Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 43

• Oppose - although I appreciate your sentiments, autobiography is not actually verbotten; merely very, very, very, VERY strongly discouraged. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I have encoutered many problems with the

For reference, previous discussions about adding software to A7 include: Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 34#Software and Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 24#Add non-notable software products to A7. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Much debate has gone into the wording for A7, and others cannot extrapolate the spirit of the criterion. Yes software is certainly out of scope for A7 speedy deletion and admins that delete it on that basis should also get a condescending note or fish slap. Speedy deletions are the result of community consensus, so things outside that consensus should not be speedy deleted. What is wrong with prod? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You seem to miss the point. Just because it may have once been that way does not mean that it should remain that way. Consensus is not a once-and-for-all thing. The point is that it needs to be changed. I could write a computer program now. What's the difference between writing an article on my new program and writing an article on my new best friend, or my new band, or my new dog walking company? — Fly by Night (talk) 02:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

With respect, it seems to be you who misses the point. If you want consensus to change, you need to be the one providing a convincing argument why the previous objections that lead to the current consensus have become incorrect. So far, your only argument seems to be based upon a mistaken assumption as to what A7 actually is. It's an exception from the rule, not a rule itself. Speedy deletion, especially those content-related criteria, has been created because the regular method of deletion, i.e. deletion by community consensus, proved to be overwhelmed by the amount of certain pages it had to handle. That's why A7, G11, etc. allow to bypass deletion discussions in those few cases and that's why they do not allow it in any other. You operated under a mistaken assumption of what the spirit of A7 is (you seem to think "anything not indicating importance of the subject" while in fact it's "any subject of a very specific group not indicating importance") and those "condescending" messages served to inform you of it. Instead of complaining that others are acting "condescendingly" or even accusing them of wikilawyering (

WP:AGF anyone?), you should accept that A7 simply does not mean what you think it means and thus you were probably the one wikilawyering (by claiming a rule has a spirit it doesn't and then basing your actions on this spirit). You are free to start a discussion about it, as you did here, but please do so based on the actual facts, otherwise success is imho impossible. Regards SoWhy

10:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

SoWhy's post above is spot-on. You knowingly and repeatedly misuse A7, and then cry "wikilawyer" when admins follow community consensus-driven policy and decline your CSD requests? Do you seriously expect reviewing admins to repeatedly invoke

IAR in order to delete material not covered by your incorrect A7 interpretation? Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots}

15:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Not to pile on, but I couldn't agree more with SoWhy. The community has made it abundantly clear to the admin corps that they want us to interpret the criteria very narrowly. If you don't like it, take it up with he community at large, but don't blame admins for doing exactly what they've been asked to do.

talk

) 16:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand, the content of SoWhy's post; although the tone was a little over the top. I had openly and honestly expressed my thoughts and feelings on the matter. There was no need to be so curt. As for Ponyo, well s/he really does need to assume good faith. In fact his comments are borderline personal attacks; claiming that I "knowingly and repeatedly misuse A7". Come on Ponyo, I'm calling your bluff. Show me a list of all my deleted CSDs and let's work out the percentage of A7s that have been rejected due to me knowingly misusing A7. If you can't then I want an apology. You claims are completely incorrect, and totally out of order! And after all the bashing, no-one bothered to address my main point: what's the difference between me writing an article about my new program, or my new best friend, or my new dog walking company. The response seems to be, that's the way it is; like it lump it. I apologise for expressing my thoughts and feelings on a policy talk page. I'll know to keep them to myself in future. — Fly by Night (talk) 20:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Could someone please link to this abundance of community clarification? Paul Erik's links are two short discussions, one in 2007 and one in 2009. — Fly by Night (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You specifically said "I have tried to follow the spirit of the

db-company}}, etc, then nominations are often declined". So, you knew that that A7 does not apply outside of specific cases, tagged them anyway, and then accuse admins of wiki-lawyering when they decline your nomination. Hence my comment "you knowingly and repeatedly misuse A7". I commented on your editing based specifically on your own opening statement - that is not anything near a personal attack. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots}

20:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

There's a big difference between trying to follow the spirit of a rule, i.e. trying to use it for what I think it is designed for, and knowingly and repeatedly misusing a rule. I'm sure you can see the difference. I was doing what I thought was right, and what I thought the rule was intended for. But I've been left, less than friendly, messages telling me that A7 is not for that. If I had continued to used A7 then that would be knowingly and repeatedly misusing it. But I haven't. I came across an article that I believe A7 should cover, but doesn't; and instead of tagging it I came here to discuss it. It also seems that I'm not the only one, given the 2007 and 2009 threads linked to above. I assume that you won't be retracting your comments, which is a shame. It's very sad that you're quick to accuse me of disruptive editing, but then you refuse to supply evidence, and you refuse to retract. Please try not to make unsubstantiated accusations of disruptive editing, especially when it's not true. It can be very hurtful. I give a lot of my time to patrolling new pages, and I get it right 99 times out of 100. All this thread has done is to leave me feeling unappreciated, and personally insulted. Net result: I stop patrolling new pages, and the project loses out. Good work. — Fly by Night (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

People have been a little sharp here, and I don't think they mean to say that the work you've done isn't appreciated. But I don't think you really have a great argument regarding your previous use of A7. I'm all for trying to follow the spirit of a rule, but it's not following the spirit to use it in a way which is expressly contemplated and rejected in the text itself. I think you would have received a better reception if you had simply tried to start a discussion about amending the rule rather than acting like the rule itself is being misapplied as it stands now, which is what you did. You might want to just try to start a new discussion in that manner. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 22:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. The point is that I don't apply A7 in any other way than is explicitly written. That's why I created the post in the first place: I found an example of something that, IMHO, should be included in A7, but isn't. I didn't tag it, but I came here instead; thinking that I was doing the right thing. I really can't see how, from my OP, anyone can infer anything bad about my use of A7. It's a real shame though. Maybe I didn't explain myself properly, or maybe people misunderstood what I wrote. Either way, you are right that a new discussion is best. But, to be honest, there's no point. I could see from the knee-jerk hostility, that as soon as I question administrator actions I get wholesale opposition. — Fly by Night (talk) 22:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe that impression comes from you discussing A7 and software, and then saying that you've tried to follow its spirit only to be talked to by people who are wikilawyering. What I inferred from this was that you had applied A7 outside of its content limitations in the past, and believed the administrators who declined to delete were incorrect in doing so. That might be a misunderstanding. I don't think you should give up if it's something that you think matters. People might have negative reactions no matter what you propose or how you do so. But I think you're much more likely to also get supporters if you clearly approach CSD on software as something that is not currently available but should be. Doing it that way does not question anyone's actions, it only suggests that a new policy might be better going forward. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 23:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Good point, and well made. Thanks for the advice. — Fly by Night (talk) 23:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

If it means anything to you, you're not completely alone in feeling that way. WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Simplify policy RfC would suggest that your view is not so universally looked down upon (my own view is further up the page). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I hope it's clearer now that people are not hostile to you, FBN; but they feared you didn't understand that A7 is one of those "everything not included is excluded" rather than "everything not excluded is included" things. I personally would love to include movies, books, songs, albums, and software under A7; but so far, the consensus is against me. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It does seem clearer now, thanks Mike. It's disappointing because the only people to be hostile are admins, and they are both able to check my deleted edits. I have more than 700 deleted edits, and almost all of these come from correct CSD, PROD and AfD tags. IMHO I know Wikipedia and its policies quite well. But it doesn't make a difference. I've experienced this sort of hostility at

WP:AN/I too. My experience of Wikipedia's back rooms is that they're full of angry people that like to make people feel bad; that is why Wikipedia is broken, and why it will stay that way. — Fly by Night (talk

) 23:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Fly, you said "if a nomination does not meet one of the particular examples, e.g. {{

db-company

}}, etc, then nominations are often declined. " I hope that is inaccurate; if a nomination is outside these classes it should always be declined. If it is felt necessary to stretch the criteria a little, the criterion G11 is much less definite and more susceptible to necessary judgment. Do you have any examples of where you made a nomination for something else in A7, and it was not declined. Those are the problem cases, and, with all due respect to my brothers-in-arms, the problem administrators.

Mike,the reason the categories you mention are excluded is that too many mistakes would be made if we included them. Books are the ones I know about, and judging by the books nominated for Prod, so many such articles are written by inexperienced beginners, and from what is written it is very easy for two people to think it absurdly unlikely that a book be notable, and yet it is. It might even be a famous prize winner that neither of them has known about (cf. Brown Girl, Brownstones. The community must see them at least on prod, so someone who recognizes them will spot it. Similarly for software, as I understand it. As for songs, I don't think you'd want to trust an admin as ignorant as myself of most genres of music to delete them. People and clubs, anyone can judge. DGG ( talk ) 01:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

No, because all of my deleted CSD nominations have been deleted, and I can no longer access them. Please feel free to look through them on my behalf. — Fly by Night (talk) 02:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Can do, and will. But I am much less concerned with what people may have done wrong in the past, than in what they do going forwards. DGG ( talk ) 16:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You want to talk about stretching, talk about criteria G2. Personally I think the majority of articles deleted G2 were not really test pages. Monty₈₄₅ 05:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I confess I have myself used G2 to mean "playing with the wiki but not amounting to vandalism".I think people actually do often use such pages to test, in the sense of "let me enter something silly to see if I can edit", or even "let me enter this to see how soon it gets deleted." Sometimes this is a downgrade from a G3 vandalism tag that could be called vandalism, in the spirit of WP:DENY, and I consider that a valid use of IAR. I've also used it, similarly as a downgrade under IAR, instead of db-person to avoid saying no indication of importance when its a child, or entered as a joke. But I suspect it may be used sometimes to mean "hopelessly non-notable but not an A7 category", and I'm not sure that's always totally wrong either. I'll check a few such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 16:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi guys, I just wanted to let you all know that I decided to

I'd like to rethink the message used in Twinkle for G12. (I'm not entirely sure whether this belongs here or at Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle, but I think of that page as discussing the technical details of the tool, while this is where policy like decisions should be made. After further thought, it probably need to go to [[WP:VPR for formal approval, but I think this is the right group to draft the proposal.)

