Misplaced Pages

talk:Criteria for speedy deletion: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 09:00, 14 November 2006 editAis523 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,378 edits →Tale of an article: going back to the original point, two replies (not interspersed)← Previous edit Latest revision as of 02:44, 23 January 2025 edit undoSparkle & Fade (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,023 edits Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pp-move-indef|small=yes}}__NOINDEX__
{{shortcut|]<br>]}}
{{/Header}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 90
|minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive %(counter)d
|archiveheader = {{Aan}}
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive index
|mask=Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes
}}
{{talk header|WT:CSD|search=yes}}
{{Copied
|from = Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Speedy/Criteria
|from_oldid = 584487717
|to = Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion
|to_diff = 584576665
|to_oldid = 584575352
|date = 20:38, 4 December 2013
|small =
}}{{Copied
| from = Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion
| from_oldid = 749905429
| to = Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Speedy
| to_diff = 749906249
| date = 16 November 2016
}}
{{hatnote|See also ] for discussions which took place in 2006-7 before it was redirected here.}}


==Discussion at ]==
== Read this before proposing new criteria ==
]&nbsp;You are invited to join the discussion at ]. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 05:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)<!-- ] -->
<!-- Note: This is a standing instruction for the Talk page. When archiving old discussions off this page, please do ''not'' archive this section -->


== ] and people who have gamed the extended-confirmed restriction ==
Contributors frequently propose new criteria for speedy deletion. If you have a proposal to offer, please keep a few guidelines in mind:


If someone games the extended-confirmed restriction (and is found to have done so at ] or ]), are pages they created during the window after they reached 30/500 edits but before they were determined to have gamed the restriction G5-able? This specific case seems to have come up ]; the editor created the now-draftified ]. My opinion is that it obviously should be G5able (otherwise we're rewarding gaming the restrictions); if someone is found to have gamed the restrictions then, by definition, all their edits in that topic area were in violation of the relevant general sanction, even if we didn't know it at the time. --] (]) 14:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
# The criterion should be '''objective''': an article that a reasonable person judges as fitting or not fitting the criterion should be similarly judged by other reasonable people. Often this requires making the rule very specific. An example of an unacceptably ''subjective'' criterion might be "an article about something unimportant."
:Strictly this isn't a CSD question, because G5 just incorporates any duly-enacted general sanction that authorizes deletion. Such a sanction could have a clause for gaming, or could not. ] has no such clause, so by my reading it cannot be used to delete a page created by an EC user under any circumstances, which is what I've said at the AE thread; but that's a question for ArbCom (or AN in the case of community ECRs), not for WT:CSD. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 03:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
# The criterion should be '''uncontestable''': it should be the case that ''almost all'' articles that can be deleted using the rule, should be deleted, according to general consensus. If a rule paves the path for deletions that will cause controversy, it probably needs to be restricted. In particular, don't propose a CSD in order to overrule ''keep'' votes that might otherwise occur in AfD. Don't forget that a rule may be used in a way you don't expect if not carefully worded.
::I agree with Tamzin, although I'd clarify that "under any circumstances" is not withstanding any other restrictions the creation might have been a violation of (e.g. sanctions on the individual concerned). ] (]) 15:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
# The criterion should '''arise frequently''': speedy deletion was created as a means of decreasing load on other deletion methods such as ] and ]. But these other methods are often more effective because they treat articles on a case-by-case basis and incorporate many viewpoints; CSD exchanges these advantages for the practical goal of expeditious, lightweight cleanup. If a situation arises rarely, it's probably easier, simpler, and more fair to delete it via one of these other methods instead. This also keeps CSD as simple and easy to remember as possible.
:::This "restriction" is probably controversial and very bity. Unless there is clearly a problem with a page there is no reason why it should be deleted just because it was created by a new user. I see no reason to take action here, if there is a problem with their contributions then it should be dealt with normally but to sanction them for gaming a "restriction" that wasn't put in place because of anything they personally did wrong doesn't seem appropriate. If a user knows how EC works it might be a sock so should be dealt with that way but otherwise its probably not much of a problem, if the contributions are acceptable just let it go if not then look at deletion another way. ''']''' (]) 18:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
# The criterion should be '''nonredundant''': if an admin can accomplish the deletion using a reasonable interpretation of an existing rule, just use that. If this application of that rule is contested, consider discussing and/or clarifying it. Only if a new rule covers articles that cannot be speedy deleted otherwise should it be considered.
::::As noted the article is now in the draft space and the user has specifically been sanctioned so I don't think there's anything left to be done. If the draft is left it will be deleted under G13. ''']''' (]) 18:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)


== Subpages of talk pages ==
If you do have a proposal that you believe passes these guidelines, please feel free to propose it on this discussion page. Be prepared to offer evidence of these points and to refine your criterion if necessary. Consider explaining how it meets these criteria when you propose it. Do not, on the other hand, add it unilaterally to the CSD page.


I am looking to nominate the unused discussion page ] for deletion, but I can't find a suitable speedy reason, and {{tlx|prod}} warns me I should only use the template on articles.
;Oft referenced pages
* ] (])
* ] (])
* ] (])
* ] (July 2005 proposal to expand WP:CSD)
* ] (Summary of suggested changes as of November 2005)
* ], explanations of the reasons for each criterion


What's the right course here? ] (]) 19:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
{| class="infobox" width="315px"
|-
!align="center"|]<br><small>]</small>
----
|-
|
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
|}<!--Template:Archivebox-->


:]. ] (]) 20:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
__TOC__
::It's a redirect - should go to ]. Not sure why it needs to be deleted, though... ] (]) 14:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::@] it wasn't a redirect at the time they asked this question. See ]. ] (]) 16:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)


== Vandal user pages == == Requested move 19 January 2025 ==


{{requested move/dated|Misplaced Pages:Speedy deletion|protected=Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion}}
I would like to propose the following be official added to the speedy deletion criteria for userpages:
<ol><li value=4>'''Indefinitely blocked users'''. User pages with no significant history of indefinitely blocked users (not including sock puppets or banned users) that have been listed in ] for one month.</ol>
This is already in effect, but it would be better if it was added "officially". —<span style="font: small-caps 14px times; color: red;">] (])</span> 21:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
:I considered this as already covered by another process, in the same way we don't have speedy deletion criteria for "closing a prod" or for pages that have been through ]. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 23:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
::Yeah, policy is a little unclear about that. There are speedy criteria for images that have been missing a source for seven days, etc. though. —<span style="font: small-caps 14px times; color: red;">] (])</span> 00:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


] → {{no redirect|Misplaced Pages:Speedy deletion}} – I searched through the archives to see why "Criteria" is part of the title, but couldn't find anything much, other than these comments that mentioned it without any follow-up. Previously, ] was an information page listing the criteria and ] was the process page where SD candidates were listed. With the introduction of deletion templates in the late 2000s, the latter page was deemed redundant and became a redirect to the former in this . Several editors in the linked discussions suggested support for removing "Criteria" from the title, and in my search I have not found one editor opposing the removal of "criteria" from the title, so it led me to believe this move simply was never proposed. Therefore, I am proposing a move from ] to ] for the following reasons:
:'''If''' this criterion is added, exceptions should be explicitly made for banned users and sockpuppets of known, persistent vandals. I know the ] argument against maintaining categories of vandal socks, but sometimes it is very useful. For example, the checkusers ] that the account {{user|Takidis}} was in fact a sockpuppet of the banned {{user|Cretanpride}} until Mackensen, who had dealt with previous socks, recognized that the IPs being used had been used by '''other''' Cretanpride sockpuppets. If those sockpuppet pages had been deleted, it would not have been possible to confirm the latest sockpuppet account.
#To increase emphasis on the process itself, rather than the criteria. It is evident at this point that this page isn't only about a set of criteria but also an established process to delete pages based on the criteria.

