Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Contents 1 {{hangon}} revamp / somewhat major {{db-meta}} modification 2 G11 user talk warning 3 Speedying A7/G11s that have survived an AfD 3.1 Stating the obvious 4 Userpages of users without contributions 4.1 WP:NOT-oriented revision 5 A8: statute of limitations? 6 Require admins to check the talk page before deletion? 7 CSD U1 and WP:UM 8 CSD A7: Avoid the word "vanity" 9 Expanding admin guidelines 10 Learning lessons from the cookie debacle 10.1 Detailed analysis 11 Another addition to G11 12 G11, A8, admin discretion 13 Expanding A7 14 G11 is a joke right? 15 incorrect lemma 16 What's wrong with PROD? 17 {{nn-bio}}, {{nn-band}}, et cetera 18 Clarification on CSD A7 19 Yet more talk about G11 spam 20 G11 Addenda

{{hangon}} revamp / somewhat major {{db-meta}} modification

Recently, I've modified {{hangon}} to offer an optional parameter, like so:

{{hangon|Example}} =

This doesn't change the parameterless form of the template, but it does do the following:

1. Allows an editor to provide the viewing admin with a short explanation of why the {{delete}} tag is in error without resorting to the talk page
2. Helps point out which articles are hoaxes and which users are up to no good (specifically, the ones who add "{{hangon|KEEP MY ARTICLE CUZ I RULE NOW SHUT UP}}")
3. Gives legitimate editors a tool in fending off ridiculously quick deletions with faulty reasoning
4. In many cases may eliminate the need to create a talk page
5. Mirrors the {{db}} tag's optional "open-ended response"
6. Counterparts tags in support of deletion like {{prod2}}

My introduction of this parameter can be said to be intended as a solution for the problem of overlooked reasoning against deletion on talk pages. At least one other editor has agreed that administrators do not always check talk pages before deletion, especially in cases where an article should seemingly be deleted without question.

As I do a lot of recent changes patrol, I've seen my share of deleteworthy articles as well as a lot of frivolous {{hangon}}s. However, this new functionality does not just cater to vandals or inexperienced editors – it is a possible timesaver for everyone involved.

The reason I'm bringing this up on this talk page (in addition to fear of it going all but unseen at Template talk:Hangon) is because it somewhat changes the whole speedy deletion plan that's currently in place. It has a likelihood of replacing the "see talk page" concept in a lot of situations, but it may also be needless, since there's only so much thoughtful argument one can fit in a {{hangon}} box. Thus, it runs the risk of eliminating the thoughtful process of "taking it to the talk page" in favor of hasty, ill-conceived pleas wedged below a speedy deletion tag. Still, it's all that is needed in many cases. Many articles are deleted before the {{hangon}} process is completed, and many editors who don't want their articles deleted simply enter their reasoning below the hangon or speedy tag on the article page.

I think this is a good change for the reasons above and because I think the {{hangon}} tag could have used some more planning right from the start; if a person is to remove the tag after his or her explanation is written, for example, then how does the expedient deletionist administrator ever know it was there in the first place? I'm bringing this discussion here – and it certainly doesn't have to be a long one – because if this parameter gains general acceptance, I plan to add usage instructions to it on the {{db-meta}} template, meaning this idea will be reflected in every mainspace speedy deletion tag.

So – does anyone have an objection to the placement of anti-deletion arguments inside the {{hangon}} tag in lieu of longer arguments on the talk page, as speedy deletion templates currently suggest? To clarify, this would not eliminate the ability of an editor to post to the talk page of a speedied article if desired.

And secondly: is it okay with everyone to just do away with the current practice of removing {{hangon}} tags after talk page discussions are completed? It seems to me an unnecessary practice, as {{hangon}} tags don't create much more overhead, if any, nor do they necessarily insist on extra consideration from an administrator before he or she decides to delete. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 04:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Place 'an additional explanation may be present on the talk page', linking 'talk page', inside the parametered version of the template, then I'll agree with this. Your second solution is definitely a good idea, as long as admins remember to always check the talk page when doing a deletion (as it'll normally be a redlink, this shouldn't be too much trouble). --ais523 12:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sure. I should've mentioned that I do intend to preserve that phrasing, except in another tag. Here's my sandbox concept for {{db-meta}}, by the way: User:Omicronpersei8/sb/Db-meta -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 13:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I've just added

(Admins, please be sure to check the talk page for further explanation if applicable.)

to {{hangon}} (a sandbox copy of it). Will that do it? -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 13:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Support this. However, I'm not sure why this discussion's on WT:PROD; make sure nobody objects on, say, Template talk:Hangon and Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion before you make the change. --ais523 14:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Why did I put it here? (Moved from WT:PROD; I'm a little off today) -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 15:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I noticed this change yesterday, I'm in full support of it. Good move. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm against it. There has been a lot of shifting lately towards having commentary about the article on the article page: the hangon tag has to go there or else admins would always have to look on the talk page to see if one was there. But the reason, just like any other discussion (and especially defense of content another editor finds objectionable), should go on the talk page only. Besides, most people who have to use the hangon tag would just leave the reason empty. Mangojuice^talk 17:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused: the hangon tag (apart from being a joke) should obviously go on the article itself (hard to find the talk page if you're new, more likely to spotted by fast-moving admins) and therefore should certainly be removed on the conclusion of the process if the article is retained. -Splash - tk 21:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

That's true, I suppose. I guess this would have the benefit of not listing the talk page for speedy deletion as well as the article page... Mangojuice^talk 05:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You have very good points above, obviously.
Regarding the placement of the tag (parameterized or not), I don't see it as being any more inappropriate on the article page than a {{db}} already is. On the talk page, it would create an extra entry at CAT:CSD, and this functionality is unavoidable since a lot of new editors delete speedy tags to replace then with {{hangon}}. That's not really a major problem, though.
About it placing more commentary on the article page, I again see a parameterized {{hangon}} on an article's main page as being only a little more out-of-encyclopedic character than {{db}} or {{prod}}. It certainly runs the risk of putting semi-nonsense in large letters on the article page, but it doesn't have to. Editors can also use this parameter to cite policy in a formal and rational style as well. In a case where an article may be saved by a quick mentioning of relevant and sensible policy, I don't see a reason for creating two different pages to delete. If an editor (i.e. the speedy-tagging one) disagrees with the reason, he or she can take it to the article creator's talk page or can at least use the creator's talk page to point them toward article talk. This seems a logical enough process to me to make explicit mentions on templates unnecessary. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 18:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

So, is this topic officially in idea purgatory now? -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 14:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

G11 user talk warning

Is anyone involved in the CSD G11 creation/development working on an appropriate message to leave on users' talk pages? Where should such a discussion take place? (Forgive me; Wikipedia is extremely byzantine when it comes to certain aspects of policy changes.) For the G11 I've deleted, I've left a note on users' talk pages about how Wikipedia is not a soapbox, but it's a bit tedious to type out all the time. A templated warning would be great. -- Merope ^Talk 20:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I assume you mean for users whose articles were speedily deleted under CSD G11? No discussion is necessary, just make one (or I will if you want, I kinda like making templates). You can even make your own version in your userspace if you want. :) Mangojuice^talk 20:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You like making templates? Then have at it, my friend! And, yes, that is what I meant. Even though the people whose articles we're deleting are likely to be single purpose accounts, I still believe in WP:BITE just in case. And I think explaining why the article gets deleted repeatedly may help in stopping its recreation. (Or in justifying a block later.) If you want my input, just drop a line on my talk page. -- Merope ^Talk 20:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I also encourage anyone to make more templates :) Mathiastck 17:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Made one at User:Mangojuice/spam. I'm just not sure what to call it, so I didn't put it in template space just yet. Template:Deleted-spam, perhaps? Choose a name and move it there. Mangojuice^talk 05:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I like Mangojuice's message, but personally I'd replace "and Wikipedia content must be neutral, not promotional" with "not an advertising service". -- Steel 17:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles promote things merely by existing. Many users create or edit articles with the goal in mind of promoting the topic of that article. Why was wikipedia created in the first place? To promote something I'd bet. We just have to make sure we promote without violating any other guideline. Mathiastck 17:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

What nonsense. Wikipedia articles don't promote things just by existing. -- Steel 17:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Then why is there a passionate DRV over Diane Farrell? Articles do promote their subjects, at least in the sense "There's no such thing as bad publicity". Septentrionalis 19:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I kind of thought that was self evident. I trust a company just a bit more if it hasa good wikipedia page, with lots of edits, etc.. The wikipedia article on said company thereby helped promote the company, merely by existing. Mathiastck 16:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

(starting over indent) I think I'd prefer "Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising" to the bit about content being neutral. It's clearer to newcomers unfamiliar with WP policy, and, well, I don't know how often newcomers click the links we give them. (Rarely, if the comments I receive on my talk page are any indication.) I also wonder if we can word it so it can be placed on talk pages by new page patrollers, and not just the deleting admin. -- Merope ^Talk 03:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've moved the template draft to Template:Deleted-spam. Be WP:BOLD if you think anything needs updating. The template is not currently worded to imply that the person leaving the message was the one who deleted it, though there is the bit about "feel free to leave a message at my talk page," which implies that the message-leaver is the one to discuss the issue with. Mangojuice^talk 04:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Speedying A7/G11s that have survived an AfD

Should we be doing this? If not, should we make it explicitly clear to head off situations like Wikitruth and Fleshlight? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

That is likely a good idea, but I'm more worried about articles with long history. At least in the case of Wikitruth, the number of editors who edited that page should mean that the page can't be simply speedied without wider input. Zocky | picture popups 02:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

As am I, but seeing how we continue to expand these things, it's probably not a bad thing for deleting types to check to see if there's been any prior consensus on the matter. I'll wait for a little more input. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Refer to Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Yet_more_G11_talk above for more chatter. I'm going to be quick restoring something deleted here that I disagree with. I'll be notifying the deleting admin of course. Anything I notice that has left mainspace redlinks I'll restore as well as easier than cleaning it up. Do the same to me. - brenneman ^{L} 03:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this controversial? Can we make this change before we get too deep into it? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I've posted this at the pump and the deletion policy talk. If there's no substantive protest in the next couple days, I'll add it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Just some thoughts that shouldn't be construed as opposing: A7 and G11 are for articles that are obviously unfit for encyclopedia-dom. Is it not an "obvious" candidate if it's survived an AfD? Is it not an "obvious" candidate if it has a long history? Is it not an "obvious" candidate if it uses a secondary source as a reference? I would say that it is not obvious in any of these cases, and I think that that is the general idea behind these. However, it can be hard to spell out all of the possible cases that would make a decision "non-obvious". JYolkowski // talk 15:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

One would think, but that hasn't been how it's happened in recent practice. I'd hate to see Fleshlight and Wikitruth occur again. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Consensus so far doesn't seem to support the idea that A7 or G11 alone would be sufficient to obviously speedy those articles. Not to mention that fact that A7/G11 weren't mentioned as the deletion reasons. So it's not clear that the two examples given so far necessarily demand a change in A7/G11. Are there other specific examples where this might be useful? --Interiot 03:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

This seems like it would be so incredibly obvious as to not need clarified, but I guess some people might need everything spelled out for them. Sure, let's include it. --tjstrf 04:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• I disagree with this proposed change - the added criteria are intended to make a change in what we keep on wikipedia. If it matches the new CSD, it should be deleted on sight, even if before we failed to do so because some people were confused about the scope of our project. Let deletion review handle misapplication. --Improv 04:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • As A7 already says that controversial assertions of notability should be sent to AfD, if it's kept at AfD, it means it's already been reviewed and approved by the community. Essentially, the same with G11 - if it were clear, unnotable spam, it would have been deleted there. This just means that we're not speedying material the community has already said they're not comfortable deleting. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Well, it's not obviously true of all CSD criteria at the very least. CSD criteria dealing with core or foundation issues can override AfD (G9, office actions is the most obvious... If an AfD resulted in speedy keep, and the article was discovered to be a copyvio within 48 hours of creation, then A8 would still trump the keep... if an MfD is run against a user page, and is kept, the user is still free to U1 it in most cases).      Still, this is orthogonal to the fleshlight/wikitruth issue, since A7/G11 weren't invoked, and it doesn't seem like A7/G11 could be correctly invoked to delete those two articles. --Interiot 05:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • A8 trumps everything - copyvio is copyvio, and it's one of the few times I'm ever okay with a speedy deletion. Wikitruth was deleted as "fails WEB", which is based off of the horrid expansion of A7 [1], and Danny deleted Fleshlight with Brad Patrick's new spam considerations in mind, which would probably qualify it under a G11, but we can quibble on whether that was indeed the case. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Badlydrawnjeff, if you are almost never okay with speedy deletion, it seems a little odd to me to see you working here on its policy page. Would it be accurate to say that everything you do here is to gum up the works? --Improv 17:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Assume good faith, Improv. I'm here to help provide some sort of alternative view on speedying, and maybe reduce the amount of creep. I'm not here to "gum up the works" any more than you are. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• As this does not appear to be controversial, I'm adding it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Stating the obvious

