Category talk:Candidates for speedy deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Templates

Ahhh, so many templates. LET'S GET TO WORK! нмŵוτнτ 04:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeehaw! We just kicked that template backlog's ass! bibliomaniac15 05:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Haha, while I went to clean my dishes, you had deleted them all. Kudos! You deserve a cookie! нмŵוτнτ 05:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Boy, I'm tuckered out. Think I'll go to sleep. bibliomaniac15 05:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Time Sorting

I noticed that there was some discussion about how it would be useful to have candidates sorted by time added. This query does this for you. In the example given I've excluded all candidates under 2 hours old as well. Unfortenatly its not that user friendly. The output is in xml. This could be sorted out by using some javascript to dump the info onto a subpage if so wanted. josh (talk) 04:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Put back North Shore Women for Peace

Put back North Shore Women for Peace. Wasn't there a New York Times article explaining its relveance?!. Jidanni (talk) 23:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggest you take it up with the deleting admin first, Pegasus (talk · contribs). Failing agreement there, try WP:DRV. This page isn't the forum for undeletion requests. BencherliteTalk 23:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hooray!

No more speedy stuffs! bibliomaniac15 22:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History merge

Nobody seems to touch Category:History merge for speedy deletion anymore now that it's been removed from the main speedy cat. It's very annoying. --Closedmouth (talk) 02:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

History merges seem to take more effort than the other CSD criterion. Nakon 02:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I know, but they still have to be done. Tim White has been sitting there for days. Perhaps the "for speedy deletion" part should be removed from the category name. --Closedmouth (talk) 04:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Sandbox

For some strange reason, pages with Template:Sandbox are listed in this category. What's up with that? bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 22:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It should be fixed Give it a little time and the category should empty out a bit. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 22:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Templates for speedy deletion Db-t3

A lot of templates for speedy deletion are not actually listed at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. For example, Template:Routeboxwa is not listed, but has been tagged since 29 March 2008. You can find others at Pages that link to Template:Db-t3. It might be the seven day waiting period, but that doesn't seem to be the situation for Template:Routeboxwa and other templates. GregManninLB (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pets as A7?

I've just deleted Prince Chewy as A7. The article consisted solely of the fact that the subject is a black and white cat, so there was no evidence whatsoever of notability, but I've just realised there's no specific subsection of A7 to deal with pets, etc. Is this something that ought to be addressed, or do we treat pets as persons, or what? —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 21:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted any number of Mr. Fluffykins and Woodles articles and rationalized it as A7. I see no need to get hung up on the letter of "person" - animate being works for me. My dogs think I'm an unusually gifted dog who can drive cars and open cans, so I might as well return the favor and call pets people for speedy deletions. Acroterion (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
In my interpretation, A7 is the "obvious non-notable" criterion. The wording doesn't matter; look beyond the letter of the law to the spirit of the law. If there's any or questionable notability, bring it to AfD or prod it. If it's obviously non-notable, A7 it. Nihiltres{t.l} 22:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
But, your still a dog right? 71.193.2.115 (talk) 03:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] After my images got speedly deleted for no copyright

But, they indeed had the copyright explicitly spelled out... Why bother with all the verbage and policy? Just say ( as you clearly intend ) If this image is NOT earmarked to our standards, we will delete it without notice. All the rest is hiding the truth. No letter, no sprit, just play by your rules or DIE! ( and get your images deleted ...) There are also problems with the pages with image deletion, but hopefully the dirtbags will fix them. 71.193.2.115 (talk) 03:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wow

This is the least backlogged I have seen this page in a long time. Even nowcommons is caught up. Kudos to those doing the clearing!--Kubigula (talk) 22:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)