This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Should G13 be expanded to include all articles in the draft space that haven't been edited in over 6 months? Perhaps a delayed speedy deletion, giving the author time to recover it? Of course the same rules would still apply, where they could recover the article. Just curious what people think, not necessarily proposing this. Kharkiv07 (T) 21:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Pinging MusikAnimal who suggested this on IRC earlier today oddly. Sam Walton (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

NO. Advocates (MusikAnimal—Samwalton9—Kharkiv07) G13 applies only to articles that are enrolled in Articles for Creation. There have been multiple attempts to propose a speedy deletion rule based on pages in Draft space that aren't in AfC to be deleted based on unedited. Please review the archives of this talk page to see the arguments the last time this was proposed and failed. Hasteur (talk) 04:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with Hastur here in opposing this, at least at the moment. Please define some actual problem this would be a solution for, if you really want to support this, and please do read the past discussions first. Drafts, out of public view, not clogging the AfC queue, are no problem to anyone. There is no deadline. Unless there are BLP or copyvio issues, they can sit quite a while with no harm done, and if any of those exist we have much quicker and better methods than G13. DES ^(talk) 04:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• Just to play devil's advocate, if it's not an active part of the AfC queue, what harm is it doing sitting around with the AfC tag? Kharkiv07 (T) 14:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• Kharkiv07 AFC is supposed to be for proposed articles that a user is unable to create in mainspace (because they're not confirmed yet or are under a special sanction) that annother editor reviews to make sure it's suitable for mainspace and is making progress to being acceptable for mainspace. Non-AFC drafs works similarly, but flips the "must show progress" idea on it's head by unifying all the potential drafts in one location so that others could collaborate on a draft together (as opposed to a userspace draft). Hasteur (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• I was thinking just along the lines of "forgotten" drafts. That is, no wikilinks, no categories, no edits – for years on end. They aren't indexed by search engines so it will simply languish in the draftspace indefinitely. We're not going to run out of disk space, but we generally remove things we don't use. A bot could go through and find such pages, if that is a concern. Perhaps we don't mind, though, or perhaps that's the true intent of a draft – a repository of would-be could-be articles, some of which may eventually make it to the mainspace, or can be borrowed from for other existing mainspace articles. I just feel like overall, we should still be keeping an eye on the non-AfC drafts, and have some sort of protocol for dealing with pages that clearly will not produce a mainspace counterpart — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • MusikAnimal The reason why draftspace was created was to that we could centralize all the drafts that were "amenable" to shared editing in one location that can be searched by one value for keywords that might be helpful. Hasteur (talk) 18:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• My own observations are as follows:

• If a draft hasn't been edited in six minths, regardless of where it is, it is probably never going to be an article.
• Non-AFC drafts that are very old are routinely deleted via MFD per WP:STALEDRAFT.
• Collecting all the unworkable garbage in one place indefitely in the hope that it will magically tuen into good articles somehow has been tried already and failed already.

So, I could see expanding G13 in this way, but MFD can also deal with it, it just takes even longer. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• This is silly, what if there is a full, usable article in draft space? Why would you delete it instead of moving it into Wikipedia space. Take a look at the articles in my user space that have not been edited in a year or more. I would hope that if I died someone would move them into Wikipedia space. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

You mean article space right? Wikipedia space would be a bit odd. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Beeblebrox Then make the case for it (Objective, Uncontestable, Frequent, Nonredundant). Would a list of potentially eligible pages (i.e. Top 50 oldest pages that could be eligible for deletion under this new rule) be helpful in guiding the oldest submissions to the grave?

page_title	rev_timestamp	rev_user_text
List_of_presidential_trips_made_by_Horst_Köhler	20131218133712	FoxyOrange
TAPE_Community_Music_and_Film	20131220105721	Theinspector456

and so on? Hasteur (talk) 03:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

These would be eligible for speedy deletion because they have not been edited in over a year, why would we want to do that, instead of moving them to mainspace, every article should be judged on its own merits:

• User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Russell Hastings Millward
• User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Schuyler, Hartley and Graham
• User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Jacob Rutsen Schuyler
• User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Charles Duryee Traphagen
• User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/William Hartley Carnegie

If they are ready for mainspace, then why don't you just move them already? I don't understand. I don't believe your collection of drafts,which do in fact appear ready for mainspace, are a good representative sample of what most stale drafts look like. Most people go ahead and take their pages live when they are ready, instead of leaving them in userspace for... whatever reason it is that you are doing that. Of course I agree tihat every page should be reviewed on its own merits, and I suspect that if you were gone and these pages were nominated under this expanded criterion, any responsible admin would go ahead and move them to article space, probably while scratching their head wondering why you were keeping them all to yourself. I'm halfway tempted to just do so right now, but I assume you have some sort of objection to that? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