#To enable titling consistent with the other deletion process pages (], ]).
:Even ] says, ""Userpages for indefinitely blocked users ('''except sockpuppets and banned users''') that have no practical purpose should be deleted after a short while." The Cretanpride scenario I mentioned is only one example of how a userpage for an indefinitely blocked user can "have a practical purpose". People deleting userpages with {{tl|indefblockeduser}} should check the block log, page history and contribs of the blocked user to make sure that the account is merely a one-off vandal, rather than a reincarnation of a problem user — in the latter case, the user page can provide valuable information to those fighting the problem user. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 01:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
#To allow smoother referencing and better syntax, e.g. "tag it for ]" vs. "tag it for ]".
::I agree. I've modified the wording of the proposal. —<span style="font: small-caps 14px times; color: red;">] (])</span> 01:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
#The page currently contains topics other than just the criteria, such as the step-by-step instructions, the procedure, and information about the process. A rename of this page could make room for expanding/altering the scope if needed in the future. ] 10:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Anyone who's doing this should check the user page's history before deleting the page; I know that some users, inspired by ], have gone on campaigns of replacing detailed blocked user pages ("this user was blocked as a sockpuppet of so-and-so") with the template {{tl|indefblockeduser}}. That fact, combined with this new criterion, could result in the loss of useful data about sockpuppeteers. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 04:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I've wondered myself why we need the longer title. Yes when the page is saying what should or should not be done like ], ] and ] it includes an instruction but as noted the likes of AFD and PROD etc do not have this so is consistent and more concise. See also ]. ''']''' (]) 18:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Even for those we could have a time limit after which they are deleted (like 6 months or a year). —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 04:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' Not convinced there's an actual problem in need of solving here. ] ] 04:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
I would oppose the addition of this criterion. While I understand the principles of ], I think this is an over-reaction. When I am checking on the history of certain pages and trying to determine whether an addition was vandalism or not, it has often been very helpful to check the user's page to see the history. It's much easier to look on the Talk page for a "blocked" notice than to try to navigate to the Block Log just to look up that one little fact. And, frankly, if someone has taken the time to prove that A is a sockpuppet of B, I ''want'' that small finding preserved. It helps me to figure out what to look for when the next sockpuppet is created. ] <small>]</small> 12:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
* '''Support''', even though I don't have high hopes for this RM. This page details the process of speedy deletion, not just the individual criteria. Page titles which do not match their content <strong>are</strong> problems. Is it a small problem? I guess. But it is a problem, and (to state the obvious) a ] redirect will be kept after the move, so it is unclear what harm comes from making the move. If you want to keep calling it "Criteria for speedy deletion", nobody is stopping you. But ] is the more ] and ] name, and that is where this page belongs. <b>]]</b>&nbsp;(]&nbsp;•&nbsp;he/they) 02:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

* '''Support''', a fix of a minor awkwardness with no real downside is still worth marking. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 02:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
I agree, and also oppose this. I think deleting user pages is taking ] too far. The harm in keeping the pages (a slight possibility of glorification) outweighs the possible harm in being unable to unravel a complex sockpuppetry case. If you've ever tries to track down the history of something several years later (be it vandalism or simple page history tracking through redirects and so forth), it is amazing how disruptive these "housekeeping" deletes are at obscuring what happened. ] 12:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
* '''Support''' Per HouseBlaster. This does indeed detail the whole process itself, not just the criteria, so it doesn't make much sense to name it "criteria for" as its unnecessary. "Speedy deletion" is an ] and ], so I don't see why we shouldn't move it. —] (] • ]) 02:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:That's why sockpuppet and banned users' userpages would not be deleted. —<span style="font: small-caps 14px times; color: red;">] (])</span> 14:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I've been deleting the userpages of vandal accounts as soon as I indef them for ages. {{tl|Indefblocked}} is useful for community/ArbCom/whoever banned users, but it's not worth it for vandal only accounts. -- ] 14:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
*Absolutely not. This is a backdoor attempt at codifying WP:DENY into policy, which people largely don't want. Strong, strong opposition. --] <small>]</small> 15:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not related to ], this is for cleaning up detritus that, for example, is a top result on Google searches. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 19:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
: Can you give the skeptics among us some specific examples of that? Are you claiming that the selection of the username itself is part of the vandalism? ] <small>]</small> 02:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
:: Of course use name selection is part of the vandalism. If someone picks a username like "F*** Jews!!! Jws did WTC!!!", that's obviously part of their vandalism. —<span style="font: small-caps 14px times; color: red;">] (])</span> 03:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
::: That example can already be deleted under case G3. No new case is needed. The fact that the vandal was indef-blocked is irrelevant. But honestly, that doesn't seem like something that would come up at the top of any reasonable google search such as Centrx describes. I'm still confused. ] <small>]</small> 03:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

::::Before the user pages were deleted, a search for —[REDACTED] firefox — would come up with numerous pages involving ]. There are thousands of this kind, and many of them are quite friendly and do not involve others; they do not qualify as attack pages, only as vandalism pages (though I think if it is indeed useful to keep track of vandal's behavior, the attack pages would warrant keeping as well). Whether they come up as search results for "fucking" or for "milkman" or "willy", there is no reason for them. Even in cases without problematic search results (though this may be impossible, there are millions upon millions people searching every day, they ''will'' use combined search queries that result in these pages sometime in the how many years do you propose to keep these pages around), I fail to see why a user page of "Oven on Wheels" in which someone followed the same obvious M.O. of putting the Willy's Knight image on a few pages, 16 months ago, is at all useful. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 06:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
*If we're talking about the userpages about people with few (if any) useful contribs and under a permablock, I really don't see why deletion would be such a big deal. I don't mean that we should massively automatically delete all of them, but it is clear that such pages aren't helpful for encyclopedia building so if they're e.g. insulting there is little reason ''not'' to delete them. ] 15:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
* I'd prefer that situations such as Centrx describes be handled on a case-by-case basis. Use judgment and discretion when cleaning these up but don't create a new rule (the existing vandalism criterion seems sufficient). And for most situations, I'd still prefer a blank-and-protect approach. The search engine doesn't reach into page history but humans can when we need to. ] <small>]</small> 16:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
**Or you can just ask an admin to look through the deleted page history. —<span style="font: small-caps 14px times; color: red;">] (])</span> 02:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
*** You could but good admins are always in short supply. We really can't afford to restrict the vandalism patrol to admins-only. Some pages may be serious enough to deserve this extra step but I'm still not seeing enough of a reason to make it a general rule. ] <small>]</small> 03:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

== A proposal regarding a part of I7 ==

Regarding recent deletions of "replaceable" images under I7, have a look here: ] for a proposal.--]<sup>]</sup> 09:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

== A7 Weirdness: Things and Concepts ==

If an editor makes a brief article about their obviously unremarkable and unremarked pet rabbit, it can only be deleted by grinding it through AfD or ProD. But if they made a brief article about their obviously unremarkable and unremarked brother, it can be speedily deleted. (Of course if they include even two magic words that their brother is "remarkably popular", then ''Oops'', it has to go through laborious AfD or ProD).

Case in point: A DVD was made by a bunch of kids of stunts and skits. The article did not assert the subject's importance. I put it up for speedy-delete as "non-notable", but it was denied, saying non-notability is not criteria. I looked at A7 and decided that the lawyerly editor would likely reject that criterion since the DVD is a "thing". I did put it up again, asserting G11 (commercial promotion), since the article said it had been sold around town.

A7 is quite specific about limiting the criteria to "people, groups, companies and web content" since it mentions that set twice: ''"Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject."''

