on the trampoline" or some other random specific trick then to me it's no longer blatantly incredible and I'd want it to go through PROD, but I'm sure many CSD taggers would disagree and tag it an "A7 no credible claim of importance". --Amalthea^Talk 19:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

From an article that hopefully soon will be deleted.

J-Filly

J-Filly is one of the most important people in the world today. He has contributed a lot to the Myspace world, being a friend of Tom, the creator of Myspace. Many people do not know that he is Tom's right hand man. He has over 300,000 friends on Myspace, which is incredible. The people that he has added often describe him as cute, hot, and gorgeous. His pictures show him having blue eyes and blond hair. In school, he is often hit on a lot by the ladies. The women look at him and treat him with such respect. He tries to give it back, but sometimes it doesn't work.

The editor who tagged it A7 didn't buy it. Creator must have been reading this thread. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Definitely an A7. That assertion of significance is about as good as being the worlds leading nose-picker. --Amalthea^Talk 03:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • And yet A7 as written today (it doesn't include "does assert notability but you think the assertion is ridiculous") fails to cover this article. I suspect that everyone here would consider that outcome ridiculous, so it follows that A7 needs to be changed. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I think "ridiculous" assertions are pretty well covered by the words "reasonable indication." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, there's just the thing. You're looking at the part that says "An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. ... to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable." I think that's fairly consistent with my earlier ruminations. Note that it says nothing about assertions at all. It's concerned with the article itself containing some indication of why the topic might be notable. But some of us are looking at the part later on that says, "Articles that seem to have obviously non-notable subjects are only eligible for speedy deletion if the article does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." Out of the blue this obliterates the threshold set by the indication criterion and dumbs it down to an assertion criterion. I think this needs to go away. Failing that, the two passages need to be mutually conformed somehow. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
        • If I'm understanding you correctly, it seems that

          An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not reasonably indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on. Other article types, including school articles, are not eligible for deletion by this criterion. If controversial, as with schools, list the article at articles for deletion instead.

          (change from above proposal bolded) Would be fine, right? Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
          • As long as the later passage, ""Articles that seem to have obviously non-notable subjects are only eligible for speedy deletion if the article does not assert the importance or significance of its subject," is still there, it will continue to undermine the earlier passage no matter how it's rewritten. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
            • Is there indication that people are hesitating to tag or delete A7 articles with unreasonable indications of importance? That might help determine how much restructuring may be necessary. I haven't been doing as much CSDing lately because I've been volunteering my time elsewhere on Wikipedia, but my observations suggest people are happy to tag articles even if they think the indication of importance or significance is slightly dubious. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
              • I can assure you they aren't hesitating one bit. Got an ambassador to Russia tagged a couple of weeks ago. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
                • As I said when I entered this thread, I'm frustrated because I can flag an article that has no genuine indication of notability, the speedies have been rejected because there was an assertion of notability (and, to the admin in such a case, the issue of assertion is the only one considered; and since the guideline says nothing about the need for an assertion to be reasonable, I have no basis for arguing with the admin that the speedy should be reinstated on the grounds that the assertion is unreasonable). As I've now pointed out, the latter passage undermines the former passage. Is there a sense that Wikipedia guideline should be confusing, should have parts that contradict and undermine each other, and should result in disagreements between users, not because they really disagree with each other but because the guideline to which each is referring disagrees with itself? I note that in trying to state my position, you used the phrase "unreasonable indications of importance". The part I'm saying is a problem is the part about assertions, not the part about indications. They are two different things, and that is why the two parts of the guideline are mutually incompatible. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
                  • Hmm. Though you seem to be taking about WP:CSD#A7, are you actually questioning the language under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Non-criteria? The word "assertion" doesn't appear anywhere in A7. If your beef is with non-criteria, wouldn't a simple solution be to add the word "reasonably" before "assert"? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
                    • Well, OK. I realize now that I'm conflating something that isn't A7 with A7 and talking about both, and it's the non-A7 passage that is undermining A7. I'm also realizing that part of my problem in recognizing my confused approach to this is that the tool tips for Twinkle describe A7 in terms of assertion. So there's a problem in the overall article, even if it isn't the text in A7 that needs revision (and I apologize for that confusion) AND AzaToth should change the tool tips on Twinkle to reflect A7. (Or perhaps AzaToth's text is intentional: maybe he worded the tips so that they reflect the necessary consequence of hobbling A7 with the bit about assertions.) —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
                      • Please read Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/1 and its discussion page. Uncle G (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

←How about this:

“

Notability. Articles that seem to have obviously non-notable subjects are only eligible for speedy deletion if the article does not give a reasonable indication of why the subject might be important or significant.