I don't want there to be any confusion that I take a hard line on inclusion of material in WP that is in violation of copyright. Absolutely not allowed. However, I think there's a distinction between what we allow in the encyclopedia, and the messages we send to editors who may simply be ignorant of the rules.

Specifically, the message includes the phrase "Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing" with "will be" in bold. To be sure, many editors appear to think it is OK to copy some random website. They need to be told that's not acceptable. However, there are other cases, technical violations, where the wording is too

A few minutes ago, an editor tried to use material from this page. Note the Creative Commons license. Yes, it turns out to be non-compatible, but an editor who knows that WP accepts no ads, might assume WP is non-commercial. The assumption that the license might be compatible is an incorrect assumption, but it is hardly an implausible assumption.

What I suggest is that we modify the wording on our standard message. I haven't come up with substitute wording yet, but I will if there is general support for a change. I am more than happy for strong wording for repeat offenders, but I think the first time they make an error, we should AGF.

Ideally, I see two messages. One with less bitey language, and a second stronger one. I see two broad options, but matter there an even better solutions:

1. Create two message, one not yelling about a block option and the other one including the a stronger language. Let each tagger pick which one is appropriate, so the stronger one could be used if the tagger is sure that it isn't inadvertent.
2. Create two messages as above, but use the weaker one always for a first offense (effectively an AGF even when you might think otherwise for a first offense) and save the second one in cases where it is a repeat offense.

I think the second option is easier to implement, but I'm open to argument for the first option, or even an option 3 which may be something I haven't considered.--SPhilbrickT 22:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

There are already several templates:{{

Nothanks-sd}}, {{Nothanks-web}} and{{Db-copyvio-notice}} The middle one is probably the least bitey. Technically that one is for use as notification with the {{copyvio}} template, but there doesn't really seem to be anything there that would not also work with a AGF speedy deletion situation. Monty₈₄₅

02:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, if the author of another website is using their own text, and claims to have authority to license the text to Wikipedia, isn't that technically outside the realm of G12? Monty₈₄₅ 02:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Responding to your last point, my experience has been that many editors assume they can reuse their own material, and assertions that they have the right to license come up after the G12, not before. I agree that if the editor has already made the claim, it ought to be handled differently, but there are many examples where they don't make the claim until challenged.--SPhilbrickT 12:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:Copyright problems#Copyright owners who submitted their own work to Wikipedia (or people editing on their behalf) covers this, but it seems that the G12 may be allowed to go through. {{copyvio}} replaces the G12 tag in unclear cases, but there's no mention of using it in this situation. Flatscan (talk) 04:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The current description of G12 includes the following "For equivocal cases (such as where there is a dubious assertion of permission, or where free-content edits overlie the infringement), please consult Wikipedia:Copyright violations." (bold from me). It is not explicit how do deal with a situation where the assertion is made after the CSD G12 is applied. My sense would be that even if the assertion of permission is made after the G12, AGF, it should be switched to {{copyvio}}. Furthermore, it is possible to read assertion of permission to require they claim to have already submitted permission through OTRS, but as generally CSD criteria err in favor of not deleting, if that is the intent it should be clarified. All that said, I have tried replacing a G12 with a copyvio, it was promptly edit warred off, and unlike the G12 tag, there is no bot waiting to pounce on the removal, and I don't think most RC patrollers realize there is anything inherently suspicious about the removal of a copyvio template. If I had seen that coming I would have left the G12 and let the admin delete it G12, as most admins will delete on a G12 tag regardless or protestations about having authority to repost the content. Would have been easier then digging up people to restore the copyvio tag (it is not clear to me that my edit warring it back would be exempt from 3rr, so I didn't). Monty₈₄₅ 05:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I missed WP:Copyright violations#Dealing with copyright violations, which supports using {{copyvio}}. As Doug wrote below, the tag's safety net is the CP listing. Flatscan (talk) 04:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Responding to your first point, thanks for pointing out those alternatives. They read better, but all mention the possibility of blocking. I don't think our first interaction with an editor, who may be attempting to contribute in good faith, should be a threat to block them. I'm fine with strong wording for repeat offenders, but let's not start with a threat to block.--SPhilbrickT 12:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, we may want to consider amending one of those to remove the explicit reference to blocking. Maybe make an oblique reference to it, changing it: "Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing" violations will not be tolerated. Though I think modifying that one should be discussed either at the template talk, or at copyright violations. Monty₈₄₅ 05:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Just a note: if you use {{

talk • contribs

) 06:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Even if the article has a title such as the ones you mentioned, it would still be without context. The only difference it would make is that it would now read "Derek Trotter is a funny man with a yellow car. He makes people laugh." which still contains no context whatsoever to identify who the subject actually is. No context does not mean that you don't know what the name of man with the yellow car is but that you know it and still are unable to actually identify him in a way that would allow a reader to tell him apart from others having the same name. For example, "Derek Trotter is a character from Only Fools and Horses" would be shorter but have sufficient context to identify him. Regards SoWhy 15:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh Lords of the CSD, forgive me if this is often asked, but why is that A9 covers only musical recordings, and not films, software, TV shows, podcasts, etc that are also cultural production. I ask because I just had to PROD a film article that had it been about a recording would have been clear A9 (no claim of notability made).--Cerejota (talk) 22:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

See WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 41#Propose expansion of A9. I'd like to expand A9, but IMO the fighting and ill will it would create just isn't worth it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

There are two components to A9. First article about the recording must not assert importance or significance and there must be no article about the artist. This because it is exceedingly rare for a musical recording by a non-notable artist to be individually notable. For >99% of films and TV programmes, most software and many podcasts there is not the same direct link between a singe person/group and the product.

For films, books, TV programmes and software it is common for the product of a non-notable artist/director/actor/producer/author/etc to be individually notable.

These together mean that A9 would not fit these articles. It doesn't mean a new criteria wouldn't, but every time I've seen it discussed there has been no demonstrated need for them to be speedily deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 23:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow, excellent explanation.--SPhilbrickT 21:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• The real answer, in my estimation, is pragmatic: transparently promotional articles on non-notable musical acts created by single purpose accounts are vastly more common than the same for books. If the criteria did not cover music, the backlog at AFD would be counted in decades. Not so for books, so we have time to consider them more closely. causa sui (talk) 17:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, pragmatism is one clear reason--the overwhelming number of such are musical recordings, (and I note it's only musical recordings not music in general.) The other reason, is that for most musical recordings that fall under this criterion, it is exceedingly easy to tell, even for someone like myself who is almost totally ignorant about most genres of music. If there's no article on the artist(s), and no claim that the particular recording has any particular distinction, the chances of it being notable are essentially zero, especially considering our extremely detailed coverage of musicians in many genres. This is not the case with book. For books, most that might fall under this heading are children's books with articles written by children, of the nature of a third-grade book report, and does not know how to say anything indicating importance. . The book is quite likely to be notable, because it will usually have been assigned or suggested by a teacher or librarian, and our coverage of authors of this books is very poor, And most Wikipedians may well never have heard of it, unless it was a book from their own childhood. It therefore has to be checked carefully, for the odds are it is possible to easily write an acceptable article, and usually an article on the author started as well, for we need to encourage increased coverage in this area. Films can be similar. Broadcast TV programs also, especially older ones--and articles on current ones are almost always for ones that appeared only on youtube, and therefore covered by the A7 provision for internet content. (podcasts would thus I think be covered under A7 also). Other things sometimes suggested for A7 or A9 are even hard to tell, such as computer programs , which notorious give rise to some of our most contentious AfDs. DGG ( talk ) 20:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

it is specifically about avoiding duplicating text with Wiktionary NOT about linking to Wiktionary. Why have a {{wi}} instruction if it cant be used. It makes no sense. --Penbat (talk) 12:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It certainly can be used, but generally shouldn't. From the template:"This template is only for dictionary definitions that currently exist on Wiktionary and which, due to previous re-creations, are likely to be re-created in unencyclopedic form. Do not place it on every possible word." That means that any newly created article using it is subject to A5.—Kww(talk) 12:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh i see what you are saying: Template:Wiktionary_redirect/doc. I cannot for the life of me see any reason why not to link all Wikipedia articles to Wiktionary not having Wikipedia text but having Wiktionary text. What is the harm in that ? I personally find it very useful. --Penbat (talk) 12:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

To keep it simple, we do not want WP articles that are simply replacements or functional duplicates of

Template:wi is to prevent editors from doing that re-creation of a DICDEF article without preventing the possible creation of a substantive wikipedia article of the same name. LeadSongDog come howl!

14:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

{{

wi}} is also used where there hasn't been a history of recreation, but where there is evidence of a significant number of sources and nowhere suitable to redirect the title to. This is currently proposed for Equidistant - see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 July 25#Equidistant. Thryduulf (talk

) 15:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The whole point of the criterion is for pages that were created here but belong somewhere else — for example, someone creates a page in mainspace with the entire text of an old book; ideally, that content will be moved to Wikisource and then the page will be deleted under A5. Since a page with nothing but {{

wi}} is not going to have that content moved to Wiktionary, an A5 deletion is not appropriate, so I'd support the inclusion of the text added by Penbat. Conversely, the idea of creating large numbers of pages with that template is not ideal; some of them may be valid article topics, and new editors often don't realise that any type of redirect (whether hard ones like from one en:wp page to another, or various types of soft redirects, such as this) can be edited by anyone. Nyttend (talk

) 23:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree. A5 does only cover pages that could be created at another project. Pages with the {{

soft redirects and thus should be handled by R3 or RFD. As such, admins who handle soft redirects as articles are misapplying the spirit of A5.. I'd support re-adding Penbat's clarification to hopefully minimize the amount of such mistakes. Regards SoWhy

13:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

PS: The

wi}} template and states that soft redirects are not subject to the A1-A10 criteria but rather the processes for deleting redirects. As it's the specific guideline for this very issue while CSD is only the general policy, I think the special rule takes precedence (see Lex specialis). Regards SoWhy

13:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, although {{

wi}}. See #Redirects below." would work best I think. The end of the redirects section already notes that RfD deals with soft redirects, but it might be worth noting in the notes at the bottom of the articles section as well. Thryduulf (talk

) 14:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that a soft-redirect to Wiktionary falls under A5. Such a page might want to be deleted, but A5 isn't the way to go about it. Consequently, I support the clarifying text.

BTW, Penbat, you can link directly to Wiktionary inline, like this: [[wikt:foo|foo]], which produces foo. As a result, it's not necessary or even appropriate to provide soft-redirect pages to the majority of words. Unlike the soft-redirect, the piped inline link gets the reader to the Wiktionary page with a single click, so I often think it preferable. I'd only create a soft-redirect page when I was trying to send the message that nobody should try to create an article on this word. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

At the very least, soft redirects to other Wikimedia sister projects should be discussed. They probably aren't all automatically appropriate, but they certainly shouldn't be speediable.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 13:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Based on my comments in the

Not every dictionary definition should be speedily deleted, and we need to be careful about not biting newcomers who create a dicdef in good faith. However where the word/term being defined:

• Already exists in Wiktionary, or
• Has been deleted from Wiktionary, or
• Will never be acceptable in Wiktionary (e.g. no evidence of existence)

Then a transwiki would be pointless. Obviously if {{

Obviously whether something already exists in Wiktionary or not is a trivially discoverable binary option (either it does or it doesn't), so this shouldn't pose any problems. Whether a title was deleted from Wiktionary or not is also discoverable but it's not always going to be clear if it is the same something unless either the tagger or reviewing admin is also a Wiktionary admin (possible but statistically not likely), although things like a recent creation date and/or the same creator make it more likely to be the same thing. How to deal with this will need to be addressed. The third case is the most difficult to determine without knowledge of Wiktionary policies (something that we cannot expect a Wikipedia admin to be familiar with).

If there is a desire to make these cases speedily deletable (which the above referenced section suggests there might be) then I don't think these issues will be unsolvable. I wondered about expanding this to cover other projects as well as Wiktionary, but I doubt that the frequency of such things being posted here warrants speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty hard to stretch "no content" to something like the neologism-phobias that popped up at around the time of this sockpuppet investigation. They weren't exactly blatant hoaxes either, because if you check the root words, they are true. --Σ ^talk_contribs 19:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

There's a rather fine line between a dictionary definition and an acceptable stub or short article. In addition many dictionary definitions can be turned into actual articles without much effort (so deletion isn't necessarily appropriate anyway). I think the issue is too subtle for CSD. Hut 8.5 19:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you seen #Arbitrary section break yet, Hut 8.5? --Σ ^talk_contribs 22:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Hut: I do not think that we can expect such a criteria to be correctly applied. "Heat intolerance is a medical condition in which the person is uncomfortable in warm environments" is both a "dictionary definition" and the first step in starting an article on an obviously notable subject ("heat+intolerance" at Google Scholar has 5,300 hits). If you put "dictionary definitions" in the criteria, then our less-than-perfect taggers are going to try to speedy stubs that do not meet your narrow limits, or are going to tag articles on valid subjects merely because I created wikt:heat intolerance at Wiktionary first. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Hut is right. Most of the time a dictionary definition can be converted into an article about the subject (although it is possible that the subject may in the end turn out to be not notable, but its's hard to be sure of that until the work has been done.). It's a matter of choice whether to do so, and it depends on whether someone is interested in doing the work, but almost never s is it obvious that there might not be a viable particle. the current method of dealing with these, WP:PROD, offers a 7 day opportunity for someone interested to make a proper article out of it before it gets deleted. I very rarely encounter these in patrolling the expired prods, because usually someone has taken the opportunity to make an article. Remember, that the first thing to do in writing an article, is to say what the subject is DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Half the time something gets PRODded, the page creator removes it shortly after. --Σ ^talk_contribs 00:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

So? WP:There is no deadline on turning a stub into a proper article. If the subject is notable, we shouldn't be deleting the baby steps that someone has taken towards creating an article merely because they didn't get very far. If the subject isn't notable, then you can send it to AFD. We're not looking for fastest, most reliable route to deletion. We're looking for the correct answer, which includes keeping any good-faith effort to create an article at Heat intolerance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the purpose of the A3 expansion is so that it can cover crap definitions like WP:Articles for deletion/Saugie, as long as the article undeniably is a non-notable and unsalvageable neologism, and that it extends no further, as to not stretch the "no content" part of A3. --Σ ^talk_contribs 06:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

That is not a good example. That article could have been deleted as vandalism and probably would have been if you hadn't converted the CSD nom to a PROD and then nominated it for AFD after the PROD was removed.

talk

) 23:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand "patent nonsense" as stuff that isn't a legible sentence. --Σ ^talk_contribs 01:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

"The purpose" might be pages like Saugie, but the actual effect, based on the specific words proposed, is that anyone who starts Heat intolerance with a single sentence will see it sent to CSD because it "already exists in Wiktionary".

That might not be what you want, but it is what you wrote. I know this is one of my soapboxes, but: Writing policy is hard. It's hard in part because you have to live with what you actually write on the page, not what you meant. The NPPers are not going to magically know what you meant. Policies must actually say what they mean—and we must not make them say things that we do not mean. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Unless they meet the

permanently leaving Wikipedia

, it is unlikely that your main user page or user talk page will actually be deleted.

(emphasis added) Note "permanently leaving" links to

Policy aside, my view is that the actual main user page should be deletable on request, and it would be exceedingly rare that such requests should be refused. User talk pages are a valuable interaction history, and the only way to see if a user has been warned about various behaviours, chronically enters into the same disputes over and over, etc., and should only be deleted in extremely rare cases, regardless of user request.—Kww(talk) 13:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree: I have always gone by

WP:CSD#U1 and would normally accept a U1 request on a user page. I see no reason to treat them specially (unlike user talk pages), and I suggest the words "main user page or" should be removed from the passage quoted above, so as to bring it into line with WP:CSD. JohnCD (talk

) 13:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with Kww, and that's how I've seen it done over the years I've been here (although it doesn't happen very often). Userpages are normally deleted on request, but user talk pages are rarely if ever deleted (excluding occasional revision deletion for things like grossly insulting material, which is not a CSD matter). User subpages and their talk pages are normally also deleted on request, unless they're relevant for dispute resolution purposes, or have significant edit histories by other users (in the latter case they go to MfD, I have no idea how frequent this is). Thryduulf (talk) 13:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Half the problem here was that the talk page was redirected to the user page and protected. The talk page history is still there, so outsiders to the events can kinda see what happened if they're willing to dig a little bit. The appearance of... something bad ("grave dancing?") happening is there though. Take that criticism or not, it's up to everyone who is reading this to decide individually, but that's what brought this discussion here.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 13:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Kww. Userpages should be deletable upon request and user talk pages should not be deleteable unless there is a compelling reason to do so. The guideline you quote above seems to contradict the speedy deletion policy that says:

Personal

.css and .js

pages), but its categorization should work.