If an article has been kept after an AfD, then it clearly has some notability (and at very least an assertion). Stating the fact that it shouldn't be deleted because it's survived an AfD is wholly unnecessary since it wouldn't qualify for A7 anyway. I can understand why this might need to be clarifed in G11's description, but not in A7's. -- Steel 12:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It absolutely has to because it's important to note not only for the reviewing admin, but to the tagging user. What's the harm in being absolutely explicit? --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

In order to survive an AfD, an article has to be pretty notable, thus making it ineligible for A7. It was ineligible for A7 long before it was even sent through AfD. Being kept at AfD making something ineligible for A7 is both blindingly obvious and totally irrelevant. Not to mention altering the whole principle of A7. Let's not fluff up these criterion descriptions with what doesn't need to be said. -- Steel 12:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how this changes the principle at all - A7 isn't for notability asserted articles, and this simply clarifies that if an article has been reviewed already, it shouldn't be speedied. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Well that just raises the question of how this is specific to A7. -- Steel 14:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

A7 is about speedy deletion of articles with no asseriton of notability. An article may have survived AfD without having that assertion entirely clear in the article. A7 is probably a mistake in terms of its objectivity, but this forces taggers and admins alike to be aware of the possibility that it has already been approved for inclusion by the community, or there's no consensus to remove it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Which just comes back to what I said in the first place. If it's notable enough to be approved by the community then it's notable enough not to be an A7 candidate anyway. Two exceptional circumstances (Wikitruth and Fleshlight) really aren't enough to justify telling people what's obvious the rest of the time. -- Steel 14:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

And if it's obvious, there's no harm in adding it there to be safe. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

And if it's obvious, why the need to say it? (and strongly defend it's inclusion) -- Steel 14:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Because I don't feel that it is obvious, thus I'm an advocate of including it. You feel it is obvious, but can't point out any harm in adding it anyway, so I think it should be included even by using your standard. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

AfDs should not be closed until sources are provided. I am sure Uncle G will agree. Carcharoth 14:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

And that has what to do with this discussion? -- Steel 14:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I was responding to this bit by Jeff: "An article may have survived AfD without having that assertion entirely clear in the article.". I should have been clearer and said that if AfD decides that something is notable enough to keep, then sources should be added to document the notability and to help prevent it being returned to AfD. That is wholly relevant to this discussion about why the fact of a previous AfD is not always entirely clear. Sadly, previous AfDs aren't always noted on the talk page either. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_AfD_closing. Carcharoth 14:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

We're in agreement, but it still doesn't change that there's a responsibility for closing admins to check these things before clicking the button, obvious or not. This statement simply makes it explicitly clear. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be better to move the question of previous AfDs to a general guidelines section (already present, but needs expanding). This would say that, in general, it is good practice to perform the following checks (some more obvious than others): (a) Read the page; (b) check the page history; (c) check the talk page (if it exists); (d) check the article log; (e) check 'what links here'. It really shouldn't be necessary to explain why these steps are performed and why missing out any of these steps is a bad idea. In case it is needed, the previous AfDs should be found on the talk page, and previous deletions and restorations and/or recreations should appear in the article log. I refer Steel to the discussion at the bottom of this page for more on this, plus an example of what can happen if simple, basic checks like this are not carried out. Carcharoth 14:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

By all means add some general statement to the top of the page. -- Steel 14:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit late to the discussion but would like to point you to this comment made in a recent DRV discussion. Steel, I really wish that this were as patently obvious as you describe. Rossami (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Could someone please explain "A7" and "G11" to me or point me to the page(s) that explain them? Thank you. :) Jecowa 03:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for overusing the jargon! :-) A7 and G11 are terms for the speedy deletion criteria being discussed. 'A' stands for 'articles' and 'G' stands for 'general'. The criteria are explained at these links:

• Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7
• Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G11

Hope that helps. Carcharoth 09:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! :) Jecowa 18:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Userpages of users without contributions

Increasingly, Wikipedia is being used by some newcomers who contribute nothing to the encyclopedia as a Myspace-like webhost and chat forum. There is some agreement at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Centrx for deleting such user pages created by people who have done nothing to contribute to the encyclopedia or its functioning. That is, for users who are "nonexistent" in the sense that they do not exist with respect to the encyclopedia. So, I propose that we change the criteria to include non-recent user pages created by users "who have no productive contributions to the encyclopedia". They are of course allowed to become productive contributors, but people are absolutely not allowed to use Wikipedia as their personal web host. Users who have done nothing related to the encyclopedia are a clearcut instance where the user pages are not related to the encyclopedia and where we are not stepping on the toes of any Wikipedian who rightly has leeway in what they put on their user pages. —Centrx→talk • 22:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly support this proposal, but I think it would be better worded as "very few productive contributions" rather than "no productive contributions". -- Steel 22:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I oppose this until we can come up with an objective standard for this, and even then, I'm not sure I'm in favor for a variety of reasons (biting newbs, good faith, etc). At what point do we figure out when they've obviously not here to contribute? What efforts would be made for reformation? Do we offer the option to undelete later once they've proven they've looked to contribute? Do they get warnings first? Too many questions. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

An extreme minimum objective standard could be something like 1 month with no edits whatsoever outside of userspace. There are such users, and they are just putting up userboxes and chatting. It should be broader than that, but there is no problem with coming up with an objective standard. It is actually quite remarkable that someone has an account with few or no productive edits; random readers who have simple reading accounts make edits all the time and someone having just a user page with nothing else almost indicates that they do not even read Wikipedia let alone have some right to user page.

A simple minimum time is enough to not bite any newbies. We already have help desks, help tags, and anyone can ask a question of anyone; we don't need a mentorship program for the whole world of people who aren't doing anything on Wikipedia. —Centrx→talk • 22:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any examples non-admins can see? How many does this entail? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any numbers (probably some server-taxing bot work), but I encounter it fairly frequently and people doing recent changes do as well. For one example, User:Naruto 2.0 is the one referred to on ANI and there's no need to restore it (it had fair use images so it shouldn't be done anyway) as it is easily describable. The user account was created on September 3, the user had no contributions whatsoever except to his user page, and the user page consisted solely of 4 rows of user boxes, a bouncing Wikipedia logo, two fair uses images of some cartoon, and a statement like "I will take over the world using the fist of randomness". His talk page was just his friend talking to him and the user hasn't edited even his userpage since September 21. I'm not going to go pick out the fair use image and the page should not be left sitting there on Wikipedia. Admins should know that they can and should delete such page and the many similar and more active ones. —Centrx→talk • 22:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I feel about this. It requires more effort than other speedy deletion pages, as the deleting admin will have to check the user's contributions in addition to checking page history. It's not that much effort, but it is an extra step. Would this be used for users whose only contributions are outside the mainspace? Is one minor edit to an article enough? What if the user has tried to create new articles that were speedily deleted? Would that suffice? If this passes, I would insist on the deleting admin leaving a templated message explaining that the page has been deleted per WP:NOT. This message should probably incorporate a number of links from a welcome message, to guide the user in question to ways to contribute constructively. -- Merope ^Talk 00:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't require anyone to delete them. It merely states that it is a good, accepted idea for Myspace party users; active ones can be notified. —Centrx→talk • 01:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Here are a couple more examples: User:Elfred, User:Sporks.Are.Loverly. Put it this way: why should anyone who comes across these pages not delete them? —Centrx→talk • 01:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, Elfred has edits in the mainspace. Sporks.Are.Loverly does not, nor does their friend User:The.almighty.one. I'd endorse deletion of the latter two because of that. -- Merope ^Talk 02:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Look at Elfred's mainspace edits. They are essentially nonsense or spam and it looks like every single one of them has been reverted or otherwise no longer remains in the articles. —Centrx→talk • 02:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I can see that. But a user making bad edits may be making them in good faith. I don't like the idea of a CSD criterion that enables a person to evaluate the quality of someone's contributions. Better to let cases like Elfred's go to WP:MFD. -- Merope ^Talk

I just don't think this needs a speedy deletion criterion... in fact, I don't think we should be deleting those pages necessarily. Not that deleting them would be much harm, but I just think it doesn't help anything. And there is the potential for harm if the criterion isn't carefully worded or is incorrectly used, or even if it's correctly used but the user we figured would be gone comes back and gets annoyed. Mangojuice^talk 04:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I doubt there is much harm in deterring someone who just adds random Runescape links to every article, that is, in the unlikely event he ever comes back and if he remembers his password or that he had a user page at all. —Centrx→talk • 15:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think we can all agree that any userpage for a non existant editor or any userpage that is pretty much spam can be shot on sight. I've heard of people using Wikipeida user pages to increase their Google pagerank of all things... it's a growing problem -- Tawker 05:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Right, and those are addressed via CSD U2 and CSD G11. After thinking about this some more, I really feel that these cases should not be speedied, but should go to WP:MFD. There are too many factors to consider. -- Merope ^Talk 05:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Spam, yes. But if it's not spam, no. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I tagged about 50 userpages for speedy deletion which were spammy yesterday. Most of them were on the order of "<company> is a company specialising in web services" without any further elaboration. 90% of them got deleted. As for other non-productive users, I guess we should give them a week's notice via email before their user pages get deleted. By the way, what about Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages? MER-C 05:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's a typical spam finding search: [2]. Notice how some of the pages are borderline but deletable under CSD G11. I think this is the concern here. MER-C 05:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I object to this not only based on the subjective nature of "productive contributions", but also because a person who has not yet contributed may still have a normal and sensible user page ("I'm Bob, from Ohio, I'm interested in contributing to articles about trains"). Deleting these is counterproductive as they serve a legitimate purpose in structuring future contributions even though the person has not yet edited. Deco 05:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I've expanded U2 based on WP:AN/I#User:Centrx (unfortunately before I realized there was some opposition to this - I guess it might get reverted). The text of U2 now reads

User pages of users who do not exist or have made negligible encyclopedic contributions.

This is not meant to cover a Hi-I'm-Bob page of someone with 10 edits; this is meant to apply to a userpage of someone with 200 edits to their own talk page and 1 edit to mainspace, someone trying to googlebomb via their user page, or just general WP:NOT-style nonsense. I would rather avoid instruction creep with any specific numbers or minimum time. Obviously, admins should exercise judgement; for example, G7 allows deletion if the author blanks the page, and admins should not honor any request just because the first person to edit a page now wants it deleted. In practice, I don't believe this expanded U2 requires much more precautionary work for the deleting admin than checking the validity of other speedy-delete tags. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-10-08 10:26Z

• It's not a bad idea, but we should probably make an exception for such pages that are recently created. A new user may start with a user page and go from there; but someone who created a user page a month ago and hasn't done anything since does not appear to be a productive 'pedian. >Radiant< 12:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note that it's not necessary to check Special:Listusers; what matters is if the user made contributions to the encyclopedia, which is visible from the contribs log. If the contribs log is empty, there are no contribs to the 'pedia and it's irrelevant whether the user is found in listusers. >Radiant< 13:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the addition to the criterion since there is clearly disagreement here about how it should be worded, and about whether it should be expanded in the first place. --bainer (talk) 14:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

To chime in my two cents, I agree with the concept but strongly disagree with the expansion of the criteria. Things have been fine without the modification of the criterion, and adding that phrase, which is clearly subjective, will only create more problems than it will solve. As mentioned above, each userpage is unique and should be considered on a case-by-case basis, as we've been doing. Also, unless the pages are created for spam (which, as also mentioned above, are speedy-able anyways) or are disruptive, there's no urgent need to delete user pages of inactive users. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 14:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia will work just fine without most of the CSDs; that doesn't mean they aren't good. Altering the CSD is to advertise it more and refine under what conditions it should be done. This is not to delete the user pages of merely inactive users, this is to delete the user pages of never-active users. —Centrx→talk • 15:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

(ec) The other CSDs (well, most of them at least, but that's another story) are clear-cut, not subjective, and are critical to the project because not only of the uselessness of the pages, but because of the potential harm that comes if the pages are not speedily deleted. This proposed addition isn't. Again, I agree with the concept, but see no need to place it in, as all user pages should be taken on a case-by-case basis. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I have changed it to "or old users who have never made encyclopedia contributions." which is a minimum that most everyone agrees with. —Centrx→talk • 15:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

This is still not worded to address the problem that is alleged. There are a number of valid explanations for a user without any mainspace contributions to have a userpage - a user from another project, for example, or a user who has an account to read the wiki.

