F12 Criteria

Can a new criteria for files be made for files that have no encyclopedic use? In my opinion it could help with backlogs, and allow photos that are useless to be purged much faster. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This would be great. Uncontroversial deletions of such files make WP:FFD backlogged. The criterion would also mirror Wikimedia Commons' c:COM:Deletion policy#Out of scope. As with Commons, one should consider if files that are in use (anywhere in the project: in userpages, talk pages, etc.) are always automatically within scope (without being necessarily "encyclopedic", as this proposal has it). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would think the consensus will be that unencyclopedic files in userpace may need to go to XFD, but personally I would like them to be FFDable. I think exceptions for this could be made for high-quality images of well known individuals in the community, or people who are confirmed dead. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
May work better as a Prod like process, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, unlike with article PROD, it's very unlikely for a file to be fixed, like an article can be. Generally such files will never have any use. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
However, a Prod is easier to contest. And given how fuzzy "unencyclopedic" can be, easy contestation is a plus. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. Perhaps a Prod and CSD could be made. CSD would be for blatant case, prod would be for fuzzy cases. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Fastily and BU Rob13: As they commonly close FFD's, and will likely be interested. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly support a PROD system for files; 99% of the unencyclopedic files listed at FfD don't warrant a discussion, and are essentially deleted on a REFUND-able basis anyways. I can envision such a system reducing clutter at FfD, making it so that files genuinely need of discussion are not drowning in a sea of noncontroversial nominations. -FASTILY 02:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think the 7 day time period of Article PROD would be good, or do you think that it should be shorter? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let's go with 7 days; it's long enough so that interested parties can contest the deletion and short enough so that the file doesn't sit around forever. -FASTILY 03:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Shall I start writing the RFC now or do we wait for BU Rob? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can always start drafting in your user space :) Feel free to ping me if there's anything I can do to help. -FASTILY 04:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Iazyges, make sure that both the WP:DEL and WP:PROD allow this kind of deletion, and if they don't, suggest changes to those. Here's my take: PROD only recognizes deletions of "articles", so I'd say under current policy, files can't be PRODed. DEL recognizes the deletion of "obsolete" files, but no effort is made to define it (old files? NOWCOMMONS files? superceded files? unencyclopedic files?). I don't think we necessarily need a special PROD category (since PROD lets you fill in any reason), just the relevant policies to allow us to PROD files and recognize unencyclepedic nature as a deletion reason. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would support this provided that all closers here agree that we should decline PRODs and send things to FfD if they're not clear-cut. I'd recommend also restricting PROD to things other than copyright concerns. Unused, out of scope, low quality, etc. can all be handled by PROD, but we often need some eyes on copyright situations. ~ Rob13Talk 05:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good, I personally would support, but I am not sure if I speak for the crowd. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I have no idea how I missed that, I'll fix the RFC immediately. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, it has been fixed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The RFC being drafted is based entirely on PRODing. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I usually steer clear of Files, but I too would think the use of the word 'unencyclopaedic' could cause problems. With text, something like "Hi folks!!!!! Here's some shit about Pronky Fidgettt!!!" is very definitely unencyclopaedic anywhere on WP (except here, of course...). But exactly how is a File defined as unencyclopedic? A very shaky and distant pic of someone alleged to be Pronky Fidgettt (the well-known up and coming rapper about to drop his first single on soundcloud)? A pic of a user who has edited from 2010 to date for use on their userpage? Or what? Peridon (talk) 11:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Up for the Admin to decide. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On Commons, they do a better job of defining scope for images, Peridon. See c:COM:SCOPE. We basically steal their policy, in terms of general practice. Of note, if an image depicts something with an article, it's automatically in scope/encyclopedic (with perhaps common sense exceptions for obviously inappropriate images - Obama photoshopped onto the body of Hitler, etc). A limited number of personal files from someone with contributions is fine (or at least deserve an FfD). ~ Rob13Talk 16:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a proposed definition of unencylopedic based upon commons scope:

  1. It is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Cannot be used in any article, either for an article about the image, or with the image used in any useful role. Use on talk pages do not count. (The article requirement does not apply to "maintenance" or "Wikipedia" images such as amboxes, or barnstars, for obvious reasons.)
  2. It is a "vanity image", i.e. Pictures of users, or else files only usable by that user (such as a file signature), who have made few contributions to the English Wikipedia, or short-term users have been inactive for a long time without explanation. (Confirmed dead users whose user page serves as a memorial page are exempt from the inactivity restriction.)
what do you think? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not so sure about the short term users - I take it that their contribs are sufficient to exclude them from the first part of that section. Some specialist users do make contribs with several years gap. If their contribs have been OK, they should perhaps be allowed a pic on their user page. Not a gallery... Although, they probably aren't the sort of people to go for that anyway. I'm also not sure about "Use on talk pages do not count.". Should be 'does' for a start (agreeing with 'use' not 'pages' - yes, I am a nitpicking proofer...), but I'm not sure how use on talk pages comes into play. I rarely see Files on talk pages - mainly trout, Winter Seasonal cards, New Year fireworks, barnstars etc, or images that are obviously used elsewhere with their correct captions replaced by something humorous. Do they appear much in places I don't get to? Peridon (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By short term users it's supposed to imply they made a few edits in a couple weeks or so, then left without adding a "break" template. The talk page is to prevent people protecting their files by arbitrarily adding it in to a talk page. People adding them in to talk doesn't happen much as of now, but it does happen. Without that criteria people may try to circumvent deletion by posting it to a random talk page, and then that would make the whole thing pointless as it would have to go to FFD to be deleted. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I don't work with Files as such and haven't come across that trick. Also the short term ones you are thinking of aren't the ones I was. Possibly needs clarifying - how short a term and how many years ago. We have some editors that like to have everything clearly laid out with no wiggle room. Things are improving, though, in one case at least. To get a new criterion through needs answers to things like 'How many cases per week?' and 'Is there really a need?'. I don't need convincing, but the !voters will. (BTW I've never even uploaded a pic - I went off on my bike once to get one of something, got a nice one, came home and found someone else had beaten me to it...) Peridon (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have dropped the "short term" issue from the RFC draft, as the "low contribs" will likely be a catch all regardless. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd probably say that files used anywhere or keeplocal'd are not eligible, but ignore the contributions otherwise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Iazyges: Is this worth bringing to WP:VPP? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: BU Rob13 and I are ironing out the details of the RFC. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requiring taggers to notify page creators

Currently the policy reads Users nominating a page for speedy deletion [...] should notify the page creator and any major contributors. I propose we change this to read Users nominating a page for speedy deletion [...] must notify the page creator and should notify any major contributors or something similar, maybe only for certain criteria where notification is useful (like G12, G11, A7, A9, A11 etc.). There is a current discussion at AN/I about one user nominating >500 pages in a month for speedy deletion without notifying a single user which imho highlights the problem. As Primefac points out at AN/I, not notifying users can both be BITEy and lead them to repeat their mistakes over and over again because no one told them otherwise. With plenty of tools doing the job of tagging and notifying at the same time (like Twinkle), there is no real reason why we can't change the policy to require such notifications. Regards SoWhy 19:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Support It should be easy to just remove the option to not notify from twinkle. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Oppose as currently written, it should not cover obvious vandalism. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does Twinkle identify and notify major contributors?--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That would make things even more complicated, and would lead to a lot of discussions about when it is and is't ok to ignore this unnecessary bureaucratic rule. Proposing a major policy change because one person is behaving in a way you don't liek is seldom a good idea. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also think we should explicitly discourage notification when nominating attack BLPs, a warning to stop crating such pages (without reproducing the name of the page or encouraging them to explain why it isn't an attack page) is a more appropriate response. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What good would an edit summary do? If the page is still there, the CSD tag explains the reason, and if it's been deleted the creating user won't be able to see it but would be able to see the logged reason for the deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Beeblebrox: It helps informs creators of the deletion nomination rather notifying it (especially if the creator looks at the page history or on their watchlists). KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 02:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What we do need and what the community should be looking at, is to repair the gaping gap in patroller competency left by the rollout of the New Page Reviewer right, in which templating for deletion can still be wrongly done by very newbies and totally inexperienced users - a practice that continues unabated and with a high rate of inaccuracy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The thing that's not really being said in this proposal is that this is a reaction to one specific user who nominates a lot of new articles for speedy deletion and more often than not doesn't bother to notify. It's at ANI right now. I tend to agree with your perspective, that changing policy over one user while ignoring issues with dozens if not hundreds of other users is not a good approach. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, redirects need to be separable from the main edit history.  There are multiple reasons for this, but too much to explain here.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Require notification for good-faith edits

(edit conflict) Since opposition to requiring a notification for all pages is high and most indicate they might support a less strict proposal (which I already suggested above), how about this:

Users nominating a page for speedy deletion [...] must notify the page creator when using the criteria A1, A2, A3, A7, A9, A11, G11, G12, G13, U2, U3 and U5 as well as any file-related criteria. This does not apply if the page creator has been blocked/banned from editing indefinitely or is already aware of the requested deletion.