He can't do it himself because he's been banned from creating new articles. —Cryptic 04:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): No, those would not be eligible for speedy deletion under this proposal because articles in the draft space that haven't been edited in over 6 months (bolding my emphasis) does not hold to be true. What we are talking about is evaluating pages that are under the prefix Draft: and applying the criterion to it (much like the prefix for this page is Wikipedia talk:). Userspace is intended to be a semi-permanant reserve of what you're allowed to hold on to, and as I understand there is not the will to deal with that yet. Second, your action here gives the impression that you're trying to skirt around your sanction. Beeblebrox you might want to hold off on promoting those articles to mainspace. Hasteur (talk) 12:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, that certainly seems to support my position that these are not tgood representative samples of what we usually find in old drafts... Beeblebrox (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support. I think userspace should be treated as the place for active users to work on their own stuff, without hindrance from others. There's no policy reason why someone couldn't move old userspace drafts (say one of the thousand articles at Category:Userspace drafts created via the Article Wizard from November 2009) to draft space and then tag them for review in six months at which point G13 falls into play. I use that a middle ground between taking it live and taking it to MFD. That timeline gives plenty of opportunity for people to review and work on it. Now for active users, taking their old userspace draft is just wrong and considered uncivil so pages like Richard Arthur Norton's pages would last until he isn't active for a while and then (a) someone would have to look at it, make a choice it's not good enough for live, not bad enough for a listing at MFD (where someone else can offer to adopt it) and move it to draft space where (b) it has another six months there for people to see and (c) if after that time period, no one has thought it was worth moving to articlespace it can be deleted under G13. And even then, we have WP:REFUND so someone can come back years later and if they can follow the redirects and page moves, get anything restored. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

What is the procedure for notable articles created in contravention of a block or ban? I understand the usefulness of this policy, but I have to say I'm a little disturbed that decent articles may be deleted because of who created them. North of Eden (talk) 18:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• An old dispute that's never really been fully resolved. I've heard the suggestion that if you think the contribution is worthwhile, delete the page, and then put it back up under your name - but I'm not sure how good an idea is as far as contributions and copyright issues. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "delete the page, and then put it back up under your name" would be an egregious violation of WP:Copyrights. If you write an article having read the deleted article, you need to be very sure that the author of the deleted content has no authors' rights, moral rights, or any other reasonable claim to contribution to the ongoing content. It is far safer to give the banned editor attribution. If Wikipedians don't respect copyrights, Wikipedians can't complain about copyrights not being respected. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

For what SmokeyJoe states about giving the editor attribution, see WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• There is no "procedure" as such. Banned editors are not welcome. However, Wikipedia:Five pillars #3 and #5, respect copyright law and don't let rules stop you from improving the project, trump the banned editor concern. Admins are assumed to understand this awkward balance, and given free reign to unilaterally and immediately delete banned editors contributions under G5. This is mostly to give some meaning to WP:BAN, and to prevent wasting time on banned editor trolling. However, if the banned contribution is a needed contribution, we don't cut off the nose to spite the face. If the contribution is needed, and at least one editor in good standing is prepared to attest to that, often by co-authoring by improving the contribution, then it is usually allowed to stay. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Oiyarbepsy: This is an issue which has been discussed many times over the years, and there are always people with strong feelings on both sides of the debate. My view has largely been shaped by years of seeing persistent disruptive editors who know that they can defy blocks by just creating endless strings of sockpuppets, and although each one will eventually be blocked, a proportion of their edits will stay, so they get away with evading the blocks. However, if the editor eventually finds that everything that he or she does with a sockpuppet will be reverted, so that they achieve nothing at all by using sockpuppets, a large proportion of sockpuppeteers eventually give up. Losing a few reasonably good articles is unfortunate, but it can be a price worth paying if it results in ridding Wikipedia of a long-term disruptive editor. Apart from the copyright issue, reposting the same article is disruptive (whether intentionally so or not) as it defeats the purpose of letting the sockpuppeteer see that the fruits of their sockpuppetry are lost. However, writing a new article on the same subject from scratch is perfectly possible, and does not have that effect. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with JamesBWatson, though I've encountered one prolific WP:Sock master who repeatedly returns just to create articles and/or to try to blend into Wikipedia as one of its decent editors; see what he stated: User talk:Flyer22/Archive 18#Why banned users keep coming back, despite attempts to remove their incentives. Flyer22 (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Flyer22: Yes, of course there are a few really persistent sockpuppeteers who keep coming back no matter what is done, some of them quite obsessively so, and it was interesting to see one of them presenting a rational argument for doing so. However, I think the key point is the one you made when you wrote "I highly doubt that the vast majority of WP:Banned editors who return think like that." I have seen quite a number of persistent block evaders who have for a time repeatedly been blocked but most of their their edits left in place, but who have then given up when a different administrator has implemented a "block and revert everything" policy. It doesn't work in all cases, but it certainly works in many cases. You also made a good point when you wrote "you need Wikipedia to gain a wider audience for that material". Whatever a persistent block-evader may say is their reason for persistently coming back, I am certain that in fact almost all of them do so because they want what they write to be seen by a large audience, and if they know that it won't, their reason for coming back disappears. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Whereas it is my view that we should mostly judge the edit, not the editor. I don't generally agree with WP:DENY, which is, after all, only an essay. If a clearly notable, non-controversial, neutral article is tagged for speedy deletion as a G5, I will verify the sources if I easily can. If I can, I will remove the G5 with an edit summery that I am taking responsibility for the creation of the article. I will then edit the article further, perhaps to add a source. It should then be immune to G5. DES ^(talk) 13:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@DESiegel: That reads to me rather as though you are saying that you deliberately edit the article in order to prevent it qualifying for deletion. If that is what you mean, I regard it as disruptive editing, amounting to gaming the system. You are under no obligation to take steps to enforce a policy which you personally disagree with, but deliberately taking steps to prevent others from doing so is another matter. There are policies and guidelines that I disagree with, and I don't go out of my way to enforce them, but I would never take deliberate steps to prevent the enforcement of such policies by others, and I would regard any administrator who does so as unsuitable to be an administrator. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I would regard any admin who would rather delete "a clearly notable, non-controversial, neutral article" than allow others to improve it as being unsuitable to be an editor, let alone an admin. DuncanHill (talk) 14:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

