Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 22

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents 1 New CSD proposal 2 Speedy deletion of unused templates? 3 image-only articles 4 Minimum article lifetime for A1, A3, A7 5 Comment 6 Deleted images without notice 7 Strengthening of prod enforcement as an alternative to expanding CSD 8 Proposal for amandment to R1 (Redirect) 9 Review of CSD:A7 10 I-3 11 Orphaning images prior to deletion 12 New possibly helpful template 13 Merge U1 into G7 14 A change to C1 or addition of C4 or just shut up, Carlos? 15 Another non-criteria 16 Proposal to add animals to A7 17 WP:CSD should rely as little as possible on admin discretion 18 Criterion A3 and infobox-only articles 19 G12 changes 20 Here's an example of a bad use of CSD 21 NowCommons - 1 week 22 G12 needs revising 22.1 Revised proposal 22.2 Please don't forget... 23 POV 24 I3 - I8 also need revising 25 Recent wording changes 26 Simplification of criterion I7 27 I9? 28 Expansion of A7? 29 A8 30 CSD I7: Invalid copyright tag claiming fair use

New CSD proposal

I think a CSD#R4 should be passed, which allows the deletion of any redirect caused by moving a page into the proper namespace. Od Mishehu 08:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thats routine housekeeping, and falls under that criteria.. Viridae^Talk 08:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually there are exceptions. When a person creates a draft articel or template in userspace, and later moves it into article or tempalte space, it may be desireable to retain the redirect. If there was discussion on talk pages of the draft that linked to it in userspace, the redirect will have value. It also allows finding such pages via special (all pages with prefix) for a given user. I, for example, have several such redirects in my userspace, and i see no reason to delete them. DES ^(talk) 23:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of unused templates?

I've seen several templates come up for speedy deletion as "unused", and subsequently deleted under G6 (housekeeping). Is this a valid use of that criteria? If not, should one be added to cover the speedy deletion of unused templates? Thanks. Mike Peel 08:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

No. The problem is that many templates are supposed to be used with subst, and so "no incoming links" does not mean that a template is not used. If you restrict to navigational templates that are likely to be transcluded, there is still the risk of vandalism that removes a template from a couple of pages, then nominates it for deletion. TFD can deal with the current amount of template deletions, there is no need to expand existing CSD. Kusma (talk) 10:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should consider expanding proposed deletion to cover other types of pages, like templates. --bainer (talk) 11:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't like this; some templates have non-obvious uses and can use the extra eyes of TFD, which is performing okay and not as overworked as AFD is. Kusma (talk) 11:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

If a template is truly unused, (e.g. no subst'ing going on) talk to the creator or whoever else seems to have worked on the template substantially... they might not object to just deleting it as obsolete. An actual rule seems problematic, but if everyone consents, there shouldn't be a problem. --W.marsh 13:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

A navigation template that contains only redlinnks, and some or all of the links are to deleted pages 9as opposed to pages never created) can probably be deleted as houskeeping. But aside from that kind of very very obvious case, it is better to use TfD than speedy on tempaltes, IMO. DES ^(talk) 22:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

image-only articles

There are sometimes articles created holding only a image, and the rationale for placing it, a present one listed for speedy is 2nd Communication Battalion. I think they have probably been created in error--the person didn't know an image could be uploaded independently of an article. How should these be handled? If they should be deleted as A3, perhaps the wording should say so explicitly? DGG (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

A1, A3 or even G2. I don't think it needs to be made explicit. howcheng {chat} 20:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

One problem with adding "no content except images" to A3 is that it would cover image galleries. Which I think shouldn't be articles, but sometimes these get kept at AFD somehow. See [1] for what I mean, and I'm sure there are others without the prefix. I think this is potentially a good idea but the gallery thing needs to be discussed. --W.marsh 23:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

What me and others have been doing to Gallery of x flags is that we transwiki them to the Commons and make it a soft redirect to there. I don't expect it to work every time for every gallery, but that is something you can do. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

That sounds about right... but the danger with rules like this is people could use it as an excuse to just get rid of the content, rather than move it somewhere... which isn't good. --W.marsh 23:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with howcheng, is this a super common problem? It seems likely to be a mistake, I'm not sure we need more instruction creep just for this rare/mistake type of event. - cohesion 00:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

We don't need instruction keep, the speedy was a good one and I think what happened is just a newbie mistake on the creator; it happens. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Minimum article lifetime for A1, A3, A7

Many brand-new articles qualify for speedy deletion only because the initial author hasn't finished yet. In particular, A1/too short, A3/no content, and and A7/unremarkable in a brand-new article should not be criteria for speedy-deletion.

I propose the following policy change:

• If A1, A3, or A7 are used on a brand new new article should not be deleted until the new article or major changes are 48 hours to give the authors time to build the article and establish notability.

"Brand New Article" also applies to articles that were previously mere redirects. The 48 hours is a strawman figure, but it should be at least a full day. Two days seems fair. Your thoughts? What is the best way to change the policy or at least to encourage admins to be gentle with new articles? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It is perfectly possible to avoid all three criteria in a brand-new, initial-edit article. A1 is about context - you have to establish what the subject is. A3 is content, you have to actually say something worthwhile. A7 is assertion of notability - you just have to say that the subject is notable for that not to apply.

If they're being misapplied, that's a different problem. SamBC 00:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that an editor may create an article in stages. He may write a sentence or two, save the article, get called away on an errand or other business, and not finish typing in the article until the next day. Marking the article for deletion or worse deleting it during the first day can create an "bite the newcomers" situation. I've seen it happen. This is the reason for the 2-day grace period on new articles. [[forgot to sign. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)]]

The problem I see with this is that by 48 hours, it's way deep down the NP listing, and will be much harder to find. Maybe have a slightly different tag, so it can be tagged right away but the tag will give the time at which it can then be deleted? This would categorize it in a hold area, similar to CAT:CSD, where follow-up can be assured? AKRadecki^Speaketh 02:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course, there's user sandboxes, which seem to be very much underused. Even if, for the sake of argument, we take your argument as given (regarding multiple edits), 48 hours is way too long. Your hypothetical example excuses several hours, say 12 to be quite generous. 02:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

How does this sound: Add a "delay" parameter to the speedy templates, with a default value of 12 hours. I'd prefer 24 or even 48 as a default but I'm not going to win that argument. For patent nonsense , copyrights, author-request, and a few other csd templates, the default would be 0 hours. This would add an "eligible to be deleted at ___" time to the template. If the person doing the speedy wanted to force 0 delay, or be nice and have a 48 hour delay, he could do so. As far as tracking goes, create categories for each day "articles overdue for CSD as of date and fill in the day AFTER the article becomes eligible for deletion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

We should not let people create bad articles and hope they fix them at some point, we should encourage people to learn the very basic concept of remembering to A) explain what something is and B) explain why it's important, in the first edit. An article that doesn't do those things is just not a useful article. All of these proposals seem to be based on the idea that people dealing with bad articles are the problem... that's silly. People creating bad articles are the problem. The CSDs are meant to cover articles with no useful content. If people are applying them just to get rid of stuff they don't like, then deal with people who misapply them... don't restrict those of us who use them correctly. The people who selectively follow CSD now would just ignore a time limit anyway. --W.marsh 02:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• No, we should tell people to create articles that have significant content, instead of creating "John is a guy" and expanding it later. There is absolutely no reason why someone making a valid article couldn't pass all speedy deletion criteria in the first edit. -Amarkov moo! 05:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • At a minimum, the author of the stub should be contacted. I created Ramsay Heatley Traquair from scratch, and that is a complete stub. Can you give an example of what would have been insufficient for the purposes of A1/A3/A7 (context, content, notability)? I think the minimum to establish those three things would have been:

    "Ramsay Heatley Traquair (1840-1912) was a Scottish naturalist who became a leading expert on fossil fish. In 1901, he was awarded the Lyell Medal of the Geological Society of London, and in 1907 he received the Royal Medal of the Royal Society."

    However, as an experienced Wikipedian I did more than this. I added: (a) internal wikilinks and bolding; (b) background material; (c) three references; (d) a stub template; (e) 6 categories; (f) a DEFAULTSORT magic word; (g) used the 'citeweb' template; (h) followed all the links and correct ones pointing to the wrong places; (i) added the WPBiography template on the talk page, assessed the article as stub, put it in the science and academia workgroup, and filled in the listas parameter.
  • The point is that a new editor might have done no more than the two sentences I give above. But that should be enough to establish who this person is (name, dates, nationality, profession), what he was known for (fossil fish) and notability (recipient of two major scientific awards). That should be enough for other Wikipedians to take up the challenge and 'grow' the article in the wiki-way. So the question remains, if I had not done the extra work, at what point would someone have tagged the embryo article for speedy deletion? Would "Ramsay Traquair was a leading expert on fossil fish" have been insufficient? I think it would have been. Would "Traquair was a 19th century Scottish naturalist who studied fossil fish" have failed the speedy criteria? And the point is, in all cases, speedy deletion (though maybe justified by the letter of the law), would have been overturned after investigation and expansion of the article. Even a brief Google search would have thrown up some results, so where is the balance struck between deleting the large amounts of non-notable stuff and investigating the genuine cases? Carcharoth 11:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
    • By my (pretty legalistic) reading of the CSD, and referring only to A1, A3, and A7, it would be sufficient to say "~ was a leading 19th century naturalist who contributed considerably to the study of fossil fish." Of course, references may be needed, depending on your reading of WP:V, but that shouldn't ever lead to the deleting of a whole article IMO. SamBC 11:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks. That is pretty much what I think as well, and should be common sense. Out of interest, how much time would those clearing the speedy deletion categories say they take on average over each deletion? No-one should ever just delete without taking a minimum amount of time to look at the article, but I sometimes get that impression when I see a notice about the backlog, and some admins rush off, seemingly with the idea of clearing the backlog as quickly as possible, rather than as accurately as possible. Carcharoth 11:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
    • It's also worth noting that A7 doesn't apply to all articles, only "people, groups, companies and web content" (CSD-A7). Thus, it applies in this case, but not in others that I've seen it used (and at least once tried to use it, before I found relevant clue). SamBC 12:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• WP:PEREN, people. >Radiant< 12:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Are you saying this should be put on the list of perennial issues? Other than notifying authors before deletion, I don't see it there yet. Specifically, I don't see "give brand new article authors a chance to fill in details" or anything like it on the list. Then again, I could be going blind. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 12:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
    • "Don't suggest waiting periods for speedy deletions because that defies the whole point". >Radiant< 12:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
      • How about "Don't be too hasty when doing speedy deletions"? Or "The 'speedy' in speedy deletions doesn't always mean 'delete as quickly as possible' - it is OK to investigate a 'speedy' deletion or leave it if you are unsure". :-) Or even more simply: "A 'speedy' deletion wastes time if you get it wrong and it generates drama. A 'slower' deletion can sometimes be more efficient." or even better "More haste, less speed" - trying to do things too quickly and carelessly makes them take longer in the end. Carcharoth 15:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I must say, I don't see anything about CSD waiting periods on WP:PEREN, even searching for various parts of the quote Radiant gave. It's not been recently edited out either, that version's been up for about 20 days now. BigNate37_(T) 15:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• It occurs to me that A1, A3, and A7 set a very low bar. As others have noted and demonstrated above, those minimal criteria can be met in two sentences—and I don't think that's too much to ask of the first edit to a new article. At some point, it's worth considering the value of red links. They highlight areas where we are weak, and where we do need coverage. Keeping vague and single-sentence articles does no one any good, and it may lend a false sense of security to editors who see blue links and assume that those links have content behind them. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • You can avoid the blue-links problem by setting something in preferences so stubs appear a different colour. Not sure if that is the default though for readers? The only thing I would ask is that speedy deletion not be done to stubby articles a few minutes after creation. Some people may take several hours to add thing onto the first few sentences. Sure, we can ask them to work in a sandbox or in userspace, but if a very short stub was only created a few hours ago, surely we can make it a rule to ask the creator (politely) if they are intending to expand it further? Carcharoth 15:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm with TenOfAll on this one. It is very easy to exceed the level of quality required for CSD, and any editor who is at the level of competency required to write articles in the first place will easily avert speedy deletion once they know what it is. As far as I know, there is no option for stub link colouring (and if there is, it isn't default which makes the point relatively minor anyway). Lastly, it only takes two minutes to write enough to meet A1, 3 and 7 and the few folks who cannot write several sentences without hours of time and several saves are a small minority. The preview button is a far greater solution than diluting CSD criteria, with far fewer negative consequences. BigNate37_(T) 15:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Preferences->Misc->Stub link coloring? Articles shorter than the specified number of bytes will appear as a maroon color in links. Dragons flight 16:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
        • I see it now. I expected a binary choice which used stub templates to determine what is and is not a stub, and completely overlooked the byte field. BigNate37_(T) 16:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, if I'm looking to triage the "firehose of crap" (as Special:Newpages has been so eloquently described) I usually start several pages in, and work on articles that are about an hour old. It cuts down on edit conflicts (after all, the original author may still be at work) and duplication of effort (there's no point to me figuring out appropriate stub tags and categories if the article creator was going to do it anyway), and encourages learning (if someone's having trouble with wikimarkup, give them a bit of time to figure it out before I come charging in). However, if someone created an article an hour ago and hasn't bothered to indicate why the subject is notable then – let's be honest here – they're probably not going to. I'll usually check the history for recent activity, and then add the speedy tag—or just kill it myself.

From the deletion policy: "If an article was deleted for lacking content or for having inappropriate content (this applies to most speedy deletions) and you wish to create a better article about the same subject, you can simply go ahead and do so, with no need for review. It is especially wasteful to go to deletion review over an unsourced stub when the alternative of creating a sourced article is available." The amount of time and effort that people spend agonizing over the fate of one- and two-sentence substubs just doesn't seem worth it to me. If a two-sentence article fragment gets the axe, treat it as a learning experience and do better next time. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it possible to use parser functions to make it so when you put a relevant CSD template on it, that it does not place it into the category till X amount of time has passed? Until(1 == 2) 16:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, found it {{Delayed}}, that looks like it would work well. I would suggest still showing the speedy deletion tag instructing how to use a {{Hangon}}, and give just an hour or so delay before it is added to the category. That allows the user time to contest the article if he/she is actually still there working on it, if they have run off on an errand while it is still speedyable, then it should be deleted. Until(1 == 2) 16:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Might not a better idea be to create "sample" stub page – perhaps just like Ramsay Heatley Traquair – which could serve as a general template (in the informal sense of the word) for new editors to refer to as a guide to the minimum requirements for starting a new article? A short explanation of how each part satisfies the basic requirements would clarify what needs to "be there" and why. Furthermore, a quick look at the coding would show basic formats for citations, categorizing, etc. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there a problem here? Are we getting dozens and dozens of speedies being appealed to deletion review because they've been deleted too quickly? Are we so seriously lacking in well sourced new articles that we need to give editors mor leeway? --Tony Sidaway 18:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the people who create these things are rather unlikely to know how to appeal deletions or want to figure it out. I do agree with the sentiment, though. -Amarkov moo! 18:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

A shitty article is a shitty article. I'm not going to hold off deleting an article that says "Bob lives on Crest Avenue and is awesome" just because of an addition to this page. It's creepy. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I think there's a strong feeling here that the CSDs aren't at fault, but rather that the perceived problem may be addressed by providing better guidance as to how to write a basic first-edit article that doesn't fit any CSD. SamBC 19:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

This whole discussion is superfluous if one would only create a new article in external text editor. Once it looks OK then one can copy the article to wikipedia, add the internal links and wikify the text. Add the template {{inuse}} if more work has to be done. If one has done one's work properly with the necessary references, no one would think of adding a CSD template on such an article. End of the discussion. JoJan 19:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

An external text editor isn't needed; that's what the "Show preview" button is for. The only thing you won't see are "[edit]" link by headings, but if you've got multiple headings, then it isn't particularly likely that it's going to be an A1, A3, or A7-speediably article. This is a solution looking for a problem. (though I agree that {{inuse}} wouldn't be a bad way to go if you just absolutely must create an article right now, as unlikely a situation as that may be). EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

In reponse to Asakari Mark and SamBC, it sounds like a Wikipedia:Annotated stub article along the same lines as Wikipedia:Annotated article would be a helpful thing to point out in the welcome templates, on user notices for CSD taggings, and on the manual of style. BigNate37_(T) 19:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the early edit history for Doreen Bird to see an example of a new inexperienced editor who didn't really understand the minimum requirements for article sources. A poorly written article about a notable subject almost got A7'd because the article didn't do a very good job of asserting notability using reliable sources, a new editor got frustrated and almost left Wikipedia -- but in the end, he/she was convinced to try again and now the article is much better and is improving every day. This was a special case, where the article was saved by the persistence of the new editor and by User:Douglasmtaylor who patiently tried to help. 90% of the time, the article would get whacked, the new editor would get offended, and Wikipedia would be the worse for it. --Jaysweet 19:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I strongly disagree with the initial proposal. If the article is "Billy-Joe-Bob is my neighbor from across the street. He is super-nice and likes carrots," then that crap gets A7'd even if it's five seconds old. heh... --Jaysweet 19:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The Doreen Bird article did not fit CSD A1, A3 or A7. So again, it seems like the issue is people who tag incorrectly at any speed, not people who tag correctly "too quickly". --W.marsh 19:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You don't need sources to be free of A7, by my understanding. You just have to make a not-patently-ridiculous claim of notability. This is what admins have told me, in any case. SamBC 19:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, what is patently ridiculous? Let me clarify that Doreen Bird never got tagged, but I was mighty close. POV claims like "artistic visionary" don't do much to convince me when there are very few Google hits and no sources.