In most cases the only significant contributor to the main userpage is the user and if they request it to be deleted it should be allowed. GB fan please review my editing 13:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I have proposed at

WP:CSD#U1. JohnCD (talk

) 14:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The criterion here is far more vetted and reflects actual practice. Tracing back how this language came about shows there was no disagreement until recently, that it was not discussed specifically, and that it was possibly unintentional. Until March 15, 2010 WP:UP said "Where there is no significant abuse and no administrative need to retain the personal information, you can request that your own user page and user subpages be deleted." The change came about here, which in turn refers to the discussion here. This was a fairly complete rewrite of the entire page. This change—that it was even a change—was lost in the shuffle. I don't think anyone, including the proposer, meant to reverse what it had said before but just rewrite it. Rather, when the sections on deletion were cut down and summarized, the distinction between deletion of user talk and user pages was lost.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

We are having a debate at

A7 applies to "web content", but not to books. What about a book available only as an ebook? (In particular, Deliver Us From Evil (Espion Series).) Does such an article fall under A7, or should it be PRODded? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking that maybe

talk

) 23:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The reason why A7 doesn't cover books, that importance can be difficult to judge without knowing who the author is and a bit about the genre, should apply regardless of their medium. I wouldn't imagine that we'd get enough of these per day that PROD and AfD can't handle the load, anyway (correct me if I'm wrong on this point). These shouldn't be deleted under A7 due to the combination of these. If the volume becomes an issue, then we can discuss exactly what to do about them. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Lifebaka - an ebook is fundamentally a book and should be treated as one, regardless of the format it is in. Thryduulf (talk) 10:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree too. If the volume of e-books builds up we may need to make provision for speedying them, but I don't see a case for it yet - PROD/AfD are coping OK with self-publishing and print-on-demand. JohnCD (talk) 10:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, "web content" does not mean "on the Internet". It means stuff specifically on the World Wide Web, for example homepages and YouTube videos. eBooks are usually designed to be read offline and just distributed using the Internet, so they imho already fail the definition of "web content". Regards SoWhy 10:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

We have the A9 criteria for recordings where there's no indication of importance where the author has no article - why can't this be expanded to books, whether ebook or self-published? It would have fit this situation perfectly. MikeWazowski (talk) 13:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Has been suggested before and rejected, basically for the reasons lifebaka mentioned above. Last discussion about that was in February iirc, see here. Regards SoWhy 14:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

See also #Question on A9 above. Basically there is not the same notability link between book and author as between recording and artist. Thryduulf (talk) 18:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

If I remember rightly, clicking a link to

They both work properly for me maybe there was some glitch.--76.66.186.54 (talk) 03:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep, working fine for me too. Nyttend, have you switched browsers or done anything else to change your account or computer configuration? The CSD links above are just redirects that link to page#section, so if they're not working for you, no normal section linking should work, e.g., Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Question on A9 is a link to a section higher on this page that works no differently than these redirects. What happens when you click on it?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm running the same browser that I've used since I bought this computer in 2008. Section linking works normally for me; your link took me to the proper section, and if I go to

List of recurring characters in The Simpsons, but the speedy criterion links consistently take me to the top of WP:CSD. Nyttend (talk

) 03:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm at a library computer now, and I get the same results as I did with my own computer.

talk

) 21:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

A7 covers web content, but not software. I've found a number of new articles about "unremarkable" software products (to use Twinkle's CSD wording). Lately, I've taken to custom-CSD tagging these under A7. Is that proper procedure? Tckma (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

No, software that is not web content does not fall under A7. If no other speedy deletion criteria apply, you should either use

AFD. --RL0919 (talk

) 16:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Why is Twinkle not using the same wording as the CSD criteria? Thryduulf (talk) 22:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It may be that they are just trying to come up with wording that is short enough for radio buttons, but it is probably best to ask that question at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle. --RL0919 (talk) 22:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Hypothetical situation but based on a current talk page discussion. Let's suppose

I am inclined to think not, absent some indication of importance or significance for the charity itself. I think a lot of "celebs" set up "Foundations" that are essentially vanity projects and don't do much. JohnCD (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with John. NOTINHERITED's principle is specifically for purposes of WP:N, not A7. A7 accepts any indication of importance imho and being founded by a notable person fits this requirement. At least, that's the view I held so far (see my essay

WP:A7M). In this cases, deletion would not happen at AFD (since there is a target to redirect/merge the organization's article to), so it shouldn't happen using A7 as well. Regards SoWhy

21:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I too would count "founded by a notable person" as an assertion of significance (with 'notable' meaning a person with an article, whatever it's current state). It might or might not get merged at AfD (e.g. Joe Blogs' article might already say everything that's in the standalone article), but the outcome is not going to be "delete" on every occasion, so speedy deletion is not appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It probably would count as an assertion of notability, so I suggest that rather than tagging it as CSD, you boldly merge it into the article about the notable person and redirect the page to the newly created subsection. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I would decline an A7 based on that example, exactly for SoWhy's rationale. GedUK  07:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I too would count founded by a notable person an assertion of possible importance, but if it was merely named after a notable or even famous person it might be another matter. In any case, my experience is that many of these articles are deletable as G11, G12, or both. DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

When you're talking about an actor, athlete, CEO, etc., "founded by" is usually a polite fiction for "had their paid staff do it and may or may not be involved". I dislike the idea that these get a free pass from A7 speedies just because some celeb has put their name on them. This is a stark contrast to the many small organizations we speedy every day because they are doing good, noble, admirable work, but don't have some jock's or actress' name plastered all over them to the greater glory of the celebrity. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The whole point of A7 is that it requires new articles make at least one credibel assertion of significance or importance as to why the subject might be notable. While you might not like it being so, in contemporary British and American culture (at least), associating your product with a notable person can lead to it gaining a much higher profile and so it might be notable. These articles can be, and are, deleted through the regular PROD and AfD processes if they are not actually notable. Celebrity endorsement is not the only way to make an assertion of importance or significance, and if these smaller organisations actually are encyclopaedically notable then it will be easy to make such an assertion. Whether the work of an organisation is good, noble, admirable or bad, morally corrupt and despicable is irrelevant to their notability. Thryduulf (talk) 10:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I am right in thinking that A7 doesn't apply to newspapers, aren't I? I'm currently in dispute with another editor over the article about the newspaper Diario Frontera, and it seems to me to be covered by the clause "not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works". --88.104.39.209 (talk) 18:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Magazines, newspapers etc. are neither people, organizations, animals or web content. They might be covered if the newspaper is web-only but if it's printed, it's a product and not covered. Regards SoWhy 18:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. --88.104.39.209 (talk) 18:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I am a deletionist, but given that

Removing that sentence might mean that the page cannot be tagged until the root page is deleted. Flatscan (talk) 04:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with considering the pages as a set to be deleted together. I just want to avoid a non-admin declining a G8 solely because its parent has not been deleted yet (hopefully an admin would delete or decline them all). The wording "is itself currently tagged for speedy deletion" in {{db-g8}} seems better than the current sentence. Flatscan (talk) 04:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Are there example cases? The dependent page will be deleteable because of deletion of the parent page, but the parent page is not yet deleted? Why jump the gun, why not delete the parent page now? If it is uncertain (not 100%) that the parent should/will be deleted, then no, the G8s have to wait. Is it that the parent’s deletion requires further action? (eg. XfD concluded “email and delete” or “transwiki and delete”?) If “further action” may require consideration of the dependent pages.

I think G8 should, as a rule, be made to wait until after the parent is deleted. However, tagging pages G8, with a link to the parent page and the XfD page if applicable, is fine and even probably a good idea. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I cannot think of a case where tagging a page as G8 when the parent page still exists and has not also been tagged for speedy deletion would be a good idea or necessary. If the parent page is at XfD then make a note in the discussion, or if the discussion has closed, on the discussion's talk page or the closing admin's user talk page about the existence of the dependent page. If there is a reason why the dependent page cannot wait for the parent page then the dependent page will meet another CSD criteria and should be tagged with that.

I've got no issue with tagging the parent page for speedy deletion and also tagging the dependent page for G8 at the same time, although I'd encourage mentioning the parent/dependent page in the CSD nomination statement. Thryduulf (talk) 10:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The dependent pages should be deleted at the same time or later than the parent page. If one administrator is deleting the set, it probably does not matter what order the deletions are done, but it is a problem if one of the pages is declined for delete but some are deleted. So we should avoid this situation. In practice a talk page seldom needs tagging, and it would be subpages, editnotices or redirects that should be highlighted as needing deletion, but I think it would be better to mention them all on the parent article, so that they get kept or deleted as one set. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

There should be no need to tag pages with G8 preemptively. As far as talk pages go, when a page is deleted, if it has a talk page the system says "This page also has a talk page. You may want to delete it as well – click [show] to view the contents", and most admins will also check "What links here" to pick up other dependent pages like redirects. G8 should normally be needed only for the not uncommon case of a talk page being created where there is no article, or where a dependent page has somehow been overlooked. JohnCD (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I support the removal of this sentence. Either it can wait until the 'parent' is being deleted (although the exact order is unimportant), or it should be tagged as some other criterion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Since there seems to be general agreement that this extra sentence is unnecessary, I've removed it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Please note that most of the criteria now have tailored preload text when the "click here to contest this speedy deletion button" is pressed. Try a few: {{db-a1}}, {{db-a3}}, {{db-a7}}, {{db-a9}}, {{db-a10}}, etc. If anyone thinks we need additional ones for criteria using the generic preload, they are easily added.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

As I'm sure some people here have noticed, new users fairly often manage to navigate to the speedy deletion templates before they click the "Click here to contest this speedy" button, so they post their contestations on the talk pages for those templates, which doesn't do them much good. To help users contest speedy deletions in the right place, I've added editnotices to the talk pages of all speedy deletion templates directing them to use their browser's back button until they reach the page with the actual template on it. All of the editnotices use {{Db editnotice}} for their text, so that making changes to them is easier. A full listing of editnotices can be found here. Please tweak the text of the notices, if necessary, and let me know if I missed any speedy templates which have the contest button. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 17:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Should the text maybe say the full label of the button? You have ""click her to contest this speedy"" in all of them; the full text of the button is "click her to contest this speedy deletion". I'm curious as to how these people are making it to the talk pages. They all redirect to Template talk:db-meta. And couldn't we just protect all the redirects? Template talk:db-g11 is already protected, for example, so no one but admins will ever see the notice you made for it because regular users can't click edit this page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it should say that. I just couldn't remember exactly what they said, apparently. I've fixed it.