If it is intended to delete pages used for linkspamming, then choose a wording directed against linkspamming. If it is intended to delete pages used solely for social networking, then choose a wording directed against use for social networking. Don't use an overly broad wording where a specific wording is appropriate; it will only lead to confusion and possibly abuse.

I don't see any strong need why this can't be dealt with through MfD, given that the clear cases are not going to be controversial at all, and given that many of the pages intended to be affected will fall under other criteria, such as G11. --bainer (talk) 15:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually you're the first to mention this problem, which is a good point. I've proposed a revision below to address it. —Centrx→talk • 15:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

No-one is going to delete a userpage which contains "Hi, I'm active on de.wiki, this is my en.wiki account which I rarely use.". This proposal is about deleting the userpages of people who, in one/two/three months, have done nothing but fill up their userpages with userboxes, fair use images and "funny links". -- Steel 15:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The current wording, though, allows for the deletion of such a page. If we continue taking it on a case-by-case basis, as we've been doing, then such a page wouldn't be deleted. Fair-use images should be removed regardless, and "funny links" used for spamming as well. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"My friends", "My interests", "Userboxes I've created", "My favourite TV shows", etc.
But yeah, perhaps it needs to be re-worded so it's clear that we're deleting WP:NOT (a social networking site) type userpages, and not just any userpage where the account isn't used much. -- Steel 15:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

(ec) Please don't add in anything while we're still discussing the issue; until we come to a consensus, nothing should be added. (For that matter, I don't agree with the addition, either. What defines "old"? What is an "encyclopedia contribution"?) As such, I've removed it while we continue to discuss this and reach an agreement. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, making revisions is useful to coming to an agreement on the wording; collaborative editing can often be more useful that repeating things over and over in discussion. —Centrx→talk • 15:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

True, but policies generally shouldn't be edited or changed while discussion is still ongoing and consensus has not been reached. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT-oriented revision

3. Uncontributive user pages. Pages in user-space used for social networking, advertising, or other violations of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not or Wikipedia:User page, by user accounts older than three weeks, who have made negligible contributions to the encyclopedia.

This is precisely what is meant, and is forbidden. Note that even if there were some error, though negligible is quite a clear word and it is trivially simple for someone to make non-negligible contributions, all that is lost is a page filled with things that shouldn't be here anyway, and we can loudly state on the text they see when creating a user page that uses in violation of those policies are forbidden. —Centrx→talk • 16:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I would advocate striking the entire latter half of the proposed CSD; in other words, any user page being used for "social networking [or] advertising" or in any violation of current policies should be deleted (or fixed), regardless of the age or number of edits of the user account. But then the criterion becomes redundant with other already-existing criteria... Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

People sending "Wikilove" messages would then qualify, and the best response with established users for other sorts of things is not to delete the page but to tell them to stop. Also, the proposed wording is to include user pages that are mostly used for social networking, etc., whereas with "solely used" wording it would not include pages with simple comments about themselves or things would not be mentioned in WP:NOT but that are largely unrelated to Wikipedia. —Centrx→talk • 18:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"Negligible contributions" is entirely arbitrary. That makes the criterion worthless. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

How is it arbitrary? At the minimum extreme it is zero mainspace contributions, a little bit above that we have several mainspace contributions that were then reverted, and at the maximum extreme we have a user with only a handful of spelling corrections (and again, this is over the course of weeks). There are ways the wording could be restricted, referring to "non-reverted and non-minor edits" but this is just nitpicking; negligible is a clear word—it is quite clear what is going on with a user when they have 20 times as many edits to their user page and friends' user pages than they do to Wikipedia—and the pages being deleted are worthless with respect to Wikipedia anyway and can nevertheless be restored. There is no loss in deleting them and any loss due to an interpretation that ignores other parts of the criterion can be corrected. —Centrx→talk • 18:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I like "negligible". It is concise and avoids instruction creep. We could also say "no encyclopedic contributions" knowing that CSD are often stretched (compare how G1 and A3 are frequently used). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-10-08 19:29Z

Couldn't we define "negligible" as "zero non-reverted/non-vandalism mainspace edits" or something very similar to that? I'm saying let's use "negligible" in the actual definition, but then define negligible in a concrete way somewhere else (on the page, on another page, etc.). Perhaps Wikipedia:Neglibility is in order. (I'm half-kidding). | Mr. Darcy talk 01:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

So why is this a speedy criterion? Such things should be deleted, but WP:MfD exists for the purpose, and is not backlogged (and there may be benefit to getting more eyes on the problem). Septentrionalis 19:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be backlogged if we put them all up there, and the purpose is to minimize the time and effort used to deal with people interested in Wikipedia only as their playground. —Centrx→talk • 20:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, admins (not myself) have been speedying these generally without objections, so this criterion is meant to legitimize that. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-10-08 22:05Z

You mistake lack of knowledge of it occurring with lack of objection. If this is being done right now, I have a major problem with it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

None of these arguments for expansion appear to follows as necessary from the stated problem. Are we suggesting that, if people are activly using their talk pages but not contributing to main space, that a summary deletion of the talk page is an appropiate response? Because that seems wildly out of line with the open and welcoming environment that I prefer to work in, and that I believe most wikipedians prefer. Clearly advertising is already a deletion criterion. (As well as ineffective, thank you nofollow.) For any truly pernicious userpages, MfD should suffice. For those who just don't get it, how about a nice long chat and schooling them up to be good contributors? Outside that, this looks like a visceral response to a percieved problem: "Yea, let's blast those Myspacers!" Or something.
brenneman ^{L} 23:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm conflicted about this matter. On one hand, I don't care if a Wikipedian spends all of his edits on his user page & talk page, & never contributes as much as a typo fix to the rest of the project, as long as said person doesn't get in my way of contirubting. On the other hand, I can't work up the effort to care if someone like Centrix goes around & blasts people who don't contribute off of Wikipedia. Either stance we take, we risk offending borderline cases -- either encouraging freeloaders or discouraging people who might just be putting their toes into the project. Call me a process fetishist (but only if I can wear the appropriate garments ;-), but I suspect that before much more is written we should hold a non-binding poll on this issue just to see which way the wind is blowing. If I had to lay a bet on the poll, I'd guess as more established Wikipedians cast their votes the more likely the result would be less than two-thirds for either stance. -- llywrch 00:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Isn't there an actual cost to this sort of Wikipedia behavior in bandwidth and server resources? It might be tiny now, but if the practice were to spread, it might become an issue. | Mr. Darcy talk 01:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Deleting a page does not save any disk space. It's still sitting there, as is made clear by the fact that any administrator can see/restore the page. For a user page to be so heavily trafficed as to present a drain on bandwidth beggars belief, particularly when the squid caching is taken into account.
brenneman ^{L} 04:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to disk space; storage is cheap and getting cheaper all the time. When I mentioned server resources, I was thinking of connections to the server, and processing time on the server to handle requests, changes, etc. As I said, it may be tiny now, but if a few hundred users decided to myspace on Wikipedia, wouldn't it be a resource drag? | Mr. Darcy talk 04:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• We'd of course have to refer to a developer for this one if we wanted a definative answer, but I'd wager my uncle's nuts that that answer is "no." The amount of traffic the servers handle currently is simply massive, and any particular bit of text is infinitesimal. If these pages contained large images that changed frequently, then there might be an argument based upon this. My understanding is that this is instead intended to "send a message." - brenneman ^{L} 05:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Your uncle would like you to know that he'd prefer it if you'd wager your own nuts next time :) And I say "thanks for the answer." If there's no actual cost to what they're doing, and they're not disrupting anything else, I guess I'm neutral on the topic of whether or not to delete their user pages. | Mr. Darcy talk 05:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Those pages should be deleted. We're just debating how fast. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-10-09 18:25Z

If it's not a server drag, no backlog at MfD, and there's question as to how fast we should do this, then the logical conclusion is to not be speedying them. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

There's no backlog at MfD because they are depending on the admin either deleted immediately or ignored. —Centrx→talk • 00:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not quite understand what would actually qualify, ie, how close would messages have to be to the criteria, in order to qualify a whole page for deletion. Is a message about a topic, that isn't specifically related to that article somehow totally illegal. And what is the impetus for cracking down on bad behaviour, will it improve the encyclopedia in the end? Thats questionable. Ansell 12:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

A8: statute of limitations?

Why is there a need for "statute of limitations" for A8:db-copyright, which says that "The page was created less than 48 hours ago and is almost or totally un-wikified"? The article creation time, or whether it has been wikified is irrelevant, as far as the purpose and procedure of CSD is concerned. Given that about 2000 articles are created each day, most such violations won't be discovered within days, if not weeks.--Vsion 07:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia mirrors. Articles created less than 48 hours ago are almost never picked up by mirrors, so any other copy of the article is likely the original. With older articles, it may be neccessary to investigate which came first: the Wikipedia article, or the purported original. --Carnildo 07:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

This explanation should be added to the guidelines. Otherwise, inexperienced admins will make mistakes. Carcharoth 09:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Explanations are at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Explanations. I haven't gone through the other ones, but the A8 one explains the reasons for the parameters rather completely. —Centrx→talk • 14:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I added the link under "see also". Carcharoth 17:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Require admins to check the talk page before deletion?

I am worried that inexperienced admins are making mistakes, due to the complexity and size of the guidelines here at CSD. Could the procedure for admins be expanded? One point in particular that I would like to see emphasised is that the deleting admin should not only: (a) check the page history; (b) notify the creator where applicable; and (c) note the criteria in their edit summary. But they should also: (d) check the talk page of the page in question. In particular, I see that G8 says that talk pages shouldn't be deleted if "they contain deletion discussion that isn't logged elsewhere." The case I have in mind here is being discussed at DRV here. My concern is that speedy deletion of pages, without checking the talk page, can disrupt an ongoing debate on that page. I've had this happen to me twice now, and it is extremely annoying. Essentially, what I am asking is whether the criteria for deleting a page should also apply to its talk page, which may contain good-faith debate contributed by editors. I feel that these debates should be archived somewhere in some way. This would require some judgement from the admin on whether the comments should be kept, which would depend on the relevance of the debate, whether the debate has finished, and how extensive it is. The case at DRV is complicated by the fact that G5 was invoked, and this often arouses strong feelings. I would welcome fresh input over there, where there has been extensive discussion. In my opinion, the procedure should be to use the 'move' function (this preserves the edit attributions) to move the talk page to a suitable archival location (usually an archival subpage of the relevant policy talk page), add a note explaining that the page being debated has been deleted, and then to delete the page and talk page. If this seems too lengthy and involved for CSD, then I suggest that pages with an active talk page should be dealt with at XfD, rather than CSD. Carcharoth 10:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

A few problems: People don't follow instructions. The complexity and size of the guidelines at CSD is only increased by your suggestion! We can't require people to do anything on Wikipedia. There is no need to encumber the process by granting a total get out of jail free card by someone writing "skwdlhfdskjlgfbdslkjfnbdslfj" on the talk page. -Splash - tk 23:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I'm only asking for common sense, and a short sentence upholding the principle that talk pages should be checked before deletion. The judgement as to whether to delete the talk page would be up to the individual admin. Carcharoth 00:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I already use common sense when I delete pages which fall under the CSD guidelines. -- Ξxtreme Unction 00:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Any adminstrator who doesn't check the talk page when deleting needs a good kick up the arse. But writing it down won't make it so.
brenneman ^{L} 00:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I entirely disagree with this. There's often no reason to check the talk page when something clearly meets a CSD. --Improv 04:33, 9 October 2006

• Something can easily meet the criterion while still having mitigating information on the talk page. Comments like "I totally saw this band during their European tour, does anyone have a citation?" are not uncommon. - brenneman ^{L} 05:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

If that's the case, then we should change all the deletion templates that say you should put any anti-deletion arguments on the talk page. Fagstein 06:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

There's no reason not to check the talk page. Right now, the speedy template doesn't say that you should put arguments against deletion on the talk page. I tried to edit it to say something like that, but I got reverted. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

