Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 31

Possibly a new general point?

This was previously proposed at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 9#G9?. A new CSD criteria was suggested, for Legal threats. I'm not sure why this got off the ground, as such legal threats should be removed without the need for a minimum of 5 days in PROD. Just in the past few weeks, I've seen multiple cases of legal threat pages being made. What do others think? Xclamation point 21:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• The proposal faded away last time because it didn't seem to occur often enough to justify the instruction creep of yet another CSD criterion. (See bullet three of the 'new criteria' standards at the top of this talk page.) A few over the course of weeks doesn't yet seem like enough to me. Can you give us actual numbers? How many per day are you seeing? Rossami (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

A page that is entirely legal threat would easily qualify as an attack page, G10. I have modified the wording of G10 to clearly include this. [1] ~ JohnnyMrNinja 02:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yet the same can be said for G10 and G3. Rossami, maybe 0.333 per day? Xclamation point 03:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it can be plausibly said that any legal threat can be considered an attack page, though not every legal threat or attack page can be considered vandalism. Some instances are just non-NPOV. Though I do agree that there is some overlap between G3 and G10. Is there a reason that G10 shouldn't be used for legal threats? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 03:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Does the deletion of a documentation page for a deleted template fall under G6?

And if not, would it be a valid idea for a new template criterion? Template:S-fic/doc is what provokes this question. Waltham, The Duke of 01:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Might be worth mentioning directly there, but evidently it does (had a fair few of these deleted under G6 myself, so it's already in operation). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

As I've stated before, I dislike this increasingly common habit of using G6 as a catch-all criterion for everything not covered by the other criteria, but I do agree that these should obviously be speedied. Heck, I'll be bold and add it as T4. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

My main question was to see if the criterion was used in a wider sense than what the phrasing indicated; I did not know if there was such a precedent. Personally, I agree with Ilmari Karonen that the interpretation of the criteria should be stricter, as there is less potential for abuse this way. I didn't expect the addition of a criterion to the list to be conducted so matter-of-factly, though, even if uncontroversial.

In any case, this is not over yet. There is infrastructure to be created; doesn't each criterion have its dedicated template? Waltham, The Duke of 03:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, right. {{db-t4}}. (I feel old... I still remember when we only had a handful of these and mostly got by with plain old {{deletebecause}}.) Also listed it in all the obvious places; please fix or let me know if I missed any. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 04:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I have in turn been bold and created {{db-doc}} as an alternative to {{db-t4}}. I believe it is the most intuitive name. I have also premièred the latter template at Template:S-fic/doc.

Now at {{db-templatedoc}} to avoid confusion with {{db doc}}. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It's funny how many things are as they are for historical reasons. I remember some time ago looking around to find out why these templates are named "db"; "delete because" is a reasonable enough explanation, but surely one would expect these templates to be named "csd", "sd", or "speedy". (In other words, if they were created now, I expect they would be named in this vein.) Waltham, The Duke of 06:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that instead of creating a new criterion (WP:CREEP applies), we should rephrase G8 to cover these, as well as template subpages and other places where one page is entirely dependent on an XfD-deleted page. How about the wording "Pages dependent on a non-existent page. This includes talk pages with no corresponding subject page, documentation or subpages for nonexistent templates, 'infrastructure' for deleted or nonexistent projects and processes, and image pages for files on Wikimedia Commons. Such pages should not be deleted if they contain useful information, such as talkpage archives or image pages with enwiki-specific content." This could also incorporate R1 if desired. (also)Happy‑melon 06:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

G8 should simply be adjusted to include talk pages and WP:SUBPAGES of deleted pages. I think that any deleted page can likely have its' subpages deleted, not just templates, and not just documentation. The proposed T4 seems overly-specific. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

And by that I meant I didn't actually read what User:Happy-melon just said, but I agree entirely. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say the amount of policy creep is pretty much the same whether the words "documentation subpages of deleted templates" (or equivalent) are added as a separate criterion or appended to G8. Indeed, that was pretty much what I was going to do in the first place, but then I thought: "Heck, this is a specific case that applies only to templates, so it should go under Tsomething. And besides, G8 is long enough as it is already."

JohnnyMrNinja's "tl;dr" remark above is, in fact, rather illustrative. Here's a quick test for anyone reading this: without looking up, can you recall exactly what Happy-melon's proposed "expanded G8" says? For that matter, can you recall exactly what the current criterion G8 says? Now how about T4 — easier, isn't it?

(Going slightly off on a tangent, it's kind of interesting that we've gone backwards on this in some ways: the earliest revision of CSD had a separate list spelling out in detail what counts as a "technical deletion". These days we lump it all under a vaguely worded criterion G6, with the result that nobody's quite sure exactly what it covers. Perhaps an alternative solution would be to start splitting the broader criteria into bulleted lists of "subcriteria". Indeed, we sort of do a similar thing already with the {{db-*}} templates: {{db-g6}} and {{db-a7}} both have at least five more specific subtemplates.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Broadening G8 to apply to sub-pages sounds like a good idea. Another use is for subpages of portals which have been deleted. (Often, such subpages are merely intended for transclusion to the page deleted.) - jc37 18:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that WP:CREEP warns against proliferating overly specific individual guidelines, trying to cover every possible specific situation. The correct response is to make guidelines as broad as reasonably possible so they can cover more specific cases - this is what I'm trying to suggest with G8. My wording above is just an example; if you can think of a more concise wording, please do suggest it. (also)Happy‑melon 07:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there support for this over T4? I fully support this, including redirects to non-existent pages. The only part I question is "image pages for files on Wikimedia Commons". If this is meant to mean "image pages for files deleted from Wikimedia Commons", I would support it, as that is how WP categories are given to Commons images, esp. featured images. This upgrade to G8 will expand its narrow focus, as well remove the need for R1 and the proposed T4. The wording can possibly be made simpler, but my "tl;dr" was more based on the amount of sleep I'd had than the quality of the proposal. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I really mean images which have been moved to commons but where the original image description page remains, usually a duplicate of the commons page. Situations such as you suggest, where the page contains valuable en-wiki-specific content, should be excluded, as I've tried to say in my wording suggestion. (also)Happy‑melon 07:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Images aren't moved to commons, they are copied. This creates an exact duplicate, but leaves the original image intact on Wikipedia, which is covered under I8 (specifically {{ncd}}). I am happy with all parts of this proposal except for any image page for which an image exists, be it on WP or Commons. This wouldn't fit with the "non-existent" part of the reasoning. An image page for which no image exists (on WP or Commons), should fit under the "Pages dependent on a non-existent page or file" umbrella. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

How's this for G8 -

"Pages dependent on a non-existent page. This includes talk pages with no corresponding subject page, subpages with no parent page (such as documentation for a deleted template), image pages on Wikipedia for files that have been deleted from Wikimedia Commons, or redirects to nonexistent targets (including redirect loops that do not end with a valid target). This excludes any talk or subpage which is useful to the project, and in particular: deletion discussions that are not logged elsewhere, user talk pages, image pages or talk pages for images that exist on Wikimedia Commons, and talk subpages (such as archives) whose corresponding "top-level" page exists."

