![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | → | Archive 35 |
This was claimed to be "discussed on the talk page". If so, guess I missed it. When I've seen the matter discussed, the general consensus seemed to be that schools are organizations, and must assert notability like any other. A7 is also often used and rarely challenged in practice for schools. I never saw a consensus to add this line, so I see no need for a consensus to remove it. Where is this supposed discussion? Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
this is, I'm sure you'll agree, completely uncontroversial, and I was on the verge of simply claiming it as WP:CSD#G8, with which it shares many similarities. I've done a couple of these in the five days I've had my admin bit, so I was wondering: should deletions of documentation pages like this be recorded under G8 or G6? Would it be beneficial to add a phrase to G8 indicating that things like this are included? Happy‑ melon 22:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
After the whole adult-child sex subpage debacle which ended up with half of the people !voting to speedy, and after long precedent, I think it's time we put it in writing. Will ( talk) 12:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Using userspace as a back door to deletion can be bad, but this is not something to create a speedy for. "Precedent" is often weak and flawed, and people voting "speedy delete" in an XfD are often using the term incorrectly (rather than simply saying they feel just really, really strongly about it. I've probably done this myself in the past). -- Ned Scott 23:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Mainly for the purpose of bringing the templates more in line with the actual speedy criteria, Moonriddengirl and I have developed suggested template wordings. We suggest that discussion of the specific wordings of each template be in four subpages we've created for general, articles, images and other (redirects, categories, userpages, templates, portals), and that general discussion about it be here. -- Coppertwig ( talk) 17:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
{{
db-meta}}
- why not just edit it to do whatever you need it to do if this change is accepted? However, I think this would be a good opportunity for me to advocate a possibly parallel reorganisation which I've wanted to do for a while. As you can see from
Special:Prefixindex/Template:Db-, we have a huge number of CSD templates, of which most are redirects. In general, the actual CSD template is held at something like {{
Db-test}}
, while the actual criterion number ({{
Db-g2}}
) is a redirect to it. I'd like to reverse that, and consolidate everything into one meta template ({{
db-meta}}
), from which we derive 43 templates at {{
Db-XN}}
, with all the other templates being hard or soft redirects to achieve exactly the same appearance but with an altered underlying structure. You might think that it's pointless, but not only will it make things easier to find, but a stock-take like Coppertwig has proposed would be so much easier if we knew clearly where to find everything. I would be willing to bet that many of the redirects listed at that prefixindex are rarely if ever used, but we won't know or be able to discuss them properly while the system is still in such an underlying mess. Cleanup, anyone?
Happy‑
melon
18:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC){{
ambox}}
directly on articles, do they? The meta template is there to serve the templates, the templates are there to serve the editors. What's wrong with {{
db}}
?? It's even a shorter template name!
Happy‑
melon
19:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) Discussions about CSD tags take place all the time. At some point, someone has to go in and clean up the mess when the discussion ends, versus a talk page notice which would inform without needing to be removed in the future. Deletion and merge notices are placed in subject space because they can have a large impact on the page; minor wording changes are not going to have a large impact on anything. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 01:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
If people will excuse me for repeating something I've stated elsewhere, I'd like to explain here the reasoning behind the suggested reversal of the use of italic and non-italic font, since this is the place for general discussion of the template wordings. Some people just rely on the template wording and don't read the CSD; at least one person seemed to think the template wording was the CSD. Two suggested modifications are intended to reduce the likelihood that a reader will get the impression that the template is an exact quote of the CSD. One of these is to use italics for the first part, i.e. "This page may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion," rather than for the second part. Since in some styles of typesetting italics are used for quotes (I do this myself in my talk page posts, for example, though not in articles), the use of italics gives me the impression that it is a quote, and may be giving other readers the same impression. The first few words are not likely to be considered a quote and it doesn't much matter if they are. The other change is to say "(See CSD A7)" rather than just "(CSD A7)". I optimistically cling to a faint hope that the use of the word "see" will encourage a slightly larger proportion of users to actually follow that suggestion and click on the link. Even if not, I hope that inserting "See" makes it look less as if the mention of the CSD is a reference supporting an exact quote of the CSD. -- Coppertwig ( talk) 14:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Added warning Watch out. Some redirect pages contain page history. It's probably not a good idea to speedy delete these.
Some people don't use redirects right, or put redirects over page history. As simply deleting such pages might cause GFDL compliance issues, and/or cause history of wikipedia to be lost (in the project namespace), it's not a good idea to delete such redirects. (I've actually made references to history of redirected pages in discussions. It's a long story as to all the possible ways things can go wrong).
At any rate, it's not a great idea to speedy redirects with history, so Don't Do That. -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 21:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
:D
.
Happy‑
melon
21:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
All articles and redirects have history. At least 1 edit. What do you mean "it's not a great idea to speedy redirects with history"? If you don't specify it the sentence it's equivalent with "it's not a great idea to speedy redirects". Sorry, I am mathematician and I need more data to understand. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 23:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Second the original post. I spent a happy morning once tracking down the history of Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/ Wikipedia:Requests for investigation (I moved it to the Wikipedia:Historical archive once I found it). It had been speedied as an 'unneeded subpage' a wihle earlier... -- ais523 13:37, 11 February 2008 ( U T C)
Criterion G9 says, in pertinent part: "The Wikimedia Foundation office reserves the right to speedily delete a page temporarily in cases of exceptional circumstances". It would seem to me that the Foundation has the right to delete a page permanently or indefinitely as well. I doubt there's any time limit on an Office Action-related deletion. So I'm wondering if we should remove the word "temporarily" from this criterion. szyslak 11:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
:D
.
Happy‑
melon
15:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Propose changing criterion A7 from:
An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources. A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on. Other article types are not eligible for deletion by this criterion. If controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead.
to:
An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content which is patently non-notable. This is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources. A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on. Other article types are not eligible for deletion by this criterion. If controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead. If the article fails to assert notability but the subject is not patently non-notable, the Proposed deletion procedure should be used.
Reason for change:
Articles on perfectly notable subjects have been subjected to CSD under this criterion because the author didn't realize that the subject's notability had to be asserted and explained. If the article doesn't violate any other criterion (advertising, BLP violation, copyright, etc.), there is simply no reason not to give the author a few days to assert the subject's notability. This change would avoid damage to the project from newbies who find their articles deleted in a manner they consider unfair, without any real downside from keeping questionable articles around a few extra days. Best, -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 20:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
If their article is deleted because they weren't aware they needed to assert its notability, they are forced to read policy pages and gain knowledge.
If CsD is revised to account for their ignorance, they remain ignorant and continue to upload one non-notable article after another. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 01:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Propose changing criterion A7 from:
An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources. A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on. Other article types are not eligible for deletion by this criterion. If controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead.
to:
An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that indicates, based on the facts stated in the article, that its subject is not important or significant. This is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources. A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on. Other article types are not eligible for deletion by this criterion. If controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead. Note: this criterion should be used only for articles that make it clear from the facts stated in the article that an Articles for deletion discussion would be closed under WP:SNOW. If the article fails to assert importance or significance, but the article does not actually indicate that the subject is not important or significant so clearly to make the outcome of an articles for deletion discussion obvious, the Proposed deletion procedure should be used.
The phrase "patent non-notability" seems to have confused people. Perhaps this wording may explain more clearly why "Bob goes to my school. Bob rocks!!!" could still get deleted under CSD, but
this would not. --
Shirahadasha (
talk)
14:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This absolutely does not imply we should keep articles that don't make claims. It simply says we should use WP:PROD instead of WP:CSD. If the article literally says nothing at all, it can be deleted under one of the other CSD criteria, as patent nonsense or for lack of context. The idea is to limit CSD to cases where an AfD would be closed under WP:SNOW, and to use PROD for cases where and AfD might possibly result in a KEEP if the article contained more information. Admins have to use judgment including obvious implications of article statements. Best, -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 14:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Shirahadasha that it's better for articles we're not sure about to go to prod. Remember the case of Ggggggggggggggg12, where the (incorrect) speedy deletion of an article, in combination with other circumstances, led to a valuable contributor apparently being permanently lost to the project. Speedy-deleting the article of a new user (or even of an established user) is not a trivial, easily reversible thing: it's perceived as an insult or rejection. It has an emotional impact. I'm sure it drives some editors away before we discover whether they were the type of person that would have become a regular contributor.
