Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/G4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is part of Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Proposal.

Contents

[edit] G4 (reposted content)

Speedy deletion criterion G4 should be reworded to the following: "A substantially identical copy, by any title, of an article that was deleted according to the deletion policy. This does not apply to content in userspace, content that was speedily deleted, or to content undeleted according to undeletion policy."
  • Presently, the criterion reads, "Reposted content that was deleted according to Wikipedia deletion policy. This does not apply to content that was undeleted according to undeletion policy."
  • This reflects actual practice, in other words the proposal is to reword policy to match reality.
  • The intent is to specifically allow a new article to be created if a non-article with the same title was earlier speedily deleted. This has been marked as 'proposed' on the CSD page for a long time.
  • Of course, if the new article falls under any other speedy deletion criterion, it can still be deleted for that reason. Just not for being a recreation.
  • Administrators can (and should) read deleted content in order to verify that it is an identical copy.
  • If circumstances regarding the content change, e.g. an otherwise unremarkable person suddenly becomes the center of media attention, then the added facts will ensure that the article no longer is a 'substantially identical copy'.
  • If you are unsure about this proposal, consider that there is a proposed test run to try it out for a month.

vote – discuss

[edit] Votes

This proposal is no longer open for voting. Voting closed on July 19, 2005 15:11 (UTC).