A7 should be modified to add the words "concept, and thing". ] 05:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

:The problem is there might be certain classes of things (like towns, or chemical elements) that could be notable regardless of whether there is any sort of assertion of notability. On the other hand, we don't want to add "pets, robots, and favorite colors" to the criterion. There needs to be some better wording to describe articles about things that are only in relation the vanity author, for the pet and the DVD only being created by the non-notable person. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 06:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
:: The same problem exists for "people, groups, companies, and web content". There are certain classes of people, like historical figures or scientific leaders that could be notable regardless of whether there is any sort of assertion of notability. I fail to see why articles about non-notable people can be deleted in preference to deleting articles about non-notable things. Articles about things and people that are clearly non-notable should be speedily deleted whether or not there is a relation to the article creator. ] 21:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

:No, it shouldn't. I see no need to expand A7 further like this. --] <small>]</small> 15:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

:: So? What is your objection? A simple "No" doesn't advance the debate. ] 21:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
:::My objection is that there's no necessity for such a change. --] <small>]</small> 22:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

::: Yes, we understand that you feel there is no necessity. In fact, we understood that the first time you wrote it. However, you haven't addressed the points made, and you still haven't advanced the debate. Why do you feel there's no necessity for such a change? ] 00:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::Because I don't think there are really any points. This expansion is unnecessary. --] <small>]</small> 03:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
::::I think there is no necessity for a change because CSD was not accommodate for the deletion of certain classes of article content. Your points highlight the vagueness of any possible change. If your questions were based on the four criteria at the top of the page then they may have been rebutted using more objective terms.
:::: <s>In any case, your suggested modifications do not take into account the proviso at the end for only whether or not there is an assertion there. You seem to want to delete things in these extra categories, which you personally see fit for deletion whether or not there is an assertion there.</s> ] 03:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
:::: When I used the phrase "unremarkable and unremarked" in the first sentence of this section, that is explicitly addressing the issue of assertion, the key word being "unremarked". ] 04:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
::::: Sorry, I missed that distinction. ] 04:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
::::: Not a problem. My wording was not the same as that in the project page, so it would have been easy to overlook. ] 05:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

An explicit example for discussion: ] has the text (in its entirety): ''Jopling Street is a residential street located in North Ryde, NSW''. I think this should be speedy deleted since it is about a thing and does not explain any notability and is very unlikely to have any notability, but as currently constructed, there is no criterion applicable without possibly provoking a denial from a lawyerly admin (just doin their job). ] 01:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
:If you think it needs deleting so badly, why haven't you taken it to afd? &mdash;] 02:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
:: I haven't, as yet, taken it to AfD because I want to have it here as an example for discussion. I did take its sister article ] by the same creator to ProD. ] 03:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

:Why delete it? It's a perfectly valid stub. --] <small>]</small> 03:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
:: It is a completely non-notable thing, and the article does not assert notability. ] 03:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
:::It's a street, something that's generally considered noteworthy. This is why we shouldn't be deleting "things" speedily. A7's flawed enough in that regard, it doesn't need to be made worse. --] <small>]</small> 03:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
::::I don't think you've thought this through. There are about 19,465 incorporated places in the U.S. (2006 Statistical Abstract from the U.S. Census Bureau). The global equivalent might be 20 time this number or about 400,000. If, on average, there are 25 streets in each (probably a low estimate), then there are 10,000,000 streets in the world. I don't think you can make a case that all of these are notable. If you think the decision to allow schools to be automatically included in Misplaced Pages was contentious, imagine how contentious 10,000,000 streets would be. ] 03:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::Sure I can. It might be contentious, but it doesn't mean it's not right. That's 10 million useful articles right there. That will likely NEVER happen unless we get a RamBot-style bot to do it, but there would be nothing wrong with that. --] <small>]</small> 03:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::Misplaced Pages has enough cruft and clutter as it is. Adding 10,000,000 articles about streets, 99 percent or more non-notable is not a good idea. What makes a street notable? Your brother lives on it? How about buildings? Does a building become notable just because it is a building?
::::::Getting back to the topic at hand, if an article about a person doesn't explicitly make a vaguely plausible case for notability and if there is no other evidence in the article for notability, then it can be speedily deleted. There is no reason the same principle should not apply to an article about a street or a building or a pet rabbit. Surely one wouldn't argue that streets and pet rabbits have elevated status over and above people. Yet that is the consequence of the stated criteria ''and'' of the admins actions in enforcing those criteria. ] 03:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::We should really consider escaping the term "cruft." It's all information. The problem is really in the principle, and your expansion is further down that slippery slope. As long as there's an assertion (and being a road is an assertion the way being a pet generally is not), there isn't a problem. --] <small>]</small> 03:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::: Cruft is useless information. In the context of an encyclopedia, there is much information that is useless and inappropriate, even if it may be useful in a different context. The phone book is chock full of useful information, but it is not appropriate to transcribe it into Misplaced Pages. You may make the bald assertion that "streetness" is automatic notability, but I don't think that you'll get much support for that assertion. Nor have you made any kind of case about what makes mere streetness notable. ] 04:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

:For things like pets and home-made DVDs, the original examples which are clear vanity, these are already usually deleted speedily as extending from A7 (If the person would be deletable under A7, the pet in an article that even asserts it is less notable than the person makes sense to be deleted). The question is whether it can be codified sufficiently well to be added here. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 02:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
:: Two admins disagree with you and removed the speedy notices. ] 03:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

No, A7 should not be modified this way. We don't throw up speedy deletion criteria for just any situation into which a few uncontroversial deletable articles fall: it needs to happen very frequently, and frankly, I've never seen another example of this at AfD. We just don't need it. Remember, we also have ]. ]]<sup>]</sup> 04:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

:Let me amend that; I was saying that obviously non-notable "concepts" and "pets" and so on aren't a problem. Roads is a bit of another story, but generally speaking it is community consensus that we can have articles on highways but not on local roads unless there's some particular importance. But that doesn't mean a speedy deletion criterion is in order; in fact, it's clearly a bad idea. AfD'ing the occasional article like ] is not a big deal; debates like that take almost no community effort as a whole. And ] would work most of the time. I've prodded that particular article. Hu - you seem to have forgotten about (or have not heard of) ], which is there to handle general examples of deletion that would be uncontroversial that aren't covered by speedy deletion, such as all your examples. ]]<sup>]</sup> 04:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

: Thank you for the excellent suggestion. My edit list shows that I've been using ProD, most recently earlier today. In fact I mention it above that I put up the sister street for ProD. The fundamental question remains why the principle should be that people can be speedily deleted, but not things. The implication is that things are more respected than people. And yes, things come up frequently enough. ] 05:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
*I think the main reason A7 never included "animals" in its wording is that there really aren't that many articles created about people's pets. If we get an influx of articles on insignificant animals we would probably expand A7 to cover that. "Things", however, is too broad and too open to misinterpretation. ] 12:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

:It shouldn't matter what the article subject is. If the article does not make a vaguely plausible case for notability and does not automatically meet previously established criteria for automatic notability, then it should go up for speedy deletion. Things should not receive protection that people don't have. ] 16:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
:*But according to precedent, e.g. such things as villages do, regardless of size and amount of inhabitants. ] 16:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

== Clarification:what to do when an article doesn't fit into a nice, neat box. ==

While browsing new pages I came accross one where the contributor was clearly confused as to the purpose of Misplaced Pages. For discussions sake, the page was ] and the content was:
<blockquote>'''List of Sudanese Doctors'''

The main aim of this page is to give all Sudanese doctors, around the world, the opportunity of getting in touch with one another.
Hopefully this page will help in encouraging everyone to contribute and share one's experiences, ideas, and projects. As a result, we hope that our beloved people will get the benefit that we, as Sudanese doctors, all strive to give.