I was also thinking about adding something like "Generally, talk pages of deleted pages in Wikipedia namespace with potentially useful discussion should be moved to an archive of a related active WikiProject, for potential future reference.", but that is just a thought. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 02:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmn, we now have the usual problem of the wording growing undesirably long, but without there being any obvious place to cut from. How about:

"Pages dependent on a non-existent page, such as talk pages with no corresponding subject page or subpages with no parent page. Also image pages without a corresponding image, and redirects to nonexistent targets. This excludes any page which is useful to the project (such as talk archives), and in particular: deletion discussions that are not logged elsewhere, user talk pages, and image pages or talk pages for images that exist on Wikimedia Commons." ?? (also)Happy‑melon 10:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Done, G8 updated and R1 merged into it. I can't touch the templates as someone edit-protected them.... Hopefully they are moved to semi soon, or an admin will reword the templates and redirect where appropriate. I really don't feel like throwing a bunch of {{editprotected}}s around right now. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

What about C3? A template-category that's template has been deleted would seem to fall under this umbrella, no? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 09:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with merging R1 into G8. R1 is a criteria everyone is pretty familiar with and a lot of deletion summaries have used it. Whilst I agree that it is generally better to have fewer broad CSDs, I don't see the point of removing them for the sake of it. It also leaves the numbering particularly silly if we have R2 & R3 but not R1. WJBscribe (talk) 10:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree, R1 should not be merged. Where the other pages under G8 are dependent on other types of pages (subpages dependent on pages, talk pages on articles, etc), a Redirect is an article dependent on another article. In many cases, I'll change the target of an R1 rather than delete it, because the R1 designation specifically says that "this article had a valid redirect target, and now does not", which indicates that there might be another such target out there somewhere. A talk page can only have one article page, and once that's deleted, there isn't another article page that might fit. The R1 criteria is useful in itself as a cleanup criteria, and should remain separate. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I would first like to point out the above text "The criterion should be nonredundant: if the deletion can be accomplished using a reasonable interpretation of an existing rule, just use that." I do not feel that it can be argued that an R1 would not qualify as a page dependent on another. Does the fact that it is an article somehow change that it is a page? Also, all DBs Should be checked to see if they can provide a valid function. Many talk pages are moved to talk archives, for ease of searching. many subpages are moved to historical pages of WikiProjects and the like. And many redirects can be altered to provide valid an plausible targets. R1 will still redirect to this CSD, and the template can even be preserved as a specific instance of G8, but I do not feel that a separate CSD for an instance of G8 in a redirect would qualify as "nonredundant". ~ JohnnyMrNinja 19:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm of mixed feelings about merging in R1, although I don't agree with WJBscribe's comments. We have already merged A4 and A6 into G-series criteria, so we'd leave a similar note at R1 and not cause any confusion for readers of deletion logs. We're not just removing criteria 'for the sake of it' - as Johnny says, R1 is currently a subset of G8, and CSD criteria should be nonredundant. On the other hand, R1 deletions are common enough that it might be valuable to retain a distinction for filtering purposes. I'm honestly not sure, and honestly don't particularly care. It's one fewer criterion to remember, though, and KISS principle applies here as everywhere else... (also)Happy‑melon 13:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

What about the templates?

The table of deletion templates has not yet been updated, so I thought we could discuss the new arrangement a bit. Since G8 now assumes a wider role, shouldn't its dependent templates reflect that? Look at G6, for example: it has {{db-g6}} and another six templates as shorthands for specific tasks. Shouldn't G8 have a few as well? I'm not saying they should follow a pattern (or we'd have to add seven templates), but {{db-talk}} certainly fails to be representative. The new {{db-templatedoc}} could redirect to {{db-g8}}, for one, as could {{db-redirnone}} (if R1 stays merged with G8), and a few others could be created, like {{db-subpage}} and {{db-imagepage}}. Waltham, The Duke of 13:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that several easy-to-remember redirects would be useful, though I do feel that {{db-t4}} and {{db-templatedoc}} should be deleted as unnecessary and possibly confusing. T4 only had I think one deletion before it was marked as proposed. I'd rather delete those templates and save T4 for the next candidate. I've been trying to think of a clever and easy redirect name that would cover the whole thing, but the best I can come up with is {{db-dependent}} or perhaps {{db-depend}}. I haven't been able to start editing the other ones, as they are still fully-protected (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive169#CSD Template Protections and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#CSD templates still fully-protected?). ~ JohnnyMrNinja 20:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

{{db-t4}} should certainly be deleted, but that doesn't mean we couldn't change {{db-templatedoc}} to redirect to {{db-g8}}, or even be a proper template in the vein of the specialised ones used for G6, does it? Waltham, The Duke of 20:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

{{db-templatedoc}} could be kept, but I think {{db-subpage}} would serve the same purpose but would be easier to remember. Of course, redirects are cheap, but Category:Speedy deletion templates is already a little over-populated. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 20:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I see what has been done with {{db-subpage}} and I agree that {{db-templatedoc}} is no longer needed; I should support its deletion. I also see {{db-imagepage}} has been created as a redirect; since it exists, I don't think it would harm to make it into a proper template like {{db-subpage}}—{{db-g8}} has too much text. I have updated Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Deletion templates to remove T4 and {{db-templatedoc}} entirely and add {{db-subpage}} and {{db-imagepage}} to G8. (I haven't changed R1 yet, seeing there is still disagreement.) Are there any other new templates or changes I should be aware of? Waltham, The Duke of 11:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to look into this some more, but I'm sorry, I don't think this was done in an ideal way. I'd like to get Happy-melon's opinion too.

As I understand it, you wanted to create a new {{db-talk}} that is related to {{db-g8}} the way {{db-move}}, for example, is related to {{db-g6}}.

I would have preferred keeping the page history of db-g8 at db-g8; I see no rationale for moving it to db-talk. (Let's not suddenly move it back without thinking about it a bit, though.)

Note that db-move transcludes db-g6. I think db-talk should probably similarly transclude db-g8. It makes sense to me for db-talk to be subsidiary to db-g8 rather than being another separate template transcluding db-meta.☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmn... I agree that this was not an ideal solution. We now have a proliferation of independent templates, none of which are categorised, none of which have documentation, and all of which are very similar but slightly different, a recipe for confusion. I agree, first of all, that the history of Template:Db-g8, now at Template:Db-talk, should be returned to that page. The criterion text has been modified, so the template history should reflect that modification. Looking at the current history it is easy to conclude that the current G8 criterion was created out of nowhere, which is simply not the case. A history merge might be appropriate, but sidelining the old history certainly isn't.

I also have to take issue with the proliferation of separate wordings - we now have {{db-talk}} and {{db-subpage}} as entirely separate templates. Why is it not acceptable for these to be hard redirects? At the very least, these templates should form a hierarchy on {{db-g8}} in the same way that the G6 and A7 subtemplates are based on {{db-g6}} and {{db-a7}} respectively, as Coppertwig suggests. Having them as separate templates is just plain messy. (also)Happy‑melon 12:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and Template:Db-t4 should definitely be deleted to free up the number for a future criterion; it never got enough airtime to warrant retention. (also)Happy‑melon 13:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I had no idea about the move, nor about any transclusion features; I thought the "child" templates were completely independent, and that {{db-talk}} was simply created in that location. The present arrangement with regards to {{db-talk}} and {{db-g8}} does look strange and suboptimal.

(new part) Yes, I agree with moving the template back. Now, about the redirects, I think that for criteria like G8 that describe several different cases it might be better to have more specific versions of the wordy {{db-g8}} template available. Since there can be such hierarchy as has been described, of course, that would be much better than the relative chaos of separate templates. And they shouldn't be too many, either; there are three at the moment (one a redirect), and at most one may be added if the merger of G8 with R1 goes forward. Waltham, The Duke of 13:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the page move was silly. This is why I left a message for Coppertwig hereasking for help. I realized the db-g8 page move was not a great idea right after I asked an admin to do it. I swear I thought it was a really good idea right before that. A history merge would be ideal. Apologies. As far as {{db-t4}}, when the speedy I put on was denied, [2] I decided to move it to {{db-subpage}}, to preserve the history and get it out of the way of a new T4. I would take no issue with it being deleted, and {{db-t4}}, which is now a redirect, can certainly be deleted. I was not thinking to create a dependant template at {{db-imagepage}} simply because I do not think it will come up all that often. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 17:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Charlotte Ronson

I wrote an article about Charlotte Ronson. No, she's not the most well known person in the world, but anyone involved in the fashion world at all, many that live in New York, and people who know of the family in general know who she is. She's a designer and showed at Bryant Park, pretty impressive and pretty well known obviously. Yet, for some reason unknown to me, my page was deleted. I used sources, etc. etc. and as far as I know, didn't do anything wrong, yet the post is now gone.