On dewiki, discussion about speedy deletions takes place on the article page itself (right below the speedy nom), which looks like a much simpler approach than using the talk page as we do here. Kusma (討論) 09:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Aaron that writing this down won't necessarily make admins check the talk page, but at least it will help when I ask an admin why they didn't check the talk page and they bluster and say that there is no requirement to do so. I would like to be able to point to this discussion and this page and politely ask them to check talk pages in the future. Carcharoth 10:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

To respond to Improv, I would point out that if people see a CSD template on a page, they may try to contest it by putting a comment on the talk page, rather than just removing the CSD template. The reason for the CSD might be obvious to you, but it would show respect if you took the time to read the talk page and check that someone hasn't thought of something you haven't. Some admins also perform CSDs on sight, without any warning. If I want to contest these, I generally ask the admin to take it to XfD, and usually there is no problem. Sometimes I have to take the case to DRV instead. I also notice that you have not responpded to my point that failure to check the talk page can result in deleting an ongoing debate. To give you an example, how would you feel if this page suddenly disappeared because an admin speedy deleted the accompanying page and this talk page, without checking the talk page first? Even if the speedy deletion was justified, it would be courteous to check the talk page. Also, you say there is "often no reason to check the talk page" (my emphasis), which implies that sometimes there is reason. By this logic, you still need to check the talk page every time, just in case it is one of the cases where there is a reason to check the talk page. Not doing this sounds like trying to speed things up and not taking the time to carefully check things before performing the deletion. Another thing that could be checked is 'What links here', as that will also tell you whether a speedy deletion (or any deletion) would disrupt other areas of the encyclopedia. I dread to think how many admins do not perform checks like this. Carcharoth 10:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Finally, while checking the talk page should apply to all namespaces, including article space, it is particularly important in the case of Wikipedia space, where essays, guidelines and policies are extensively discussed on the talk pages, and it is often more desirable to preserve these discussions than the discussions on article talk pages (indeed, many rejected or historical policies and their talk pages are preserved for precisely this reason). Also, this 'delete on sight without checking' mentality is particularly evident (understandably) in cases of G5 (removing content added by sockpuppets of banned users after they were banned). I would urge anyone contributing to this debate to first review the two cases here and here (last one still ongoing, available from page history after case closes) before responding. I have written a lot about this, but it could all be covered in just a sentence or two in the guidelines: (1) Check talk pages before deleting; (2) Preserve relevant debate from the talk page before deleting (the precise application of this usually depends on the namespace and the nature of the debate). This is already partially and indirectly covered in G8, but I feel the principle should be made explicit and generalised. Carcharoth 10:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The "contested" template (I think that's what it's called) refers CSD cleaners to the talkpage anyhow -- it would probably be wise when that tag is there to pop one's head in to see what's going on there if there is any possible doubt. In the end, if something is very clearly inappropriate, it's not worth doing so (that is, if people are just dragging their feet), but given that people are expected to delete the talk pages too, it seems courteous and doesn't take much extra time to look in most cases. As for squashing ongoing debates, sometimes they have substance, sometimes they don't. If they do, I would hope that admins would not stomp them until they're over (If AfD were less broken (as in vote-centric rather than policy_based_discussion-centric), I'd suggest sending them over to AfD if there's room for reasonable disagreement). If they don't and someone really is just dragging their feet over materials inappropriate by policy, it's appropriate to ignore the contested tag. The point in speedy deletes is to allow it to be fast in cases that are either 1) Obvious, or 2) Allowing us not to deal with the brokenness of AfD. The need for speed is to deal with the enormous amount of junk people add to articles every day - following a complicated process is not what we need when we regularly have hundreds of things on CAT:CSD. I suggest that relevant debate can be dealt with if people care to take it to Deletion review - otherwise people should make short, clear policy discussions and it should come down to good judgement. --Improv 14:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• It's already the case that having new information not previously present in a speedily-deleted article is a good reason to recreate it. So if an article is speedied and good info is on its talk page, recreating is easy and uncontroversial. >Radiant< 15:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we are talking past each other here. I am talking mainly about talk pages outside article space, and you are both talking about talk pages for articles. Most CSD articles won't have talk pages, and most of the CSD criteria are usually applied to articles. I would guess that a common case for a CSD criteria to be applied to a Wikipedia: namespace page is G5, but in most cases G5 is applied after a sockpuppet of a banned user is uncovered. As most people will have been unaware that the sockpuppet was one, extensive debate may have taken place (I strongly disagree with the idea that nothing useful can be obtained from such debates), and I think that if the page has changed sufficiently, then it should be kept on its own merits, regardless of who started it. I fear that some admins, maybe due to an excessive fear of trolls and vandals, when they uncover such a sockpuppet, delete the pages they created "on sight". Is it possible to get G5 modified so that admins are asked to check whether the page has been modified since creation, and to check the talk page, and if there is activity and debate, to post a notice saying that the creator of the proposal was a sockpuppet. Then the people currently debating it can deal with the page how they see fit. Surely this is reasonable, and avoids the disruption caused by "delete on sight". Carcharoth 13:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Okay, I see. However, as far as I know we don't have all that many banned users and they don't write all that many pages in Wikispace. The fact that an admin can delete such pages at sight doesn't mean that he will do so. Could you please point out some evidence to show that this is actually a problem? >Radiant< 14:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The two 'here' links above. I suppose you want more than that, but that would require someone who can check deleted pages to see what was deleted. Incidentially, I think this is a problem of temperament between two different styles. I do things slowly and cautiously, checking things and talking them through with people before doing stuff. Others are more decisive and rush ahead and run around making decisions, but they shouldn't be surprised when occasionally something comes back on them. The backlogs are also something to do with it, as I think some admins feel rushed to clean up backlogs. Making that a valid excuse won't solve the problems though. Incidentially, it should be really easy to set up the AfD templates (indeed any XfD templates) to include links to (1) the page; (2) the page history; (3) the talk page; (4) the article log; (5) What links here. That way, AfD regulars can check these things. But for speedies, the admins are the ones that should carry out these checks. I regularly see people debating stuff and completely missing obvious stuff that is in the page history, the talk page, or the logs. Really, this is basic stuff, and it worries me that it appears that some admins don't grasp the basics of how to investigate a page. Oh, and edit summaries is another bugbear of mine. Sometimes, while rummaging around in the Wikipedia undergrowth, I come across something that might be worth looking into, but the edit summary is so hopelessly abbreviated and lacking links to the discussions, that it requires a huge effort looking through archives and cross-checking with the date of deletion. Carcharoth 15:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

PS. The first 'here' link was wrong. I've corrected it now. Carcharoth 20:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, but that indeed didn't convince me there was a problem. One of the pages you mention is on MFD, not speedily deleted, and surely MFD has mandate to discuss that. The other page (numbers need citations) is a rather dodgy issue but the talk page didn't contain any meaningful support for the proposal. It probably should have been {{rejected}} instead of deleted, but since nobody looks at rejected pages anyway that's pretty much a moot point. I'd be more interested in seeing if there are actual articles by banned users that are deleted in knee-jerk fashion. >Radiant< 09:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand. Thanks for taking the time to read those pages and respond. I am slightly concerned though that what I thought was a reasonable suggestion to remind admins to check talk pages, article logs, page histories, and 'what links here' before deleting, is being opposed. I was under the impression that this was a basic procedure everytime something was deleted? Please see my further points below in other sections. As for articles by banned users being deleted on sight, I'll try and keep an eye out, but that sort of thing tends to be hard to spot. For what it is worth, I recently removed some edits on a WikiProject talk page by a banned user's sockpuppet after the sockpuppet was revealed. It is the removal of other people's contributions that I object to. ie. A very blunt tool being used to surgically remove stuff and taking other stuff with it. Again, I think my reminder to check talk pages and histories would help here. Carcharoth 09:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

CSD U1 and WP:UM

It has come to our attention lately that some users oppose WP:UM (formally known as WP:GUS) because of this criteria. Therefore, I propose that there is either a line added to that criteria to state that it does not apply to any userboxes userfied per WP:UM, or something to the effect of that. Maybe add that userfied userboxes can only be deleted through community consensus at WP:MFD. Thoughts? Suggestions? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 02:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me like a commonsense exception that people can't just have a subpage of theirs speedied on demand if other editors are using it for transclusion. At the very least, one must check for incoming links before speedying, which would certainly raise a flag. That said, I don't oppose amending the criterion to reflect this contingency. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that any well respected editor who has userfied boxes would do it, but people who oppose UM still cite that as one reason. If it is added that you can't, it might make them feel better, and maybe will get more people on board with UM. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 04:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

U1? Are you talking about T1 (divisive and inflammatory)? I don't see how U1 applies, but that said, T1 would still apply whether I made User:nae'blis/The Pope screws goats or Template: User The Pope screws goats. Userbox migration allows latitude, not carte blanche. -- nae'blis 22:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

No, U1, which allows a user to ask for the deletion of their subpage. Userboxes are migrated to user subpages per WP:UM. People keep saying they don't like it because the user could possibly adopt a ton of userboxes, then request speedy deletion of them. Again, I don't believe that anyone with an archive would do so, or that any admin would do the deleting, but it still scares some users silly. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 23:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh. I hadn't even considered that conspiracy theory... -- nae'blis 03:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

And really, if anyone ever did, then there would be an uproar across several project pages (VP, AN, ANI, multiple talk pages, I'd imagine ArbCom). But, people still think we're going to do that. We mine as well calm everyones mind, and just put in what is currently practiced into U1. If nobody opposes it in the next week, I'll go and do it myself. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 03:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of more than one person making the argument. Still, I can't see any harm in adding a mention of the common-sense exception we're talking about. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it this sort of situation that WP:IAR is for? --ais523 09:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It's been my experience that IAR is used for "things the rules say I can't do/don't say I can do, but need to be done", rather than "things that I won't do, but that the rules say I can do", at least when it's cited explicitly. Still, I don't think the exception does any real harm (would they go to TFD or MFD?), just largely superfluous. -- nae'blis 13:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

(back to margin) That's actually a good question. We have a sort of precedence at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Xaosflux/UBX/User religion flying spaghetti monster not really, which was a keep per WP:SNOW. The only thing is that the MfD deletion box is big and ugly and unless noincluded, will show up on every transclusion (which then of corse brings up DRV when its deleted and nobody knew because there was no thing saying this will be deleted, discuss here above the box), as opposed to the small TfD line. Maybe we make a smaller MfD for userfied boxes? I've also never seen IAR user for ignore what it says I can do. I think IAR was made for outside the box/policy things that may need justification and a split second decion. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 03:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Back in the Dark Ages (okay, not really) when userboxes were in templatespace, {{tfd-inline}} was useful for keeping the disruption down to a minimum. Maybe something similar could/should be created at {{mfd-inline}}? -- nae'blis 21:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

That would be a good idea. Would we have modify the deletion process to have that inserted? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 18:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

This seemed noncontroversial and optional, so I was bold and made it (at {{md1-inline}}, actually, to keep it in line with the main template. -- nae'blis 17:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Since there has been no opposition on this page, I have added the line to CSD U1: This does not include userboxes that have been userfied per the Userbox migration. I have also added it to the explanation page. If anyone thinks that it isn't clear enough or that it should be added to, I won't be at all offended. And I believe anything imflamitory on a userfied box would be included under attack pages. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 22:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

CSD A7: Avoid the word "vanity"

The word "vanity" in deletion discussions causes us real problems. I would strongly suggest we avoid such in deletion logs too. Unless you can prove they were in fact personally responsible (which isn't very speedy), such usage would likely be defamatory in conventional English discourse, and asserting "no no we were using a local jargon term" would I suspect not cut much ice. The note is clunky, please reword without losing the important point - David Gerard 10:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone ever been sued, or even had suit filed, for calling someone "vain"? Surely that is too much even for the US! -Splash - tk 00:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Probably not, but if we can improve public relations by something as simple as not using one derogatory term, we should give that a shot. >Radiant< 09:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I also see many edit summaries just saying CSD G8, CSD G11, CSD A7, etc. That could equally be too much jargon, but this is a 'no brainer' change. Being more civil does not cost anyone anything. Carcharoth 09:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Expanding admin guidelines

Following on from the above, does anyone object to the following expansion of the admin guidelines (the bold bit at the end of the lead section). The changes should also apply to the section at the end, called "Procedure for administrators". My proposed additions are in italics.

• "Note that administrators should always verify the legitimacy of a speedy deletion candidate before taking action. It is the administrator's responsibility to make sure that speedy deletion tags are accurate; to do this the administrator must examine the history of every page , the talk pages, 'What links here', and the page logs before deleting it."