Thank you,

Nadir Galal Eldin
</blockquote>
Obviously not suitable for Misplaced Pages, but I didn't think it met any of the speedy criteria so I prodded it, giving "Misplaced Pages is ] a social networking site" as my reason. Now, keep in mind that the first item under non-criteria is "'''Reasons derived from ]'''". I left a nice little note on the contributor's talk page explaining what Misplaced Pages is and isn't, and while I was doing that someone came along and put a speedy tag on the article above the prod citing G11 as the speedy criteria.

Now, ''obviously'' the thing needs to go. But, it's not ''really'' blatent advertising. It's far more what Misplaced Pages is not. But I guess it's ''sort of'' advertising, sort of, maybe, kind of, a little. You could maybe say it exists to provide a service... but I think that's stretching it a little.

Anyway, what about instances like that where a page just doesn't quite fit any of the speedy criteria but patently doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages? Why '''aren't''' violations of ] speediable? ~ ] <small>(] / ])</small> 17:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
*In case of doubt, use ] for discussion. ] 17:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
:*Actually, that's exactly what ] is for -- articles that are not speediable under the existing CSDs, but are otherwise manifestly unencylopedic. --] 19:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
::Right, but it'd already been prod'ed... ~ ] <small>(] / ])</small> 19:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
:::If its already been prod'd, ] is the only other stop. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

== Vandals Text ==
Is it only me who sees:

== Criteria ==u r such a freaking tard!!!!!! People sometimes use abbreviations to refer to these criteria (e.g. "A3" meaning articles, criterion 3), but for the sake of clarity this is not recommende

on the page!
It is weird since it does not appear on the edit text and it was supposely removed by an AntiVandal bot in the last edit!
I'm Confused...
:No, I saw it too. I don't know why or how it happened, but I think I fixed it. -- ] 19:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yepes! it seems fixed now! Thanks! ] 20:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

== CSD I7 ==

There was an image recently mentioned on AN/I. The image in question was originally uploaded with source information just saying it was an advert for a sporting brand. And tagged as {{tl|Sportsposter}}. Since then the image has been retagged as {{tl|promophoto}}. The image is used in an article on the person appearing in the poster, no mention is made of the sporting brand let alone the specific advert let alone critical discussion of the advert.

There was some debate concerning if this qualified for replaceable fairuse, the conclusion of which was that it was indeed replaceable, during which time the person who had tagged it as {{tl|promophoto}} stated they hadn't previously been aware of what that actually meant in this context (i.e. part of a press pack).

Since I had been part of that discussion I tagged the image as criteria I7, as it (a) is wrongly tagged and (b) fails the fairuse criteria regardless.

Another admin subsequently came along and removed that tag saying that the image would not be speedy deleted. Upon querying this the admin told me that we don't speedy delete images for failing our fair use criteria (We're busy enough on csd as it stands apparently). I pointed out CSD I7 and the plain wording of this and the admin then stated that it was only for certain specific situations and only if the image was tagged within 24 hours of upload. I pointed out again that the image clearly met the criteria as laid out in CSD I7 and the 24 hours seemed to not be mentioned anywhere. This then became that it could only be tagged I7 48 hours after the original uploader was notified of the issue and that I had to prove the image had never been included in the press pack. The former is not a big issue, the latter is of course impossible, it involves proving a negative. I challenged this but the admin is adamant that for I7 to apply I have to do the impossible and prove a negative.

Since I believe this image is well within the plain language of CSD I7 and indeed ], I cannot see how this doing the impossible can be part of the criteria. Since the I believe the other admin to be quite experienced and apparently reasonably confident of their position, rather than just ignoring that, informing the user in question and deleting the image in question in 48 hours time (assuming no further information is revealed in that time), I though yI'd ask for some broader input here. Am I missing the point here, do we indeed demand the impossible in such situations, are there other images which fail out fairuse criteria/are incorrectly tagged which are having CSD tags removed for this? --] 19:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
:Without knowing what image was involved, neither I, nor I suspect anyone else, can make a call on the matter. There is no 24-hour requirement for CSD:I7, but if there is a dispute, then it is better to use {{tl|fairusedisputed}} or similar. ] (]) 17:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

== Misplaced Pages:Speedy deletions ==

Why is ] a separate page? --- ] 19:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
:] is about the process, and ] is how to justify that process. If the former page didn't exist, people would know that an article meets the criteria for speedy deleted without knowing how to go about it. If the latter page didn't exist, people might suggest speedy deletes but would have no absolute guidelines to prove that an article ''should'' be speedy deleted. ] and ] in this way, serve different functions, and are thus are two pages and not one. ] <sup><font color="#996600">]</font></sup> &#167; 21:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
::I believe ] should be renamed ], analogous to ]/]. If there are no objections, I propose to do that. --] 22:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
:::The difference is there is not much of a speedy deletion ''process'', "Deletion process" is about deletion in general—including speedy deletion, and "speedy deletion" is already its own special meaning on Misplaced Pages, whereas "Deletion" needs something extra to describe it. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 22:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
:::: If we're going to nit-pick about pagenames, ] is really only about the process for ''closing'' a deletion nomination/discussion and for archiving that discussion. It is not the overview of the entire process. For that, you need to read ]. ] <small>]</small> 04:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I just don't understand why it is separated from this one - for most users browsing through the deletion-related pages, they will rarely come across ] - they will usually end up here. It seems counter-intuitive to have these pages split up. --- ] 07:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
:There was a recent proposal to merge them and merged page at ], but it never happened for some reason. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 09:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
*I'd say a merging is certainly appropriate. (]) 11:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

== Deleting the "hangon" tag ==
At what point can we delete the hangon tag so an article can be speedy-deleted, because it is obviously a personal biography page of someone who is not notible? Check ] for an example of what I'm talking about. Thanks. {{User:je_at_uwo/sig}} 06:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
: "Hangon" is supposed to be used to buy you a few minutes while you pull your evidence together and create your arguments on the article's Talk page. Acknowledging the vagaries of internet connections and the need to occasionally stop to sleep, I'll generally give someone a few hours to make their comment - and maybe more depending on the situation.
: In this particular case, I note that the user his comment to the article's Talk page. Whether you as the deleting admin find that argument compelling is a different question. Looking into this specific case, I'm inclined to agree with the suggestion to move the page in as the new user's Userpage with a polite welcoming note about our policies and standards (including ]). ] <small>]</small> 06:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

== A long-overdue revamp of the db-templates ==

I felt it was time to give the DB-templates a much-needed update. I have a version at ]. The new template can be hid and unhid, to help preserve space. The reason and first sentence of the old one are in the top, which is colored ] to attract attention. It takes up less room than the db-meta (at top, substed). Please tell me what you think! ] <small>(]|]|])</small> 18:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
:Personally, I don't like the possibility of hiding the text through a NavBar. The warning should always be shown, after all it is a critical notice that the article will be deleted in a matter of minutes. As for the color, at ] we changed the studio album color from orange to lightsteelblue because a user expressed it may trigger unhealthy reactions with a determined health condition. Personally, I like the template as it is now. I would heavily suggest, thought, to modify the different copyvio warnings, as they encourage creating talk pages without articles. -- ] 19:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
::Color changed to pear-green, which still attracts attention, but also provides a better color for the text there. It won't be the periwinkle blue. This needs to stand out. I also suggest doing it for the AfD template. The hangon template would become a subset, where one could type in a second parameter. If it were activated, it would display the hangon template inside the navbox. I like these, as they do not intrude. Frankly, the current one pushes the article too far down, and we need to be an encyclopædia as well: if an article that is clearly notable, such as ] for example, received a CSD tag, it could push the text of the article down. ] <small>(]|]|])</small> 23:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
:::If a notable article received a deletion tag, the tag would most likely be removed rather quickly. Just a note. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 23:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
*I don't like the centered text much, and I agree the 'hide' button is unnecessary. Note that many of the possible reasons given on the template will be several lines. (]) 11:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