”

That brings the language more inline with A7. (Currently it says "if the article does not assert the importance or significance of its subject.") --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• I would move "only" to sit in front of "if", but other than that I think that would be a useful way of stating it. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• The reason it reads that way is that that was the original A7 wording. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/1 and its discussion page. Uncle G (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • That proposal did not contain "just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable" but A7 currently says that, which is one of the reasons I started this whole thread 3 weeks ago. --Pixelface (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh, sorry about that. We've had consensus for my first suggestion for a while now, it just hasn't been changed yet. I'll go make that change now. Largoplazo, it doesn't contain anything that'll help with your issue (I was hoping to fix both at once, but it's sorta' stagnated a little now). Cheers, both of you. lifebaka++ 22:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reason why images left behind from deleted articles or uploaded by SPA's trying to promote their own project can not be CSD'd? For example I just went through and did an IfD nom for each image that was upped by Nevermindthelove (I suspect related to Special:Contributions/76.112.179.112) who, clearly, was only here to try and insert his name into articles such as Grammy Award for Best Male R&B Vocal Performance (dif) and My Destiny (dif). We have an A9 for article about a musical recording that "has never existed or has been deleted", why not have something similar for images? Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you coming across them frequently enough to warrant a CSD criterion? If it's blatant promotion or blatantly incorrect it can be G11ed or G3ed already. --Amalthea^Talk 21:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

As I go through images almost every day I am finding them everyday. (Also articles are being deleted every day as well) And I am only going through the "Self-published work" images. In the example above if is pretty obvious where as some are not so much. Lots of band promos, logos, production stills, movie posters, "cd covers" and lots of misc little things such as icon sized images that seem to be a throw back to the early days of the internet. And to be clear I am not talking about obvious unused shots of, say, the latest Jewel CD cover or an used movie still from "Wall-e". I have done a few G11'a but, as has been discussed here concerning articles, it has to be pretty blatant. An unused promo shot from a non-notable bands failed attempt at getting an article is not really a G11. And I have only done one G3 because it was very blatant. Many of the current image CSD's come close, but not quite. For example a CD cover really should be under fair use, and if it was unused it could be i5'd but take a look at the example user I gave above. These were all "self made" and none were claimed under fair use, so if I had tagged them all i5 the overseeing admin would have declined the request. The same could be said for a self made movie poster, promo shot, production still and even frame grabs. I suppose G8 could apply here as it covers "Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page" but if that is used doesn't that open up the entire "The article just wasn't created yet" argument? I am open to using that, I just never have. Feedback welcome. (Edit: I tagged a few images with a G8 so we will see how that goes.)Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If they're not free content, they can be deleted under I5 (after the time limit is up). If they are listed as free content, and you think they aren't, use the {{npd}} tag. If they're free, we oughta' keep 'em around and move 'em to commons. Extreme cases (which require immediate deletion) should fall under other criteria, and if they don't there's still good old {{db}}. That should cover all the possibilities. Cheers. lifebaka++ 04:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to laugh at that last one - This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion, but no reason has been given for why it qualifies. Yeah, that seems like to would cover anything. I also wanted to re-state that I am only talking about images that are in the Self-published work category. I know many images are put there to bypass copyright issues and because the uploader really does not get that grabbing an image form myspace is wrong, and I am not talking about those obvious cases where a tag such as {{di-no permission}} or {{db-imgcopyvio}} will work. For example there is Image:Noir Pictures Logo.jpg and it was tagged, first, by myself on November 12 under CSD i3 as the uploader/creator/copyright holder clearly states it is to only be used on Wikipedia. Another editor came along and removed the CSD tag explaining that Wikipedia can claim fair use no matter what the creator/copyright holder stated and added a fair use tag and rationale. The parent article was deleted on November 21 so I added a CSD i5 but than, after thinking about it, and the discussion here, I changed it to a G8. Another editor now has added the {{di-orphaned fair use}} tag and the problem I see with this is, first, the wording of "This image or media is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia..." which is just the opposite of what the creator/copyright holder has said which is "I have personally designed this logo myself and fully approve of its use on wikipedia, but I do not approve of its use anywhere else online or otherwise without my direct authority or supervision." The only reason the editor added the {{di-orphaned fair use}} is because of the earlier CSD denial where another editor added FUR to the image. This is why I think something specific is needed in these "orphan/unused image" cases. While I can understand the idea behind the "if they're free, we oughta' keep 'em around and move 'em to commons" comment I feel that is too broad of a statement. Going back to Nevermindthelove's images does anyone think they should be all kept and moved to Commons? It is a legit quesiton, I am not being sarcastic. In cases such as that and such as the, now orphaned, Noir logo, rather than saying "Well you could use this, if it is that, or you might be able to use that one as long as it were that..." we could just say something along the lines of "Unused images categorized as "Self-published work", and licensed under CCL or GFDL, that do not indicate why the subject is important or significant, that are not used in any articles, or where the article has never existed or has been deleted. Reasonable exceptions may be made for images uploaded for an upcoming article. This excludes any image which is useful to the project, and in particular any image pages or talk pages for images that exist on Wikimedia Commons." I also think this would cut way down on the IfD noms that are done, not only by myself, but by others. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

