Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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

New image deletion criteria

In an effort to reduce the number of copyvio images on Wikipedia, I'd like to suggest the following new criteria for speedy deletion:

  • CSD I6: Missing fair-use claim. Any image tagged only with {{fairuse}}, with no fair use rationale, may be deleted seven days after it was uploaded.
  • CSD I7: Invalid fair-use claim 1. Any image with a clearly invalid fair-use tag (such as a {{logo}} tag on a photograph of a mascot) can be deleted at any time.
  • CSD I8: Invalid fair-use claim 2. Any image that is from a company that makes money off of providing those images (such as Google Maps) may be deleted at any time.

--Carnildo 03:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The first two seem fine (although you're going to hear massive screaming if you don't grandfather in existing {{fairuse}}-tagged images), but I don't think the third one is correct. My impression was that using, say, an example image from Google Maps on an appropriate article (i.e. Google Maps) could qualify as fair-use, regardless of what purpose the company produces said images for. —Kirill Lokshin 04:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Kirill here.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 05:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Problem is, people are using arial photos from Google Maps to illustrate articles on geographic locations, and are using images from the Associated Press and other news services to illustrate current events. --Carnildo 06:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
This would have to be opened up for wide community examination before it could even think about being made into a CSD. If someone is using an AP photo inappropiately but claiming fair use, remove the photo from the article in question with a note that it "may not be" fair use. The burden in on them to show that it is before they replace it, and we've already got a blocking policy to enforce that. I don't see that we need another CSD for this. - brenneman{T}{L} 22:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I6 and I7 are quite all right, as long as you make it to be images after some target date. I8 is not so good. Use {{fairusedisputed}} instead. Stifle (talk) 10:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Every discussion we've had about what you're calling I6 and I7 seems to end up with "Yes, that's a good idea, just go slowly about it." Let's just implement them. Jkelly 18:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I've created {{db-norat}} for CSD:I6 (no rationale), and {{db-badfairuse}} for CSD:I7 (bad rationale). A system similar to the current {{subst:orfud}} and {{subst:nsd}} will be needed to make CSD:I6 work. Additionally, {{subst:badfairuse}} can be used to notify people on their talk page if an image is tagged or deleted under I7. Stifle (talk) 14:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not really sure these should go into CAT:CSD. I think it should be a {{no license}} and {{no source}} type thing, where it gets deleted seven days after it's tagged as not having a fair use rationale, not 7 days after being tagged with a fair use tag without a rationale. This gives the uploader an opportunity to add a fair use rationale after it's tagged, like giving them a chance to add a source or whatever (except adding a fair use rationale can't really be abused by adding fake licenses or whatever ;)). --Rory096 06:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I just want to make sure we're on the same page here. If there is no rationale, the image is held for 7 days to add a rationale, then deleted if one isn't added. If there is an obviously invalid rationale, then it goes straight away. This parallels the lack of any license at all — if an image has no license, it's held for 7 days, but if it has a bad license (e.g. {{cc-by-nc}}), it's deleted immediately.
Is that OK with you or would you prefer bad rationale and no rationale to both be held for 7 days? Stifle (talk) 09:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I meant I6 (no rationale) being put straight into CAT:CSD if the image was uploaded more than 7 days ago. I'm saying that it should be something like being tagged for 7 days, so the uploader can be notified that it needs a rationale. --Rory096 09:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree that where there is no fair use rationale provided, we must allow the uploader time to provide one - seven days after being tagged fits with other lag times. I don't think that we need a speedy deletion criteria for "bad" fair use claims, we should use {{fairusedisputed}} instead - if there is a backlog here then maybe that system should be strengthened, possibly along the lines of {{PROD}} - but that is not a discussion for here. Thryduulf 09:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
At the moment, the fair use dept. is rather backlogged (if you don't believe me, check out Category:Fair use magazine covers and see how many of them are actually being used to illustrate articles on magazines, not a lot...) This CSD refers, in any case, to the most obvious things like a photograph from Getty Images being tagged as {{symbol}}. Stifle (talk) 10:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Rory: Yes, that's how it's been implemented, although the categories and tags haven't actually been done yet. Stifle (talk) 10:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
We absolutely need something like I7. It does not make sense to me to give 7 days (or whatever period of time) for someone to correct the license on an image after they have already lied about it once (whereas giving time for them to provide a license when they didn't bother to pick one seems reasonable). If you lie about the license an image is under, that image should be deleted immediately. Nandesuka 11:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that assuming good faith implies assuming that an incorrect license was a mistake rather than a lie. There's nothing wrong with giving an uploader seven days to correct a mistake. Angr (t • c) 11:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Sure, there's something wrong with it. It puts the project at risk. Jimbo has already indicated multiple times that the Foundation lawyers are extremely concerned about the number and seriousness of copyright infringements in the image space. Putting the wrong license on an image is a substantively different act than uploading without one: it's an affirmative statement of either dishonesty or carelessness. Either way, such actions should never be allowed to jeopardize the encyclopedia. In this area, we really can't afford to assume any better faith than will be assumed by the various jurisdictions in which the project can be sued. Nandesuka 11:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Then why don't they stop being wishy-washy and prohibit fair use images altogether? German Wikipedia gets along just fine using only public-domain and free-license images. Angr (t • c) 08:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've redirected {{db-norat}} to {{No rationale}} (which was actually conveniently created in April by Carnildo), and also made various redirects, like {{norat}} and {{norationale}}. The {{subst:nsd}} type thing is {{subst:nrd}} (nr = no rationale). --Rory096 23:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, we need a warning template like {{image copyright}}... --Rory096 23:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
That'll be {{Missing rationale}}. Stifle (talk) 18:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
See Category:Images with no fair use rationale. --Rory096 06:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I changed {{db-norat}} to match {{db-unksource}}. --Rory096 20:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I changed "before 4 May" to "after 4 May", which is what the policy has said. Stifle (talk) 10:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Templates for CSD I6

Just thought you guys might want to know that you can use {{subst:frn}} for images without fair use rationales uploaded after May 4, and {{subst:Image fairuse rationale|Image:image name}} for their uploaders' talk pages. Johnleemk | Talk 08:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks like we've had some duplicate work. Rory096 got a little ahead of you, see the top of the page. Since he created them first and they are slightly more in line with existing tags, I'm going to boldly redirect some and propose the extra categories for deletion. I hope you don't mind. Stifle (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Sure, no problem. The templates actually stemmed from a discussion at the talk page of the fair use wikiproject, which led me to believe we didn't have any such templates yet. Johnleemk | Talk 13:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for new fancruft CSD criteria

Here's the proposal: any article should be speedy deletable that is written as fiction rather than about fiction, such that it lacks real-world context and fails to reference what specific work of fiction the character or subject was portrayed in. This reference must be more specific than a general reference to a fictional world (such as Star Wars). A contributor should be able to at least note what novel, video game, film, or comic book a character came from; otherwise, they're obviously just copying a fan site or fan reference guide (which should not themselves count as sufficient works of fiction).

The articles that this targets pose two problems: 1) articles that fail to do more than summarize fiction are worthless to this project; 2) articles that merely repeat "information" presented in fan reference material (such as Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe) are likely copyright infringements. See, for example, The World of Kong, an encyclopedia of creatures set in the fictional world of the movie, but which exist only within its own pages; in addition to an article about the book itself (which is appropriate), someone has created individual articles for most of the beasts, which collectively constitute a copy of the book that directly competes with it. This is not a fair use.

This has been a recurring issue, and was again just raised on the village pump. Postdlf 18:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Support! -- Malber (talk · contribs) 18:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent criterion for regular deletion, but not for speedy deletion. It's too vague, and too easily fixable within five days. Angr (t • c) 19:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Strong support in principle, and as a CSD. The details need wordsmithing to clarify exactly what counts. I would support a fairly expansive version myself, in which an article has to show real-world notability for the specific subject of the article, not just the work of fiction or game it's part of. So a minor character or location in a work of popular fiction wouldn't qualify just because the the work was popular, and of course any character from or summary of fanfic would be right out (not to mention the fact that authors tend to view fanfic as infringing or threatening their IP rights). Please don't call it fancruft, though; I love that expression, but it's too polarizing for official use. · rodii · 19:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: I am open to a speedy along the lines proposed, but I would want an assurance, such speedies could be easily undone, if somebody comes forward willing to fix the problem (e.g. add in missing info and/or merge into an appropriate article in context). There's nothing at all wrong, with giving a summary of fictional material. The problem is only when the entire article is the summary, and there's a lack of context for it. --Rob 19:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm fine with that. Postdlf 20:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Support in that case. --Rob 20:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

CSD is for material that's irredeemably garbage, not for enforcing vague (and quite obscure) stylistic guidelines. What benefits, exactly, would there be to deleting this stuff immediately, rather than in five days (or, even better, just adding the missing elements)? And would these hypothetical benefits outweigh the price—measured in numbers of contributors leaving after everything they've worked on is suddenly deleted—that we would pay for implementing such a policy? Kirill Lokshin 20:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Shhh. Don't use rationality and good points - you'll only confuse them. Phil Sandifer 21:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
This proposal is a non-starter. Speedies are only for obviously unencyclopedic material. Lack of notability cannot ever be a criteria for speedy deletion (A7 only allows it when there is no assertion whatsoever of notability - which is different) --Doc ask? 21:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. But I do think it would be a good idea to expand WP:FICT to say that any article on a fictitious person, place, or thing must discuss the topic's relevance to the real world. Any character/place/object for which no significance in the real world is claimed should be at most mentioned in a larger article, but may not have an article of its own. Failure to meet the criteria of WP:FICT is, of course, a valid reason for either of the five-day deletion processes (WP:PROD or WP:AFD). Angr (t • c) 21:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
An article about a fictional subject that lacks any real-world references, and instead only describes fiction as if it were real, is lacking in meaningful context, so in that sense this is an elaboration of A1. An article about a fictional subject that does not assert the specific work(s) of fiction whence it derives utterly fails to assert its notability—the fictional counterpart to A7. That's what I had in mind, not the more "expansive" version Rodii urged in which notability is judged. And I believe an article on a fictional subject that does not exist outside of an encyclopedia of fictional subjects is perhaps unavoidably a copyright violation, and should be treated as inherently non-notable, so such sources should not count to satisfy the "work of fiction" requirement. In my proposal, the simple statement "X is a fictional character appearing in the (novel/film/video game/manga/cartoon/flip book) Y" would suffice to make an article survive this CSD criteria. I think that's far more objective than A7, and not obscure or vague in the slightest. Postdlf 21:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree that "X is a fictional character apprearing in the (novel/film/etc.) Y" without any reference to the real world should not be speediable, but I do think it should deletable after five days for not meeting the criteria of WP:FICT. I also think an article that says only "Xantor is the King of Perfidion. He ascended to the throne after murdering his brother Myopsius" is already speediable for lack of context, so there's no need for a new speedy criterion. Angr (t • c) 23:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. This is an important and positive step to help keep the project on-topic. Hopefully all affected information will be made available on other wikis though... --Improv 21:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • "On topic"? What? You seem to be saying "on topic" is "anything I'm not personally interested in." If you can't accept the fact that articles about fictional characters, some of which you may not have heard of (gasp!), belong on in an encyclopedia, you shouldn't be editing. Full stop.--Sean Black 18:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible oppose. No, no no no no. No. No! Terrible idea, horribly divisive, doesn't fit into anything normal, and can easily be dealt with via {{prod}}. Kill this before it spreads. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    • How is it divisive to insist that an article about a fictional subject at least mention what work(s) of fiction depicted it? Postdlf 22:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
      • {{sofixit}}. An article that doesn't contain references to its source material needs to be expanded and articulated, not cut off at the knees. Oppose this as unnecessary scope creep. -- nae'blis (talk)
        • You've equivocated "source" as the references for an article with "source" as I have used it, the work(s) of fiction that are the only context in which the fictional subject exists. Postdlf 22:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, notability requirements are evil. (I've linked to that a disturbing number of times today.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

No one who has voiced opposition to this proposal has addressed the issue I raised of articles about fictional subjects that are only depicted in fictional encyclopedias. My suggestions are that 1) "articles" about such subjects are unavoidably copyright infringements, 2) the lack of any depiction outside of such a fictional reference work should make a subject inherently non-notable. No thoughts? Postdlf 22:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts, then:
  1. This doesn't seem at all obvious to me; if you can get someone with actual legal expertise in copyright matters to comment on this, fine, but let's not base deletion policy on wild guesses about copyright law.
  2. How do you propose to determine whether a subject has been depicted only in an encyclopedia of fiction rapidly (and reliably) enough for this to be workable as a shoot-on-sight criterion? Kirill Lokshin 23:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  1. I actually am a lawyer, and my suggestion isn't a "wild guess," but I've also posted that issue on Wikipedia talk:Copyright to get more comments; hopefully my explanation there will be more clear.
  2. Absent CSD criteria requiring an article on a fictional subject to mention in what work of fiction the subject originated, this would have to be an AFD criteria, unless someone has a way to make it work. Postdlf 23:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  1. Fair enough; my apologies for not realizing that. (I'd still be interested in a more detailed explanation of how discussing something that appears in an "encyclopedia" of fiction differs, in terms of copyright, from discussing something that appears in a work of fiction itself, as it seems rather counterintuitive.)
  2. If it can't be made to work as a CSD criterion, why are we even discussing it here? Just write it into WP:FICT and go from there. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 23:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  1. We'll work on it. It is conceptually difficult.
  2. It's part of why I want that as CSD criteria. Postdlf 23:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, I think many articles on fictional subjects that don't mention what work of fiction the subject originates in are speediable under A1 (little or no context). Angr (t • c) 23:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I would think that a general reference like "appears in Star Wars" would be enought to avoid A1, no? Kirill Lokshin 23:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and if by "appears in Star Wars" you mean the 1977 film, it would pass what I'm talking about too. I don't think that a general reference like "exists in the Star Wars universe" would fail A1, however, but it would what I have proposed. Postdlf 23:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
"Appears in Star Wars" is mentioning what work of fiction the subject is from, so yes, it's enough to avoid A1. Not enough to avoid PROD/AFD, though, if there's no mention of the character's relevance to the real world. Angr (t • c) 23:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
It's been my impression that such AFDs tend to end up merging the article somewhere, which has the advantage of maintaining comprehensive coverage; we can wikify the name of a random minor character mentioned in Luke Skywalker and likely wind up at some meaningful "List of Foobars in Star Wars" article. Deleting the possibly-not-notable stubs outright would seem to prevent this (or force us to avoid mentioning minor details in more notable articles). Kirill Lokshin 23:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Your original proposal was in NO way clear that you were talking about fair-use violations with regards to fictional encyclopedias. Not everyone reads every page; going to VP helped some, going to WP:Copyright helped much more. That all being said, I don't think your proposal covers anything not already covered by WP's copyright policy. If it's copyvio, it's copyvio, and should be excised without prejudice. If it's "fiction written as fiction" (like Project Quicksilver is from time to time), then it needs to be clarified/sourced/placed in a framework. -- nae'blis (talk) 23:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
The copyvio issue was one of the problems I wanted to address, but not the only issue. Sorry if I've been unclear. I was hoping for a discussion so we could all clarify these issues, not an immediate vote. Postdlf 23:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
If we're talking nothing but a novel, then discussions about its characters would be fine copyvio-wise. As soon as any encyclopedia or similar copyrighted source appears (or looks as though it might reasonably appear), then we immediately have to be on guard, because we're competing for market and our usage is nontransformative. (Which, I think, illustrates that the transformation requirement is a bit incoherent, but then, that's probably just me.) In such a case, I would limit our articles to only major topics within the fan universe, unless in theory we can get the go-ahead from the copyright holder(s) (probably unlikely, but you never know).