For those who mentioned cases where redirects were turned into articles, those cannot be deleted anyway since SD requires that all revisions meet a criterion. If an admin deletes such a page, it's already in error and we probably should remind admins about that. Regards SoWhy 07:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is terrible. I didn't even get done reading it before i gave up trying to understand it. Beeblebrox (talk) 10:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't claim to be Shakespeare and English is, after all, not my native language but it would probably be helpful if you articulated specific concerns instead. Also, as usual, I am open to different wording. Regards SoWhy 11:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) This is one of those situations were a little bit more explanation and little bit less jargon would help, might I suggest a reword to; Users nominating a page for speedy deletion [...] must notify the page creator and should notify major page contributors, except when the page nominated meets criteria relating to pure vandalism, blatant hoaxes and/or attack page(s), or where the creator is a blocked or banned user. It's still overbloated, and I'm not sure that it is a viable solution anyhow. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I found the first one quite clear, but think that A10 and G3 hoax and vandalism ought to be in there. A10s sometimes have a good reason that's not immediately obvious, and some G3 hoaxes and vandalism (as tagged) also aren't when explained. Might it be easier to list the ones you don't have to notify about? It is nice to see notifications on a user's page when deciding whether to block them of not (other checks are, of course, made...). PS Writing in Shakespeare's English wouldn't be a good idea. Quite a few English natives have trouble with his wordings... Peridon (talk) 11:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Might it be easier to list the ones you don't have to notify about? - given that this would encompass a total of four criteria at most (three if we exclude G3 - G5, G10 and, if common sense allows, G7), it would be far easier to list those than the other 20 or so you would have to notify about. That said, the listing of each criteria presumes that each criterion "codename" is immediately identifiable to each person. I can identify only G2 - test page, G3 - vandalism/hoax, G10 - attack page, and A3 - no content, on command. Everything else, I have to hit the reference book, WP:CSD, to check. E.g. A7 - notability is actually A7 - no claim of importance. Very different things. So the wording should be both clear and easy to understand - i.e. as little jargon as possible. That said, I still managed to forget that hoaxes were part of G3. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of adding the wording to the lede, we can always add the requirement to the criteria themselves instead. I just listed them for easier discussion. Regards SoWhy 12:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I like SoWhy's version, although maybe a note about retired editors could be made. I also wouldn't be opposed to a sentence somewhere noting that if you are unsure whether the contribution was in good faith it is best to notify, and there is no penalty for notifying where it is not required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs) 14:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this then?:
Users nominating a page for speedy deletion [...] must notify the page creator unless the page creator has stopped editing indefinitely, obviously has not created the page in good faith or is already aware of the requested deletion.
Tazerdadog (talk) 01:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is all completely pointless - notifying someone you've nominated their article for speedy deletion is a nice thing to do but in most cases will prove to be pointless, the user probably won't know how to quickly make the changes needed to avoid deletion or they'll return after the deletion has occurred. Notification for PROD and XfD is both nice, sensible and could easily be made a requirement since there's likely to be a week of discussion time available for an article to potentially be fixed and made compliant with our policies. There's absolutely no point in having an administrator notify users during the deletion process, as users can't see their own deleted contributions. The most sensible solution here (and one which is probably going to deal with the CSD nomination notification issue that is the root cause of all this) is to automate clear and understandable notifications for deletions, making log entries easier to find, and possibly providing users with access to their own deleted user contributions. Nick (talk) 19:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The point of such notifications is less that the user might be able to prevent the deletion but rather so that they understand why the page was tagged for deletion and can strive to prevent making the same mistake again. Your alternative would solve this problem at least but would just shift the work to admins performing the deletions. That said, I personally wouldn't mind if admins were tasked with such notifications instead but this would not help in those cases where the creator is still online and could address the concerns before deletion. Regards SoWhy 20:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded simple good faith proposal

Per above discussion, my current proposal, taking into account the various suggestions, would be this:

Users nominating a page for speedy deletion for non-maintenance reasons [...] must notify the page creator unless the page creator has stopped editing indefinitely, obviously has not created the page in good faith, is already aware of the requested deletion or it can be safely assumed that they are not interested in being notified. The same applies if an admin deletes a previously untagged page.

This would address both the case of a retired user as well as users that for various reasons (bots, deceased etc.) can safely be assumed not to be interested in such notifications. Thoughts? Regards SoWhy 15:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I am reasonably happy with this. Tazerdadog (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't generally tag articles. My objection has nothing to do with my own activity, but with what it asks of those who do. I agree that the proposer likely intends it to apply blatant vandalism. From what I have seen of how things work here, however, I see it as opening an invitation to be used as a WP:POINTy tool. Not everything needs a rule, and the current standard already generates enough heat. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way to word it better to remove some of the areas where disagreements will occur? Perhaps we could explicitly call out blatant vandalism and attack pages, which are the two main situations that phrase was meant to cover?Tazerdadog (talk) 01:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a bad idea, but it's an unnecessary idea, no matter how the text is tweaked. We really shouldn't make project-wide rules or rule amendments to deal with the actions of one user. Whether the OP really is proposing this to deal just with that one user's edits or just was inspired by the discussions around them (and I assume it's the latter), the effect is the same. It's using blunderbusses to kill flies, and there is always collateral damage and unintended consequences from such an approach. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Problems might always exist but that does not mean we shouldn't have clear rules, especially when the vague wording is precisely the argument some users make for not notifying good-faith users. For example, WP:ANI has a clear "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." policy and it still has not been burned to the ground (so to speak) because of that rule, so we know that such rules do actually work. I do agree with you on principle though and I do believe that the problem is mostly with wiki-lawyering, i. e. arguing the wording over the spirit of the "should notify" rule. Maybe it might be sufficient to append this rule (e. g. "Should means do it to unless you have a good reason not to do it") but I doubt it based on this discussion. Fastily mentions WP:CREEP below but the reason we need such a change is precisely that we cannot admonish users for not doing something that is not required. Funny enough, I always read "should" in the German legal sense ("sollen" = "shall"); in our legal system when a law says "... shall be done" it means "you have to unless in special circumstances". That's why I was kind of surprised that so many users believe that "should" means it's just a suggestion. Regards SoWhy 16:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox-Only Articles (yet again)