I suggest adding something like the following to the current wording: "If significance is not asserted but you suspect the subject may be significant, consider using prod rather than speedy."
Wikipedia is supposed to be editable by anyone. You're not supposed to have to read the rules before starting to edit. People put in articles based on common sense, and common sense says that you don't begin an article with "Tom Jones was a really important person." You begin it with "Tom Jones was a cello player" or whatever. At least, if it's a good, non-spam article you do. Or if you've read the NPOV policy. -- Coppertwig ( talk) 03:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
What is the status of pages that describe a rumour, intends to clarify the rumour status and indicates that no official information is currently available? For example company xyz is rumoured be bringing out a camera of model 9D. Would a page, covering the subject, for example 'xyz 9D', indicating the page describes a rumoured camera be considered okay, or subject for speedy deletion? If it is a gray zone, what sort of information would ensure the page would be kept, since most references are likely to based on sketchy facts, like "representant x suggested y", and "this fits in with the current time line". I ask, because having created a page that was intended to indicate rumour status, I am now wondering whether it was the right thing to do. -- AJ Mas ( talk) 17:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I understand deleting unused fair use images, but why delete perfectly good templates just because they aren't in use? If it's a vanity, userbox, etc. template I also understand. In my opinion many other things should be first in line for deletion before informational templates. I don't think unused free images are deleted, are they? Free templates should be given the same treatment. This is pure bureaucracy just for the heck of it.-- Henry W. Schmitt ( talk) 23:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I had a discussion about speedily deleting redirects from Talk: pages to other Talk: pages, which some admins seem to be doing. If this is not policy, may I suggest that WP:CSD#R be amended to reflect that? I was confused by the wording myself until an admin explained it to me. — Zerida ☥ 21:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I notice that although we have {{
db-iN}}
templates on the standard {{
db-meta}}
format, they are actually almost entirely unused; with templates like {{
di-norat}}
being used instead; these do not follow the db-meta format, which is based on {{
ambox}}
. The formatting difference, combined with an absence of backlinks to
WP:CSD to note which CSD criterion the image falls under, has the effect of largely dissociating image maintenance from CSD, which might or might not be a bad thing. What does everyone think - should the csd templates in the image namespace follow the {{
db-meta}}
format, or is the current format, which is standardised within the image namespace but is different to the other templates, acceptable?
Happy‑
melon
18:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
A bot has been proposed, and is now actually running, that is by itself placing speedy tags on articles automatically and unsupervised. Among other things, it is making its own judgment on no-context, and is marking no-content on articles within seconds of its creation. The discussion is at [ [1]]. 01:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
FYI, whatever template was added here isn't working correctly. The link which should go to Talk:American Leadership Project is instead going to User talk:American Leadership Project. Too busy IRL to try and sort this out myself right now. -- Kendrick7 talk 19:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Several templates use language such as this:
If you created this page and you disagree with its proposed speedy deletion, please add: {{
hangon}}
What if someone other than the page's creator disagrees? Should he or she use the {{ hangon}} tag too. I suppose a neutral (non-admin) could simply remove the tag with an appropriate edit summary, but what if a non-neutral disagreed? Is it best just to comment on the talk page? Seems like we should tell people how to handle this.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 20:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I certainly did misinterprety Coppertwig - thanks for drawing attention to my functional illiteracy, Moonriddengirl. Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 19:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
this move from Template:Db-g1 to Template:Db-nonsense has created a lot of double redirects which were speedy templates. For example Template:CSD:G1 Template:Csd-g1 Template:Db-non etc. (see User:Coppertwig/CSDlist). I suggest that it be moved back. -- Coppertwig ( talk) 00:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
{{
db-move}}
for speedy deletion, I think I managed to clear up after myself after the initial move. I am willing to accept that full protection of all the main templates may be overly bold, although there are certainly arguments in favour of it. I do feel that whatever protection is applied should be applied equally across all the (now easy to find) {{
db-xN}}
templates - what do we think is appropriate? Semi? Move? Or none?
Happy‑
melon
12:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
{{
db-xN}}
? If so I will move {{
db-nonsense}}
back to {{
db-g1}}
. It certainly seems ludicrous to retain that as the only exception to the standard.
Happy‑
melon
15:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
{{
db-nonsense}}
back to {{
db-g1}}
, to complete the standardisation. I'm not sure that the level of sub-categorisation you suggest is necessary - they all fit on two pages quite nicely, and it's easy to see which redirects are associated with which criteria. There are not so many of them that the category is unmanageable without subcategorisation, so
WP:OVERCAT would apply.
Happy‑
melon
15:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC){{
db-xN}}
templates.
Happy‑
melon
21:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)I would like to propose that A3 be reworded to add soft redirects to the list of things exempted from it, in addition to the current exemption for disambiguations. Soft redirects are a valid mechanism on the project, and are in fairly wide and growing use, with over 1200 of them on the project at last count. Like regular redirects and disambiguations, they are generally short, with little content of their own. The most common soft redirects are to Wiktionary, showing where people can go for common terms that offer little encyclopedic content beyond a dictionary definition.
Soft redirects are in common use, and IMHO should not be subject to A3 deletion for a characteristic that is inherent in their nature. They cannot help being short, because that's what they are.
For previous debate on this subject, check out this AFD discussion and this attempt to get a discussion going on the issue (though the latter didn't get much response.)
New wording would be something along the lines of:
- TexasAndroid ( talk) 20:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
We've had our marching orders for over a year now, in [2]:
Needless to say, most of our tagged non-free media hasn't been accepted under our Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP), which is WP:NFCC. Most hasn't been through any kind of discussion process (frankly with that volume of data it would have been impossible).
Nevertheless our EDP is required to be minimal. Stuff that doesn't make the boat really does have to be deleted.
The resolution is worded strongly, and should be taken in the spirit in which it is intended. This makes our choice of mechanism easy.
This is simple and allows for the mass deletions we will have to perform in order to comply with the Foundation's resolution. It also minimises the work and places the onus where it belongs: on the person who uploads an image or wants it undeleted.
I propose that we consider how to reword our media-related CSDs so as to enable this mechanism in time for March 23, or at least very shortly thereafter. -- Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 04:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Betacommand has said that the majority of images that did not have rationales have already been tagged. S/he is currently doing smaller runs through all the non-free images to catch any without rationales that might have been missed in the previous runs. All these bot-tagged images will either have their exemption rationale added or be deleted for lacking one by March 23, so I do not think that the relevant CSDs need to be reworded. Bláthnaid 09:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
<div id="non-free-rationale" display="none"> </div>
or some such, then we can track them with javascript and so forth (plus it will probably make your script more efficient).
Happy‑
melon
10:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Sometimes, one comes across pages, that could be best describes as graffiti. They usually hold bold claims like "Joe Smith is the greatest guy in the world!", "The Rolling BeatGees are the greatest band ever", etc, etc. In my opinion, these should be clear candidates for speedy deletion. However, there is currently no criterion to delete them under. A1 does not apply, because a (minimal) context is provided, nor does A7, as there is a assertion of notability. G3 would be the best bet and the closest thing to a matching criterion, but vandalism is always a word to avoid, as vandalism in the wiki sense assumes bad faith. Now assuming that the creator of the article really thinks that the Rolling BeatGees are the greatest band ever, and this user doesn't know criteria for inclusion, maybe thinks that Wikipedia should be used as some sort of blog, we can safely say that the user placed that article there in good faith. Are there any options left to speedily delete such an article? And if there aren't, would a new criterion for these types of articles, or an expansion of another criterion (possibly A1 or A3) be in order? Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 20:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I realize this may be a case of "deja vu all over again" for many of you, but I have concerns that CSD-T3 is seeing considerable use beyond its stated scope. Specifically, rather than being used only where a template is orphaned, and duplicates a specific other template, it seems to be being used en masse on all orphaned templates not tagged as "transclusionless", and omitting either a named other template this is being 'deprecated' in favour of, or any stated other rationale. I urge rewording of this template to follow that of the CSD clause more closely, and to restore the mandatory nature of the detailed deletion rationale. (Though why on earth not just turn these into redirects or parameterised transclusions, if they're actually being used in line with the stated scope of T3?) See my detailed comment here. Alai ( talk) 21:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
{{
000000}}
deleted under G6 than T3, yes. As was mentioned innumerable times in the T3 discussion, T3 is very much a fork of G6 for a narrow range of cases: anything which is a good CSD candidate but not clearly T3 belongs under G6, IMO.
