Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:25, 16 July 2011

Read this before proposing new or expanded criteria Shortcut WP:NEWCSD Contributors frequently propose new (or expansions of existing) criteria for speedy deletion. Please bear in mind that CSD criteria require careful wording, and in particular, need to be Objective: Most reasonable people should be able to agree whether a page meets the criterion. Often this requires making the criterion very specific. Uncontestable: It must be the case that almost all pages that could be deleted using the rule, should be deleted, according to consensus. CSD criteria should cover only situations where there is a strong precedent for deletion. Remember that a rule may be used in a way you don't expect, unless you word it carefully. Frequent: Speedy deletion is intended primarily as a means of reducing load on other deletion methods such as Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion and Misplaced Pages:Proposed deletion. These processes are more discriminating because they treat articles case-by-case, and involve many points of view; CSD sacrifices these advantages in favor of speed and efficiency. If a situation arises only rarely, it's probably easier, simpler, and fairer to delete it with one of the other methods instead. This also keeps CSD as simple and easy to remember as possible, and avoids instruction creep. Nonredundant: If the deletion can be accomplished using a reasonable interpretation of an existing rule, just use that. If this application of that rule is contested, consider discussing and/or clarifying it. New rules should be proposed only to cover situations that cannot be speedily deleted otherwise. If you do have a proposal that you believe passes these guidelines, please feel free to propose it on this discussion page. Be prepared to offer evidence of these points and to refine your criterion if necessary. Consider explaining how it meets these criteria when you propose it. Do not, on the other hand, add it unilaterally to the CSD page. this header: view • edit

Baysian filtering.

This isn't really relevant to changing the criteria, but do you think it's abstractly possible to train a baysian filter to recognize articles that are likely to be speedy deleted? I know it's not a process I'd trust to a computer, but it seems like there are probably structural, phrasological, and word choice characteristics that typically distinguish completely useless articles from decent ones. Is it possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikanreed (talk • contribs) 14:42, June 2, 2011 (UTC)

While this might be possible for some criteria (not English springs to mind), it wont be for all (how does a computer recognise what is a claim of significance for example). What you're suggesting is one or more rules for the Misplaced Pages:Edit filter that would probably be best suggested over there where users who understand it are most likely to see the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting actually implementing such a thing. I'm just wondering if statistical algorithms could manage a fairly high hit rate for invalid articles. From what I've seen they tend to have lots of characteristics that regular articles don't, such as lots of praising adjectives. This is entirely a hypothetical. i kan reed (talk) 19:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

It should be quite possible. It won't be even vaguely reliable, but it is an interesting idea. Hobit (talk) 22:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The idea of using machine learning to detect vandalism, deletion candidates, copyright violations, etc. on Misplaced Pages is an exciting research area that has received little attention. I think there's a lot of fun investigating to do there. I wouldn't limit yourself to a single method a priori without experimenting with alternatives. Dcoetzee 21:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

When was A9 changed?

I always thought A9 allowed us to CSD articles about songs that make no indication of their notability (eg. Pop the Trunk)? When was it changed so that it can only be used when an article for the artist doesn't exist? This means creating 10-20 AfDs when some quasi-underground rapper has a notable article made for him, and less than notable articles for his underground album and every individual unheard of and uncharted song on the album? WP:NSONG has a very objective set of criteria that should make it easy to CSD ones that clearly don't meet any of the criteria. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 21:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Whether I like it or not, A9 as I recall has never applied to anything but "there's no article on the performer, there's not gonna be articles on their recordings"; and getting that much accepted was an uphill battle. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, A9 has always been like that: here is where it was first introduced in October 2008. JohnCD (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

It's always been this way. I agree that I would love to make "fails WP:NSONG" a speedy deletion criterion, but it's never been that way and unlikely to ever be that way.—Kww(talk) 21:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A9 has always specified that the artist has to have no article - the language was there when to criterion was originally added in October 2008. Speedy deletion is intended to get rid of obviously inappropriate cases to free up load on other deletion processes to consider less obvious ones. If the song is by a notable artist then there is at least some chance that the song is notable in its own right. Speedy deletion is not about notability and the fact that the subject of an article does not meet a notability guideline is never a reason to speedy delete it. Hut 8.5 21:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I know. I meant more in cases where the article itself makes no attempt to establish notability, such as an article that consists of "X is a song by Y off their nth album, Z. (stub template)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Floydian (talk • contribs)

In my opinion, A7 needs to be expanded. Why a podcast is held to a different standard than an iTunes only song is beyond me. Same is true with "movies". -- Selket 22:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not the article attempt to establish notability isn't relevant. What counts is whether the article contains an claim of significance, which is a much easier standard to meet. If Y is a notable band then the claim that the song is by them can in itself be considered a claim of significance. The question of whether the song is independently notable then depends on how prominent the song is as well as how prominent the artist is, and this is a question that can't easily be addressed through the speedy deletion process. It is certainly possible that an article of the type you cite could easily survive speedy deletion (an article which just says "Bohemian Rhapsody is a song by Queen off their 4th album, A Night at the Opera" isn't going to be speedied under A9). Hut 8.5 22:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

"staying at the top of the UK Singles Chart for nine weeks and selling more than a million copies by the end of January 1976" would also qualify as asserting notability. -- Selket 22:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Just in case it wasn't clear I was discussing the case of a hypothetical article which just has the content I quoted. The only assertion of significance that one has is that the song is by Queen. Hut 8.5 08:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It would be immediately redirected to either Queen or A Night at the Opera" because the article doesn't contain any information to indicate its notability (the song isn't notable because Queen perform it, Queen are notable because they wrote it and many other well performing songs), just a puffed up version of the track listing on "A Night at the Opera". - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 10:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Which demonstrates why A9 requires the artist to not have an article. If they do, songs that cannot be a stand-alone article can and should be redirected to the artist or the album instead. As such, your argument in the beginning of this section does not make sense, since you shouldn't AFD those articles anyway. And redirecting 10-20 articles is not really a problem. Regards SoWhy 19:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

This is an important point. Remember that per WP:ATD, deletion is for articles where there is no reasonable alternative. If a non-notable song is by a notable artist, it could (and likely should) be redirected to the artist's article or the album's article. There's no cause to expand speedy deletion to cover things for which deletion in its broadest sense is not appropriate. If there's no redirect target for a NN song, though, deletion is spot on, hence A9's narrow focus. Jclemens (talk) 04:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'm convinced. Now, what to do about movies? -- Selket 20:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