I assume they're clicking the contest button from the templates themselves. Since it loads to editing a new section, they wouldn't be aware that it's redirected until after they've entered their comment.

Even if we protect them, without a message letting them know what they should be doing, I don't know if it'd help. It'd be less work for anyone who comes along later and removes their comments, but it still wouldn't address the problem that people who are trying to contest are doing it wrong, and therefore their comments aren't going to be read by the right people.

I checked {{Db-g11}} in another browser, where I'm logged out, and the message appears even though I couldn't edit the page. I could rework {{Db editnotice}} a bit so that it'll make more sense for protected talk pages, but I don't see that the two approaches are mutually exclusive. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes of course, they are clicking on the button in the templates!.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the discussion above, and the recent removal of the entire paragraph talking about how one can remove the speedy tag, I just want to ask if it is common knowledge that the speedy process is discretionary only when it is uncontested or non-obvious? The usual process for changing content is consensus, right? And the process for entirely removing an article is also based on consensus via a special process (XfD). Speedy, as I understand it, isn't a right, but a privilege. When no one finds fault with the removal, an admin can feel confident that the content can just be removed. But the normal process should still take precedence, slow as it is. The idea that maybe sockpuppets or others will game the speedy system is obvious. In fact, they can game anything, but we deal with such things as we discover they occur. Again, speedy is not a guarantee or a right, but a expedient privilege that allows us to assume consensus, but if someone insists on a true consensus, it ought to be strongly considered. -- Avanu (talk) 16:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

There are a number of criteria that relate to policy based reasons, such as copyright or attack pages these should be deleted regardless, for example if a article on a subject is created, nominated for AfD and is kept, it is quite proper for it to be speedy deleted if it later turned out to be a copyright violation that could not be fixed, in this case there would normally be nothing to stop creation of a new article on the same subject this time without copyrighted text. 17:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

In those cases, maybe there should be a different tag or something to differentiate it. I can understand that 'risky' content ought to be dealt with more quickly, so those exceptions make sense. -- Avanu (talk) 17:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Contested speedies still get deleted all the time. Vandalism, copyright violations, nonsense, attack pages, obvious hoaxes, creations by banned users, and word-for-word recreations of articles deleted at AFD can and should be deleted over objections, especially if those objections come from the page creator. A7 and G11 noms are often contested with invalid arguments and are deleted anyway as well. Pages dependent on non-existent or deleted pages are pretty cut-and-dried, either they are or they aren't. It seems to me that the situation you describe is the exception rather than the rule. CSD is not the same thing as

talk

) 18:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Two points:

1) I speedy things over the creator's objections all the time--but not so often when another editor has looked at it and declined the speedy. I don't blink when the creator's removed a tag, but when another editor has, I stop and examine it in pretty serious detail.

2) In fact, speedy is even easier to decline than PROD--with the exception that we don't really assign value to the creator's input. The only thing that need apply is the good-faith dispute that the criterion applies, and then the next step is AfD. Speedy is for when no good faith editor familiar with our policies objects, period. Jclemens (talk) 20:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I've removed this again. There's a number of problems. First, one can act in good faith and be utterly wrong. The fact that someone disputes a copyvio and gives a reason should not prevent a speedy of a blatant copyvio. The fact that someone fails to see that a page is an attack, isn't grounds for not speedying it, if it is actually an attack. My wider problem is an objection to legislating through policy pages. Policy describes action, it doesn't prescribe it. The fact is that articles are often retagged and deleted, so that's policy. It may be inadvisable in many circumstances, but there's no hard rule against it - and a few of us on this talk page don't get to legislate across the project. Avoid instruction creep. Can't we say "you might wish to consider the wisdom of retagging" - but if someone has mistakenly untagged an article that clearly meets the CSD there's no rule. Discussion can happen on a case-by case basis - if the deletion has been halted there's AFD, but equally if it has gone ahead (and you can't persuade the admin to back up) there's DRV.--Scott Mac 20:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem with that interpretation, Scott, is that it's wrong. If there's a dispute over whether something is an "attack", it is supposed to go to AfD, where a tiny minority will be quickly informed of SNOW consensus. Granted, well over 90% of CSD tag removals are not appropriate (from bad faith editors or those unfamiliar with actual policy) and can quickly be dealt with. Perhaps we need a courtesy-blanking template for contested G10-12's, where the content is only available in history while the article is discussed at AfD as a way to minimize risk while dealing with the contested content through a consensus process, much like DRV restorations are... Jclemens (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

To put it even more succinctly: If there is a dispute over whether a CSD criteria applies, it doesn't. Thryduulf (talk) 21:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Right, but there's plenty of people who would dispute that it applies without any policy backing. Hence, needing to qualify what sorts of disputes are really legitimate vs. which can be safely ignored. Jclemens (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, the paragraph that Scott removed was entirely correct and should be restored. Thparkth (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

A copyright violation should be a fairly straightforward thing to prove or disprove. Whether something constitutes an "attack" is somewhat subjective. I would say the more objective something is, the easier it is to speedily delete it, but Scott, unless you are dealing with an unreasonable editor, if "someone fails to see that a page is an attack", it would seem to indicate we need to get a real consensus, not the implied consensus of a speedy deletion. -- Avanu (talk) 21:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that's wrong. Firstly, copyvios are not always open and shut. Sometimes there is room for debate. (Is the alleged source actually copying wikipedia? Is it public domain). So if one person in good faith says "this isn't a copyvio" does that mean it doesn't get speedied, even if they are clearly wrong? As for attacks, alleged attacks on living people get speedied - and remain deleted until/unless consensus says it is safe to undelete. That means if one person is saying "hey this isn't an attack" and removed the tag, if you think it is an attack, the correct thing to do is to replace the tag and have it speedied. The contester can then try to convince the deleting admin that it isn't an attack and he should undelete it. If he manages, fine. If the admin disagrees then DRV. Bottom line, the default for an alleged attack is to nuke it. We undelete only if there's general agreement it wasn't an attack. We don't keep it undeleted just because one person in good faith disagrees. So, if something is tagged "attack" and then deprodded by someone who disagrees, retagging the correct action.--Scott Mac 21:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, this is why we have administrators. Sometimes it is appropriate to delete over objections, and sometimes it is not. No change to the policy is needed, admins are already expected to posses the judgement to make that determination. We don't need this supposed "real" consensus as the criteria already have consensus behind them, and admins are selected by the community to uphold that existing consensus. If a particular admin lacks that ability, that is a problem with that admin, not the criteria or the process itself. For appealing specific decisions we already have

talk

) 22:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Scott, but all it takes is one good-faith editor disagreeing, and off to AfD it goes: even if it's supposedly a copyvio or an attack page; that's how policy is actually written. Of course, IAR is still policy and BLP measures apply, but AfD is the appropriate place for hashing out whether or not a contested speedy applies. DRV is for any speedy contested after the fact, not one contested before a deletion has actually been performed. Jclemens (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) Well, true, a lot of things have consensus behind them, making people admins takes a consensus, making a policy takes consensus, but I think we're talking about a specific decision here that has specifically been challenged, not an overall lofty-type overarching consensus. The common refrain is that 'admins are just normal people', so it shouldn't necessarily mean anything less if one editor with a reasonable viewpoint disagrees with an admin or a tagger, right? -- Avanu (talk) 22:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I think what some of us are struggling to see is evidence that there is any widespread problem here. Most of the time if a person other than the creator removes a speedy, that's the end of it and the article does not get speedy deleted for that reason. Has there been a recent rash of admins coming in after a speedy was removed and deleting anyway?

talk

) 22:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Not that I know of... which begs the question: isn't policy supposed to describe what actually happens? Jclemens (talk) 22:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Right now it says "Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion.[1] Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." and "The creator of a page may not remove a speedy deletion tag from it. Only an editor who is not the creator of a page may do so. " and a bit further down in the instructions for admins "Before deleting a page, check the page history to assess whether it would instead be possible to revert and salvage a previous version, " Seems pretty clear to me, but I suppose we could make sure that it mentions that asking the deleting admin and/or

talk

) 22:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

@JClemens. You are simply wrong as to policy. Any admin who sees a page that he views as an attack on a living person is entitled to delete it - even if there is a good faith objection, he is entitled to do that. It will be restored, ONLY if there is a consensus that it is safe to do so. Now, if that discretion applies to an admin, it must be quite reasonable for a non-admin to tag a page as an attack, and invite an admin to delete it as such, even if there is a good faith objection. What you are suggesting would rewrite several arbcom findings as to policy. If you want to do that, yet a wide consensus for it. You can't do that by simply changing the CSD page.--Scott Mac 23:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• G10. Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose: These "attack pages" may include libel, legal threats, material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person or biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced. These pages should be speedily deleted when there is no neutral version in the page history to revert to. Both the page title and page content may be taken into account in assessing an attack. Articles about living people deleted under this criterion should not be restored or recreated by any editor until the biographical article standards are met.