My feelings are similar to a degree. I can see the merits of using G5 to deter socks, but, as an editor said above, I think it's absurd to cut off the nose to spite the face. I wouldn't consider DES's suggestion disruptive editing to spite a policy; Wikipedia policies aren't constitutional law, after all, we have WP:IAR for a reason. North of Eden (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

JamesBWatson, WP:BAN reads, in part: Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor ... unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits.(emphasis mine). By checking sources and deleting the db-G5 tag, along with an edit summary taking responsibility for the page, I am invoking the UNLESS clause. That is not gaming the system, it is applying a part of the policy too rarely used, IMO. I don't all that often bother to do it, but after this objection, I will ping you the next time I do it, and if you want to take it to ANI or indeed to ARBCOM, you may feel free to do so. DES ^(talk) 16:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• Just as a thought experiment, what if G5 speedy-delete noms had to go through AfD instead? Articles created by a sock of a banned user would have to go through this process and would be vetted by the community, balancing a need for deterring socks with our primary goal, creating an encyclopedia. I think this would be preferable to the current mode of operation. North of Eden (talk) 17:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
• I would add that sometimes a G5 tag fails to link to an SPI or other evidence that the author is in fact a sock of a blocked or banned user. I would regard such a tag as illegitimate. If the evidence is clearly found, say a link on the user's talk page, then I wouldn't remove the tag. Otherwise I would, probably with ((oldcsd)) on the article talk page saying not to restore the tag without a link to an SPI. DES ^(talk) 19:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Some of the above comments seem to indicate that what I wrote may have been misunderstood, in which case I did not express myself clearly enough. I was not suggesting that there is anything wrong with an editor who edits an article in order to improve it, just because it was created by a blocked editor. However, if the aim of the editing is not to improve the article, but to cause the article to not qualify for speedy deletion, because the editor personally does not like the policy in question, then that is, like any kind of editing intended to thwart consensus, disruptive. (And this issue has been discussed repeatedly, each time with consensus being in favour of the existing policy.) DES, please don't ping me each time you do this. I really don't wish to be alerted very time you do anything you think I may disagree with: the fact that I disagree with something that an editor does doesn't always mean that I wish to take action to oppose it. And did you really think I might wish to take such things to ANI or ArbCom? I really really have at least 1000 thing I can do on Wikipedia that will be a better use of my time than that. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• JamesBWatson (and others), my view is that if a legitimate editor, one who is not a sockpuppet or meat puppet, verifies that an edit is constructive, or that a newly created article is notable, encyclopedic, and properly sourced -- much the same level of review that might be made at AfC -- then an edit to remove the db-g5 tag, or a dummy edit in the case of a change other than an article creation, along with an edit summary saying clearly that the legit editor takes responsibility for the edit(s) in question, then the edit(s) should thereafter be regarded as if they had been made by the legit editor for purposes of G5. The purpose in such a case is to prevent deletion under G5 (or reversion of an edit as by a blocked or banned user) but it is not against consensus, because the consensus, as described in the policy page, clearly permits this sort of adoption, provided that it is done on behalf of the encyclopedia, and with sincere belief that it improves the project, not as an advocate for or enabler of the banned or blocked editor. Adopting an edit or a page is much the same as reinstating it, except that proper attribution is preserved. DES ^(talk) 16:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • As for my offer to ping you, it was in response to your apparent view that such edits are disruptive. If you really think that, you might want to have such a view supported by a precedent. My view is that they are not, and I don't want anyone thinking I am trying to evade scrutiny.
  • Also, JamesBWatson, you have not responded to the question about whether a G5 speedy tag ought to link to an SPI or other clear evidence that the user is actually sock of a blocked or banned user. (or to the Ban notice in case of a topic ban). Do you have a view on this issue? DES ^(talk) 16:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• @DESiegel: Sorry, I didn't realise that was a question. Obviously, giving a link to evidence is good practice, and obviously any G5 deletion nomination where the reviewing administrator can see no evidence must be declined. Therefore, if by "a G5 speedy tag ought to link to an SPI or other clear evidence" all you mean is that it is best practice, then the answer is obviously "yes". However, you say "I would regard such a tag as illegitimate", which suggests that you may be suggesting that such a link should always be required, and that the absence of one should invalidate the speedy deletion nomination. Quite often I see a G5 speedy deletion tag, and when I look, I can't see any evidence that the article was in fact created by a blocked editor evading a block. Naturally, I decline the speedy deletion in such cases. Most often, however, that doesn't happen: all it takes is one glance at the top of the contributions page to see the block log entry including the name of the sockpuppeteer; failing that, the blocking administrator may have posted the name of the sockpuppeteer to the blocked account's talk page or user page. (Of course I am not suggesting that merely seeing the name of the sockpuppeteer is enough: it is still necessary to check that there really is reason to believe that the page-creating account was a sockpuppet, and that the sockpuppeteer really wa blocked at the time of page creation, but that would be necessary anyway, and once one has the name of the sockpuppeteer, it's normally easy to do the relevant checking.) I don't think it's reasonable to expect an administrator assessing the speedy deletion nomination to search any further than that, and if I see no evidence in such obvious places then I decline the speedy deletion, giving an edit summary stating that the reason is lack of evidence that the editor was evading a block. I think that should be enough to make it clear that it is then up to any editor still wanting speedy deletion to provide such evidence, but if you prefer to explicitly state that on the talk page, then that's perfectly reasonable. Either way, we both agree that in such a case we decline the deletion nomination and make a statement indicating that a G5 nomination requires evidence of block evasion. Ideally, it is a good idea that a G5 nomination should always be accompanied by a link to evidence, but there are at least two reasons why in practice it would not help to make that into a rule that it must always do so. Firstly, there is no way of enforcing such a rule, especially when the tag is placed by an editor with little or no previous experience of such matters, who may not know about the rule, or may not know how to link to the evidence. Secondly, in my experience, in most cases it is unnecessary, as the evidence is clearly available to anyone who takes five seconds looking in the obvious place. It would not be reasonable to take the line that a nomination must automatically be declined just because the editor making the nomination failed to follow some protocol about how to do so, even in cases where the evidence is so obvious. I would therefore say that giving a link to evidence is certainly good practice, and ideally should always be done, but insisting that it must be done would not be helpful.