What about them? A9 was not created to delete insignificant songs because it's easier that way but because the insignificant MySpace bands that are deleted via A7 often have articles about their equally insignificant songs. Movies on the other hand can be handled by AFD/PROD just fine. Also, since it's much harder to produce a movie than to record a song and upload it to MySpace, movies will much more often have at least some kind of claim to significance and those who don't are too few to require speedy deletion (remember, SD is an exception to the rule that all deletions should be by consensus and thus should only be used when consensus-decisions are impossible (because of the amount of articles created, e.g. A7), clearly unrequired (e.g. G6) or the extended time to discuss it would be harmful (e.g. G10)). Also, with movies, unlike songs, there is no clear artist to check for a redirection target. What if an insignificant movie was produced by a notable company and directed by a notable director. Where would you redirect it to? As such, discussion is preferable when it comes to movies and the few really clear-cut cases can be handled by PROD/AFD just fine. Regards SoWhy 08:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Although I'd personally like to include movies in A7 (I honestly don't see a lot of non-obvious cases on NPP, but that could just be chance), it's not worth the tension and fighting to implement. And frankly, a good chunk of them fall under db-web or G3 already.

That being said, the one thing I can think of that might stand a chance of being added to A7 would be the most blatant NFT pages we get, because a lot of people delete them (whether using G2, G3, G13, or WP:SNOW AfD closes) per WP:NOYOUDONTGETTOKEEPYOURINJOKEONWIKIPEDIAFORSEVENDAYSJUSTBECAUSETHATSWHATTHERULESSAY already. If others here think it's worth pursuing, I'd be happy to work on some wording. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

New criteria – autobiography article

How about having a new criteria for autobiography articles? Having this criteria would speed up the deletion process because {{db-person}} may be applicable to an article about a non-notable person and not necessarily the autobiography of the author. — Abhishek 11:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Some people write quite reasonable articles about themselves, so why would we want to delete them?--Michig (talk) 14:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Unneeded, as A7 already covers the vast majority of cases, G3 (hoax) covers more than half of the rest, and the {{autobiography}} tag discourages users from elaborating without sources regardless of whether or not A7 applies. -- Blanchardb -- timed 15:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Criteria {{db-person}} (of A7) says an article about a real person that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. This could not necessarily be about the user who created the article but the user might have created the biography about some other unremarkable person and may meet A7. So having a criteria where users create their own autobiograhy article would speed up the deletion process. And Michig, you being an admin I wonder how you can accept autobiographies of users on wikipedia!! — Abhishek 16:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion criteria should cover cases where almost all articles satisfying the criteria would be deleted through another deletion process such as WP:PROD or WP:AFD, and its function is to remove clear-cut cases to reduce load on these processes. While writing an autobiography is discouraged it is not actually prohibited, and the mere fact that something is an autobiography isn't an automatic reason to delete it, so a speedy deletion criterion for autobiographies isn't appropriate. Of course autobiographies frequently promote the subject or fall foul of notability/verifiability requirements, but if this is the case then the article can be deleted because of advertising or notability issues (including through speedy deletion criteria G11 and A7) rather than because the article is an autobiography. Hut 8.5 17:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

That's right. That the article is autobiographical has never been, in and of itself, a deletion criterion, speedy or otherwise. At best, it's a red flag indicating that the article probably meets some other deletion criterion, but it's your responsibility to indicate which one.

If the article doesn't meet any other criterion for deletion, then its autobiographical nature warrants cleanup, not deletion. -- Blanchardb -- timed 18:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, how are you going to identify that the article is autobiographical? Unless the creator admits that it is an autobiography, it will at best be a suspicion. An unconfirmed suspicion is not the sort of thing that lends itself to justifying a speedy deletion. Monty₈₄₅ 18:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - There is no special reason to speedy delete an article merely because it is an autobiography. On the other hand, a large number of autobiographies are already deletable as A7 for not making a credible claim of significance. Thparkth (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose The number of unambiguously autobiographical entries are reletively small, and fall pretty commonly under db-bio anyways. If there were an exception to a7, it would be a conflict of interest, but quite possibly notable as a subject. Better for more discussion then. i kan reed (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose some of these autobiographies are worth keeping, or can have a small amount of editing to make them useful articles. There is no hurry to get rid of those that are not a speedy delete candidate otherwise. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose some of the A7 candidates make perfectly good userpages. But as A7 already covers the ones that can uncontentiously be deleted this is a proposed speedy criteria for contentious deletions - and speedy deletion is not for contentious deletions. It would be better to encourage more taggers to refer editors to WP:COI - and for those who think COI mean one can't edit where you have a conflict of interest perhaps we need a reminder to read the policy? ϢereSpielChequers 16:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• 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)

Page should contain advice on handling misuse of the Speedy tag

eg in https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/Richard_Granger the asserted grounds are clearly not satisfied at the first application, by a user who is clearly doing this a lot. After criticism and having removed it he then applied it again in what looks like a fit of pique. Its a mess and irritating. A proper RFC seems a bit heavy duty as a response. What is a more proportionate response. Midgley (talk)

Seasoned editors know that there are tools to deal with that kind of situation, though I haven't found anything specifically about abuse of maintenance templates in general, not just speedy tags. General disruptive editing warnings may be used here, though, and perhaps a suggestion at WT:WARN is in order. -- Blanchardb -- timed 01:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Not everything needs a template. Disruptive editing is disruptive editing. When speedy tags are being misused by a new editor, it can be handled with just a note pointing them to this page. When it's an experienced editor, personal communication can be escalated to ANI if need be. -- Selket 16:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

A tailored message is better for a user that is tagging many articles improperly but note these: {{Sdd}}, {{Sdd2}} and {{Sdd3}}.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Sort of tangential, but why do none of those mention the option of proding the article? Monty₈₄₅ 06:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Simple. Prod first came into general use around April 2006 while these were all created in March 2006. Time to update them, no?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Rights to do G6 Technical deletions

Is there a way to reverse redirects (a type of G6. Technical deletion) without using {{db-move}} and waiting for an admin, short of having admin rights oneself? I'm thinking of something like the way rollback rights are given. Thanks. Nurg (talk) 02:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