The important procedural step is that before deleting the admin must check the history to see if there is a neutral version to which it can be reverted. There is no prohibition on restoring the page if the material is compliant with BLP policy. As for policy, it isn't set by the ArbCom, it's set by us.   Will Beback  talk  23:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

A half dozen people on this talk page, don't get to overturn an interpretation of policy endorsed by arbcom. You don't like it, go get a real consensus.--Scott Mac 23:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that this problem is related to your misunderstanding of BLP policies, Scott. If there's a dispute as to whether something is an attack, there's a dispute. If you think the dispute is misguided, that's your right, but you don't get to proceed full speed ahead shouting "It's an attack page" any more than you get carte blanche by shouting "BLP!". Note the the criteria doesn't even include all attacks, only those attacks where the article "serve[s] no other purpose".—Kww(talk) 23:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. A dispute as to whether something violates BLP is settled in the absence of the material. Admins have the right to remove, and the onus is on the person wanting it restored to convince others that it is safe to do so. We don't keep something hanging about because someone says they dispute it. We err on the side of removal.--Scott Mac 23:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully, we err on the side of reasonableness. -- Avanu (talk) 23:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

As Avanu so aptly points out, you still don't understand our policies on such things.—Kww(talk) 23:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Scott is sort of right, but for the wrong reasons. G10 contested BLP attack pages may still be deleted as BLP material, but attack pages on e.g., corporations are not subject to BLP measures, so they don't get that benefit. You'll note that the G10 wording calls this out, sort of. Thus, while BLP attack material can be deleted immediately by two different methods (CSD and BLP special measures), the first is not applicable to contested material. I'll note we're having this discussion at the CSD page, not the BLP page, hence my interest in a broad approach that encompasses all possibilities. Jclemens (talk) 00:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

But a well-sourced, profoundly negative article about a person can't be speedied if contested. Given the history of such articles as Kelly Wearstler, you'll have to forgive me for suspecting that Scott's intepretation of BLP and attack pages is unreasonably broad.—Kww(talk) 00:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

That a well-sourced profoundly negative article shouldn't be speedied if contested is a truism. But then a well-sourced article shouldn't be deleted at all. However, admins are empowered to delete articles they believe to be violating BLP (where there's no compliant version). The fact that someone contests this and claims that in their opinion the article is adequately sourced is beside the point. The admin deletes using their judgement, and then that judgement can be contested after the fact, and the article restored if discussion indicates deletion was in error. The point is that we err or the side of removing the contested material, until discussion occurs. My point is that if a non-admin tags an article as G10 on the basis that it is "biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced", and someone contests it by removing the tag, then it is entirely reasonable for the tag to be re-added by someone who believes that the objection is ill-founded. Otherwise what you are saying is that an admin is still free to delete a de-tagged article if, in their judgement, it still violates BLP, but a non-admin is not free to ask for an admin to do this. That would be illogical. Not least because, if a non-admin re-tags, then at least one other admin has to review the article and judge whether the case is correct.

However, my wider point remains. If an article is an obvious A7, and someone in good faith, but in obvious error detags it claiming that "class bungee jumping champion" is an assertion of notability, there's nothing to preclude someone re-tagging. Sure, don't edit war. But don't jam AFD with pointless debates.--Scott Mac 10:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I have seen many examples of unremarkable product articles on Wikipedia. However, I don't know of they can be tagged as A7. I propose adding a new branch to A7 for "un-remarkable product". This could also solve the issues I have seen above such as can newspapers, ebooks and other things be covered by A7. Any product could therefore be tagged for CSD without confusion. Oddbodz (talk) 09:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

This has been proposed multiple times and rejected every time. Please see the talk page archives for previous discussions. Regards SoWhy 10:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be helpful to have a /Frequent proposals page that lists those things that are frequently proposed, summarises the reasons for rejection and links to previous discussions. Hopefully this will reduce the number of repeated suggestions that don't add anything new. Thryduulf (talk) 10:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Over at Deletion review and ANI, we've been having a rather large conflict over the deletion of several templates that were created by a banned user, but had been transcluded in several other templates, including the main infobox for a WikiProject. Pretty much everyone involved, including me, let this get quite far out of hand, but now that I've had time to calm down and really analyze the situation, one thing keeps bugging me: the admins who did the deletes were following a legitimate interpretation of the speedy delete process, and it led to unacceptable consequences and a lot of hurt feelings and bruised egos.

The problem is that templates, by their very nature, tend to get transcluded alot, and their deletion can seriously screw things up. My hope is that we can get a note into the G5 criteria that says that templates that would qualify under G5 if they were regular articles should be taken through a full templates for deletion process. Perhaps the addition of a T4. Non-transcluded templates created by banned or blocked users would be useful as well for some of the truly uncontroversial deletes. My hope is that we can get some of these issues out of the "everything's screwed up because of you", and into the "how do we uphold the block/ban while retaining the functionality of the template" question. VanIsaac_WS 18:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Such a criterion would be redundant to G5. The general criteria apply in all namespaces, so having a special one for templates wouldn't change a thing. In situations like these, I suggest you remind users that all the CSD are for uncontroversial deletions only, and there is clearly a controversy here. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem remains that the admins really had no way of knowing beforehand that they would be disruptive and controversial, and that's a bit of a problem that I think is inherent in most template deletions that fall under the G5 criteria. VanIsaac_WS 19:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Admins are expected to check transclusions, especially when it comes to templates, and if they notice that the template has been trancluded into templates that cannot be speedy deleted for the same reason, then it's imho automatically potentially controversial and thus G5 should not be applied. I won't mind an addition to G5 clarifying this though, something like "does not apply if pages created by others depend on the page". Regards SoWhy 19:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

How about "does not apply to content transcluded in non-SPEEDY articles" VanIsaac_WS 20:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

How about adding, "G5 should not be applied to transcluded templates."  Unscintillating (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm just thinking of the possibility of a collection of G5 templates that are transcluded in each other. Maybe I'm trying to find a policy for the exceptions, but that's kind of what happened in this incident, so I may be looking a bit too far into this than is warranted. VanIsaac_WS 03:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't technically know what was transcluded in what, but this sentence may still cover it, so I ask, how can my proposal be misread for the case(s) you mention, to lead to an undesired result?  Unscintillating (talk) 04:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't have the background to answer this question, but does anyone have experience with G5-able templates being transcluded, who can tell us if they tend to be transcluded into actually useful and necessary templates, or if they are mostly transcluded into other junk that the same banned editor has created. If it's the latter, then we may end up having full deletion reviews for a lot of templates that should be speedy deletable. That's the result that I'm thinking about. I'm not going to say I'm worried about it, but I don't think I'd be doing due dilligence unless I thought of possible negative consequences for the change to G5 criteria. VanIsaac_WS 13:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I think a better solution here is better tool support for erasing the contributions of banned users, which can check things like "is this template transcluded, directly or indirectly, in any pages that were created or edited substantially by other users?" This is really rather difficult for editors to check manually. Dcoetzee 06:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

If that is a better solution, why did the admin object to restoring the transcluded templates once he/she knew that the templates had been transcluded?  Would not my proposal be a desirable change with or without improved tool support?  Unscintillating (talk) 12:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that better tool support could be helpful in relaxing the burden on admins doing G5 housekeeping in the template namespace under the new guidelines, but that without the policy assistance, they aren't going to have the framework to be able to use the tools to do their job more effectively. VanIsaac_WS 13:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Does the lack of feedback for four days mean that we think "G5 should not be applied to transcluded templates." is the consensus? I think it's succinct and to the point. Any dissenters? VanIsaac_WS 03:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I guess nobody objects -

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add the following sentence to the end of the G5 criteria: "G5 should not be applied to transcluded templates."

VanIsaac_WS 17:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done Edit protection was lifted, so I did it myself. VanIsaac_WS 18:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Would anyone object to a proposed change to deletion criteria F11 to include files tagged with {{

F11 strictly speaking already covers that, since files tagged with the template already lack evidence of permission - they just contain the promise of evidence. Your proposal would make it more lenient by giving such files a longer grace period in order for OTRS to deal with it if such permission actually was provided via OTRS. I think it's a good idea since OTRS might take some time in some cases and the internal lag at OTRS shouldn't affect the file. Regards SoWhy 12:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Support, seems like a good idea per SoWhy. Thryduulf (talk) 19:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add the following to the end of F11:

Files tagged with {{tl|OTRS pending}} for more than 30 days may also be speedily deleted under this criteria.

Kelly ^hi! 16:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Done - Nabla (talk) 22:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please consider these changes. Jab7842 (talk) 05:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and make the change. It's a shame this page hasn't kept pace with the speedy deletion templates. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The page is fully protected. --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 05:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I suggest using

{#tag: inputbox |
type=commenttitle
hidden=yes
buttonlabel=Click here to contest this speedy deletion
break=no
}

To prevent contested deletions from coming onto this page. --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 05:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that the page was protected.

When I tried to add the code, I found the problem you identified: clicking on the button would add the contested deletion to this page. Your proposed code is better than the original sandbox diff, but it tries to make a change to the Main Page—probably not a problem for non-administrators, but maybe we should discuss it here before making the change. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I have disabled the request for now as this page is not protected anymore. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Occasionally I find résumés in the new pages log, and judging by the existence of

Except, what is user space if not an advertisement about oneself as well? Does a CV get deleted because it is an advertisement, or is it acceptable as pertinent background on a given user? What is the dividing line? VanIsaac_WS 18:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that userspace is a form of self-advertising. If I put on my userpage something like "I'm a

WP:RESUME points out, who is going to look on Wikipedia for a résumé? Monster.com, dice.com, and several other venues exist for that sort of thing, and would probably be more successful for getting a job. We speedily delete other forms of spam/advertising in userspace, so why not résumés? Tckma (talk

)

#Arbitrary section break may be relevant. --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 23:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

A résumé in article space would always be speedy deleted. A résumé in user space might be given some time, possibly sent to MFD instead of speedy deletion, but it won't be kept in the long term.