Happy‑
melon
22:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) Well, I've certainly been skipping large numbers of templates for various reasons. Some of the them are obviously substituted, others are only ever used for speedy taggings. I also skip templates that follow a pattern so as to avoid hitting someone's talk page 30 times. I also look at the date the template was last modified, I verify that it still doesn't have any transclusions, and then I tag and notify the author. If it's been created recently (December, January, February), I usually leave it alone. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 03:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
{{
di-no fair use rationale}}
{{
db-norat}} (aka {{
db-i6}})
These seem to be entirely different templates, but both are referenced here an both will bring you here and both have similar language as to the 7 day waiting period. The first doesn't seem to be anything like an ordinary CSD template and isn't listed in the table. The second is a standard CSD template but doesn't appear to be mentioned in the description of I6, only listed in the table. Also the first one, even though it refers people here, seems to put the images in Category:Images with no fair use rationale; whereas the second one puts the articles in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion; I'm confused. Also, why is the first one subst?-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 17:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Another difference is that {{ di-no fair use rationale}} is fully protected whereas {{ db-norat}} is unprotected.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 17:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
{{
db-i1}}
, {{
db-i2}}
, etc), which categorise into various wierd and wonderful categories rather than
CAT:CSD or its subcategories. There is some merit for the argument that templates in the Image namespace shouldn't necessarily be based on {{
ambox}}
, but if these templates are kept separate, they desperately need standardisation. There's no reason why {{
db-meta}}
can't be switched to display an ambox format in most namespaces, but something more along the (admittedly very eye-catching) lines of {{
Di-no source}}
. The question is, do we want all of BetacommandBot's image taggings being added to
CAT:CSD??
Happy‑
melon
17:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)“ | Redirect loops that do not end with a page with content. Make sure you check the page history of the redirects to make sure redirects were not mistakenly made to loop. | ” |
I have boldly added the above text as CSD#R4. -- Cat chi? 18:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I would propose a new general category for speedy deletion:
A couple of these have turned up on AfD over the past couple days:
These are apparently intended articles submitted as PDFs.
Submissions in this format are possibly GFDL violations, because GFDL requires copies to be "transparent", and says that "(y)ou may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute." My understanding of the PDF format is that it is designed to enable authors to preserve their text and formatting inviolate, although the GFDL itself states that "PDF designed for human modification" is a transparent file format; my understanding is that the PDF format and the Adobe free reader is designed to allow PDF creators to allow or disallow modifications and even text selection for cut and paste, at their option. GFDL also says that "(a)n image format is not Transparent if used for any substantial amount of text," and many PDF files I have seen contain only a sequence of scans of the original pages.
Whether submissions like this are GFDL compatible or not, they break just about everything else. They can't be wikified using ordinary syntax; instead, external links would have to be manually inserted into the PDF document itself. They can't be edited by people who don't have PDF writing software.
While PDF files might be useful in other Wikimedia projects, I can't imagine why Wikipedia itself would ever need or use them. It seems an appropriate subject for a blanket rule. - Smerdis of Tlön ( talk) 17:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Many PDFs are spam, improperly sourced/tagged, vanispamcruftisement, copyvios, original research or some combination of these things. Here is a sample of these (tagged = tagged for various forms of deletion).
We should think about disabling PDF uploads altogether. Only five are salvageable (about 28%) but all should be deleted for some reason or another. MER-C 09:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I see that this list of criteria now contains a quite unqualified statement that all redirects to non-existent pages should be deleted, and there's a standard template to put on such pages, and bots to help make sure it's done fast and efficiently.
I think it's important to the well-being of Wikipedia to remember that this came about because of bullies whose stated reasons for what they wanted to do were insincere.
I don't know whether a day will eventually come when we will fix this problem, but we should remember how it came about. There is a software bug: if you link to a redirect page that redirects to a non-existent page, then your link appears as a blue link; it should appear as a red link. That was the real reason why some people were so opposed to links to non-existent pages, and some people were honest about that. The list of criteria for speedy deletion included some exceptions; some links to non-existent pages were to be allowed. They are useful when they redirect from plural to singular, or from a commonplace misspelling or misnomer to a correct term. They prevented needless duplication of articles that would then have to get merged. So people opposed to their existence (1) denied that the rules contained explicit exceptions, even though they were there in black-and-white on the criteria-for-speedy deletion page, and (2) denied that there were any reasons why anyone would want such "broken" redirects to exist, even when the reasons were patiently and thoroughly explained to them, and (3) denied the existence of people who disagreed with them about this, and (4) were abusive and disrespectful to such people.
For now, those people have prevailed. It is important to the well-being of Wikipedia that we remember how that happened. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I have in mind events that I seem to recall were mainly in the spring 2005, and also some in later months of that year. I'll see if I can find links. Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Allow it to apply to all articles that do not assert notability. There isnt any reason I shouldnt be able to CSD an article about non notable software, or karate styles or books. RogueNinja talk 08:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
What do products or objects come under? if I come across a page that says "Computer X is being developed by george smith, he thinks it will be ace". Well it's not about George's notability is it? -- Fredrick day ( talk) 23:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I've changed the category to Category:Redirects from other template for the templates that are redirects to the other templates at Category:Speedy deletion templates, since all the redirects are listed along with the speedy deletion templates that they redirect to. It should make finding a specific template in that category easier, as it separates the redirects from the actual templates. -- Silver Edge ( talk) 20:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
:D
Happy‑
melon
22:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
{{
documentation}}
, though, so I'd recommend you use it on the new templates. I've had MelonBot run through the existing templates converting, so you only need to worry about the new ones.
Happy‑
melon
10:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm in a dispute over whether an image should be deleted. Basically, the copyright holder of an image can not be identified. However, the image has survived an IFD and a DRV. The question is: does I7 fall under the "copyright infringement" rule, or just G12? Will ( talk) 15:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this for a while, and I’ve convinced myself that we should scale way back, and possibly eliminate, our current method of speedy deletions based solely on lack of assertion of notability. Before you get too excited, note that I’m proposing an alternative method of deletion that would be almost as easy for the deleters, but significantly less painful for the article writers.
Of all the speedy delete criteria, deletions based on "lack of assertion of notability" is the most likely to annoy people who are trying to be productive editors. Vandalism, or attack page? Nuke it. By definition it was not created by a good faith user. Copyvio? Nuke it. Once it’s explained, a good-faith editor will understand why we can’t do that, and by its very nature he doesn’t have a lot of his own time invested in the page.
But consider someone writing an article on a non-notable person or organization, likely a newbie who hasn't even heard of WP:N yet, and who was seduced by the phrases "anyone can edit" and "be bold". Two minutes after he hits “save page” for the first time, to see what it looks like so far, he gets a boilerplate {{ nn-warn}} notice with a glaring red icon on his talk page telling him that his contribution isn’t good enough. If this doesn’t browbeat him into submission, then two minutes later, as he’s writing a {{ hangon}} message (which the notice implied might actually do some good), or as he's trying to understand where to put it, or while he's simply adding the missing assertion of notability, he discovers that the article is already gone. This isn't speedy delete, it's supersonic delete; this isn't "edited mercilessly", it's shock and awe. Maybe he mistakenly re-adds the article while trying to save the {{ hangon}} tag; he gets yelled at for recreating deleted content. Maybe he doesn’t understand that it’s not truly gone and can be undeleted, and he thinks his hours worth of work is gone forever. If this doesn’t cause him to say “well fuck this, I’m gone”, he’s already pretty upset, and demands that the deleting admin explain what’s going on, gets more red notices about WP:NPA/ WP:CIVIL that set him off even more, and things quickly deteriorate after that.
This isn’t theoretical, and it isn't overly dramatic. It happens all the time.
In short, the supersonic deletion of new articles written by good faith editors is an insulting way to treat a new editor, and an excellent way to drive them from the project before they understand how things work. Some of our more prickly longer-term, productive editors get quite upset when this happens to them as well, leading to noticeboards full of unnecessary drama.