Excellent work at deflating my ardent anti-notability-requirement-ness, Postdlf. You're the first to put a dent in it that it probably won't recover from.  :) Applicable only in certain cases, though. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This is one of the absolute worst proposals I've ever read. I cannot support it under any circumstances. It's completely unnecessary- If something cannot be used legally, then it can't be used legally, that's already covered by other policies. Everything else is just attempts to get rid of articles that could easily be improved (by simple cleanup, merging, etc etc etc) for no reason other than "it's fictional and I haven't heard of it, therefore it can't be notable". No.--Sean Black (talk) 06:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. CSD is absolutely the wrong process for this. Vague things such as fancruft can and should be dealt with under Prod and AfD instead. CSD is meant to be the narrow process; if you want to delete something that you find is not currently deleteable, CSD is the wrong end of the scale to start fitting it in. Henning Makholm 07:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. More than once I have seen articles tagged for speedy deletion as patent nonsense when the only thing wrong is that they fail to mention in which game/book/movie/play they are in. Usually a Google check can find the context giving an opportunity to add that at the beginning of the article. Shooting down such articles without checking if they can be easily saved might cost us some good content. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. This issue should be dealt with in the context of the WP:FICT guidelines, not CSD. As for the concern about reproducing content from "fictional encyclopedias", I think this is a red herring: some works of fiction (Dictionary of the Khazars comes to mind) present themselves as reference books. That doesn't mean that they're really reference books, or that the copyright concerns of an article discussing characters or elements from the books are any different from any other work of fiction. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

See the discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#Copying fictional encyclopedias for why the concern about reproducing content from encyclopedias of fiction is not a red herring. Angr (t • c) 20:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose needing cleanup or attention is simply need a good reason to delete an article. Add the relevent tags, and it should improve over time, or you can fix it yourself. We shouldn't delete something just because it needs work. --W.marsh 20:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment If an article is ONLY brand new fictional content I'd be OK with speedying it. That's how I read the key sentence in the start of the proposal "any article should be speedy deletable that is written as fiction rather than about fiction". But unless you are an expert on that fictional milleau I don't think you should be the person speedying it... tag it with PROD instead, or put it up for AfD because you are not competent to decide if it's just poorly sourced, or if it really is new fiction. Articles ABOUT fictional characters or situations are perfectly encyclopedic if properly cited/sourced and grounded in some discussion of why the character is important, and the milleau itself is important. Many of such stub articles ought to be merged back to the mains though. Consider this category: Category:Kushiel's_Legacy which has 40++ articles in it!!!! That series, (although I love it dearly... I want an anguisette of my own... but I digress!!) in my view, deserves maybe 5 articles or so, and all the one/two line stubs about various houses need to be merged... ++Lar: t/c

  • and with that comment in mind Oppose. CSD's should be something ANY admin can apply. Deciding if a stub is meaningful in a particular fictional context takes jugement not every admin can make. So... not a good idea. ++Lar: t/c 21:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose as above, it is definitely a consensus issue to determine whether something is valuable if it comes from a fictional context. Real-world comments are the limit of the average admin. Ansell Review my progress! 06:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

A9 and WP:LIVING

I have added A9 based on Jimbo's recent comments to the mailing list and existing practice. When we encounter a biography of a living person that is unsourced and negative in tone, we should revert if there is an NPOV version in the history; otherwise, the article should simply be deleted. AFDs in such situations make matters worse because the potentially libellous content gets spread around the wiki. As with other speedy critiera, admins are welcome to rewrite an article instead of deleting it if there is sufficient solid information available to do so. In my experience, A9 reflects existing practice among many admins and it deserves to be codified. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Since right now we have an unused A4 entry, why not make it A4 rather than A9? --Nlu (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I think its best not to re-use old numbers, in case of historical discussion. --Rob 16:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I dislike the focus on being negative in tone. Often, people put in defaming stuff, but then use weasel wording, to present neutrality (e.g. suppose an article says this, without any citation: "Some people say he did such-and-such bad thing, but many others insist he is totally innocent. Nothing has been proven."). It's not relevant whether the article is generally nice or mean (that's easily fixable), its important whether the negative pieces are sourced. We don't want people to "save" articles, by merely making them neutral (but failing to give sources). I propose:
A biography of a living person that has negative unsourced claims, must have the all unsourced negative claims removed immediately. If doing this removes all content, or removes any claim of notability, then the article should be speedy deleted. Before deleting, see if an acceptable (e.g. sourced) version exists in history. --Rob 16:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Is this not just a duplicate of A6? Stifle (talk) 16:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like it. Maybe A6 needs slight clarification for this, but seems clear enough already. Petros471 16:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree: let us merge this into A6:
Attack pages. Articles that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject (e.g., "John Citizen is a moron"). This includes biographies of a living person that are negative in tone and unsourced, where there is no NPOV version in the history to revert to.
Most attack pages are high-school kid biographies anyway. Kusma (討論) 17:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Moving this to a6 is good. But Jimbo's comment (that spurred this), goes well beyond that. We've always speedied blatant attacks. But when somebody writes an unsourced article that would be ok *if* sourced, we have in the past just tagged it as {{unreferenced}} and then hoped for sources to be added later. So, to me the reason for a revised speedy criteria, is so we can delete those articles on site. What you suggested, could let those articles survive, by people fixing the tone, without providing sources. --Rob 17:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I see A9 as dealing with cases more subtle than attack pages. Historically, attack pages are usually opinionated, juvenile, or both. I added A9 to deal with articles that read like they are factual and which, if sourced, might actually be OK. I don't have a problem with folding this into A6 as long as it's clear. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't this open the door for the speedy deletion of articles about people who do not wish their article to appear in Wikipedia? Becasue the subject does not want it to appear, it would be impossible for any article on the subject to be non-negative. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 18:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

No. There's no prohibition writing biographies that contain negative information about people. But those negative claims must be well sourced. --Rob 18:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Yet the article's subject could then question the veracity of the cited sources. Unless it's an obvious personal attack, whether or not something could be interpreted as negative is subjective. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 18:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Questions as to the accuracy, veracity, or propriety of various sources are generally resolved by one's looking at WP:V. Joe 18:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I understand Uninvited's argument that this wording is "more subtle" than the existing wording of case A6 and I agree that such articles are inappropriate but frankly the very subtlety of the distinction concerns me. Candidates for speedy deletion must be bright-line issues. They should be immediately identifiable by any admin acting in good-faith. I'd rather see this folded into A6. Rossami (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed CSD for articles requested to be deleted by its subject

* A biography of a living person with a low degree of verifiable notability and where the subject has requested that the article be deleted.

Rationale: Wikipedia may be an encyclopedia, but it is not a newspaper. Legal issues are not problematic if the article is neutral and well sourced, but articles about living persons who request them to be deleted should be removed out of politeness to the subject. No one should have to have an article on the 'pedia if he or she does not want it there. Think of it this way: Say you, as a private person, did something highly embarrassing that gained yourself 15 minutes of fame. Your actions would be notable and verifiable enough to have a bio stub created. Now, for the rest of your or Wikipedia's lifetime, you would have to monitor this article about you. Future employers would be able to Google your name and see what you did even long after your actions have fallen out of pop-cultural reference. However, you would have no recourse since the article is notable and verifiable. Out of common courtesy, you should be able to request you article be removed. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 18:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely disagree. This isn't a reason to delete, let alone a reason to speedily delete. If Bill Clinton turns around and says "I don't want an article about me on Wikipedia" (as if a politician would turn down coverage) then, well, tough. If the person in question doesn't believe they are sufficiently notable, they could propose deletion in the normal way, but the fact that they are the article's creator is irrelevant. —Whouk (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree, of course, with Whouk. See, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (3rd nomination) for a discussion of why a subject's desire not to be the subject of a WP bio is wholly immaterial to our goals of writing a verifiable encyclopedia, such that such desire should be altogether ignored. Joe 18:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. Infinite abuse potential. -- grm_wnr Esc 18:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Yep, bad idea for above reasons. Also note that if an article on a living person was seen as a problem by the foundation, it could be deleted or edited via a WP:OFFICE action. Friday (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
To comment on the expanded rationale - first off, if you made any news source online, Googling your name is still likely to bring whatever incident this is up. There doesn't just need to be an article about you for this to be the case - you could be mentioned on a Wikipedia article. But a "15 minutes of fame" otherwise forgotten doesn't scream notability. —Whouk (talk) 19:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
True, that the online sources could still exist, but that is not Wikipedia's responsibility. And online news sources tend to evaporate after a time. Wikipedia articles are likely there for perpetuity. Notability is a sliding scale from Bill Clinton to Brian Peppers. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 19:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll add to the pile-on in complete opposition; I can't see anything in this suggestion worth keeping. The kind of politeness and common courtesy urged above have no application on Wikipedia, where creating a neutral and comprehensive resource requires us to compile information that many people would rather we didn't. A value greater than this "politeness" is the acceptance by an individual that once he has become a notable subject of study and discussion, he has no right to prevent true and noteworthy information about himself from being disseminated. This policy would eventually result in Wikipedia only having flattering articles on living people, whether because all the individuals about whom unflattering facts are known have requested the removal of the articles, or because Wikipedia contributors self-censor to avoid having a topic they are interested in draw the ire of its subject and be deleted. Postdlf 19:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
If your only claim of notability is those 15 minutes of fame, you shouldn't have an article at all, even if you are mentioned in the news and regardless of whether those 15 minutes have been embarassing or whether the author requests deletion. - Liberatore(T) 19:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Then perhaps we should have a graded scale for notability so as to avoid articles on people who do not want to be notable. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 19:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
If a biography can be deleted as a form of courtesy, that means that the article was not necessary in the first place. Therefore, the person is not notable, and the article should be deleted regardless of subject's request. However, I know that we will never get rid of the clutter of "unncessary" articles of Category:Living people, so count this as a Support if the proposal is modified to take into account a "degree of notability". - Liberatore(T) 19:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Based on my work with m:OTRS, I can say with confidence that there are a significant number of people who are legitimate topics of encyclopedia articles who would just as soon have their Wikipedia article deleted. We get such requests about once a day and they are routinely refused. I don't think we want to change that. One of the things that people not involved with answering the mail and phone do not realize is that there is a huge volume of requests for intervention that are turned down. A frequent one is people writing to us claiming some minor error in their article and based on that wanting us to replace the article with a piece written by their publicist and lock it against public editing. When we refuse this is usually followed up by a request to delete the article. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Malber, could you add any refactored proposal as a new line rather than editing the original proposal? Currently it makes it appear to anyone new to the discussion that the comments are above are on the proposal at the top when they're not.
On the subject of your revised proposal, I'd like to reaffirm my opposition to what the article's subject wants one way or the other. Issues or verifiability and notability need to be taken on their own merits. And, if you have to weigh all these things up carefully, the decision isn't a speedy one at all. —Whouk (talk) 21:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Noted. Since the consensus seems to be swinging to oppose, and the question of notability is subjective, perhaps this should be taken to WP:DP. I feel that semi-notable people wishing to remain private should have the right to opt out of inclusion. I don't think this is unreasonable and isn't necessarily contrary to the stated goals. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 22:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I am also in a pile-on oppose to this. People don't get to choose whether they have an article or not. If they're notable, they get one. If they're not, they don't. Unless the page is an attack page, it shouldn't be going anywhere, at least not without an AFD. Stifle (talk) 10:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm also opposed to this. What it will mean is not that the semi-notable are removed, but the semi-notable notorious. People who get 15-minutes of fame for doing something good will not be asking to be removed. It will be the small-time embezzler, etc., who wants to run for mayor. The last thing wikipedia needs is to build in a systematic bias towards good-stories. Bucketsofg✐ 19:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

(Yet another) proposal

Would anyone mind if I added another criteria on images: Vandalism-only images, that is, images that were used to vandalism the article, either by parodying the subject; like, quite a popular one, Bill Gates. What do you think? Kilo-Lima|(talk) 20:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Not necessary. Images can be removed from articles as nonsense vandalism. The images are then orphaned FU images and can be flagged for deletion as such. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 20:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism-only images can be immediately speedied under G3. No need to wait for the 5-day orphaned FU grace period. Besides, the original image might not have been fair use. Angr (t • c) 21:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


Orphaned templates

A proposed new criterion:

Templates that are intended for use in user: namespace which are either not transcluded at all (orphaned) or are only transcluded by one user or on a list of templates. If the content is acceptable for a user page, the deleting administrator should "subst" the template before deletion.