Not always! a resumé in article space, which is intended as the description of a person's career, can usually be truncated sufficiently to make at least a stub article of it-- I think we do not make use of the option to stubbify frequently enough. This goes of course only if the things in the career are in fact notable; the frequency of that depends on the subject area. The criterion for G11 is both exclusively promotional, and need to be fundamentally rewritten. Promotional here is used in contrast to factual. At one point, it read promotional purpose, but purpose is impossible to really determine except in extreme cases--especially since about half the material here has an ultimately promotional purpose: the purely objective description of what a notable person person or company does, will inherently promote his activities. I know I am often prepared to rewrite more extensively than most, but then I do still find occasion to use G11 quite a lot also. For me, it depends on whether it's worth the trouble--I won't rewrite a borderline career. The indefiniteness of G11 is indeed a problem, but without it, since the really promotional articles will usually be contested, we'd have a lot of SNOW AfDs. DGG ( talk ) 03:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Uh, I guess that's possible, I've just never seen it. Most people who are actually notable are not going to spend their time posting their résumé to Wikipedia as they already have careers.

talk

) 17:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Not always. If we're talking about someone like Ruth Ellen Brosseau, who's unquestionably notable because of the position she's currently holding but might have trouble finding a job after the next federal election in Canada, then she might be tempted to post her resume here, even to the point of overwriting our article on her. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I've seen quite a number of resumes. There are plenty of people with significant careers who suddenly find themselves with time no their hands and a desire to improve their notability. Or they have their assistant do it, if they're still employed. While it's not relevant to speedy deletion, a couple of months ago I dealt with a senior government official who'd recently been forced to resign and wanted to put his spin on the events and to burnish his credentials. It happens. Getting back to SD, even if a persona might be notable, if a new article is simply an unsourced resume then it should be deleted. Wikipedia isn't Linkedin.   Will Beback  talk  23:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Those cases that are not at least one of stubbable, revertable or deleteable under G11, A7 or A10 are going to be so far between as to completely fail the frequency requirement for a new CSD criterion. If someone is wanting to put their own spin on things, then we should evaluate our article for neutrality and, if necessary, include quotes reflecting the user's posisition (in the unlikely event they haven't written it elsewhere, we should encourage them to do so). Thryduulf (talk) 23:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

You said "There are plenty of people with significant careers who suddenly find themselves with time no their hands and a desire to improve their notability." That's pretty much the nub of it. That they think that having content about them on Wikipedia will improve their public recognition / significance in the real world, instead of the other way around, is evidence that the person won't pass

WP:GNG. Aside from that, I don't see much need to defend the resumes anyway -- if the person is notable, then they are sincerely welcome to write an encyclopedic article about themselves after I speedy their resume. causa sui (talk

) 00:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think they do it "to improve their notability" An academic knows damn well that their notability comes from the way they are regarded by their colleagues--and that this does not depend in the least on Wikipedia, but on their reputation their work may have,and the reputation they gain from the work of their students. Based on what I've seen here, the motives vary: some are posted not by the individual, but by their students, or sometimes by people associated with their department--this is a degree of COI, but no more so than any bio. Sometimes they are interested in having their work known generally, for the very good reason that they think it important, and of interest to the public-- sometimes because of controversies they are engaged in, sometimes because most people choose to work in fields where their work will have some practical effect, and they want people to know it. (All of this is just the same as in any other field of endeavor). Some write their articles as a CV because it's easiest--all people in the academic (and business, and other professional) worlds, have their CV immediately on hand. None of this is necessarily reason for deletion . all of it is reason for examination and rewriting. A person here evaluating such an article needs to get to the actual gist of it--the actual notability, even if it is sometimes obscured by the writing or the manner of presentation. There is very little in Wikipedia that can be done without thought--and nothing that can in deletion processes. DGG ( talk ) 06:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm coming across quite a few of these when looking through red-linked categories and I wondered if a new Ux criterion (U4 I suppose) could be considered). This would speedy delete pages in the following circumstances

• It's a user space article draft
• The user has been inactive for at least a year (and so is unlikely to respond to any requests); and
• The corresponding article now exists in mainspace.

Thoughts? Boissière (talk) 20:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it might fail on the commonness front. Besides, prod would work great for that, as it would give the user a brief while to notice the change if they're still checking their pages, but not editting them. Speedy doesn't add much. It's not urgent to delete drafts, as they don't run much risk of giving false information to casual readers. It's not like deleting saves wikipedia any storage either. i kan reed (talk) 21:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

If it's got sources and meets the general requirements, why not move it into article space? We only need to delete what is not appropriate, if it fits, why not use it? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment. The requirements listed include having an article already present. i kan reed (talk) 21:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

User-space deletions have to go through

WP:PROD which seems a bit much for what should be uncontroversial deletions (IMV). These drafts have been invariably put into mainspace via a copy/paste rather than a move so the original user is unlikely to want to work on the user space version afterwards. I have come across quite a lot of these recently but I don't know how many there are in total. A further reason that I feel that this is a good thing is the fact that these drafts are often placed in mainspace categories (even though they shouldn't be) which pollutes them somewhat. (See Wikipedia:Database reports/Polluted categories to get a feel for these). Boissière (talk

) 21:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Before deleting a userspace draft of an existing article, we should take care that, if the draft contains pertinent information not included in the article, it should be transferred there before deletion. That's why such deletions should not be rushed. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, MfD is handling these cases perfectly well currently without getting overwhelmed. Is there any evidence to the contrary? I'm just not seeing a need for this. Thryduulf (talk) 22:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. There is NO reason for speedy deletion in userspace which is not already covered by the existing U or G series. By definition, the user wanted to keep it, and the speedy criteria which override that wish (G10-12) already exist. Jclemens (talk) 23:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the notion of speedily deleting userpages for any reason but the already accepted ones. I think we should leave userspace alone as much as possible. I understand that this approach to the question is from rather a different angle than expected, but I would like to make this point here. Debresser (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Just history merge. --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 00:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• WP:ABANDON. My Wikiproject already deals with these. If you run across viable userdraft articles (ones that apear viable from a search for sources, mind you), you should let the Wikiproject know so we can move it into the Project's userspace. Or you can do that yourself if you want. Silverseren^C
  02:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Edit: Didn't see the corresponding article part. If the article already exists in mainspace, then go ahead and delete it, yeah. I was talking about ones that don't have a copy in mainspace. Silverseren^C 02:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• That's really the crux of it, that the article does now exist in mainspace. I'm now wondering whether it might be less controversial to create a template displayed at the top which says something like "This is a userspace draft which has a corresponding Wikipedia article at X. The user may have forgotten about this draft or may be working on improvements to the main article." It could also put the article into a category. Silver seren, it might help you with your
  WP:ABANDON project to eliminate drafts that you are not interested in. I am not aware if such a template exists aleady. Boissière (talk
  ) 14:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• The template seems like a good idea, possibly working along the lines of {{
  WP:ABANDON project (very similar to the article alerts). The category/report would then filter into MfD as appropriate. After a few months the situation can be reviewed and if MfD is getting overwhelmed then a CSD criterion can be proposed at that time with evidence and knowledge of what traits abandoned drafts that are always deleted commonly have. Thryduulf (talk
  ) 14:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I know there's a speedy option for re-creation of material deleted through discussion (G4), but I think there should be one for re-creation of previously speedied material as I see a lot of pages re-created after being speedied (usually by new editors). Haven't looked through the archives, but has this been brought up before?   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 20:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Reason why it doesn't exist is because there is no need for a new speedy deletion criteria in such a case. If the old reason for speedy deletion still applies, re-tag the re-created article. G4 is needed for AfD because we don't need to go through the whole AfD process again when the article is substantially the same as the article that was originally deleted. Singularity42 (talk) 20:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

This pretty much it. To put it another way first, anything deletion that would have been valid under the new criteria would already be deleteable under the original criteria and second, if an article was not deleatable under the original speedy deletion criteria that would mean the new article was found to be sufficently different and therefore a deletion under the new criteria would not be valid. In short this new criteria would not change a thing.--70.24.215.48 (talk) 04:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

This is all that needs to be said. --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 05:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Does the exception to A7 for schools apply to all educational institutions? There is a difference in the use of the term between North America and the UK and Ireland. In North America, it tends to refer to educational institutions of all levels, whereas in the UK and Ireland, it does not refer to third-level or further education institutes. I think the criterion should be altered to clarify what is meant by schools. Quasihuman | Talk 22:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Schools are just an example of the things that are not covered, the list is not exhaustive. A7 only applies to those subjects that are explicitly listed as being within scope. As always with CSD, if there is any doubt whether an article fits the criterion then it doesn't. Thryduulf (talk) 01:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

My understanding was that schools are explicitly mentioned because they are organisations (a topic which normally falls within A7), the deletion of which are thought by some people to be automatically controversial. If that is a correct assessment, clarification is needed as to what is meant by schools. If the criteria is left in the current state, I would use the widest possible interpretation of the word, but it is a shame to keep language which has significantly different meanings between two major variants of English. Quasihuman | Talk 10:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Reading Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Criteria for Speedy Deletion A7, about this issue, it seems that the discussion there includes third-level institutes. See proposal below.Quasihuman | Talk 10:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

There are also those art and music schools for kids that operate after school hours, I would not really consider these as schools but more like some business. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I don't see the problem with extending A7's school exemption to them. We aren't likely to get all that many articles about these sorts of businesses that aren't spam but still manage not to tell the reader why they should care. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

In A7, that (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools) be changed to (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools and third-level colleges) to avoid the ambiguity described above. Quasihuman | Talk 10:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Silly. Third-level colleges are schools. There's no ambiguity here. If the subject is a place whose purpose is to teach things to other people, then it is a school. Would this really be a plausible conversation in the UK:

Person 1: Hey, what school do you go to?