I’m not proposing we simply keep the page, or change our notability criteria, or get rid of speedy delete completely. A very large majoirty of all of these articles will still ultimately be deleted. But I’m suggesting we find a more civilized way of deleting articles on non-notable subjects, and avoiding alienating good faith editors in the process. I propose a couple of different solutions, in decreasing order of my personal preference (i.e. the top two are my favorites).
My main point: We jump thru numerous hoops to ensure vandals are treated gently at first, in the (extremely optimistic) hope that they decide to stay on as valued contributors, but we don’t treat people who have just tried to actually contribute with as much care. I think the gains we’d make in not losing potential editors, and the time we’d save not dealing with vengeful people who turn to the dark side with personal attacks, incivility, and sockpuppetry, would more than offset the extra time it would take to remove non-notable articles using one of these methods. Plus, it's the nice thing to do.
Thoughts? -- barneca ( talk) 20:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Those who mention the unfair treatment of good faith newbies compared to blatant vandals bring up a good point. Part of the issue is that we should be harsher on bad faith editors, who aren't welcome here.
Which is why the proposal is not a good idea. "Articles" like "$SCHOOL_STUDENT attends $HIGH_SCHOOL and is $AGE (less than 18) years old. His favorite band is $BAND. He is extremely cool!" need to be nuked on sight and their creators larted. Hard. The vast majority of the A7s I tag are of this form (equivalent forms exist for other types of speedyable band/website/club/company vanispamcruftisement). There is no excuse for missing the bit about Wikipedia being an encyclopedia, especially since it appears multiple times (e.g. the HTML title, under the title of the article and in top left corner of each page). MER-C 06:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with barneca's proposal. I have seen numerous occasions when articles that had clear assertions of notability were instantly deleted for lack of assertion of notability merely because the admin was an ignoramus who didn't understand the article, and then the admin and a chorus of cheerleaders attack the creator of the article and anyone who defends it in the most severe language they know how to use. In one such case the creator was a world-famous scientist and the admin made me wonder if he could spell scientist. When I see an article speedily deleted for lack of an assertion of notability, I now start from the presumption that the deleting admin is at best not paying attention to what he's doing. Michael Hardy ( talk) 02:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Another possibility is placing a "candidate for speedy blanking" template on the page, and then if a second editor reviews it and concurs, blanking the page and putting a template such as Wikipedia:Experimental Deletion/XD2/Example. It could then be PROD'ed, which would give the contributor five days to get it in suitable shape to survive. Alternately, we might move it to userspace or some other kind of article limbo where the collaborative process could continue, while keeping the temporarily unacceptable article out of mainspace. However, that might create issues when the user attempts to move it back to mainspace with a copy and paste move or something, that violates GFDL. We might have a technical fix that lets pages be moved on top of pages whose only item in the edit history is to place the intentional blank template (similarly to how we can move a page on top of a page whose only edit history item is a redirect). Any thoughts on this? Obuibo Mbstpo ( talk) 21:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
It may be useful to this discussion to consider {{
db-t3}}
, which is used to enforce
WP:CSD#T3. It takes the timestamp of addition as its first argument, and only adds the templates to
CAT:CSD after they have been tagged for seven days. There is no reason whatsoever why we cannot apply the same code to other templates, with entirely arbitrary time limits. We can alter {{
db-a7}}
so that it only adds the page to the category after an hour, or six hours, or 24 hours. That ensures that editors will have the time to at least write a hangon without their page being deleted from under their nose.
There is no deadline, and there's no particular rush either - there's nothing illegal about having non-notable articles that requires we get rid of them ASAP, like with copyvios. We can certainly have them hang around for an hour, or six, or 24. We can discuss the exact length of time as much as necessary - it can be specified to the second - but I think that this is the easiest solution, and one that is sorely needed. There's no reason why adding a time delay preculdes one of the other solutions suggested above, but it could also function as an acceptable alternative.
Happy‑
melon
23:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I haven't read this whole proposal and discussion yet, but the time switch part caught my eye, and I gotta say I love the idea. It won't even slow down the rate of deletions, so people don't have to worry about that. There would be a single, one time pause of A7's for one day and then they will resume their normal rate, while giving new editors more time to adjust, understand, and perhaps save a few good articles (even if it is a very small percentage). I can't really think of any reason we wouldn't want to do this. -- Ned Scott 06:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Just threw this together, and it's now too wordy and probably too sacharine sweet, but it's an idea someone could run with and clean up. The theory at least being that you want to bend over backwards from getting their dander up. If you want to mess around with it, it's at User:Barneca/Sandboxen/Page3. -- barneca ( talk) 02:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Criteria for speedy deletion, welcome to Wikipedia. I'm sorry, but I've placed a tag on John Q. Public requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.
I know this is distressing, but I didn't do this to be a jerk. I did this because long-term, I don't believe this is going to be able to be included in the encyclopedia, and it's better to nip it in the bud now, rather than have you spend time creating something that won't survive.
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies.
If the article is deleted before you can use the {{
hangon}} tag, you still have options!
First, please read the policies and criteria listed above. If, after reading, you honestly believe you can satisfy our notability requirements, you can do one of the following:
If you are new here, I'm sorry for the rough start. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. -- barneca ( talk) 02:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd hate to see this on vanispamcruftisers' talk pages. The message "sorry we inconvenienced you by deleting your article" is silly because the reality is you inconvenienced us by creating unencyclopedic crap that has to be cleaned up afterward. That said, if a honest effort to write an encyclopedia article is made then using this template is a good idea. What I'm worried about is sending the wrong message, especially when people use Twinkle or other tools to automatically post warnings no matter what the content of the article. MER-C 06:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The begining of I7 is " Non-free images or media that fail any part of the non-free content criteria and were uploaded after 13 July 2006 may be deleted forty-eight hours after notification of the uploader. For media uploaded before 13 July 2006 or tagged with the {{ Replaceable fair use}} template, the uploader will be given seven days to comply with this policy after being notified. " If someone reads only the first sentence, they get the impression that, well, that what it says is true, and might go ahead and delete something after 48 hours. But the second sentence states that such images which are tagged "replacable fair use" require 7 days notice, not just 48 hours.