Comments? --Tony Sidaway 15:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

(1) I don't see any reason to limit this to userspace-intended templates. It should apply equally to any unused template. (2) How can the admin seeing whether this speedy criterion actually holds quickly determine whether or not it's being widely substed? Angr (t • c) 16:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
That's a good question. In general, however, user: namespace templates are not intended to be substed, so I don't think there is necessarily a problem with that. Perhaps a subst-only template could be placed in a suitable category so that its intended usage is obvious. --Tony Sidaway 16:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
If WP:MACK passes, then most User: namespace templates will be substed, and it will be a very big problem. Angr (t • c) 16:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I thought the whole idea of substing under WP:MACK was so that they could then be deleted. Isn't it the intention that userboxes be removed from template space and should be propagated solely by code copying? --Tony Sidaway 16:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Not just userboxes, all templates intended for userspace, except the ones that have to be updated regularly. Come to think of it, if WP:MACK passes, this criterion will be almost moot, because the only any templates intended for userspace will be things like {{Signpost-subscription}} and {{Pic of the day}} that are widely used and have to be updated regularly. Angr (t • c) 17:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Speedily deleting orphaned templates is not a good idea. Only unused templates should be deleted. Whether an orphaned template is unused (nobody uses it for subst) is non-obvious, so it should not be a speedy deletion criterion. "Intended for use in the user namespace" is also not a good way to classify templates, they should be classified by content, not intention. Kusma (討論) 16:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed that they should be classified by content. So how about "orphaned non-encyclopedic" templates can be speedy deleted. We're not putting the encyclopedia in any kind of risk of damage by getting rid of unencyclopedic stuff. --Cyde↔Weys 16:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Determining what is and isn't encyclopedic has always required discussion. Neither articles nor images are speedied for being unencyclopedic; rather, they're taken to AFD/IFD where they can be discussed. The same should continue to apply to templates (regardless of their intended destination namespace). Angr (t • c) 17:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. However: One could argue that all userspace templates are inherently unencyclopedic - but then we've just gone full circle. -- grm_wnr Esc 19:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it necessarily applies to all templates ... as there could be a reason why some template is only temporarily not being used (an editing dispute for instance). But deleting user templates poses no risk to the encyclopedia, so substituting and deleting them sounds like a good way to get them out of template space where they don't belong. --Cyde↔Weys 16:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose this for:

  1. Destorys historical versions of pages
  2. Makes it much harder to use a template, subst'ing it in is easy, finding the code and c-n-p is hard
    1. Even if noone wanted it substed this now makes it qualify for this (suppose the subster could be blocked for disruption)
  3. Too much instruction creep for "user template" lets get a user template policy in place first.
Oppose completely. Don't speedy orphaned templates - an orphaned template might still be useful, but just not currently in use. We have to evaluate it for usefulness, and since that's subjective, TfD is necessary. Don't speedy templates used by only one user - they might legitimately use a template that nobody else knows about to organise information in a useful way in both article and user space. This kind of proposal in my opinion overlooks the point of templates, which is as a tool for organizing information - readers do not browse our templates looking for things to be offended by, and I see no reason why we should artificially restrict the purposes for which templates can be used beyond the ordinary restrictions placed on content. Deco 19:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose, why put people's backs up by speedying their templates which are harmless? Stifle (talk) 00:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Please think twice before proposing new criteria

We seem to be in the middle of an influx of CSD proposals where the proposer appears to reason directly from "X is a nuisance and should be deleted" to "We must have a CSD item for X". Folks, even when the premise is true, the conclusion is usually not. CSD is not, and should not, be the first recourse for cleansing Wikipedia of unwanted things. We have regular XfD processes for that. CSD is for things that not only deserve to be deleted, but that can be deleted with a minimum of fuss and red tape because the outcome is not in doubt anyway. The perfect argument for a new speedy criterion would be something like "There has been many X's passing through XfD for some time. They all consistently end up deleted without any substantial discussion. Conducting and concluding poll on X's are a significant drain on the available manpower for XfD. We should streamline the easy cases to free up resources." But some of the proposals above seem to be fueled instead by "There are many X's on Wikipedia. They are harmful and/or do little good. We must do something about them!" Henning Makholm 20:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

XfD processes are looking pretty broken right about now. --Cyde↔Weys 20:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I think people are thinking they can make policy without making policy. If you're tired of articles about, say, noodles, but you know that you have no chance of getting a WP:NOODLES adopted, it's easy to think "if only we could just speedy articles about noodles!" and voila, the idea of CSD N1 is born. · rodii · 20:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree that we don't need more criteria. I don't think we really even need the ones we have, honestly. I think most speedies are done by common sense rather than the letter of the rules anyway. The inability of written policy to adequately cover what can be speedied has been pointed out many times before. Friday (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Funny that the response to a broken XfD process is to break the CSD process as well. This could be part of a more ambitious scheme to remove editors from the deletion process altogether. Watch out - soon only administrators will be able to weigh in on deletion. You heard it here first. --71.36.251.182 22:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
We don't need many more CSDs. {{subst:prod}} is a perfect solution to most of the articles that shouldn't be there. The kind of new CSDs that work are things like {{nn-band}}, because literally dozens of band articles were hitting AFD daily before the criterion came in. That one worked. I don't know if there have been any CSDs since that have been neither instruction-creepy or discord-causing. Stifle (talk) 00:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
And note that {{nn-band}} as a CSD came at the end of a long process of discussion and consensus-crafting, not at the beginning. It was a solution to a problem that was widely recognized and processed upon, rather than an first reaction to a perceived problem. Proposing a new CSD as a quick and dirty policy proposal smacks of "premature closure" to the problem-solving process. · rodii · 01:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with this. I suggest that we put big bold letters at the top of the talk page stating that Any proposed speedy deletion criterion should be both objective and involve a significant proportion of articles currently handled by other processes. But then we'd have to remove half of the ones we got. Deco 08:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Some speedies as prods?

I floated this a while back, but WP:PROD was broken. Now that it's essentially in working order, I'd like to revisit it:

We should be prodding, and not speedying, articles that would fall under A7: "Non-notable" people, groups, bands. The best way to improve such articles would not be to speedy them, but to allow as many eyes as possible to see them and possibly fix them. Many such articles that would already qualify are being prodded already, and can often be rescued and improved upon. As speedies are simply a quicker way of prodding - i.e., they're allegedly for non-controversial issues, this merely extends the issue, doesn't bite newbies who don't understand our guidelines, and will ultimately make for better articles.

I also think it would be beneficial to do this with A1 and A3.

Thoughts? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 14:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

If you do newpage patrol, you really get a better grasp of how much stuff well, basically needs to be deleted under A1, A3 and A7. Of course, I apply them rather rigidly, along the lines of "There's truly nothing here that would be used in a good article or even a stub, so no point in keeping it". There's just dozens of "Gina Smith is the most beautiful girl in the world, she sits in homeroom with Daniel Jones." kind of articles created every few minutes, watch newpages for a while if you don't believe me. Do we really want to keep these around for 7 days? There'd be probably 10,000+ of them after a week, many of which would get the prods removed and fall through the cracks and mess up other areas of maintenence.
In other words, applying the CSDs ridigly, we do need them and they really do only get rid of stuff we'd have to rewrite totally if we were writing an article there, so they do no harm. The problem is not everyone applies them rigidly. --W.marsh 14:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I've done it. But that's A1, and if that needs to stay speedy, I certainly wouldn't protest in order to fix the other two. But I disagree that it does no harm. I've worked on a number of articles thanks to prod that I would have never considered creating or looking at, and I'm sure A7 has plenty like that, too. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 14:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be liable to significantly increase AFD again, because people would just deprod their article-that-should-be-a-userpage and require an AFD.
It is important, however, as W.Marsh says, to apply the criterion strictly. If the answer to "could this conceivably be of any use in the encyclopedia?" isn't "definitely not", then we should be thinking about changing speedy to prod. Stifle (talk) 00:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with this. Although "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject" is much stronger than "non-notable", it's still quite conceivable that a useful article could fail to assert the importance of its subject through simple accidental omission. Let some people look at it and add such an assertion if it is warranted. Deco 08:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I would support getting rid of A7, because a few days on prod gives it a chance for improvement without being a burden on anyone. I do not support getting rid of A1 or A3. They should be used narrowly, but kept, because there's no point in such articles. An A7 eligible article has information, but lacks the important bit about notability, which is usually easily fixed by someone familiar with the subject, if the subject is notable. A1 and A3 articles are barely even attempts at articles and usually even if the subject was worth writing about, you'd have to start it from scratch anyway. NickelShoe (Talk) 18:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I think all existing speedy criteria are useful, as long as they are not over-applied, which is a consistent problem (and pet peeve of mine). We will lose very few good articles from properly-applied A7's. -- SCZenz 19:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

One approach, is a "middle ground" between speedies and PRODs. Call it "medium speed deletion". Some (but not all) things tagged as {{nn-bio}} could be given 5(?) days before deletion. If there's still no assertion of notability, delete without AFD. If there is an assertion, remove the tag (with an option of AFD, if the assertion is week). This gives the creator a fair opportunity to fix the problem. It also helps newbies who are confused by an article "disapearing for no reason". This could work a little like {{no source}} does, in the sense such a tag can only be removed if the problem is actually fixed (unlike PROD which can be removed without justification). I realize numerious articles need to be "shot on site" but I think many (not all) a7s pose no harm, if they sit for 5 days. --Rob 19:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Refinement of G2

G2 currently says:

Test pages (e.g., "Can I really create a page here?").

I propose to qualify this with:

This excludes speedy deletion of test pages created by logged-in users in their own user space, except with the consent of the user in question.

Any objections? Arbitrary username 20:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Does that happen a lot? And while it is polite to ask before deleting even a test page in user space, does its deletion do any harm? Kusma (討論) 20:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the deletion may do harm: the user may be in the middle of testing something! I've no idea whether it happens a lot, but just think it would be good for the criterion to contain a safeguard against it being used to disrupt other users' tests. Arbitrary username 21:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I would think that no admin would be careless enough to delete a sandbox user subpage without first checking to see who had placed the tag there, and asking the obvious question if that person turns out not to have been the user who created the subpage. Kirill Lokshin 22:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the exclusion does any harm. User subpages that can be speedied should be at the user's request, which is a different criteria. Maybe a simpler wording is "Test pages (e.g., "Can I really create a page here?") outside of the user: namespace." -- nae'blis (talk) 01:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, but I think the status quo is better than any wording which excludes test pages created in someone else's userspace. Arbitrary username 16:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
No need. Nobody's going to speedy userspace pages anyway. I credit most admins with some common sense. Stifle (talk) 10:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Stifle and the others are, I think, correct. First, where a subpage is being used for at least a tangentially encyclopedic purpose, no one is likely to tag it for speedy (except, perhaps, a vandal or other user with whom one has had a serious conflict); G2 wouldn't apply in such a case, and an admin coming to the page would surely observe this. Joe 18:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your replies. My summary is that there is consensus that the change is unnecessary although not harmful. In view of this, I will not make the change. If frivolous nominations of user sandboxes ever become an actual recurrent problem, then this can be revisited. Arbitrary username 16:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

CSD G1

CSD G1, is rarely used properly. For example let's say I wrote an article on why the sky is green, backed up with pseudo science, such as that 'reflections from lettuce cause it to be green'. It is 7 sentences long, and well written. Would you:

  1. Speedy delete it under G1
  2. Prod it
  3. Send it to AfD

If you would do 1, YOU ARE WRONG. CSD G1 refers only to patent nonsense, and that article would not be patent nonsense. In fact patent nonsense is a useless CSD, as the things that it would include are already included under CSD G2 and G3. Should the patent be taken out, leaving only nonsense? The only downside I see is that this gives admins more power to interpret the policy. However, this interpretation is already available in speedy deleting under CSD G3. What do you think, are there other reasons not to do this I haven't thought of?