I don't think W.marsh is entirely wrong that the problem is incorrect tagging, not the speed of tagging. If I had tagged Doreen Bird I would have been wrong, but I don't think, in the state I found the article, it would have been a completely unreasonable mistake. Or at least not an unexpected mistake.

What I'm trying to say is that I endorse the idea of an example stub to show new users, "This is about the minimum of what your article ought to look like if you want to avoid getting whacked." --Jaysweet 19:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No offense intended, but that is the sort of attitude on the part of those tagging and deleting that is the problem here. If it's unsourced POV then tag it for maintenance or remove the unsourced additions and explain why on the talk page. Then let someone else deal with the article if the original author doesn't address the issues personally. Unsourced weasel words can still comprise an assertion of notability. If it's obviously a hoax, i.e. the 2159 Nobel Peace Prize winner, remove the false claims and pass it on to someone else to speedy. BigNate37_(T) 19:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I must agree with the above two statements—citations are not required to evade CSD A7, and the very first version of Doreen Bird is a perfectly fine stub. If stubs like that are being speedied, then it needs to hit DRV and the deleting admin should have his/her logs looked at to see if the inappropriate deletion was an isolated incident or not. In any event, the problem is not something that should be fixed on this page. BigNate37_(T) 19:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been looking at the first version of Doreen Bird, and it is not a speedy, but it doesn't quite make clear why it is notable. In particular, it doesn't explain why the "Bird College of Dance and Theatre Performance" is notable. I can understand someone looking at this having misgivings and wondering if it a promotional thing. But then, if there is uncertainty, why not use WP:PROD or WP:AFD instead? Even looking at Bird College of Dance & Theatre Performance, I can see why some people might have misgivings. How does it compare, for example, to the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art, the Royal Academy of Music, the Royal Academy of Dance, and the other organisations listed at Category:Performing arts education in the United Kingdom? Having looked around, and found that there are very few such drama and dance schools in the UK, I don't have a problem with the article, but until you actually look into things in detail, it is difficult ro decide. Certainly, deciding on the basis of one or two sentences is extremely difficult to do. Carcharoth 20:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

As to why not use prod or AfD, you are right, however, see below (section on why incorrect speedys are used). The problem with a prod is that folks doing promotional articles tend to aggressively remove prod tags. If I see a clearly promotional article and I CSD it, if I'm at my computer for another 20 minutes I'll be sure it's deleted. If I prod it, though, then as often as not this results in an utterly pointless AfD and a lot of wasted time.

If prod had more teeth -- for example, if you remove a prod without making a comment on the corresponding talk page, that counts as vandalism, and repeated violations result in a block regardless of the eventual status of the article -- then I'd be less gung-ho on the CSDs. --Jaysweet 21:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're missing the trees because of the forest: "...received the Imperial Faculty Award in 1996 and an Hon MA Degree from The University of Greenwich..." is a clear assertion of notability. How much notability depends on the stature of the awards, and it may turn out later they're worthless; I agree if there's any question at all that that's an AfD discussion. And yes, I certainly understand how one could become suspicious of this article while acting totally in good faith. This is the problem I am trying to illustrate: it is not a matter of deletionist bias, over-zealousness, or actions rooted in bad faith; it is the inability of a well-meaning person to objectively weigh a stub against speedy deletion criteria without being biased by how terribly flawed the stub is in light of core content policies such as verifiability and neutral point of view. BigNate37_(T) 21:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

If I can put in my two cents worth, I think things are fine the way they are now. I truly believe anyone creating an article, even if it's a first draft, should at least put enough info in the article so that it would meet A1, A3 and A7, then expand on it later. I've seen enough "Kosher Bacon is an awesome band. I'm still working this, please DON'T DELETE!!!" and as someoen said earlier, that user sandboxes should be used for drafts of articles that don't meet these criteria. Once there's enough for a bare-bones stub, then have that article posted. Wildthing61476 19:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we can leave things as they are, but create an optional delay parameter for delay on CSDs, that defaults to no delay. That way people can choose to mark the article now, but put it in the category in X time. No change in policy, or rules. Just another way of marking, another person could replace it with an immediate CSD template if they felt it qualified. Until(1 == 2) 19:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

In light of the above comments, this is a solution in search of a problem (or a hack to suppress symptoms of a more serious problem, if you will). If you want to pursue this out of different motivation, it might be better to start a new discussion on that. BigNate37_(T) 19:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it's best to summarize. People get annoyed when an article is tagged for speedy deletion very quickly, but every example we've seen so far has been an example where it was also an incorrect tagging. I think the speed just becomes a convenient scapegoat here, it's hard to argue against a correct speedy deletion that happened quickly, since if it was correct the deleted contents were useless. Articles that are tagged quickly and correctly, yet become controversial and drive people away from the project are actually very rare. Most of these articles are the proverbial "Bill was a weird kid from Spain. DONT DELETE" stuff... no one wants to protect that. I'm ready to write this off as a solution in search of a problem. --W.marsh 19:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the proposal describes the problem it means to solve, but since then people have refined and discerned more of what the problem/s is/are: inappropriate use of speedies as they stand (and I've no idea how to solve that), and people not realising what they need in a small article to avoid a speedy, or indeed that they can write a two-sentence article that can't validly be speedied. Now it's worth discussing another solution to either of these problems, but it might be worth starting a new section for that. SamBC 20:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

At least for my part, I'll CSD an article with little content if I can tell the article is going to be deleted anyway because it wont meet criteria after additional info is added (i.e. "Bill is awesome, DONT DELETE!" type articles, or local/schoolkid bands trying to use Wikipedia for promotion). If the article seems to be valid, and will stay I'll leave it alone, or add to it if I feel I can make a constructive edit. Wildthing61476 21:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Very strong oppose; if the editor cannot be bothered to type two whole sentences to establish context and notability, then waiting is not useful. No valuable contents has been lost anyways (I mean, how long could it take to retype that sub-stub)? Seriously, if people write an article by saving every other word, the history becomes worthless anyways. I understand that newbies might be miffed by quick CSD, but a few minutes of extra effort will fix that— better let them know now than random point in the future. And an experienced editor should know better than two write a sub-stub with no context or assertion of notability; and they will know how to put a {{hangon}} tag to delay deletion. Furthermore, being able to tag pages as soon as they are created is indispensable for new page patrolling; more than a few minutes old and many pages get lost in the shuffle. — Coren ^(talk) 02:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose A page needs to meet some very basic requirements or it should not be saved. Until(1 == 2) 02:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment

I might not be in the right place but... Be bold was the underlying criterion… Neil Armstrong… eat your heart out! I’m taking Wikipedia not the moon!

As far as I know Gibberish is spoken in Gibraltar, being a mix between English and Spanish. Their daily newspaper does, or at least used, to have a back page written entirely in Gibberish.

In this day and age is it right to refer to a people's —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jmrtn13 (talk • contribs). means of communication and refer to it as, basically, rubbish.

Personally it doesn’t worry me but it would be interesting to hear how those that speak Gibberish think about it.

My sincere apologies for not signing earlier but clearly I had not finished and got interrupted along the way.

Jmrtn13 22:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted images without notice

Two images were deleted for WP:CSD#I6 without any warning on the main article. (diff). Previous times we were given a warning on the main MapleStory page that the file was up for deletion and we should put some rationale, however this had no such warning. Can the images be undeleted and give us a chance to put some rationale? -- Prod-You 16:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I checked the images (Image:Maple0495.jpg and Image:Maple0123.jpg). Both were tagged on July 9 and deleted on July 22. If you think you can address the reason for deletion (missing fair use rationale), you may contact the deleting administrator (User:^demon). Although a warning on the article is provided at some times, it is the exception rather than the rule. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Strengthening of prod enforcement as an alternative to expanding CSD

So I've been following this talk page for the past couple weeks and it's very interesting... I am now starting to understand why some things that I previously thought should obviously be covered by a CSD are excluded to avoid losing good content. At the same time, I share the frustration that many editors feel when a hoaxster, self-promoter, or other such nuisance uses the AfD process as a filibuster, thereby wasting lots of folks' time for no good reason.

In my limited experience, 90% of the filibustering could be eliminated, not by expanding any CSD, but by clarifying the prod policy thusly: If you remove a prod tag without making a relevant comment on the Talk page within 15 minutes, it is always considered vandalism. The prod tag will be restored, the offender will be warned, and after a number of violations the offender will be banned.

As I said, this is from my limited experience... but I find that only in a very small fraction of cases does the filibustering vandal/spammer/hoaxster actually bother to make an argument on the Talk page. By the same token, only a very small fraction of prod-deleters whose articles go on to survive AfD do not make an argument on the Talk page.

To put it another way, I do not consider a deleted prod to be a contested prod if there is no argument made on the Talk page. By narrowing the definition of "contested prod", it could potentially save a lot of wasted time without having to expand CSD criteria and potentially lose good content. --Jaysweet 15:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Mhh, well {{Prod}} says that if you object to the deletion you may remove this tag but this seems a little pointless, if it removed then gaining consensus via articles for deletion would seem like a good alternative. — Rlest 15:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, let me clarify a bit more... I think an AfD is only going to be productive if we know in advance that there is at least one good faith editor who endorses delete and one good faith editor who opposed delete. The first criterion is satisfied when an editor adds a prod tag that includes a coherent reason (i.e. the "reason" field of the prod cannot be blank or patent nonsense). The second criterion, in my opinion, is not satisfied when an editor deletes the prod tag; it is only satisfied when an editor provides a reason why they deleted the prod tag. If no reason is provided, there is no evidence that a good faith editor opposes delete. There is only evidence that an editor likes blanking stuff.

I think this works from a pragmatic perspective as well, because as I said, in my experience very few hoaxsters/spammers/other nuisances will actually bother to defend their removal of the prod; they'll just blank it. I can only think of maybe one time when a bad faith editor removed the prod and defended the article on the talk page (and their defense was patent nonsense, though admittedly kinda funny). --Jaysweet 16:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Prod probably shouldn't have more power given to it. It is intended for uncontroversial things, and spam/hoaxes are not uncontroversial if their author hangs around—even if consensus exists to be rid of them. Giving prod more teeth in this way would enable one editor to force another into making changes lest an article they've worked on be deleted. This is far too dangerous when the malicious intent is on the side of the prod user rather than the content contributor; in that situation veteran editors would remove the tag without improvement anyways, assuming they are better than the common spammer for whom the beefier prod was first intended. This sort of thing wouldn't work without increased visibility, checks and balances, which encroaches upon AfD anyways. BigNate37_(T) 16:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should take this to Template talk:Prod as we are discussing that template, not the criteria for speedy deletion. — Rlest 16:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we are discussing the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion policy, so Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion is more appropriate than a template talk page. BigNate37_(T) 16:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for amandment to R1 (Redirect)

I sometimes come across disambiguation pages that only link to a single page, sometimes followed by a list of links to non-exisiting pages. I propose that these pages fall under R1, and a line is added to the policy and template. --Edokter (Talk) 00:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

If the disambig page points only to one other page, it can be deleted as routine housekeeping (CSD G6). If it also includes links to non-existent page, I think {{prod}} may be a better option. When the redlinked entries are notable, it may be worth creating one or more stubs rather than deleting the disambig page. In addition, the situation does not (as far as I know) arise all that frequently and so may not be needed as a CSD criterion. Just my opinion. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Never mind... guess what I found... --Edokter (Talk) 00:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but do take the time to consider whether you are only deleting something that might get recreated later anyway... If there is a list of unlinked stuff, do you take the time to try and see if pages on those topics exist? For people in particular, with the same surname, it can be tricky to find where an article is if it exists. For example, have a look at Famous people with the surname Smith, and then compare this with the various attempts made to find the names of articles on people with the surname Fry. See Fry (surname). There are 63 listed there, but this only came about after the discussion here. This should be powerful enough evidence that if you have a name disambiguation page with only one link and several unlinked names, there needs to be a thorough investigation to make sure there are no other articles. In the case of common names, it is extremely unlikely that there will only ever be one article on a person with that surname, so this application of G6 seems to me to need refinement and shouldn't really be a speedy. Instead, disambiguation pages with only one link should be turned over to disambiguation specialists. Carcharoth 13:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Consequent to the above discussion, I offer this edit for review. Carcharoth 13:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The mention of one-link dab pages for a G6 treatment seems like a poorly chosen example, and not a well-reasoned policy. Why not just flag for cleanup with {{Cleanup-disambig}} and let an editor look at its history and perhaps expand it? For most cases, changing to a redirect is probably the most drastic change that would be called for. A dab page with one blue link and several red links may be pointing out the need for articles; this is a valuable function, and should not be casually discarded. Can't we find a better example for G6 tagging? Chris the speller 14:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I've modified the various G6 references to disambiguation pages by removing any reference to disambiguation pages, using the edit summary "remove disambiguation page reference from G6 - dab pages should be redirected or cleaned up, not deleted". Carcharoth 11:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Review of CSD:A7

Perhaps CSD:A7 needs to be clarified or even explicitly broadened. At the moment, according to the criteria for speedy deletion it applies only to:

Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject.

Does this apply to a person or a company's products or not? It doesn't explicitly say that it does but other guidelines elsewhere (WP:WEB)suggest that it does:

any content which is distributed solely on the internet is considered ... as web content.... Content which has been packaged into material form, such as onto CD, DVD or book form, but which is still primarily only available for sale via the internet, still falls under these guidelines. If such packaging of the product is widely available for sale in major brick and mortar retailers, then it should be considered a product, for which see Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations).

That in itself is clear enough. Except that if a product is exclusively available on the web, its article can be speedily deleted but if it's available in a "bricks and mortar" outlet it goes through the AfD process. Is this right?