== Suggested BLP Criterion ==

Articles about living persons that cite no sources, cite non-existent sources, or that cite only self-published and/or notoriously unreliable sources, may be speedily deleted. It is not necessary under this criterion for the article to be defamatory.] (]) 02:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
:I think it will be a great day for Misplaced Pages when enough of our articles are sourced for us to actually be able to do this, but right now it would result in the deletion of too many articles on important subjects which contain verifiable information (albeit temporarily unsourced). If this criterion isn't focused on negative information, which is the main thrust of ] (and covered by the current CSD on attack pages), then why biographies in particular? --]<sup>]</sup> 02:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
::Because, in the absence of a reliable source we cannot tell whether the person is a private or a public person or what sort of thing that person might consider embarrassing or defamatory. As a real-life example, it is not uncommon for professional singers to perform in religious services of faiths they do not share. While there is no deception involved in the hiring, singers have been replaced because of congregation reaction when the fact was revealed. ] (]) 03:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

:This criterion does not focus on the 4 points at the top of this page. Either way though, it is not necessary to link this with the morality based BLP criterion if you are removing the defamatory part. ] 02:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
::I'll address the four points explicitly, then.
::#Objective -- this is based on a lack of sources or sources of the worst sort. If there is any colorable claim of reliable sourcing, this criterion does not apply.
::#Policy clearly requires only sourced material in the biographies of living persons. While the care arose from concerns over defamation, that can be a debatable issue, and it is possible to harm someone by saying untrue things that are probably not defamatory at law.
::#Unsourced articles of all types are common as dirt.
::#Except in the cases of obvious attack articles, I do not see any overlap with pre-existing criteria.
::I hope that answers. ] (]) 03:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

:::Points 1 and 2 are not that secure. They assume that every admin knows how to interpret the disputed WP:RS criteria equally. Assuming that untrue things can be damaging without being defamatory does not have a clear definition. The case you gave was clearly an unfair employment dismissal, something which Misplaced Pages should not have as a specific purpose. You are also attempting to expand BLP using a speedy criteria, which is not the way these criteria are supposed to work. They are supposed to focus on cases for deletion which have already happened multiple times. Articles being deleted because of their references being of the "worst sort" may happen, but it is still not actually objective as you say. ] 04:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

:The information can - and should - be edited out of the page. Deletion is an unnecessary and divisive action. --] <small>]</small> 03:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

::So, you argue that the article can be blanked, but not deleted? ] (]) 03:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Blanked, no. Stubbed, sure. Offending material removed? Absolutely. --] <small>]</small> 03:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

:(edit conflict) I like the criteria, but make it only for defamatory in the beginning. After people have learned this, add a notice that any kind of article that does not cite source can be deleted. Doing this for every article without having a HUGE discussion would be a mistake. -- ] 03:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
::Wait... we already have a speedy criteria for defamatory articles. In any case, stubbing sounds pretty well too. -- ] 03:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

*(edit conflict) Stubbing is a better idea. For a somewhat amusing example of what could happen if this rule were implimented as suggested, see . --] 03:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
**(edit conflict) If the article consists completely of unsourced material, what material is not offending? Unless the person is famous, what stub could one possibly write? ] (]) 03:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Well, it would mean searching for reliable sources to create a stub. If the person is not famous, it is deleted under A7. -- ] 03:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
::::A7 does not concern fame, only an assertion of notability, which is a low criterion. Asserting that someone founded a G/L/TG group is an assertion of notability. By public policy, it is not defamatory. But, so claiming falsely could be harmful. ] (]) 03:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::I expressed myself incorrectly, sorry. If the person is not notable, nor he is related to some notable being (including persons or groups or locations) or event, he can be speedied. While the new criteria would make it possible to speedy delete an article that simply says "Guy is one of the most notable singers in Country" without citing a source, I believe we should give a notification to users that their article are going to be deleted unless sourced. In other words, a speedy deletion that gives 7 days to update the article is much better than a plain speedy deletion. -- ] 03:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::You describe a broader application of A7 than I have always understood: notability is often hotly debated. I suppose that one could dodge by deleting the unsourced statements that assert notability and then tagging for speedy, but that seems doubtful conduct. ] (]) 04:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Well, by no means I would suggest doing that. Any article that does not claim notability can be speedied, no matter how well written. I understood your new criteria as a way of broadening A7. Right now, if an article states...
:::::::# "Singer is a singer from Country, who studied at School." can be speedied under A7, as there is no notability claim;
:::::::# "Singer is a singer from Country, who studied at School, considered the precursor of Style." can be send to AFD, but not speedied, as there is a notability claim.
:::::::However, with this new proposed criteria, if in the second case there is no source, the article can be speedied just as A7, because we are purposely dismissing the notability claim as unverifiable. If I am mistaken, feel free to correct me. -- ] 04:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

: This is not a good policy. Many articles when they are created by newbies lack sources even when they are about genuinely notable poeple. I see nothing that this criterion would accomplish other than biting more newbies and adding more work for admins. ] 04:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