This should, of course, be done anyway, but I don't think it does any harm to remind admins, as they may be rushed or inexperienced. I realise this is meant to be speedy deletions, but these are basic checks that really, really should be carried out. (Talk page may have additional information, 'what links here' will show what will become red-links and provide more information, and the page logs may reveal that the article is a recreation, and why previous pages at this title were deleted). I realise most CSD candidates won't have previous versions, or links from elsewhere, but you can't say for sure until you check. If the deleting admin doesn't do this, and someone else does and uncovers a reason why the CSD shouldn't have been performed, it just shows that the decision was too speedy and embarasses the admin. Carcharoth 13:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• I oppose this - sometimes things are perfectly clear from the article and the talkpage can have no possible relevance. The current phrasing is fine. In any case, making mistakes here and there isn't that embarassng - sometimes these things happen. If it becomes too frequent it can become a problem though. It's better to be bold and fix what needs fixing and occasionally not have things stick in the end than to be stagnant out of fear of error. --Improv 14:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you seriously saying that if a talk page exists, that you don't look at it before deleting? I will quote what Aaron said above: "Any adminstrator who doesn't check the talk page when deleting needs a good kick up the arse." I will also quote a good piece of advice I saw someone else give once: "if you don't have time to do something, let someone else do it!" Seriously, rushing things is nearly always bad. One click on the talk page, one click on the history of the page, one click on what links here, one click on the logs. If you carry out speedy deletions faster than this, then it is probably too fast. As for being bold, I see below an example of what happens when you do that. How much time will now be expended on those AfD debates that you could have spent doing other stuff? Carcharoth 15:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I can quote people too. I already read what he read -- I'm sure we have better things to do than quote ourselves and others at each other :) There are times that I don't read talk page, and as noted above, there are times that I don't think it's necessary. As for time being spent, spending time establishing sensible policy now is time we're saving for the future of the project, so it's worthwhle. If you disagree, why are you spending the time here disagreeing? :) --Improv 15:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, on similar lines, you could just agree with me. :-) Let's wait and see what others think. Carcharoth 16:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

A couple more things, Improv, seeing as you don't always check talk pages. Do you check the page history before deleting, in case the page has been vandalised from a previously acceptable state? Do you check that the article has 5 edits, rather than 500? And if it had 500 would you take the time to look for an acceptable previous version? And do you check the deletion log for the article to see if the article had previously been created before? If you do all this, what is the harm in checking the talk page as well? Now, I've looked at your history on your user page, and I see that you almost certainly do understand all this. But at some point you didn't know this, and learnt how these things work. So at what point did you become confident enough to start ignoring talk pages and thinking that everything about an article can be seen by just reading the bit on the front page? Please don't think I am focussing on you personally, but I suspect that overconfidence can be as damaging as inexperience. I'm not saying to be "stagnant through fear of error", but to be methodical and make sure you understand the full history and connections of what you are about to delete. Carcharoth 17:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Learning lessons from the cookie debacle

The heated debate on cookie brands speedy deleted by Improv (talk • contribs) prove that some admins are interpreting G11 way beyond what it is intended to cover and way beyond what the community deems reasonnable. I suppose this talk page is the best place to gather comments and suggestions to avoid similar problems in the future. I particularly invite Improv to state his case here since he maintains that his deletions were in line with the criteria. (I'll stay out of it for now, as I have already lost my cool in the DRV debate...) Pascal.Tesson 14:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• I'd say the best way to learn is to throw some borderline cases on AFD and see what the community thinks of them. >Radiant< 15:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I had a quick look, and it looks to me as if Improv confused product placement with cultural history. If these articles were written from a cultural history standpoint, G11 would not apply. A good example is articles about 'products' that are no longer sold. This is clearly cultural history. The amount of coverage thus needs a set of 'cultural history' guidelines to be drawn up. Carcharoth 15:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• The articles, by and large, made no claims to be part of cultural history, nor did they, to my memory, even mention the term. Instead, they looked like simple product listings, making them fit under G11. I find it disappointing (but not entirely surprising) that some members of the community choose to interpret G11 in a very narrow way. When necessary steering comes from above, ignoring it and sending things to AfD makes it very likely that this advice will be ignored because AfD is both inherently keep-prone and inviting for people to come vote to keep things, without any policy justification or (often) even any reasoning. In the end, I believe eventually we'll see (and will probably push for) more guidance to come down from above that will help us clear product directories and other such things frolm Wikipedia. Almost no cell phone, brand of toilet plunger, or cookie is noteworthy, and the few that are need to be phrased carefully to make it clear why and how they are. --Improv 15:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that some articles aren't given a chance. The wiki process sometimes leads to seemingly non-notable stuff being edited up into good articles with well-chosen references. It just depends whether they have been deleted first. Sure, sometimes stub articles hang around for years, but sometimes it feels like the atmosphere is one of rushing towards Wikipedia 1.0 by deleting everything else. Also, there is a lot of deletion when merging is perfectly possibly. Too many people see "a mess" and automatically reach for the 'delete' button without looking for the 'improve' button. Even a slight improvement can start a cascade of other improvements that lead to an article gradually taking shape. Carcharoth 15:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Arnott's Biscuits Holdings did cite cultural history, but to your credit you did undelete it when you realised (after being prompted) you had been too hasty. Still, reading the complaints about the number of redlinks you left behind because you didn't have time to fix them doesn't fill me with confidence that you put much effort or thought into many of these. Also, I've never read an explanation of why you protected Wagon Wheel (biscuit) against recreation.

Now, as I managed to get in the last post on the deletion review: can you please provide a link to the appropriate foundation-l discussion archive so we can all read it and draw our own conclusions? Thanks, --Canley 16:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Part of it could be simply using one's head. Even if something like Pepperidge Farms or Famous Amos looks like an advertisement, it probably isn't, and should be rewritten or, at worst, sent to AfD.. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Brad Patrick wrote:
> Dear Community:
>
> The volume of corporate vanity/vandalism which is showing up on 
> Wikipedia is overwhelming.  At the office, we are receiving dozens of 
> phone calls *per week* about company, organization, and marketing 
> edits which are reverted, causing the non-notable, but 
> self-aggrandizing authors, to scream bloody murder.  This is as it 
> should be.  However, I am issuing a call to arms to the community to 
> act in a much more draconian fashion in response to corporate 
> self-editing and vanity page creation.  This is simply out of hand, 
> and we need your help.
>
> We are the #14 website in the world.  We are a big target.  If we are 
> to remain true to our encyclopedic mission, this kind of nonsense 
> cannot be tolerated.  This means the administrators and new page 
> patrol need to be clear when they see new usernames and page creation 
> which are blatantly commercial - shoot on sight.  There should be no 
> question that someone who claims to have a "famous movie studio" and 
> has exactly 2 Google hits - both their Myspace page - they get nuked.  
> Ban users who promulgate such garbage for a significant period of 
> time.  They need to be encouraged to avoid the temptation to recreate 
> their article, thereby raising the level of damage and wasted time 
> they incur.
> 
> Some of you might think regular policy and VfD is the way to go.  I am
> here to tell you it is not enough.  We are losing the battle for 
> encyclopedic content in favor of people intent on hijacking Wikipedia 
> for their own memes.  This scourge is a serious waste of time and 
> energy.  We must put a stop to this now. 
> Thank you for your help.
>
> -Brad Patrick
> User:BradPatrick
> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

• That's the post that started the discussion, but it extended further into discussion of company listings. I invite you to do further research at m:LSS/foundation-l-archives —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Improv (talk • contribs).

• • IMHO the key phrase in Brad's post that relate to this discussion is "when [administrators and new page patrolers] see new usernames and page creation which are blatantly commercial - shoot on sight" (emphasis obviously mine). Most, if not all of the pages were established pages, with contributions from established users. They weren't new pages being created to spam the wiki, although they might have been poorly written and fanboyish (for want of a better term). The intention of the post you quote, as I read it, is to declare war on new pages that are unquestionably blantantly commercial, not on poorly written existing pages about products that may or may not be notable. Thryduulf 17:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• If you can't see the difference between 'someone who claims to have a "famous movie studio" and has exactly 2 Google hits - both their Myspace page' and Pepperidge Farm, I really don't know what else we can say to you. Turnstep 17:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• I had a suspicion people would ignore my invitation to look further into the discussion. I'm not keen to repost the entire thread here - go take a look. The fact remains that a number of pages that would've and should've been shot on sight were not because the policy was not around, and Danny, myself, and hopefully others will clear the crap away (even if we make a few mistakes) to get us moving towards where we need to go. It will necessarily anger the most ardent of inclusionists, but that's predictable. --Improv 18:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I said I'd stay out of it but sorry, I can't. I've taken you up and read the threads on corporate vanity policy enforcement and it is a very interesting discussion indeed but even Brad Patrick's message which started the discussion and which is probably the most blunt of the bunch cannot be reasonnably interpreted as "please destroy Chips Ahoy!". You say your conduct will necessarily anger the most ardent of inclusionists, well I for one consider myself as an ardent deletionist and have been criticized as such. Yet I find your conduct irresponsible and bullyish. Your contempt of others' opinion and your belief that your conduct is beyond criticism because you know you're doing it for the greater good is shameful. Pascal.Tesson 19:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Pascal, you might be interested in the thread above this one, about admin guidelines. Carcharoth 19:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Improv, I'd like to ask you if you looked at the page histories, the 'What links here' listings, the talk pages, and the article logs, before speedy deleting those articles? It might be interesting to see what looking at those pages would reveal. Give me a sec... Carcharoth 19:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Detailed analysis

OK, have a look at User:Carcharoth/Sandbox. The immediate conclusions that can be drawn from this, and which suggest speedy deletion was unwarranted for several of the articles, are the following:

• List_of_Nestlé_brands was a spin-off from Nestlé (this can be found by looking at the creation, or first, edit). This should immediately give pause for thought.
• Six of the articles have over 40 edits, a fair number, which suggests that maybe they are not spamvertisements (Famous_Amos, Pepperidge_Farm, List_of_Nestlé_brands, Passion_Pop, Tim_Tam), Chips_Ahoy!).
• Two of the articles had WikiProject Australia templates on the talk pages (Tim_Tam and Iced_Vovo), which sugggests that the people at that WikiProject might not want the articles speedy deleted without discussion.
• One of the articles had a previous AfD result of keep on its talk page (Anna's_Swedish_Thins) - again, this suggests that speedy delete is not appropriate.
• Five of the articles had over ten links from other articles (Pepperidge_Farm, Arnott's_Biscuits_Holdings, Toll_House, Tim_Tam, Chips_Ahoy!) - not conclusive evidence that they are notable (could be a walled garden), but enough doubt to avoid speedy deletion.

I hope I've managed to convince you (Improv) that looking at the history of the articles a bit more might have avoided some of this speedy deletion controversy. Carcharoth 22:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, my analysis also found what may be two anomalies. They are both cases where the deletion of the article shows up in the log, but the restoration is not there!

• Teddy_Grahams - article log
• Penguin_biscuit - article log

Does anyone know what is going on here? Carcharoth 22:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Boy, thanks for the great effort. Pascal.Tesson 23:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Shows just fine for me, today. -- nae'blis 13:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. They've been corrected. What happened was that red links popped up everywhere when Improv deleted articles without fixing redlinks (something clicking on 'what links here' would have told him), and people recreated the articles, naturally thinking "Why doesn't Wikipedia have an article on that?". Those two articles were recreated. In each case, the page histories of the articles before and after deletion have now been merged by Thrydulf, so everything is fine now. Carcharoth 13:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Another addition to G11

A lot of the cookie debacle could have been averted, I think, if we had something similar to this in the criteria:

If established users disagree with such a decision in good faith, the article should be restored and sent to the proper XfD

Obviously, the wording should be better put together, but it would be a good way to avoid a flood of DRVs. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

You do not need to add that to G11 because that is an explicit requirement for all the speedy-deletion criteria. The speedy-deletion process was established to clear out those cases which are completely obvious and non-controversial. Any speedy-deletion which is contested in good faith is to be immediately restored and nominated to the appropriate XfD. That was a non-negotiable control which the community insisted upon before approving the concept of speedy-deletions. Rossami (talk) 05:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It is natural to think that, isn't it? But the deletion review I'm involved in (you have participated in it) was over a CSD, and I made precisely that argument (I was prepared to move it to MfD) and got met with an insistance that G5 was not contestable. It is true that G5 is so terse it doesn't allow any wiggle room at all, and I think that is bad, as it encourages those who stick rigidly to procedures. Carcharoth 10:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

if that were indeed the case, it wouldn't be such a struggle to get speedies overturned when requested. I did just that w/Improv on his recent deletion spree, and he said no. I did the same with an A7 a month ago, User:King of Hearts said no. It needs to be explicit. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a number of people do seem forgotten the promises we all made when the speedy-deletion process was approved. Nevertheless, that is the rule for all CSDs and will remain the rule until it is explicitly overturned. Rossami (talk) 11:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Then it needs to be made much more explicit. Admins aren't doing so, and deletion review is endorsing said speedies regardless of good faith protests. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

G11, A8, admin discretion

There seems to be a large disconnect between the amount of admin discretion allowed by A8 (don't delete if it's older than 48 hours, because admins supposedly can't figure out whether the other site is a mirror or the original source of the data -- most cases I've seen were basically 100% clear with not much time spent) and the amount of discretion required by G11 (determine whether the article creator is an established user with no history of spam, determine whether the original author intended to spam or whether they're just trying to fulfill notability criteria (A7) and went a bit too far, determine whether the backlinks existed long before this article was created, ...). Maybe people are just fishing by nominating articles that might be deleted under G11, but I'm seeing a lot of nominations that are pretty iffy. I know I've written prose that was later removed as inadvertantly sounding too much like an advertisement, so I'm a bit hesitant to make a call on what the original creator's intent was.