Prodego talk 15:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why the thing shouldn't just be deleted as rubbish. It's possible to be too pedentic about these things, you know. --Tony Sidaway 15:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Because people don't always have good judgement as to what's rubbish. I've seen at least one article written by an advanced physicist AfD'd because it looked like pseudoscience; in fact, it was on a notable topic and had been written at too technical a level. -- SCZenz 15:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely here. This is why I don't think we need to lump these things as "patent nonsense". However this doesn't mean that we don't delete complete rubbish when we see it just because it doesn't fit some handy category. If we make a mistake, it's reversible. --Tony Sidaway 15:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

But if so, it should have a category. This page is a list of every reason something can be speedy deleted, correct? Prodego talk 15:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

You mean a speedy deletion criterion? Not really. Some trash that should be deleted doesn't have a matching criterion. It's just trash. Such deletions are not to be performed lightly, but I believe they are necessary. Prod (Proposed deletion) may be appropriate for borderline trash, but an article of the kind you list above is obvious bilge and it would be a waste even to tag it for prod. Even well written bilge should be deleted. --Tony Sidaway 15:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that makes sense; I've run into blatant and deliberate rubbish just this morning. However, I worry that although mistakes are reversible, they may never be caught in the case of speedy deletion. That's why I tend to favor following the CSD pretty strictly; so that something that could be controversial (even if the deleter doesn't think so) has a chance to be reviewed. -- SCZenz 16:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Prodego is altogether correct; if we are to make something eligible to be deleted speedily, we ought at least fairly specifically to enumerate what precisely should be so deleted (and why). When patrolling new pages, I often find pages almost exactly as that which Prodego describes, and I find differentiating between patent nonsense and other unencyclopedic but not speediable content to be exceedingly difficult. But I can't abide Tony's suggestion that admins simply use their discretion here: first, because process is important, and it would be good for us to delineate exactly what obvious bilge should be deleted (and how we might identify such bilge); and, second, because admins aren't, on the whole, supposed to act discretionarily (rather, they act, in most cases, ministerially). I certainly understand for myself the difference between that which is nonsensical (even if well-written) and that which is only unencyclopedic and thus ought to be PRODded or AfDed, but I'm certain that others view the dichotomy differently, and it would be to our advantage to have a consistent criterion, though I fear that any we write will invariably be nebulous and invite discretionary deletions in any event. Joe 18:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I think the key of our difference is "admins aren't, on the whole, supposed to act discretionarily (rather, they act, in most cases, ministerially)" I don't believe this to be true. I'm a sysop because I've got a brain and I'm expected to use it. I don't think it's possible to delineate all the instances in which administrator actions are beneficial, and so we have discretion and our written policy follows behind at a much more conservative pace. --Tony Sidaway 18:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I think this is easily one of the most abused speedy policies. People use it for good content poorly written, content they don't understand and content they disagree with. Admins don't always have good judgment as to what's rubbish and what isn't and unfortunately many times when this happens it involves a new user so you get BITE thrown in as well. More than just about any other criteria, G1 one should be followed pretty close to the bone. That's one of the reasons Prod is such a good idea, it takes the pressure of off having to interpret speedy criteria in cases where it doesn't quite fit. Rx StrangeLove 18:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
In the case presented above, speedy is definitely the correct course of action. When I see jokeshop articles come up on AFD, I tag them with CSD. For example, JIMMY and X-Treme Napping, even if as in the AFD for Jimmy, others seem to disagree on the application of G1. I fully expect admins, as mentioned above, to use some parts of their brain. It is perfectly reasonable to delete hoax/vandalistic articles, even if G1 didn't exist. However, like the 2 examples I have given, they would have to be pretty outright stupid/hoax. Admins who delete good content poorly written or content that they don't understand or disagree with, its a problem with the admin and not with the liberal application of this rule. - Hahnchen 01:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I also believe that case G1 should be interpreted and applied very narrowly. Vandalism is speedy-deletable. Hoaxes are not. The reason we've never established a speedy-deletion criterion for hoaxes is that, as individuals, we have proven to be very poor at identifying them. Too often, something tagged as a hoax has turned out to be a true though poorly written article about a particularly obscure topic. I made a hobby of collecting examples for a while. But when you run a hoax through the full AFD process, we find that collectively we are very good at sorting out the hoaxes from the garbage.
Tony is partially right. We are supposed to use our brains. Admins are not supposed to be automatons. However, we must be very cautious about the risk of hubris - the assumption that we know best. Decisions which do not fit the narrow speedy-deletion criteria should be dealt with through our other channels. Rossami (talk) 13:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I see G1 applied to all kinds of articles that are not, in fact, nonsense; probably the only more-abused CSD is {{db|not notable}}. Patent nonsense actually means something very specific, and Tony's exhortations aside, it's rife with abuse. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree too. I see all kinds of things deleted as G1 that aren't--Monster raving loony party just the other day. It was a crap article but not patent nonsense, and it should have gone through AfD or at least {{prod}}. Increasingly I think admins are using G1 to indicate "article I consider stupid." Saying "If we make a mistake, it's reversible" is too glib--that mistake might be the one that turns a potentially valuable contributor away from this place, in a way that's not reversible. Why not try not making the mistake? · rodii · 17:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
That one should have been speedy-redirected to Official Monster Raving Loony Party, which is a pretty decent article. --Carnildo 18:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
And ultimately it was. My point is just that all kinds of stuff gets the G1 treatment because an admin just doesn't "get" the page. It's not really a fault of the admin, but we should be careful. (And I just picked that example because I was familiar with it, having brought it up in deletion review, not because I thought it was a big huge hairy deal.) · rodii · 20:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. The CSD criteria is clear (and always has been) on what is "patent nonsense". Patent nonsense does not mean "does not make logical sense to you". It means that is unintelligible or unreadable. I could tell you the earth revolved around the sun and you could tell me that this was nonsense, which is a subjective qualification. However, it would not be patent nonsense, which is an objective qualification. As WP has grown, this incredible inability of some of its members (including among admins) to separate subjective qualifications from objective qualifications has been the very plight of CSD. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 20:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Precisely. Joe 16:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Well said, Keith -- Samir धर्म 02:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I3, remove the time constraint?

Is it possible we could now look at removing the time constraint on I3, which allows

Images licensed as "for non-commercial use only" or "used with permission" that were uploaded on or after May 19, 2005, and for which no assertion of fair use is provided.

Given that the date is over one year ago, I would suggest there has been ample time to source alternatives for any such images. Thoughts? Hiding Talk 20:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

We would need to ensure that the categories are clear first. I'd favour listing them on WP:PUI (and have done so quite a number of times). Stifle (talk) 22:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
How about adding something allowing speedy deletion of orphans in with those criteria? They're not actually used, so they don't need time to find a replacement image. --Rory096 06:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
That sounds OK. Any objections? Stifle (talk) 22:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Due to the lack of objections, I have added this. Stifle (talk) 08:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

spam

does stuff like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Webserver_directory_index&action=edit&oldid=54293158 come under the pure vandalism category? I presume it does but it could perhaps be mentioned explicitly. Plugwash 14:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Pure vandalism is criterion G3. If the list had been visible, I would have said that the page did not apply under that case. Spam is not the same as vandalism. The fact that the anon user who created the page took the extra steps to attempt to hide the text, however, is a clear sign of bad faith editing. I think the vandalism case could apply in this situation. That's a case-specific judgment call, though. I think amending the wording of the speedy-deletion criterion based on this one situation is probably not appropriate. This is especially true because the contents clearly did fit criterion A3 (No content except a list of links) regardless of whether the edit was made in good or bad faith. It probably also fit criterion A1 (No context for expansion). So it was speedy-deletable without any changes to policy necessary. Rossami (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
But it was a talk page not an article page, so surely stuff in the "articles" section doesn't apply Plugwash 18:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:WEB

What about adding non-notable sites as a CSD. This may fall under A7, but it needs clarification. Computerjoe's talk 19:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

If you mean websites that don't claim any notability (not just "are non-notable") and don't have any association with a company that's notable, then it might work. But in general, {{subst:prod}} works. Stifle (talk) 22:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Non-notable websites was a proposed CSD about a year ago at the same time A7 was proposed, but failed to get consensus. The idea of notability is actually rather slippery; even A7 refers only to "evidence of notability" or words to that effect. I agree that prod works very well for this. --Tony Sidaway 04:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Notability can sometimes be hard to discern, and I don't think one admin who thinks something is non-notable should be able to speedy delete a page. I've seen plenty of notable pages go up for AFD for non-notability because some people had never heard of it, but in the course of a few people looking at it, they were able to determine it was notable. Doesn't seem smart to let that one person who may not have heard about it delete a page on sight. The Ungovernable Force 06:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

A website should be speedied if it doesn't claim notability, or has a very poor claim (we get 100 hits a month and soforth). Allowing speedy deletes of nn sites would clear up AFD. Computerjoe's talk 14:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

As of now, you could already speedy delete the following types of website articles: no context (A1); only a link to the site (A3); attacks on the website (A6); websites solely for a non-notable person, group, band, or club (A7); content copied directly from the website (A8); etc. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of two "notes"

I've removed two lines about checking the articles history and using Google to check context. Every little drip and drab goes towards making this page fatter, and if you're not already checking the history of things than please stop speedy deleting. - brenneman {L} 03:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Advertisement

Should there be a policy created allowing speedy deletion of articles that are blatant advertisements? I cannot seem to find one anywhere. --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?, on WHEELS?!) 11:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

No, because what one person calls "blatant advertising" another person calls "an informative article about a company". PRODding (or, if that's contested, AFDing) gives people a five-day grace period to change an article from blatant advertising into an actual encyclopedia article. Angr (t • c) 11:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
It's a matter of judgement. Some things are blatantly spam; I delete those. Others, as Angr suggested, can be prodded or tossed to AfD. There's no real need for policy here. Mackensen (talk) 12:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
If you're really keen turn that blatent ad into an actual article. I know, adding content is too much like hard work, but someone should do it. - brenneman {L} 12:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Maybe there should be a 'fast delete' which is, say 2 days, to give authors a chance to shape up. My concern is that Google seems to scrape and pick up WP very fast nowadays, and puts the adspam at the top of the search list, mission accomplished for spammer. Any ideas how to beat that strategy? Crum375 01:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Just remove the external links in the article, and any inappropriate internal links to it. Henning Makholm 01:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
What if we have article for small company A, with one short paragraph describing it, and links to its web site. No link or ref to any neutral site mentioning it. If we delete their link, how does it make the article any better? (See this as case in point.) Crum375 02:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Removing the link negates the benefit the spammer would get from a googlescrape. The article can be deleted using ordinary process afterwards. Henning Makholm 11:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
The problem is easy to see in the History for this case in point, where the spam promoter sits on top of the page and keeps reverting changes, and could bring up sockpuppets if needed. It is too wasteful for serious editors to engage in revert wars with a dedicated spammer. If admins are needed then it's wasteful of that resource also. A simpler delete process, shorter than the Googlescrape time window, would solve it, at least for clear cut cases like this one. Crum375 15:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Mackensen, many of the articles in question are about companies which fall so far short of WP:CORP as to make the effort of saving them a waste of energy. I have been known to fix spam articles for genuinely notable companies. Just zis Guy you know? 12:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
One possible solution for these is immediate AfD (no prod). If the company is actually notable, people will notice during the time the article spends on AfD and it will be cleaned up. If the company is non-notable, the AfD tag (which cannot be removed) serves as a warning to everyone, the user responsible is likely to give up before the AfD page is complete, and it increases the chance that someone will notice an A8 and speedy it. --ais523 08:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I1: Image format

Why is a redundant image defined as the same image file format? I propose changing the wording to "An image that is a redundant copy, in the same or less ideal image file format and same or lower resolution, of something else on Wikipedia." Otherwise, we're liable to have the same image in GIF, JPEG, PNG, SVG, TIFF, BMP, ART, and RAW formats all over Wikipedia. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree, as long as it's made clear that the images must clearly be the same (as in not two different photos of the same object, but two different versions of the same photo) the source should also be the same so why say that different sized JPEG versios of the same image are speedy deletion candidates, but identical (except for some compression artifacts) JPEG and PNG images are not candidates for speedy deletion. -Sherool (talk) 21:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Because different browsers support different formats. Some none at all => no problem. Some very old only GIF87a (no animation, no transpareny), but these browsers also don't support the "Host: header" for virtual hosts, it's almost impossible to use them today => almost irrelevant. The next generation had GIF89a (animation + transparency) and JPEG. I'm sure that they are still used, because I do. No inline PNG unfortunately. Another generation supported PNG, but had issues with its transparency. For important icons the best choice wrt backwards compatibility is GIF89a (the "burn all GIFs" LZW patent expired more than a year ago). Important icons are those where getting an ersatz-"broken image"-icon really won't do, e.g. warning templates. Icons also don't really need all PNG features, for 64*64 pixels 255 colours + transparency are good enough, and probably smaller than a 64*64 PNG with more colours. The IUP mainly addresses images, not icons.
For JPEG vs. PNG I can't judge what's better, but JPEG is quite popular, and supported on more platforms. -- Omniplex 21:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
That sounds like a debate you should take to Wikipedia:Image use policy wich is there the prefeered formats are outlined. This suggestion is merely that various identical images in different formats should be speedy deletion candidates in favour of the version in the prefeered format (whatever it is) for the type of image asuming they are otherwise "identical" (as far as the human eye is concerned). Just curious what browser is it that you are using? And why not simply upgrade or switch to a better one? --Sherool (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I would use the word "pixel identical" - it must have exactly the same pixels, with no loss of image information whatsoever, including any additional info like an alpha layer or separate image layers (like for example Photoshop and certain document files have). In particular, we should not be replacing PNGs of photographs with JPEGs - the invisible information is useful for editing and preventing generational decay. Deco 08:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, fair enough, but I see no reason to not allow the reverse. If we have a lineart image that as far as the human eye is concerned is identical in both JPEG (except maybe some ugly artefacts), GIF, PNG and SVG format why not allow speedying of the versions that are in a less desierable format (acording to our image use policy), those are all losless formats. Granted there is the alpha level transparancy issues, but it's rarely a major issue, and since we seem to have consensus to prefeer PNG over GIF (and SVG over PNG) that has presumably already been cosnidered. It's far more common to upload lineart as JPEG than uploading photos as PNG or GIF anyway (and if the photo is in GIF format you have already lost a whole crapload of color depth so it's not very usefull to keep as a "grandparent" for future JPEG versions). --Sherool (talk) 15:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
The policy page is unprotected now; someone want to add this yet? I don't want to; I suggested it, I'd rather another party do the adding. Much simpler, and greater chance of hitting a good consensus version. —BorgHunter (talk) 04:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I strongly object to this proposed change. Yes, our image use policy indicates that certain formats are preferable to others. This information is generally accurate, but there are exceptions to every rule. It's bad enough that some users fail to realize this (and perform illogical image replacements purely for the sake of following the rules). We certainly shouldn't allow the "redundant" images to be deleted on sight. —David Levy 12:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

CSD C1

After watching and participating in CFD for a few months, I've developed the opinion that an empty category shouldn't be a criteria for deletion much less speedy deletion. Because of the way categories are implemented it is nearly impossible to know what the contents of a category were in the past so someone could empty the category and put it up for speedy deletion unless someone checks his edit history, which no one does. And two people could do it with no way of anyone else finding out.