Somebody please explain this to me. 65.32.130.128 (talk) 23:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You're going to have to provide us more information before anyone can investigate this. No page has ever existed at the title Charlotte Ronson. Your contribution history shows some work done at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Submissions/Charlotte Ronson but again, nothing has ever been deleted. (An established editor did review your work and declined to move it from that draft space into the main article space but he/she already left you a detailed explaination of the reasons for the decline.) Rossami (talk) 00:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I must also point out that anonymous editors through IP addresses can't create articles on Wikipedia. The author for this article is Theydiskox. Is that you? (That can be rhetorical.) ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 11:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Images and media

As a photographer who uses watermarks to protect his work in the internet age I am finding that some of the MODs at Wiki are citing a "no watermark" policy. I do not see this listed here. I am given section 3 as the main reason for image deletion (Improper license. Images licensed as "for non-commercial use only", "non-derivative use" or "used with permission" that were uploaded on or after May 19, 2005, except where they have been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. This includes images licensed under a "Non-commercial Creative Commons License". Such images uploaded before May 19, 2005 may also be speedily deleted if they are not used in any articles.) however when I quote the section back, because it clearly says ...except where they have been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. This includes images licensed under a "Non-commercial Creative Commons License" the reason for the deletion suddenly changes from CSD I3 to the watermark. I am sorry but I have read and re-read and I see nothing about a watermark being a valid reason for deletion here. It has been suggested that if an image has a watermark than is most likely not the persons image who uploaded it and in my case that if I wanted to "prove" I am the photographer I have to give a clean copy to Wiki. There are two basic "wrongs" with that - one asking for someone to give away their work to "prove" something is just stupidity. The other is, again, I do not see this "reason" listed here. In doing a search I find something that I 100% agree with, however it seems some Wiki mods are 100% opposed to. Copy attack has the following: In some scenarios, a digital watermark is added to a piece of media such as an image, movie, or audio clip, to prove its authenticity. If a piece of media were presented and found to lack a watermark, it would be considered suspect.

So thusly my suggestion is to rewrite the licensing rules (I was told by one mod there was only one license used here so if this is now true you must delete all other ones from all pages) and the CSD rules as it relates to images. Also either purchase non-public domain images from the photographer for use here or allow professional photographers to choose a license that suits their work rather than have a mod force only one choice upon them - "give it to us or don't". That elitist attitude does not make me want to help out Wiki Soundvisions1 (talk) 05:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's not about watermarks. Your image has been deleted three times because is was never uploaded with a licence acceptable for Wikipedia. Wikipedia aims to be free content, reusable by anyone, including for modifications and commercial use. CC-BY-NC-ND is not acceptable for this. So thank you for your offer, but we don't take it. Conscious (talk) 06:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a question, is there any deletion criteria for an image with a watermark? Or do we allow those? Matty - (Talk) 09:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no speedy deletion criterion but Wikipedia:IUP#User-created_images forbids it.

To the original poster, there are many acceptable licenses for Wikipedia: see WP:ICT/FL for a list. Stifle (talk) 09:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone reading Wikis own guidelines? I have tried make it easy and even guide people to the spot that is given as reason for deletion yet also shows what is allowed. Once again:

CSD I3 : Improper license. Images licensed as "for non-commercial use only", "non-derivative use" or "used with permission" that were uploaded on or after May 19, 2005, except where they have been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. This includes images licensed under a "Non-commercial Creative Commons License". Such images uploaded before May 19, 2005 may also be speedily deleted if they are not used in any articles..

To respond to Conscious. You said: Your image has been deleted three times because is was never uploaded with a license. Wrong. It was uploaded with a license. You than state: CC-BY-NC-ND is not acceptable for this. Wrong. Please take a moment a read the Wiki guidelines that we are discussing here: CSD I3 and please note the wording of what I am specifically asking/discussing: except where they have been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. This includes images licensed under a "Non-commercial Creative Commons License".

To respond to Stifle: That was my point, that currently Wiki allows for various type of licenses yet I was told by a mod that there was only one license. Thusly, if that is true, my suggestion of rewriting all Wiki pages that say there are other forms of licenses. CSD I3, the section of this discussion, clearly talks about more than one license.

Matty re-asked what I also did and was answered by Stifle that "There's no speedy deletion criterion" for an image to be removed because of a watermark. Thank you for acknowledging that there is currently no policy on the CSD I3 page. I feel that Mods can not, nor should they, cite this page as reason for deletion because of a watermark when there is no mention of that being a criteria for speedy deletion. As for the other part of the response - acceptable for Wikipedia was never an issue because it has never been cited by anyone, at anytime, other than right now. This discussion is about CSD I3 and how it is being cited in order to delete images that do not meet any of the criteria listed for speedy deletion. I will take time to read acceptable for Wikipedia and comment on that particle discussion page if need be.

Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The issue you're having is that you're misunderstanding I3. Noncommercial licenses are not acceptable for images hosted on the English Wikipedia servers. This is because all content (including images) en.wiki is licensed under the GFDL, which does not stipulate that reuse must be noncommercial. Unless I'm mistaken, however (which I may be), the Wikimedia Commons should accept CC-BY-NC licenses. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken I'm afraid, Commons doesn't accept images for non-commercial use only either. See here for example. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 14:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. lifebaka++ 15:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

As for the OP, you're misreading WP:CSD#I3. "This includes images licensed under a "Non-commercial Creative Commons License" means that CC-NC licences are included in what can be speedily deleted, not what cannot. Possibly by itself the sentence is a little ambiguous, but it should be clear from the context of the criterion as a whole (which allows speedy deletion of material licensed "for non-commercial use only", which obviously applies to CC-NC), and from the quote linked immediately afterwards, clarifying that NC and ND licenses are not acceptable. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 14:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

First to address the "you're not reading correctly" type comments. I have re-re-re-read the section I am talking about. It does not say only one one thing (speedy deletion of material licensed "for non-commercial use only"), it says several. It first lays out what the criteria are for SD. What comes next seems to be what most people are missing. There is very important word that puts what follows it into a clear context - that word is except. Unless the definition of that word has changed it means that the 1.rules are 2.EXCEPT 3.exceptions to the rule. It is very clear and there is not a way to misread it as written. And I, again, am only pointing out here that if there is, in reality, with no exceptions, only one license and that it does not have any "exceptions" than this section needs to be re-written. lifebaka asked about Wikimedia and I have already explored that option however, as Iain99 mentioned, they have a clearly defined set of rules with no grey areas or exceptions. To summarize - If it isn't free for all we won't accept it. Wiki is not that black and white on the issue and that is really why I created this topic. (And I want to mention I did read the acceptable for Wikipedia page and will be adding a discussion there because, again, grey areas exist. I will not get into those here only to say that as far as watermarking goes it appears to be another "Exception" rule, although an unwritten one. In my case the fact I want to protect my work is reason for deletion the "exception" is in the other watermarked images the watermarking is allowed because there are no copyrights on the image, or the photographer released it into public domain. However, as stated above, the CSD page makes zero mentions of watermarking being a reason for speedy deletion, if it is it should be added here and it should be clear as to either all watermarked images go or what the "exceptions" are.)