Consider the following situation, based on an editor creating a suite of articles about one company, three of its personnel, and twenty products. None of the article subjects are even slightly notable. The articles about the company itself and its staff can be speedily deleted but the articles about the products need to go through the Afd process. What about a situation where a non-notable individual writes a book and posts an article about himself and another about the book? Does one go and the other stay?

Is this distinction sensible, or desirable, or I have I completely misunderstood the situation? --ROGER ^TALK 16:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

If a product's manufacturing company isn't notable enough to have an article, than the product likely isn't notable, either. It can just be deleted under G11 (if it's spammish) or regular A7 in most cases. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that it can't be deleted under A7, since A7 is very limited in scope. I agree with Roger: CSD:A7 should be expanded to include the non-notable products and works (songs, books, etc.) of non-notable people, groups or organizations. Owen× ☎ 20:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The issue of expanding A7 to cover artistic works was discussed here. The problem with expanding the scope of A7 is that it can be difficult for a non-expert to judge what constitutes an "assertion of notability" in certain cases. For instance, is "allowed the fluff around the seeds to be more easily and cheaply extracted" an assertion of notability? It's hard to say. However, it is beyond any reasonable doubt that the cotton gin is a notable product. Is there any reason that products can't be handled via G11 or {{prod}}? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Firstly, the "Cotton Gin" argument applies equally to humans and to corporations (and it can't be legislated against). Here's a human example, While working as a patent office clerk, Albert Einstein explained the Brownian movement of molecules and investigated the thermal properties of light. Corporate example: the John Company was set up in 1600 to trade with India. Wikipedia is a general interest encyclopedia so significance (notability) always needs spelling out.
• Secondly, including products of all kinds in A7 will remove anomalies. Here's an example.

1. Roger Foo (b. 1966) is the inventor of the Foo Gin (in 1987), marketed by the Foo Gin Company. A7 {{db-bio}}
2. The Foo Gin Company markets the Foo Gin, invented in 1987 by Roger Foo (b. 1946). A7 {{db-corp}}
3. but The Foo Gin was invented in 1987 by Roger Foo (b. 1966), and is marketed by the Foo Gin Company. {{prod}}

• Thirdly, many people and companies are the product, which makes the distinction even more confusing irrelevant.
• Fourthly, including products in A7 will merely consolidate what is already widely happening in practice and will remove widespread confusion.

--ROGER ^TALK 09:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bad person; I've used A7 for things that weren't explicitly mentioned in the criteria. IAR at work, as far as I'm concerned. *shrug* EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

While I understand this type of deletion, if you're deleting something by IAR, you should really cite IAR, not A7 - citing A7 spreads misunderstanding about the nature of A7 and sidesteps the additional scrutiny that an IAR deletion would receive. Dcoetzee 05:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with extending A7 slightly to include the obviously inappropriate stuff which is being IAR'd? --ROGER ^TALK 09:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Are there enough of these that other deletion methods can't deal with them? Do they by their nature justify additional scrutiny? These might be reasons not to expand A7, besides general opposition to the subjectivity of A7. Dcoetzee 10:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

A large number of pages for leisure products (music, films, books, games etc) are created everyday. I doubt whether more than half of them are genuinely notable.--ROGER ^TALK 06:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Second only to CSD:A7, WP:IAR is probably the most abused policy. Originally conceived by Jimbo, IAR was put in place to help new, confused editors overcome their trepidation of our big, complex system, and start contributing. It was not meant as a blank cheque for admins to apply their own standards in lieu of community consensus.

The original version of IAR was: "If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the Wiki, then ignore them and go about your business." Well, if rules make you nervous and depressed, chances are you shouldn't be an admin in the first place. How likely is a candidate to be promoted if his RfA declares, "Rules confuse me, so I'll use WP:IAR to speedy delete what I believe doesn't belong here."? Owen× ☎ 13:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Didn't Larry Sanger invent IAR? Gracenotes^T § 04:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• I strongly oppose any such expansion of A7. A7 was extended to "web sites" in order to deal with would be articels abotu non-notable web fora and simialr sites. It was changed to 'web content" because soem such articels dealt with only particualr pages or sectiosn of a site, not an entire site. IMO itshould not apply to products available on the web, jsut as A7 does not apply to products in gernerl, nor IMO should it. A7 has often been over-used, and continuse to be. I favor cutting it back, if anything, rather than expanding it. DES ^(talk) 15:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

What is your specific objection to including products (web and otherwise)? Do you think there's any merit in the argument that it is because A7's boundaries are eccentric and easily blurred that is has come to be seen as a catch-all? Or that its (over)-use reflects a genuine need to speedily delete non-notable products? If A7 is over-used, it seems to me an argument for sharpening up the criteria rather than restricted what is included in it. Alternatively, the threshold could be changed from "assertion of notability" to "proof of notability". It seems entirely reasonable to me to ask the creator of an article to demonstrate using reliable independent sources why the article should be included. That might well have the effect of producing higher-quality initial contributions, thus obviating much of the need for speedy deletion. --ROGER ^TALK 06:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I-3

Orphaning images prior to deletion

The policy currently states: Please remove images and media from any pages they are used in before marking them for speedy deletion. If that is the case, why do we have templates like {{Deletable image-caption}}?

I do not believe we should encourage the orphaning of images before an admin decides to delete them. Betacommandbot tags all orphaned fair use images for deletion per CSD I5. Thus, an image may be deleted as being "orphaned fair use" even if the original tagging was inappropriate. In addition, the practice discourages fixing of problem images. Why waste time fixing an image that's orphaned? The person doing the fixing can't always know where the image was used (or, in fact, that it was used) prior to being orphaned. For these reasons, I've removed that sentence from the policy. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It's possible this was intended to get the attention of editors who are watching pages the images are used on. Lots of people don't watch their images and categories for deletion (like me, actually). — The Storm Surfer 19:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

New possibly helpful template

I have several times encounterd cases where users placed a {{hangon}} tag next to a notice of a speedy tagging on their talk pages, rather than on the page tagged for the speedy. I have just drafted {{HangonUse}} as a standard message to users in this situation. Fell free to use it as appropriate. DES ^(talk) 21:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Its great, however I think we should de-embolden the page its self bit or possibly to italics as it is a bit bitey, Regards; — Rlest (formerly Qst) 10:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The bold was just to try to make it clear to people (who have pretty celarly mis read once notice already) exactly which page was meant. if you think italics will do that, fine. The whole purpose of this template is to help users, not bite them. DES ^(talk) 17:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Starting it with that "i" logo and "Welcome to Wikipedia" might make it less bite-y sounding... overall a good idea though! --Jaysweet 17:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't do that becase oen of the cases which lead me to construct it was someone not new (or at least not brand new) to wikipedia, but probably new to articel creation, and clearly new to dealing with speedy delete tags. But if you think that image would help... How about the i logo but not "welcome to wikipedia"? DES ^(talk) 17:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at my latest revision, please. Is it an improvement? DES ^(talk) 17:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

What about moving this to within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings, listing it at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace and moving the template itself to {{uw-hangonuse}} or something similar? That would not only be more consistent but would ensure future consistency with the other templates (which, I might add, do not come with a header). BigNate37_(T) 17:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried that with {{Speedy-Warn}}. It was effectively rejected. Or more precisely, the people who maintain the Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings have certain standardized styles which that want to enforce on any and every template listed there, styles which I, for one, think would reduce the usefulness of these two templates. (For one thing, they don't want any of the uw templates to generate headers. For another thing, they want the first parameter of each to be an article or page name. Etc) I didn't want to edit-war over the basic format for {{Speedy-Warn}}, so I accepted it being removed from that page. I similarly presume that {{HangonUse}} would need to be significantly altered in the name of standardization, in ways which i think would be detrimental. However, anyone is free to create a fork at {{uw-hangonuse}} -- or even to move it. But in the latter case, i suspect that I will create a fork, perhaps in my userspace, because i really think that these templates are better when they include section headers, for example. In the mean time, there is Category:CSD warning templates to which both of these belong. DES ^(talk) 19:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge U1 into G7

They both essentially say the same thing, except that U1 is limited to user subpages and G7 is used generally. Also because almost all the time, user subpages are created by their user (thus qualifying them as the author of the page). Sr13 19:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

A user could create a subpage that several other editors use (and edit) to help coordinate editing efforts. By definition of G7, it couldn't be speedied by the author's request if other editors have been particularly active on the page. Yes, there is a bit over overlap there, but it's still handy enough to warrant separate criteria (in my opinion). EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree,. It is a nuanced point, but significant. Anyone can request the deletion of any page s/he has created in any namespace, and if no one else has made significant contributions, usually get it. But in one's own userspace, the deeltion is normaly approved even if there are significant contributions by others. In some rare cases it might be moved elsewhere instead. DES ^(talk) 17:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

A change to C1 or addition of C4 or just shut up, Carlos?

Often times, a nn band or author gets an article and the same editor creates a category for the albums or books. The nn band or author gets speedied (A7), so do the albums or books (if articles about them get created) but the category is stil there, hasn't been empty for four days - hasn't been around for four days usually. Is it a test page (G2)? Well, seems as close a reason as we've got; I'd shy away from (G6). Any way, should we clear this up or just carry on? Carlossuarez46 03:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I would add a clause to A7 to allow them to be deleted together. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Carlossuarez46, I'm curious ... why shy away from CSD G6? I think that would be the most applicable case. I doubt anyone would objection to a deletion summary like, "CSD G6: Housekeeping (empty category created to house articles that were speedily deleted)". Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think G6 would be the best criteria for something like that. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

G6 can be applied when one of two or more cross-namespace items gets deleted, and all could be considered part of a "bundle". Gracenotes^T § 19:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments: I could warm to G6, but it does say non-controversial housekeeping, presumably someone who has created the cat would not consider its deletion in that light. I'm new as an admin, and because some have said that I appear biased toward deletionism, I may be bending over backward to not interpret the narrow CSD G6 so broadly. But if such interpretation has support, I can warm to it. Carlossuarez46 22:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Heh, welcome to the wonderful world of en.wiki administration, where everything you do has the possibility of pissing off somebody. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's a good example, imho: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 July 10#Template:Baker Street (band). It was a navigational template, and all the articles in the template were speedily deleted. Gracenotes^T § 02:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• I would say that if anyone other than the creator has indicated support for the category it is controversial and G6 would not apply. I would also suggest a "tag&bag" approavh here -- have the admin who deletes the articels tag the category, adn if another admin deltes, that will have, to soem extent, confirmed the propriety of the deletion. Besides, empty cats generally have very little contetn (so,ethign in a headnote, perhaps) so the loss is unlikely to be large even if a mistake is made. I would also say, if anyone is taking the speedies to DRV, don't delete the cat via G6 until after the DRV discussion is closed. DES ^(talk) 17:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Sounds like reasonable housekeeping, but I should note that we did need the CSD#T3 at some point because people kept insisting on listing the cat on CFD while the template was on TFD, and the parallel debates got annoying. >Radiant< 16:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Another non-criteria

I've just been bold and added another bullet to the non-criteria list:

• Articles which do not assert the importance or significance of the subject, but which are not about people, groups of people, bands, companies or web content. A7 only applies to these groups, and nothing else.

One was recently removed from the list about "schools", which was a little confused but did make the point that schools can't be speedied under A7. This seems like a good way to put this point across, especially seeing as there is a lot of A7 tagging/deletion going on which doesn't concern the affected subjects. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 10:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Sounds good. Dcoetzee 10:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree Your addition significantly constricts the scope of application of WP:CSD to the point of being a basic revision of the policy rather than an incremental or clarifying change. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  How does it constrict anything? A7 has never applied to anything apart from people, groups of people, bands, companies and web content, if anything, it's a simple clarification. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 10:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• That would be an appropriate addition to the non-criteria. It isn't adding anything new, just putting the information about what A7 doesn't cover both in the criterion itself and in the non-criteria list. Ceyockey is wrong in saying this would restrict CSD. BigNate37_(T) 14:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• I also agree it adds nothing new. The existing policy says that only these things are covered, then lists them, to say more is redundant. I don't see the point, similar non-criteria could be crafted for each criteria, it would not add anything to the understandability or meaning of the policy. Until(1 == 2) 14:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• For a (rather ridiculous) demonstration that this is indeed common practice, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Flaws: the Return of the Ginge. Hut 8.5 14:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• I would endorse this change. A7 is one of the commonly seen and used criterias, so its important that it is clearly defined. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• "Fluffy is the dog down the street. He's very well behaved, and never barks at people. He likes you to rub his belly". You're saying I can't A7 an article like that? EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  5 days at AfD where 30 people will say delete, and 0 will say keep. Until(1 == 2) 14:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  Yes, but thats 5 days where such trash is inside of the mainspace. Do we really want that? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  Nope, I want such things to be speedied. Until(1 == 2) 15:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  Mmmm, yummy bureaucracy... EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Whether that can be A7'ed is an interesting point. Taking things really literally, then no, but it might be possible to find some wording that would include animals as people? It's awkward. In any case, I'd've thought that that one could be seen as vandalism. SamBC 15:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, you cannot CSD Fluffy under A7. Because Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, DRV won't overturn it, but it isn't a blank cheque for you to abuse your sysop bit. You've no excuse for not applying CSD properly. What you should do is propose changing A7—either you'll see consensus is not with you, or you'll have the criterion changed and you will be able to speedy Fluffy's article. CSD is intentionally narrowly worded and you know that. BigNate37_(T) 15:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I would speedy that article under A7 in a heartbeat and never blink an eye. A non-notable band is non-notable, a non-notable person is non-notable, a non-notable website is non-notable, a non-notable dog is non-notable. To quote the same page we've both linked to, follow the spirit, not the letter; yes, "dogs" isn't mentioned in the A7 criteria, but its whole reason for existing is to take out non-notable articles. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
      • You illustrate another common misinterpretation of A7 - it's not for non-notable things, as a single user (even an admin) cannot suitably judge that. It's for articles on certain subjects with no assertion of notability. If notability is asserted then it's not speedyable. SamBC 15:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
        • In execution, I honor that distinction, but you're right, I didn't account for that in my argument above. The point still stands, though; if the Fluffy article said "Fluffy is the greatest dog in the world", that's an assertion (albeit weak and unsourced), but it would still be speediable. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Well that example could have gone under A1, no context, but to be honest I think there's a discussion point here. In some places I see A7 referred to with the wording "biographical articles" rather than "people", with the former surely this would include animal biographies? - Zeibura ^(Talk) 15:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
      • WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY is not permission or an excuse, and you're out of line using it as such. To apply it correctly to this situation where you misapply CSD, we don't need to restore and AFD the article if it wouldn't survive anyways. To use it say that you don't have to follow the letter of CSD is totally incorrect; you ought to know CSD is to be taken for what it literally says and nothing more. BigNate37_(T) 15:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
        • I completely and totally disagree with you there. If all we were tasked to do was narrowly interpret and execute policy, our jobs would be done by bots. What would you suggest happen to the Fluffy article? EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
          • The job could never be done by bots, because software isn't very good at reading and understanding natural languages; see 2 sections below. SamBC 15:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
            • Bah, my point is the same. We're not bots, and we didn't pass RfAs because of our similarities to bots (with apologies to any admins who have metal skin); we were granted administrative abilities due to our abilities to perceive problems and interpret policy before blindly executing them. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• EVula is right, we have WP:IAR for a reason. Until(1 == 2) 15:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• You both make good points, A7 does not allow for it, and it is appropriate to A7 such an article. I have made a proposal below. Until(1 == 2) 15:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the line of discussion about Fluffy suggests that I was not totally out of line in saying that the proposal above significantly constricts the scope of A7. However, another way to look at the Fluffy addition is as WP:BJAODN, which falls under G3. The commentary about the certainty of such an article not surviving AFD implies that WP:SNOW could be applied in some fashion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I honestly can't believe there are admins seriously encouraging abuse of CSD policy. You are entitled to delete anything you want to - but have to be willing to face the consequences. CSD allows you to delete within the rules and avoid the scrutiny and punishment that would accompany an unjustified deletion, and by citing a CSD where it does not apply, you are deceiving the community, hiding an action that requires review, and spitting in the face of the consensus process. I have no problem if you delete "Fluffy" by IAR and cite IAR in your deletion summary - but to cite A7 amplifies the deterioration of CSD into vigilantism. Dcoetzee 09:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You are definitely not assuming good faith here. You're suggesting that admins who desire expansion of CSD criteria are hungry for more power of which a taste just isn't enough. Personally, I remove from the CSD process quite a few articles that I don't think fit the criteria rather than blindly punching delete-delete-delete; I'm sure I'm not alone in that. At least half the problem is in the nomination process, non-admins who nominate articles for deletion via CSD without understanding what the process is actually for or what the limits of applicability are. What we're talking about here is seeking consensus for expansion of criteria in a measured way based on observed characteristics of articles entering the process, not a request to allow CSD to be a way to justify deletion of any article we don't like on the spot. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that it useful to remember here that CSD and PROD were developed to take pressure off of AfD. If an article does not fit the CSD criteria, then the article should go to one of the processes. I also believe that the CSD criteria should strictly construed, and that they should not be expanded unless a particular type of article is clogging the other deletion processes and there is a clear overwhelming consensus that these types of articles should be deleted. Dsmdgold 18:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree, expansion of the CSD should, be done only with care, and only when a particular class of article is actually causing a significant problem. This is IMO doubly true for A7, since it, has, in practice, required more judgment calls and created more controversy than mot of the other speedy criteria. The criteria are intended to be "bright-line", so that insofar as possible most or all reasonable admins will apply them the same way to the same article. There is judgment needed, and no bot yet developed (or likely) could do the job, but when things are "controversial" in the sense that of 100 admins, 60 would go one way and 40 another, then a process that allows more eyes and more discussion than speedy deletion is in order. This is not the case for the vast majority of deleted articles IME, but I still see far more speedies that I think are incorrect than I think i should. DES ^(talk) 20:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to add animals to A7