Well, I had been planning a Request for Comments to add A12, articles with no article text, only an infobox or malformed infobox. I think that it still would be a good idea, but I don't think that I will propose it, because it appears that I won't get consensus support for a mixture of reasons. I see that most editors (with a few exceptions) agree that infobox-only articles should be deleted somehow. (It appears that a few editors here are what I will call radical inclusionists, and think that an infobox, or any other very incomplete article, should be treated as a Requested Article, and that the job of the New Page Patroller is to keep Wikipedia clean by turning all of the crud into good stuff. I realize that comment sounds snarky, but I feel a little snarky about some of the comments that I see about very incomplete articles.) I see that some of the editors here think that the real problem is that A7, A9, etc., should be more inclusive, to delete non-notable articles. I wouldn't mind seeing A7, etc., expanded, but I think that the real problem is clever spammers who are figuring out how to fly under the CSD radar, and that they are not limited to any one topic, such as films or commercial products. I don't think that I will be proposing A12 unless other editors express support, but I think that it would be helpful if there were consensus for it. Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here is the previous discussion from this talk. Here was one of the more substantial AfD discussions which resulted in no consensus. Here was the user in question, who sprung to life, created nine product stubs (one was speedied), and then disappeared. TimothyJosephWood 20:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Pam's reasoning. Per WP:ATD, which also applies to speedy deletion of course, we don't delete articles for problem that can (easily) be fixed by editing. I'm sure you could fix the problem of missing text easily, thus deletion is not the real solution. To cite a different example, see Robert Snyder (civil servant). He is probably notable as acting head of a major US government agency but was tagged with A3 because the creating user only added an infobox. It took me ca. five minutes to fix that problem. I believe your approach (and thus any criterion like the one you propose) is a violation of our core editing and deletion policies which is why WP:PRESERVE says "Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't." That's the same reason why A1 and A3 only can be applied if there is insufficient content or context to fix the problem by editing.
Whether films should be added to A9 (not A7 imho since notable participants would always indicate significance) is a different question which might need some discussion (in a separate section). Regards SoWhy 09:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not much to add. Calling those who argue in favor of simply following the existing editing and deletion policies "radical inclusionists" might offend some people and rightly so (someone more snarky than me might wonder if you shouldn't drop some kind of wooden tool). Regards SoWhy 20:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And of course any article with no references, and no text asserting anything at all, can be PRODded on the basis of "No evidence of any notability" (whether or not some kind soul has created a lead sentence from the infobox content), so is unlikely to Languish in main space indefinitely if it's not appropriate. I think the concern that this is a "loophole" is misplaced. PamD 22:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spamming is too subjective. If there is consensus on another board that a user is spamming articles in an effort to avoid CSD, then a multi-article AfD nomination may be applicable (probably with a concern of notability or promotional content). Regardless, that sounds like a case too nuanced and too minor to develop a criterion around. Appable (talk | contributions) 01:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. If it were really that obvious that the only reason for those articles was to disrupt, G3 would be applicable anyway. Regards SoWhy 07:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I partly agree with User:PamD that any editor can easily create a well-formed lead sentence in next to no time if an article has an infobox, but think that misses a point. If an article has a reasonably complete infobox, that is true. (If the infobox is very incomplete, as it sometimes is, one can create a very incomplete lead sentence.) I admit that I don't look at the details of infoboxes to see if they are complete. However, I cannot recall ever having seen an infobox-only article that, in my opinion, deserved to be tagged for improvement. That is, every infobox-only article that I have seen deserved to be tagged for some sort of deletion. Conceptually, an infobox-only article is like a one-sentence article. One-sentence articles may deserve to be tagged for deletion (not notable, incomprehensible, whatever), tagged for improvement, or occasionally actually kept as stubs (a species, a named place). However, I have never seen an infobox-only article that deserved to be tagged for improvement rather than tagged for deletion. I agree that infobox-only articles are not likely to "languish in main space indefinitely" because they can always be PRODed. (After I PROD one of them, I very seldom see it dePRODed, although anyone is entitled to dePROD an article for any reason, so I think that indicates that the spammer was seeing if he could fly spam under the radar, and doesn't want to bother to go to AFD.) I agree with User:Timothyjosephwood that we all want to guard against "encroachment on good faith edits", but I have never seen an infobox-only article that I considered a good-faith edit. I have seen one-sentence articles that were good-faith edits that I tagged as needing improvement. (A few hours ago, I saw a one-sentence article saying that someone had been appointed as an ambassador. I tagged it as a stub needing a reference. More commonly, one-sentence articles deserve deleting.) So I personally think that all infobox-only articles are crud and need deleting. That is my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time to search for examples but I can assure you that I have seen and reworked some infobox-only articles created in good faith. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 05:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the example I cited above at the time of creation. Do you think, this article should have been deleted instead? Regards SoWhy 07:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The editor who created that one has created at least two infobox-only stubs, but no-one has commented on his talk page to stress the importance of including text from the start and criticise the textlessness of these stubs ... until I did so just now, along with a formal level 1 warning of "disruptive editing" (though I had to tweak the message left by the template). PamD 08:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a suggestion at Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace#Warning_for_creating_infobox-only_articles.3F. Do join in the discussion there. PamD 09:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