{{db}} is meant to be taken with a parameter, specifying why the page needs to be deleted ({{db|reason}}). The documentation could be a little clearer on this.
It's true that not all free images should be kept and sent to Commons, but that really shouldn't be a CSD-type decision. Those deletions should really go through IFD instead.
Wording of the templates is secondary to the wording of the criterion they use. I5 applies to all orphaned non-free files, including those where permission is given for use only on Wikipedia. It seems to me that, overall, a new criterion isn't needed because all the reasonable cases where it would be used are covered by other criteria or aren't places where any CSD should be used. Please see bullet four in the box at the top of this page. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

As I cited a few specific examples I wish someone would respond directly to those as it would help in understanding why these can not be CSD'd, of it they can under what existing CSD they can be. I have said that I find these types of images every day (user created/user uploaded images in the "Self-published work" category that are either unused, never used, or orphaned) and I just send to IfD and want to understand why they can not be CSD'd. I can keep sending them to IfD, no issues, but it just seemed it would be better to have a way to speedy images, such as the ones I gave examples of, using the exact same concept as why A9 was created. I would like to respond to the comment of "I5 applies to all orphaned non-free files, including those where permission is given for use only on Wikipedia." I am not asking about non-free files, I thought I had made that clear. If you are referring to the Noir logo you may have misread why I was citing it/asking about it - this is a "user created" image that was uploaded for use only on Wikipedia, it was not a logo that was taken from, say, the Warner Bros official website for use in an article about the company and is no longer being used. This image only got tagged with a FUR, "non-free" use, because an editor objected to my "for Wikipedia use only" based CSD. Also I may be misreading "Non-commercial only and By Permission Only Images to be deleted - May 19, 2005" which says "As of today, all *new* images which are "non commercial only" and "with permission only" should be deleted on sight." I don't see where any form of image is excluded from that and I also may be misunderstanding what "deleted on sight" means in relationship to CSD i3. Likewise "Clearing up Wikimedia's media licensing policies - February 8, 2007" says "It is for these reasons, which we have long supported, that all media on Wikimedia sites which are used under terms that specify non-commercial use only, no-derivatives only, or permission for Wikimedia only, need to be be phased out and replaced with media that does not have these restrictions." and I see no mention of excluding a user created image that says it can only be used on Wikipedia from being speedied under CSD i3. Please tell me if I misread something in those two policy setting emails/posts.