Since it is common for people to make articles about their goldfish or cats, and these are commonly deleted under A7, I suggest we add animals to the list of items that need at least an assertion of notability. Policy should be descriptive of community behavior, and A7 is indeed used this way all the time without any objection from the rest of the community. Opinions please. Until(1 == 2) 15:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec)I've no objection, although perhaps one should say "individual animals" to ensure narrow wording and prevent misinterpretation. SamBC 15:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it must be worded so it cannot be seen as applying to species, or even populations of animals. Perhaps "individual animals or groups of animals organized by people"(that last part is to catch non notable groups like "Bills dancing poodles"). Until(1 == 2) 15:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• I would endorse this, but I think maybe expansion on what you are requested may be a good idea. Maybe A7 really needs quite a bit of expansion - its not very wide at the moment, when thought out. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• [ec] Very creepy. I'd much prefer that A7 be opened up to general non-notable anything, rather than adding a single item just because some incredibly smart handsome devil came up with a hypothetical situation. If the example I gave was "The Patterson Street Award is given to the person living on Patterson Street with the best kept lawn", we'd be discussing awards instead of animals, but both are still valid examples. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Non notable anything is a bad idea. Certain things like elements, countries, species, obscure mathematics and such should be in an encyclopedia even if they are not notable, as long as there are verifiable sources available. Until(1 == 2) 15:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Countries...firstly, I think they are all created as articles. Secondly, I think a country is almost definitely inherently notable, for being a country. That really applies for elements too, and probably species to some degree. I wont comment on the maths; thats not my forte, but I think that most established mathematical principles are also notable almost by default, so long as there are sources proving this. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I would have to agree that expanding A7 to non-notable anything is not a good idea, there are too many things that only those familiar with a topic can have areal idea of what is notable. Unless a category of articles is clogging the other deletion processes then they should not be a speedy delete. For things like Fluffy the Dog, PROD only takes 5 days. Dsmdgold 23:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• I had the idea because of the previous discussion, but the problem is real and I have seen animals being A7'd. As long as we have people that say policy is policy is policy, we should attempt to bring policy into line with action. We should only IAR as a stop gap measure, when something is just going to keep happening, we should do something about it. Until(1 == 2) 15:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• • I think we have to try and consider why A7 was worded so narrowly in the first place. I have no idea why, and can't find an authoritative explanation, but I think we have to assume that there was one. SamBC 15:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Elements, countries and species are all notable by default. The issue with "non-notable anything" is that not all subjects have notability guidelines as specific as those for bands, companies, web content and biographies. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 15:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• I wonder whether common sense can be applied to A7. Using common sense to determine what is notable or not, and acting on that... -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Common sense should always be applied to any CSD. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Nice verbal joust. 1-0 EVula. But you see what I mean; leave it open, but make sure common sense is used. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Expanding A7 to cover animals is probably not the best course of action here, but what about changing it to cover "biographical articles" instead of articles about people? BigNate37_(T) 15:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That's probably the most sensible thing, as that meets with the suggested rationale regarding specific notability guidelines (I think). SamBC 15:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, that is quite sensible (and a fairly safe expansion of scope). It doesn't address my personal problems with the criteria (I would, obviously, prefer it to be opened up more), but that's a good step in the right direction. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Obviously, articles on animals that don't assert significance are just as pointless, possibly moreso, as articles on people that don't assert significance. The only reason why this hasn't been listed there is because in the past it hadn't occured very often. >Radiant< 16:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• I havent seen any significant number of such articles, either on NP patrol, on CSD patrol, or on AfD. Can anyone cite some numbers to indicate that there is actually reason to broaden A7 for animal articles? In the absence of such a demonstrated need, i would oppsoe such a change. As to changing to the word "biographical", the term "real people" was origianlly inserted to make it clear that articles about fictional charactrs were not subject to A7 speedies. Several separate proposals for a new CSD for fictional characters or works have failed to gain consensus. DES ^(talk) 20:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:CSD should rely as little as possible on admin discretion

This isn't stated anywhere, and I'm beginning to think it should be. Reading over the history of the CSD, and a lot of opinions and so on, it seems that the point of CSD is to be largely mechanistic; it can't be done by a bot or a script simply because no software can make these judgements, not because they're subjective but because software can't recognise the criteria themselves.

Yes, there is a judgement call involved in many of them, but this should be kept to a practical minimum. I would thus suggest adding some sort of wording somewhere in the project page, bolded, to clarify this fact. SamBC 15:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with that (judgement calls should be kept to a minimum). However, I don't see the most recent discussion as being a symptom of a larger problem; the vast majority of speedy deletion criteria are extremely clear cut (A2: Foreign language articles that exist on another Wikimedia project; I8: Images available as bit-for-bit identical copies on the Wikimedia Commons). A7 is about the only one where there's a degree of discretion that's needed. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • It partly relates to any suggested redrafting, and it's a point I think should be kept in mind. Bear in mind that, as written, A7 doesn't offer any real degree of discretion. It's certain categories of articles with no assertion of notability. That's more clear cut than G1, to my mind. SamBC 16:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • The degree of discretion in A7 has more to do with the "what is a valid assertion of notability?" question; "my mom says Jimmy funny" is different from "Time called Jimmy the funniest man of 2007" (those are extremes, obviously).
      That said, I'll agree that G1 is another extremely loose (and discretion-derived) CSD. If we only agree on one thing, this is it. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Where did A7's definition of non-notable person, group, company, or web content come into being? Is it just that the preceding are the most common? Truth be told, I really do think A7 needs major expansion; I have seen plenty of moments where I wanted to apply A7, but couldnt because it did not cover the non-notable subject. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 16:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
        • From a quick review of the history, it appears to have originally been added as a tool against vanity articles, and I assume it has since grown organically. SamBC 16:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia typically deletes about 2,000 articles per day, the vast majority by speedy deletion. Broad discretion will always be exercised, whether it's written in this document or not. The alternative processes are not equipped to handle the volume. --Tony Sidaway 16:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

In that case, the policy ought to say that, to prevent bad feeling and pointless arguments/discussions. Policy and behaviour should not differ greatly for any great period of time; one should be altered to match the other (which way around that should be is a separate discussion). SamBC 16:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• You're falling for a common fallacy: if you have a problem with the fact that some people ignore or break the rules, then by definition adding more rules is not going to fix that problem. We are not about to mathematically define "patent nonsense"; any competent admin will know it at sight. Everything uses discretion since Wikipedia shuns strict rules. >Radiant< 16:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • That only applies if the people 'breaking the rules' are aware that they are doing so; in this case, there is an assertion from the 'guilty' parties that breaking them is expected, but there is no documentation of this fact. It should be resolved one way or the other, so that everyone's reading from the same page. SamBC 16:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Precisely. They assert that it is expected, and therefore are aware that they are doing so. >Radiant< 08:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that minimization of admin discretion is already covered in a sense by the notion that if there is the hint of reasonable doubt as to whether or not an article should be deleted, speedily deleted it should not be. (the 'reasonable doubt' passage appears in paragraph 2 of the introduction to the policy). "Reasonable doubt" can be alternatively interpreted as "potential controversy", as implied by the wording of some of the specific speedy criteria, such as Housekeeping under the General Criteria set. This principle is what prompts me to take school-related articles to PROD or AFD and out of the Speedy process. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)--

If you really want to minimize admin(human) discretion in CSD, I can just write a bot to handle it all. Oh wait, the community has rejected such an idea and insists that admin actions be taken with admin discretion. Until(1 == 2) 01:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Radiant, if "any competent admin" will know patent nonsense at sight, we have a number of not so competent admins on the project -- i have challenged at DRV several cases speedied as "nonsense" that were nothing of the sort. Some seem to use that for "I don't think much of this". I agree with Ceyockey above that the CSD already call for as objective and non-discretionary an approach as possible. Specifically the wording: "These criteria are worded narrowly and such that in most cases reasonable editors will agree what does or does not fall under a given criterion. Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead." I disagree with the attitude of Tony Sidaway's comment -- most of those 200 are obvious vandalism that no one is even hinting ought to have anything but speedy deletion applied -- it is the fewer but more important cases where in some cases admin judgment is being pushed to and beyond the limits of the CSD, and in some cases is IMO being abused that are a problem. But there is no obvious answer within the Wikipedia structure. if the ArbCom routinely desysoped for a history of bad speedy deletes that would change attitudes no doubt, but that is probably a cure far worse than the disease. A7 was originally instituted to deal with vanity biographies, mostly by and of high-school kids. It was much debated and had to go through multiple versions before consensus was obtained. (one version would have only applied it to articles about living people under the age of 25.) At that time a similar proposal for bands failed, a later version obtained consensus. A proposal to speedy delete any band article that did not meet WP:MUSIC did not get consensus. I think web was added next, and originally applied to "web sites" because so many articles on obviously trivial web sites were clogging afd. I'm not sure when "companies" was added. I think A7 is needed, but is also one of the most misused CSD now in place. DES ^(talk) 15:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Criterion A3 and infobox-only articles

There are cases, such as Andres Labrakis, where the only content is an infobox with information. Some infoboxes can be very extensive and contain information that would be contained in a substantial amount of free text. I recall arguments in both directions in the past, that because infoboxes contain substantial information that A3 does not apply versus because there is no content except an infobox, A3 applies. What is the current consensus on this matter? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you could fix up an article with just an infobox, unless the infobox contained nothing but a name and an image, by paraphrasing the content into a stub sentence. In that example, something like "Andres Labrakis is a professional wrestler from 1961 to 1975 known as Spiros Arion. He was trained by Andre Bollet." I still see no claim to notability but I don't think just an infobox should generally count for A3, if the infobox has content. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 10:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that is an area of discretion. The big question is if the infobox provides enough context or not for its information be be useful. Until(1 == 2) 13:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• It would depend on how many of the infobox fields are filled in. If it's just e.g. name and nationality, we can't do much with that. If the box is near-full, it'd be good to keep it. >Radiant< 13:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• I think it is inappropriate to delete an article just because it's only content is an infobox. Some infoboxes summarise several sentences of information. In the case of the Andres Labrakis article, I think an A3 deletion is inappropriate. The infobox tells us seven bits of information: his name, his ring names, his height, his weight, his date of debut, his date of retirement, and the name of his trainer. However, as Zeibura noted above, this particular article may be speedied per A7 (no assertion of notability), although perhaps an article could be written: see this Google search for his ring name. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• I just came across this particular discussion when clearing out CSD's. This article is probably a very poor article to anchor this discussion as the infobox provides nothing to even remotely suggest notability. I would think that an infobox only article would be the extreme exception and not any kind of rule. JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 17:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• I think it's more proactive to tag the article with {{expand}}, {{intromissing}} or (gasp) spend 30 seconds writing an intro based on the information in the infobox. Something for which a decent infobox can be generated tends to be something on which we can write an article. As an example, I have written a prose intro for the article in question. --W.marsh 17:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine, except in order to do that you had to have some knowledge of the subject to begin with. Let's not forget that the responsibility is with the author to make the proper assertion in the first place. Not that of an admin to go make an article acceptable. The same identical information in single sentence would get a rapid A7 delete. The fact that those few facts are placed into an infobox should, in this case, be irrelevant. I certainly agree that with sufficient material it could be kept but not in this case. JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 18:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

This particular article was tagged for lack of any content though, not lack of assertion of notability. --W.marsh 19:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with JodyB, that this is the wrong example for this debate. That said, there are some templates (like those for communes in France (and most European town/city templates) that if filled in give sufficient content and context to be legitimate stubs. However, for towns and cities notability is assumed. That isn't true with people, so if the infobox on a bio doesn't give one enough information or context to see why this person is notable, there's always A7. Carlossuarez46 18:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It is about context folks. I have seen info boxes with every piece of information except what the sport is. If there is enough information to understand what is meant without further knowledge then it has context, if you cannot figure out what is being represented by the data then it lacks context. Until(1 == 2) 18:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If it has some meaningful information, and enough context that you know what it is talking about, and can figure out where to look for more info if you so choose, then neither A1 nor A3 is appropriate. A7 might or might not be, depending. DES ^(talk) 20:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with DES. Carlossuarez46 21:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

G12 changes

For the record, some recent changes to the wording of G12 following discussion further up the page:

• [2] - "all" added to emphasise the need to look at all the parameters.
• [3] - case of public domain assertion added, in addition to fair use or other assertions.
• [4] - minor changes to wording of G1, G8 and G9, plus explanation and colour-coding (image stuff = green) for G12 which was becoming unclear due to recent changes made to it.