Just a little edit here - Iain99 posted a link to a "quote" however it is not a quote from this section. It seems to be a comment on a page about an image on Wikimedia, which has a separate (and IMO, more clearly defined set of rules).

Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Right, right, I'm sorry. I'm not terribly up on my image CSD. Still, the deleted version don't appear to have had fair use rationales, which means that they did qualify for I3. I have no idea if a claim for fair use could be made, as that is not an area I'm very involved in, but I suggest having the fair use rationale ready to go before uploading again if you plan to. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

There are two considerations here:

• Previously unpublished, user-created images cannot be used under a fair use rationale, per WP:NFCC#4. Thus they must be released under an acceptable free license, such as CC-BY-SA or GFDL.
• User-created images cannot have watermarks, per Wikipedia:IUP#User-created_images.

Any user who is not willing to release their original work under a free license without watermarks will not be able to contribute that original work to Wikipedia. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

My take. Almost all watermarks do not have reliable sources discussing the watermark. The watermark by itself may be enough to prevent a user-created images from being used under a fair use rationale, per WP:NFCC#8. Where no reliable source material discusses the watermark, the watermarked image cannot be shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content per WP:NFCC#8. Without meeting WP:NFCC#8, the image has no reasonable basis for being used in an article. In such cases, the watermarked image may be removed from an article and CSD I3 and CSD I5 may apply. The watermarked image may be viewed as a derivative work and both the underlying image and derivative work/watermarked image would need to meet WP:NFCC. There is the additional issue of copyright holder approval to make the derivative work, which seems to be a separate copyright issue outside of WP:NFCC#8 that would need to be resolved before allowing the image to be displayed in Wikipedia. Expressly prohibiting watermarks except where the image is intended to demonstrate watermarking avoids these and other issues. -- Suntag ☼ 17:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't follow what you're saying. User-created images can never be used as nonfree media, watermarked or not, because of WP:NFCC#4. But I don't see what WP:NFCC#8 (signficance) has to do with it. I think it's a red herring. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Watermarked images cannot meet WP:NFCC#8 without reliable sources expressly discussing how the watermark or image with watermark would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. In otherwords the watermark itself cannot be ignored in applying WP:NFCC#8. Also, images with watermarks fail Wikipedia:Image use policy unless, of course, the image itself is intended to demonstrate watermarking. -- Suntag ☼ 18:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all so far for the input, I appreciate it. I want to try and keep this topic on two facts as it relates to the main article, CSD, and they are:

• CSD I3 and its exceptions as written, including the links to valid CCL.
• The lack of a CSD policy being in place for images that have watermarks of any kind.

It is fine to cite where the information can be found, and why is exists, but how do "the powers that be" clean it up so Mods (and other who make Image CSD requests) can more easily locate it rather than the CSD being cited because...well, just "because".

As for the other issues that Suntag, CBM and other mention you might want to take that part of the discussion over to Image use, grey areas, confusion and Photographer rights.Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I've rewritten I3 to express the intention of Jimbo and the current practice that CC-NC images are deleteable and not acceptable. Stifle (talk) 10:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages

Should new criteria be drawn up for speedy deletion of talk pages? Simply south (talk) 10:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

What is not presently covered? All the "G" criteria (G is for "General") cover talk pages. fish&karate 10:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you have in mind? Stifle (talk) 10:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Blanked talk pages, talk pages covering redirects and disambiguation pages with no discussion, talk pages as redirects Simply south (talk) 11:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why any of those pages need to be deleted, except talk pages as redirects perhaps, those could be misleading. I'm particularly thinking that talk pages of redirects and disambiguation pages with no discussion do not need to be deleted—they're not doing any harm by existing. Darkspots (talk) 11:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Darkspots here. Is there a specific advantage to deleting them? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. When a page and its talk page is moved (by a non-admin) the talk page automatically redirects to the target talk page, IIRC. There are also cases when a redirecting talk page with a topic page that isn't a redirect makes sense to keep the discussion centralized, e.g. Template talk:Fact/doc or User talk:ClueBot.
Talk pages of redirects aren't worthy of deletion. We have a WikiProject Redirect that tags pages like Talk:METALLICA, many talk pages of redirects have an {{oldafdfull}} notice or some other discussion preceding a merge that should be kept. Blanked talk pages can just as well be kept, or often be tagged with a wikiproject banner anyway. --Amalthea^Talk 20:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

A7 and Schools

At Conserve School DRV, there are opinions that all schools to not qualify for A7. However, it doesn't seem reasonable to say that all school articles contain a reasonable indication of why the school might be important or significant. If schools qualify for A7, the question then is whether schools are an exception to A7. A7 now reads "If controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead." In other words, schools do qualify for A7, but if the particular A7 school deletion is controversial, then list the article at Articles for deletion instead. As now worded, A7 does not provide a clear exception for all schools. Speedy delete says "These criteria are worded narrowly, so that in most cases reasonable editors will agree what does and does not meet a given criterion." However, some reasonable editors can interpret A7 as not applying to any school and other reasonable editors can interpret A7 as applying to each school on a case by case basis. A7 does not appear to be worded narrowly so that reasonable editors may not agree on what does and does not meet the A7 criterion. Additionally, "controversial" adds a layer of speedy delete analysis beyond the standard "Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead." This is not a request to reevaluate the current A7/schools consensus (whatever it may be). If there was consensus that all schools (or, more precisely, primary and secondary schools but not Joe's school of auto repair) should be an A7 exception, then that should be explicitly provided in A7. In other words, the wording of A7 should be change to reflect current consensus on the speedy delete school issue so that A7 once again becomes worded narrowly to where reasonable editors will agree what does and does not meet a given criterion. -- Suntag ☼ 17:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The idea is that simply being a school is good enough to no longer make A7. Whether or not a school is notable deserves more time than speedy is built to utilize. The current wording says this, though perhaps it could be clearer? Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it could be clearer. How about replacing "Other article types are not eligible for deletion by this criterion. If controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead." With

"Other article types, as well as school articles, are not eligible for deletion by this criterion."

Schools could be focused to mean only primary and secondary schools, but that should be done only if needed (or applicable). -- Suntag ☼ 18:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I never felt that schools or other "social institutions" count as organisations. In that spirit I'd widen the exception, like "If controversial, as with public organisations" or something. --Amalthea^Talk 19:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the current wording is also meant to capture the idea that even if an article is in one of the A7 categories (org, bio, group, web etc.) and you do not believe it asserts importance, it should not be deleted under A7 if you are aware that it is controversial such as for a school. A school is certainly an organisation and if they were not mentioned on this page then they would fall under this criteria. However most schools do not get deleted at AFD - Keep/Merge/Redirect are much more common outcomes - so speedying schools which would likely not get deleted at AFD is not a good idea. I would like the wording to retain the idea, in this criteria in particular, that speedying articles which would be not be very clear cut at AFD should not happen, with schools used as the example. Davewild (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

A7 already reads "Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead," which can be added explicitly to A7. The additional "controversial" test reraises the issue each time. Yes, schools were controversial, but how about today? Consensus can change. That schools are controversial is a settled issue. I would be fine with replacing "Other article types are not eligible for deletion by this criterion. If controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead." With

"Other article types, as well as school articles, are not eligible for deletion by this criterion. If controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead."

This makes clear that A7 does not apply to schools, avoids determinine whether schools are an organisation or social institutions, and makes no substantive change to A7. -- Suntag ☼ 20:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• The question of what institutions or organizations should be eligible for A7 is a more general one. There's been instruction slip here--the word "organisation" was added without discussion during one ofthe many rewritings about two years ago. Personally, I think that it was a mistake altogether. DGG (talk) 00:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Except for web content, A7 seemed to apply to importance/significance human activity rather than products and services produced by humans. Institutions and organizations are hybrid human activity resulting in service output. If the human activity predominates an institution or organizations, then A7 should apply. If the service output predominates an institution or organizations (as with a school), then A7 should not apply. Muddy? Yes. -- Suntag ☼ 14:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Resolved - Between this discussion and Conserve School DRV, it is clear that A7 does not apply to school articles. I revised the policy to ensure that everyone is on the same page and DRV doesn't keep seeing these A7 school article deletions. -- Suntag ☼ 14:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete a stub because it is a stub?