And I did read the list on the top of the page and I am not sure why I was asked to read that other than perhaps the "redundant" issue, but almost all the CSD's are somewhat redundant to each other. For example i9 and G12 could be easily rolled into one. G1, A3 and i2 could all be rolled into one. Certainly A9 could be have been incorporated into A7 or G8. Please do not get me wrong here, I am not saying it is bad to have subject specific CSD's, I think it is a very good thing. I am just trying to point out that we have a specific CSD for musical recordings that points out that if it "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant and where the artist's article has never existed or has been deleted" it can be speedied. We have a CSD for overall articles that, if they do "not indicate why its subject is important or significant", can be speedied. We have a general CSD that includes "image pages" and says if they exist "without a corresponding image" the page can be deleted. What we don't have is anything that is specific to an image that is unused, do not indicate why the subject is important or significant or orphaned because the parent article has been deleted. Likewise we are very specific that "Wikipedia is not" a "myspace" type of social networking site but there is nothing specific to Wikipedia being a personal image hosting service. I have come across more than one image that is only being used in the uploaders own personal photo gallery and no where else. I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest that if a personal photo gallery, such as User:Wellus/Photo/2007, was deleted than so should the images that would be orphaned by it's deletion. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Apologies. I didn't make it clear that they can be deleted, we just don't need a new criterion to do it with, because current criteria are capable without any modification. You also make a very good point about other apparently-redundant criteria, I'll start some threads below about combining them (except for A9 into A7; the only reason we got that through at all was because it's separate). Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Following up a bit. I found several images orphaned when article were deleted. I tagged them with various tags that fit including G6 and G8 with the reasoning they are orphaned images from deleted articles, and in one, case G11. Some of the images have have been re-tagged and sent to IfD saying orphaned images can not be CSD'd. (ok, to be fair the exact words used were "Not speedyable") and some have been CSD'd. I have asked the editor(s) to voice their opinion(s) on the issue here. (For reference: Image:Breakinupcd.JPG and Image:BL Rochester Book Signins.jpg were sent to IFD but Image:Breakinupsingle.jpg and Image:BU Single.jpg were CSD'd, but my G6/G8 tags were changed to i5 even though they were not uploaded as a non-free image. Image:Promo.jpg was CSD'd as G11.) Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been ruminating on this for a bit, as I run across many, many of them. Of course they can go through IfD - but many times these images touch on the 'fringe' of other categories - such as I5 (as the two mentioned above (which you'll see below could have been G6/G8) - if they're "legit" album covers, the owner should be the record company or other entity & not the uploader); a good number are I3 & I4 & I11. What I'd like to see for this very specific type of image that's being discussed is that the G6 (as part of "non-controversial maintenance") can be "expanded" to include this - that images used in articles that are deleted (speedy, Afd, whatever) that are not used elsewhere be considered as part-and-parcel of the deletion of the article & are deleted. It's sort of akin to to making an G8 for images (images used on a deleted page...) Of course, we can just rely upon IAR ;) - but that's probably not the best way to go! Skier Dude (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

That would work. Ok, how about this: (Changes/additions in green)

G6 - Technical deletions. Non-controversial maintenance, such as temporarily deleting a page to merge page histories, deleting dated maintenance categories, deleting images categorized as "Self-published work" that do not indicate why the subject is important or significant, that are not used in any articles, or where the article has never existed or has been deleted or performing uncontroversial page moves.

It may be a bit wordy but it needs to be explicit that the only type of images eligible under this would be unused and orphaned images that are in the "Self-published work" category. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Images are not my major thing, but I do wonder how an image can indicate why the subject is important or significant. Grabbing a few at random (some from commons, but they could as easily be here), how would this apply to Image:Spiders.jpg, Image:Ecl-ann.jpg, Image:Billy.png, Image:Mary's Slide 2007.JPG, Image:Ceeiling fan.JPG & Image:Jeff halper.jpg? I'm not saying that all or any of these should necessarily be deleted under this proposal, but I'd like to see thinking on how they should or should not apply. That might help refine language. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

See my examples above. The ones you gave are generic enough they can be sent to commons if they were orphaned, maybe not "important or significant" but usable as, say, stock images. A better quesiton would be what is the difference between Image:Ceeiling fan.JPG and Image:Breakinupsingle.jpg or File:AndreDeJuanFace.JPG and how best to word it. Maybe "Encyclopedic content"? Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

That seems like a good direction: why the subject is of encyclopedic importance or significance. All of the images above are orphaned, though the only one on Wikipedia is Image:Billy.png. It's an unused portrait of a Wikipedia contributor. (I stumbled upon it by popping in generic terms: I figured Image:Billy was likely to bring something. :)) Such images are not encyclopedic, and it has never been used in any article. If user portraits are to be excluded from your proposal, that should probably be specifically excepted. What about other user images used (or not) in user space? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

←I do not think user space "user portraits" should be excluded and if they are unused and/or orphaned and they are not encyclopedic. The image Becky5.jpg (along with three like images) was just orphaned and is a user page image. The Bhati.png user image is another user portrait that, if it were orphaned, would not have much encyclopedic use.