It isn't really all that important anyway if a category is empty or not. What's important is if it is a logical category with a good place in the category bush. If it is a good, logical category, people will eventually put articles into it. --JeffW 22:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It certainly will, and CSD is NOT SALT. If a new article comes along that fits a logical category, it will create it in the process of writing or categorizing it. Although I would love a "category history" of some sort from the category's POV, I don't think the code supports it now. — xaosflux Talk 02:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Someone could blank an article and then put up new text that falls under one of the CSDs. In all deletions, the administrator doing the deletion needs to check the edit history. If admins are being too lazy to check edit history, it seems like overkill to remove a CSD to compensate... kmccoy (talk) 02:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
A category isn't like an article. If a category is empty it is impossible to find the edit history of the articles that were in the category yesterday, since there is no way to find those articles. --JeffW 20:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
This criterion used to stand as having been empty for one day, but because of the concerns you raise now, it was felt that four days would be sufficient time for people to check that nothing "suspicious" has happened. Category deletion is no big deal. You are right that it's impossible to know what was in the category, but as User:Xaosflux states, if a category was wrongly deleted, it's quite simple to recreate it. Hiding Talk 20:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Vanity Template

Is there a speedy deletion template that says the page is pure vanity? Please direct me to it if there is. If there isn't, I'll be happy to make it. -Kitty the Random 01:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

{{db-bio}} (etc) is the closest we have. Note that "pure vanity" is not a recognized speedy criterion: vanity articles tagged with db-bio that do claim notability are routinely refered to prod or AfD instead. Henning Makholm 02:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Userfy them and tag the redirect for deletion as a cross-namespace redirect. The template {{nn-userfy}} is handy for this. Just zis Guy you know? 12:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned talk pages - why?

I sometimes work on drafts like Talk:Interstate 10 in Texas that aren't ready for an article yet. I was concerned to find out that these can be speedied - where else should I put something like this so others can find it? --SPUI (T - C) 02:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Userspace is probably a good place - I think just move the page afterwards should do the trick. RN 02:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
And if I never get around to finishing it? If I put it on the talk page, others can find it and complete it. --SPUI (T - C) 02:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to bet that some of these drafts have already been deleted under this. Thus, unless anyone gives a good reason to tolerate this worsening of the encyclopedia, I will "unilaterally" remove this criterion from the CSD. --SPUI (T - C) 02:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

IIRC, I think the CSD was changed from Talk pages of only deleted articles to all Talk pages without articles because anons can create Talk pages, which had been problematic because some anons were creating undesirable content in that namespace. I don't know whether that's a problem anymore, though. --AySz88^-^ 03:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia articles are always in progress... they don't have to be perfect before they can be created. I've always found the concept of temp pages to be a bit of a misnomer, all articles are temp pages, the way I see it... something can always be improved. So I'd say that the article space is a good place to put this kind of stuff. --W.marsh 03:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

You think Talk:State Highway 550 (Texas) would be suitable for an article? --SPUI (T - C) 03:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
No, but why not just create a stub for the article? I could do it in 10 minutes and I've never even heard of State Highway 550. Then people can improve the actual article if they want, or discuss on the talk page. --W.marsh 03:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's a partial list so if they are deleted I can request undeletion:

And others may have been deleted already. --SPUI (T - C) 03:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

SPUI, here's a suggestion. If something good you are working on gets speedied, come to me (or David Gerard, or any number of other admins who are huge fans of yours) and ask us to quietly undelete it. The worst you could expect is a refusal. --Tony Sidaway 03:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's the issue - I make some notes on the talk page and don't necessarily get back to it, let alone realize it's been deleted. --SPUI (T - C) 03:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh pop it on your watchlist. --Tony Sidaway 04:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hm, my experience is that page deletions do not appear in one's watchlist; the deleted page simply disappears quietly. One can see them as redlinks in the "list all watched pages" view, but even that does not distinguish between recent and old deletions. Henning Makholm 05:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah... I get an error trying to load my 28,787-page watchlist. So I can't check for redlinks there. --SPUI (T - C) 15:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk space is not the place to be working on drafts. That's what user subpages are for. I don't buy your argument "If I put it on the talk page, others can find it and complete it." If others come across these talk pages without articles, they aren't going to think, "Oh, here's a draft for me to finish!" They're going to think "WTF? This isn't a talk page, and there isn't even an article attached. Delete it!" Just because SPUI has a habit of misusing Talk space this way doesn't make it acceptable and certainly doesn't justify removing an eminently reasonable speedy criterion. Angr (t • c) 13:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

That's just wrong. What else are talk pages for if not for working on the article? If we insist, SPUI can probably pretend he's "talking" to people, "Hey, I'd like to do this, any objections?" And if there isn't even enough information for a stub yet, use {{deletedpage}}. Those we are meant to keep the talk page for. - brenneman {L} 14:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree that there is not a reason to remove this CSD; it, like all others, just needs to be tempered with common sense. If you see an orphaned talk page that looks like notes or a draft, you probably shouldn't delete it, at least userfy it. The same goes for a talk page archives. Kotepho 14:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
SPUI, you'd probably get a lot of mileage out of a cear boldface note at the top of the page announcing that it contains some draft material for the as yet non-existent page. You could ask that admins not delete it without tugging on youyr sleeve first, and maye invite contribution from passers-by. You could problably design a template for it - {{DraftPage}} or something. -GTBacchus(talk) 14:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
This suggestion works just fine. As does creating a stub, which is hardly challenging. Let's not change the rules to handle a single editor's preferred way of working. Just zis Guy you know? 12:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Does the above discussion constitute consensus that User:SPUI's "note pages" should be exempt from the criterion? I don't see overwhelming support that this is a use of talk pages that it worth the rule complication it would take to exempt it. Yet his edit summary changing the criterion claims consensus. Agreeing with JzG above, Henning Makholm 18:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no consensus to remove the criterea, but the tweak he did seems fairly uncontroversial (at least no one have reverted it yet). I mean I would encourage people to create stubs rather than dump notes on talk pages for yet-to-be-created articles, but if there is some good starter info there I see no particular reason to blindly delete it either. The potential usefulnes of such notes seems to outweight the need to avoid orphanded talk pages at all costs... --Sherool (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

A friendly reminder

All,

Please remember not to edit protected pages, but also not to merely revert when asking the original errer to revert himself would be so much more conducive to happiness.

James F. (talk) 18:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

How are users able to edit protected pages in the first place? --68.190.51.99 18:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
All 800+ admins. Unfortunately we are not above edit warring... Petros471 19:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually 900+ User:Prodego 19:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I asked James to take a look because of the rather tense circumstances. I had self-reverted after inadvertently editing the page while it was protected (an easy mistake for a sysop to make). Another admin then made the same mistake, so I informed him on his talk page and asked him to revert. Meanwhile a third admin had reverted the second, which in the circumstances could have led to an edit war between administrators on a protected page--the kind of activity that tends to end in immediate temporary desysoppings and arbitration cases to confirm them. --Tony Sidaway 14:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

T1 and T2 debate has a new home

Please see Wikipedia:T1 and T2 debates and Wikipedia talk:T1 and T2 debates, where you'll find everything that's suddenly missing from here. Please proceed in an orderly fashion, no pushing. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Although this move might be controversial, I think it's a great idea. The T1/2 debate generate noise for as long as the rules exist and make it impossible to effectively discuss anything else here. I hope others won't mind. Deco 08:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
And there was much rejoicing. Thank you! Henning Makholm 08:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I've also announced the new page at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) -GTBacchus(talk) 08:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
This seems to be a reasonable move in general, but I have some minor concerns. The new "summary" page also includes a "Discussion" section. That seems inappropriate to me. If the page is intended to be an NPOV characterization of the debate, then the continued debate belongs on the talk page. Also, I would have preferred the summary to be a subpage of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, since that's it's main topic. That way, a bread crumb link would be at the top of the new page. Rfrisbietalk 21:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposal new redirect criterion

How does one propose new criteria? If this page is the location, I would like to propose to add the following criterion for speedy deletion of redirects:

A redirect to a page of which the subject is neither the same as nor extremely closely related to the subject one would expect to see under the title of the redirecting page.

- Andre Engels 07:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The proper procedure for dealing with that is to edit the redirect page either to point to something more reasonable, or to be a stub for the topic indicated in its title. If neither of these make sense, take it to RfD instead. Are there so many meaningless redirects left after the two first options that it is worth the trouble to have a speedy criterion instead of following the standard RfD procedure? And can the class be defined sufficiently objectively that it is safe to delete them as speedies? Henning Makholm 08:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Well put. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Hoaxes

I see that there has been some discussion of hoaxes before, but I feel that this issue should be revisited. Right now at AfD, there's a series of articles which are obviously hoaxes. The claims made in these articles (about a made-up band) are preposterous; #1 singles, smash-hit albums, and various other accomplishments are listed, despite the fact that the band, its members, and its albums get no relevant Ghits. However, despite the fact that these articles are so clearly unencyclopaedic hoaxes, they will remain on the mainspace for the next five days while the AfD runs its inevitable course. Perhaps if there is solid evidence that an article is a hoax, it can be considered for speedy deletion? I don't see any reason to leave these articles (or others like them) on the website any longer than we have to. Cheers! The Disco King 19:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think "solid evidence that an article is a hoax" as a criterion is far too dependent on discussion and review to be well suited as a speedy criterion. A single AfD case is very far from being reason to add speedy criteria, and there is no particular cost associated with letting a hoax sit in article space for a few days while due process runs its course. As long as they are conspicuously tagged and the rest of article space can be kept free of gratuitous wikilinks to the hoaxes (through ordinary editor vigilance), what immediate harm does their temporary presence in the database do? The reason you ask for is that proper process is what keeps your article about some obscure corner of your hobby from being speedily deleted as a hoax before you get a chance to explain yourself and provide references. Speedy deletions are basically a weakening of process by relying on single persons making correct judgements. This is a necessity sometimes when the process (relative to the number of cases) is so bulky that everything would grind to a halt by following it each time, but it should not be extended lightly. Henning Makholm 20:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
According to WP:HOAX, "Hoaxes in Wikipedia are considered vandalism, and the originator of a hoax is subject to blocking and banning." WP:VAND clarifies that vandalism includes "insertion of bad jokes or other nonsense". Thus, a blatant hoax can already be speedied as G3. A hoax is NOT G1 patent nonsense, but according to both WP:HOAX and WP:VAND, a hoax would fall into G3. I agree, though, with User:Henning Makholm that you don't want administrators having to immediately evaluate whether or not something is a hoax. BigDT 01:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
AH!!! I smell wikilawyering! *runs away* --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 00:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd say that allows sufficient leeway to delete the blindingly obvious, and the balance need to go through a process of review (several supposed hoaxes have turned out to be valid but obscure, and the converse is also not unknown). Just zis Guy you know? 13:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Obvious hoaxes are normally gone and they can count as nonsense, like for example I found some bs on a fake country in random pages before and it was quickly deleted like a minute after I tagged it, but alot of them just go though AFD or prod and has to wait five days for someone to delete it. There should be a new CSD critrea making all hoaxes a speedy cantidate. Someonebay 02:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The problem is that many apparent hoaxes are not at all obvious. Speedy-deletions are deleted on the view of a single administrator and get no oversight. Our own history has repeatedly shown us that as individuals we are not very good at sorting out the hoaxes from the poorly written stubs about real but very obscure topics. Too many such articles have been tagged as hoaxes only to be later verified. As a community, we are quite good at sorting them out but that's what the AFD process is all about. For a while, I was even collecting examples of such discussions. There's still a partial list somewhere on my userpage.
Now, I'm not defending the articles which are patent nonsense (in the narrow way we use that term here) nor am I defending clearly identifiable vandalism. But an attempt to set an absolute rule that "all hoaxes are speedy deletion candidates" will do more harm than good. The AFD process works. Let it take its course. Rossami (talk) 13:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, AfD's triumph is the five day discussion that can be used to distinguish a hoax from a verifiable subject. We don't want to telescope that to a single administrator. Afd provides the opportunity for rigorous research prior to declaring a hoax, but it would be too onerous to require a single administrator at RC patrol to do it all. --Tony Sidaway 13:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Tony - and if it takes a while to prove that something is a hoax ("I've never heard of it" isn't proof), different admins could start the research, come to different conclusions, and revert each others actions. This is unadvisable. AfDs can and do close early if the research is done and everyone agrees that it is a hoax. Sometimes an apparent hoax is real, sometimes something apparently real is a hoax. GRBerry 14:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

CSD G8 needs clarification

The current wording might not be consistent with the current interpretation by (some? most?) administrators. There is a small discussion going on at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Many Speedy Deletions of talk pages. Ardric47 22:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

New Image Criteria

Would it be possible to have a speedy deletion criteria for images that have an obvious watermark on them indicating their copyright? --Hetar 00:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Copyrighted images, whether watermarked or not, might be legal to use under fair use. Kusma (討論) 00:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Even if they might be legal under fair use, do we really want images with glaringly obvious watermarks on them? --Hetar 18:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
What's wrong with glaringly obvious watermarks? --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 00:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Obvious copyvios, even though they can be trimmed the trademark. Someonebay 02:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
The purpose of a watermark is not to assert a legal copyright but to give credit to a particular entity. We don't really want them in images for the same reason we don't usually credit authors in articles. But we certainly don't need to delete them - they're not hard for any halfway-decent clone brusher to remove, and there are techniques for removing them even if they cover the whole image. Deco 04:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

CSD U1

Since the page is currently protected due to the editing war on T1 and T2, this is to remind myself to add a very brief, digested note of the exemptions listed on WP:UP#How do I delete my user and user talk pages? in which user pages and talk pages do not qualify for speedy deletion. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Which would be more efficient than just having "See Wikipedia:User page for full instructions and guidelines". Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
So, a working sentence I was thinking about adding to CSD U1 is, "This does not apply to user pages that contain evidence of policy violations or significant abuse, or pages in which there is an administrative need to retain the personal information" or something like that. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: Image description pages for Commons images

I'd like to propose a CSD criterion for image description pages when the image in question is on Commons. Exceptions would be for IDPs for Featured Pictures when the picture is on Commons. Otherwise, there's really not much use for them as far as I can figure. Please correct me if I'm wrong, though. howcheng {chat} 19:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been deleting these anyway. They seem unhelpful as the obscure any changes to e.g. licensing that may occur on Commons, and the purpose of Commons is to have a centralised resource. This is a comparatively rare occurance, though, and it probably doesn't really need its very own CSD. Still, I'd not object. -Splashtalk 19:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Well for some kinds of images it can sometimes be usefull to add Wikipedia spesific info to the page. For example adding {{countryedit}} to flag images and such. If the description page is blank or otherwise serves no usefull purpose I'd say "blank image" (I2) applies since there is no image on the actual page you delete. --Sherool (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I've occasionally seen pages used to add images to categories. --Carnildo 22:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I wonder about the usefulness of that -- why keep that metadata local? Jkelly 22:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Because when you browse Wikipedia categories you don't get to see Commons categorization (and in general Commons categories are differently specified and named than Wikipedia ones)? Henning Makholm 23:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought I2 was for when the image file itself existed but was just a blank GIF or PNG or something. So it seems that IDPs for Commons image sometimes do serve a purpose. Maybe a better wording would be something like:

Image description pages for images or media that exist on Commons where the page serves no real purpose.