Minutes after creation, the stub Route choice (orienteering) was tagged for speedy deletion. Hello? Speedy tagging (ahem) seems like a good way to waste time: the tagger's own time and the stub contributors' time too. --Una Smith (talk) 22:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

When you created the article [3], you were presented with the advice "As you create the article, provide references to reliable published sources. Without references, the article may be deleted." While the reason for tagging this article was a lack of content (CSD:A1) rather than a lack of sources, in practice articles that include sources are rarely tagged for deletion by the new page patrollers. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Nonetheless, tagging it as "lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article" is very debatable – and BTW I'm still convinced that the incorrect description as "Little or no context" in Twinkle is in great parts responsible for that. Amalthea^Talk 22:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at this revision it is impossible to tell what "Route choice" is. That is A1. NPPers are not psychic; they can't tell if someone is going to further expand an article or leave it as an ambiguous one-line stub. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 23:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

disagree totally--that it every was a no context--the very first revision gives the general subject in the very title of the article, links to two other articles to establish context, and has a number of see alsos. That;'s context, by my standards. Not the least ambiguous. Not by itself more than a dicdef at that point, but by no means a speedy A1. INEVERHEARDOFIT is not a reason for deletion ,regular or speedy. The twinkle wording must be changed to no context to match WP policy. In any case, this was one minute after creation. We need to build in safeguards against people doing that. I can think of at least one that does not require programming--take away twinkle if they repeat after a warning. DGG (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Per that revision, it's about the choice of route in orienteering and related sports (rogaining, adventure racing). The wikilinks alone gave context – compare it with the A1 example "He is a funny man with a red car. He makes people laugh."
It was little more than a DICDEF, notability was very questionable, and if it'd stayed that way it should've been redirected somewhere, but I could easily identify the topic from it. --Amalthea^Talk 23:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This tag for speedy deletion was wrong. The very first revision has a see also section. Maybe this is not references exactly, but gives an idea that this is a subject that people have something to write about it. A fast Google check for "Route choice" gives thousands of hits. A tag for expanding would be more appropriate. A prod tag could be the last resort, but not a speedy deletion tag. I have seen tenths of bad first edits, but this is not the case at all. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

"Route choice in orienteering and related sports (rogaining, adventure racing) is an important aspect of competition tactics. See also: Navigation Route assignment etc. etc." has about as much context as "John Doe in music and related arts is an important person. See also: Pop Rock, Drummer". Did the first revision identify the subject? No. It said that it was important and gave a few links. The argument is moot though as the article was expanded and is still there. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 00:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with this, and it certainly could have been tagged. However, I believe a {{context}} tag (and/or other maintenance tags) could have accomplished the same thing. I encourage people to err on the side of caution, as without improvement the CSD will still apply alter and there's always PROD and AfD. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The speedy delete tag was applied when the article was 3 minutes old. That is a waste of editorial energy. --Una Smith (talk) 01:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The reason for the quick tagging is that there are people who patrol all newly created pages. The pragmatic solution is simply to avoid creating one-sentence stubs. Take the time to write a whole paragraph, and include a source or two, and in practice I think it's very unlikely your new page will be tagged for deletion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

many of those one sentence stubs are improvable. People with bad connections, who are also likely to be inexperienced at WP, and sometimes not fluent writers as well, tend to write a sentence at a time. To get world-wide coverage, we need to encourage those people not fluent here but with local knowledge and access to local sources, to contribute here as long as they can write understandable English, even if they do it slowly. If you want a new speedy criterion, that articles of a single sentence are subject to speedy deletion for that alone, propose it. DGG (talk) 14:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing in favor of the deletions. I'm just pointing out that one practical way to avoid this problem is not to create one-sentence, unreferenced substubs. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Right. I agree that the eds who introduce articles should do a better and more complete job. But as it is, we never actually warn them in a prominent way. should we? If we do, how can we word it so it doesn't creep into being a requirement? Should we perhaps try to publicise the "underconstruction" tag? DGG (talk) 18:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I would start from the other end. Rather than telling a (presumed newbie) editor of a stub what to do, how about helping by (ahem) contributing to the article? Tag it a stub, add a see also, wiktionary link, image, commonscat, or a sentence of relevant content. Do something, anything constructive. Do not scold. In other words, act more like a peer, less like a boss. --Una Smith (talk) 06:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Re DGG: the message when you start a new page (you can edit adsfada to view it) included for a long time a note that said "As you create the article, provide references to reliable published sources. Without references, the article may be deleted.". I tweaked the working a couple days ago to be slightly stronger, but still written as advice rather than as a requirement. There is a balance in advising editors who create new pages without overwhelming them with text (which they will instinctively skip if it is too long). I think the present message is about as long as it could be before people would stop reading it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

A2 and deleted articles on other wikis?

I came across an article today which was written in German and which has been deleted on de-wiki. Does A2 cover such instances as well, i.e. can we say that an article that has been deleted on another language wiki, cannot be translated and placed on en-wiki? Or should such articles be translated and then put up for deletion? Or should they be considered as G4? Regards SoWhy 11:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No, since it doesn't "exist on another Wikimedia project". If it doesn't fail any other CSD criteria it should be kept and put up for translation.
I'm unsure if it violates the GFDL though since the original history of the de article is inaccessible – but that's a problem with all translated articles. --Amalthea^Talk 12:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it did exist there. For example what would happen if some article is deleted here as A2, then at de-wiki? Is the A2-deletion invalid in retrospect and does the article have to be undeleted? SoWhy 12:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah. If an article was speedily deleted and an editor requests undeletion, it should always be restored if the original criterion no longer applies (and no other criterion of course). So in your case, it's no longer a copy of an article of another Wikimedia project, so I think it should be restored. WP:Deletion policy#Deletion review doesn't mention this case yet though. --Amalthea^Talk 12:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. The idea of the A2 deletion is to avoid unnecessary duplication inside the project. Editors should be directed towards WP:Translation. If the original isn't available for translation, the translation should be declined, whether or nor someone has created copy in between. The deletion at another project does not really invalidate the deletion of what has been deleted here once as mere copy. Moreover restoring it would in most cases incur GFDL problems.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The different language wikipedias have different standards. deWP accepts some articles which we would not accept readily here, and we have content they would not accept. Similarly (but different) for frWP, the other one I know a little. We naturally do defer a considerable amount to local knowledge on some local topics, especially about things like hoaxes, but we are not bound by them. DGG (talk) 14:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Which means one hand that in some cases we will actually decline to translate articles that exist there, but if on the other hand something has been deleted there on a topic that might fit here we should either start from scratch or should ask for some from of transwikiing of the original but not necessarily resurrect or keep our copy. --Tikiwont (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Image deletion document

I'm attempting to create a document providing an overview of the image deletion process to expand on Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Deleting_images (which needs to be revised anyway, as it is no longer current on the handling of copyright issues). Since a good many of the avenues of deleting images are speedy ones, I figure folks here might have valuable feedback on the need and/or form of such a document. I've just placed a notice at village pump. The conversation started here. Current version of the proposed document can be found at Wikipedia:Guide to image deletion. I'm not in the habit of launching such discussions, so I really have no idea where conversation is best conducted. :) Since I have myself scrambled to figure out where and how to handle things (and have seen even other admins list items at WP:IFD that should be at WP:NFR), I think the document would be a good thing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Can some admin fix the template for A7?