• Incidentally, there is another issue, the effect of which is that requiring a link to evidence would actually rarely make any difference to whether the deletion goes ahead or not anyway. In my experience, the commonest reasons for G5 nominations being unacceptable are (1) editing by one or more editors other than the one who created the page, (2) a surprising number of editors who don't grasp that "creation by a blocked editor evading a block" does not mean "creation by a sockpuppet of an editor who at a date later than the creation of the page was subsequently blocked for sockpuppetry, (3) speculative nominations in the case of a suspicion that an account may be a sockpuppet (often, but not always, this happens while a sockpuppet investigation is pending), and (4) an administrator giving a block citing sockpuppetry in the block log, but giving no indication anywhere what account it is a sockpuppet of, which makes it impossible to tell whether the editor was blocked in another account at the time of creation of the page or not. Obviously in cases (1) and (2) the G5 is totally invalid, and it makes no difference whether evidence of block evasion is provided or not. In case (3) the deletion nomination has to be declined; perhaps occasionally a link to the sockpuppet investigation if there is one might lead an administrator assessing the G5 nomination to also review and close the sockpuppet investigation, but it is not reasonable to expect an administrator reviewing deletion nominations to do so: it is much more reasonable to expect an admin to decline such a G5. That means that giving a link to the evidence (e.g. the ongoing SPI) is very unlikely to make any difference, as the G5 will be declined with or without the link. In case (4) the deletion nomination has to be declined too: we can't delete on the basis of speculation that there may have been a block at the time of creation of the page. In that case, it may be that the editor who placed the tag knew of evidence somewhere else but didn't provide it, in which case providing a link to that evidence would have helped, but my impression is that in fact more commonly the editor placing the tag did not know of evidence, but made the same mistake as in case (2), namely thinking that creation by an account which has been blocked as a sockpuppet is enough for G5, missing the point that it applies only if there was block evasion at the time of creation of the page. Therefore, even in case (4), requiring a link to evidence would usually make no difference. The conclusion of all this is that, if my impressions about the frequencies of the various possibilities are right, requiring a link to evidence would very rarely make any difference; assuming that an admin is willing to do the trivial amount of checking involved in looking at the alleged sockpuppet's contributions page and/or user page to see if there is the name of a sockpuppeteer, almost all G5 nominations that are declined now would still be declined if links to evidence were required. (Of course that is not to deny that providing links is helpful and to be encouraged, but when considering whether something should be required, it is relevant to consider how much difference requiring it would make in practice. In this case I am convinced that the answer is "very little".)

• One other point. Re-reading what I wrote above, I don't like the way I expressed myself over my disagreement about editing a page in order to prevent a G5 deletion. I still think that editing a page with the primary purpose of making sure that there is not just one substantial contributor, to prevent G5 from applying, is unacceptable, but the particular way I expressed that view went too far. Perhaps I was tired at the time. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• I think the way to do it would be to start a new one-line or so new stub and then post the references (not the text) on the talk page indicating that it is from the deleted version of the banned user's content. It allows the greater chance of re-creating the material (albeit without the copyright issues), while also probably frustrating the content creating banned users who will lose their actual work. There's one or two who do the same thing repeatedly so for them it'll be a reminder that they need to go to the main and request an unblock rather than the nonsense. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

If there is a page under the name of the band, but that page is a redirect to an article about a notable member of the band, does that pass or fail the 'no article' part of the criterion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peridon ‎ (talk • contribs) 15:46, 6 August 2015‎

Peridon ‎, A9 says "An article about a musical recording where none of the contributing recording artists has an article and does not indicate why its subject is important or significant (both conditions must be met)." So if any band member has an article A9 is off the table, Peridon ‎ DES ^(talk) 19:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd guess this refers to the speedy noms of albums by Cement, which I declined earlier today. I'm not sure that the recently revised language was originally intended to encompass this case, but it's certainly sensible to apply it here. I've seen some really bad nominations under the prior version of A9 -- soundtracks of notable films, tribute albums featuring highly notable musicians, side projects of notable artists, collaborations of two notable artists, and more. The participation of a notable artist in the recording generally qualifies as an assertion of significance sufficient to defeat the original A9, but bad nominations have been so frequent that this needed to be made more explicit. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Peridon Any CSD:A series nomintion is invalid because the page you describe isn't an article, it's a redirect. Furthermore, as I understand it, if there's resonable content to explain why someone has landed at the band members page when they searched the band, it's a good redirect. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, please correct me if my interpertation of the rules is incorrect. Hasteur (talk) 00:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