<-Here is another example to consider: Yehiel_Bar. If I had known anything about Israeli politics I might have left it, but we can't expect admins to know all of the world's political structures. --Versageek 15:29, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)There's a Jan 2013 discussion of that and similar stubs at User_talk:Od_Mishehu/Archive15#Your_recent_edits, including the statements "I figured that since the infobox is enough to survive speedy deletion, ... that I could subsequently work on the articles later on." and "You might find not every admin would view nothing but an infobox sufficient". PamD 16:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to know all about the world, doing a basic online research usually isn't that complicated (certainly shouldn't be for admins active at CAT:CSD) and can often help to form an opinion: Is there a possibility to improve and enrich this project? Sometimes I lack creativity when I check the CSD backlog. People just read what is posted, tag an article, tag the creator and continue without looking around. I know they aren't obliged to do the work but I think our new page patrol would be a better place with using more creativity. To me, working at new pages and with CSD nominations is an improved and intelectually more demanding version of doing crosswords :) But I digress. Infobox-only content cannot be a CSD criterion, as the infobox can contain crucial information to develop a notable topic. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Yehiel Bar, it's rather easy to write one sentence from the material in the infobox in this: "Yehiel Bar is an Israeli politician and member of the Knesset". I didn't have to do any research beyond clicking on one link provided. Hut 8.5 18:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I could be entirely wrong, but doesn't sound like there's any evidence infobox-only articles are the problem. Instead, they may be a symptom of spamming - which I think can be handled by other speedy deletion criteria or PROD/multi-AfD if needed. I therefore question whether the infobox-only article criterion is really targeting the right problem, or instead targeting a general symptom that could potentially indicate spamming or could simply be a good-faith contribution by an inexperienced editor. Appable (talk | contributions) 19:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:A5 Question

Another New Page Reviewer, User: Cyrus noto3at bulaga has in good faith tagged Mr. O Band as A5. It is an article in Spanish about a band that, based on my limited knowledge of Spanish, makes no claim of notability and does not appear to make a credible claim of significance. I think that this was a good-faith incorrect tagging, and that A7 was in order. It appears to me that A5 would only apply if the article had previously been moved to the Spanish Wikipedia. It appears to me that A5 is meant to be used rarely, for a page that is already properly in another WMF wiki. Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have in past done the same thing, but been instructed that A5 is only if it exists on another wiki, and the text is the same language. I argue that this is the best use of it, but it may need clarification. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are almost correct. A5 only applies when it's something for another wiki but it specifically mentions that the article's content has to be a "dictionary definition" or "primary source" and that in other cases it only applies if there was consensus to move it elsewhere at AfD. None of those apply here. For the record, A2 would have been incorrect as well since it does not have an article at es-wiki. As A2 says, such articles should be tagged ((not english)) instead if the content does not meet any other criterion. In this case, A7 was borderline (it did include this link after all which might be considered a RS) but I assume Mfield meant to use this criterion when deleting. Regards SoWhy 07:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that the second part (the discussion thing) only applies after a successful transwiki-ing has been made. That is, no discussion - no A5, no transwiki-ing, no A5. I can't remember seeing an A5 in the time I've been an admin, except perhaps for one that got transwikied to the Luanda WP (which was a right load of hassle). Peridon (talk) 12:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. As I thought, A5 is a relatively rare criterion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting user pages of LTA socks