The text that gets transcluded by {{db-bio}}("This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion as an article about a real person that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Note that books, albums, software etc., or schools, are not eligible for this criterion.") does not include the words "organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content", which are present in the policy, so the tag is thoroughly confusing for a newcomer. VG ☎ 17:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

db-bio is for use on biographies. For others, use {{db-a7}}, {{db-org}}, {{db-band}}, {{db-club}}, {{db-corp}}, {{db-web}} etc. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

In other words, {{db-a7}} is the 'main' template for the A7 criterion, not {{db-bio}}. {{db-bio}}, {{db-org}}, {{db-band}}, {{db-club}}, {{db-corp}}, {{db-web}} etc are all versions that use more specific wording for specific types of articles. You shouldn't put, for instance, {{db-bio}} on an article about a website - either use {{db-web}} or the general {{db-a7}}. Happy‑melon 14:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess Twinkle needs to be fixed then. It puts a {{db-bio}} whenever I choose a A7, even though the explanatory text in Twinkle's message box correctly reflects the current A7 criteria. Thanks for the detailed explanation. VG ☎ 17:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It's the explanatory text that needs to be changed. This selection should still insert db-bio. There are other selections for the other A7 categories. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a display of the speedy selection box. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I've fixed that. Try it and let me know (I don't use Twinkle myself, so can't check). Happy‑melon 17:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, now it doesn't work at all. I stays stuck trying to read tags from the page. The other TW A7 criteria radio boxes work though. Also see: Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle/Bugs#TW-B-192_.28open.29 VG ☎ 01:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Articles on recent financial market crashes

Draft proposal "Articles purportedly about a recent financial market crash should be speedily deleted unless they include a verified quote that there has actually been a financial crash from an exceptionally reliable source in financial journalism, such as the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, the Economist, or the New York Times."

Rational - Twice this year, we've had articles stating that a financial crash is currently happening. Compare the recent renamed version January 2008 stock market volatility with The same day version [4] and notice that the crash stuff is mainly given via templates at the bottom of the article. See also Talk:Black Monday (September 2008). People tend to panic when markets are volatile, and our editors are no different, so this type of article can be expected to reappear on a regular basis. But financial market crashes only appear 4-5 times per century. This would be no problem, except that, when we have an article saying that a financial crash is currently happening we are potentially multiplying that panic, and costing our readers a lot of money, as well as lowering our credibility.

I'm not saying that there should never be articles on financial crashes, only that we get an exceptionally reliable source to say that there is a crash, which in effect will give us a full day to think about it (and not panic). Another reason to use exceptionally reliable sources is that headline writers at lower quality sources use the words "crash" or "Black Monday" without backup in the article, or that the writers will state something like "so-and-so thinks this might be a crash." The exceptionally reliable sources (above) have been through real crashes (and non-crashes) and know the potential problems on panic and credibility, thus do not use the term "crash" lightly.

Why speedly deletion? Going through the regular deletion process would take several days, by which time the non-crash is over, but any reader who put their trust in us has already panicked and lost money, and Wikipedia has lost any credibility on financial articles.

Smallbones (talk) 16:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh no. This is not a good idea. First off, it opens the door for speedy criteria of the sort "does not include sources", which is not and never will be a speedy criterion. Second, twice a year is far, far away from often enough to make a special speedy criterion worth everyone's collective while. Third, we've got disclaimers for a reason. People shouldn't be coming to Wikipedia for advice of any sort, be it financial, medical, legal, or anything else. You should try going to for speedy closes at AfD, or else PROD. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Again AfD will be too slow. Remember people are panicking and there will be some controversy. Financial markets are different from most subjects of Wikipedia articles - lots of money is involved, and people panic. Of course people know that they shouldn't trust financial advice from Wikipedia - but in a panic situation, many are likely to forget that. Also please note, this proposal is not so much about deletion, but about a one day delay. How else to realistically stop this type of article? Or is it just not important enough? Smallbones (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have any moral duty to keep the markets from crashing. Besides, I doubt that "Wikipedia spreads panic on Wall Street" is ever going to be a headline in any serious publication, especially when that gigantic red tag appears at the top of any Wikipedia article going through AfD. VG ☎ 16:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

IMO, those articles should be deleted on sight as WP:OR. Encyclopedia articles can't be written without reliable secondary sources. lk (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

We don't speedy delete articles because they are original research. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see the benefit here. If somebody is going to make a poor financial decision based solely on an unsourced Wikipedia article with a big red deletion discussion notice at the top of it, well, you just can't protect people from their own stupidity sometimes. And the idea that such an article could actually precipitate a crash is a notion I find ludicrous. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

As a long time watcher of the financial pages, I would agree with the sentiment behind this proposal. Whenever the markets get volatile, we see a bunch of WP:RECENTISM get dressed up in a full-fledged article. I'm not sure that speedy deletion is always the right course here, but I do think there should be some firmer guideline about notability in these cases. Ronnotel (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

N.B. I have proposed such a guideline. Ronnotel (talk) 17:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not a good speedy-deletion criterion but this is an excellent example of why we need to beef up WP:NOTNEWS (or at least begin to enforce it better). Wikipedia should not make the mistake of trying to "scoop" anyone. Encyclopedias have the luxury of being able to wait for perspective. We sacrifice that advantage when we start to think that we're also newspapers. People who desperately want to write these 'breaking news' articles should be politely pointed to our sister project, WikiNews. Rossami (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see the proposed guideline, but frankly this and a couple of essays aren't enough. How can we keep editors from panic-pushing? The question is not "will wikipedia precipitate a stock market crash?" but "When should an encyclopedia say that there is a crash going on now, which may contribute to a general panic?" I say that Wikipedia should never do this, it's simply unencyclopedic and it may cause (or contribute to) harm to its readers. Do please note that the January 21 "crash" was linked to from the main page for a week (even though the market went up during that time). This type of thing just makes Wikipedia look stupid. So far the only practical suggestion I see here is to put up a big red template on the page saying "this article is up for deletion." I'd like to be able to do something more than that! Smallbones (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Still, see the third point about proposed criteria at the top of this page. Your proposal will not arise frequently, and therefore should not be one of the listed CSD. Feel free to make use of the template {{db}}, however, as I believe a good case could be made for WP:IAR. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The third point - frequently is a relative concept, so please excuse me if I didn't know exactly what was meant. Actually I think that since it might be used a couple of times per year rather than everyday would make the application of this much easier. Rule 3 seems to be written more for administrator convenience, than for solving a real problem. I'd like to solve a real problem.

I still don't understand the suggestion. I'm supposed to put up the {{db}} template, fill in the reason with WP:IAR and presumably text similar to what I've put on this page, and then you will speedily remove the article? I'm guessing it wouldn't work that way. Smallbones (talk) 23:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The point is written because speedy deletion is designed only to work in incredibly obvious and uncontroversial places, and is supposed to take loads off of [{WP:PROD|PROD]] and AFD, where the articles would also be deleted. If it's not going to take a substantial load off of either of those processes, there's no need not to use them. Still, we've got WP:IAR for a reason, and we haven't deleted {{db}} for a reason. Creating a specific disclaimer to put at the top of the article/talk page isn't a bad idea either. I'd suggest heading elsewhere to see if those are acceptable, to get a wider audience. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Write a {{do not panic; markets will rebound}} template if that makes you happy. VG ☎ 19:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't appreciate the attempt at humor. As far as "Wikipedia doesn't have any moral duty" from above, I think you're blowing this way up - instead of "moral duty" I'd rather talk about "common decency" or maybe just a simple rule like "an encyclopedia should attempt to tell the truth."