--howcheng {chat} 22:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I seen in my time in wikipedia as a IP, images from commons get speedy deleted, I endorse a new policy on it. Someonebay 02:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

CSD U2

I just saw a notice on a userpage that referred to 'CSD U2', but there is no such criterion that I can see from the main page. The notice was added by User:Tawkerbot to the page User talk:130.88.171.226 on 3 March 2006. Category:IP talk pages for speedy deletion was transcluded and the text of the notice states "This page has been automatically marked for deletion under the criteria for speedy deletion U2 (recycling IP talk pages). If you are adding a new message, please remove this notice". Looking at the category in question, this appears to have been an experimental speedy deletion criterion. Is this criterion still in force or under debate? Thanks for the input. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It was an old criterion that was in effect until people realized that IP talk pages should be blanked, not deleted. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected

this page has been unprotected. Play nice. Homey 03:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed CSD I8

I propose the following criterion:

No encyclopedic value whatsoever. Images used solely on pages deleted per A7, attack images, and images depicting unnecessary obscenities can be deleted immediately.

This image criterion would reduce the backlog on WP:IFD, and it would reduce the amount of time that obscene/inflammatory images would stay on Wikipedia. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Support the deletion of those, but don't think we need a special criterion. G1 and G3 seem to fit the bill. -- grm_wnr Esc 04:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

G1 doesn't seem to fit the bill. G3 could be applied, but if I were an admin I would feel uncomfortable applying it unless there was a precedent to do so. Maybe we should just clarify G3 to include the proposal above. --Bachrach44 16:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
There is some merit to a CSD for images which were uploaded and used only on pages deleted per CSD:A7 (i.e. vanity images). Stifle (talk) 09:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Expanding I6

Why is I6 restricted only to images tagged specifically with {{tl:fairuse}} or {{tl:Non-free fair use in}}? It should apply to every image tagged with a fair use tag, as every fair use tag screams "provide a rationale" already. TheProject 05:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Some don't. We gain nothing by everyone writing copying and pasting the same fair use rationale for every album cover used in the article about the album. -- grm_wnr Esc 05:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
The main reason is maintenance overhead. Slapping a {{Non-free fair use in}} tag on a page doesn't take any thought, other fair use tags do. I agree that it should, eventually, be migrated, but not right now. Stifle (talk) 00:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Non-criteria

I added a section listing some types of articles that are either frequently mistakenly deleted under misapplication of CSD or frequently raised here on the talk page. I hope I roughly captured the consensus of the community in doing this, but please feel free to edit it. It's not intended to be normative, i.e., it doesn't make new rules; it just clarifies how the ones we have are to be interpreted. Deco 05:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I like this a lot. I edited the bit about non-notability somewhat. -- SCZenz 14:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
It's broadly good, but the userbox one incorrectly implied that divisive templates cannot be speedied, so I've removed that one. --Tony Sidaway 14:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
No problem, thanks for the edits. I don't want this section to be contentious. Deco 17:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
These are great, except that I don't understand how the PNG/GIF one has anything to do with speedy deletion, pro or con. · rodii · 02:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
These images are sometimes deleted under I1. The claim is that this shouldn't be done. Deco 04:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I can't parse how it says that: "PNGs/GIFs replaced by JPEGs: Even if an image is a photograph or other continuous-tone image, JPEG encoding discards a variety of information that could be important for further editing. These are not redundant." Could the wording be made clearer? · rodii · 23:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it's too technical. The point I'm trying to make is that when you convert a PNG or GIF to JPEG format, the resulting image (although visually similar) is not the same, and so the original PNG or GIF should not be deleted because it contains information lost in the conversion process. Deco 23:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Aha, now I get it. I thought it was saying that the jpeg version shouldn't be deleted, even though it discards information... which didn't make much sense. I don't think it's too technical, just a little unclear. Actually, I think your explanation clarifies the issue completely. · rodii · 23:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

where nonsense and nn-bio meet

When doing NP patrol, I frequently come across a page that looks like the following: "John Smith is the coolest person ever. Born in 1989 in Wichita Kansas, he currently attands whatchamakalit junior high school. Everyone should respect John because he's the coolest person ever and has single handedly discovered a cure for cancer."

Now, this is obviously a load of junk and should be deleted, but the truth is it doesn't fit the criteria for nn-bio. A7 says "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." technically, the above article does assert it's subject's importance - John Smith is the coolest person ever - if true that would be notable. I sometimes flag these pages as nonsense if the claims within the article are nonsensical, but GQ explicityl does not include "implausible theories or hoaxes," which is essentially what this is. In practice I've always seen those types of articles deleted, but I think we should expand the policy to reflect what we've been doing in practice. Maybe we could add a sentence to A7 which says something like "or whose only assertions of notability are nonsensical or entirely false". Thoughts? --Bachrach44 16:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Such things are, in my view at least, "[an] addition ... made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia" i.e. WP:VANDalism. Thus they may be deleted by any administrator on sight, either simply for being vandalism, or more technically CSD G3. Of course, the line betwixt vandalism and "I've never heard of this person/thing he does" must be judged carefully by the deleter. -Splash - tk 16:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Arguably, these edits were not made in order to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia, but rather for fun. If I saw your hypothetical article, I would remove the claim that they cured cancer from the article, which is clearly false, and the claim that he's the "coolest person ever", which is POV, and then PROD it for non-notability. Deco 17:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
IANAP, but surely the element of fun is derived from seeing if you can get such an article into the encyclopedia, knowing and intending that it's trash? It would be no fun if it weren't trash, and then it wouldn't be a speedy anyway. (NB: Hoaxes are intentional trash, too, but that's not the question here.) -Splash - tk 17:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
WP:DVAIN uses the phrase "remotely plausible assertion of notability" (emphasis mine). I consider this a very important distinction. We don't need to consider patently absurd assertions, such as owning a cottage on Mars, in determining whether an article is an A7 speedy or not. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I would put it this way: if after you have edited out the nonsense and POV, there is no assertion of notability left, then CSD would apply (provided the removals were obvious and noncontroversial). Deco 23:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I think I've worded a db tag like this: {{db|all claims of notability are patent nonsense (WP:CSD G1 and A7)}}. Using multiple criteria at once seems to be legitimate nowadays (for instance, see {{db-blanked}}; A1 and G7. --ais523 08:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

What to do about spam.

Has there been any discussion relating to speedy criteria specifically for spam? I want to propose the deletion of User:Mike McCracken, but finding speedy criteria to delete a user page seems tricky. In this case, the account was only used briefly to vandalize, but the user page remains and is nothing but spam. It would be nice to have a template such as {{db-spam}}. -MrFizyx 21:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be working under the misconception that speedy deletes are the standard way to get someting unwahted removed from Wikipedia. They are not. If you feel strongly about getting rid of that userpage, go to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, observing the procedural advice at the top of the page. If MfD gets overwhelmed by a torrent of userpage spam for which the discussions always, consistently, result in deletion, then we can discuss relieving it by a speedy deletion criterion. Henning Makholm 22:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Or, alternatively, speedy it, and then put it up at DRV. If the speedy is consistently sustained for a few instances of this sort of page then it's clear that consensus is for the policy that a page that is nothing but linkspam needs to go and go quickly. I think putting stuff through the full process with every expectation that it's going to go away is excessively process wonkish. And I think I have some standing to say that! Policy here is made by people doing stuff boldly and seeing what sticks and what doesn't. ++Lar: t/c 04:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
See, this is what sucks about Wikipedia. Admins can delete whatever they want while DRVs take a long, long time with an uncertain result. It'a slso more based on who actually hangs around DRV (which, naturally, is a lot of admins). Template:User admins ignoring policy survived three TFDs and two DRVs and then an admin just speedied it, where it got killed on its third DRV. So, even after five long processes, an admin just speedied it anyway, and because DRV was tired of debating it over and over again, it remained deleted. Hbdragon88 06:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, but we're in this instance talking about a page that is nothing but linkspam, not about a controversial userbox. It is difficult in my view to argue that we need to go through long elaborate processes to get rid of spam when the common sense right thing to do is speedy it right away. To argue for process in the face of glaringly obvious deletion is excessive process wonkery. And again, I think I have standing to say so, as I am one of the biggest process wonks here. ++Lar: t/c 10:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
An article which is nothing but linkspam is already speedy-deletable under case A3. More ambiguous cases should be sent through the xFD process. The specific example cited above should go through MFD as a violation of the user-page policy. Given the user's contribution history, you might be able to "prod"-delete it but speedy-deletion is inappropriate. Rossami (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

T1 and T2 again

Moved to Wikipedia talk:T1 and T2 debates.

Appeal?

An article that I wrote was "speedily deleted", and I don't agree with the reasoning. Is there a way to appeal the decision or resurrect the content? --JimBurnell 20:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia:Undeletion policy --Bachrach44 21:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

CORP or WEB

What is the best SD criteria/template for when a new page obviously fails WP:CORP or WP:WEB? Such as when it is just a one-line description and link to a company's website, meant to be spam. Thanks. --mtz206 (talk) 13:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I think A7, but you should really consider using {{prod}} on them. It's better than speedying because it allows more editors who might nkow more to take a look at it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually if it's just one line and a link, in many situations A3 (No content whatsoever) would be appropriate. No one's really going to argue with speedy deleting articles like "OfficoSupplies.com - Your office supplies choice!" that do pop up from time to time. But as they get longer and provide more context/content, PROD is more appropriate, since there might be something salvageable. --W.marsh 15:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, one of the standards under WP:CORP is being part of a market index. Unless the article explicitly says that the company is private, that standard can't be judged without research. The number of market indices has been proliferating like flies in recent years. This makes company articles that have content and context almost require an AFD. GRBerry 23:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, all. For "one line description and a link" I'll just do the A3. If there is more, but still just seems like an advertisement for one of a thousand software providers, then will consider PROD or AfD. --mtz206 (talk) 23:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but I'm still not understanding the rationale for having SD policies for biographical articles that don't claim notability, but not for companies or websites. For example, WitchesBrewPress makes no claim of notability and just says "this is a press started by XYZ that publishes 123 about abc." Yet, it doesn't seem to qualify as {empty} or {nocontext}, so it must go through AfD process. What am I missing here? Thanks. --mtz206 (talk) 23:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the new section at the top of this page, there are some general rules for proposing new CSD criteria. Philosophically, I agree that non-notable bios seem very similar to non-notable company blurbs or website stubs. In practice, they present different problems to the project. I draw your attention specifically to the second and third bullets above. According to the second bullet, "it should be the case that almost all articles that can be deleted using this rule should be deleted." We very rarely salvage a non-notable bio but we do occasionally salvage a company or website page. It's not always and maybe not even most of the time but the odds are certainly better. The third bullet requires that the situation arise frequently. We get lots of non-notable bios but not nearly so many about non-notable companies or websites. If we start getting flooded with non-notable company nominations and start to overwhelm AFD, we can consider it then. In the meantime, there's a general attitude that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." Rossami (talk) 23:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, and that's reasonable. But I'm curious if there is data to support your claim that that the quantity of nn bio pages significantly exceeds those of nn companies or websites. What are the numbers, and how do/will you know if/when you are "flooded" with nn corp AfDs. Not trying to push back, but just am curious. Thanks. --mtz206 (talk) 23:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, we don't keep detailed records, though I suppose you could dig through either current or recently closed deletion discussions if you wanted to get some real numbers. Requests for new CSD criteria are usually triggered by an AFD "regular" who thinks he/she sees a pattern. Then the rest of us do some digging and see if we see the same pattern. It would be nice to have numbers readily available but in an all-volunteer project, categorizing deletion nominations is not what I call "fun". I can tell you that on any given day, the New Pages patrol will turn up hundreds of new bios but very few new companies. I think the websites are currently falling in the middle. But that's based on rough estimates and memory. Are you volunteering to do some analysis for us? Even a point-in-time check would be useful. Rossami (talk) 02:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I certainly would have to defer to the experience and memory of "regulars" (such as yourself, I assume), and I agree it likely wouldn't be fun to tally these up. While I could see a value in having some kind of system tabulate the various deletion nominations (successful ones, at least) as they occur, but I don't possess the skills to automate such a process. Thanks for the insights, though. --mtz206 (talk) 02:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding {{db-owner}}

I think we are wrong there fundamentally by naming this template as {{db-owner}}, mainly because no one owns pages on Wikipedia. All the pages are for the furtherance of the encyclopedia. I suggest renaming this to something like {{db-user}}. What do you people think? --Nearly Headless Nick 13:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Or {{db-creator}}? Petros471 14:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
User is better than creator, because db-owner applies to user pages, but creator sounds like it could apply to articles. NickelShoe (Talk) 15:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
You're right, I was getting confused before with {{db-author}}... Petros471 15:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
However, {{db-user}} is quite confusing; perhaps move it to {{db-userreq}}? (standing for user request) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I think we do give a certain degree of ownership over user pages. If someone wants to blank their userpage they can, if they want to put pictures of clowns for no reason they can, and so on. I think it's okay like it is. Deco 01:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
My thoughts concur with Kingofhearts. I do not agree with the certain type of ownership we might be giving to users. Every page is in furtherance to the cause of developing the encyclopedia. --Nearly Headless Nick 15:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes furthering the cause of the encyclopedia means providing incentive for contributors to become members and be involved. Is it just a figure of speech when we say User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington is your user page? I'm not saying they have the right to do anything they want with it, but there are certain cultural expectations about how the "owner" of a user page is allowed to edit it as opposed to how other people are allowed to edit it which don't exist in articles. Deco 22:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree, but technically there is no such existence. People would not... err... trespass against my userpage, as I will not trespass against theirs. ;) So, should we get along with the change of the template? --Nearly Headless Nick 10:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

User request sounds best. Go with {{db-userreq}}. Zocky | picture popups 13:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

U2: Permabanned user

I have added U2: Permabanned user. User pages created by users who are now permanently banned.