I suggest changing it to this: " Non-free images or media that fail any part of the non-free content criteria may be deleted forty-eight hours after notification of the uploader, except that for media uploaded before 13 July 2006 or tagged with the {{ Replaceable fair use}} template, the uploader will be given seven days to comply with this policy after being notified. " I think this is clearer, and also has the advantage of being shorter. (Here for once I'm talking about the wording of the CSD, not the wording in the templates.) -- Coppertwig ( talk) 01:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
{{subst:rfu}}
". --
Coppertwig (
talk))
01:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC) sig added
12:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)In the deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_March_1 a speedy deletion of Wakfu was endorsed. The point raised by the nominator who has proposed and implemented a change of the template [3] [4] is that A7 only applies to web content such as web forums and browser games, but not to online forums and online games in general. I don't think that is a helpful distinction and that the template should be reverted and maybe rather this page here should be updated to be more clearer in its inclusion of online forums and games, whatever the client used. Thoughts?-- Tikiwont ( talk) 13:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
As I said above, it seems to me the overriding criterion for subjecting web content to A7 is that the only publishing medium is the web. For the problem here is that publishing on the web is too easy, and so the vast majority of such material can be presumed non-notable. It might be worth explicating that criterion when describing "web content," if this confusion is wider than a single DRV. Someguy1221 ( talk) 21:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Should "I6" be considered a "Criterion for speedy deletion" or an "Opportunity for speedy correction"? It seems that in many cases, a rationale is either plainly obvious or plainly unlikely. While the policy of requiring a rationale for Fair Use when new non-free content is uploaded is plainly important, I suggest that when the policy isn't followed, a review could be implemented alongside notification. To me, relying solely on "notification of the uploader" is a bit contrary to the normal progression of adding content (e. g. WP:BOLD; "Wikis like ours develop faster when everybody helps to fix problems."). Generally when problematic content is contributed in good faith it is more productive for other Wikipedians to just fix the problems rather than track down the source and nag them into doing it. The problem is made even worse when the nagging party is an automated script rather than a helpful Wikipedian who can offer assistance and resist "biting the newbies". I feel like this issue may lie at the heart of many complaints against the activities of BetacommandBot, and I wonder if the scope of the required intervention is small enough to be filtered by a review process now that the backlog of legacy images has been tagged. -- Dystopos ( talk) 22:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | → | Archive 35 |
This was claimed to be "discussed on the talk page". If so, guess I missed it. When I've seen the matter discussed, the general consensus seemed to be that schools are organizations, and must assert notability like any other. A7 is also often used and rarely challenged in practice for schools. I never saw a consensus to add this line, so I see no need for a consensus to remove it. Where is this supposed discussion? Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
this is, I'm sure you'll agree, completely uncontroversial, and I was on the verge of simply claiming it as WP:CSD#G8, with which it shares many similarities. I've done a couple of these in the five days I've had my admin bit, so I was wondering: should deletions of documentation pages like this be recorded under G8 or G6? Would it be beneficial to add a phrase to G8 indicating that things like this are included? Happy‑ melon 22:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
After the whole adult-child sex subpage debacle which ended up with half of the people !voting to speedy, and after long precedent, I think it's time we put it in writing. Will ( talk) 12:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Using userspace as a back door to deletion can be bad, but this is not something to create a speedy for. "Precedent" is often weak and flawed, and people voting "speedy delete" in an XfD are often using the term incorrectly (rather than simply saying they feel just really, really strongly about it. I've probably done this myself in the past). -- Ned Scott 23:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Mainly for the purpose of bringing the templates more in line with the actual speedy criteria, Moonriddengirl and I have developed suggested template wordings. We suggest that discussion of the specific wordings of each template be in four subpages we've created for general, articles, images and other (redirects, categories, userpages, templates, portals), and that general discussion about it be here. -- Coppertwig ( talk) 17:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
{{
db-meta}}
- why not just edit it to do whatever you need it to do if this change is accepted? However, I think this would be a good opportunity for me to advocate a possibly parallel reorganisation which I've wanted to do for a while. As you can see from
Special:Prefixindex/Template:Db-, we have a huge number of CSD templates, of which most are redirects. In general, the actual CSD template is held at something like {{
Db-test}}
, while the actual criterion number ({{
Db-g2}}
) is a redirect to it. I'd like to reverse that, and consolidate everything into one meta template ({{
db-meta}}
), from which we derive 43 templates at {{
Db-XN}}
, with all the other templates being hard or soft redirects to achieve exactly the same appearance but with an altered underlying structure. You might think that it's pointless, but not only will it make things easier to find, but a stock-take like Coppertwig has proposed would be so much easier if we knew clearly where to find everything. I would be willing to bet that many of the redirects listed at that prefixindex are rarely if ever used, but we won't know or be able to discuss them properly while the system is still in such an underlying mess. Cleanup, anyone?
Happy‑
melon
18:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC){{
ambox}}
directly on articles, do they? The meta template is there to serve the templates, the templates are there to serve the editors. What's wrong with {{
db}}
?? It's even a shorter template name!
Happy‑
melon
19:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) Discussions about CSD tags take place all the time. At some point, someone has to go in and clean up the mess when the discussion ends, versus a talk page notice which would inform without needing to be removed in the future. Deletion and merge notices are placed in subject space because they can have a large impact on the page; minor wording changes are not going to have a large impact on anything. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 01:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
If people will excuse me for repeating something I've stated elsewhere, I'd like to explain here the reasoning behind the suggested reversal of the use of italic and non-italic font, since this is the place for general discussion of the template wordings. Some people just rely on the template wording and don't read the CSD; at least one person seemed to think the template wording was the CSD. Two suggested modifications are intended to reduce the likelihood that a reader will get the impression that the template is an exact quote of the CSD. One of these is to use italics for the first part, i.e. "This page may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion," rather than for the second part. Since in some styles of typesetting italics are used for quotes (I do this myself in my talk page posts, for example, though not in articles), the use of italics gives me the impression that it is a quote, and may be giving other readers the same impression. The first few words are not likely to be considered a quote and it doesn't much matter if they are. The other change is to say "(See CSD A7)" rather than just "(CSD A7)". I optimistically cling to a faint hope that the use of the word "see" will encourage a slightly larger proportion of users to actually follow that suggestion and click on the link. Even if not, I hope that inserting "See" makes it look less as if the mention of the CSD is a reference supporting an exact quote of the CSD. -- Coppertwig ( talk) 14:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Added warning Watch out. Some redirect pages contain page history. It's probably not a good idea to speedy delete these.
Some people don't use redirects right, or put redirects over page history. As simply deleting such pages might cause GFDL compliance issues, and/or cause history of wikipedia to be lost (in the project namespace), it's not a good idea to delete such redirects. (I've actually made references to history of redirected pages in discussions. It's a long story as to all the possible ways things can go wrong).
At any rate, it's not a great idea to speedy redirects with history, so Don't Do That. -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 21:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
:D
.
Happy‑
melon
21:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
All articles and redirects have history. At least 1 edit. What do you mean "it's not a great idea to speedy redirects with history"? If you don't specify it the sentence it's equivalent with "it's not a great idea to speedy redirects". Sorry, I am mathematician and I need more data to understand. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 23:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Second the original post. I spent a happy morning once tracking down the history of Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/ Wikipedia:Requests for investigation (I moved it to the Wikipedia:Historical archive once I found it). It had been speedied as an 'unneeded subpage' a wihle earlier... -- ais523 13:37, 11 February 2008 ( U T C)
Criterion G9 says, in pertinent part: "The Wikimedia Foundation office reserves the right to speedily delete a page temporarily in cases of exceptional circumstances". It would seem to me that the Foundation has the right to delete a page permanently or indefinitely as well. I doubt there's any time limit on an Office Action-related deletion. So I'm wondering if we should remove the word "temporarily" from this criterion. szyslak 11:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
:D
.
Happy‑
melon
15:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Propose changing criterion A7 from:
An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources. A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on. Other article types are not eligible for deletion by this criterion. If controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead.
to:
An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content which is patently non-notable. This is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources. A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on. Other article types are not eligible for deletion by this criterion. If controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead. If the article fails to assert notability but the subject is not patently non-notable, the Proposed deletion procedure should be used.
Reason for change:
Articles on perfectly notable subjects have been subjected to CSD under this criterion because the author didn't realize that the subject's notability had to be asserted and explained. If the article doesn't violate any other criterion (advertising, BLP violation, copyright, etc.), there is simply no reason not to give the author a few days to assert the subject's notability. This change would avoid damage to the project from newbies who find their articles deleted in a manner they consider unfair, without any real downside from keeping questionable articles around a few extra days. Best, -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 20:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
If their article is deleted because they weren't aware they needed to assert its notability, they are forced to read policy pages and gain knowledge.
If CsD is revised to account for their ignorance, they remain ignorant and continue to upload one non-notable article after another. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 01:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Propose changing criterion A7 from:
An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources. A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on. Other article types are not eligible for deletion by this criterion. If controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead.
to:
An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that indicates, based on the facts stated in the article, that its subject is not important or significant. This is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources. A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on. Other article types are not eligible for deletion by this criterion. If controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead. Note: this criterion should be used only for articles that make it clear from the facts stated in the article that an Articles for deletion discussion would be closed under WP:SNOW. If the article fails to assert importance or significance, but the article does not actually indicate that the subject is not important or significant so clearly to make the outcome of an articles for deletion discussion obvious, the Proposed deletion procedure should be used.
The phrase "patent non-notability" seems to have confused people. Perhaps this wording may explain more clearly why "Bob goes to my school. Bob rocks!!!" could still get deleted under CSD, but
this would not. --
Shirahadasha (
talk)
14:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This absolutely does not imply we should keep articles that don't make claims. It simply says we should use WP:PROD instead of WP:CSD. If the article literally says nothing at all, it can be deleted under one of the other CSD criteria, as patent nonsense or for lack of context. The idea is to limit CSD to cases where an AfD would be closed under WP:SNOW, and to use PROD for cases where and AfD might possibly result in a KEEP if the article contained more information. Admins have to use judgment including obvious implications of article statements. Best, -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 14:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Shirahadasha that it's better for articles we're not sure about to go to prod. Remember the case of Ggggggggggggggg12, where the (incorrect) speedy deletion of an article, in combination with other circumstances, led to a valuable contributor apparently being permanently lost to the project. Speedy-deleting the article of a new user (or even of an established user) is not a trivial, easily reversible thing: it's perceived as an insult or rejection. It has an emotional impact. I'm sure it drives some editors away before we discover whether they were the type of person that would have become a regular contributor.