Please consider the following situation: You work with an organization that regularly misleads its customers in a way that may cost its customers money, without in any way benefiting the organization. Wouldn't you think it best for both the customers and the organization, that you make an attempt to correct this situation? That's all I'm trying to do here. If anybody has a positive suggestion, please let me know. Smallbones (talk) 23:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Smallbones, but I can see that the Speedy Deletion criteria, in order to function on a project wide basis, need to be kept manageable, general and few. I'd also be extremely reluctant to beef up NOTNEWS type restrictions in the speedy deletion criteria, because writing high-quality encyclopedia articles based off current events is something that Wikipedia does better than anyone in the world. Many editors, unfortunately, don't understand the difference between encyclopedia articles based off current events and news articles. In the specific case of sudden stock market volatility, I'd think a better approach would be a smart, and simple, guideline. 1) Wikipedia generally has articles on a variety of economic trends. When somebody starts Black Sunday (Nikkei) Dollar Crash or something, it would be better to swiftly redirect this to somewhere like U.S. National Debt (or whatever the cause). The problem with speedy deletion is that people are going to add the information somewhere. This week's Dow dive showed up in several different articles. And CSD doesn't get at the real problem, whereas a guideline could. So, 2) the guideline should spell out not to use phrases like crash or panic anywhere without the sort of sourcing Smallbones outlined. It could also provide better guidance on dealing with market volatility in general. I'd think if we write this guideline we could get consensus for it, and then bring it to the attention of enough editors who are familiar with markets. I do think we can address the problem without adding a CSD criteria. Not sure the next step here. --JayHenry (talk) 02:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Just no on this proposal - it's true that the financial market may respond adversely to misinformation. By the same token, people may get bad advice about medicine or their health from Wikipedia, or even commit murder based on misinformation they read on Wikipedia. These people are responsible for their own actions. Recentism is a problematic phenomenon in many ways, but it is also in the heat of the moment that many of the details about a topic are most easily available, and that many editors are willing to commit resources to expansion in that area. We currently take advantage of the recentism tendency to create detailed articles that later get pared down to essential information. This is better than hoping to locate this essential information after the event has passed, and I believe ought to be encouraged as an effective wiki-style methodology. Dcoetzee 01:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge

Given that CSD I8 has been modified quite a while ago to allow immediate deletion, I suggest we merge Category:Images on Wikimedia Commons and Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons into Category:Candidates for speedy deletion to streamline and facilitate such deletions. Comments welcome. (cross-posted here, CAT:NC, CAT:NCT, and CAT:CSD) —kurykh 19:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see any real problem here. Xclamation point 21:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, CAT:NCT is out of control. Conscious (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree - less is more when it comes to different places to go to find CSD candidates. Happy‑melon 09:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Why do I8 deletions at all? Doesn't help us. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have implemented this proposal, but it was reverted. Conscious (talk) 09:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

New Speedy criteria proposal

• An article may be speedily deleted if it only contains information that is already contained in an existing article, there is no content to merge, and the title would make an implausible redirect.

The wording of that sucks, but the idea is, well, pages like this. It's an exact copy/paste of another article (Huzzah), right down to the reference numbers. The other type of pages I've seen that fit this mold are pages where someone has started an article without knowing there is an existing article, and the name happens to be an implausible redirect...in the past, I've actually been able to get some of those deleted under R3 criteria, but it doesn't seem right.

Again, the wording of my proposal sucks, but the concept is, quite simply, that if the info is already on Wikipedia, it should be able to be speedily deleted because no reasonable person should have an objection to it...seeing how the info will still be on Wikipedia. Comments? --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The articles like the one you pointed to as an example fall squarely into the category of vandalism (G3, misinformation). A complete copy-paste would fall under G6, since there is no obvious need to keep it, and it probably violates the GFDL. Beyond those, I don't really think there is a need for a broader class of speedies. An article that is only a partial copy paste, but not obvious vandalism, could just be the start of a spin-off (see WP:SUMMARY). Someguy1221 (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If someone took the time to create a duplicative article at a different title, my first thought is that it's probably a plausible redirect candidate - maybe just following a title logic that's not immediately obvious to me but that might be very obvious to someone else. Speedy-deleting those good-faith contributions will will result in one of two outcomes. Either the newcomer will see that their new page was deleted and feel bitten or they will incorrectly think that our database is unstable and "ate" their contribution - leading them to repost it, have it speedy-deleted again and the situation escalates from there. A redirect solves that problem neatly by pointing the new contributor to the right page where their contributions will be appreciated.
If the duplicate title is blatantly inappropriate or if the page truly is an exact duplicate and it's apparent that the user must have copied the text from an existing Wikipedia, then you have a probable case of vandalism on your hands. (Note, however, that merely being a copy-paste may not be proof of bad-faith. A new editor might have copy-pasted the text from one of the many Wikipedia clones without recognizing that we were the original source of the text.) The vandalism charge can often be verified by investigating the creator's contribution history. If it's substantiated as vandalism, that's already speedy-deletable without creating a new CSD criterion.
I think that once you weed out the vandalism cases, there's not enough need for a new CSD criterion. Rossami (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Per this proposal, someone in the midst of expanding content from an article into a new article may be find a speedy delete on their new article. Ouch. --Una Smith (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

All these proposals require too much consciousness on the part of contributors. I see a trend here to shift from writing rules for speedy deleters (yourselves) to follow, toward writing rules for everyone else to follow, if they want to protect their work from being speedy deleted. --Una Smith (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Template for declined G4s

I so commonly have to tell new newpages patrollers that G4 doesn't apply to article only previously speedily deleted that I created a template to save time. I imagine others have similar experiences so please see {{notg4}}.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There's also {{sdd}}, {{sdd2}}, and {{sdd3}} which provide more general templates for why a speedy deletion was declined; these require parameters though. Stifle (talk) 14:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggested new category

I'd like to suggest a new category for speedy deletion: "no assertion of reality". I have come across a few articles that have been written by a single author and that serve to propose their own invention, society, etc. They make no assertion that the subject actually exists or is known to others, but mistakenly create articles all the same.

This is not vandalism as it is meant in good faith, and nor is it a hoax as that would imply an attempt to give the impression that the subject is real. It has elements of Original Research, Vandalism, Hoax, Advertising (self promotion), No Assertion of Notability and Nonsense, but doesn't quite fit into any or those categories.

I'm not happy with my use of the word reality to describe such articles. I'm not contending articles on sujects of disputed reality (God, Soul, etc), nor articles on fictional subjects (Captain Jack Sparrow; Captain Ahab). Even though contentious or fictional, at least the thought of these subjects is genuine, and information can be distilled into an artcle.