Person 2: Right now I'm enrolled in the University of Dublin.

Person 1: That's not a school, that's a third-level college.

speak

17:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• We could just change "school" to "educational institution" instead (I don't think deleting universities under A7 would be a good idea either). Hut 8.5 17:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) From School: "In the United Kingdom, the term school refers primarily to pre-university institutions" when I read A7 first, I assumed it applied only to 1st and 2nd level, OED says that a school is an institution for educating children. The "Read this before proposing new criteria" bit above says in point 1 that " most reasonable people should be able to agree whether an article meets the criterion" this is not true for the current criteria. The wording in my proposal may be clumsy, and I am not particularly tied to it, I am open to clearer suggestions.

Quasihuman | Talk 17:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• I think Hut 8.5's proposal fixes it quite nicely. The reason why schools are excluded from A7 is not (only) that their deletion is most likely controversial but (also) because long-standing consensus is to redirect/merge non-notable schools to the articles about their district or town and no speedy criterion should allow the deletion of a subject that would not be deleted at XFD. Regards SoWhy 17:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
• Agreed, Support Hut 8.5's version. Quasihuman | Talk 17:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support Hut 8.5's proposed wording change. Thryduulf (talk) 22:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support Hut 8.5's change as well. I was considering exactly the same change myself. Dcoetzee 06:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support Hut 8.5's new wording proposal. Oddbodz (talk) 09:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support Hut 8.5's proposal. —mc10 (t/c) 21:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Due to the complete lack of opposition here, I've made the change. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 13:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Now can somebody create a suitable redirect so that

third-level college is no longer a redirect? --Orange Mike | Talk

16:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Would Tertiary education be a suitable target? Thryduulf (talk) 23:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Done. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi. The last paragraph of this article's "Criteria" section currently contains this: "All speedy deletion templates thus contain in their body a pre-formatted, suggested warning template to notify the relevant parties of the nomination for speedy deletion under the criterion used." I've just tried db-g8 and db-talk and in neither case did that "contains a template" bit seem to be true. Or I am missing the point? - it wouldn't be the first time. Can someone please explain? Thanks and best wishes 138.37.199.206 (talk) 12:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

{{

WP:G6 related templates): Maintenance can only be used if the deletion is completely uncontroversial and thus there is no need to notify people about it. Regards SoWhy

12:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the explanation. It does leave us with the fact that the project page text is simply wrong - whatever the explanation, it makes a simple claim: "All speedy deletion templates thus contain in their body a pre-formatted, suggested warning template" - which is simply untrue; as you have explained, they do not. It might be nice to fix this. Also, I must say that I found this confusing - I put a speedy template on a G8 type page, a Talk page which existed without an article. I didn't necessarily know what was going on and there was no obvious explanation of how it got to be there on its own but I felt it was courteous to inform the user who had put the (admittedly garbage) page there. Given that we generally speaking want people to help with tasks like this, I'd have thought that some more clarity here would help. :) Thanks and best wishes 138.37.199.206 (talk) 06:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The sentence has been made true. --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 06:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast, thanks very much. Nice new version. I feel a small things-happening-quickly sound effect such as shazooom or a simple groink! is called for here. Thanks again 138.37.199.206 (talk) 08:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

At Wikipedia talk:Non-free content (I'm not sure which page should be the primary location for discussion) I have proposed a required notification on the article page or article talk page for when a nonfree image used in the article is proposed for speedy deletion for lacking fair-use justification (CSD #F6).

I propose this due to a situation that occurred today when non-free images were deleted from two of my watchlisted articles for lacking fair-use justification. Both images had been uploaded by users who have not edited for several years and both images had been in the articles for several years. There had been no notification in the articles or article talk pages and presumably no one noticed the user-talk-page notices to the uploaders (a talk-page notice to a user who has not contributed since 2007 or 2008 is unlikely to be seen by anyone; indeed one of the user talk pages had no page views in the past month except for the proposed-deletion notification), but active contributors interested in these articles might have wanted to contribute free-use justifications if they had been alerted to the problems. I don't believe either of the images qualified for fair use (and because I don't have much interest in either article I had never delved into the histories of the images), but it seems to me that needless drama can ensue in other situations like this -- when images disappear from articles without alerting interested current contributors who might have been willing and able to provide the documentation needed to prevent their deletion.

Since I believe the more prolific taggers of non-free images lacking fair-use justification use tools to generate the notifications, it should not be difficult to provide notification on the article talk page. --Orlady (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe rather than making this a rule we could just find a bot operator to do it. Now that I think of it that is what

talk

) 19:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

talk · contribs) performs a similar function for images nominated for deletion on Commons. Kelly ^hi!

19:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm the maintainer of CommonsNotificationBot. This is trivial to implement - I have filed for approval for the bot to also run on

WP:CSD file categories as well. Hopefully it will be speedily approved :) --Errant ^(chat!

) 00:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, ErrantX! --Orlady (talk) 00:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

That was "speedy"; Anomie gave it the OK so I will implement this in the next couple of days - stay tuned! :) --Errant ^(chat!) 01:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Followup: I see that the bot is indeed adding notifications to article talk pages - sweet! Best news I've seen all day. --Lexein (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's completely true. It is providing notifications for files proposed for deletion at Commons, but I don't see evidence of notifications for files proposed for deletion on this Wikipedia. --Orlady (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's a bit of good news: Talk:Mara Clara (2010 TV series) in re File:MaraClaraTV10.png.
I scanned down Special:Contributions/CommonsNotificationBot while mousing over the File:*.* link for images not linking to commons:File:*.* A good percentage of WP files are in the mix: out of 500 recent bot contributions, 124 were WP images, and 328 were Commons images (grepping for 'title="File:' and 'title="commons:File:' respectively. --Lexein (talk) 18:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Nice. --Orlady (talk) 22:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not all that familiar with how speedy noms work for categories rather than articles. Basically I want to object to this proposed speedy [5] - what happened here is that the category used to have a quite large number of articles in it, but was emptied out by

So, can I remove the speedy tag and put all the articles that were removed from it back in (which is roughly what would happen with a unjustified PROD for an article)?Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you can object to the speedy tag in that manner as you are saying the speedy criterion was applied in bad faith. I would though start a CfD about it though. Thryduulf (talk) 23:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I would certainly start a cfd; this particular one is likely to be considerably controversial. Better to deal with it by a discussion. In the meantime, I removed the speedy tag, and put an "underconstruction" tag on it to give you a chance to restore the articles, which I think would be better done before the cfd so we'd have something substantial to discuss. Please, however, be careful to put back only the ones that are quite certain; it will make your case stronger. DGG ( talk ) 02:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 02:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, ok. Is there a quick way to see what articles were in the category, say, a month ago? Otherwise I'll have to prowl through Hoops' contributions and find them. Also, since I created a category for Nazi leaders assassinated by Polish resistance (which Hoops said he agrees with), some of those articles have been moved into that category. Volunteer Marek  10:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Somewhat OT but I see a similar situation with non-free images sometimes. A user in good faith perceives that there is a problem with a non-free image but feels that the simplest and most expedient way of dealing with it is to orphan it and then delete it as F5. Same with cats. Find what you perceive as a problem cat, just depopulate and delete it. The problem is that both would appear to be "dirty pool" to an outsider who notices this and objects. This then causes bad feelings as the objector focuses on the "dirty pool" action instead of whether or not the object (image or cat) in question was problematic. In my view, if one feels in good faith that an "object" (article, category, image, or what have you) has the potential to cause harm "right now" then just IAR delete it with a clear explanation as to why. Yes yes I know, deletion should be "IAR free" but doing it this way is preferable to "gaming the system" and is more honest. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Quite right, deletion should be entirely IAR free. There is no point in having speedy critera otherwise. If you think something has the potential to cause harm right now, and it doesn't meet any speedy deletion criteria, and nothing short of deletion will remove the potential for harm, then nominate it for deletion, explicitly mentioning the potential for harm and bring it up somewhere like

WP:AN/I to see whether others agree with you. If they do then it will quickly be deleted by consensus. In almost every case I am aware of, what one editor perceives as having the potential to cause immediate harm are actually not urgent (or sometimes even entirely harmless). For example, F5-7 allow unused or unexplained free use files or those with an invalid FUR to remain on our servers for 7 days, so deleting them can hardly be described as "urgent". In all cases where articles are removed from a category, or images removed from articles prior to nominating for (speedy) deletion, it should be a requirement to list these uses in the nomination. Thryduulf (talk

) 13:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)