If the redirect has no history other than its inception, the page can be "moved over a redirect" by simply moving it like any other page move, and any autoconfirmed user can do that without admin assistance. If the page does have an edit history, this can't and shouldn't be done without admin assistance. Someone might want to preserve the edit history of the redirect. -- Blanchardb -- timed 03:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Note, that only works if the redirect you are attempting to move over is the prior location of the page you are attempting to move. If you move page A to page B, you cannot move a page C over the redirect that was left at A. Monty₈₄₅ 06:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Sandboxication

I'm not a fan of moving articles to userspace if there is any intent for them to return, but as well as userfying some userpages would it be a good idea to move testpages and perhaps some other goodfaith stuff to the author's sandbox if they are a newbie and haven't already got one? I've done this occasionally and I hope it can be a less bitey alternative to deletion. I wouldn't suggest it if they've clearly tried to submit an article, or if they already have a sandbox. But if people agree this would be a nice to have we could request Twinkle to look for sandboxes and prompt for testpages to go that way wit an appropriate friendly note. ϢereSpielChequers 16:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't know how you missed it, but we recently had a full-on RFC on the subject of userfying instead of deleting, with consensus strongly against the idea of any automatic userfying. I think evaluating the submitted content and offering to restore it in userspace if it is salvageable is a better alternative. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to resurrect that proposal, hence my opening comment about not userfying articles if there is any intent for them to return. But we have a longstanding and uncontentious practice that when an editor with a redlinked userpage creates an article that could be interpreted as a userpage it can be politely moved to their userpage, I'm just suggesting that we extend that courtesy to newbies with redlinked sandboxes who create an "article" such as an empty table or other formatting experiment. ϢereSpielChequers 07:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

That actually makes sense; I could see that working. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Procedure for contested speedies

We don't seem to be clear about the procedure for contested speedies. This case is clear:

1. Enthusiastic NPPer tags it for deletion.
2. Original author (who is assumed to be highly biased) contests it.
3. Admin either declines or deletes it.

This case is unclear:

1. Enthusiastic NPPer tags it for deletion.
2. Somebody else (who has never edited the article) removes the CSD tag (e.g., claiming the article doesn't clearly fit the criteria).

Should the admin treat the opinion of the independent editor as being equal to the original author's, or should the page be treated like a contested prod and be sent to AFD?

I'm thinking that AFD is normally the right choice. Most of the CSD pages require "unambiguous" problems, and evidence of disagreement between the non-authors pretty much proves that it's not "unambiguous". Also, given the frequency of complaints about NPPers and other CSD taggers, I don't think we want to institutionalize a preference for the NPPer's opinion over any other editor's opinion.

What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The article (as with contested prods) should only be taken to AFD if the editor/admin concerned feels that the article should be deleted, considering all alternatives first per WP:BEFORE. If the original speedy tag was wrong, and the article belongs in the encyclopedia, why should it be taken to AFD? If it's still clearly a speedy deletion candidate (e.g. speedy tag removed in bad faith) it can be speedily deleted, though any reason given for removing the speedy tag (e.g. significant coverage being identified or other notability criteria being applicable) should be taken into consideration.--Michig (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion is only meant for uncontroversial cases; if a user, who's neither an admin nor the page creator, contests a speedy deletion nomination, than it means that the case is not really uncontroversial and the article should not be speedily deleted; WP:CSD reads: 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 (my bolding); there's no mentions of the requirement to be an admin to contest a speedy (and there are various non-admins who do that regularly). Of course, if the page creator logged out or created another account just to remove the tag, then the page can be deleted all the same, but, apart from this case and from the occasional WP:IAR case, I believe that it is inappropriate to speedily delete a page, if an uninvolved editor has objected to the nomination. Salvio 17:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

There are cases such as attack pages and unambiguous copyright infringement where speedy deletion is always justified. I think where judgment comes into it, such as A7's, removal of the speedy tag by an independent editor should prevent deletion as A7 (though not deletion by other means). I think the original question can best be answered with 'there is no procedure for contested speedies'. An article that has been tagged for speedy deletion, and that tag removed is an article like any other and we don't and shouldn't have any special procedures for it beyond those in place for all other articles. --Michig (talk) 18:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with all the above remarks. The exception being if you see a user that seems to be pursuing some sort of agenda, i.e. objecting to every single speedy deletion they can find whether flawed or not, or a good faith but uninformed or incompetent user who is simply wrong and does not understand the finer points of the criteria. If you see something like that, try to discuss it with the user in question, and revert any obviously flawed tag removals. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Generally, on the pretty infrequent occasion someone other than the page creator objects to one of my tags, there are one of three things I do. If an article is a blatant attack page or a copyvio (or if I were ever to come across an article recreated in defiance of an office action), it doesn't matter who removes it; I'm restoring the tag until it's deleted or until the proper permission is received. If an editor in good standing removes a tag, I may not necessarily agree with it, but I will take a good hard look at it before deciding whether to PROD, AfD, or do something else with it. However, if some IP or random account pops up whose first edit is to remove a tag, or if someone is indiscriminately removing tags for no apparent reason (I've had that happen once, to date) I have no objections to restoring a tag; the probability of that being coincidence is essentially zero. There's a bit of common sense that goes into it, which is a problem because most NPPers are fairly new users who don't quite get it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Would you do the same for a contested prod? If a prod tag is removed by an IP, and you disagreed, would you think it reasonable to restore the prod tag? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Anyone may remove a regular PROD (as opposed to a BLPPROD) for any reason, including the page creator. Once a regular PROD has been removed, you should never PROD the article again, and must resort to another deletion mechanism. Monty₈₄₅ 20:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the written policies.

Blade gives rational reasons for replacing a CSD tag deleted by an uninvolved editor, e.g., someone indiscriminately deleting every CSD tag he can find. So I wonder if he'd apply the same standard to prod: if an editor indiscriminately deletes every prod tag he can find, would Blade consider it appropriate to restore all the deleted prod tags? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a little bit trickier, because anyone can remove PROD tags, and it doesn't matter if the creator logged out to do it; however, there are some instances like this where I would have no problem doing so. It would have to be incredibly obvious, though, which is why I haven't had occasion to yet. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy#Speedy_deletion seems to provide similarly confusing advice. I think it can be cleared up. Should the "right answer" (whatever we decide that is) be described on this page, or solely on that policy? Which approach is handier for people actually doing CSD work? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with most what is said above, speedy deletion tagged should not be replaced when contested by an uninvolved editor unless a) the removal appears to be in bad faith b) The page is a an attack page. I disagree with copyvio deletions though. With your average admin knowing too little about copyright and your average editor even less, mistaggings do occur. I remember for example an article that was a split from an existing article, but was tagged as a copyvio because the original article was mirrored on another site. If your G12 speedy is contested in good faith you should use the normal method for copyvios ({{copyvio}}). Yoenit (talk) 21:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I've linked to this discussion at WT:DEL and WP:VPP.