:Note: Policy does not state the unsourced material in BLPs is unacceptable, only ''controversial'' material. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 04:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, thank you for your comments. I can identify a lead balloon when one falls on my head. ] (]) 04:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
:Note: See also ]. (]) 11:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
All we need is a rule saying 'if Misplaced Pages policy allows enough of a page's content to be deleted on sight that the rest of the page is a CSD, that can be deleted too, unless there is a version in the history that can be reverted to'. This is just common sense (and IMO ]-able if it isn't implied by some policy somewhere), and would lead to 'if an entire article is a BLP violation, it can be deleted if there is no clean version in the history'. I don't see an immediate need to delete unsourced BLPs if they don't say anything potentially libelous or negative. Although I think it would be an improvement if ''any'' page without sources could be speedied (pages can't be ]'d without sources, and what makes username contributors more reliable than anons?), I suspect consensus would be strongly against this. --] 14:09, 13 November 2006 (]]])
===Suggested BLP Criterion section break 1===
Hmm, unfortunate timing, and it's funny when presented here people missed the value and focused on possible negatives, whereas when presented at ] the advantages were obvious. Thanks for the heads up Radiant. The only difference being the topic doesn't matter. It's hard to overestimate how valuable this will be in turning the tide towards properly sourcing articles. I just don't buy the arguments that it is newbie biting, we need to explain our policies to newbies all the time. This simply involves no longer looking the other way when articles fail to meet our key content policies. We are well past the time where we need just any content, we need reliable, sourced material. The issue of what meets a RS is also completely avoided by saying there isn't any discretion on that point. If there is a source, it doesn't meet the new CSD. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 14:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*And you honestly think this will be handled responsibly? Have we forgotten how horribly A7 is handled? Did we forget the 40 pastry CSDs from a month ago? This will be completely unworkable, and it's completely unnecessary. We need a culture change here, pronto. --] <small>]</small> 15:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
**Jeff, please provide some evidence of your allegation? (]) 15:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
***You mean that A7 isn't being handled wlel? Did you think the 12 day process for the deletion of things like ] was a good thing? We only had about 40 articles for that deletion spree, what happens to DRV when it hits 4000?
**Yes, that's why we select trusted people to handle it. It does not make any sense to not use a process that overall adds a ton of value to the project just because there are some mistakes. Your reasoning would be reason to scrap CSD altogether because those mistakes were made. And unlike C7 this an unambiguous criteria: either there is a reference or there isn't. There's no judgement call about whether the text asserts notability. If there are mistakes, educate, don't throw out useful processes. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 16:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
***Whether we should scrap CSD (which we should for anything that isn't nonsense, an attack article, or empty) is a whole different discussion. Meanwhile, what happens when a reference isn't easily recognizeable? What happens when a reference isn't approved by the reviewing admin, much like admins regularly delete articles with assertions of notability under A7? Wholesale deletion of entire articles that may lack obvious references would cause major, major strife to our processes, cause massive conflict, and overwhelm everything while creating a net loss to an encyclopedia that's getting better by the day. A better choice would be to expect editors to find sources for articles as opposed to delete them, but god forbid we ask people to ''build'' an encyclopedia. --] <small>]</small> 16:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
****Again, if there is no discretion on what counts as a reference, then there will be no issue of "approval" by an admin. We delete articles everyday, deleting some more won't cause major strife, massive conflict etc. Even if it would, it's worth it to more fully make the shift to everyone reallizing that all articles need references. You're focusing on potential problems (that are on the margins only anyway) while ignoring the gain. You're forgetting about the result of this new speedy criteria being thousands of new referenced articles and drastic improvement in the average quality of new articles, and thus the whole project. I can't think of anything more important for the project. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 17:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*****You say that, but either you know it's not true or you're unaware of the problems A7 and G11 has caused. Deletion is not the answer, and this does not improve the project. It's unnecessary, it's an editing issue, and this simply should not be pursued. If it's important for the project to have references (and it is), stop making it dependent on the person adding the information alone and instead compel ''everyone'' to add references. The fact that you're coming at this from a deletion standpoint rather than an improvement standpoint is the problem, and I can't think of anything more important for the project to oppose at this point. --] <small>]</small> 19:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
******Nah, I don't buy it that that is the problem. It's infinitely more important that the material we have be referenced than it is that we don't delete unreferenced materical. There just aren't that many new topics that we desperately need that it's such a grave problem if we wait until a referenced version is added. WP:V already allows removal of unreferenced material. What this new CSD does is come at it from both sides. Currently it's entirely up to later editors to add references. Now it will be up to both the person creating the article, '''and''' later editors to improve the referencing. Shifting that burden so that it is shared is critical. We simply shouldn't keep looking the other way when one of our most important content policies is violated. The person adding the material in the first place is in the best position to add the reference anyway. And if you're so afraid of deleting, userifying solves that, but I don't think it's really needed. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 20:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
:Yes, well, the 14 day waiting period in ], and its restriction to articles created after the guideline was adopted makes a world of difference. Speedy deleting ''any'' article, ''without'' any waiting time for the authors to find sources, is far too draconian. Without the 14 day period even the existence of this crtierion would violate ] (and badly). I'm not sure I support THAT proposal, but I certainly don't support this. ]]<sup>]</sup> 15:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
:I'm wary of any CSD that's slower than ]. As it happens, prodding such pages, then AfDing them if deprodded, would lead to faster results than the proposed CSD and the same effect; perhaps you need a new process (something like prod but for sources and not removable by anyone unless the article is sourced). --] 15:42, 13 November 2006 (]]])
::That is a good point; arguably the time limit should be similar to PROD's. The processes are related, anyway. (]) 15:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
::Nah, I'm fine with the 14 days. Waiting 14 days isn't a huge problem, and it is infinitely less wasted resources than gathering a bunch of users arguing over an AfD. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 16:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
:::If you have to wait 14 (or 5, or even 1) days then it's no longer a "speedy" deletion; is it? The question then changes from being "Should we add this to csd?" to "Do we need a new deletion process to deal with this?"
::::You'd think this is something we could look at in terms of editing rather than deletion. If there's this much attention being focused on the "issue" right now, perhaps we're better off looking at it from an entirely different context. --] <small>]</small> 16:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::The evolved definition of "speedy" deletion is that it may be deleted without debate, not that it is necessarily fast. ]·] 18:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
::::If that means it's not a speedy criterion, what about ] and ]? If someone sees an issue with "speedy" deletions taking days, the best course of action might be to propose a more rigid definition of these not-so-slow deletions (i.e. prod, I5/6, this proposed BLP criterion). I suspect simply gathering these processes under the name ''delayed deletion'' or something similar would change the way the (proposed) processes are viewed. Or, we could rename CSD to "Criteria for Simplified Deletion", because if not for the process' speed, CSD is best known for its simplicity of process as contrasted with XfDs. That, I think, is the idea behind making the BLP proposal a CSD criterion anyways. ]<sub>]</sub> 17:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC) P.S. Just to clarify my personal stance, I don't have a problem with some of the CSD criteria taking days. I don't intend these comments as a formal proposal of anything I suggested here.
:::::Images can't be prodded, so speedy is still faster than prod in I5/6. As for 'delayed deletions', I came up with something similar (although I've never proposed it due to ] problems); maybe A1, A3, and A7 deletions should have a 10-minute delay (with the tag on), so the user has a chance to fix the problems (especially when multiple saves are used). As with BigNate37, not a proposal, just a mention. --] 17:17, 13 November 2006 (]]])
::::::: In practice I don't think admins delete per A1 A3 or A7 for less than a few minutes. I avoid doing so and I know some other admins do so as well. ] 17:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
::::: If this is going to be a 14 day criterion or something similar we should discuss it elsewhere. Why doesn't someone draft another version of that put it in Misplaced Pages space and point us to it. ] 17:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::I don't mind if anyone wants to take it and move it wherever is appropriate. Are you suggesting that it's not a CSD because of the 14 day lag? It's constructed much the same way as the image criteria 4-7 are. ]·] 18:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::: I guess there is some paralellism there. I'm not completely happy considering those as speedy conditions but I suppose given that we call them that it wouldn't be unreasonable to classify this as a speedy condition as well. Consider my objection in that regard withdrawn. ] 20:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
:I oppose the original suggested criterion on the basis that first of all, it is wider than BLP itself, in that it includes sympathetic (vanity) as well as defamatory articles, and vanity articles do not have parallel issues of reputation and liability. Moreover, there are very few biographical articles that cannot be merely edited (however drastically) to remove unsources defamatory material, which is what BLP already tells us to do. If this leaves an article that satisfies an existing speedy deletion criterion, let it be deleted, but more likely we'd (at worst) end up with a stub describing a person's name, nationality, date of birth, occupation, and claim of notability. ] 21:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

== A stronger version of the above ==

'''A9.''' Any article that was created after {{CURRENTDATE}} <small>insert date criterion gains consensus</small>, has and has never had any references, and has been tagged with {{tl|some tag}} for over 14 days, may be deleted without a discussion.