No, the redirect isn't being nominated. It's an 'article' (usually this just consists of a track listing) that's been tagged A9. The band is bluelinked, but this is a redirect to an article about one of the performers. I very often decline A9s, having discovered that the band name was mis-spelt, or in black when there was an article easily discoverable. The wording does seem to have changed to be clearer - I must have missed that happening. I do think that we should make it clearer that it is only recordings that are covered here and not songs - I've declined quite a few A9s on songs - or would that come under instruction creep? HW (or is it TBBW?) is right about the origin of my query. I thought as HW and DES have stated here, but took the Levite's approach and passed by, being wary of a possible trap... Peridon (talk) 16:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The speedy deleted article Jim Vejvoda says:

Jim Vejvoda is a film critic for the entertainment website IGN, and is also the Executive Editor of its Movies channel. ...

Does being a film critic at IGN pass the ((db-a7)) bar? Does being the executive editor of IGN's movies channel pass the ((db-a7)) bar? I'm unsure. There is a discussion about the speedy deletion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 August 8#Jim Vejvoda. Cunard (talk) 04:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

http://www.bartolomejstankovic.com/eng/permission-for-copyright/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faris Garib (talk • contribs) 18:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

This isn't the proper place to post such a permission, Faris Garib, but it doesn't matter, because that permission is of no use on Wikipedia. The permission must be granted not just to you, but to everyone in the world, and must include use on any site or in any manner, not just on Wikipedia. It must include permission to create modified copies and derivative works for any purpose, including commercial purposes, with no restrictions except for proper attribution. The grant must be irrevocable. In short it must be CC-BY, or something quite similar in effect. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for details. DES ^(talk) 21:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

My problem is that I am trying to follow the policy while trying to be notable. I have wanted to add a sound sample which I admit was replaceable by a free sample, but those sounds from the three original Commander Keen games are notable, for I cannot imagine any other popular game which produces such sounds. I feel as if notability should be a valid defense of keeping such files.

Of course, we do not need to add satellite images of places because we can always snap pictures of them. However, the need for notability is disputed. Is that a justified reason, or is it just about what it is now? Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 02:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't get what you're trying to say. Notability is an aspect of article subjects, not files. None of the file deletion criteria have anything to do with notability. If you want to use a non-free file, you need to follow Wikipedia:Non-free content. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I know that the "Draft:" namespace has been around for a little whole now, but I was wondering: was there ever any discussion to allow redirects from the article space to the draft namespace be deleted per criterion R2? I was just wondering since it doesn't seem as though any major updates have been made to the criterion since the draft namespace was introduced, so I'm not sure if there was ever a discussion to establish consensus on this. I mean, the most applicable case of this would be when a page is moved out of the article space and into the draft namespace, and then the leftover redirect is then nominated for R2. Steel1943 (talk) 21:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't recall any formal discussion of this, but I see no reason to make an exception here. If a page is moved to draft space, that is (or should be) because it is not yet ready for the main article space. One of the significant aspects of draft space is that the site robots.txt file is set to request that draft not be indexed by search engines, and i understand that all major ones comply. Therefore, a redirect that is searchable defeats at least part of the point of a move to draft. Beyond that, all the usually reasons not to have cross-namespace redirects seem to me to apply in this case. I can tell you that whenever I move a page from article space to draft, I suppress the redir, or promptly delete the redir if I forget to prevent its creation. (Normally I would notify the creator and any significant contributors on their talk pages, so they know where the draft is to be found, and need not search logs, which new editors may not find obvious.) I can also tell you that I have routinely deleted such redirs as G6 housekeeping. If the community wants to make a clear consensus on this one way or the other, i will of course comply. DES ^(talk) 22:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I've frequently used R2 to delete them (and also G6). I agree with DESiegel about the rationale. I think it was assumed in the discussions of Draft space that this would be the case. DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Moving an article which isn't ready yet to the draft namespace isn't significantly different from moving a article which isn't ready yet to the user namespace, which is a longstanding case where R2 is used. Hut 8.5 06:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

CSD:R2 reads (on face value) to apply to Redirects from mainspace to Draftspace. Having draftspace doesn't change the reading of the CSD because draftspace isn't specifically called out as one of the exceptions. Hasteur (talk) 13:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Right, but that doesn't mean that this detail wasn't overlooked after the "Draft:" namespace was created, but then deletions were approved by default due to its current wording, leaving some to think that this precedent was made "official" somewhere. (Either way, it looks as though there is support to keep the current practice in place, per above.) Steel1943 (talk) 13:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• When I move something to Draft I always delete the redirect automatially. But I believe this is something only admins can do. Otherwise, yes, R2 is the procedure. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I think adding a criterion for self-published books with no credible claim of significance would be a good idea as a fair number of such articles are created that clearly do not meet WP:NBOOK, but can't be speedied under current guidelines. Everymorning (talk) 15:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I would tend to oppose this, pending further debate. Given current trends in publishing, self-publishing no longer implies vanity publishing automatically, as it once did. I tend to think that articles about creative works are too prone to false positives to make good speedy deletion criteria. I would be interested in seeing some numbers: how many such articles are in fact being nominated at AfD, and how many of them are deleted? A7 and A9, that use the "claim of significance" concept, are some of the most debated and frequently mis-used of the current criteria, IMO. I'm not sure that we should add another. If we were to add such a new criterion, i would suggest that it have the same conditional clause as A9, if the author has a current Wikipedia article, the criterion would not apply. I think we would also need a clearer definition of "self-published". DES ^(talk) 15:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