User pages are for the use of individual users; they are not maintained for community benefit. If a user has been permanently banned, then his pages are not likely to be of any use to him -- and are certainly not of use to us. We might want to retain talk pages that demonstrate the need for permabanning; others can simply go. See User:Germaine Hitler. John Reid 00:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Speedy? Definitely not. Anyway, isn't current practice to slap the "banned" tag on it anyway? Why speedy them when they're going to get slapped with a tag and protected anyway? --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I have a related proposal for which I intend to open have opened a community discussion, per Wikipedia talk:Changing username#Proposal to warehouse insulting and offensive usernames Wikipedia:Offensive username proposal. BD2412 T 00:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Note: I've copied the above discussion to the aforementioned discussion. Cheers! BD2412 T 05:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a case that arises so rarely that I can't believe that it taxes AfD significantly. Deco 10:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Already covered by G5, I think. Stifle (talk) 22:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

This is probably undesirable as a speedy criterion. Indefinite bans have be reconsidered and changed, sometimes after appeals on the user talk page, which this would delete. Also, user page diffs are often useful to have to demostrate why X was banned. MfD is not so crowded that it cannot be used when there is some purpose to the deletion. Septentrionalis 19:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

New section: Proposing your own criteria

I've added a section describing three criteria for proposing your own speedy deletion criteria. They've been reiterated countless times here, but I think it's good to give them a highly visible permanent home so that hopefully we'll see better proposals in the future. Please feel free to edit this and offer feedback. Deco 11:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I added one more, nonredundant. Deco 11:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Since it just involves proposals, perhaps it's better suited to this talk page. Also, I find that most people proposing criteria don't realize their proposal falls under one or more of those points... maybe a list of perenial proposals and why they fail would be a bit better? There's some potential here, though. --W.marsh 14:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't like "your own"--it just has the wrong connotation. How about "additional" or even "new"? I'll edit, change if you like. (Otherwise, great idea!) · rodii · 14:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
This is a policy page, not a "how to", or a philosophy page. Provide links to Wikipedia:How to create policy or something. But keep this page on the CSDs, not things are not CSDs. -Splash - tk 14:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, would it be okay with you to have it at the top of the talk page or something? I really just want to help provide direction and avoid redundant discussion here. The content is specific to CSD, so it doesn't seem like the page you describe is the best place to put it. There is Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Proposal, but this is an extensive description of every vote ever, not exactly brief advice. Incidentally, I'm surprised I never came across Wikipedia:How to create policy before in the last several years. Deco 19:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
It's good thought but I agree with Splash. Put it in a box at the top of this page perhaps and provide a link to it on the front page but let's keep the actual list of criteria as clean as we can. The page is too long already. By the way, remember to add a <!-- comment --> excluding the instruction from the regular archiving of this page. Rossami (talk) 22:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Top of this talk page sounds like an ok idea. By the way, I think what you wrote makes a lot of sense and is good advice. I thought when I read it, and am more thinking this now, that some (or all) of it ought perhaps to replace the current fluffy intro we have on the policy page. -Splash - tk 00:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I've added it to the top of the page, and made some edits. Please feel free to further refine it or move it or whatever. Thanks for your feedback. Deco 06:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

T1 changes June 12-13

Changes to T1 are hotly debated. If we are going to expand it, it is at least as important to expand upon the limitations to its use as it is to expand the areas where it can be used. So I added the limitations that Jimbo has endorsed - and given that the community originally accepted having any version of T1 only because Jimbo endorsed it, his thoughts on what it means are still more indicative of policy than anything else. GRBerry 04:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Please follow up to this post at Wikipedia talk:T1 and T2 debates#T1_changes_June_12-13.

Explanation of Tony Sidaway's revert of a change by Srleffler

I've reverted the addition of a link to Notability because, although we do have an A7 policy that refers to items "about a person or persons that does not assert the notability of the subject", we don't actually have a policy on what is notable and what is not. The document referred to is a guideline and not really appropriate to the question, being largely concerned with how Wikipedians judge "notability". The CSD criterion is about whether the article contains an assertion. "George Scott was the first person to circumnavigate Piccadilly Circus ten times on ice skates" is an assertion of notability, but we'd probably want to take it to AfD to decide whether this really was a notable feat. --Tony Sidaway 03:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neologisms as a Speedy Deletion Category

Since no one has bothered to link Wikipedia:Neologisms as a Speedy Deletion Category here, even after I specifically asked them to, well, there it is. Deco 08:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

A couple other ideas for CSD:

After some weeks on RC and NP patrol; a few criteria that might be useful (and I've manually given using the raw {{db}} template, and seen administrators speedy articles for). Before coming up with anything formal, I thought it useful to bounce them around here:

A9: Articles/subjects which are inherently unencyclopedic, and not salvageable. Examples include editorials masquarading as articles, works of fiction, questions which ought to be directed to the reference desk, etc. Some may delete these as patent nonsense or vandalism, but often times the content isn't nonsense or obviously offered in bad faith; it just isn't encyclopedic in any fashion.

A10: Articles where content and subject don't agree--the text of the article has nothing to do with the subject; in other words, there is nothing to salvage. (In cases where there is some correlation, a better approach would be to edit out the superfluous stuff, and leave behind a stub--especially when the subject itself is encyclopedic).

Thoughts? --EngineerScotty 23:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

A9 is very hard to define properly, and I'd say that if patent nonsense or vandalism doesn't catch it and if it's indeed totally and obviously unencyclopedic, there's still WP:IAR (because "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" is a the most basic policy we have).
A10 seems unneeded on the grounds that if it's not deletable under another reason anyway, it should be moved to a fitting title, which is trivial. It can then be PRODed or AfD'd. P.S.: Maybe the resulting redirect should be speedyable, though, but redirects usually don't hurt. -- grm_wnr Esc 23:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
"There's still IAR" is really a rebuttal to any policy proposal whatsoever. I don't like A10, since a move is usually more appropriate, but A9 (appropriately stated) seems like a good idea. Few people would argue, for example, that a fanfiction describing sex between two random anime characters is remotely useful for Wikipedia, under any title. But it's not really nonsense (it makes perfect sense), and not clearly vandalism (the user may have mistakenly believed that it was okay to post that kind of thing here). On the other hand, less extreme examples such as editorials can often be instead edited into a decent article, for example by removing POV and finding appropriate references. Deco 00:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
No to both. The first is incredibly subjective and scary to even ponder, the latter is false because in an article that isn't nonsense, there's typically always something to salvage. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) A few additional thoughts in reply.
  • Speedy-deletion candidates must be immediately identifiable as such with no research (beyond, as someone said above, reading the article in question). Works of fiction seem to me to be ourside that rule. Like hoaxes, it is possible and sometimes even likely that the article is instead a poorly written stub about a real though obscure topic. While deletable, I don't think that particular wording makes for a good speedy-deletion criterion.
  • Speedy-deletion criteria should be limited to those situations where AFD pretty invariably returns a "delete" result. Editorials masquarading as articles don't always fit that rule. I've seen a number of screeds turn into real articles when another editor with a little more perspective joins editing. Unfortunately or perhaps fortunately, such clean-up is often the result of a deletion nomination and the greater visibility this gives the nascent article. The Bradley Amendment comes to mind.
  • Questions which ought to be directed to the reference desk are, I believe, already speedy-deletable under the Test Page criterion (after, of course, moving the question to the right place and leaving a note on the author's Talk page so he/she knows where to go find the answer).
Really egregious cases can still be deleted but I'm concerned that the exact wording you proposed would cast a wider net than you intend. Rossami (talk) 00:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. As a variation on the inherently unencyclopedic criterion, I came up with this somewhat less contentious one that might be a good idea:

Articles which are not written as encyclopedia articles, and cannot be reasonably edited into encyclopedia articles. For this to apply, the article must contain little or no useful informational content regarding the subject, and must be in a drastically different format from an encyclopedia article or list. Examples might include a list of numbers, a uuencoded binary file, an e-mail to a friend, phone book listings, song lyrics, works of fiction or poetry clearly invented by the contributor, and so on. Some of these things can be quoted in an appropriate context, but cannot stand as articles on their own.

Comments? Deco 00:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Obviously, if there is any question that an article might be useful or salvageable, it should be salvaged, fixed, and/or taken to AfD. But that seems to capture the spirit of what I was intending to be able to deal with--articles that are now dealt with by stretching the definition of "patent nonsense", or other means which are somewhat questionable. --EngineerScotty 03:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Still no. Too subjective, and any article can be salvaged and written encyclopedically, even if it doesn't belong here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm with Jeff. It's true that some of this stuff is being speedied already...and that only makes me more concerned as to how much stuff will get speedied if we expand the CSD so much and so subjectively. Use prod: these articles aren't harming anything by waiting a few days and giving someone a chance to fix them up a little. NickelShoe (Talk) 13:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
These are both vastly too subjective. Speedies are for cases that, by common consent, share some trait that means they are slam-dunk deletes of which we get so many they overload the standard deletion processes, or need no consideration for some other reason. The judgement of what is/not encyclopedic is the very purpose of AfD and an ever-raging debate. It cannot possibly be incorporated into the CSDs. Use PROD, or AfD and make your case. Remember further that a number of the things in Deco's list of examples (that it needs examples is a good case for it not being obvious enough to speedy) are likely to copyvios and can be blanked and dealt with that way. -Splash - tk 15:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you all. Just giving the idea the benefit of the doubt. I don't believe an individual can reasonably judge whether or not something can be rewritten as an article, and there's no way to tell whether fiction was invented by the contributor without a crystal ball. Deco 15:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
That A9 has been proposed about a dozen times, and A10 is resolved by moving the page to a correct title or speedying it under G2. {{subst:prod}} is more than sufficient for these. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Changing "no context" deletion templates

Template:Db-nocontext, Template:Csd-a1, Template:nocontext, Template:Db:a1, Template:Dba1 and Template:Db-a1 all redirect to Template:Db-empty. However, this template quotes not only CSD A1 (no context) but also CSD A3 (empty). It would be clearer if Template:Db-nocontext et al. only quoted CSD A1, much as Template:Nocontext did in the past. I am requesting comments on this change. Spacepotato 01:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Made the change. Spacepotato 05:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I updated the Template:Deletiontools (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) listing.
--William Allen Simpson 01:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Two (relatively small) changes

I'd like to propose the following addition to A5: "... or the article is independently created at the target wiki". Sometimes, the target article already exists at the time of the AfD but nobody notice, and it is very well possible that the target article is created while the Wikipedia article is sitting waiting for being transwikied.

Transwikiing is sometimes done for GFDL reasons; this may not cover the need to put the article history somewhere. Septentrionalis 19:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
What I was thinking of was the case when a different article is created at target, and this article contains everything in the article to be transwikied, so that a merge would be useless. For example, a Wikipedia article Maybe is a candidate for transwiki, but at some point a different Wiktionary article dict:Maybe is created, so that the original Maybe is useless for a transwiki. According to the current criteria, this should be still transwikied, but obviously would be deleted at target as redundant. This could be formulated as "and the transwiki has either been done (with history recorded) or is not necessary because another article at the target wiki makes it redundant" - Liberatore(T) 12:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

A second suggestion is that A6 might clarify that the "disparaged subject" may also be someone or something that is not the title of the article (don't know how to formulate this). - Liberatore(T) 12:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I added "or some other entity" to A6. I don't think this expands its scope in an unreasonable way. Somebody revert me if you disagree. Deco 13:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Attack pages as a general criterion

This is in fact being done with G3, vandalism; but that is a dodge which is not obvious to everybody (and some attack pages strain the definition of vandalism). This should be stated. Septentrionalis 19:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

A6 already covers articles. I don't think there's any reason to speedy delete, for example, user subpages, templates, or discussion pages created to attack somebody. Just blank them or put them up for deletion. How often does this happen anyway? Deco 19:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
User talk:Brian Sucks was just speedied out of MfD; although you may be right to exclude user pages in the present climate. I see as much reason to delete an attack in an article template as in an article, if not more. Septentrionalis 21:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I might favor a rule for deleting "attack templates", if this gets to be a frequent thing. I can't perceive any legitimate purpose for such a template. User/discussion pages I wouldn't consider so lightly. Deco 20:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Out of process and subjective deletions

Recently, an admin deleted the project/portal page Wikipedia:Conservative_notice_board out of process because he thought it was "crap" while other admins disagreed and said it did not meet any criteria for speedy deletion. Should admins be allowed to ignore CSD and make subjective deletions? Please see Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Wikipedia:Conservative_notice_board Thanks. --Facto 20:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, administrators can take the initiative. Also bear in mind that "out of process" just means that there isn't a process written down to describe what someone did. The important question is whether it was the right thing to do. --Tony Sidaway 02:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

A general note on images (which can now be undeleted)

Images can now be undeleted. Since we have been very careful with image deletion in the past because they were irreversible, maybe it's time to discuss some changes to the image criteria? (Note: Not that I have any particular change in mind, I just wanted to get the word out, and discussion seems inevitable anyway). --Grm_wnr 21:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

If they can be undeleted, then I sugges that untagged and improperly tagged images should be speedy deletable after one day. In time the uploaders will come to learn that they can no longer get away with uploading images of whose licensing status they are not fully aware. --Tony Sidaway 02:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
First, one day is too fast. There is a bot that warns people on their talk page, but not everyone logs in every day.
Second, the "improperly tagged" criteria is not "objective" or "uncontestable", so it fails two of the guidelines above for good CSD criteria. Can you make it more specific so that it is objective and uncontestable? GRBerry 03:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Tony. Images without source, license, and (where needed) fair use rationale should be speedied after one, or max 2, days. The exception is "improperly tagged". I7 already allows images with bogus fair use tags to be speedied, I wonder what else Tony had in mind. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Renaming of patent nonsense criterion

I think that it might be beneficial if the patent nonsense criterion were renamed because it is so often misused. People think that the criterion covers things that are untrue, very unlikely, poorly written or a belief that is unpopular because of its name (the definition is below for those who are unaware of what it is). The criterion itself would not change at all, just the name. Some alternative names are "incoherent", "gibberish", "unintelligible" and "incomprehensible". "Nonsensical" is another possibility, but it may have the same problem as patent nonsense, although I think it might be somewhat better. Incoherent and unintelligible are my favorite alternative names.