[edit] Support

  1. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 4, 2005 15:58 (UTC)
  2. Mike Rosoft 4 July 2005 17:17 (UTC). Should also include recreated copyvio content.
  3. I agree with Mike Rosoft, should include recreated copyvio. Oliver Keenan July 4, 2005 18:57 (UTC)
  4. --A D Monroe III 4 July 2005 19:46 (UTC)
  5. Please note that content that is "deleted according to the deletion policy" already includes content deleted for being a copyright violation, as that is one of the types of deletion that the deletion policy lists. Uncle G 4 July 2005 20:29 (UTC)
    • As per the discussion, I also support the change to the wording that stops prior speedy deletions by themselves justifying further speedy deletions, a loophole that exists in the current wording, and that I have seen used as a rationale for speedy deletion at VFD. Uncle G 5 July 2005 16:18 (UTC)
  6. Dragons flight July 4, 2005 21:00 (UTC)
  7. humblefool® 4 July 2005 21:22 (UTC)
  8. Dmcdevit 4 July 2005 23:47 (UTC)
  9. Strong support... I've been in VfD debates over recreated content... those get ugly in a hurry, and too few people accept a good rewrite. --Idont Havaname 4 July 2005 23:51 (UTC)
  10. I suppose that I turst the administrators to know what "substantially identical" means. NatusRoma 5 July 2005 01:25 (UTC)
  11. Support. -- BD2412 talk July 5, 2005 02:12 (UTC)
  12. Denni☯ 2005 July 5 02:54 (UTC)
  13. Pburka 5 July 2005 03:03 (UTC)
  14. — Phil Welch 5 July 2005 03:21 (UTC)
  15. Existing practice.-gadfium 5 July 2005 03:31 (UTC)
  16. This is still an easily circumvented phrasing. I would prefer something like, "if the recreated article does not address concerns expressed during the VfD" or at least something about previous versions of the article. the current phrasing is too weak for easy formal circumventing. mikka (t) 5 July 2005 03:28 (UTC)
  17. Good to reinforce this. Fuzheado | Talk 5 July 2005 03:56 (UTC)
  18. Xoloz 5 July 2005 07:00 (UTC)
  19. Vegaswikian 5 July 2005 07:27 (UTC)
  20. JoJan 5 July 2005 09:15 (UTC)
  21. Theo (Talk) 5 July 2005 11:11 (UTC)
  22. Support. - although I'm not sure what "substantially identical" is supposed to mean. Either the new article is identical to the old one, or it's not. :) -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 5 July 2005 12:36 (UTC)
  23. Support, but with concerns over the wording. I think it ought to say that, if a speedied and recreated article falls under the same or another speedy criterion it can still be speedied, despite the protection provided here. The use of the word 'identical' is peculiar, too, but it's tricky to find an alternative that does not suffer the same problem. -Splash 5 July 2005 13:17 (UTC)
  24. Support. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) July 5, 2005 14:34 (UTC)
  25. I've seen admins do this anyway. — Bcat (talk | email) 5 July 2005 15:56 (UTC)
  26. Acegikmo1 5 July 2005 19:26 (UTC)
  27. Support. In practice the only difference between the current and proposed wording is that the proposed system would allow a slightly different repost to be deleted, but that does tend to happen already. Seems like a trivial change to me. David | Talk 5 July 2005 21:01 (UTC)
  28. Rossami (talk) 5 July 2005 22:37 (UTC)
  29. Support. I believe most people reading the speedy criteria would realize that it doesn't make sense for a recreation of a speedied article to be immune to speedy, and would interpret this rule correctly. Rewording to clarify recreation of speedied content is unnecessary but not without merit. — Gwalla | Talk 5 July 2005 22:45 (UTC)
  30. Support. Seems sensible. Factitious July 6, 2005 00:37 (UTC)
  31. Support. — Asbestos | Talk 6 July 2005 01:16 (UTC)
  32. Support. To many VfDd articles are recreated, then endlessly re-debated. Jayjg (talk) 6 July 2005 02:34 (UTC)
  33. support. get rid of pesky recreation annoyances. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions July 6, 2005 04:42 (UTC)
  34. Support. A useful clarification. Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 July 6 04:55 (UTC)
  35. Support. -R. S. Shaw 6 July 2005 05:20 (UTC)
  36. Support Stewart Adcock 6 July 2005 09:00 (UTC)
  37. Support the wub "?/!" 6 July 2005 09:31 (UTC)
  38. — Trilobite (Talk) 6 July 2005 11:00 (UTC)
  39. Support given the arguments over the interpretation of the current rule, I'll support this amendment. Sjakkalle (Check!) 6 July 2005 11:04 (UTC)
  40. --Porturology 6 July 2005 13:14 (UTC)
  41. SupportBaronLarf July 6, 2005 13:19 (UTC)
  42. ➥the Epopt 6 July 2005 13:50 (UTC)
  43. Support, useful. James F. (talk) 6 July 2005 14:32 (UTC)
  44. Support --Aphaea* 6 July 2005 15:04 (UTC)
  45. Support. Useful rewording. --Deathphoenix 6 July 2005 15:23 (UTC)
  46. Support.Sietse 6 July 2005 15:38 (UTC)
  47. Seems straightforward. Trust in thine admins. --ArmadniGeneral 6 July 2005 16:30 (UTC)
    This is opposite of "Trust in thine admins", it is "Explicitly instruct thine admins". We don't need a Wikipedia law reference manual, we need thoughtful admins. Unfocused 6 July 2005 17:18 (UTC)
  48. Sounds about right.Thanks,
    Luc "Somethingorother" French 6 July 2005 20:40 (UTC)
  49. ABCD 6 July 2005 22:54 (UTC)
  50. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 7 July 2005 02:50 (UTC)
  51. Support. ral315 July 7, 2005 05:32 (UTC)
  52. Ricky81682 (talk) July 7, 2005 08:46 (UTC)
  53. --SPUI (talk) 7 July 2005 17:55 (UTC)
  54. Aye.  Grue  7 July 2005 20:51 (UTC)
  55. Support - Tεxτurε 7 July 2005 21:35 (UTC)
  56. Support. Proposed wording is better, current wording is too vague. Kaibabsquirrel 8 July 2005 08:26 (UTC)
  57. Merovingian (t) (c) July 8, 2005 09:28 (UTC)
  58. Strong support. The proposed clarification is even better. Pwqn 8 July 2005 12:13 (UTC)
  59. support -- better than the old wording. Brighterorange 8 July 2005 21:12 (UTC)
  60. Support Gwk 9 July 2005 16:44 (UTC)
  61. Support. If the proposal is to "reword policy to match reality", I don't see why not. TheCoffee 21:39, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
  62. Support. --Allen3 talk 22:00, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  63. Support. --Mysidia 13:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  64. Johnleemk | Talk 15:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  65. Dsmdgold 15:17, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  66. MarkSweep 01:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  67. Shanes 06:18, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  68. --Sn0wflake 08:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  69. Support Dan100 (Talk) 09:22, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  70. This clarification is needed. Mgm|(talk) 12:31, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  71. Support – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 16:44, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  72. Feydey 23:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  73. Basically change to current policy. David Remahl 03:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
    Comment: If I understand this correctly, an article that was previously speedy deleted is reposted in its entirety, and instead of being speedy deleted a second time, it goes on to VfD because of the provision in the repost speedy delete criterion. Aren't we trying to reduce load on VfD some? Or am I mistaken with my thought process? Comments would be appreciated.
    • (preceding unsigned comment by IanManka [1]
    • No, that's not what it says. It says that an article that is recreated after speedy deletion does not fall under criterion G4 (e.g. it cannot be redeleted solely for that reason) however it will likely fall under another speedy criterion (e.g. 'patent nonsense') and can be redeleted for still being patent nonsense. This proposal does not forbid redeletion of something that was previously speedied, it only requires that you find another criterion than this one for speedying it. Radiant_>|< 07:18, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks, I was mildly confused. 204.210.195.4 07:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC) IanManka 07:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  74. IanManka 07:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  75. There's always WP:VfU for the inevitable errors that will creep in. We need something to increase the throughput of VfD; better to fix a few errors in a quick system than use a slow, expensive (in time/energy) system. Copyvios too. Noel (talk) 02:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  76. Support EnSamulili 10:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  77. Support. It's still broader than I'd like, but it's a hell of a lot better than the current version.
  78. Support Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 21:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