There are 22 entries in my PROD log (User:Everymorning/PROD log) that cite NBOOK in their rationales. Most of them seem to have been deleted. With respect to AFD, Kittens are Assholes was PRODed by me, deproded by the author (if I remember correctly), and then nominated for deletion by me at AFD. Everymorning (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• I would oppose this for the following reasons:

• I think a lot of articles on self-published books may already be speedy-deletable under other criteria, i.e. advertising, obviously invented, etc
• Everymorning's personal experience notwithsatnding, I don't think it is all that common
• We already have too many criteria, I think any new ones should be very, very compelling, with lots of evidence that we should always delete them, and lots of evidence that it is a daily problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with the above comment with a minor quibble: if a book actually exists and has been published, even if only self-published, then WP:CSD#A11 does not apply. That is not the sort of thing that the "obviously invented" criterion was designed for. DES ^(talk) 20:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I can imagine cases where it could apply. Last week I deleted an article on an event some people made up. I have no doubt that the event actually existed, but it was just some event attentded by this person and their friends who were in on the joke it was named after. A book could be real, but could describe a load of nonsense made up by the author. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Such a book would pretty clearly be non-notable, but it wouldn't be an A11 speedy. I am even rather dubious about the event, based on your description. A11 was designed for things that pretty much exist only in the minds of the creator and a small group of associates. The canonical example is a drinking game. I suppose an "event" that is really just a private party might qualify, but I don't think "made up" includes writing a book of any sort (or composing a song, or any creative work). Still this is really only a side note on the proposal above, which we agree in opposing. DES ^(talk) 02:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Come to think of it, a number of actually notable books I would describe as "a load of nonsense made up by the author". The Tao of Physics comes to mind, as does Worlds in Collision and Dianetics. DES ^(talk) 02:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

already, I regard an article on an author that says they published a book as making a claim of significance unless it is a self-published book. But I do not want to extend it to the books themselves, which are harder to judge. DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

RE to OP: Do you have multiple examples of AfD decisions going that way? Hasteur (talk) 02:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

In addition to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kittens Are Assholes (noted above) it also seems likely that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Six Hours Past Thursday will be closed as delete. Also, it appears that the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/An angel fell through my window was similar. Everymorning (talk) 14:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• One of the criteria for new criteria is that the problem is frequent. You don't really make that case by citing a five year old deletion discussion. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• There is also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shiver and Fears and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Game, Terry Schott from last year, and Blessing or a Curse, which was deleted by PROD last November. Everymorning (talk) 15:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I would want to see several such AfDs a week before I supported a new criterion for this, or at least several a month. If such pages are being deleted via PROD, I don';t see the need for a speedy criterion, prod is already lightweight and really imposes no higher costs than a speedy. In each case one editor tags and an admin reviews. I can also see a good deal of argument over what exactly constitutes "self-publication" if this became one of the speedy criteria, ao I would need significant indications of benefit to support. DES ^(talk) 15:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Why not the other side?Xx236 (talk) 08:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I think I'm missing something here. Could you elaborate? Peridon (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I would like to suggest and request that clarification is needed on WP:U5 in that a minimum time-period needs to be specified for a user page to exist without other contributions, before the user page can be tagged for speedy deletion. Today I saw a user page nominated under U5 where the user had made no edits to anything but the user page. The thing is, the user page had just been created within the preceeding 24 hours. Some of the edits to the user page were made by an IP user whose IP address traces to the same university where the user indicated that he or she works. I suspect that some of that IP user's other history can be attributed to the same editor, and the editor has decided to register an account (but I don't have a way to positively confirm that). I also suspect that he or she is still figuring out Wikipedia. To have one's brand-new user page tagged for speedy deletion is pretty bitey, and seems likely to chase away potential new editors. I think that if the criteria for a U5 deletion were to specify some minimum period of time that the userpage might exist before being speedily deleted, especially where it doesn't violate other specific policies, this might be helpful to prevent similar things from happening in the future. I don't have a specific period of time in mind and am looking to the community for ideas of what others feel is appropriate. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  06:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the WP:BITE needs to take priority, and in trying to stem the abuse by the few, the many insecure newbies should not be caught in the flak. we have to keep it simple- the edit-a-thon will teach the newcomer that they can write anything on the User Page. Leave it at least a calender month before the newbie is bot-sent a message explaining that due to inactivity elsewhere we assume they have lost interest and will be reclaiming the space and user name in 30 days time. Remember that in Europe the summer break is up to 3 months long, and the user may be without internet for all of that time, so a further test needs to be made to demonstrate that the newbie has had internet access during that time. Just a thought.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