It appears that we have a rough consensus that a disagreement between one random, independent editor (who says the article meets a criteria for speedy deletion) and another random, independent editor (who says the article does not meet the criteria) should be handled more or less like a contested prod, i.e., that if a third person thinks it ought to be deleted, they should take it to AFD to do so.

There also appears to be support for:

• making attack pages an exception to this process,
• assuming that IPs are the article's logged-out authors (perhaps brand-new accounts, too?), and
• permitting admins to IAR if someone's disrupting Misplaced Pages by systematically contesting all CSDs.

Does anyone have any other comments, or suggestions for wording? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we need a new layer of process here; we already have things like 3rr and BRD for dealing with disputes, and the reasons for the prod shelter just don't apply, generally, to the speedy criteria. Are there a lot of edit wars or something about people arguing over tags? I don't see many of these, but then again I suppose I don't usually deal with A7s. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that anyone's proposing a "new layer of process" here. I think we're trying to write down what exactly what the correct process is. Most admins and other editors believe that if a CSD (by someone other than the original author), then the page clearly doesn't meet the "uncontestable" and "unambiguous" requirements of most CSD requirements. Declaring that a page whose CSD tag has actually been contested therefore does not "uncontestably" meet the CSD criteria does not create a new layer of process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

But CSDs mostly aren't about being uncontroversial; I think you have that wrong. G6 is. If someone removes your G6, don't add it back so you can move the page, go to wp:RM. Maybe G11. But most of the criteria aren't. They are about things like being completely empty, or not. If someone removes an A3 from an article that just repeats the title and has a "see also" section, you can feel free to add the A3 back. It's empty. The whole point of CSD is that we don't waste time on AfDs for empty pages. It's not about whether it's uncontroversially empty—it's either empty or it isn't. If I found such a page that wasn't too new and I couldn't expand, I'd delete it. This just isn't like prods, and this extra rule doesn't make sense. Again; is there a problem that you're trying to solve here? Are there edit wars going on over these tags? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 14:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to solve the problem of articles on notable subjects being deleted as CSD when—in the opinion of people other than the page's author—they do not actually qualify for the CSD. Not all CSD criteria are as simple as either the page is blank, in which case we delete it, or it's not, in which case we don't.

So consider G11: "Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." Alice writes it. I say it's nothing but advertising, because it says only nice things about a successful company. You say although it doesn't report any criticisms, it's not actually "advertising" or "exclusively promotional". If the two of us—both experienced editors—disagree in good faith, is it logically possible for it to be unambiguous spam (=the actual requirement)? If it were truly unambiguous spam, don't you think that the two of us would agree that it was spam?

Consider A7: "No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content)." Alice writes it. I read it—a subject I know nothing about—and do not understand why anyone would think some television actor is important, and it doesn't contain words like "is notable because..." or "is important because...", so I tag it as A7. You read it and immediately understand why it's important and how the information on the page shows that. Should my ignorant tagging count more than your informed rejection of the tag? If the next admin who comes along is just as ignorant of the subject as I am, should the page be deleted despite your accurate objections? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

wrt G11, I already conceded that might be one of the few exceptions, although in this case the admin can decide if I have a point or not. G11s are anyway a judgment call for the closing admin, the admin can take my edit summary on the tag removal into account when deciding. If admins have bad judgment then we have a bigger problem anyway. wrt your A7 example, no, the page should not be deleted. You and/or the admin will see my edit summary and try to figure out if I'm right. If I'm out in the weeds, you can re-add the tag and open a discussion on the talk page. Just like every other time there is a dispute; no special process/rule needed, BRD works just fine. Usually these discussions are pretty easy; you put the tag on because you didn't recognize that some detail in the article was a sign of notability, but once I point it out in my edit summary then you'll see that and leave it off or go to AfD. Are admins deleting a lot of pages where the tag was removed? Do you think those deletions are bad? My point in asking what problem you're trying to solve is that my sense is that things here are going ok, generally. I don't think this new rule is needed. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen problems with this—real problems, real articles, real mistakes, real newbies being confused and scared away from Misplaced Pages. If it's not perfectly clear that something fits the criteria—see the long-standing rule, "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases."—then it shouldn't be deleted as a speedy. "Only most obvious cases" is our actual, written policy on this point, not "it's a judgment call..." If it's not perfectly obvious, it's not a candidate for CSD.

I don't think your idea of re-adding CSD tags to pages is a good one. If a speedy is declined, you should move onto XFD and get a clear answer from the community. It's not a matter of tagging as CSD until you find an admin careless enough to delete it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

But what if the remover is totally clueless? I mean, someone could remove a completely obvious A3. It's still a completely obvious A3, even when the removal was in good faith. As you say, people are careless. The solution to that is not to send ridiculous pages to AfD. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I haven't ever seen that problem when the page should have been deleted. (Have you?) There are times when an A3 deletion is the wrong result for a blank page. For example, page-blanking should normally be handled by reverting the vandalism, not by deleting the article and all its history. I've seen editors blank userspace drafts as an alternative to NOINDEXing them. "Blank" does not always mean "must be deleted ASAP without community discussion". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Not that I can remember, but then again I have not seen much if any edit warring over speedy tags, which is why I am opposing this new rule! (Except where the orig. author removes the tag, but we aren't discussing that.) Also, of course when I am talking about obvious A3s I am not talking about cases of vandalism, I'm not sure why you are bringing that up. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

So you propose a non-existent, purely hypothetical issue as a means of preventing us from solving a real, demonstrable problem.

Everyone else seems to believe that the existing policy limits speedy deletions to "the most obvious cases". They seem to believe this because the policy directly says this, in the first sentence of the third paragraph of WP:CSD. It has said this, or things like it (e.g., "Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead") for years now.