I've phrased it as a CSD here, but am open to other suggestions. This is a new section because it's no longer restricted to BLPs but applies to anything. Presumably this would use a big angry template that is places on the top of the article, with a corresponding User talk: warning template, saying something like "This article '''will be deleted''' unless sources are provided." (with more information below). As I said in the previous section, ]; why not users with usernames? --] 18:01, 13 November 2006 (]]])
:Would you be using {{unsourced}}, modifying that tag, or want a new tag? ~ ''''']'''''<sup>(]|])</sup> 18:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
::I'd want a new tag; {{]}} isn't worded nearly strongly enough for a template that causes deletion (and you could keep the old tag tweaking it to say 'insufficiently sourced' for cases where there are sources but not enough). Probably it would look something like {{]}} but without the maintenance stuff and with fewer words. --] 18:15, 13 November 2006 (]]])
:::Which makes me think why not userify the pages that meet this criteria instead of deleting them? They could immediately be moved to a subpage of the user that created the page with a simple explanation that references are needed. That not only doesn't impeded the needed improvement like deletion does, but it gets the point accross that references are needed. Or just userify newly created pages and older articles could be moved to something like Misplaced Pages:Unreferences/foo. That way for new pages we could do it over a much shorter timeframe than deletion and without the harm. The technical problem of leaving a mainspace redirect to user/wikipedia space could be solved without too much trouble and they could simply be deleted in the meantime. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 19:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
:And why couldn't the AfD process handle this? Why does it need to be speedy deleted? --] <small>]</small> 19:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

::Right now there is no clear-cut procedure for deciding that a poorly-sourced or unsourced article has no sources. An editor searches diligently for sources, can't find any, tags the article, waits, searches again, and finally puts it up for deletion. All too often, we get a batch of, "'''Keep'''. All this article needs are sources, and I'm sure those can be found." No actual help finding sources, of course. The closing admin counts noses, and the result is no consensus.

::This process moves the ] back where it belongs. We can't prove a negative, but we can demand a positive. If Verifiability is a non-negotiable requirement, then writing an article that completely lacks sources is an assertion that sources are obvious and easy to find. If we can't find an arguably reliable source in two weeks, it isn't easy. If sources are neither provided nor obvious, there is nothing to discuss, so an AFD is a waste of time and effort.

::Now, maybe this process should be DFV (delete for verifiability) or some other name. The only '''keep''' vote that matters is a halfway-decent source for enough of the article that we would have at least a decent stub left if the article were reduced to the verifiable content. Once that threshold is reached, the case is closed.

::If time runs out, we can always undelete if someone finds an actual source later. If no Wikipedian cares enough about the topic to research and fix it, the topic can't be that important. ] (]) 20:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Yes changing the way you count to only counting a keep that adds a enough decent sources is a successful way to shift the burden, but still adds a lot of overhead that an XfD brings. But I agree shifting the burden is important. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 20:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
:::The burden is already shifted in the direction you want. If anything, we should be shifting the burden ''backward'' - expecting those who are capable to provide sources. Whichever way we want to do this, if our goal is better sourcing, AfD is a better route because more eyes will see it, as opposed to the eventual unilateral deletion by admins that no one notices until it's too late. --] <small>]</small> 20:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)--] <small>]</small> 20:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
::::No it hasn't shifted the right way yet and that's why this is needed. Currently new unreferenced articles are allowed to stay, and practically they won't successfully be AfD'd because nothing says people have to follow policy in AfD votes and the fact is they don't. Shifting the burden the right way will mean that everyone knows that for an article to be accepted it needs references. Everyone knowing that upfront is very valuable to encouraging the type of content we want and need. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 21:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::I don't know if I agree with your perspective on this. --] <small>]</small> 21:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::I think we've already established that. :) There's room in this project to disagree on approaches. It still means I'm right on this, but you can disagree. :). Ok, kidding &ndash; seriously. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 22:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
:I strongly oppose a speedy deletion criterion for articles without references. Often, locating appropriate sources may require specialist knowledge or access to an academic library that the average user lacks. In the areas in which Misplaced Pages is lacking good coverage, we have very few regular contributors, so expecting somebody else to somehow notice the article and add sources in 14 days is unreasonable. This would also include most stubs, and Misplaced Pages has always held that stubs deserve time to grow. Besides that, people just often neglect to add references because it's hard and they're lazy - if you ask them to do it, or ask other interested people, they probably will, whereas if you yank the article out from under them they may not notice or care. It also won't encourage addition of references up front because many users who create articles like this are specialists who are not very familiar with our policy. I also think, from comments above, that it's necessary to remind people that CSD is ''never'' a method for circumventing "keep" decisions at AfD. Much too overinclusive. ] 21:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
::How about another possible outcome to AFD? If everyone thinks "the article just needs sourcing", the closing admin can still delete the article if it has no sources. An '''Unsourced Delete''' result? —] (]) 21:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
::"many users who create articles like this are specialists who are not very familiar with our policy" is exactly why we need this change in policy. So that everyone will know it. It is very easy for those same specialists to add a reference, they just need to know they should. We have a huge problem with reliability in many articles. We need to remove every impediment to making sure as much content as possible is referenced. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 22:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

===Tale of an article===

An article, A is created without references by editor X, a specialist who understands the field and knows the sources. It is noticed after a few months by editor Y, who has an interest in the area, looks for references, but can't find any. He puts it up for AFD. Editor Z comes along and thinks the article is a great piece of prose, if only it had references, but has no clue where to look for them, or perhaps no time.

Who should have the burden of finding the references? X could have added them trivially, but may not be watching the article -- may have left Misplaced Pages. Y tried his best and has given up. Z wants the article kept.

In my mind, X was in the best position to help Misplaced Pages and failed. He overlooked, or did not understand, "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." Y has tried to help Misplaced Pages, yet it seems that many editors want him to work harder and find references that he cannot know for certain exist. Z has done very little to help Misplaced Pages, but many editors feel that he has no responsibility.

Who should have the burden, and how should it be enforced? ] (]) 21:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

:Any encyclopedic subject will at least have non-highly-reliable sources that can verify it is not a hoax. If it is not a hoax, there is nothing wrong with keeping it on Misplaced Pages, especially for more than 14 days. There is also the problem with people putting stupid sources in to get around this, such as a website for playing ] games being used as a source for an article on military tactics. It has "references", but such an article written by some facile fool warrants deletion a lot more than an article that was clearly written by an expert on the subject. You might note, for instance, that commercial advertisements and non-notable bands will always have an external link to the homepage, whereas people frequently edit academic subjects with no references at all; then we would be in the uncomfortable position of actually evaluating whether a source is reliable or not in speedy deletion criteria. This proposal is a non-starter.
:In fact, in terms of time, the opposite would be a more appropriate speedy deletion criteria: If no one has added any sources on an article for two years, that indicates a lot more about the encyclopedic quality of the subject than no sources added for two weeks. New articles warrant time to be improved; old articles with no sources and no one interested in editing them warrant a more relaxed view of A7, but nothing so strict as "any article after 14 days". I say again, however, ''verifiable'' does not mean ''cited''; people are free to add information to Misplaced Pages without being required to re-read all the many books they have read on a subject, or tweak citations. A policy requiring citation would turn off the experts who actually know about a subject, and would attract only the people who are in the process of learning a subject, out of a single book which they have in front of them. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 21:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
::Why do you think that? It's very easy for an expert to source their material. They're the ones that best know the sources. And the idea of a CSD isn't to be perfect and miss nothing, but to make a large majority of cases very easy to handle. Those that game the system as you describe would be handled by other processes just like they are now, there's no loss in that. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 22:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Add me to the list opposing this proposal. I empathize with the sentiment but the proposal ignores human nature. While it would filter out a proportion of the bad content that we're trying to deal with, it would also result in the loss of significant volumes of good information that experience tells us will eventually be sourced. <br> To answer the question immediately above, remember that to our theoretical expert much of the material covered in an encyclopedia article is "common knowledge" - that is, so well and widely understood within the field that it is no longer specifically cited in references. How do you cite a fact that shows up in a dozen different texts? This is an all-volunteer project. Not everyone is interested in doing that kind of work. Yet they have been and still are very valuable contributors to the project. ] <small>]</small> 23:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