An edit-a-thon should NOT teach that the user page is for 'anything' WP:USERPAGE. There are a lot of things that should NOT be there. CVs are a favourite - people seem to think that Wikipedia is a free webhost for CVs. The user page is strictly not for drafting articles, either. Those should go on subpages. I find it rather hard to believe that there are many university students that have no access to the internet outside term time in Europe. Ten years ago, maybe. Not now with all the smartphones, tablets and laptops that are around. I would point out that we can't 'reclaim' the user name of any user, Accounts cannot be deleted, but long unused names may be recycled by request of a user wanting the name. That takes rather more than a year of inactivity, let alone 30 days, and requires very little activity by the account when it was in use. Peridon (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I think you have proved my point- the sort of user we are attracting at an edit-a-thon is not limited to university students- I am are talking about retired professionals who may have taught at a university early in their career. Posting a CV is an abuse- go for it, but don't catch the newbie in the flak. Your comment about internet connections in Europe is fascinating, you have obviously never tried to get SFR put a phone line to a plot of land in rural Aveyron (they will only connect to a building- then there is a 4 month backlog (except in the 3 months of summer when nothing is done), or connect to a Livebox from a stone built guesthouse through 80cm stone walls. Over here time spent on line is limited to picking up Facebook posts and gmail- using it for a hobby, or to get a video link for the kids are off limits. The contention on a campsite line- a 4km piece of copper to a Livebox shared between 200 emplacements brings the connection speed down to that of a dial-up. It is so important to encourage everyone to edit- and not to assume that they have the a fibre connection that you find in a university city. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 22:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I suspect that there are two different situations that may fall under this rule. One is very blatant use of a userpage to e.g., post a copy of their CV, or advertise their pet project, etc. The other is where a user is posting a few external links to their website/internal links of things they're interested in. In the former case, it makes sense to speedy delete, but in the latter case I think something more like a WP:PROD process would be better than jumping to CSD. I think the title of U5, "Blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a web host", is sensible, but the description could probably do with some clarification to either only cover blatant abuse of userspace, or add a minimum time period for less clear abuse. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Is there really a need for a PROD like process for non-blatant misuses? These can already be put through MFD. -- Whpq (talk) 20:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Okay people, what you do is post a polite message at their user talk welcoming them and asking them to change the user page. It's not hard to do. Communication is permitted. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Template:db-author and non-free content. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 (talk) 15:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The is now discussion in progress at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Template:db-author and non-free content that I think will be of interest to editors who follow this page, and I would welcome additional views. I had been going to open such a discussion here, but since it is started elsewhere, I won't fragment it. The question, or at least the part of it relevant to this page, is the degree to which it is proper to use ((db-author)) to delete a screenshot image uploaded to be used under fair use. Please comment at the WT:NFC page. DES ^(talk) 20:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, DES, I posted about this with the #Template:db-author and non-free content section above. But your alert obviously gives more detail. Flyer22 (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

So you did, Flyer22. I missed it. No harm in a 2nd notice, I think. DES ^(talk) 19:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

To save me writing it all out again please see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 140#Default edit summary for G6 moves (permanent link). CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I added

Before placing this template or deleting a page under this criteria, read Wikipedia:User pages#Handling inappropriate content and Wikipedia:User pages#Deletion of user pages.

to WP:CSD#U5. Blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a web host.

I do not think this will be controversial, and a recent experience makes me think it is necessary. If others disagree, I'm open to discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not against this, but we should amend WP:UP#DELETE. The statement there that "Simple use as a personal web page is not in itself a speedy deletion criterion" is no longer true, following the adoption of U5, which was designed mainly to reduce the load at MfD of the flood of Facebook-style user-pages and fantasy reality-show pages by users not otherwise contributing to the encyclopedia. I need to think about what the appropriate new wording should be; perhaps add "...where the user is actively contributing to the encyclopedia (see WP:CSD#U5)"? I will make a proposal at WT:User pages. JohnCD (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

That is a separate topic worthy of separate consideration. Whether or not the change under discussion stands, WP:UP and the User-page sections of WP:CSD need to be coherent with each other. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I've modified WP:UP#DELETE to reflect both WP:CSD#U5 and custom and practice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I made a further modification, your edit slightly over-stated the case. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Presumably, "recent experience" refers to this discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

I reverted SemiDot's proposed addition of Template:G14. Duplication of an existing page to [WP:CSD]] because

• When non-controversial, it is covered by G6 or another existing criteria
• Cases that potentially controversial (see below) it should be discussed before being added as a CSD, or better yet, not added to the CSD page at all

The proposed text reads

If contributors go directly to a page and copies and pastes that content to a new page, this will result in a CSD deletion notice. This can cause confusion between the existing page an the newly created page. Note that duplicated pages are not allowed in all namespaces except for some user pages.

While I wholeheartedly agree with the intent of this CSD, there are too many cases where deleting the new copy is NOT the correct way to deal with the problem.

I see a few cases where this can be controversial (assuming no other deletion criteria apply):

• "A copy-and-paste move" where a WP:History merge is more appropriate than a deletion or deletion-and-move
• A "copy and paste move" where the OLD page has only one author (in which case the OLD page may be the one that should be deleted, although turning it into a WP:Redirect is a common way to handle these)
• Where either the old or new page has been changed since the copy-and-paste (a G6 deletion or redirect may be the proper response, but it should be case-by-case)
• Where the destination page is clearly or even possibly a sandbox
• Where the destination page is clearly or even possibly the starting point of a new template
• Where the destination page is in the user's own user space or that of someone he is collaborating with
• Where the destination page is clearly in a place typically used for drafts/non-final product work, such as [pagename]/rewrite or [pagename]/sandbox (common for templates) or something similar.

There may be others I can't think of right now, but you get the idea.

I run across 1, 2, and 4 quite frequently and, for these 3 at least, speedy-deleting the newer page is rarely the "right" answer.