Everyone else seems to believe that if (non-author) editors disagree about whether the page meets the criteria, then it's not one of "the most obvious cases", and that the existing policy therefore does not authorize speedy deletion.

You seem to think that limiting speedy deletion to "the most obvious cases", i.e., those for which reasonable doubts of the page meeting the criteria don't exist, amounts to a "new rule", rather than the existing policy. Do I understand you correctly? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Responding to your last sentence: no. Why would you ask me that? If there's a completely clueless tag removal, I don't want to force an AfD. That's all I'm saying. If it's a clueful tag removal, then the tag should probably not be re-added in most cases. "preventing us from solving a real, demonstrable problem"—I haven't seen a demonstration, but in any case I don't think this proposal is going to solve any problems. In fact, I think you've just clearly demonstrated that existing policy already prohibits speedy deletion if there is reasonable doubt. Who is "everyone else", anyway; is there a big discussion about this somewhere that I missed? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

And who decides whether a good-faith objection is clueful? If I say it's unambiguous spam, and you say it's not, and the admin is inclined to think it's spammy, does the admin get to unilaterally decide that you are clueless? I'm not worried about simple vandalism or pointy-headed removal of CSD tags from every article. I'm worried about cases where legitimate disagreement appears to exist.

Naturally, it's a little difficult to give examples that non-admins can see, since they've been deleted, but what prompted me to seek this clarification now was the first CSD for Burgess Health. It's a plainly notable organization, and the deleting admin basically asserted on my talk page that the fact that someone placed a CSD tag on the article, no matter who disputed it or why, meant that he could delete it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

"Who decides...?" We decide the same way we decide everything around here? In this example, it was fine to delete it no matter how many people objected to the spam tag, because it was an obvious G12 (I think, I didn't look that closely). But your tag removal was problematic, since it didn't address the concern of the tag. You just said it was notable. This was not an A7, but a G11. For a notable G11, it is fine to delete the article and then when someone wants to write an article about the subject in a tone appropriate for an encyclopedia, they can feel more than free to do that. So your rationale for removing the tag wasn't really a reason to not delete the article under G11. The G11-ness of the article was never contested, as far as I can tell, by the time of the first deletion. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Then I suggest that you actually read both the article and the talk page, where I explained to the newbie how to improve the article. Even if you thought that some of it was promotional, it could have been stubbed to something completely non-spammy in less than two minutes. There's nothing even remotely spammy about the plain facts, like the fact that the organization contains multiple hospitals and clinics. WP:Deletion is not clean up, and speedy deletion is only to be used when the page has no realistic chance of surviving a full deletion discussion. What do you think the odds are that a health care organization currently in the news, and with the usual number of sources available for a business of its type, would have been deleted through a community discussion at AFD? (Have you ever seen AFD delete an article about a full-fledged hospital? I haven't.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

"Then I suggest that you actually read..." What am I to read there? Again, the only objection to the spam label was from the author. There are legal issues around copyright violations. They need to be removed. Really. There is no prejudice against the subject if someone wishes to write, not copy, an article about it. wrt G11, if we implement your new rule, then your removal here is the kind of thing I am worried about. The tag was for G11, but you removed it for a reason that has nothing to do with G11. Does this mean the article can not be deleted under the G11 criteria now without a full AfD? Note that right now, you could do something like add a hangon if 2 mins is all that is needed, stub it yourself, or just write a note on the author's page about what the issues are with the article and help that editor do what needs to happen to get the page written. Also note that your google search is for the wrong subject. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• What are you people talking about, a CSD is a CSD. It's evaluated based on policy not based on whether one editor has removed a tag. There is no need for more process. First of all, there is no category for "had a CSD tag but someone just removed it" so most admins are only going to stumble on the pages described by chance. Second, if I stumble on a page by chance that is a clear CSD candidate, I will usually consider notifying the creator to avoid being bitey; however, I am completely within policy to simply delete it, without tagging it. If I should happen to notice that it was recently tagged and the tag removed (a rare situation in my experience) then I will investigate who the tagger and untagger are. There is no requirement that an admin determine that speedy deletion is unopposed, this is not WP:PROD and should not become it. Many editors, especially new editors, have very little familiarity with the rules of CSD and I consider their tagging or removal the same way I consider their comments at an XfD - they don't necessarily reflect consensus to the same degree as more experienced editors who show an understanding of policy. I should note that I have probably removed more CSD tags than I have acted on. Bottom line, there is no such thing as a "contested speedy" where the tag has been removed, it simply isn't tagged for speedy deletion - so it most likely wont be speedy deleted.--Doug. 04:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

A2 and Machine translations

Would newly created articles that are just machine translated versions of other languages articles be deletable under a2? I'm bringing this up after seeing István Fekete Primary School, (not the first time I've seen this) which is clearly just hu:Fekete István Általános Iskola (Zichyújfalu) run through google translator, its barely intelligible, and per Misplaced Pages:Translation, "an unedited machine translation, left as a Misplaced Pages article, is worse than nothing" --Jac16888 02:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• In light of the ability to request translation, as has been done on the page, I think it would not be appropriate to include such pages under A2. Request translation or WP:PROD it, but I don't see a pressing need to speedily delete it. Monty₈₄₅ 03:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Tidying a machine translation is often very difficult, its generally easier to start from scratch, which is why the backlog of rough translations at WP:PNT is so much larger and older than the backlog of untranslated articles.--Jac16888 03:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Still, I see no reason to try to fit it into A2 instead of just going for a PROD. While it doesn't look the best to have the poorly translated article around for a week, I don't think it would cause serious harm. Monty₈₄₅ 03:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Machine translations are often so bad that I delete them as nonsense. As Jac16888 says, the existence of such pages usually prevents creation of a proper article about the topic: working from Google nonsense is hard work, and you don't even get the satisfaction of filling in a red link. To allow deletion under A2 is a good idea. —Kusma (t·c) 03:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• If not under A2 there should be a new criterion for this. There is no harm in deleting a machine translation, because it can be readily reproduced by running the same article through the same tool again. I acknowledge that machine translation can be a helpful assisting tool in translating an article, and I've used it to double check things a lot, but it does have to be used properly by a speaker of both languages to avoid being misleading. Dcoetzee 04:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• If a reasonably intelligent editor can figure out what the subject is, then I really don't see any reason why we need to delete it right this very minute, rather than a week from now. Perhaps someone will see it and be inspired to fix it, or to BOLDly scrap it and start over. There really is no deadline, and deletion is not clean up—not even for poor translations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