Proposal

How about this: (Changes/additions in red)

• G6 - Technical deletions. Non-controversial maintenance, such as temporarily deleting a page to merge page histories, deleting dated maintenance categories, deleting images categorized as "Self-published work" where the parent article has never existed or has been deleted and that are non-encyclopedic, or performing uncontroversial page moves.

I have been experimenting with the {{db}} tag per lifebaka's suggestion along with the reason of "Orphaned image from "deleted article". (See CSD G6 or G8)" which sort or works but I think Skier Dude hit the nail on the head with their suggestion. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Further Discussion

That reads okay to me. Have you publicized this suggestion elsewhere? It can help get enough participants to reach consensus. :) A good location might be WT:IUP or even WT:IFD. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• I came here from the post at WT:IFD, read the proposal, and thought "WTF does that mean?" After reading the above discussion, I'm still not quite sure. It seems the original discussion was to address images uploaded for self-promotion that don't quite meet WP:CSD#G11, but then it changed to address orphaned "unencyclopedic" images in general. I don't really see the point of the latter (that's what WP:IFD is for, and IFD gives anyone who cares a chance to find a use), and if the former is really a problem perhaps G11 should just be clarified with respect to orphaned images. Anomie⚔ 18:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• reply: This discussion (and proposal) is/was not solely about "images uploaded for self-promotion" at all. It is/was about any user created image that is orphaned, or otherwise un-used, that is "blatant" in it's unencyclopedic-ness. Questions were asked, examples of images given, and over the course of the discussion this has gone from a new CSD concept to simply adding wording to an existing CSD. There are many examples given above and as G11 only deals with "Blatant advertising" it does not cover all user created images that turn up at IfD. And G11 is already used for images that fall under that criteria. Images can still be sent to IFD if there is a question about them being encyclopedic but this would prevent, for example, the "becky" images that were orphaned when the user page for Girl-Fix-Er , was deleted from being sent to IfD. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• To avoid using the word unencyclopedic, I suggest changing the proposal to read something along the lines of "...and that cannot be used in another article." WODUP 20:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• reply/question: We use "unencyclopedic" for describing images already, why would it be different in this case? Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

<facepalms because it doesn't say unencyclopedic> I think that whether or not something is encyclopedic is more subjective than if something can be used in another article. WODUP 02:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I am dense right now I guess. You said "To avoid using the word unencyclopedic..." In the comment I thought you were replying to I said "...that is "blatant" in it's unencyclopedic-ness" and "Images can still be sent to IFD if there is a question about them being encyclopedic..." but now you say "facepalms because it doesn't say 'unencyclopedic'". Or are you suggesting to just remove the word "unencyclopedic" from all the existing criteria, tags, guidelines, policy and so on? I would be against that as the word is as common here as "notability" is. Take a random look at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 November 16 and see how many images are listed as "Unencyclopedic" as part of their IfD description/reason. Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no, no. I facepalmed because my first post was to avoid the word unencyclopedic, but that word isn't used in the proposal, non-encyclopedic is. I goofed. I'm not suggesting to remove the word from where it already exists in criteria, etc., but with this proposal, I just think that the meaning is more clear when it's replaced with wording that mentions the image's ability to be used in another article. WODUP 04:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I still don't believe that any changes are necessary, but if we really want them I'd highly suggest making the adjustment to G8 instead of G6. G6 is for technical uses of the deletion tool, nothing else. Deleting any page, except to merge histories or similar (the common cases are listed in G6 already), under G6 is simply not acceptable. The nature of the proposed addition is more in line with G8 than with G6. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• reply:G6 or G8 makes not matter to me as I think either of them basically fit now, and G6 was the suggestion above so I went with that. If there is consensus for adding to G8 instead cool beans by me. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

← Just checking in on this. Does the phrase "deleting images categorized as "Self-published work" where the parent article has never existed or has been deleted and that are non-encyclopedic" get inserted into G6 or G8? The suggestion was G6 and however one editor has said it should be inserted into G8. other opinions? Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)