Any problems, please discuss here. Carcharoth 03:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's an example of a bad use of CSD

Consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Information virus, which was originally tagged for speedy deletion under A7 - non-notable website. The first comment in the AFD was to delete it speedily as patent nonsense ... again, not valid. In my opinion, this is an example of one of the most common "abuses" of CSD. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, bad interpretation of CSD. But that CSD got rejected and sent to AfD, someone at AfD suggested speedy, it did not happen. Looks like the system is working to me. Until(1 == 2) 01:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I was the person who converted it to AFD. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Meh. Is this really an article we want to be keeping around? It looks like a copyvio and even if it isn't and if this is a real topic, it is an unencyclopedic essay that needs a total rewrite. A truly bad speedy deletion is one that deletes an article that should never be deleted - CSD, AFD or otherwise. --W.marsh 02:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You're advocating a broad interpretation of CSD then, yes? To cover most anything that an admin might feel is not encyclopedic or proper for inclusion in Wikipedia? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

No, PROD was most appropriate here. There's a difference between a hasty deletion and a bad deletion. This is something that should be deleted, the only question is over how quickly... it's not like someone was trying to delete an article on a Pulitzer prize winner or something. --W.marsh 02:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason whatsoever to believe that this article should be included in Wikipedia? If not, then what is the point of process for the sake of process? --B 05:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

When that process comes from the consensus of a large amount of people, and the consensus is on how much discretion one or two pairs of eyes is given, it's not process for process' sake. CSD is designed to reduce the volume of pages taken to XfDs. The criteria are a result of a lot of people working towards a consensus of what describes pages with no chance of survival, without describing any pages that do have a chance of being kept. In this model, examples can be found of a page that does not qualify for speedy deletion that still has no chance of being kept; that is fine, and does not represent a need for admins to apply CSD more broadly than a strict interpretation allows. BigNate37_(T) 06:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• A prod would have worked just fine for that. I agree that calls for speedy deletion are a mistake, but that's just ignorance; I know I called for the speedy deletion of articles when I was no longer a newbie but had no idea what I was actually saying (I interpreted it as "it needs to be deleted quickly" rather than "here is the speedy deletion criterion that it meets"). EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• W.marsh says above: "A truly bad speedy deletion is one that deletes an article that should never be deleted - CSD, AFD or otherwise." I strongly disagree. A speedy deletion that creates significant risk that valid content will be deleted is a bad speedy deletion, even if the deleting admin happened to luck out. The speedy criteria are intentionally narrow, in significant part because only within those narrow criteria can we be reasonably sure that one or two sets of eyes will be enough to delete nothing but items that should be deleted. step outside the criteria, and in many cases we are hitting judgment calls, an inevitably will delete some content that should not be deleted. Remember that the vast majority of speedys are not reviewed, by anyone, once they are deleted. If good stuff is banished, we will probably never know. The solution is that if something is outside the limits where we can be pretty sure, in advance that only stuff that shouldn't be here is being deleted, we call it a bad speedy, remove the tag or restore the article, send it to AfD, and admonish the admin. This is not "process over product" this is statistical quality control, and process as the only way to protect the product. If admins delete anything that they think should go, without reference to the criteria, then being human, they will get it wrong a small but significant fraction of the time, and we will have to organize "deletion patrol" with some admins regularly checking on the deletions of others. I would prefer to avoid that. DES ^(talk) 16:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is that a bad use of speedy? I'd say from looking at it that it was a pointless and wasteful challenge of a speedy. Use the sense you were born with, process for process sake is very much against the purpose of Wikipedia. Don't challenge speedies unless you really think the article is worth saving. It doesn't matter if the deleting admin gave the wrong reason, it does matter if the article was a heap of crap. --Tony Sidaway 23:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC

I don't know how i can be clearer, but i will continue to challenge such speedy deletions, and if admins make a habit of them, RfCs may be appropriate. My reasons are simple, if admins are deleting articles outside the limits where consensus has sanctioned speedy deletes, and in particular if they are doing so on the basis of judgment calls on what is notable, and what is an "assertion of significance" that are actually judgment calls about what an AfD would delete if only one were held, then they will, inevitably, be wrong some of the time, and what they are doing subjects Wikipedia to the risk of deletion of worthwhile info, if not in this case, in other similar cases. i have seen too many unpromising articles turned into valid ones to assume that it won't happen again, or that I can tell with assurance which ones will be saved. And I don't think anyone else has the magic crystal ball to tell either. Letting ten dubious articles spend 5 days on prod as the price of saving one valid article is IMO more than worth while. Remember that once an article is actually deleted it is relatively unlikely to be examined again, and if it shouldn't have been deleted it is in all probability too late. Yes, deletions can be undone, but in most cases we won't know that there is reason to undo them, because no one is looking. DES ^(talk) 00:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

In addition to DES's arguments, I've also argued in the past that when admins incorrectly cite CSD criteria when deleting items, they are masking actions that would otherwise receive greater scrutiny and encouraging other admins to misunderstand and misapply CSD. Even if we assume an admin had a crystal ball that would allow them to only delete articles that would be deleted at AfD anyway, this second-order effect could lead to many bad deletions down the road. I emphasize again: delete anything you want, at your own risk, but do not incorrectly cite CSD in doing so. Dcoetzee 00:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I get the feeling that no matter what I would have done, someone would say "bad admin - naughty admin - you should know better". Speedy it, and it violates conservative use of speedies. AFD it and it wastes everyone's time. PROD or AFD it and ... why didn't you just speedy it, you idiot. No matter what path is taken, experienced admins will take issue with it. Is that any way to achieve or sustain consensus? I'm not frustrated, really, just pointing out the chaos that prevails here. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter as long as it gets deleted, I guess. However, DESiegel's comments above make it plain that speedying everything you don't like is more harmful than carefully using AfD or PROD (the latter of which isn't "wasting anyone's time" at all) when an article doesn't meet speedy criteria. While NP patrolling, I've quite recently had a lot of legitimate pages speedied on me while I was cleaning them up, so anyone who tells me these rampant speediers don't delete non-speedy candidates is lying through their teeth. It is important to use speedy deletion conservatively, not so much that I'd DRV the article about fluffy just because dogs don't fall under A7, but there are a lot of really careless speedy deletions going on at the moment which will only dissuade good faith contributors. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 00:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I prefer to assume good faith and say that such people aren't lying, but haven't been paying attention. In any case, they are clearly inaccurate. And what is worse, they not only delete non-speedy candidates, they delete pages that shouldn't have been deleted by any method. That is the real vice of over-braod use of speedy deletion. DES ^(talk) 15:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

NowCommons - 1 week

Part of WP:CSD#I8 (deleting images now on Commons) is the following:

• The image has been marked with {{NowCommons}} for at least one week. Waiting one week is not necessary if it was the uploader who moved the image and marked it.

Can we also add that waiting one week is not necessary if the uploader is notified that their image was moved to commons and where on commons it was moved to (if the filename was changed)? —METS501 (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The uploader should ALWAYS be notified if the filename is changed ... that's just courtesy. Personally, I don't see any need for the waiting period. It used to be needed since images couldn't be undeleted ... we needed time that someone could yell loudly if the move wasn't done right ... but now it doesn't really matter. --B 20:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

So how about we just change that line altogether to read

• The uploader has been notified if the file name of the image was changed when it was moved to the Commons.

and ditch the whole waiting period? The probability of a mistake is also much less now because my bot adds a notice to the image page saying whether it meets all the criteria for deletion. —METS501 (talk) 21:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I tried to do this and it was reverted (see discussion), if we have consensus now that would be great. There is no real reason to wait. - cohesion 22:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I should say, we pretty much had consensus last time, it wasn't some random edit I made :) - cohesion 22:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

For the same reasons I gave at the end of the prior thread, I still object. Dragons flight 23:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Here were your points:

• It gives people both here and on Commons a chance to check that material was moved correctly (since not everyone is an admin, if the page were immediately deleted this would be substantially more difficult). In my experience, probably >50% of moves to Commons are initially deficient in some way, ranging from major problems like incorrect licensing and incorrect/missing attribution, to minor problems like broken links.

This is not a concern anymore. MetsBot checks all the images moved and reports when there is a problem.

• It gives content contributors (like me) the chance to object to deleting the local copy of files. The lack of watchlist integration is a big loss with moving to Commons. My global warming related images draw several acts of vandalism/talkpage comments per week, and having local copies makes these much easier to watch and maintain.

Two things: first, talk pages are not deleted when images are moved to commons (at least, they're not supposed to be), so you can still watch those, and second, there are people on Commons to revert vandalism to images just as there are people here.

• By encouraging the person who moves the image to also delete it, it amplifies the chances that mistakes will be made by reducing the number of eyes involved, which is problematic since mistakes are already quite common, in my experience.

I'm fine with adding to the guidelines that the same person who moved the image cannot delete it unless it is first checked by another user or a bot. —METS501 (talk) 01:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Please explain about MetsBot, it's description doesn't seem to cover the issue at hand. On the second point, I rarely ever see anyone revert vandalism against my images except me, and don't have a lot of faith that the Commons community would be much better. (To be fair, I work on global warming issues and my work almost certainly attracts more vandalism than average.) Dragons flight 01:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) MetsBot goes through the list of images that have been moved to Commons (once a user has placed the {{NowCommons}} template on the image) and then:

1. Verifies that the image on Commons exists
2. Checks for proper source and copyright information on Commons. If it is not sure, it says that it is not sure.
3. Checks if the image is used on any pages and if it has a different name on commons, it reports that the links need to be updated
4. Make sure that the user(s) who uploaded it on the English Wikipedia's username is used on the commons description page (i.e. ensures that credit is given to all uploaders)
5. Make sure that the image is in an article or category on Commons
6. Download both files (the one here and on commons) to make sure that they are a bit-for-bit copy.

It then reports its findings in a {{NowCommonsBot}} template, such as the following (an example):

MetsBot has reviewed this image and it may not pass the requirements for deletion. (what does this mean?) This image has a different file name on Commons and still has pages linking to this name. This image is not a bit-by-bit copy of Image:XXXXXXXXXX.jpg on Commons, although it could be a compressed/resized copy. 15:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This helps to catch all the mistakes that can be made when moving the images to commons. As for monitoring vandalism, that won't help whether we have a waiting period or not; if you want the image not to be moved to commons, place a note to that effect on the image description page in advance of it being moved. —METS501 (talk) 02:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I will admit on the point of vandalism, I am not 100% confident in the commons community reverting as fast as if it were local. This is a larger problem though that relates to commons in general and may be outside the scope of this conversation. :/ - cohesion 01:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

G12 needs revising

Currently, G12 (copyvios) includes the following: "photography from a stock photo seller (such as Getty Images or Corbis) or other commercial content provider". I have tracked down the origin of this clause to this edit from Kat Walsh (Mindspillage), a member of the Wikimedia Board of Trustees. I am asking her if she added that in her official position, or not, and inviting her to add her views to this discussion.

The main problem with this clause, especially when applied to speedy deletions, is that there exist images for which the rights situation is unclear. These are generally old images, where copyright status is unclear or records no longer exist, or images where the rights are held by several different bodies (ie. no one entity has exclusive rights). This is why you will see some images being sold and used by different companies, all 'claiming' copyright on it, but in fact most likely being as uncertain about the rights status as we are. Furthermore, stock photo libraries do sell free images, so the presence of an image on a stock photography website is not immediate grounds for deletion. Consequently, Wikipedia:Images for deletion should be the venue for discussion. In any case, images from stock photo libraries have watermarks, so if the image in question doesn't have a watermark, it is unlikely to have come from the stock photo library in question, but an intermediate source, or a different source.

Even for clearly copyrighted pictures, it is not clear that fair-use does not apply for low-res pictures of historic events. It would be a tragedy if fair-use was discarded because Wikipedia decided to err on the side of caution because commercial photo libraries were selling these historic images.

This situation is currently being discussed in several locations. A specific image discussion is taking place at deletion review here, while a more general discussion is taking place at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#The Corbis/Getty argument.

I propose that G12 be revised to only allow speedy deletion of watermarked images from stock photo libraries, and that non-water marked images suspected of being from a stock photo library should be nominated at IfD for further investigation. The uncertain situation with older images, which can have passed through many hands before ending up at the stock photo library, and which may have unclear rights status, should also be mentioned. Carcharoth 20:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• A few of the arguments I made at the other threads bear repeating here. What we should not do is assume that because an old photo is being sold by Corbis and Getty and other photo libraries, that those photo libraries have exclusive rights over the photo. In other words, admins (or anyone) should not be saying "since Corbis makes their business selling images, using this image on Wikipedia violates WP:NFCC #2 and we can delete it" - exactly the same argument can be used to delete hundreds of photos. Corbis (and many other photo libraries) sell free pictures. They also sell images that we use under fair-use rationales. In the 'Corbis/Getty argument' thread linked above are many examples: Image:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg and Image:The Earth seen from Apollo 17.jpg and both on the Corbis website, and Image:Altgens mary ferrell.jpg is a crop of an image also on the Corbis website. So it is clear that G12 is hopelessly simplistic in its current phrasing, hence my proposed change. Carcharoth 21:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • One final point, specifically about old pictures: "There are many old images for which copyright status is highly unclear. Merely being sold today through commercial companies (who often buy up old archives of photos) does not mean that they know any more about the copyright status of these old images than we do." - I hope Kenosis will be able to add more on this. His summary in one of those threads represents my position as well, and applies to many old photos: "copies of this photograph have traveled far and wide through multiple routes with no indication thus far that anyone has ever claimed exclusive rights to the image". Carcharoth 21:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed that the blanket prohibition on images found in stock libraries should be removed (though not sure that the watermarking is the right standard). The comment that such images are blatant copyright infringement should be removed. Editorial comments are not a proper part of policy and beyond that, it is a legal assertion that is simply not true. Wikidemo 21:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• G12 should be repealed altogether. Each image should be individually evaluated. People can and do frequently watermark images that they do not own the copyright on (and in the case of public domain images, they're entitled to do so), so watermarking is not the right standard. That said, we may need some fast deletion process for obviously copyrighted images, for example where an admin is able to locate a claim of all rights reserved by the original author. Dcoetzee 22:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Auto-deleting all watermarked images would be a horrible idea ... if the image is not copyrighted or is freely licensed, we can just remove the watermark. As for the current rule, the problem is that people would upload some random AP photo of a sporting event and call it fair use. There is no fair use justification for using a news media photo in this way and they all should be deleted on sight. The fastest way for us to have copyright problems is not be vigilant in deleting these things. That said, that one line should definitely be removed as the source of the image is unrelated to the criterion. If someone creates an article that is a copy/paste of this morning's newspaper, we should delete that, even if it is not available online. The fact that the image/article was downloaded from a commercial content provider is unrelated to its copyright status. --B 22:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hm, yes, let's get a bunch of Wikipedians together and have a big vote and decide that republishing photography from stock photo sellers isn't copyright infringement unless it has a watermark. Seriously, if you're interested in User:Mindspillage's thinking in particular, you may have to wait until she gets back from Wikimania. In the meantime, there's no need to be concerned that the Iwo Jima photograph is in danger of being permanently deleted and forever lost to the encyclopedia. When it comes to copyright infringement, our conservative "when in doubt, delete" approach serves us well, and we can take the time to research and discuss cases where we might make an exception to a general rule. Jkelly 22:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. When in doubt, don't admit the picture. But when in doubt about a huge number of images all at once, resolve the matter first and then delete later. The doubt has to be a reasonable one. I have a concern and a doubt about re-using photos from newspapers, wire services, etc., because the use is non-transformative yet seems to fall within the wording of the fair use statute. So there the answer is to ask a lawyer for the legal status before forming an opinion. Meanwhile I would neither upload any more nor advocate for deleting the existing ones. Going off on deletion campaigns, or institutionalizing a doubt, based on a misunderstanding of the law is not going to help anything. Here we are talking about image rights companies, not newspapers, and it's pretty clear that a blanket ban on such photos is misplaced. If our general counsel or an authority in the relevant law wants to weigh in, so much the better. Wikidemo 23:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Responding to Jkelly: I think you are misrepresenting the position (this is a discussion, not a vote). I am in no way suggesting that a stock photo library's images should be taken and republished (that would be both illegal and unethical - a lot of work goes into building up something like the Bettmann Archive for example), but what I am saying is that if a photo is obtained from another source (in this case the American Institute of Physics), it is not sufficient to say "look, it's also on the Corbis website so we must delete it". The current wording of G12 doesn't acknowledge that photo libraries also sell images that we can legitimately obtain in other ways. I also got some of the watermark issues wrong. Let me try again below. Carcharoth 23:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• I note that there is no discussion in the talk archives 17 through 20 of this page relevant to that edit. In other words, it was not discussed here - at all. We are now discussing for the first time whether there is community consensus for speedy deletion under this criteria. We now see some reasons to not have that as part of the speedy criteria. My initial reaction is to say, nope, that is insufficient grounds to speedy delete, it is reason for an IfD discussion. But I remain open to persuasion otherwise. GRBerry 22:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Question. How many G12s for picture agency photos are there a year? Would this place extra load on IfD; or would any extra load be minimal? Jheald 23:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • No idea. If people filled in their deletion summaries properly, then we might know, otherwise no. If it helps, the new clause was only introduced recently (April 2007), and we will have to wait until Mindspillage is back to see if it was in response to anything in particular. Carcharoth 23:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Remove from speedy It is routine for picture agencies to include all the pictures they can, and charge for them. If they can persuade people to pay for a copy of a pubic domain picture, there is no law prohibiting them from doing so. The subject will therefore often be debatable, and should not come within speedy. If this is all that can be said against the use of the picture, it needs discussion. DGG (talk) 23:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Jkelly, thanks for reminding us that Mindspillage is at Wikimania - I'd forgotten that. I guess she forgot to put a wikibreak notice on her page, or maybe she will join in from over there... :-) Carcharoth 23:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Revised proposal

Based on the discussion above, I'd like to suggest a revised proposal to help allay concerns about people uploading content they have obtained from an image library.