  The problem is, sometimes translations can be outright misleading if done by Google translate. For example, I know basic Japanese. The sentence "家は白いです。" shows up on Google translate as "Of whom are white."; the sentence actually means "My house is white." (for those of you who know the language, I entered うち instead of いえ; same kanji, but the first means "my home" while the second means "house"). And that's just a basic sentence. Machine translations tend to be fine for individual words, but they frequently mangle even the most basic sentences. It tends to be more helpful to work from nothing, because there isn't the chance of being misled by a bad translation. In addition, it's usually pretty easy to tell if something is a machine translation (i.e. with Japanese to English, it usually garbles his/hers); in the event there's any doubt, PROD/AfD do still exist. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

  Cleanup is usually impossible, and harder than starting from scratch. The best alternative to deletion that I see is to keep the essential information from the machine-translated nonsense (the full extent of which is the interwiki link) and to write a new one-sentence substub. —Kusma (t·c) 06:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

  I agree that clean up does not require perfect, complete clean up. Cutting it to whatever you understand is almost always sufficient in these cases. If you can figure out that the subject is some school in Hungary, then it's better to have a page that says "____ is a school in Hungary named after the writer István Fekete" than to delete the page entirely. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• It may be more helpful to work from nothing for someone with a fluent knowledge of both languages. It is much easier to have any reasonable partial translation for anyone else. Machine translation can be used as a convenient partial dictionary and some professional systems are designed to do only that, as a mere word-for-word translation, similar to the word-for-word translations (sometimes called glosses, used in written form for instructional purposes since the development of writing. For someone with a better knowledge of the source language, the errors in the machine translation can be corrected, although they may not be able to put the final result into colloquial English--the traces of such translations are everywhere in Misplaced Pages, any assuming they are accurate for the meaning, any good native English speaker with some idea of the subject can put them into fluent English, just as they would correct the writing of a schoolchild. I have often done that as the final step, both for writing by neophytes in English and for semi-literate native English speakers. But opposite situation, where the editor has a better knowledge of the target language than the source language, is the usual one for me. For French , where I have an intermediate level of knowledge, I can, with only a dictionary, probably produce a reasonable English translation of any frWP article not in a specialized field I do not understand. Unless the article is trivial, I can do it somewhat faster with the help of a google translation, using a dictionary only for words not in the Google vocabulary. For German, a language I have only an elementary knowledge of, I can translate from scratch a simple short deWP article, or at least the first few sentences as suggested above. But I can translate almost any German article with the help of Google translate, for I know by my education the differences between German and English syntax, and by experience the oddities of Google translate for that pair of languages. For languages where I have the most rudimentary knowledge, I can sometimes manage at least the first few sentences with the help of Google translate. Because of problem such as that indicated above, I wouldn't try even that from a language I could not read at all--but I will sometime be able to add a reference, even from a language whose script I cannot read. The problem of dealing with low quality trasnlations is the same as for low quality articles--we improve them, we don't discard them. DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

DGG sums it up perfectly. As a professional translator, I do actually use Google quite a lot. Cleaning up the machine translation saves much of the retyping. However, there would be no way of doing this (taken from the fr.Wiki article) for example, from a machine translation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, Japanese is a pretty extreme example; it's notoriously difficult to produce decent translations between Japanese and English, which is why we have an entire article on that very problem. Most of the time those comfortably fit into G1. I would think that Germanic and Romance languages especially, and Indo-European languages in general would probably fare better through machines, for obvious reasons. But of course, I wouldn't want to rely solely on a machine translation for something like the above linked article. If an article was so bad that a blank page would be more useful for a rewrite, an AfD without prejudice against recreation would be a decent approach; I've seen this work with wildly inaccurate geography lists, and I see no reason it wouldn't work for this problem as well. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)And just for a bit of fun, the signature of my alternate account is a very polite way of saying "please speak"; this is what a translation does to it (it actually makes some sense if you know the language, but even still it's way off). After taking Japanese for two years, I have a lot more sympathy for the early video game designers.

GIF files converted to PNG files

So I moved the image File:Oxygendepletion1.gif to Commons as File:Decline of oxygen saturation to anoxia at night Kiel Fjord Germany.png. This is the exact same image transferred from an outmoded format to a more modern format. I understand that the original {{ncd}} was declined because they are different file formats, and policy says they must be the same format. It does not make sense to transfer a GIF image to Commons, when this is a perfect opportunity to upgrade it. Converted PNG files need to point to the original GIF files, migrated files need to point to the original file, why not do this at the same time? Please amend policy so that single-frame GIF images replaced by bit-for-bit identical PNG images can be deleted as redundant. I realize that a GIF image will not increase in quality when converted to PNG, and the slightly smaller size does not net a huge benefit. The idea is that GIF offers only a fraction of the functionality of PNG, and was not designed to be a free format. PNG was designed as a free format, offers better compression, and better color-depth, so there is no reason not to default to PNG where bitmap images are concerned. Again, I am not talking about images that are in any way stylistically different, simply bitmap conversions. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 10:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The GIF format was created by CompuServe and has since then become an Internet-wide standard for simple graphics. Given that some browsers still in circulation can't read the PNG format, it makes sense to preserve GIF files even when an available PNG file displays the exact same information. That's true even where the old GIF file is not embedded in the article. -- Blanchardb -- timed 18:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

You can always submit it to WP:FFD.  Ronhjones  14:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I would be wary of deleting GIF files even when they can be converted to an image-equivalent PNG file, for reasons of maintaining the license attribution chain. (This image move is probably Ok as it includes the Upload log, but other moves have lost this information.) For background please see Commons:Commons:Superseded images policy and its Talk page. -84user (talk) 13:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC) The part I am thinking about is this: Do not delete originals after creating derivatives. It is good practice, and also often required by license, to refer to the original and indicate any changes made to it. Deleting the original because a derivative is available is thus a bad idea, and in some cases even a violation of license terms. -84user (talk) 13:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Correct forum for discussion of CSD user talk notices?