I suggest adding something like the following to the current wording: "If significance is not asserted but you suspect the subject may be significant, consider using prod rather than speedy."
Wikipedia is supposed to be editable by anyone. You're not supposed to have to read the rules before starting to edit. People put in articles based on common sense, and common sense says that you don't begin an article with "Tom Jones was a really important person." You begin it with "Tom Jones was a cello player" or whatever. At least, if it's a good, non-spam article you do. Or if you've read the NPOV policy. -- Coppertwig ( talk) 03:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
What is the status of pages that describe a rumour, intends to clarify the rumour status and indicates that no official information is currently available? For example company xyz is rumoured be bringing out a camera of model 9D. Would a page, covering the subject, for example 'xyz 9D', indicating the page describes a rumoured camera be considered okay, or subject for speedy deletion? If it is a gray zone, what sort of information would ensure the page would be kept, since most references are likely to based on sketchy facts, like "representant x suggested y", and "this fits in with the current time line". I ask, because having created a page that was intended to indicate rumour status, I am now wondering whether it was the right thing to do. -- AJ Mas ( talk) 17:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I understand deleting unused fair use images, but why delete perfectly good templates just because they aren't in use? If it's a vanity, userbox, etc. template I also understand. In my opinion many other things should be first in line for deletion before informational templates. I don't think unused free images are deleted, are they? Free templates should be given the same treatment. This is pure bureaucracy just for the heck of it.-- Henry W. Schmitt ( talk) 23:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I had a discussion about speedily deleting redirects from Talk: pages to other Talk: pages, which some admins seem to be doing. If this is not policy, may I suggest that WP:CSD#R be amended to reflect that? I was confused by the wording myself until an admin explained it to me. — Zerida ☥ 21:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I notice that although we have {{
db-iN}}
templates on the standard {{
db-meta}}
format, they are actually almost entirely unused; with templates like {{
di-norat}}
being used instead; these do not follow the db-meta format, which is based on {{
ambox}}
. The formatting difference, combined with an absence of backlinks to
WP:CSD to note which CSD criterion the image falls under, has the effect of largely dissociating image maintenance from CSD, which might or might not be a bad thing. What does everyone think - should the csd templates in the image namespace follow the {{
db-meta}}
format, or is the current format, which is standardised within the image namespace but is different to the other templates, acceptable?
Happy‑
melon
18:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
A bot has been proposed, and is now actually running, that is by itself placing speedy tags on articles automatically and unsupervised. Among other things, it is making its own judgment on no-context, and is marking no-content on articles within seconds of its creation. The discussion is at [ [1]]. 01:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
FYI, whatever template was added here isn't working correctly. The link which should go to Talk:American Leadership Project is instead going to User talk:American Leadership Project. Too busy IRL to try and sort this out myself right now. -- Kendrick7 talk 19:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Several templates use language such as this:
If you created this page and you disagree with its proposed speedy deletion, please add: {{
hangon}}
What if someone other than the page's creator disagrees? Should he or she use the {{ hangon}} tag too. I suppose a neutral (non-admin) could simply remove the tag with an appropriate edit summary, but what if a non-neutral disagreed? Is it best just to comment on the talk page? Seems like we should tell people how to handle this.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 20:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I certainly did misinterprety Coppertwig - thanks for drawing attention to my functional illiteracy, Moonriddengirl. Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 19:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
this move from Template:Db-g1 to Template:Db-nonsense has created a lot of double redirects which were speedy templates. For example Template:CSD:G1 Template:Csd-g1 Template:Db-non etc. (see User:Coppertwig/CSDlist). I suggest that it be moved back. -- Coppertwig ( talk) 00:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
{{
db-move}}
for speedy deletion, I think I managed to clear up after myself after the initial move. I am willing to accept that full protection of all the main templates may be overly bold, although there are certainly arguments in favour of it. I do feel that whatever protection is applied should be applied equally across all the (now easy to find) {{
db-xN}}
templates - what do we think is appropriate? Semi? Move? Or none?
Happy‑
melon
12:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
{{
db-xN}}
? If so I will move {{
db-nonsense}}
back to {{
db-g1}}
. It certainly seems ludicrous to retain that as the only exception to the standard.
Happy‑
melon
15:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
{{
db-nonsense}}
back to {{
db-g1}}
, to complete the standardisation. I'm not sure that the level of sub-categorisation you suggest is necessary - they all fit on two pages quite nicely, and it's easy to see which redirects are associated with which criteria. There are not so many of them that the category is unmanageable without subcategorisation, so
WP:OVERCAT would apply.
Happy‑
melon
15:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC){{
db-xN}}
templates.
Happy‑
melon
21:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)I would like to propose that A3 be reworded to add soft redirects to the list of things exempted from it, in addition to the current exemption for disambiguations. Soft redirects are a valid mechanism on the project, and are in fairly wide and growing use, with over 1200 of them on the project at last count. Like regular redirects and disambiguations, they are generally short, with little content of their own. The most common soft redirects are to Wiktionary, showing where people can go for common terms that offer little encyclopedic content beyond a dictionary definition.
Soft redirects are in common use, and IMHO should not be subject to A3 deletion for a characteristic that is inherent in their nature. They cannot help being short, because that's what they are.
For previous debate on this subject, check out this AFD discussion and this attempt to get a discussion going on the issue (though the latter didn't get much response.)
New wording would be something along the lines of:
- TexasAndroid ( talk) 20:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
We've had our marching orders for over a year now, in [2]:
Needless to say, most of our tagged non-free media hasn't been accepted under our Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP), which is WP:NFCC. Most hasn't been through any kind of discussion process (frankly with that volume of data it would have been impossible).
Nevertheless our EDP is required to be minimal. Stuff that doesn't make the boat really does have to be deleted.
The resolution is worded strongly, and should be taken in the spirit in which it is intended. This makes our choice of mechanism easy.
This is simple and allows for the mass deletions we will have to perform in order to comply with the Foundation's resolution. It also minimises the work and places the onus where it belongs: on the person who uploads an image or wants it undeleted.
I propose that we consider how to reword our media-related CSDs so as to enable this mechanism in time for March 23, or at least very shortly thereafter. -- Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 04:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Betacommand has said that the majority of images that did not have rationales have already been tagged. S/he is currently doing smaller runs through all the non-free images to catch any without rationales that might have been missed in the previous runs. All these bot-tagged images will either have their exemption rationale added or be deleted for lacking one by March 23, so I do not think that the relevant CSDs need to be reworded. Bláthnaid 09:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
<div id="non-free-rationale" display="none"> </div>
or some such, then we can track them with javascript and so forth (plus it will probably make your script more efficient).
Happy‑
melon
10:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Sometimes, one comes across pages, that could be best describes as graffiti. They usually hold bold claims like "Joe Smith is the greatest guy in the world!", "The Rolling BeatGees are the greatest band ever", etc, etc. In my opinion, these should be clear candidates for speedy deletion. However, there is currently no criterion to delete them under. A1 does not apply, because a (minimal) context is provided, nor does A7, as there is a assertion of notability. G3 would be the best bet and the closest thing to a matching criterion, but vandalism is always a word to avoid, as vandalism in the wiki sense assumes bad faith. Now assuming that the creator of the article really thinks that the Rolling BeatGees are the greatest band ever, and this user doesn't know criteria for inclusion, maybe thinks that Wikipedia should be used as some sort of blog, we can safely say that the user placed that article there in good faith. Are there any options left to speedily delete such an article? And if there aren't, would a new criterion for these types of articles, or an expansion of another criterion (possibly A1 or A3) be in order? Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 20:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I realize this may be a case of "deja vu all over again" for many of you, but I have concerns that CSD-T3 is seeing considerable use beyond its stated scope. Specifically, rather than being used only where a template is orphaned, and duplicates a specific other template, it seems to be being used en masse on all orphaned templates not tagged as "transclusionless", and omitting either a named other template this is being 'deprecated' in favour of, or any stated other rationale. I urge rewording of this template to follow that of the CSD clause more closely, and to restore the mandatory nature of the detailed deletion rationale. (Though why on earth not just turn these into redirects or parameterised transclusions, if they're actually being used in line with the stated scope of T3?) See my detailed comment here. Alai ( talk) 21:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
{{
000000}}
deleted under G6 than T3, yes. As was mentioned innumerable times in the T3 discussion, T3 is very much a fork of G6 for a narrow range of cases: anything which is a good CSD candidate but not clearly T3 belongs under G6, IMO.