• (1) If people state that their source was a commercial photo library, and the image has a visible watermark, then the image should be speedy deleted even if it is free or could be used with a fair-use rationale. Free and fair-use copies of the picture can be obtained from other sources, and we shouldn't be using commercial photo libraries to do our leg work for us.
• (2) If an image obtained from another source appears to be the same as one appearing on a commercial photo library's website, then the matter should be investigated further at Wikipedia:Images for deletion. It may be that our image was obtained from someone who paid the image library for a non-watermarked version, or it may be that our image was obtained from a different source altogether (whether that other source was free or not would be a separate discussion).

It might help to mention some of the major photo libraries here. Category:Stock photography lists some of them, such as Getty Images, Corbis, iStockphoto, Bridgeman Art Library. Also of interest are historical archives such as those at the Library of Congress. Carcharoth 23:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. A commercial library may very well be the only digital publisher of a particular image on the Internet - they may have scanned or photographed it directly from a paper source, or purchased it from someone who did. Other sources may have gone offline. They may watermark this image, as part of a blanket watermarking. The watermark can easily be removed by interested parties (like me) at a later time, but there's a huge backlog of these to process, and the uploader frequently lacks the experience to do this. I'd go so far as to say that the source of an image should be documented but should never play into whether we delete it or not. This clearly fails the "uncontestable" criterion of the guidelines for new speedy deletion criteria. Dcoetzee 00:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

If they are the only publisher, how do you prove that the image is free? If it is not free, and if they are the only publisher and are selling it, a fair use claim would fall foul of the non-free content criteria clause 2, which says that any fair use mustn't impede commercial possibilities. By the way, can I ask, though you disagree with my revised proposal, what would you like to see instead? No mention of images in G12? I think (and so do others) that something needs to be there. When would you ever be comfortable with a speedy deletion of an image? Carcharoth 00:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

How do you prove the image free? Well, for PD-old, the image may be dated in the image itself, may be signed by an artist long dead. The uploader may have contacted the copyright holder and obtained a free licensing statement. And as I'm sure you're aware, the fair use criteria need not all be met for a use to be considered fair use, as in this example from Zapruder film:

In 1966 Dr. Josiah Thompson, while working for Life, tried to negotiate with Life for the rights to print important individual frames in a book he wrote called Six Seconds in Dallas. Life refused to approve the use of any of the frames, even after Thompson offered to give all profits from the book sales to Life. When Thompson's book was published in 1967 it included very photo-like detailed charcoal drawings of important individual frames, plus photo reproductions of the four missing frames. Time Inc. filed a lawsuit against Thompson and his publishing company for copyright infringement. A U.S. District Court ruled in 1968 that the Time Inc. copyright of the Zapruder film had not been violated by invoking the doctrine of fair use. The court held that "there is a public interest in having the fullest information available on the murder of President Kennedy. Thompson did serious work on the subject and has a theory entitled to public consideration … [I]t has been found that the copying by defendants was fair and reasonable."

In other words, images of compelling historic interest, being described by an encyclopedia, may reasonably fall under fair use included even if it financially damages someone to do so.

To answer your other question, I believe an image should be speedy-deletable if the copyright holder asserts that they reserve all rights on the image (and no fair use argument has been added after a suitable waiting period). They frequently do so in a watermark in the image itself, sometimes on an accompanying webpage, but in either case the key is that it must be plain that it is the copyright holder who has asserted this. Dcoetzee 01:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note that watermarks are by no means dispositive of the issue, unless the watermark is clearly visible in the image uploaded to Wikipedia. I do not have the solution about the answer to the problems with CFSD #12 at the moment, but I suggest commentators here look at the discussion in WP Talk:NFC prior to making snap judgments about this issue. Among the material noted there is the following:

In the case of Corbis:

• "Flag Iwo Jima" under "rights managed" returns the following result:"All Images (103) Commercial (19) Editorial (44) Historical (32) Art (7) News (15) Sports (1) Entertainment (8)" "Flag Iwo Jima" under "royalty-free" produces 0 results.
• "Earth Apollo" under "rights managed" returns the following result: "All Images (189) Commercial (43) Editorial (95) Historical (149) Art (1) News (8) Sports (0) Entertainment (3) RF (0)," with the number of "royalty free" images stated as 0.
• "Planck Einstein", the context in which this issue of CFSD #12 first came up and which led to the wider analysis, produces the following result under "Rights managed": "All Images (2) Commercial (0) Editorial (0) Historical (2) Art (0) News (0) Sports (0) Entertainment (0) RF (0)," while "Planck Einstein" under "royalty-free" produces 0 results, with both Einstein-Planck images explicitly stated to be 'historical' .

Does anybody begin to see a pattern? Following up a bit further, I found the following:

• "Lee Harvey Oswald Jack Ruby" returns 97 images under "rights controlled" and 0 images under "royalty-free". I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that several of these are already posted on Wikpedia, attributed to authors such as the Dallas Police Department, the New Orleans Police Department and other government entities, along with others that plainly are fair-use as part of our common historical heritage.
• "Kennedy assassination" returns 1032 results, of which only four are said to be "royalty free". I recommend looking through those too; click on "RF" or do the search with checkmark on only "royalty free" at this image vendor's website and see which four are displayed as "royalty free".

Plainly the mere presentation of evidence that a particular manifestation of an image for which some form of copyright is claimed by a photo archive is of itself inadequate to merit speedy deletion, or for that matter any deletion. Again, I don't know what the proper answer is here, but I do strongly think that defining #12 in a way that tends to direct WP admiistrators to come into an IfD and delete, on the sole basis that Getty, Corbis or another archive attaches their name to it, paints the issue with far too broad a brush without recommending some demonstration that the claimed copyright holder has asserted exclusive right of copy publicly and in writing. As I said on the WP:NFC talk page, if editors here, who help guide other editors and admins, don't obtain a clearer understanding of the facts involved in the present-day jockeying to sell images to the public, many of which nvolve specific manifestations of images that are already the property of the public, then WP is potentially at risk as a competent presenter of material that is already in the public domain or plainly within the fair-use laws. ... Kenosis 02:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't forget...

...that G12 is just for clear-cut copyright infringement, and stuff claimed to be used under fair use doesn't come under it. Using examples like Image:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg to illustrate what G12 applies to is completely misleading. --bainer (talk) 01:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for this interpretation. It is important to get a handle on what is implied by finding an image at issue in one of the collections of commercial content providers. As I stated, this issue alone is not dispositive, and all administrators should be aware of what commercial content proveders do for a living. If the examples of Iwo Jima and "Earth Apollo", etc., are misleading, then I would think G12 should be clarified so as to avoid such misinterpretations. What appears needed is some indication that the particular version of the image is from a commercial content provider, or alternately that a commercial content provider holds exclusive rights to the original image in a way that would clearly prevent fair use under the 10 NFCC criteria, in order to be subject to speedy deletion. Simple. I doesn't take that many extra words to make this issue plain to almost everybody. ... Kenosis 13:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Stuff must meet all the parameters, one of which is "Uploader does not assert permission... or fair use". It can't be much clearer. I should note that I think most of the criteria are too convoluted and could do with rewording, though if you read the current text of G12 through it's pretty clear what it is intending. --bainer (talk) 14:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

We just had an IfD closed against consensus on exactly this basis stated in G12, first example. I then looked at G12 myself and on a plain reading of it I felt the admin's justification was very reasonable. It turns out the image went through a variety of routes in its history, and Corbis just happened to be one of the providers that presently has a copy of the photograph for sale. This possibility would be obvious after we point out the issues as we have done here yesterday and today, but evidently it's not so obvious if these issues of how commercial content providers actually work is not pointed out explicitly. This would appear to me to indicate the need for slightly more specific language in G12. So I must beg to differ that it is clear as presently written. As it's presently written, it appears to indicate that any image an admin finds in the Corbis or Getty collections is fair game for speedy deletion. Like I said, it takes only a few extra words to make more explicit what the intent is. But, I see the perspectives here have hardened. C'est la vie. Perhaps best to have a look at it again in September or later anyway, as a lot of folks appear to away at the moment, including the editor who first inserted the passage about commercial content providers such as Corbis and Getty. ... Kenosis 14:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I know that. You know that. Lots of people know that. Do all 1000+ admins know that? My point is that to be a workable speedy deletion criterion, you have to be able to work out what a clear-cut copyright infringement is. If the image in question has a copyright licence tag and a fair-use rationale, then G12 shouldn't apply. I'd still like G12 to explicitly say that, though. But what do you do if the image is tagged as free, and coming from a different source, and someone misunderstands G12 and tags an image for speedy deletion because the same image is being sold by Corbis? G12 should explicitly state that stock photo sellers take free images, add watermarks and copyright notices, and sell those free images. Merely saying "photography from a stock photo seller" misses all these points, and is misleading to the point of being a blanket ban. It probably wasn't intended that way, but that it what it looks like, and how it is being interpreted, so clarification is needed. As to why I used that example, well, this all started with me seeing a fair-use image that was deleted with part of the reason being that it would infringe the ability of Corbis to sell the picture. I thought, "hang on, Corbis sell lots of images that we use". The 'Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima' example was the one that sprang to mind, and sure enough, when I searched, there it was. A clear-cut demonstration that things are rarely clear-cut with image copyrights. Carcharoth 02:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I would think so. It says it right there on the page, two lines below the line in contention. --bainer (talk) 07:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't work out which bit of my reply you are replying to. Carcharoth 09:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The "do all 1000+ admins know that" part. --bainer (talk) 14:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was re-reading G12 though, and quite frankly it is a mess. It currently mixes up text and image issues, which would be better served by splitting into 12a - text and 12b - images. The need for all the parameters to apply should be emphasised - at the moment it is too easy to miss the "uploader doesn't assert fair use" bit towards the end. And it still doesn't emphasise the cardinal rule of copyvios - make sure it is really a copyvio. It would be best to give several examples of cases where an apparent copyvio turns out not to be a copyvio. eg. Person A claims Image B is a copyvio and should be speedy deleted, but fails to notice that there is an assertion of fair use; or Person Z claims image X is a copyvio, but fails to realise the image is a free image being sold by the image library who have slapped their copyright on it. This is similar to cases of so-called 'blatant' copyvios of articles, where Person G points out that article H is a blatant copyvio of website J, but then is embarassed to be told that in fact website J copied the text from Wikipedia and slapped their copyright on it without crediting Wikipedia. The thing about the 'blatant' copyvio stuff is that when people get it wrong (failing to check the page history for a compliant version to revert back to is a common mistake), it is clear that they didn't understand what the extra three parameters were trying to say - a classic case of a poorly written CSD. I know that providing examples is seen by some as instruction creep, but I think it is worth it here (maybe by using footnotes) if it makes things clearer. Having the word 'blatant' there doesn't help. It just prompts people to look again at 'our' copy and 'their' copy (be it an article or an image) and go "oh, they are the same therefore it is blatant", which is not at all what the word 'blatant' is trying to communicate there. It should be

• "they are the same, now let's investigate where our copy came from - ah, it was written organically on Wikipedia over a period of time, so they may have copied it from us"; or
• "they are the same, now let's investigate where our copy came from - ah, our image came from a free source, so the image library have got their copy from the same free source"; or
• "they are the same, now let's investigate where our copy came from - ah, it was added in one go by an IP address and it is unlikely to be the owner of the content wanting to release it to us"; or
• "they are the same, now let's investigate where our copy came from - ah, it was uploaded by someone who gave a source that in turn credited the image library, and the uploader failed to assert fair use and in fact tagged it wrongly as a free image, and there is a watermark visible but it's from a different image provider, and this website over here says something completely different about this image, oh dear, this is getting confusing - should this really be a speedy deletion criteria? Maybe I should just send this image to IfD?"

My point here is that investigating a chain of image rights can be difficult and confusing, and should not be a speedy deletion criteria. My other point is that the thought processes I've made explicit above can easily be short-circuited by well-meaning but inexperienced admins, or by inexperienced editors who slap a speedy deletion tag on something without investigating. What normally gets omitted is the now let's investigate where our copy came from bit. Instead, the short-circuited thought process goes something like this: "the copies are the same - delete our copy - next speedy deletion candidate, please!" Of course, most suspected copyvios are indeed copyvios, but the hassle caused, when a non-copyvio gets deleted because it was suspected of being a copyvio, could easily be avoided if some of the thought processes above were made more explicit. Carcharoth 20:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Blatant copyright infringement would not presumably include any assertion by the author that s/he has permission notwithstanding the noncompliance with WP's procedure for permissions, for that assertion negates either its blatantness or its infringement? Carlossuarez46 21:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Maybe. Do you think G12 is saying that, or do you think G12 is unclear and needs to be rewritten so it is clearer? Carcharoth 21:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

DESiegel, thanks very much for implementing the clarifications to G12, particularly here. I think it's much clearer now what G12 intends to mean. Kudos. ... Kenosis 02:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You missed this edit, which also makes G12 clearer. I agree, kudos to DESiegel - I had started to try and tweak G12, but gave up and posted the above comment that G12 was too dense to understand, let alone rewrite. G12 still slightly confuses text and image, so I might add pretty colours to make clear which bits of text apply to images, and which to text (ie. articles). Carcharoth 02:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, most often changes are best implemented arising from the minds of those who participated in forming the statements. Then again, there's the occasional "Aha! good idea there, gol'dang'it...". IMO, generally most useful in the longer term if the original writers understand the problem presented. Call it a small miracle, I suppose, and thanks to particpants here for challenging our assumptions and allowing us "invaders" to challenge the prior local consensus with the problem just encountered in the course of the wiki-wide implementation of the criteria here. My good regards to all the regulars in this part of the wiki. ... Kenosis 02:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Yes. G12 as it stands now is a textbook example of instruction creep. Overly legalistic, having exceptions to its own exceptions, and way too long. >Radiant< 09:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

POV

I think we should have one for point-of-view pages. Not neccesarily attack pages but are violations of NPOV. Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 02:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Violations of NPOV can be fixed though, by rewriting them neutrally. We already have two criteria which cover two more serious POV-related situations: G10 for attack pages and G11 for blatantly promotional material, anything else that doesn't fall under existing speedy criteria can surely be rewritten. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 02:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that it's incredibly subjective, and that's what AfD/ProD are for. SamBC 02:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, articles such as George Bush and other high-profile political figures tend to suffer from POV problems. I don't think deleting those is a good idea. >Radiant< 08:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I also think the criteria would be far to ambiguous to be a CSD criteria. Until(1 == 2) 14:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I3 - I8 also need revising

Image criteria 3 through 8 all deal with deletion of images with improper licensing. However, together they fill a full page with clauses, sub-clauses, exceptions, and exceptions to the exceptions. This is a convoluted mess, and pretty much defies the point of "speedy deletion". We should be able to summarize this all into a paragraph or two.