Would like to verify: For discussion of the speedy deletion notices that are left on user talk pages (things like Template:Db-csd-notice-custom), is this the correct venue to discuss them as a whole? Someone recently came over to Misplaced Pages talk:Template messages/User talk namespace to discuss these things, and while it would seem to make sense, it also seems a bit out of scope for that page. So if someone could verify that this is the right place, that would be helpful, and if this isn't the correct place, please advise as to what is the correct venue. Thanks! SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

If it's about the wording of the message, I would say it's the correct venue, which can also be inferred from the categorization (the template is in Category:CSD warning templates which in turn is part of Category:User warning templates). In a case like this one, it would be a good idea to leave a message at WT:TWINKLE (since the template is used by Twinkle apparently) and this page though, pointing interested users to the discussion. Regards SoWhy 22:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I was the one that asked. I do not believe this page Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion to be the corredct venue as my question had nothing to do with either CSD policy or twinkle. I wanted to r, while remaining eword a template fro the well inteded wall of text that it is; which nobody is reading, to something that is clear and concise while remaining friendly, and not confusing. The template itself is made up of a string of php calls for other templates and I could not locate the body text. That was all I wanted to know. I know enough about templates however not to disturb the Twinkle syntax or the existing php. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I would like to change it for the suggested text at here. Reasons: 1) It is a wall of TL;DR text and is being ignored by the recipients. 2) It is deeply embedded in the parent template code, and is unavailable for use, and unlisted anywhere as a manually placed template. 3) A Twinkle option shuold be included as a single issue uw rather than only the automated placement by the Twinkle CSD A10. 3) In spite of my knowledge of templates, I have tried, but I am unable to unwrap this body text from its parent templates and additional contingent template calls. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

You're on the right track, but the wording can be greatly tightened, e.g. the redundancy, "new additions" I'd suggest not

Hello Template:Revisionuser, thanks for creating, Cars (franchise). Unfortunately, we already have a page about this at Cars (film) and your article may soon be deleted (if it hasn't been already). You are most welcome to expand the existing article, but do remember to add reliable sources for your new additions. If you think your article should remain separate, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," on the article's deletion message and leave your comments on the page that opens. If you have any questions please don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. (103 words)

but rather:

Hello Template:Revisionuser, thanks for creating Cars (franchise). However, there's already a page about this at Cars (film), so your article may very soon be deleted. Instead, please expand the existing article; remember to give reliable sources for your additions. If you think your article should remain separate, click the button labelled"Click here to contest this speedy deletion" on the deletion message, and explain on the page that opens. If you have questions, just ask me on my talk page. (81 words)

Note I do not deal with the special case that it may have been deleted, which makes the advice on how to contest it moot & would therefore be confusing. If it's already been deleted, the new editor will soon realize. I still don't like the wording , click the button labelled "click here ..." -- suggestions welcome. I also don't like " on the page that opens" but again, I cannot immediately think of a better.

Similar should of course be done for all the other speedy templates. DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree entirely DGG. Your version is even more compact than I dared. But how can I access the text template to change it? If I knew, I would BRD and do some of the others. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

So, is this page for discussing the policy, or what?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk • contribs)

Yes, it is. Regards SoWhy 20:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

CSD Expiration Date

Discussion moved from the idea lab to hopefully facilitate more input. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 22:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

In the proposals section someone mentioned Voiceprint Records as an article which had been speedily deleted after having been around for over six years. Generally, I think too many people use a specific decision they were unhappy with to contest procedures that work just fine, but I do think there might be room for improvement here (without at all commenting on whether, under current policy, the deletion of that article was correct). Most of the CSD criteria are aimed at getting rid of new pages that just cropped up or quickly deleting content which might need to be removed quickly for legal reasons. I'm not certain that criteria that fall in the former category should apply with equal force after the passage of weeks or months, for three major reasons:

1. The articles affected (that are around for weeks or months prior to CSD) are likely to be closer calls and less clear cut than the majority of articles removed under CSD. They are more likely to be contested and the lapse in time means that the creator is less likely to be online to contest it between nomination and deletion.
2. The comparative benefit to the Encyclopedia is smaller when we are extending the article's life by 5%-25% with a PROD.
3. The very limited number of articles this would apply to would mean that the impact of additional discussions or waiting would be smaller.

I would be interested in formulating a proposal for a policy change that prohibits (or at least strongly discourages) the use of certain CSD criteria (A1, A3, A7, and A9 come immediately to mind) after an article has existed for a certain period of time. I'm still fairly new, so I am interested in hearing if anything like has been proposed previously, whether anyone thinks it's a bad or good idea, or any ideas for the specific criteria and time frame to be used. I realize that one objection to using PRODs instead of CSD may be that the author can remove it and require a full review. While more complex, I thought that a way to handle it would be to formulate something similar to WP:STICKY when the article is alleged to meet one of the included CSD criteria but has passed the allowable time frame.‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 18:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I think it is a good idea; however, there are pages that slip through the system for speedy deletion. You also point out that A1 and A3 are among the criteria that should not be deleted after the time period; however, if you check Special:NewPages you will notice that those two should not be used soon after an article is created-they should be used later. I believe that 99% of the time speedy deletion is an effective process and this proposal would be more limiting than it would be useful. Ryan Vesey(talk) 18:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the input. I understand what you're saying about A1 and A3, but I think that's because of my lack of clarity. I'm certainly not proposing that the time frame to be used is anything like a day or even a week. I would imagine that, were this proposal to even be considered, the time frame would need to be at least a month, if not 3 or 6 months. So I don't think it should bump up against the intended safe harbor that A1 and A3 are intended to provide by not being added immediately after an article's creation. And I completely understand your viewpoint that this could limit an effective policy, I just believe that a policy targeting CSDs based on certain criteria on articles of a certain age could do a good job of limiting its impacts to the small percentage of cases where CSD is misused (though certainly not catching all of those cases). Thanks again! ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 19:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to take "recently created" from A10, and add it to the criteria for A7 and A9, but leave it to the discretion of the tagger and reviewer what exactly the cutoff is. If an article with any real content has been around for a year, it can wait another 7 days for a prod to run. However I don't think it is really relevant to A1 or A3, as an article that is properly tagged as either of those (and not the result of vandalism) is so useless that nothing is lost in the deletion. Monty₈₄₅ 19:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't be against a limit of 6 months. This could be a little long even, but I believe anything less would be more controversial. I know I earlier said that it could limit the effectiveness of the policy; however, I like one of the points you made. Once an article has existed for six months, it is unlikely to matter if it is there for a little longer. In addition, there are probably more incorrect tags after that amount of time. I only think that speedy deletion for articles should be affected by this. In addition, I don't think A5 and A2 should be limited. Ryan Vesey (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