Happy‑
melon
22:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) Well, I've certainly been skipping large numbers of templates for various reasons. Some of the them are obviously substituted, others are only ever used for speedy taggings. I also skip templates that follow a pattern so as to avoid hitting someone's talk page 30 times. I also look at the date the template was last modified, I verify that it still doesn't have any transclusions, and then I tag and notify the author. If it's been created recently (December, January, February), I usually leave it alone. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 03:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
{{
di-no fair use rationale}}
{{
db-norat}} (aka {{
db-i6}})
These seem to be entirely different templates, but both are referenced here an both will bring you here and both have similar language as to the 7 day waiting period. The first doesn't seem to be anything like an ordinary CSD template and isn't listed in the table. The second is a standard CSD template but doesn't appear to be mentioned in the description of I6, only listed in the table. Also the first one, even though it refers people here, seems to put the images in Category:Images with no fair use rationale; whereas the second one puts the articles in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion; I'm confused. Also, why is the first one subst?-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 17:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Another difference is that {{ di-no fair use rationale}} is fully protected whereas {{ db-norat}} is unprotected.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 17:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
{{
db-i1}}
, {{
db-i2}}
, etc), which categorise into various wierd and wonderful categories rather than
CAT:CSD or its subcategories. There is some merit for the argument that templates in the Image namespace shouldn't necessarily be based on {{
ambox}}
, but if these templates are kept separate, they desperately need standardisation. There's no reason why {{
db-meta}}
can't be switched to display an ambox format in most namespaces, but something more along the (admittedly very eye-catching) lines of {{
Di-no source}}
. The question is, do we want all of BetacommandBot's image taggings being added to
CAT:CSD??
Happy‑
melon
17:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)“ | Redirect loops that do not end with a page with content. Make sure you check the page history of the redirects to make sure redirects were not mistakenly made to loop. | ” |
I have boldly added the above text as CSD#R4. -- Cat chi? 18:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I would propose a new general category for speedy deletion:
A couple of these have turned up on AfD over the past couple days:
These are apparently intended articles submitted as PDFs.
Submissions in this format are possibly GFDL violations, because GFDL requires copies to be "transparent", and says that "(y)ou may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute." My understanding of the PDF format is that it is designed to enable authors to preserve their text and formatting inviolate, although the GFDL itself states that "PDF designed for human modification" is a transparent file format; my understanding is that the PDF format and the Adobe free reader is designed to allow PDF creators to allow or disallow modifications and even text selection for cut and paste, at their option. GFDL also says that "(a)n image format is not Transparent if used for any substantial amount of text," and many PDF files I have seen contain only a sequence of scans of the original pages.
Whether submissions like this are GFDL compatible or not, they break just about everything else. They can't be wikified using ordinary syntax; instead, external links would have to be manually inserted into the PDF document itself. They can't be edited by people who don't have PDF writing software.
While PDF files might be useful in other Wikimedia projects, I can't imagine why Wikipedia itself would ever need or use them. It seems an appropriate subject for a blanket rule. - Smerdis of Tlön ( talk) 17:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Many PDFs are spam, improperly sourced/tagged, vanispamcruftisement, copyvios, original research or some combination of these things. Here is a sample of these (tagged = tagged for various forms of deletion).
We should think about disabling PDF uploads altogether. Only five are salvageable (about 28%) but all should be deleted for some reason or another. MER-C 09:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I see that this list of criteria now contains a quite unqualified statement that all redirects to non-existent pages should be deleted, and there's a standard template to put on such pages, and bots to help make sure it's done fast and efficiently.
I think it's important to the well-being of Wikipedia to remember that this came about because of bullies whose stated reasons for what they wanted to do were insincere.
I don't know whether a day will eventually come when we will fix this problem, but we should remember how it came about. There is a software bug: if you link to a redirect page that redirects to a non-existent page, then your link appears as a blue link; it should appear as a red link. That was the real reason why some people were so opposed to links to non-existent pages, and some people were honest about that. The list of criteria for speedy deletion included some exceptions; some links to non-existent pages were to be allowed. They are useful when they redirect from plural to singular, or from a commonplace misspelling or misnomer to a correct term. They prevented needless duplication of articles that would then have to get merged. So people opposed to their existence (1) denied that the rules contained explicit exceptions, even though they were there in black-and-white on the criteria-for-speedy deletion page, and (2) denied that there were any reasons why anyone would want such "broken" redirects to exist, even when the reasons were patiently and thoroughly explained to them, and (3) denied the existence of people who disagreed with them about this, and (4) were abusive and disrespectful to such people.
For now, those people have prevailed. It is important to the well-being of Wikipedia that we remember how that happened. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I have in mind events that I seem to recall were mainly in the spring 2005, and also some in later months of that year. I'll see if I can find links. Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Allow it to apply to all articles that do not assert notability. There isnt any reason I shouldnt be able to CSD an article about non notable software, or karate styles or books. RogueNinja talk 08:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
What do products or objects come under? if I come across a page that says "Computer X is being developed by george smith, he thinks it will be ace". Well it's not about George's notability is it? -- Fredrick day ( talk) 23:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I've changed the category to Category:Redirects from other template for the templates that are redirects to the other templates at Category:Speedy deletion templates, since all the redirects are listed along with the speedy deletion templates that they redirect to. It should make finding a specific template in that category easier, as it separates the redirects from the actual templates. -- Silver Edge ( talk) 20:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
:D
Happy‑
melon
22:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
{{
documentation}}
, though, so I'd recommend you use it on the new templates. I've had MelonBot run through the existing templates converting, so you only need to worry about the new ones.
Happy‑
melon
10:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm in a dispute over whether an image should be deleted. Basically, the copyright holder of an image can not be identified. However, the image has survived an IFD and a DRV. The question is: does I7 fall under the "copyright infringement" rule, or just G12? Will ( talk) 15:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this for a while, and I’ve convinced myself that we should scale way back, and possibly eliminate, our current method of speedy deletions based solely on lack of assertion of notability. Before you get too excited, note that I’m proposing an alternative method of deletion that would be almost as easy for the deleters, but significantly less painful for the article writers.
Of all the speedy delete criteria, deletions based on "lack of assertion of notability" is the most likely to annoy people who are trying to be productive editors. Vandalism, or attack page? Nuke it. By definition it was not created by a good faith user. Copyvio? Nuke it. Once it’s explained, a good-faith editor will understand why we can’t do that, and by its very nature he doesn’t have a lot of his own time invested in the page.
But consider someone writing an article on a non-notable person or organization, likely a newbie who hasn't even heard of WP:N yet, and who was seduced by the phrases "anyone can edit" and "be bold". Two minutes after he hits “save page” for the first time, to see what it looks like so far, he gets a boilerplate {{ nn-warn}} notice with a glaring red icon on his talk page telling him that his contribution isn’t good enough. If this doesn’t browbeat him into submission, then two minutes later, as he’s writing a {{ hangon}} message (which the notice implied might actually do some good), or as he's trying to understand where to put it, or while he's simply adding the missing assertion of notability, he discovers that the article is already gone. This isn't speedy delete, it's supersonic delete; this isn't "edited mercilessly", it's shock and awe. Maybe he mistakenly re-adds the article while trying to save the {{ hangon}} tag; he gets yelled at for recreating deleted content. Maybe he doesn’t understand that it’s not truly gone and can be undeleted, and he thinks his hours worth of work is gone forever. If this doesn’t cause him to say “well fuck this, I’m gone”, he’s already pretty upset, and demands that the deleting admin explain what’s going on, gets more red notices about WP:NPA/ WP:CIVIL that set him off even more, and things quickly deteriorate after that.
This isn’t theoretical, and it isn't overly dramatic. It happens all the time.
In short, the supersonic deletion of new articles written by good faith editors is an insulting way to treat a new editor, and an excellent way to drive them from the project before they understand how things work. Some of our more prickly longer-term, productive editors get quite upset when this happens to them as well, leading to noticeboards full of unnecessary drama.