Would it be possible to make G11 only apply to new or anonymous accounts, or accounts whose talk pages indicate an obvious problem with spam? --Interiot 18:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Or (as suggested above) maybe have a 'quick restore' option - something like 'if three users in good standing...' (we could use the foundation/arbcom election suffrage rules) '...request it, the article will immediately be undeleted and listed on Afd'. This would avoid tying up admins in useless red tape, but act as a safety valve against misinterpretation/abuse (depending on your opinion). Cynical 19:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

You'd have to define 'good standing' much better than is currently done to avoid a flood of sockpuppets. I think our effort would be better spent on refining G11 than trying a distributed load system, at least at present. How would an admin know a talk page had garnered three opposers? Categories can't count the number of times a template is included... -- nae'blis 19:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, as I said we could use the Arbcom/WMF Board suffrage rules (which I can't remember offhand, I think it has an editcount and a minimum time requirement) which have (I presume, since we're still using them) proved fairly successful in fending off sockpuppets. It wouldn't necessarily need a talkpage message for the article itself. There's no real reason why we couldn't set up a page specifically for speedy objections (WP:SDR anyone?). Then admins could simply monitor one page, and any article which was listed (with the necessary support from established users) could then be restored and AFD'd. I'm not sure if three is a high enough threshold though - thoughts anyone? Cynical 19:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

IIRC, ArbCom election said three months and 150 edits; Wikimedia board said four months and 400 edits, although "good standing" has a different definition sometimes; see Wikipedia talk:Established Wikipedian or [3] (specifically as its used in CAT:AOR. I'm not sure this is a necessary process though, DRV does already speedily-undelete articles on occasion when the consensus is clearly against the original deletion. A separate page just adds more process to our system, which is already overburdened for the new editor IMO. -- nae'blis 22:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind being aggressive on A8, as copyvio is copyvio, but I would rather a preference of copyvio text being removed, the article being stubbed, and then, if there's inclusion issue, taking it to AfD. Copyvio deletion seems to be an easy way to remove otherwise useful material just because people don't understand the GFDL and our need to be aggressive on copyright. With G11, unless we're going to remove it entirely (which doesn't seem to be on the table yet), some common sense has to factor in. Outside of that, I'm becoming a larger proponent of a "good faith challenges get undeleted and AfD'd" than anyhting else, because, otherwise, they will be sent to DRV and we'll see more shitstorms like with Improv's deletions. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Expanding A7

(Sort of.) In our new spirit of intolerance to advertising, and just because it makes sense, would anyone object to adding "product" and "service" to the possible targets of an A7 deletion? This is from the G11 criterion which allows for not just companies, but these two, and it follows logically from the spirit of A7. Dmcdevit·t 03:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. I always thought it should include obvious hoaxes also, but ahwell. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind on principle although I'm worried about how this will be used in practice. CSD is mostly used by people patrolling new pages and I'm afraid that this will lead to frustrating deletions of valid stubs, especially as far as products are concerned. Pascal.Tesson 03:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflicted) If the product or service isn't notable enough to qualify for your suggestion, then it already qualifies under G11. I don't think this is needed. If A7 and G11 are to be compared so much due to their involvement in recent controversial events, they should be combined, otherwise their differences must be kept clear. I don't think advertisements are notable, hence any G11 could qualify for A7. --Zsinj^Talk 03:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm for it, and even more remove G11 and incorporate company, promotional, and organizational articles in one all inclusive A7. Teke^(talk) 03:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm for that. --Zsinj^Talk 03:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I would note that there is a difference between lacking an assertion to notability, and being blatant advertising. Dead people, ruined businesses, and discontinued products can all lack assertions of notability per A7 and strictly qualify as advertising, but only the latter doesn't currently qualify. (Note it could just be questionable whether it's advertising, but without an assertion of notability. That's where this is helpful.) Dmcdevit·t 04:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I could write an article on Target gift cards. I've got a bunch of them at home (lots of gifts), and the designs are nifty, but while it'd be non-notable, it wouldn't really be spam, do you think? A7 non-notable products/services might be a good reason to delete my article on Target gift cards... ~Kylu (u|t) 04:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

To provide a case study for Dmcdevit's point: This is a quote cut directly out of a press release, which is available here. This press release fails to mention why this particular stock scam is notable and contains a number of lies. Some assertions of notability are highlighted.

“

The SCO Group (Nasdaq: SCOX) is a leading provider of UNIX software technology and mobile services, offering SCO OpenServer for small to medium business, UnixWare for enterprise applications, and Me Inc. for mobile services. SCO's highly innovative and reliable solutions help millions of customers grow their businesses everyday, from SCO OpenServer on main street to UnixWare on Wall Street, and beyond. SCO owns the core UNIX operating system, originally developed by AT&T/Bell Labs and is the exclusive licensor to UNIX-based system software providers. Headquartered in Lindon, Utah, SCO has a worldwide network of thousands of resellers and developers. SCO Global Services provides reliable localized support and services to partners and customers. For more information on SCO products and services, visit www.sco.com.

”

Similar press release style articles should be deleted on sight under G11, but are not eligible for deletion under A7. Then there's the problem of userspace spam. I've tagged upwards of 150 user pages for speedy deletion over the last week.

General comments on expansion - Why not? MER-C 06:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The biggest question I would ask is why is it reasonable that these things can be identified on sight, as all the other speedy criteria can be. Making up new criteria, or expanding old ones, which are not clearly based on that presupposition is making a total mockery of the process. Ansell 07:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The implementation of new criteria might in part be motivated by the belief by some admins that AfD is 'broken', and the idea that extending CSD is the best way to get things deleted. See what Improv said further up this page: "The point in speedy deletes is to allow it to be fast in cases that are either 1) Obvious, or 2) Allowing us not to deal with the brokenness of AfD.". I agree with (1), but not with (2). Carcharoth 11:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Can we please stop trying to expand A7 so it becomes more and more controversial with every use? --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

G11 is a joke right?

How did that sneak through? Why speedy something that just needs a rewrite. That is abusing the entire DRV/AfD system IMO. These things should be a PROD at least, as one sysop cannot be expected to know whether the thing is okay. Ansell 04:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyone is free to re-write such an article to not be promotional, but the promotional form gets deleted and Wikipedia may not be used for advertising. —Centrx→talk • 05:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

There's a block quote above from Brad Patrick (the Foundation legal guy) who rather dropped G11 into place at once. He also mentions blocking commercial-spam users. So no, it's no joke. If there's a valid version of something, of course revert it. If Coca Cola comes up as a big Wiki-ad, no sane admin is going to delete it, they'll just revert to a good article version. Hope that helps! ~Kylu (u|t) 05:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if the "Foundation" thought about the mess that would be made of the entire CSD->DRV->AfD process. Is it really worth it to have snowballed processes that waste contributors time. A better idea may be to just tell people to remove the information that they perceive as advertising. Some sane admin deleted Arnott's which is arguably one of "the" most famous australian companies. I imagine that an aussie admin may mistake a US icon in the same way. Maybe not Coca Cola, but one of the other companies that has not ventured down under yet. Overall, the criteria is a misunderstanding of what the speedy process is about IMO. Ansell 07:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't subscribe to the wikien-l foundation mailing list, though I can, like everyone, read the web pages of the mailing list. I know that the mailing list is where lots of policy discussion takes place. I wonder if someone could make sure these arguments are being noticed on the mailing list. Carcharoth 09:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

We've already had an admin delete Pepperidge Farm with this in mind. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Arguably, many of the "crusade" deletions do not conform to the letter of the rule; but that just demonstrates its subjective interpretation. This rule is much, much too broad, and will continue to upset people as it is applied by people who may not have sufficient knowledge to determine whether a brand is notable, particularly across nations. At the top of the page, it says a criterion should satisfy:

• The criterion should be uncontestable: it should be the case that almost all articles that can be deleted using the rule, should be deleted, according to general consensus. If a rule paves the path for deletions that will cause controversy, it probably needs to be restricted.

It seems to me that G11 has done just that, created controversy, because it allows deletion of articles that not everyone believes should be deleted. Although uncontestable is just a guideline, I think it's a very important one for keeping deletion productive and limiting unnecessary community friction.

I suggest we severely restrict its scope to account for these issues - better to see some advertisements "fall through" to PROD/AFD than to see the rule meet an early death due to a violent backlash. If Brad Patrick wants to force our hand, let him commit an office action; meanwhile, I think we should pursue a less aggressive course that we believe is prudent. Deco 09:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It is probably better to say that CSDs should be based on easily defined criteria that are easy to demonstrate without requiring extensive arguments. Saying criteria are uncontestable sounds like you are saying people should be forbidden from contesting them (I know that is not really what you are saying, but it could sound like that). I'd also note Rossami's comment above: "The speedy-deletion process was established to clear out those cases which are completely obvious and non-controversial. Any speedy-deletion which is contested in good faith is to be immediately restored and nominated to the appropriate XfD. That was a non-negotiable control which the community insisted upon before approving the concept of speedy-deletions." - in effect, that makes it more like PROD, but CSD is more likely to generate controversy when contested.

I agree totally with your suggestion to restrict G11 to prevent a backlash. Carcharoth 10:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the rider ("and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic") needs tightening up, although I think if properly applied now it would avoid the borderline cases. It's had teething troubles because it went from a vague statement from Brad Patrick to policy in record time, but I don't see any problem in its existence if it is applied as the policy is stated. An article doesn't actually need to speedily deleted under G11, just as an article failing A7 doesn't need to be, but prodding such an article would inevitably lead to an AFD, and since we don't have a "non-speedy speedy delete" this is the best place for it. Yomangani^talk 10:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Something needs to be done - about 20 hours after 30 articles that had been speedily deleted were listed on AfD:

• 19 have discussions where there is a majority to kept
• 6 have already been speedily kept
• 4 have no clear majority opinion
• 1 has a majority to delete (and this is because its already covered elsewhere).

If everything is working properly then I would expect there to have been no speedy keeps, and maybe one or two with a majority to keep. For this to be repeated would be truly farcical.

Perhaps we should add an article age limit to G11. If it is older than 5 days* it should be sent to XfD. From what I can tell this would have meant that most, if not all, of the biscuit deletions would not have been eligable for speedy. I suspect, the majority of really trully spammy pages will have been identified in that time, meaning there would not be a significant workload impact on the deletion debate processes. *This is just a figure to start discussion, I'm not attached to it in any way. Thryduulf 11:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not realise that the percentage of actual deletes was that high. However, it is still not high enough. A deletion discussion based on a cross-section of the wikipedia community, would be much better to avoid the false-positives that have been generated so far by the criteria wording--and possibly just by the fact that it is a speedy criteria. If a page truly has no value, and the duration of an XfD is not enough to improve it then I agree that deletion is the best option as I am as anti-spam as the next editor.