In reality, I think that A7 and A9 are the only ones that should be affected. A1 and A3 are often confused; however, if a page exists after six months and still falls under those categories it should be speedied. Ryan Vesey (talk)

I haven't reviewed this in depth, but I do speedy articles that are several years old, and I always smile when I do so. Without opining on precisely which of the criteria involved, I strongly agree that if an article has existed for six months, letting it last for another week or ten days under PROD isn't an issue, so I would have no problem supporting a change. However, I'd like not to invest too much time thinking about it, as I don't see that it matters much one way or the other.--SPhilbrickT 18:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The rationale for adding this rule seems extraordinarily weak. The only one presented here is that the author is less likely to be online to contest the speedy. Is that the only reason? If we are going to add more rules, we really should have compelling reasons for adding them, I think. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly not the only reason, but I could have made my position clearer. CSD, to me, is a disfavored remedy. It's a bypass to the proper mechanisms of deleting pages. It's certainly necessary, without it we just couldn't handle the number of deleted pages we'd need to deal with. We generally allow the bypass to deal with the influx of junk pages and for matters that are legally problematic to wait on. I don't think that the justification for the bypass is as strong for those pages that supposedly fall under criteria geared towards deleting new, unhelpful pages and a substantial period of time has passed since creation. Additionally, CSD is for deleting only the most obvious and clear cut instances where a page needs to be deleted, and I think that the longer a page survives, the more likely that it is on the border of CSD criteria and an appropriate candidate for more time or deliberation before it is deleted. Some CSD decisions are wrong, and I think this would help prevent some of those incorrect decisions without burdening the deletion process as a whole. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 00:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't doubt this correlation between age and CSD inappropriateness, but there might be some perfectly accurate CSD tags on old pages. The policy already says "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." I don't think we need to keep coming up with creative extra rules for trying to reinforce that. Let's not complicate this policy with even more rules. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I'ts always necessary to be very careful when I find a CSD nomination for a long-present article. Most older articles with notability problems will have been tagged for discussion long ago, or if not, are borderline enough to be worth discussion now. I cannot remember seeing an A1 or A3 except in recent articles. If an article with such problems were to be tagged, it would almost always be a change due to vandalism, or an incorrect application of the tag. G11 is trickier--there are many older promotional articles, but the remedy in almost all cases would be a rewrite if possible, and AfD otherwise. What I'm not sure of is whether this should be an absolute prohibition, or a warning. The argument for a prohibition is that warnings are apt to be ignored. I think on balance I'd support this for the cases I've listed. As a time limit, I suggest 6 months. DGG ( talk ) 00:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I think a warning is a fine idea. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 11:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I think this comes under the heading of "this is why we have RFA". A speedy on an old article may be a case of someone finally noticing a truly bad article after a long period of time, may be an invalid tag, or may really be pushing things. Applying the tag does no harm, and the reviewing admin should be expected to investigate. Changing the speedy template to detect the article age and print out a banner is about as far as I would go.—Kww(talk) 13:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, Admins are expected to look at page histories, incoming links, and talk pages before they delete. Those who don't shouldn't be doing deletions. For those who don't and delete anyway, the problem is the admin, not the tag.--Doug. 05:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

R4 : Retitled image

R4 - Redirect is from File name space to File name space, and all relevant incoming links have been updated.

Recently I've been doing some file rename tagging, and this CSD would assist greatly in removing seemingly un-used file redirects.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm unsure why we should do that. One of the MW developers threatened he will personally block anyone deleting such redirects and I am inclined to see his point. Just because no links on this project point to it, there might be links on other projects or external sites that link to the file which will break if we remove those redirects and I don't see any convincing reason to do so. Regards SoWhy 18:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Redirects are cheap, so as a rule we do not delete seemingly "useless" redirects, only "harmful" ones. As SoWhy notes, they may not be so useless after all. —Kusma (t·c) 06:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, and if the file was only uploaded recently, you can try tagging with R3 or even G6 with a description or just contacting an admin directly. If deletion is actually warranted, it will be done. In the general case though RFD or orphan and leave it alone are better choices.--Doug. 10:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Adding to (or changing) WP:CSD#A7

I have encoutered many problems with the A7 criteria over the last few months. The spirit of the rule is that if the article does not credibly indicate the importance of the subject, then it is a candidate for speedy deletion. However, if a nomination does not meet one of the particular examples, e.g. {{db-person}}, {{db-band}}, {{db-company}}, etc, then nominations are often declined. This leaves people unable to apply A7 to cases that it is intended for. A case in point is Orbix (Software), which is a piece if software. There is no credible indication of notability, or importance, in its article. However, it does not meet any of the A7 subcategories, while at the same time it is not a G11 candidate, so I have had to tag it with PROD; I had no choice. I have tried to follow the spirit of the A7 rule in the past, but have received condescending user talk page messages from admins that are unprepared to do anything other than apply the letter of the law; which is basically wikilawyering and ignoring Misplaced Pages's fifth pillar. What can I do, and more importantly: what can the community do? — Fly by Night (talk)

For reference, previous discussions about adding software to A7 include: Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 34#Software and Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 24#Add non-notable software products to A7. Paul Erik 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 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. Beeblebrox (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 A7 rule in the past, but have received condescending user talk page messages from admins" and "However, if a nomination does not meet one of the particular examples, e.g. {{db-person}}, {{db-band}}, {{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 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 Misplaced Pages and its policies quite well. But it doesn't make a difference. I've experienced this sort of hostility at WT:RFA and WP:AN/I too. My experience of Misplaced Pages's back rooms is that they're full of angry people that like to make people feel bad; that is why Misplaced Pages 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-person}}, {{db-band}}, {{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.

CSD F2 warning template made less bitey

Hi guys, I just wanted to let you all know that I decided to boldly make the {{Db-noimage-notice}} template less BITEy by replacing the warning exclamation point icon with the information i icon. I did this since a notice about a corrupt image should be a gentle notice that "your image is corrupt, missing, or on commons", not a warning of "do not upload corrupt or missing images". Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)