In practice, I've nominated such articles for speedy deletion anyway, and admins have been kind enough to bend the rules. I've also explained the issue on the authors' userpages. However, I'd like to check that there is agreement that such articles are CSD.

swyves201.230.43.196 (talk) 06:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I like to call these "coherent nonsense." They usually snowball at AFD very quickly, although many of them happen to fall into a speedy criterion by describing a group or something. I'm just not sure this can really be pinned down accurately enough for CSD. The criteria here are supposed to be at least remotely objective. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Good term! My key defining feature is that there is no assertion of non-nonsense-ness (say that ten times fast). If the article is purporting to be about something real, it deserves a fair shot, but you do sometimes see articles that are written as first proposals. It's almost a "no assertion of notability", if you really strain the definition of notbility. These things would generally be notable if they weren't figments of their authors' imaginations. But then.... 201.230.43.196 (talk) 07:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose making such articles CSD, There have been too many cases of one person writing a wholly inadequate article not explaining the notability in an adequate way, and it turning out that, yes, its actually well known to people who know the subject and there are sources if one actually looks. A common example of this is college students writing an article about their instructor, saying what courses he teaches & how good he is at it, and it turns out he's famous as a scientist, only they don't know it. Now those are A7s, and some get deleted because people don't know, but usually not , because its easy for an admin to check sources. Other topics are harder. The list of topics is deliberately restricted to those where one person can easily tell even without special knowledge. The only check against deletions on Ineverheardofit is exposure to the community. That's the purpose of prod and afd. There are not enough definable groups to make a list that would not be subject to overuse. As it is, I'd support removing companies and groups in favofr of specific sorts of groups. The proposal is going in the wrong direction. DGG (talk) 00:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this CSD proposal even is about, but it's fair to say that "when in doubt, take it to AfD instead of CSD" is a good principle. The concerns here seem to revolve around a certain type of WP:OR articles that are not obvious hoaxes. These articles constitute a tiny minority of the stuff sent to AfD, so devising a new speedy criteria for them is IMHO a waste of time. VG ☎ 00:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Strong oppose - after all, many of our articles - including some of our featured articles - are about fictional characters. There's no easy way to tell whether an article is about something that is a figment of the author's imagination, or is the figment of many people's imaginations. Dcoetzee 01:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Would articles like this be covered under such a category? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, already speedied it. In my view articles which give a biography where all the events are clearly fantastic (eg claiming to be the President of non-existent countries, to have invented impossible devices, or like here where every date is decades in the future) are already speediable. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Fails points 1, 2, and 4 at the top of this page. Anything that's clearly a hoax is speediable under G3, and anything that may or may not be a hoax should not be speedied. Stifle (talk) 14:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I feel an obligation to add a qualifier to Stifle's comment. Just because you think something is clearly a hoax or has "no assertion of reality", you should still send it to AfD in almost all cases. Our history at the project has shown that as individuals we are not very good at telling the hoaxes from the poorly written or especially obscure but true topics. When we decide as a group (the AfD process), our success rate is much higher. Speedy can, of course, be justified if you see a pattern of vandalism in the editor's contribution history. Rossami (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Question on G11

I'm not exactly understanding the second sentence of this criterion: "Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion." Can someone explain that? MuZemike (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the intent is to distinguish between verifiable (as in, a product exists) and notable (as in, someone other than you cares). --Una Smith (talk) 20:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Not every article about a company or product is blatant advertising. I think that's all it wants to say. --Amalthea^Talk 22:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

IBM, as a random example. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Or as products go Windows 98 would not speedable. --70.24.176.182 (talk) 01:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. So in other words, it's a failsafe to prevent dubious/bad faith G11 taggings of notable company/product articles. Is that right? MuZemike (talk) 07:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Almost, but I would not assume bad faith in those tagging. It is to prevent over-eager tagging of new articles, in most cases created by users with a conflict of interest. So it says: Just because it's about a company or product and sounds like an advertisement, it does not mean it can be speedy deleted. That's why the word blatant is included and that's why {{ad}} exists. G11 is just for such cases when there would be no article left if you cut all the POV and ads. SoWhy 07:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Short time after G11 was implemented (pretty much handed down from the foundation, although speedy deletions of obvious spam was commonplace already), one administrator went ahead and deleted dozens of articles on cookie brands, even though the general consensus was that the articles were not spammy. DRV discussion. The qualifier in the current text is probably to preempt that interpretation of G11, and that it is pages which try to market or advertise a product, as opposed to merely describing a product, which can be G11-ed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

not quite, it is, according to WP:CSD: Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic.. In practice, if the product is reasonably notable, the promotional part can often be removed. A great deal can be done by simply deleting addresses and phone numbers and names of minor officers--and unsupported blurbs. If there is an informative core, it is not a speedy. DGG (talk) 02:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the emphasis DGG put here. For example, here's an article that I don't think it's advertisement, even though some other editors do think it is. Had this been speedily deleted as advertisement, I wouldn't have gotten the chance to add those references (I didn't touch its contents otherwise). The article might still be deleted, but at least it got debated seriously. CSD#A7 should be used when it's obvious that the company/product would have a hard time being notable, and no notability claims are made. For companies this generally applies to mundane local shops, e.g. a parking lot or a cell phone dealer would have a hard time justifying notability, so in the absence of any claim for extraordinary fame, I'd speedy it as A7. CSD#G11 is for those cases that could otherwise survive the A7 test based on advert-like claims, e.g. "the cheapest parking lot in the area", "has the best deals on XZY", or "fast-growing startup". While these are claims for notability, and may even be verifiable, they are obviously adverts and have no encyclopedic value. If the only claims to fame are of this variety, G11 seems the most appropriate way to rid Wikipedia of those articles. Similar examples can be given for products. Basically when some product is fungible, I'd expect some references or at least a claim about that it stands out somehow, or else I'd speedy it as A7. However, G11 type claims can be made about products too: "the yummiest cookies", "the screwdriver recommended by experts" (without saying who they are) etc. A more subtle form advertisement is encountered is some WP:COATRACK articles; these are not always speedily deleted. A recent example was Freelance_Academic_Assistants, a notion which was made up to promote certain sites and services. For articles with claims that are not of the garden variety of advertisement, AfD is the safer recourse, because when WP:DELSORTed properly, an article usually attracts knowledgeable editors. VG ☎ 06:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

an additional advantage of afd, is the possibility of removing repeats with G4. spam of this sort, in my experience, tends to repeat. DGG (talk) 04:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course first person plural is is an obvious G11. If I see "WE", it's G8+3. (unless an unknown king is writing about himself then it's A7) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

as I see it, FPP is more likely an indication of copypaste, and can generally be removed easily enough if that's the only problem. Remember the option of stubbifying. DGG (talk) 04:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

(Slight) expansion of G4?

Editor !votes "Redirect" in an AfD discussion, but discussion is closed as "Delete." Despite this, same !outvoted editor recreates the deleted page as a Redirect to some other page. Shouldn't the recreated page be subject to a G4 speedy, because it is contrary to the result of the deletion discussion? UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, not really, although this has always been a gray area. Deletion does not imply salting, and recreation of deleted titles in a form not substantially similar to the deleted version is generally allowed. The exception would be if there's an explicit prior consensus that the title should not be redirected, either in the form of a RfD discussion or as a clear and unambiguous consensus among those commenting on the AfD. Someone merely !voting "delete" in an AfD discussion should not, in itself, be taken as an objection to redirection: it is just as likely to simply mean "the content on that page sucks, get it off Wikipedia". If there's any doubt, I'd recommend simply RfD'ing the redirect. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Eh, redirects are cheap. If it is a likely search term, it gives a subtle nudge to new editors (more than the edit notices do, honestly) that the community has already looked at the article, as they are delivered to a parent article when they type in the previously deleted one. And plenty of fictional character AfD's end in "delete and redirect over deleted article" to leave the redirect but prevent editors from just reverting it to bring the article back. Protonk (talk) 02:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, if there are speedy deletions for redirects if needed. But I agree with Ilmari Karonen, if redirects were not specifically discussed in that AfD but just overlooked, there is nor harm in having them :-) SoWhy 07:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Ilmari on this one. The CSD only covers deletions of substantially identical material. The consensus for or against the redirect is a separate issue. Frequently redirects do get discussed in deletion discussions, and contributors generally ought to respect that, but there's no speedy recourse if they don't. Dcoetzee 04:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If there is a logical article to redirect to, there's generally not a compelling reason to delete the revisions. If any of the content is merged, the revisions ought to be undeleted to preserve at least some form of attribution as required by the GFDL (yes there are other ways, but they tend to be non-standard and quite ugly). Plus as a practical matter, any editor scrutinizing the merged content has a legitimate need to see who contributed what prior to the merge. — CharlotteWebb 11:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)