"Patent nonsense, i.e. no meaningful content, unsalvageably incoherent page. This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, badly translated material, implausible theories or hoaxes."

This is just a suggestion and I'm not going to change anything without consensus, so try to stay calm. ;-) -- Kjkolb 03:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree. I've never liked this definition of the term "patent nonsense". It leads to the weird condition that utter bullshit isn't patent nonsense if you can read the words. I like "Gobbledygook", but it doesn't mean what it sounds like it should. "Gibberish" works well. Or Philip K. Dick's "gubbish", which is defined as "garbage, crap, nonsense." --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I like "meaningless content". This covers a fairly large class of stuff we don't want. Deco 03:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Too broad. Covers most of the fancruft...(ducking)... --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
      • That's what I was trying to get at with "unencyclopedic content" above. Obviously, and I agree, CSDs shouldn't be expanded so controversial subjects/content that is in the form of an encyclopedia article are subject to its provisions, but things which aren't in the form of encyclopedia articles--especially things with subjects which aren't noun phrases (excluding titles), are often deleted as patent nonsense. Policy should be reconciled with practice; whether that means policy or practice is changed (or both), I dunno. There's lots of stuff, at any rate, which 1) would never survive AfD, 2) gets speedied as nonsense, and 3) doesn't meet the definition of "patent nonsense" in the policy. --EngineerScotty 04:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Any name you come up with will be misunderstood by someone. If someone is too lazy to read the rest of the criterion, or to follow the link where we very carefully spell out what is and isn't patent nonsense, I don't think they will pay any more attention to a different name. The definition of "patent nonsense" was set very narrowly on purpose. If people are bending the rule, the answer is not to loosen the rule. As an anology, if people are routinely driving 10 miles over the speed limit, you don't just automatically raise the speed limit. Rossami (talk) 06:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
          • I respectfully disagree. The analogy doesn't reflect the the problem. The problem is not the definition of what is called "patent nonsense"; rather, it is the words patent nonsense, which everywhere else means something quite broader than the narrow meaning assigned to it on Wikipedia. It invites confusion, causes a non-zero amount of waste of time, and, well, it's using the words wrong in the first place. Why not say exactly what we mean, or at least something more precisely descriptive? "Unintelligible nonsense" might work, and would just require changing one little word, and would cause far less confusion. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Expansion of I7

I've been seeing a lot of images go by with clearly incorrect license tags, such as {{no rights reserved}} on images where the specified source says "all rights reserved", or images retagged from {{Non-free fair use in}} to {{PD-self}} after OrphanBot complains about the lack of a fair-use rationale. It seems to me that all images with incorrect license tags should be speedy-deleted. --Carnildo 04:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I would say revert them and block the person who changed them; but perhaps we need to extend A8 into the image space too? Stifle (talk) 09:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Reference to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion on MediaWiki:Noarticletext and MediaWiki:Newarticletext

Hi all. I'd like to encourage you to review recent changes to the templates MediaWiki:Noarticletext and MediaWiki:Newarticletext involving a reference to this policy page. I won't taint you with my thoughts on it, but I invite you to participate in the discussion on MediaWiki talk:Noarticletext and to invite any other users that you think might be interested to participate in finding a consensus on these changes. Thanks. Deco 09:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

This has been dealt with. Thank you for your help. Deco 12:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Recent addition of R4/R2

I've reverted the recent addition of R4 "Gibberish or non-sensical redirects." because I can't see any discussion at all, let alone consensus, that this should be added. R2 was also changed, but am I right in thinking that reflects current practice anyway, and therefore has consensus? If this is not the case, obviously that needs changing back as well.

As for whether proposed R4 should be added, I think it should either be merged with R3, and have more precise wording.

Finally, please can we all come to consensus here before making changes the CSD. It prevents those stupid edit wars that seem to happen over the main page far too often. Petros471 19:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I also oppose R4 "Gibberish or non-sensical redirects." Gibberish redirects are already deletable as patent nonsense. Some "non-sensical" redirects might be {{R from alternate language}} or have other non-obvious reasons for existence and should go through WP:RFD instead. Kusma (討論) 19:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree. For example, I once saw a bizarre redirect from some random sexual phrase to a band's page. It turned out it was the title of their most well-known song. Not everything is as it seems. Deco 20:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Let's not be silly ... if something is the name of a band's most well-known song then it's obviously not gibberish, now is it? --Cyde↔Weys 14:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
It might not be obvious that it is the band's most well-known song. It would not be gibberish, but look like nonsense without doing some research, and so is unsuitable as a speedy criterion. Kusma (討論) 14:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Kusma. Cyde, you should know better than to throw in random CSDs without discussing them. Cross-namespace redirects are not inherently bad. The only reason R2 exists is to allow cleanup after userfying nn-bio articles. I don't see them flooding up RFD, so why do we need to add another speedy criterion? Stifle (talk) 09:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

R2 to user space or all cross-namespace redirects

I have reverted the expansion of R2 to cover all cross-namespace redirects instead of just those to User space, for the following reasons:

  1. It technically covered shortcuts like WP:RFD (which is uncontroversial and should not be deleted) or MoS:DP (which just survived RFD) or cat:csd (an important type-in redirect)
  2. While cross-space redirects are discouraged, many of them have many incoming links. Via WP:RFD, this will receive the attention of users who will orphan the redirect before deletion.

Being a cross-space redirect is a good reason for deletion, but not always for speedy deletion. Perhaps something like "cross-space redirects resulting from moves" would be a better criterion, should cover most of the mistakenly created cross-space redirects. Kusma (討論) 21:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't even believe that "being a cross-space redirect is a good reason for deletion" in many cases. The redirects NPOV and be bold, for example, have been around practically since the start of the project, are heavily used both in current discussions and all over the history, and have never in my experience created any misunderstanding. This certainly did not have the overwhelming consensus necessary to be a speedy-deletion criterion. Thank you for reverting it. Rossami (talk) 03:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
It didn't cover all cross-namespace redirects, only those from articlespace. As WP:, CAT:, etc, are considered pseudo-namespaces, they would of course not be included. Before recently, most redirects were never orphaned before deletion, so that point isn't really valid, and most won't have many links anyway, if they're deleted before being populated (or it could just be orphaned cross-namespace redirects). As for Rossami's examples, NPOV is a disambiguation page, not a redirect, and Be bold was recently changed into a redirect to Boldness in an RfD, and would have been deleted if someone didn't come up with that brilliant idea because he was too lazy to orphan it (cough). Cross-namespace redirects are invariably being deleted in RfD and policy should reflect practice; there's no reason not to make it a CSD. --Rory096 06:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I've asked in a number of places and not yet received an answer so I'll ask again here. Where is the policy-level decision that cross-namespace redirects are inherently bad? There has recently been some precedent on RfD that such redirects are being nominated for deletion but those decisions are now being reviewed and many of us are quite surprised that this practice has taken off. I am not convinced that this practice will be upheld as it gets wider scrutiny. But if this has been formally decided somewhere, please point me to that decision. Rossami (talk) 13:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can tell it has not been. The editor who made this change to the CSDs, Cyde, has since been on a fairly vigorous path towards removing them all in accord with his change (a rather suboptimal way of legitimising a course of action), including a large number of RfDs closed early. I don't think we should suppose that anyone other than a couple of editors has decided on this. Given there is no technical reason for the deletion/re-redirections, and that the mirrors are bright enough to have worked the popular ones out by now (and if they're not, that's their problem not ours) there does not seem to be a pressing need to make people do more typing than they need to. -Splash - tk 14:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Mirrors can figure out if a redirect is cross-space by checking whether it is cross-space, much easier than checking whether it starts with WP: or CAT: or C: or P: or WT: or MoS: or whatever. Actually, it could be argued that some cross-space redirects are less self-referential than our hatnotes (especially since {{selfref}} doesn't actually do anything). Kusma (討論) 14:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
The question with cross-space redirects is what is most useful and least confusing. We try not to have cross-space redirects from article space so people who type in something that is not obviously a Wikipedia shortcut stay in article space. However, speedy deletion can lead to bad results. For example, RfA was deleted without discussion and then recreated as {{deletedpage}} without orphaning, which was suboptimal. It is now a redirect to RFA, which seems like a more reasonable solution. Finding a new target can be done at WP:RFD. As a large batch of cross-namespace redirects was recently dealt with, I don't think they'll continue to overwhelm RfD, so we don't need this as a speedy criterion yet. Kusma (討論) 14:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
To the contrary, there are a lot more. --Rory096 18:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
After the clever Be Bold redirect decision, notice that Cyde (and his Cydebot) has recently been making mass edits to all Talk and other space converting them to Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages anyway. That is, not conforming to the consensus. This is problematic usage of bots to create de facto decisions for policy.
I'm opposed to making this a speedy decision. In my occasional participation in the RfD discussions, I've often had to point to commonly used valid redirects (for example, WP:D and MoS:DP) to take them off the list. All RfD should be reviewed. Maybe there are more than a few, and it will take a significant amount of effort to list and review, but the alternative has shown itself subject to abuse (or incompetence).
--William Allen Simpson 03:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Uh, no. There was already consensus on RfD to change the target, and nobody objects to orphaning it, as no matter where the redirect should go, the links were pointing towards WP:BOLD. --Rory096 04:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Adding "cross-namespace redirect" to R2 is an excellent idea. Polluting the main namespace is wrong per WP:ASR. Most cases I've seen are redundant, the target has already one or many shortcuts, e.g. AGF has dozens of redirects. Some are bad ideas like T: for a few templates, it won't work as template without adding a colon, unlike Template:T: redirects. Utter dubious is also C: instead of CAT:, it won't fly with m:Help:Namespace manager, and there's a slim chance that C: could be used for something else in the future, e.g. Interwiki links to commons or wikia. -- Omniplex 21:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Expansion of R2

Instead of just referring to redirects to the User: space, I think this should be expanded to include all cross-namespace redirects. If you look at RfD, there are tons of cross-namespace redirects that are being deleted. This would cut down on a lot of work. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 22:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

There are some problems with this. First, it would need to be made clear which cross-space redirects are acceptable shortcuts (at least those beginning with WP:, WT:, P:, CAT:, Cat:, C:, T:, and MoS: seem to pass RFD easily). Second, redirects such as be bold should be orphaned by piping before they are deleted instead of breaking many pages. Third, many of the ramaining cross-space redirects are to category pages and should actually be dealt with in a smart way (perhaps by writing a stub with similar content as the category description page or by changing the target or at the very least by updating all incoming links). So these redirects should not be speedied. Also, WP:DRV has shown some disagreement with the mass deletions of harmless cross-space redirects recently . Kusma (討論) 23:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
There are precisely three C: redirects, all nominated for deletion. T: is technically utter dubious. I'd prefer to get rid of P:, but that's probably too late now. If the devs decide to use P for WikiSpecies (S is already taken) all P:s have to be deleted. -- Omniplex 21:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  1. This is nonsense. "P" for WikiSpecies???
    Or whatever, they introduced mw:, without guarantee that ISO 639 will never use "mw" as language code. -- Omniplex 04:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Shortcuts are extremely helpful, and WP:ASR (such a handy shortcut) is about self-reference in the Main (0) space, not from shortcuts.
    Shortcuts are redirects from NS:0 to other namespaces.
  3. I don't know why "CAT:" would be useful at all, as "C:" would make much more sense as a shortcut.
    I didn't invent it and don't like it, but there are some also on other projects. "CAT" for category isn't too far fetched. Of course no guarantee that ISO 639... (see above). -- Omniplex 04:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. To repeat, I strongly oppose the proposal, and agree with Kusma (and folks should note that I don't always agree with Kusma).
--William Allen Simpson 02:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with the proposal. It has not yet been established anywhere that I can find that cross-namespace redirects are inherently bad. In fact, some are demonstrably good for the project and many are, at worst, harmless. There are several on-going arguments on the topic of cross-namespace redirects but they do not seem to be demonstrating a consensus on the topic yet. If we can't even agree that they should be deleted, we certainly are not ready to turn this into a speedy-deletion criterion. Rossami (talk) 01:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
WP:ASR claims to be a guideline, it makes sense from my POV. When I look for RfC I want RfCs, not some obscure Wikipedia project page. Only an example. -- Omniplex 21:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
But WP:ASR isn't a policy, and speedy deletion should only be to implement policy. Guidelines (and in particular style-guidelines like WP:ASR), are subject to interpretation, and therefore require discussion!
--William Allen Simpson 02:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, cross-space redirects could potentially be less confusing and less self-referential than the hatnotes we have on many pages. Be Bold (Wikipedia's unofficial motto) redirecting to WP:BOLD looks less self-referential to me (especially if it isn't linked from article space) than that Boldness has a note about the concept of being Bold in Wikipedia. Sure, that note is wrapped with {{selfref}}, but since that template doesn't actually do anything other than typeset its argument in italics, it is a self-reference in an article. Why is this better and less confusing than a cross-space redirect? Kusma (討論) 02:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

R2 User talk

This is possibly not directly relevant, but I think it should be clarified to at least include User talk: in addition to User:, unless I'm being daft and this is already understood or covered by R3. I've seen instances where user talk archives were created in mainspace my mistake. –Dicty (T/C) 02:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Non-controversial, I've added it. -- Omniplex 21:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Agree. I already interpreted the rule that way. Out of curiosity, do people actually wait two days until they delete the redirect after userfying? As I would otherwise simply forget about it, I just delete immediately and leave a note on the author's talk page. Kusma (討論) 05:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)