It brings into view how fast wiki-policy can actually change, and also, how annoying it can be for the average editor who doesn't constantly watch pages like this. Ansell 12:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that is me having a brain freeze. The 19 articles have/had a majority to keep, not delete. Thryduulf 12:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

A lot of those are now generating delete votes due to lack of notability rather than because they meet the G11 criteria - it is simply because they were deleted under G11 and then restored that they have been highlighted. If the G11 criteria were properly applied, I too would expect to see a majority of deletes (and would have expected neither an overturned decision at DRV nor an application at DRV in the first place). I think the problem here was that the deletions were carried out with Brad Patrick's request in mind rather than by the following the policy as stated, and I wouldn't expect to see such a rash of overturned deletions in the future. These things take a while to bed in. Yomangani^talk 12:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You certainly had me fooled with this "19 have a majority to delete"! In any case, I think we should also be careful not to read too much into that: there is certainly a backlash effect due to what most felt was an abusive interpretation of G11. I did not get involve in these discussions but, like Ansell, I feel that keeping all the cookie articles is not the grandest of ideas... Pascal.Tesson 13:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately an age limit would only be a temporary solution that works because the rule did not exist before - if this rule had existed at the time Chips Ahoy! was created, it might have been deleted then instead (and again shortly after each subsequent recreation). Speedy deletions should be rarely contested, and this rule is not.

I believe the heart of the problem is that this rule completely ignores notability, which is the essential quality that has been raised over and over by defenders of the deleted articles. We need an objective restriction that will only include non-notable advertisements. Here are some potential examples:

• a product or business with no impact outside a small, localized vicinity
• a minor variation on another product with almost no differentiating qualities

That sort of thing. Deco 12:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with Deco that an arbitrary time limit won't actually help. It is to be expected that a newly created policy will be subject to controversy on borderline cases until the details are worked out. The intent here is to put a stop to people using Wikipedia as a forum for advertising, by (among others) quickly deleting their articles. The intent is not to delete articles on any and all commercial goods and services; it sounds reasonable to keep the iconic and famous ones (Pepsi, as an extreme example) and do some creative merging to e.g. List of brands of peanut butter. The trick is in distinguishing between pure advertising and actually known products, since of course any decent advertisement will make some sort of claim of notability. >Radiant< 13:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Which is why this doesn't really work as a speedy. Most of them are going to be controversial and not-clear cut. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Not all speedies are meant to be noncontroversial. That's not a reason to remove them as speedies. When decided policy is to delete something, and it's not up for discussion (e.g. WP:OFFICE decisions), speedies are appropriate. G11 is another case where helpful policy comes down from above. --Improv 00:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Come on, you cannot compare the G11 to WP:OFFICE which is meant to be used in exceptional circumstances. It is ok for the foundation to push for G11 but it's also ok for the community to discuss its application and its range. Pascal.Tesson 00:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

To speak of tossing out something that both comes down from above and is so clearly needed, especially on the basis that rabid inclusionists might side to keep such things around on such a badly broken process like AfD is ridiculous. Ignoring foundation pushes (or intentionally interpreting them so narrowly that they mean nothing) is done at your (and the project's) peril -- either way something important is going to be lost. --Improv

Speedy deletion criteria are meant to be both "objective" and "uncontestable". You are wrong when you say that "Not all speedies are meant to be noncontroversial". Ansell 01:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Once again Improv, you seem to be suggesting that people who have disagreed with your questionable speedy deletions (and other "rabid inclusionists") are campaigning to have G11 "tossed out", are going against the unambiguous wishes of the Wikimedia Foundation and want to keep all the spam. Once again, I have to tell you this is not the case - myself and many others who have responded to you agree G11 is necessary and vital. I don't even think G11 is worded particularly ambiguously - and yes, I've read and re-read the foundation-l discussions and Brad's message - I think it's fairly clear what it's targetted at: blatant, commercial spam - but several of the articles you are targetting in your self-proclaimed cull are so far out of this intended target that I'm amazed that you continue to justify your actions as performed at the behest of the Foundation (including bypassing the "broken" AfD process). --Canley 05:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I too have read the foundation-l discussions and Brad's message, and I agree with Canley that Improv's continual pointing to Brad's post is not justified for some of the speedy deletions Improv has performed. Brad's post is quite clear and specific. Improv's criteria appear to be much broader than the ones used in Brad's post. Again, I would appeal to Improv to engage in discussion at AfD and see if it really is as broken as he thinks. I would also appeal for those posting to the foundation mailing list to make clear that this has caused confusion 'on the ground', and to ask for clarification, and some thought before policy is issued like this in the future. I will repeat what I have said elsewhere, generating confusion like this (however unintended) takes effort away from the process of building the encyclopedia. Carcharoth 11:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Improv, how many respected Wikipedians have to weigh in and argue that your interpretation of G11 is way too broad before you seriously question your attitude. Canley, Carcharoth and myself are not "rabid inclusionists" we are experienced, well-informed editors and we're trying to tell you that your actions are hurting the efforts to make G11 acceptable by the community. Pascal.Tesson 12:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of G11, and used db-spam once. However, I still have some reservation on the current wordings. For example, some editors may consider many articles on music albums (with pictures of albums cover, tracks listing, and little else) serve to promote the product and come under G11. Same for many short articles on books and films. Similarly, notability should not be a criteria for speedy-delete. These articles should be nominated for prod or afd. I think the articles to be speedied are those that contain advertisment-like languages with unsubstantiated and highly dubious claims such as: "This company is one of the leaders in this business and offers a wide range of excellent services to clients, ...". Hope G11 criteria can be tighten to provide clarity. --Vsion 06:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

One thing that I think will help would be rigourous enforcement of the so-called "tag and bag" process - i.e. the first user sees something that they beleive meets the speedy criteria, so they place a speedy deletion template on it. Then another user looks through CAT:CSD and makes sure they agree with it before hitting delete. This ensures that at least two pairs of eyes see every article. I don't do much speedy deletion work, but most times I do I find a couple of pages tagged as speedy deletion that don't meet the criteria and so I xfd them. IMHO if Improv had tagged the articles for someone else to delete, most of them would not have been. I know there are warnings not to remove CSD templates, but imho it is within the spirit if these are removed to be replaced by AfD nominations. Thryduulf 12:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

This is very similar to PROD, where someone other than the PRODder makes the final decision. It is just that speedies don't have to wait 5 days. I would support this "one person tags, another deletes" approach. Carcharoth 10:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

incorrect lemma

Shouldn't "incorrect article name" be added to general criteria? In many cases (like Red Book of Endangered Species, waiting for someone to merge the info to an article on the same subject with the correct name is unnecessary and wastes editors' and administrators' time. I suspect many normal users often notice the problem of two or more articles being created on the same subject, but because there is no user-friendly method of informing administrators, they don't do anything. As a result, editors waste time creating the same article more than once instead of in collaboration. And then later, huge merge discussions and possible edit wars waste huge amounts of administrator time.

As i've proposed before, WP needs a new tab called "report problem" in a prominent place, for example to the right of "watch" to be able to tap the huge dormant reservoir of help with basic, serious problems that normal users could provide. Normal users are quite capable of explaining in normal English what's wrong with a page but it is ridiculous to expect them to look for cleanup and delete templates. There are thousands of discussion pages with comments about serious problems that nobody does anything about for very long periods of time. Such a "report problem" tab can then have buttons for the templates addressing the most important problems, many of which can be quickly solved by administrators. --Espoo 11:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• If you find an article with an incorrect name, you can fix it yourself by using the 'move' tab, or by merging or redirecting the article. Adding a 'report problem' tab would be a nice idea, but since it involves a software change you really have to ask the Developers about the details. Educating new users on the ways they can help is always good. >Radiant< 12:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• By the same argument we should speedy stubs because in many cases we end up waiting for someone to expand them. There's no reason for impatience - if you feel compelled to hide it, turn the page into a redirect, and move the content to the talk page of the correct article for later merging. Deco 03:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with PROD?

Surely G11 is the kind of situation PROD was meant to deal with. Brad states that VfD (sic) isn't working, but is he aware of PROD? In my view we simply need new page patrollers and others to be slightly more aggressive in prodding spammish articles. The obvious crap gets deleted, acceptable articles get contested, kept and possibly some cleanup attention. Sure a spam article might stay for 5 extra days in a backwater of Wikipedia where no one is likely to see it, and even if they do it has a big notice saying "we intend to dump this". But in my view this is infinitely preferable to articles such as Penguin biscuit being speedy deleted. the wub "?!" 09:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Spammers promptly unprod articles, resulting in a five day formal deletion debate about unsalvagable crap. And you cannot prod userspace spam. In fact, since G11 came around, I've tagged about 200 user pages that were nothing but spam. But there are teething problems as have been described. Since {{db-web}} and {{db-spam}} were implemented, the workload on AFD has dropped by about a third. MER-C 09:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Citation please on the "spammers promptly unprod articles" claim? The last data I saw spotchecked prod and found 80-90% deletion rates, but maybe spammers have gotten more savvy since then. Also, why does "a third" link to MD's RFB? -- nae'blis 22:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the argument from bureaucrats is that even waiting 6 days to delete spam is a concern and in effect fails to discourage spammers. I often patrol new pages and G11 is really handy for a number of articles I previously had to prod and I believe will eventually deter at least some of the spam. Not sure where you got your stats but it's pretty interesting: I would have thought that % would be much lower than that. On the other hand you have to be careful about using it as an argument that spammers don't bother removing PROD tags. I think PROD tags are most used by Newpage patrollers and people cleaning up articles tagged with importance or notability and linkless or orphan articles. In my experience the percentage of PROD tags removed in the second case is definitely below 10% but I'm not sure that's the case for newpage PRODs. Pascal.Tesson 23:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

{{nn-bio}}, {{nn-band}}, et cetera

These are templates that redirect to {{db-bio}}. Unlike db-bio, "nn-bio" has a connotation that implies that CSD criterion A7 is for deleting any article on a non-notable subject. The text of A7 has, for a long time now, used the wording "does not describe the importance or significance of the subject", and WP:CSD, under the heading non-criteria includes "non-notable subjects with their importance asserted". Obviously, this misuse occurs with db-bio, not just nn-bio, but I want to get rid of nn-bio as a speedy deletion tag because (1) I have never, since becoming an admin in July, seen nn-bio used appropriately, (2) about a quarter of the time I see this misuse of CSD A7, there's a nn-bio tag, and (3) even the existence of nn-bio as a deletion tag perpetuates this misuse of speedy deletion. I was going to list this debate on WP:RFD, but (1) using an rfd tag would break the template for now, and (2) this is the community that should really discuss the issue, and (3) I want to have these redirected to Template:Notability, just as {{nn}} is: having them disappear would just cause confusion: since I'm not seeking deletion, listing for deletion doesn't make sense. Mangojuice^talk 14:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually I was not aware that these templates existed but it sure is misleading that the templates {{nn-bio}} and {{bio-notability}} would result in utterly different things. Actually I would be in favor of deleting all speedy deletion templates and template redirects that are not of the form {{db-xxx}}, including {{nonsense}}. Pascal.Tesson 22:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on the actual templates but do have a strong opinion on the process. These tags are widely used or referenced throughout the project. If you are going to obsolete some of these templates, do not just delete them. Instead, tag them with {{historical}} or some other marker to show that they are no longer to be used. That way, users know not to continue using them but new readers/editors will be able to follow the old discussion threads and see what was actually being discussed. Rossami (talk) 22:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Second Rossami. Carcharoth 23:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course I think both Mangojuice and I were not proposing to just zap them to oblivion without some care. Although I'd like to point out that there is much less risk of serious mistakes being made if we change the nn-bio redirect from a CSD tag to a notability warning since the worst that can happen is that some nn article escapes the axe temporarily. The other way around would have had some people screaming bloody murder. :-) Pascal.Tesson 23:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to address Rossami's concern even more strongly. Does anyone have an idea how to make an "officially deprecated" template? Mangojuice^talk 01:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Probably one of the templates at Category:Template_templates will do. I like the look of Template:Tdeprecated. It doesn't mention 'officially', but that is probably as official as you get on Wikipedia. See also Category:Deprecated_templates. Carcharoth 01:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Try looking at nn-bio's deletion discussion for some background on this; it was closed as 'no consensus', possibly because it was nominated at TfD rather than RfD. --ais523 08:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it failed because a fair number of people didn't understand my point, and thought I was trying to get rid of a legit speedy tag. Ultimately, I think neither WP:RFD nor WP:TFD are the right venue (I chose TFD before so that I could avoid breaking the template while the discussion was going on): this is really about speedy deletion rules and how they are used, so I think the discussion belongs here. Mangojuice^talk 12:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thinking about just that problem, I invented {{rfd-t}} (along the lines of {{sfd-r}}) to file a mass nomination of speedy templates inspired by this thread (on RFD); they're all redirects to {{db-reason}} (so I've left nn-bio, etc., out; if another discussion is wanted, that can be done separately, but I'd like to see how this one turns out first). --ais523 12:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• If you're going to change a template's purpose, you need to find some way of informing the community of that, otherwise they will keep on using it for the old purpose. >Radiant< 09:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Agred, certainly. Do you think there's a better way than using Template:Tdeprecated on it? Mangojuice^talk 10:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • There should be. People with tabbed browsers or some extensions can just place a template somewhere and not look at the result much (since they assume they know what the result is). I'd say advertise it in a lot of places (because unfortunately we don't have a central advertising place either, we have several). >Radiant< 08:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Clarification on CSD A7