  1. I object primarily because the wording of this item was changed by User:Radiant! without discussion prior to this vote being opened. -- Netoholic @ 4 July 2005 18:58 (UTC)
    This criterion conflicts with all other speedy deletion criteria. In essence, this prevents admins from ever re-speedy-deleting anything. -- Netoholic @ 5 July 2005 02:48 (UTC)
  2. Too complicated --Henrygb 4 July 2005 21:47 (UTC)
  3. Why does it not apply to speedied content? In any case I prefer existing wording. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 5 July 2005 04:09 (UTC)
    • If an article can be speedied by any criterion, then any direct copy of it can be speedied by that very same criterion (just not by this one). That clause serves as a firm reminder that if an invalid article was speedied, then a later created valid article with the same title should not automatically be speedied as a recreation. Of course that's pretty much common sense but it wouldn't hurt to wride it down. Radiant_>|< July 5, 2005 07:54 (UTC)
  4. Per mikka above, but strongly enough to oppose. We shouldn't have to endure constant vfds for stuff like these just because they get entirely new articles about the same vfd'd-for-notability subject. If this passes, then we won't ever be able to get rid of persistent vanity articles while even pretending to follow policy as written. I should hope legitimate articles previously deleted via vfd for poor content don't get slapped with {{deleteagain}}s, nor have those honored. I welcome counterexamples, though. --Cryptic (talk) 5 July 2005 04:54 (UTC)
    • Counterexamples? Okay. Crankgod was deleted twice by speedy criteria (G1 then A1) and once for being a nonsensical redirect. Letter writing was a howto page transwikied to wikibooks after VFD vote, put back a number of times, verbatim. Iain_is_cool was speedied six times for having the content "iain is cool; horay for iain. his birthday is evryday" or something similar. And Dodge The Tomato! was deleted per VFD and recreated twice with substantially the same content. Radiant_>|< July 5, 2005 08:03 (UTC)
      • All of these are speedyable under both the current and proposed G4's. I was asking for examples where an article is deleted via vfd solely because of its current poor content, and then different articles for the same subject were hounded by spurious deleteagain tags or speedy deletions. —Cryptic (talk) 5 July 2005 08:21 (UTC)
        • Ah okay, sorry. Constitution of Lebanon would be an example, presently on WP:VFU. Also, Edip Yuksel. Usually, such articles get speedily restored. It is, after all, common sense not to automatically delete a different article on the same subject - but some people are afraid that it would happen, hence the suggestion of codifying it. Radiant_>|< July 5, 2005 10:17 (UTC)
          • I'm going to remain in opposition. The proposition is substantially weaker than the current wording; current practice is already to speedy restore mistakes, as you say, and codifying that isn't worth having to go through twelve separate vfds for Digg. —Cryptic (talk) 6 July 2005 05:10 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. I prefer the current wording, and it should apply to content in the user namespace. Angela. July 5, 2005 14:40 (UTC)
  6. We already do this. Don't need a rule to tell us we can. See also Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Proposal/Z. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 5 July 2005 15:45 (UTC)
  7. User space should not be a blank check for avoiding deletion. -- Cyrius|✎ 5 July 2005 16:02 (UTC)
    • It wouldn't be a "blank check" for avoiding deletion. First, this is only restricting speedy deletion; normal deletion would still apply, just as it does now. Second, all of the other speedy deletion criteria would still apply. Uncle G 5 July 2005 16:18 (UTC)
  8. Oppose - already overapplied - David Gerard 5 July 2005 22:00 (UTC)
    • The revised wording is actually more restrictive than the original. If you think that the current G4 is over-applied, why do you oppose narrowing its scope? Uncle G 09:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  9. Oppose- current wording is better. --Scimitar 5 July 2005 23:34 (UTC)
  10. Strong Oppose. Current wording is better. Also, some redundancy IMO. Also unhappy with "substantially identical", could well introduce new backdoor for article author(s)/resurrector(s) to draw out arguments; where there's little valid case for non-deletion - 'again'.
  11. Oppose. Too much Wikilawyering brings out the instruction creep. I'd rather have serious discussions over the border cases than someone pointing out the rule saying "but I followed this policy..." Unfocused 6 July 2005 07:23 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. Too vague. Nohat 7 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)
    • It's less vague than the current G4. Uncle G 09:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  13. Oppose. This would allow an admin to respeedy something they had wrongly speedied under the other proposals here. Sometimes mistakes were made and the current wording allows wriggle room. Grace Note 03:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
    • No it wouldn't. It specifically states that it "does not apply to content [...] that was speedily deleted". It's the original version of G4 that allows speedy deletion on the grounds that something has already been speedy deleted. This proposal closes the very loophole that you objecting to. Uncle G 09:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, but not if the admin decides it qualifies under some other criterion, if my understanding of the talk page is correct. -Splash 00:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
    If I understand this correctly, an article that was previously speedy deleted is reposted in its entirety, and instead of being speedy deleted a second time, it goes on to VfD because of the provision in the repost speedy delete criterion. Aren't we trying to reduce load on VfD some? Or am I mistaken with my thought process? Comments would be appreciated. IanManka 06:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC) I have decide to change my vote. IanManka 07:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
    • See response to your comment above. Also, see the comment at the very top, "if the new article falls under any other speedy deletion criterion, it can still be deleted for that reason. Just not for being a recreation." Radiant_>|< 07:22, July 13, 2005 (UTC)