I’m not proposing we simply keep the page, or change our notability criteria, or get rid of speedy delete completely. A very large majoirty of all of these articles will still ultimately be deleted. But I’m suggesting we find a more civilized way of deleting articles on non-notable subjects, and avoiding alienating good faith editors in the process. I propose a couple of different solutions, in decreasing order of my personal preference (i.e. the top two are my favorites).
My main point: We jump thru numerous hoops to ensure vandals are treated gently at first, in the (extremely optimistic) hope that they decide to stay on as valued contributors, but we don’t treat people who have just tried to actually contribute with as much care. I think the gains we’d make in not losing potential editors, and the time we’d save not dealing with vengeful people who turn to the dark side with personal attacks, incivility, and sockpuppetry, would more than offset the extra time it would take to remove non-notable articles using one of these methods. Plus, it's the nice thing to do.
Thoughts? -- barneca ( talk) 20:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Those who mention the unfair treatment of good faith newbies compared to blatant vandals bring up a good point. Part of the issue is that we should be harsher on bad faith editors, who aren't welcome here.
Which is why the proposal is not a good idea. "Articles" like "$SCHOOL_STUDENT attends $HIGH_SCHOOL and is $AGE (less than 18) years old. His favorite band is $BAND. He is extremely cool!" need to be nuked on sight and their creators larted. Hard. The vast majority of the A7s I tag are of this form (equivalent forms exist for other types of speedyable band/website/club/company vanispamcruftisement). There is no excuse for missing the bit about Wikipedia being an encyclopedia, especially since it appears multiple times (e.g. the HTML title, under the title of the article and in top left corner of each page). MER-C 06:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with barneca's proposal. I have seen numerous occasions when articles that had clear assertions of notability were instantly deleted for lack of assertion of notability merely because the admin was an ignoramus who didn't understand the article, and then the admin and a chorus of cheerleaders attack the creator of the article and anyone who defends it in the most severe language they know how to use. In one such case the creator was a world-famous scientist and the admin made me wonder if he could spell scientist. When I see an article speedily deleted for lack of an assertion of notability, I now start from the presumption that the deleting admin is at best not paying attention to what he's doing. Michael Hardy ( talk) 02:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Another possibility is placing a "candidate for speedy blanking" template on the page, and then if a second editor reviews it and concurs, blanking the page and putting a template such as Wikipedia:Experimental Deletion/XD2/Example. It could then be PROD'ed, which would give the contributor five days to get it in suitable shape to survive. Alternately, we might move it to userspace or some other kind of article limbo where the collaborative process could continue, while keeping the temporarily unacceptable article out of mainspace. However, that might create issues when the user attempts to move it back to mainspace with a copy and paste move or something, that violates GFDL. We might have a technical fix that lets pages be moved on top of pages whose only item in the edit history is to place the intentional blank template (similarly to how we can move a page on top of a page whose only edit history item is a redirect). Any thoughts on this? Obuibo Mbstpo ( talk) 21:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
It may be useful to this discussion to consider {{
db-t3}}
, which is used to enforce
WP:CSD#T3. It takes the timestamp of addition as its first argument, and only adds the templates to
CAT:CSD after they have been tagged for seven days. There is no reason whatsoever why we cannot apply the same code to other templates, with entirely arbitrary time limits. We can alter {{
db-a7}}
so that it only adds the page to the category after an hour, or six hours, or 24 hours. That ensures that editors will have the time to at least write a hangon without their page being deleted from under their nose.
There is no deadline, and there's no particular rush either - there's nothing illegal about having non-notable articles that requires we get rid of them ASAP, like with copyvios. We can certainly have them hang around for an hour, or six, or 24. We can discuss the exact length of time as much as necessary - it can be specified to the second - but I think that this is the easiest solution, and one that is sorely needed. There's no reason why adding a time delay preculdes one of the other solutions suggested above, but it could also function as an acceptable alternative.
Happy‑
melon
23:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I haven't read this whole proposal and discussion yet, but the time switch part caught my eye, and I gotta say I love the idea. It won't even slow down the rate of deletions, so people don't have to worry about that. There would be a single, one time pause of A7's for one day and then they will resume their normal rate, while giving new editors more time to adjust, understand, and perhaps save a few good articles (even if it is a very small percentage). I can't really think of any reason we wouldn't want to do this. -- Ned Scott 06:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Just threw this together, and it's now too wordy and probably too sacharine sweet, but it's an idea someone could run with and clean up. The theory at least being that you want to bend over backwards from getting their dander up. If you want to mess around with it, it's at User:Barneca/Sandboxen/Page3. -- barneca ( talk) 02:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Criteria for speedy deletion, welcome to Wikipedia. I'm sorry, but I've placed a tag on John Q. Public requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.
I know this is distressing, but I didn't do this to be a jerk. I did this because long-term, I don't believe this is going to be able to be included in the encyclopedia, and it's better to nip it in the bud now, rather than have you spend time creating something that won't survive.
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies.
If the article is deleted before you can use the {{
hangon}} tag, you still have options!
First, please read the policies and criteria listed above. If, after reading, you honestly believe you can satisfy our notability requirements, you can do one of the following:
If you are new here, I'm sorry for the rough start. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. -- barneca ( talk) 02:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd hate to see this on vanispamcruftisers' talk pages. The message "sorry we inconvenienced you by deleting your article" is silly because the reality is you inconvenienced us by creating unencyclopedic crap that has to be cleaned up afterward. That said, if a honest effort to write an encyclopedia article is made then using this template is a good idea. What I'm worried about is sending the wrong message, especially when people use Twinkle or other tools to automatically post warnings no matter what the content of the article. MER-C 06:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The begining of I7 is " Non-free images or media that fail any part of the non-free content criteria and were uploaded after 13 July 2006 may be deleted forty-eight hours after notification of the uploader. For media uploaded before 13 July 2006 or tagged with the {{ Replaceable fair use}} template, the uploader will be given seven days to comply with this policy after being notified. " If someone reads only the first sentence, they get the impression that, well, that what it says is true, and might go ahead and delete something after 48 hours. But the second sentence states that such images which are tagged "replacable fair use" require 7 days notice, not just 48 hours.
I suggest changing it to this: " Non-free images or media that fail any part of the non-free content criteria may be deleted forty-eight hours after notification of the uploader, except that for media uploaded before 13 July 2006 or tagged with the {{ Replaceable fair use}} template, the uploader will be given seven days to comply with this policy after being notified. " I think this is clearer, and also has the advantage of being shorter. (Here for once I'm talking about the wording of the CSD, not the wording in the templates.) -- Coppertwig ( talk) 01:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
{{subst:rfu}}
". --
Coppertwig (
talk))
01:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC) sig added
12:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)In the deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_March_1 a speedy deletion of Wakfu was endorsed. The point raised by the nominator who has proposed and implemented a change of the template [3] [4] is that A7 only applies to web content such as web forums and browser games, but not to online forums and online games in general. I don't think that is a helpful distinction and that the template should be reverted and maybe rather this page here should be updated to be more clearer in its inclusion of online forums and games, whatever the client used. Thoughts?-- Tikiwont ( talk) 13:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
As I said above, it seems to me the overriding criterion for subjecting web content to A7 is that the only publishing medium is the web. For the problem here is that publishing on the web is too easy, and so the vast majority of such material can be presumed non-notable. It might be worth explicating that criterion when describing "web content," if this confusion is wider than a single DRV. Someguy1221 ( talk) 21:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Should "I6" be considered a "Criterion for speedy deletion" or an "Opportunity for speedy correction"? It seems that in many cases, a rationale is either plainly obvious or plainly unlikely. While the policy of requiring a rationale for Fair Use when new non-free content is uploaded is plainly important, I suggest that when the policy isn't followed, a review could be implemented alongside notification. To me, relying solely on "notification of the uploader" is a bit contrary to the normal progression of adding content (e. g. WP:BOLD; "Wikis like ours develop faster when everybody helps to fix problems."). Generally when problematic content is contributed in good faith it is more productive for other Wikipedians to just fix the problems rather than track down the source and nag them into doing it. The problem is made even worse when the nagging party is an automated script rather than a helpful Wikipedian who can offer assistance and resist "biting the newbies". I feel like this issue may lie at the heart of many complaints against the activities of BetacommandBot, and I wonder if the scope of the required intervention is small enough to be filtered by a review process now that the backlog of legacy images has been tagged. -- Dystopos ( talk) 22:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)