My addition of the ((Db-lta)) template, which I created earlier, has been reverted by Euryalus. I believe the template would be useful as I have, in this past, come across multiple situations where user pages and user talk pages of LTA socks have been created, against consensus at MfD discussions, and then speedily deleted, and it would save having to provide a custom rationale when speedy-tagging these pages. Thoughts? Linguisttalk|contribs 22:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for the revert is here. It is good practice to seek consensus on new CSD criteria, even if you consider them uncontroversial. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you. So, why do you think this fails #3? Linguisttalk|contribs 22:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Me? Not sure that it does, but i wonder how often we are actually seeing offensive but non-identical userpages created by confirmed socks of LTA's, such that this needs calling out as its own CSD criteria. It seems a very narrow use-case, but if you're seeing a lot of these it would be good to have some detail posted here so it can be considered by the community in this discussion. In passing, thanks for agreeing to bring this here for debate. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the user pages of certain LTAs have been to MfD and can be easily G4'd (others should not be deleted without cause). ((db-lta)) says as much. I also believe there is no consensus to delete talk pages of LTAs which consist solely of warnings. RBI would be better in those circumstances. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Supreme Genghis Khan's talk pages were all deleted, but that not what's relevant here. The problem with the G4 tagging is that the pages created are brand new; deleted ones are never recreated. Linguisttalk|contribs 22:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some examples would be great, to properly evaluate the frequency. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the deletion consensus was to delete all their sock-tagged pages, although it might not always prevent their creation, it should certainly assist their deletion under G4. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:ClubGK, User talk:I have an unhealthy obsession for trolling Sro23, User talk:Chicken & Beef Pork, User talk:Genghis Khan des Etats-Unis d'Amerique. Linguisttalk|contribs 22:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that if you're relying on a deletion discussion for the deletion, it belongs firmly in G4, where it's already covered. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Euryalus and Zzuuzz: Then I'll propose this: just like we have ((db-spam)) and ((db-spamuser)) under G11, where the templates are worded similarly, but one is specifically intended for a user whose username is a UNP violation, I'll change the template's criterion to G4. I don't think, for user pages like this, the ((db-g4)) template will work on its own, due to its wording and the "you can improve it but don't untag if you created it yourself". Of course, the user page must be deleted per the relevant deletion discussion, so they can't be "improved" in any way, and the tag should be removed if the sockmaster's and previous socks' pages were not deleted. Also, I'm not sure if the user who creates a user page needs notification of the deletion, since the deletion would be entirely uncontroversial, but it may let them know not to warn or socktag socks of that particular user again. As Zzuuzz said, the template is worded similarly to ((db-g4)) anyway (it's just directed specifically at user pages), so I think this would work, and it would be preferable to scrapping the new template entirely. Linguisttalk|contribs 04:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've temporarily moved the template into my own user space until this discussion concludes. Linguisttalk|contribs 10:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think some simplification to the wording of the template based on the G4 template would work. It's difficult to think of other uses for such a template, so I see no problem with having it at its previous dedicated name. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm opposed to blondly dleeting all LTA user talk pages. Among other things, a user amy be mis-identified. Note that some LTAs use attack user names - and those are covered by G10. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was a consensus to delete all Supreme Genghis Khan's user talk pages. Some usernames attack other users, but not all. It becomes very obvious it's him when he starts e.g. spamming images of Genghis Khan or doing the things he does regularly, described at WP:LTA/SGK. G10 doesn't always apply, as while the usernames attack other users, the pages themselves don't always attack other users. Some user talk page are created by ClueBot NG when warning the user; one reason why I originally suggested the template be put under G6 as entirely non-controversial deletion. Linguisttalk|contribs 08:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First off, thanks for the amount of effort you've put into this, and thanks also for the talkpage message alerting me to the proposal. Regrettably I agree with Od Misheshu and Zzuzz there are already options within G4 and G10 for many of these pages, and I'm not convinced there are enough other cases to justify adding a new criteria. Also agree with Od Micheshu that there are occasions where deleting a suspected or actual LTA sock talkpage is counterproductive. Taken together, these leave me on the side of opposing the proposed addition to CSD. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:G4 seems a kludgey choice: doesn't that specifically require that a user's page is deleted at MfD and then recreated? These pages ought to qualify under WP:G5 with no discussion required. For the Supreme Genghis Khan situation, use WP:G6 housekeeping and refer to the discussion where it was agreed to delete the pages, we did that for tens of thousands of the Neelix redirects, although that eventually became a special case. As for mass-deletion of all user pages of long-term abuse cases, I think you'll find that consensus does not support that blanket action. Besides, isn't the standard for those sorts of cases to just redirect the user page to the LTA page, i.e. User:Grawp~enwiki? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: Agreed re G4 in most cases, and agreed re consensus not to support a blanket action. My argument is that there are various avenues to deal with most of the already small number of occasions where this issue arises, to the point where we don't need to create another special mechanism. G4 will occasionally suit, G10 will occasionally suit, so will G6 and so will redirecting or doing nothing at all. Neelix needed calling out for its own criteria because there were thousands upon thousands of pages. In this instance we are talking about a handful only, and they're sufficiently covered by what we already have available. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Any page with an attack name may be deleted under G10, even if created in good faith (e.g ClueBot NG). To quote G10: Both the page title and page content may be taken into account in assessing an attack. Other CSDs which may apply are G5 for self-created pages, and G4 for individual pages which had previously been deleted. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disallow nonsense characters in redirects, or else make a CSD for them

As the title says, people should either be disallowed by edit filter from adding in useless/nonsense characters, such as ᶘ, as every redirect I've ever seen it in has been deleted, or else a CSD (R1 or A12) should be made. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

R3 covers good-faith creations that are implausible. G3 covers bad-faith creations. A new criterion is not really needed. As for requesting an edit filter, see Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested. Regards SoWhy 19:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SoWhy: The problem with R3 is that it only covers recently created ones. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to remember a case of nonsense characters in a redirect - and failing. Does this happen often (and I'm missing them)? Peridon (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to long s? There's an RFD currently open concerning a redirect with a 'long s', and it doesn't look like it's going to be deleted (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 11#Congrefs). If you know of other redirects you think should be deleted, your best option is to take them to WP:RFD. A new CSD criteron is not going to happen. -- Tavix (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) It would be very difficult to determine the exact meaning and scope needed for such a criterion (i.e. what would explicitly qualify for deletion under it). Such cases are seemingly better suited for redirects for discussion. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 21:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't G1 apply if the redirect is total nonsense? Adam9007 (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it successfully redirects, and the title has some meaning, then it is probably not patent nonsense. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion trumps deletion (G12, copyright infringement)