For instance, I1 is about "identical copies, except on Commons". I8 is about "identical copies on Commons". The overlap should be obvious. Let's merge the two and avert further red tape. >Radiant< 09:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The difference between those is that identical copies here can be removed instantly, whereas we have a procedure for images both here and on commons that entails waiting for a week before deleting the copy here. As such, I1 and I8 should remain separate. Mike Peel 09:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, ignoring that for a moment, why should we have six different criteria dealing with improperly licensed images? I'm mainly talking about I3-i8 here. >Radiant< 10:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

They all need to be dealt with differently. I found it to be very clear when I first read it. Until(1 == 2) 14:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I7 especially is a bit of a mess. It states that some unfair use images can be deleted 2 days after notifying the author, others can be deleted 7 days after, and others can be deleted on sight. What always confused me about these "x days after notifying the author" criteria is that that process is not exactly speedy deletion for each particular instance - the author still has to be notified. It would seem to make more sense to merged all these into one criteria, which simply states that after tags such as no source/no license/no fair/dfu/unused unfree expire, the image can be deleted without further notification or discussion. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 15:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I7 confuses the hell out of me because I see people saying on IfD - "delete, violates NFCC#X", when it seems that violating any of the criteria means it can be speedy deleted. But anyone who looks at any controversial IfD debate will soon see that people disagree over the NFCC criteria, as some are very subjective, such as NFCC#8. Possibly WP:NFCC got expanded or changed drastically, and this CSD was not updated? POssibly what I7 is trying to say is "tag the image, and if the uploader doesn't object, you can delete it". Kind of like a PROD system for images, except I thought that was frowned upon? Are there really admins out there who judge an image on the NFCC criteria, notify the uploader, and then, after the period of time stated, delete without an IfD? This just seems like normal process, not speedy deletions. The history behind how the CSD (I7) developed might help explain the current wording. Anyway, it is confusing for those reading it for the first time. I like the suggestion above of "without further notification or discussion", but with the proviso that 'further' is misleading - sometimes no discussion has taken place (or is needed). Carcharoth 15:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well "without the need for notification or discussion" is what speedy deletion is defined as. What I guess I'm saying is that having a criterion that states "an image can be speedied because (X) if it has no (Y), as long as it is tagged for (Z) amount of time" isn't speedy deletion. The rationale for speedy deleting should be that the tag has expired, not that the image has no (Y), so all these ones which deal with timeframes could be merged into one criterion.

Don't DFU tagged images only go to IfD if they're contested? The 7 days notification gives the uploader a chance to contest the deletion, what the speedy criterion is saying that DFU images can be speedily deleted if uncontested after a week. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 15:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I personally find the separation useful, in that it presents the minimum requirements an image (especially ones used under fair use) must meet. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't mind having some separate ones per se, I mind the fact that the result is a full page of legalese text. Its verbosity is confusing. I think this could use some trimming. >Radiant< 16:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • That I can definitely agree with. I've proposed a simplification of criterion I7, which is the longest after I8, below. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent wording changes

I object to this recent change. In the process of trying to clean up wording, the substntive policy effect has been changed. The previous change exempted from speedy deletion as a recreation content that had been moved to user space, i.e userfied. The current verswion exempts any such content that is in userspace. This is a mistake. DES ^(talk) 15:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

the same change also obscured the fact that deletion reveiw, although not a deletion discussion per se, delets content when it overturns a "keep" close" and that content so deleted is also subject to G4. I have corrected the wording on both points. DES ^(talk) 15:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• First, note that content recreated in user space in order (e.g. to work on it) is just as valid an exception as content moved there (although of course speediable if an advertisement). Note also that "deletion review" is de facto a deletion discussion (and per se too, if you must), as also indicated on deletion policy and Template:Deletiondebates. >Radiant< 16:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • DRV is not listed in the page linked to to define "deletion discussions" (Wikipedia:Deletion debates and not generally considered as a deletion discussion. As for content recreated, no, it isn't IMO. When articel content is recreated in userpsace by the original creator, an admin who doubts the intention to create an improved draft may and often will delete it. I would limite the exception to cases where an uninvolved admin or experienced editor has sanctioned the new draft by moving it to userspace. If we want to change this policy, very well, but that is a change, and should be discussed first. DES ^(talk) 16:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Don't be silly. How can deletion review not be a deletion discussion? It is (1) a discussion, and (2) about deletion, ergo ipso facto it's a deletion discussion. >Radiant< 16:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• I have also restored the languge " If the category isn't relatively new, it possibly contained articles earlier, and deeper investigation is needed" to C1. I think this is an important caution to deleting admins. DES ^(talk) 16:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The problem is that CSD accumulates unnecessary and redundant warnings over time, and sometimes these need to be toned down to avoid instruction creep. The general gist of "don't delete things before checking if they have a meaningful history" is already stated two or three times on the page, there's no need to repeat that with each individual criterion. >Radiant< 16:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, a good effort I think. Attempts to clean up policy language are always met with claims they change the substantive policy. Maybe so, and if someone objects they can always fix it or further improve it, and we go from there. Wikidemo 18:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Simplification of criterion I7

Criterion I7 permits deletion of any non-free media that fails any part of the non-free content criteria, under the following constraints:

• If uploaded after July 13, 2006, the media may be deleted 48 hours after notification of the uploader.
• If uploaded before July 13, 2006, the media may be deleted 7 days after notification of the uploader.
• If tagged with the {{Replaceable fair use}} template, regardless of when it is uploaded, the media may be deleted 7 days after notification of the uploader.

In addition, the criterion specifies that non-free media with a clearly invalid fair-use tag may be deleted on-sight.

The criterion, as worded, is unnecessarily complicated and even seems to contradict itself. Tagging an image as {{replaceable fair use}} is the same as asserting that it violates the non-free content criteria (NFCC). So, I propose the following changes:

1. Remove mention of the specific case of {{replaceable fair use}} media and focus more generally on violations of the NFCC.
2. Fix the wait-period at 7 days for all media, regardless of when it was uploaded (I think this is what usually happens in any case).
3. Allow deletion 7 days after tagging as opposed to 7 days after notification, as is the case with I4-I6 (I think this more closely reflects current practice).

So, criterion I7 would become:

Invalid fair-use claim. Non-free images or media that fail any part of the non-free content criteria may be tagged for review with {{subst:dfu}} and may be deleted after seven days if not corrected. Such images can be found in the dated subcategories of Category:All disputed non-free images. Non-free images or media with a clearly invalid fair-use tag (such as a {{logo}} tag on a photograph of a mascot) may be deleted at any time.

Please modify the wording as necessary. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• It's a definite improvement. Can we perhaps merge this with I6? Seems to me that a missing claim and an invalid claim are substantially overlapping. >Radiant< 16:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

  I agree that that would definitely be a start. If we can have four different instances merged into one I can't see any harm in having a fifth. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 16:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

  • • I'm a little ambivalent ... a missing claim to fair use is not the same as an invalid claim to fair use. A fair use image with a missing claim can be deleted on-sight (though one should, of course, consider whether it's possible to just add a rationale); one with an invalid claim requires review and perhaps deeper examination. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have left a neutral request for comment at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. --Iamunknown 17:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, we really ought to clean up this mess. It's convoluted, confusing, and contradictory.
  • Merge I7 with I6, which it seems to contradict. All legacy images or images that are not caught immediately on upload should be on the same 7-day standard, to avoid making conflicting categories and to provide people reasonable time to resolve these. Except in the case of clear copyright violations, which we can delete immediately, I see no reason for a rush, or why 7 days will not do.
  • We have to decide between I6, which says "If a use rationale is provided but disputed, use Images and media for deletion instead." and I7, which says "Non-free images..that fail any part of the non-free content criteria...may be deleted [under CSD]." I favor the former.
  • Replaceable fair use CSD should only be done if the person challenging the image can argue convincingly that there is a fair use replacement,be based on specific criteria in the policy and guidelines not on a vague hypothetical claim that there might be a replacement. If it's based on a hypothetical or logical argument I would use the images for deletion process. (Note: modifying this bullet point to avoid anything seen as a controversial change in policy)
  • "Clearly invalid fair-use tag" is a misnomer. It should be "clearly invalid copyright tag claiming fair use." No reason to delete these any faster than any other image except in cases of obvious copyright infringement. These should be on the seven day standard as well.
  • We might want to distinguish between legacy / already admitted images and a newly-uploaded faulty image. If someone uploads an image with an improper copyright tag or no fair use rationale, and we catch them in the act (say within the first 24 hours), is there any reason to give them 7 days? The faster the tagging and shorter the period, the faster we can train new users to use the system correctly, and the less work for everyone.
  • Whatever changes we make, even if we don't make any changes, we should update the policy statements at WP:NFCC and WP:NONFREE to conform to this page. It's been argued (and the subject in part of an edit war) that to the extent this page contradicts the statement at WP:NFCC, the statement on that page has priority. Thus, no matter what we say here, any image may be deleted after two days according to this argument. Wikidemo 18:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Two comments: The "replaceable fair use" tag is redundant to the "Dated fair use" tag, but considering that (traditionally) the former template and justification for deletion is more widespread than the latter, I am not sure that it would be best to deprecate its use.
• Additionally, if our intent is to simplify the language as opposed to drastically change the processes, I oppose the suggestion that, "Replaceable fair use CSD should only be done if the person challenging the image can argue convincingly that there is a fair use replacement". One may certainly disagree with the notion that another editor can claim an image is "replaceable fair use" yet not have an immediate replacement, but we have been doing these kinds of deletion for a very long time. The place for discussion of that thread is not here at CSD but at NONFREE. --Iamunknown 18:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I beg to differ. There is no drastic change, only a clarification. The deletions we have been doing are for violations of specific policy and guideline situations at WP:NONFREE, e.g. pictures of living people or still-extant musical groups, and we are not proposing to change that. What I do want to clarify is that people should not make ad hoc arguments that an image is replaceable and nominate it for speedy deletion as a result. That kind of thing often leads to great controversy at NONFREE. The place to talk about specific policy and guideline examples is at NONFREE. THe place to talk about implementing them through speedy deletion, and how to handle that in cases that don't fit cleanly into those examples, is here. My bullet points are not intended as proposed language; only calling these matters to people's attention. If we do clarify this point we should draw a distinction, or simply narrow the language for replaceability so that it references the specific policy or guideline points, not the generalized concept of replaceability. Wikidemo 19:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree with Iamunknown that "replaceable" has always meant "hypothetically replaceable" not "there is a free replacement waiting in the wings". The fundamental principle is that as long as we continue using the nonfree image there is little incentive for anyone to go out of their way to replace it. This is already covered by WP:NFCC#1 - one cannot write a correct fair use rationale for a use where a free replacement "could be created". The "replaceable fair use" CSD provides the mechanism for deleting images where a free replacement could be created. It can always be "appealed" to DRV if the replaceability is not clear, or the speedy deletion tag can be replaced by an IFD tag by anyone who wants to do so. I don't think it's necessary to weaken the CSD for this. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Okay, I see where you are coming form. I've modified my bullet point above accordingly. It may be a discussion worth having but I don't want to sidetrack us from the task at hand of simplifying the image criteria. Again, I'm trying to raise some issues and not proposing the specific language there. Wikidemo 20:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• As I've commented elsewhere[5], the rules lack a distinction between new and established content. Established images might have been uploaded by parties who are no longer active (such as myself, for the most part), and who won't see notices in 7 days. To that end, Wikipedia needs to have more advocacy for established images, and more discussion of any concerns that they might pose. Especially old images are likely to not conform to modern rules of the site, but that doesn't mean that they're not valid and useful images. We should probably put at least as much time into trying to maintain a years-old image as we do deleting it.... -Harmil 22:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Black Falcon's suggested re-wording works for me. However, the 48 hours of I7, which comes from WP:NFCC#Non-compliance, applies to more than just the fair use rationale (no source, not published outside Wikipedia, etc). When we originally put the 48 hours in CSD, I7 seemed to be the logical choice, but if it's going to focus only on FUR then maybe it needs to be noted in another place. -- Ned Scott 05:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I9?

I would like to propose I9 to allow the speedy deletion of any unused free vanity image. An example of such an image would be one that the user placed originally on their user page, but that user page was deleted through WP:CSD, WP:PROD or WP:MFD process. These images, despite being free, add no value to the project and are usually snapshots of the user themselves which belong more appropriately on myspace or some other webhost. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

"Vanity" is far too broad, and "adds no value to the project" is also a massive judgment call; any image can be used to describe something, even if it is adding an example camera phone quality photo to the relevant article. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 15:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, so are you saying that the wording needs improvement, or that we should have unused pictures of users sitting in the image space, or that they should be deleted through IFD instead? I have a hard time believing that a portrait shot of User:XYZ could ever be used on any mainspace article, or anyplace outside of User:XYZ's user page. If that page is deleted for not#myspace concerns, shouldn't the image go with it? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The former. I'm not saying snapshots of users are all going to be useful, but to speedy something because it is "vanity" and "adds no value to the project" without actually discussing this viewpoint is too subjective. I guess this opens up the "images used only in deleted pages" debate again, which I think has been proposed before and would be a far better and less creepy way of adressing this issue. But then, a lot of potentially useful images will get deleted, when they really should be moved to commons. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 18:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I am not looking to delete all "images used only in deleted pages" because as noted, some do have value for going to commons. Unfortunately, there is no way to tell what namespace the deleted page is in unless the "orphaner" logged it on the image page, usually unlikely. I guess I can IFD these, although I must confess that I have on occasion deleted them on my own judgment to reduce IFD backlog where I have felt them to be obvious. It would be nice if there could be a criteria that would make sense, but if not, c'est la vie. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I also think there is a need for a way not to clutter IFD with all these PD/GPL-self images. What about taking the problem an other way, and since these user pages usually go through PROD or MfD do "I9 - Images that were solely on an page that got deleted". -- lucasbfr ^talk 22:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted many of these images obviously just uploaded as part of a vanity/spam/whatever article, and never gotten a complaint. If an image actually was useful in a legitimate article, I'd undelete. I don't think we really need a new rule. --W.marsh 23:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• "images used solely on a page that got deleted" - we already delete those and call it housekeeping. >Radiant< 08:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Expansion of A7?