:It would simply be easier for an expert to pull a book name out of a hat, but that's not necessarily an accurate citation and is only an impediment to someone adding what is regardless accurate information. It's not that people would be gaming the system with the external links, but that external links are naturally associated with the sort of articles that most warrant deletion for lack of sourcing. I don't see what articles this proposal would delete; even original research often includes self-published book or website references.
:Now, we do need to clean house of junk, but it's probably best to start with the oldest junk articles that have never been improved than the newest articles that may actually become good articles. Most of the articles on Misplaced Pages today would have been deleted under this proposal. Although, looking at New pages, it may be best to just forget about new CSDs and prohibit new page creation altogether, except perhaps by accounts 3 months old or something. I just clicked on about 20 articles in new pages and only 2 should probably be on Misplaced Pages, both happen to have been added by users since 2005. If the problem is new junk being created—and there is a lot of junk—the solution is not to delete 90% of it (and it will be that high with the CSD proposed here), but to limit article creation; most legitimate articles are already created, and any new ones can be added through ] or by less recently registered users. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 03:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Going back to the original point, surely it's best if user X sees (in ] (which comes up whenever you start an article) or somewhere like that) a warning saying "The article will be deleted if no sources are provided." It might even be worth adding it to ] (the text below the edit box, which currently reads '{{MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning}}'; perhaps say 'Encyclopedic content must be ] and provide ]'). To do that, however, we need a deletion criterion in place (speedy, manadatory AfD closure, DfV, or whatever). To Centrx: The point of a CSD is not to get rid of every bad article, just to filter some obviously bad ones to save time and effort (although I'm sure you already new that), and the reason about 90% of new pages violate the new rule is that the rule doesn't exist (so there isn't any point in complying with it). To Rossami: most experts will be able to cite the facts they add trivially, because if they're well-known information in the field they'll be in the standard reference books. Academic experts will already be used to doing this when writing papers. --] 09:00, 14 November 2006 (]]])

== ] ==

This concept has been mentioned quite a bit in recent discussions on this page. Here's a a specific policy proposal with explanatory text. This is the result of considerable thought toward all the views expressed, and it has already generated quite a bit of positive feedback on the talk page (when it was in my userspace). Please take a look at it and see what you think. We hope it can become an official CSD sometime in the future. ]·] 08:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 02:44, 23 January 2025

Read this before proposing new or expanded criteria Shortcut

Contributors frequently propose new (or expansions of existing) criteria for speedy deletion. Please bear in mind that CSD criteria require careful wording, and in particular, need to be

  1. Objective: Most reasonable people should be able to agree whether a page meets the criterion. Often this requires making the criterion very specific.
  2. Uncontestable: It must be the case that almost all pages that could be deleted using the rule, should be deleted, according to consensus. CSD criteria should cover only situations where there is a strong precedent for deletion. Remember that a rule may be used in a way you don't expect, unless you word it carefully.
  3. Frequent: Speedy deletion is intended primarily as a means of reducing load on other deletion methods such as Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion and Misplaced Pages:Proposed deletion. These processes are more discriminating because they treat articles case-by-case, and involve many points of view; CSD sacrifices these advantages in favor of speed and efficiency. If a situation arises only rarely, it's probably easier, simpler, and fairer to delete it with one of the other methods instead. This also keeps CSD as simple and easy to remember as possible, and avoids instruction creep.
  4. Nonredundant: If the deletion can be accomplished using a reasonable interpretation of an existing rule, just use that. If this application of that rule is contested, consider discussing and/or clarifying it. New rules should be proposed only to cover situations that cannot be speedily deleted otherwise.

If you do have a proposal that you believe passes these guidelines, please feel free to propose it on this discussion page. Be prepared to offer evidence of these points and to refine your criterion if necessary. Consider explaining how it meets these criteria when you propose it. Do not, on the other hand, add it unilaterally to the CSD page.

this header: view • edit

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Criteria for speedy deletion page.
Shortcut
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Speedy/Criteria was copied or moved into Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion with this edit on 20:38, 4 December 2013. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion was copied or moved into Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Speedy with this edit on 16 November 2016. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
See also Misplaced Pages talk:Speedy deletions for discussions which took place in 2006-7 before it was redirected here.

Discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers § NPPHOUR, A1, and A3

 You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers § NPPHOUR, A1, and A3. JJPMaster (she/they) 05:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:G5 and people who have gamed the extended-confirmed restriction

If someone games the extended-confirmed restriction (and is found to have done so at WP:AE or WP:ANI), are pages they created during the window after they reached 30/500 edits but before they were determined to have gamed the restriction G5-able? This specific case seems to have come up here; the editor created the now-draftified Draft:Hamas–UNRWA_relations. My opinion is that it obviously should be G5able (otherwise we're rewarding gaming the restrictions); if someone is found to have gamed the restrictions then, by definition, all their edits in that topic area were in violation of the relevant general sanction, even if we didn't know it at the time. --Aquillion (talk) 14:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Strictly this isn't a CSD question, because G5 just incorporates any duly-enacted general sanction that authorizes deletion. Such a sanction could have a clause for gaming, or could not. WP:ARBECR has no such clause, so by my reading it cannot be used to delete a page created by an EC user under any circumstances, which is what I've said at the AE thread; but that's a question for ArbCom (or AN in the case of community ECRs), not for WT:CSD. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 03:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I agree with Tamzin, although I'd clarify that "under any circumstances" is not withstanding any other restrictions the creation might have been a violation of (e.g. sanctions on the individual concerned). Thryduulf (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
This "restriction" is probably controversial and very bity. Unless there is clearly a problem with a page there is no reason why it should be deleted just because it was created by a new user. I see no reason to take action here, if there is a problem with their contributions then it should be dealt with normally but to sanction them for gaming a "restriction" that wasn't put in place because of anything they personally did wrong doesn't seem appropriate. If a user knows how EC works it might be a sock so should be dealt with that way but otherwise its probably not much of a problem, if the contributions are acceptable just let it go if not then look at deletion another way. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
As noted the article is now in the draft space and the user has specifically been sanctioned so I don't think there's anything left to be done. If the draft is left it will be deleted under G13. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Subpages of talk pages

I am looking to nominate the unused discussion page Talk:Wiki/lede for deletion, but I can't find a suitable speedy reason, and {{prod}} warns me I should only use the template on articles.

What's the right course here? Tule-hog (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
It's a redirect - should go to WP:RFD. Not sure why it needs to be deleted, though... Primefac (talk) 14:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
@Primefac it wasn't a redirect at the time they asked this question. See Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Wiki/lede. Thryduulf (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 19 January 2025

It has been proposed in this section that Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion be renamed and moved to Misplaced Pages:Speedy deletion.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion → Misplaced Pages:Speedy deletion – I searched through the archives to see why "Criteria" is part of the title, but couldn't find anything much, other than these comments that mentioned it without any follow-up. Previously, Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion was an information page listing the criteria and Misplaced Pages:Speedy deletions was the process page where SD candidates were listed. With the introduction of deletion templates in the late 2000s, the latter page was deemed redundant and became a redirect to the former in this edit. Several editors in the linked discussions suggested support for removing "Criteria" from the title, and in my search I have not found one editor opposing the removal of "criteria" from the title, so it led me to believe this move simply was never proposed. Therefore, I am proposing a move from Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion to Misplaced Pages:Speedy deletion for the following reasons:

  1. To increase emphasis on the process itself, rather than the criteria. It is evident at this point that this page isn't only about a set of criteria but also an established process to delete pages based on the criteria.
  2. To enable titling consistent with the other deletion process pages (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion, Misplaced Pages:Proposed deletion).
  3. To allow smoother referencing and better syntax, e.g. "tag it for WP:Speedy deletion" vs. "tag it for WP:Criteria for speedy deletion".
  4. The page currently contains topics other than just the criteria, such as the step-by-step instructions, the procedure, and information about the process. A rename of this page could make room for expanding/altering the scope if needed in the future. Frost 10:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Categories:
Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion: Difference between revisions Add topic