This article gives an example of how mindless deletion is unconstructive, and an article reversion to a previous state will often be preferable, as a policy which applies not only in case of G12 violation. Why deletion anyway? --liquider 16:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liquider (talk • contribs) [reply]

No speedy deletion criterion applies unless all revisions of a page meet the criterion. That sometimes admins make mistakes and ignore this rule does not mean the rule does not apply. That some admins make more such mistakes than others is unfortunate but not really a problem with the policy but with the admin in question and thus can and should not be discussed here but possibly on a noticeboard regarding user conduct. Regards SoWhy 17:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hitomi Tanaka

The Hitomi Tanaka page has been put up for speedy deletion based on the argument of "is substantially identical to the deleted version" that was based off of her not meeting WP:BIO and WP:GNG. No one except admins can see the old version of the page, so we can't go off of that, but we do know the discussion was over whether she met WP:BIO and WP:GNG. I believe I have provided sufficient sources to prove that she is since she won an AVN award, appeared on TV Tokyo, has 430+ films to her name and has sources from The New York Daily News, Playboy and The Score Group amongst others. I don't know what the previous user who posted this article put up, but these seem more than enough to pass the notoriety test.ChiefWahooMcDonalds (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewing admin will check whether the page is substantially the same, so the tagger not being able to check it is not a problem. I declined the speedy solely based on those sources since the previous article did not contain them but I sincerely doubt that she now passes any notability guideline. Alas, this is for a new AfD to decide. In future, please restrict your comments on the worthiness of an article to its talk page which will be read by the reviewing admin before deciding. This page is solely for discussing the policy itself and such posts might be considered canvassing. Regards SoWhy 07:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CSD proposal

There is a thread at ANI which has suggested a new CSD criteria similar to X1. Your input is appreciated. Primefac (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