Okay, maybe my brain is just numb, but I'm having a hard time interpreting "doesn't assert the importance or significance of the subject" to articles on companies, websites, products, et cetera. Take, as a case in point, Wapedia, where I have removed the speedy deletion tag. This article doesn't claim that the product is important or historically significant: it just says what the product is. To me, the description sounds fairly unique... but there's nothing in there that claims the product is important or significant. I decided not to delete this one because .. well.. what if the community, if given a chance to input, thought that Wapedia was a notable product? There probably isn't a lot more that can be written on it than what's there: if it starts claiming importance it doesn't have, that's a step in the wrong direction. If we speedily delete this kind of article, it preempts the possibility of even having a debate. I guess my question is: what is an "assertion of importance" in an article about a company / product / website? I think if we can't answer this clearly, we HAVE to do away with this CSD: I think it was always part of the idea that A7 would never be an unpassable threshold for an article, and I think it might be one now for certain things -- that's bad! Community input should occur at a certain point. Mangojuice^talk 20:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This is, essentially, the reason why many people oppose A7 and its continued use: the idea that a topic can be notable without necessarily making a claim of notability. Original authors often are not aware of this requirement, and so don't feel compelled to provide such evidence. Deleting admins frequently exercise discretion in not deleting articles that appear to have an implicit claim of notability, or appear to have merit, but this becomes increasingly subjective and is not a protection against future admins with different standards deleting it. Supporters of A7 claim that it's necessary to shift the burden of establishing a claim of notability onto the article creators in order to prevent time-wasting proliferations of new pages on trivial subjects that are considerably more difficult to delete than to create.

How can A7 be fixed? For one thing, it would help if users could "disqualify" an article for A7 by leaving a note on the talk page saying that they believe lack of notability is not clear. This would help prevent the most deletion-oriented interpretation from trumping all others. For another, it would help to always notify article creators in the case of A7, in order to properly inform them of the requirement to include information on notability. Another would be to inform users on Mediawiki:Newarticletext of this requirement. Another, suggested by some users, is the use of "tag and bag", where an A7 article must be tagged and deleted by different users. Deco 22:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

A7 cannot be "fixed" in any specific way as currently written. The problem is inherent - it is unique from any other CSDs in its subjectivity. The only "fix" possible is a wholesale move of A7s to PROD, which lacks support due to people erroneously believing PROD doesn't work on these types of articles. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yet more talk about G11 spam

I'm still seeing a number of articles tagged as spam that don't, in my opinion, qualify. Would it help to create a policy page containing spam criteria? Since we're supposed to "know it when we see it", surely we can articulate some of the characteristics of spam and incorporate that into the speedy criterion. Here are some of the criteria I've been using:

1. article is written by user with same name as corporation/product advertised
2. article is written in first person (e.g., "Our mission is to...")
3. article addresses the audience (e.g., "Widgets will meet your every need")
4. article contains only external links (instead of wikilinks)
5. article contains inflated/PR language (e.g., "visionary", "ground-breaking", "incredible", etc.)
6. article is copied from official press release or website (when CSD G12 doesn't apply)

Etc., etc. Maybe I'm being naïve, but set rules like this might help cut down on the number of false positives I've been seeing. Input? Additions? Invectives? -- Merope 14:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the only thing that's really going to help is direct education. I haven't been good enough about this myself either but we have to tell editors when we think db-spam is being misapplied: most of these people don't really read the CSD contents, they just plop "db-spam" down on a page and move on. Mangojuice^talk 15:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

A point about your qualifier to (1): in cases of G11 (which purposely excludes articles about people), then speedying on this basis is probably OK - accounts named after a company or product are effectively self-identifying as single-use advertising accounts (and should be banned anyway). It is only in the case of biographical articles written by accounts named after the person, that WP:BITE should apply. Newcomers to Wikipedia do often write about themselves before they learn better. A welcome and correction (userfying the article) applies in those cases, with a follow-up later to delete the pages if the user does not add any further contributions (this identifies them as a drive-by vanity spammer). Carcharoth 15:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! I've amended my criterion. But I think Mangojuice is right; I should contact the users who (likely in good faith) abuse the tags. But these criteria might clear up problems with admins deciding to delete articles. Maybe. -- Merope 15:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

G11 Addenda

Okay, what gives, folks? First off, why should we be deleting anything that's survived an XfD process speedily? This is a no-brainer. Second, the changes that people are removing were not at all contrversial when discussed a couple weeks ago, and added without a hitch. What's going on? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Survived, no. But the wording that was there implied that we shouldn't delete pages that were DELETED via XfD and replaced with a spam version. I hadn't thought about that until just now... and honestly, it's kind of obvious that we shouldn't be speedily deleting anything that has survived an AfD. Your wording is an appropriate clarification, but I think my version is more concise. Anyway, about the SALT business: why should spam articles be immune from salting? Whatever the reason, this isn't the SALT policy page; shouldn't that be covered at WP:SALT, not here? Mangojuice^talk 16:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right, and that was poor wording in retrospect regarding the XfDs, but the wording should have been adjusted rather than deleted outright. Meanwhile, the idea behind not salting spam articles comes from the idea that a possible spam article can be made into a reasonable article. Given how dififcult it can be to get articles undeleted and unprotected, there's no reasonable situation to salt them in this case. Perhaps it should be mentioned over there as well, but given that these are instructions for the folks doing the speedying, it's worth the mention here, IMO. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Totally disagree on that: if a company was repeatedly posting a spam article (clear, blatant spam, of course), I think we should salt the earth to stop them if blocking the account is ineffective. We should not salt the earth if what's happening is an honest but inadequate attempt to create an article that can survive speedy deletion... but that applies to ANY speedy deletion, not just spam ones: A1, A2, A3, A7, G10, G11, G12, all of them have that same issue... and after a certain point I'm not sure it's such a bad thing to salt the earth anyway; if someone's really having such a hard time passing speedy deletion criteria, they'll NEVER make an article that would get past AfD. If there's one we should make a special point about, it's G7: we certainly should never salt the earth after a G7 deletion, no matter how many times it happens. Mangojuice^talk 16:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Salting is a traditionally more permanent action. Temporary protection? Without a doubt might be necessary. Meanwhile, to expect that new editors might know how to get an article past CSD/AfD is tough to say. More reaosn not to. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No, anyone can request a page to be unsalted. —Centrx→talk • 17:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't mean it'll be honored. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

A G7 salting is conceivable; Bad title was salt-redirected, and it's possible that it could have been repeatedly G7d due to a bug in the software (although G3 was more appropriate for many of the deletions). I can't think of any situation in which a {{db-userreq}} would need to be salted, though. --ais523 16:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you provide links to show us what is going on? Where is this big battle taking place? Carcharoth 16:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you provide links to show us what is going on? Where is this big battle taking place? Carcharoth 16:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

On the policy page, WP:CSD. Last several edits. Mangojuice^talk 16:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh. That. Carcharoth 16:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• It stated that "G11 articles shouldn't be SALTed on a first deletion", but that's irrelevant as nothing should be SALTed on a first deletion. And yes, this belongs on WP:SALT. >Radiant< 16:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think, apart from uncontroversial grammar and typos edits, anyone wanting to edit a policy page should have a big long essay in their userspace that they can point to, to show that they have really thought about stuff and considered the overall big picture, to help contribute to a joined-up strategy for policy pages. yes, I know this disqualifies me! Carcharoth 16:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• WP:PPP :P >Radiant< 16:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah! [4] I see now. That had me confused all evening! :-) Carcharoth 22:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, to be fair Jeff, some of these extra instructions are a bit like instruction creep. They should, properly, go in a general section, or a section on specific things to look out for and to avoid. The criteria themselves should stick to just defining the criteria. Carcharoth 16:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Whether it may look like intruction creep isn't relevant to me, personally. It's unfortunate that people need things spelled out from time to time, but, and especially with the rush for things under A7 and G11, it only helps things to be abundantly, bluntly clear about when things shouldn't be done a certain way. If it's instruction creepy, it's for a good reason, but it's what has to be done when we rush into subjective CSD additions. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes salting on first deletion is warranted, if it fits part of a larger pattern of being likely to be recreated by folk unfamiliar with policy. In most cases, I'm inclined to agree with you though that salting first-time deletions is overkill. I again wish to disagree with Jeff -- CSD is sometimes an appropriate place to force compliance with policy when AfD (which isn't working so well on some topics) is broken. If something clearly stands against policy/goals of the project, and sufficient argument is made that it does so, it doesn't matter how many people "vote" to keep it - it needs to go, and speedying is appropriate. If AfD closers were doing a better job and managing that process as a debate with points to be made, discarding weak arguments, then we wouldn't need this kind of thing, but they're often dropping the ball. Surviving does not mean what it should - if something meets a speedy criteria, it should go. --Improv 16:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

CSD should never be used to "force compliance," and SALTing should never occur on a first deletion. My goodness, what's going on here? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, take a breath and read what you're saying. CSD can absolutely be used to "force compliance" in cases of copyvio, personal attacks, and the like. Recreation of the article and SALTing falls under G4, not G11; your initial wording was weak, which you've admitted as such. Everybody needs to stop rapid-fire editing the criterion and come here to work out what the text should be, please. -- nae'blis 16:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm reading it quite well. CSD should not be used to "force compliance" into something so subjective as an A7 or G11, that's patently absurd. To say that "if AfD closers were doing a better job...we wouldn't need this kind of thing" is nothing mroe than forcing personal views on a subject via CSD. Completely incorrect, and very, very scary coming from someone with deletion tools. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Either we accept that judgement calls need to be made, or we do nothing. Our notion(s) of consensus are judgement as well. Calling it absurd is not making an argument at all - a problem very similar to when people go on AfD and simply say Support or Oppose without much or anything more. Judgement is crucial to keeping a project like Wikipedia (itself with somewhat vague, loosely defined goals) from degenerating into anarchy. Either you allow people to use their judgement, even WP:IAR, or we have no project and just a place. --Improv 17:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

There are some areas where unilateral judgement is useful, encouraged, and helpful to the project. Copyvios, attack pages, legal situations, all those are useful because they're clear cut and muddy waters give people enough pause to seek clarification or greater consensus. Judgement calls on A7s or spam should not be encouraged - it's proven it doesn't work, as your 40 speedies on various products can show as an example. You want to make judgement calls? Stick to copyvios and attack pages. Judgement calls on what could otherwise be encyclopedic or improved articles only causes strife and wastes everyone's time. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It's contentious, but it does work. Quick individual judgement is what speedies are all about. You've stated you're not a big fan of speedy deletion, but they're necessary for the project, especially given that AfD is so broken. If nothing else, they're a way to provide a focus on discussion on what would otherwise be deletions using WP:IAR (of which I've also done a fair set over the years). Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy - to some extent we're a meritocracy, to some extent autocratic, and to some extent democratic, but all of these are means to an end, not ends in themselves, just as most of the rules we make for ourselves are not ends in themselves. Putting the community before the project or pretending that it has some kind of a "right to due process" (or that individuals have a "right to contribute") is a mistake. --Improv 18:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You do realise that you yourself are claiming that you "have a right to contribute", and that the contribution you are making is "exercising your judgement"? Never forget that we are all human, and that "exercising your judgement" needs to be balanced with the right for others to contest that judgement. My big problem with speedy deletions is that by the time people are aware of them, it is often too late to protest (and non-admins can't see what has been deleted - which is fair enough for libellous/attack material and copyvios, but for the other CSDs there is little reason to hide what has been deleted - it is also likely that archives of deleted materials won't be maintained indefinitely, so some unnecessary deletions will never be undone). It is also clear that for some of the CSDs, different admins have different ideas of what is suitable for speedy deletion. This will eventually cause problems. Carcharoth 20:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, you should never be doing a wholesale revert without a thorough explanation that would reasonably convince me of my error. I explained particularly why each part of those instructions did not belong. You, instead of even fixing the bloated tacked-on wording reverted it with the flippant, useless summary of "There's a reason it's there" that addresses none of those issues. —Centrx→talk • 17:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)