This may have come up before, but I haven't seen it: is there a reason why A7 is limited to "a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject", so that (1) fictional people, groups, bands, clubs, etc., and (2) any content that is in any purported form other than web (be it micropress, a high school essay, on the radio, tv) are technically excluded from this criterion. What was the rationale for doing that? Is that rationale still valid? Carlossuarez46 06:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not honestly sure. I would prefer simplifying it to "An article which does not assert the importance or significance of the article subject." What would be wrong with that? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem with it is that for obscure areas there is no consensus as to what is an assertion of notability, so that such articles require a broader discussion. Another issue is that the speedy deletion criteria were created to relieve the pressure on AfD and unti it can be demonstrated that a particular type of article is clogging AfD then the critera should not be expanded. Dsmdgold 10:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe my experience is from newspaper writing, but any good fact piece (whether it's on a well-known subject or a totally obscure one) should at least make an attempt to answer the ever-present reader's question—"Why should I care?" If I write an article on a proton, even if you don't have the first clue what a proton is, I can tell you that it's one of the basic building blocks of the atom, and is present in every single atom in the universe. You still don't know what a proton actually is, but you sure at least now know it's pretty damned important. If you don't know the first thing about calculus, I can tell you it's used frequently in fields from engineering to business management. Again, you still don't know a thing about calculus, but now you sure know why you might want to! It's not hard to assert significance. A7 doesn't even require any proof of significance, just that a reasonable assertion be present. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Seraphimblade on that, a claim - discounting the absurd (e.g., "King of the World") - which if true would meet the established notability guidelines, or at least raise significant issues towards meeting them should be required to avoid being a speedy candidate. Carlossuarez46 17:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at a few of the sections currently on this talk page. The most important, #Read this before proposing new criteria, has four guidelines for new criteria which also apply to expanding existing criteria. The second and third guidelines have not been shown to have been met here, which makes it difficult to justify expanding A7 as suggested. Second, A7 was under discussion a week ago at #Another non-criteria and #Proposal to add animals to A7 (and also #WP:CSD should rely as little as possible on admin discretion, though that discussion bears less relevance to this section), and you may find answers to your questions in one of those sections. BigNate37_(T) 17:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

What determines an assertion of notability may be difficult to determine for specialised topics. For instance, is it notable that a strange quark is the "lightest of the quarks"? One of the biggest problem topics is art. What constitutes an assertion of notability for an artistic work? Is it financial success? Is it influence in a particular genre? Is it a particularly rare pattern of brushstrokes or sounds? Is it capturing a particular moment in history? Is the identity of the artist? Is it some minute detail in technique or composition which is likely to be unknown to all except an artist or art expert? — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'd see it as any of the above, provided the significance is reasonably explained. If the article states "This work was the first to use the Painting With Your Eyes Closed technique, which has been in wide use ever since", that's an assertion, and prevents speedy. If it's asserted to be an early work of Michelangelo, that's an assertion, and prevents speedy. If someone wants to assert that the Painting With Your Eyes Closed technique was only ever used infrequently and rarely, and has made no significant impact on the art world, or that the idea it came from Michelangelo is someone's crackpot theory with nothing to back it up, they can take it to AfD and argue that. That's not over-reliance on admin discretion (it's actually not any more reliance than currently, admins are already to delete a broad variety of articles upon determination that they do not assert significance, this would just make it an "any" rather than a "most"), and articles on products, theories, etc., clog up AfD because they can't (technically) be done under A7. (Or, frequently enough, they just are done under A7 anyway, leading to "policy follows practice" anyway. I've certainly done a few clear A7's that didn't quite technically fit one of the categories, none were ever DRV'd or questioned. And as always, borderline or questionable cases should go to AfD, but that's true whether it changes or stays the same. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that notability can be asserted for any topic, but we should consider that most articles are not created by experienced writers. Experienced writers know that the first sentence or two of an article must "hook" the reader by providing information about the subject of the article in such a way that answers the question: "Why should I continue reading this?" However, since we can't assume that most users are experienced writers, it may not occur to whomever creates an article, especially if they're unaware of the notability guidelines, to write "This work was the first to use the PWYEC technique, which has been in wide use since". They may just write: "This work was the first to use the PWYEC technique" and not think to actually explain the significance of the technique. I'm not specifically opposed to this kind of expansion of A7, but just want to point out some of the problems. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Though we've been discussing notability in some ways here, the core discussions on the topic, which I have not followed, take place over at Wikipedia talk:Notability. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Removing the word "real" or changing it to "real or fictional" would leave the criterion no different vis-a-vis the guidelines above, cited by BigNate, and change "web content" to "work of authorship or product" or something similar would again fit. These do come up at speedy, prod, and afd quite often. See Fish'n Chicks (2002), now prodded, has sufficient context and content to know it's a film, A7 cannot apply. So, they get 5 days of free webhosting - and if they hang around long enough and contest the prod they get up to 5 more days at afd, and anyone else who wants to make an article that is just less than spam about their product, book, film, song, gets some the same courtesy extended to them. When the average number of articles at Afd seems to be increasing and because few people have the time to comment the over 100 or so of them daily, often 2 people the nominator and one more "delete" seems to form consensus. With that in mind, let's be fair to the encyclopedia and not burden it with articles that are not worthy of inclusion: this isn't a court of law, the articles don't have due process rights, we have no rules of evidence, we have no beyond a reasonable doubt standards, we don't need to be right 100% of the time, most deleted material that's not attack or copyvio will be restored and afd'ed on request of the author, and finally there's DRV to correct over aggressiveness. I disagree that no discretion makes Wikipedia a better product. Carlossuarez46 00:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I made my answer above in the early hours of the morning as I was getting ready for work. I have most of the day to think about the original question and here is a more fully developed rational for not expanding A7 to include fictional characters or beyond web content, much less expanding it to include any article which lacks an assertion of notability. Speedy deletion should be reserved for content that is inarguably inappropriate for the encyclopedia in any form. If the content of a speedy candidate could conceivably be merged with any other article on a notable subject, then the speedy candidate should not be speedy deleted. For fictional people of groups of people, unless one is familiar with the source material it is impossible to know whether or not the content should be a stand alone article, merged into the main article for the fictional work, merged into a subsidiary article (such as Minor characters from Foo, the novel), or deleted altogether. For example, What would be made of an article that starts "William Bush is a fictional character in C.S. Forester's Horatio Hornblower series." does this contain an assertion of notability? For those familiar with the series, the answer is obvious, but to those not, perhaps not. The only way to be certain is to consider the character in relationship to the series, and the overall notability of the the series itself. Such decisions need more eyes looking at the article than happens with speedy deletion.

One rational for allowing the speedy deletion of web content but not other content is that web content is unique amongst all types of widely available content in that only web content can be made widely available without any sort of third party editing. Books, movies, newspapers, television shows, and the like are not usually widely available unless they have been approved by the various publishing companies' editors. (I know that there are exceptions, especially to books, but they are few enough in number to be ignored right now.) This creates a presupposition of notability for these types of content. Articles on other types of content that lack this type of editorial filter (student term papers, inter-departmental memos) are rare enough to be easily handled by the current PROD/AfD system.

I also think that it is much more difficult to judge assertions of notability than is assumed above. The example is given above that a work asserted to be an early Michelangelo has an assertion of notability. What about works asserted to be by Bramantino, Cipolla, Campagnola, Pollaiolo, Vermiglio, or Bonfigli. (All but one of those names are of artists from the Italian Renaissance. One is a modern economic historian, whose paintings would not be notable. Who is who?)

All of the leads to what I think should be a central guideline for speedy deletions in article space should be. Except for a few limited exceptions, if you cannot tell whether or not an article should be deleted without consulting information outside of the article itself, then the article should not be speedy deleted. (The exceptions would be Recreation of deleted material, Articles by a banned user, Author requests deletion, Housekeeping, Office actions, Foreign language articles that exist on another Wikimedia project, and Transwikied articles). Dsmdgold 02:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

In general, I would (and do) tend to agree with your principle there, that if there's something you have to look up, there's a good chance notability is at least asserted. (Though in this case, I bet you that all of your notable artists there have Wikipedia articles which could be linked to. If that article says "X was a major painter of the Italian Renaissance", and the assertion is the work's from them, there's your notability assertion. If it says "X is an economic historian at the Moneygrubber Institute", or no article exists at all, there you go!) As to the fictional series, we're talking about an assertion in this case. "Luke Skywalker is a fictional character from Star Wars" contains no notability assertion. "Luke Skywalker is a major character in the tremendously popular Star Wars science-fiction movies" most certainly does. (That's only an assertion, we still shouldn't be having articles on fictional characters without substantial sourcing about the characters, though I'm sure such exists on Luke Skywalker, but this is only about asserting notability, not actually possessing it.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

My point isn't so much that if something has to be looked up then notability has probably been asserted. Its that if you can't tell whether or not notability has been asserted without looking at other sources, then then the article needs more eyes looking at it. I believe that there are articles that don't assert notability that should not be speedy deleted, but which should be deleted through PROD or AfDso that those article that can be saved get a full chance at it. When we see an article that reads "Bob is a high school student with a solid C- average." then we know that there is nothing in that article that asserts notability, because we all agree that being a high school student with a C- average does not confer notability on anyone. If you see an article that reads "The death of St. Peter is a painting by Cipollo" our first thought is, "who is Cipolla?" If Cipolla is an important artist then his paintings might be notable. If he is an economic historian then his paintings are not notable. We can't tell by reading the article whether or not notability has been asserted. Perhaps we need an article on this painting, perhaps it needs to be merged and redirected, or perhaps it needs to be thrown away. We will get a better result if there is am oportunity for discussion than if we depend on the judgement of a single admin. Dsmdgold 02:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the difficulties but if the article is stubby but not so short that A1 or A3 applies, is "Lucy Skywalker was the illegitimate love child of Luke Skywalker - a major character in Star Wars - and his female servant. She performed heroic deeds and saved Princess Leia numerous times." Clearly an assertion is made that Lucy is somehow associated with Star Wars, even though - imagine - no sources for this faux fictitious character can or will be found. So Wikipedia will bear the shame of keeping it around for 5-10 days proclaiming to the world the facts about the great Lucy Skywalker. Is everyone comfortable with that? And the problem described is not confined to fictional people either, e.g. "Jane Doe is an actress and played the pivotal role of Lucy Skywalker in the popular Star Wars movies." Well, arguably any actress playing a pivotal role in films as notable as Star Wars is notable, but alas Lucy Skywalker never existed; Jane Doe may or may not exist, but there is an assertion of notability. Now if an intermediate editor deleted everything after the word "actress" (either as good housekeeping by removing hoaxes or a broad interpretation of BLP even) and then a speedy is sought, A7 would likely apply because the assertion that someone is an actress isn't an assertion of notability. Carlossuarez46 18:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

IMO. it is a bad idea to use an example form a well known series here. If the Lucy Skywalker article was written as above and sent to AfD, it would garner so many "delete, hoax" comments within the first few hours that it would be closed as a WP:SNOW by the end of the first day. The same can't be said about less familiar series, like my Hornblower example. In the case of less familiar works, yes I think that Wikipedia can bear the shame of having things around for a couple of weeks. I think it is more important to not loose valid material, and the contributors who make it than it is to get bad material out as quickly as possible. Even in the Lucy Skywalker example, it is unliklely that many people will see it since nobody would search for it and there would not be any inbound links to the article. If the creator tried to insert inbound links to relevent articles, they would be removed as quickly as they were put in by the tenders of those articles. Dsmdgold 03:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

A8

An article written as a scientific paper, an essay, a critical review, an analysis, an exposition, a discussion etc. - I come across articles describable as the preceding in italics all the time when patrolling the new pages, and I think this might be a good criteria. Often, these articles are too rubbishy to even merit going to AFD, but there is not a sub-criteria for them in the CSD. Feel free the bombard this proposal, its just that no other CSD criteria currently can be applied to these sort of things. Sure, there is A1, but thats for short articles, and often the articles explained in italics do provide context. From there, A2 - A7 are n/a to this sort of article. What do people think? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Examples:

1. Exposition: Pasta is an excellent food because it 1. taste's very good, with fresh Italian flavour 2. Is easy to make, with a few simple steps required to complete the process and 3. Because the ingredients are cheap and easy to obtain.
2. Scientific paper: We will now discuss the biological features of the African Example Flora, Examplorious Floraeus, at some length. The Example Flora can be used as an effective anti-biotic, as our tests found...
3. Critical review: the film was excellent. Smith played his role as the mass murderer very well, and the special effects were especially stunning in the bombing scene... -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

There are two problems with this suggestion.

1. CSDs need to be objective and largely uncontestable
2. Quite often such articles are very much fixable, and may have a worthwhile amount of content that isn't like that. If the article wouldn't end up blank (or otherwise CSDable) then it's certainly fine to excise such material, in my opinion. SamBC(talk) 05:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• It is an interesting proposal; however, I would like to see an indication of how often this actually comes up. Can you give some examples? >Radiant< 08:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Hard to do - most have been speedied through {{db-because}}. I'll try though... -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Disorders of Brain is a mild version of what I'm on. It has a mergeable and redirectable name, so it probably could do the latter or former. However, a name like My science paper on the Disorders of the Brain would be deleted. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Deleted and redirected now... -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Although the proposed criterion is nonredundant and covers an issue that arises frequently, I agree with SamBC that it is neither objective enough nor uncontestable. Moreover, in some cases, the problem is one of writing style and can be fixed relatively easily. For instance, the "scientific paper" example you provide could be reworded to Example Flora (Examplorious Floraeus) is an African plant with anti-biotic properties .... If the book or journal article on which the information is based is mentioned, you also have a source. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • All I guess I am saying is that I'm getting quite irritated at placing {{db-because}} on blatant violations of this proposed criterion. Blatant violations whose content could never become an article is what I'm talking about. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 16:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I can understand the frustration at the constant stream of 'articles' that belong in a blog rather than an encyclopedia, but I think tagging with {{prod}} (or one of the existing SD criteria) is a better option than a general SD criterion, largely because a criterion must (in order to be useful) generalise to classes of articles and cannot easily account for the "blatant-ness" of the relevant WP:NOT violation. Since these kinds of articles can sometimes be fixed and their deletion can be contestable, I think it's worth the extra effort of providing a specific deletion reason for each individual article. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
      • You give a good case. I guess I'll just have to satisfy myself with providing reasoning. Cheers -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 16:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

CSD I7: Invalid copyright tag claiming fair use

I have modified criterion I7 (diff) based on the discussion above, in the section #Simplification of criterion I7. Please modify the wording as necessary. I want to wait a few hours to see if the change will stick before updating Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#Non-compliance to reflect this policy. For the time being, I want to bring up an issue that was raised in the previous discussion by Wikidemo.

According the criterion, "Non-free images or media with a clearly invalid copyright tag claiming fair use (such as a {{logo}} tag on a photograph of a mascot) may be deleted at any time." ... Why? Most of the time it's simple enough to replace the invalid tag with the correct one. So, I propose that we make one of the following three changes:

1. Remove "invalid copyright tag claiming fair use" as a speedy deletion criterion. Rather, editors who encounter images with this problem should fix it and/or tag it for deletion for another reason (lack of licensing information, orphaned fair use, missing rationale, invalid rationale, and so on).
2. Require that images or media with an invalid copyright tags be tagged with {{subst:dfu|reason}}. This option still allows deletion for that reason, but permits time for others to fix the problem.
3. Move that sentence to criterion I3 (improper license).

Comments? — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The trouble there is, you may not know what it actually is. Especially with as real as graphics can get anymore, is that image a screenshot of a show, game, or movie, or is it a photo of something real? If it is a photo of something real, what's the thing in the photo? What's its copyright status? These are questions the uploader should be answering; if they clearly just picked at random, it's often pretty hard for anyone else to figure out. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point ... I hadn't considered it. I suppose it's similar to problems with determining the source of an image ... is it a personal photograph or a photo taken from a website; is it a scan of an original or a scan taken from a website? What about options #2 and #3? If others can't fix an invalid copyright tag, the 7-day window might be useful for the uploader. Or, we could just leave the sentence as worded, but move it to criterion I3 (improper license). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I admit to tagging such images, where what the image depicts is apparent, and where it was tagged with a clearly incorrect fair use tag, for speedy deletion, and such images have often been deleted. I also admit to simply changing the tag, leaving a note to the uploader, etc.

Less immediate channels of deletion, such as IfD or DfU, seem fine to me. It is indeed the case sometimes that what the image depicts is not clear, but it is also the case where what the picture depicts is apparent. We should not have a speedy deletion criterion which assumes that all mis-tagged images should be immediately deleted, and we should also not have a speedy deletion criterion which can be misused (by folks like me :\) to delete images which could merely be re-tagged. Hence, I am in support of removing it, and leaving a statement such as, "This criterion is superseded by alternative deletion processes (images and media for deletion or the "dated fair use" tag).", or something of the like. --Iamunknown 18:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)