X2 revision

The proposed edit is this one. Please see my talk page for the background; but essentially the problem is that the inherent confusion between speedy deletion and snow in the current wording is not very helpful. The discussion that established this criterion can be reviewed at WP:AN/CXT, and I believe my proposed wording more accurately reflects what the community actually said. Pinging @Dank: at his request.—S Marshall T/C 21:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm not involved, but I do want to stay informed. - Dank (push to talk) 22:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The straw poll there actually does include wording to the effect that the reviewing admin has to believe it would be snow-deleted at AFD. This is both surprising and appalling to me - the one because I don't remember noticing it as the AN discussion was playing out, and would certainly have spoken out against it; the other because the "AFD is not cleanup" culture is so ingrained that it'll snow-keep articles where the majority of statements are known to be false, let alone ones like these where a minority of statements are reasonably likely to be. I can't imagine an article properly deleteable under X2 as written that wouldn't also be speedyable under some other criterion. I'm all in favor of removing the clause. —Cryptic 22:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
RFC drafter here. The reason I included that clause was to emphasize that the bar of certainty for X2 was to be set quite high. The intention was for borderline cases to be sent to AFD. It also tried to tie in with the Neelix X1 criterion to try to set a standard for X-series criterion discussions.
However, I do have a lot of deference to the people who are actually performing the cleanup. While the clause was very intentional, I am open to the possibility that it is incorrect. Given that @S Marshall: tells me that the wording is problematic, and he's been doing the bulk of the cleanup, I'd be inclined to allow him lots of influence in the wording of the CSD should be. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the point is to blindly delete all those articles, an admin bot could do it: Review article, check if history contains any major edits, delete. I think the point is that sometimes an AfD will end in delete despite the notability of the topic because of the rationale behind WP:TNT; X2 should cover those cases. In all other cases, it would probably be a benefit for the project to keep the machine translated version instead of having no article about the topic. The proposed wording would eliminate them all, even if the machine translation is good enough to actually inform readers. Tagging those articles for cleanup would suffice though. Regards SoWhy 14:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to support changing the first sentence of the criterion to
"This applies to any page created by the content translation tool prior to 27 July 2016, if the reviewing admin reasonably believes that it is faster to make an acceptable article on the topic by starting from scratch rather than using the existing article."
Or something like that. This would be a significant change that we should solicit wider input on, but might make the cleanup process go more smoothly. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2017
No, guys, this is wrong. These articles were generated by scripts. They were not checked. They are not better than nothing. They're worse.
Last week I dealt with an article machine translated from French. I tagged it for X2 and one of Wikipedia's more intelligent sysops, who usually has good judgment, declined it. She cleaned up the translation (and she does speak French) and moved on. I went to her talk page and pointed out that the script had screwed up -- this was a BLP and it had the subject married to the wrong bloke. She went back and deleted it.
I can't do that level of fact checking in every case, folks. There are 3600 to check and this is mostly a solo effort by me. If you're going to put bureaucracy in the way of the deletions then you need to help with the checking, and that does mean reading all the sources in every article you check.—S Marshall T/C 00:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If your evaluation is correct @S Marshall:, then the appropriate response is a belated nuke, not a weakening of X2. If you say that that is the situation with these articles, I'm inclined to believe you, as you have but a lot of time in the trenches on this one. Another option is a mass-move to draftspace, followed by checking from there. In any case, the proper venue for that discussion is probably WP:AN. Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 01:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking for a nuke, just a rewording of X2 that makes it quick and simple to remove a script-generated article which a human believes is unsatisfactory. —S Marshall T/C 01:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One approach that has worked well for me in the X1 cleanup is to create a new section in the cleanup list (call it X2 nominees or something). The understanding is that every page moved to that section has been nominated X2. The paged are not tagged with a CSD notice. Periodically, an admin who is familiar with the cleanup then goes through, checks or spot-checks the articles in that section, and deletes or retains them as appropriate. This works well because the admin evaluating the speedies is usually very knowledgeable about the history of the cleanup (they would not miss that X2's have a pattern of non-obvious translation-induced blp violations for example), and the normal CSD queue is not flooded by x-series nominations. Perhaps this workflow will work better in this case? If you are dead-set on amending the criterion, we can absolutely have that discussion, but I'd encourage you to try this workflow first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tazerdadog (talk • contribs) 02:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible please just to make the amendment I asked for? Thanks very much.—S Marshall T/C 13:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand your logic. You are saying that those articles should all be deleted if no one else has cleaned them up, right? But consensus as determined by the closing admin at AN was that there
... is a consensus, however, to approach these new temporary criteria with a degree of caution. Note that they do not authorize administrators to delete any page created by CXT. Administrators must apply judgment and speedily delete only CXT articles that would obviously require more effort to fix than to start from scratch.
I fail to see how your proposed change, i.e. "delete if there is no non-CXT version", can possibly be considered the same as "delete only if fixing would be more effort than starting from scratch". I understand that you are doing the work almost single-handily and I applaud your effort but that alone cannot suffice to overwrite the consensus that led to X2's creation in the first place. Regards SoWhy 18:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closer didn't envisage that this'd be done by so few editors, or that it'd take us this best part of a year to get 10% done. But if you'd like to be obstructive and bureaucratic about this then I can't stop you. I do hope I'll see you pulling your weight with the cleanup from now on?—S Marshall T/C 20:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please do avoid such straw men, okay? Neither whether I or anyone else helps or does not help nor whether it took much longer than envisioned does change the fact that the current wording does reflect consensus and your proposal does not. And me pointing this out is not "obstructive and bureaucratic". Consensus can change but it takes a new discussion. Regards SoWhy 21:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly a straw man. I've shown you why the current wording is useless, and I've shown you inaccurate BLPs in our queue eight months on. This should prompt you to be accommodating and flexible. We're talking about a CSD criterion that applies to a finite list of 3600 articles which was rightly established after a brief discussion that fell well short of an RFC and was poorly worded from the get go. I want to apply an impromptu fix to an impromptu fix. You should be helping me.—S Marshall T/C 22:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm not arguing for or against the change you propose, I'm merely pointing out that the change does not reflect current consensus. That is the "straw man" on your part, defending your change as sensible (which it might be) instead of reflecting consensus (which it definitely does not). Regards SoWhy 07:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you were minded to be helpful and supportive, then you could have (a) suggested how to achieve a consensus you would approve of, (b) started the process, and (c) expressed a reasoned view as Cryptic did. His has been the only contribution to the debate so far that in any way moves us forward; I feel bogged down in bureaucracy and process. I note the community decided it was needless to go to RFC on this a long time ago, and I don't expect to be told that a full RFC is needed to put a sticking plaster on a short term fix.

My position is still that the community wanted to authorise the deletion of these articles after a human has reviewed them and if the closer thought otherwise then he misread the debate and mistook a minority view for the consensus. That discussion was far more hostile to these articles than the closing statement was. Please do not respond by advising me about the process to change a close, though; I'm looking for a response that is neither process-focused nor bureaucratic, but outcome-focused and productive.—S Marshall T/C 13:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The three of us are not likely to come to an agreement at this point. I would suggest an RFC is in order to hammer out how exactly the criterion should read. I would also encourage you to try a modified workflow, or a smaller edit to the criterion, see if it resolves the problem, and come back if it does not. I am sympathetic to your concerns, and I understand the need to dispose of problematic articles quickly, but surely there should be some provision to prevent throwing out the baby with the bathwater Tazerdadog (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's preposterous and bitterly disappointing. Since you're taking this attitude I will post on WP:AN seeking consensus for a general nuke of all these articles; it's the least time wasting solution at this point.—S Marshall T/C 23:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFC currently in progress regarding tagging "unencyclopedic" files for deletion with a 7-day wait

Watchers of this page may be interested in participating in an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion#RFC on routine file deletion. The discussion is a proposal to have certain files deemed "unencyclopedic" tagged and deleted with a new process similar to WP:PROD or existing file-related WP:CSD criterion with a 7-day delay after tagging for the file to be deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 22:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category