For this reason, I recommend abandoning this proposal and continuing the existing practice of using G6 or other CSD criteria for clearly-non-controversial deletions and using other tools, like WP:Miscellany for deletion, WP:History merge, WP:Userfication, and other tools for those where deletion of the new page is not clearly uncontroversial. See also: Template:history merge. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• In article space this already falls under A10, which lists all the proper exemptions. For pages in non-article space I think there's very little problem - if someone copies and pastes a page to a non-mainspace page then it is almost certainly a draft and the cases which aren't don't come up nearly often enough to justify a separate CSD. I don't see any need for this. Hut 8.5 21:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
• I agree that there is no need for such a new criterion, and I oppose its creation. I have accordingly tagged Template:Db-g14 for speedy deletion, as a template which mis-states policy, since there is no such criterion at this time. If such a proposal gains consensus, a template will be needed, but it would require a significant rewrite from the current template in any case, i think. DES ^(talk) 21:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

  I have modified that template so it no longer mis-states policy and removed the ((db-policy)) tag. My hope is that this discussion WP:SNOW-closes within a day or so in favor of keeping the status quo, at which time the new template can be ((db-g6))'d. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I already zapped it. There is no criterion G14. If through some insane turn of events this turns around and it is approved it can be easily recreated. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose with a side of fish The person adding this needs a good trouting for doing something so silly. The rule as written is replete with of existing criteria, very poorly worded, and was not discussed before being added. One person cannot just make up new policies and expect everyone else to begin following them. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
• Information The template has been speedy-deleted (over my objections - I wanted to wait a day or so). Unless there is any argument in favor of the proposal, I think we can declare this horse dead. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
• comment if anyone wants to propose a new CSD along those lines he or she can do so. A new template isn't a proposal. DES ^(talk) 22:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
• Link to a previous proposal along these lines: Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 49#Proposed new G14, proposed by Begonia Brandbygeana at 10:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC):

  "I propose to merge A10, F1 and T3 into 1 CSD, simply duplicating pages."

  with a followup comment of

  "The point that I am proposing is that a duplicating page can be in any namespace, just more common in mainspace for example we don't have a criterion for portals."

  Like this one, the 2013 proposal went down in flames. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

this edit by Avicennasis no doubt seemed logical, but in my view was mistaken. The old method of creating AfC drafts used project space talk pages without any corresponding project space pages, and that was why such pages were an exception to g8 There are a few such pages still around, and they are still exceptions to g8. Draftspace pages, including most recent AfC pages, have draft talk pages in the normal way, and no exception to G8 is needed. Should a draft page be deleted, say as a copyvio, any corresponding talk page would be a proper subject for a G8 deletion. I have reverted this change. DES ^(talk) 16:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Valid point. I was thinking of new pages in this format, however, after re-reading it, the wording wasn't proper for it. Obviously we don't need to change the way with deal with existing AFC pages in project talkspace. Good revert. ^Avic_ennasis @ 00:00, 12 Tishrei 5776 / 00:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Noted in a current MfD discussion, someone says in relation to a DraftSpace page: "Delete, but I would have just CSD-A7'ed it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)". There seem to be other examples of similar views at MfD.

I see this as an acceptable, even good, undocumented practice. Should the several CSD:A criteria be considered to apply also to the Draft namespace? If in article space, they should be deleted without burdening the community with discussion with a foregone conclusion, then why not too for DraftSpace articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose Much of the point of draft space is that there is time to fix problems that would lead to prompt deletion in article space. In particular A1, A3, A7, and A9 should never apply to draft space. A10 might apply, but it is better done via discussion, because often a history merge would be better. No admin should use any of the a-criteria in draft space unless there is a new consensus to do so. The point is that there may not be a "forgone conclusion" after further edits. That is why draft space was created. DES ^(talk) 01:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• Much of the point of draft space is that there is time to fix problems? What if the wording were that CSD:A criteria can be applied to DraftSpace pages that are untouched for six months? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

If they are untouched for 6 moths they are already subject to G13, so such a change is redundant. And if they are being worked on, it is unwise. DES ^(talk) 01:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I would add that in my view there is no such thing as "good, undocumented practice" in regard to the speedy deletion criteria. If a page doesn't fit the letter of at least one criterion, there is no pre-established consensus to delete it, and either PROD or XfD must be used instead. DES ^(talk) 01:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• Frankly, G13 should have been widened to apply to all drafts regardless of AfC template. In which case that proposal would have no effect. The main things that need to be CSD'd in draft space, and not already covered by G criteria, are duplicates, gratuitously non-notable subjects, primary schools for example, and made up nonsense like 'limmy is my pet chuaua. he is cool' --ℕ ℱ 01:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

That was most recently proposed at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 56#G13 not so very long ago, not for the first time. It didn't get consensus then, perhaps it would now, who knows. DES ^(talk) 02:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Undocumented deletion practices should either become documented or curtailed.

I think G13 should be applicable to everything in DraftSpace regardless of the presence of the AFC template, but it must not apply to userspace pages without the AFC template. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose that is not an acceptable practice, but likely just shows ignorance by the person who said it. We could talk about other drafts without the AFC template on it, but first we should determine if it is a problem or not. Is draft space full of garbage? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

DraftSpace is not full. I asked: Is DraftSpace succeeding at Wikipedia_talk:Drafts#Is_Draft_space_succeeding.3F. It seems that every day multiple pages from DraftSpace are moved to mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Is draftspace full of garbage? Well you don't have to look far to see rather a lot of stuff that doesn't have an AfC tag and has zero prospect of making an article - Draft:They we love, Draft:Jayne Torvill and Christopher Dean should be knighted by the Queen of the UK, Draft:R.N.F. (Street Gang) --ℕ ℱ 02:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - I'm sorry, I'm kind of new here, but isn't the entire point of draftspace (outside of its applications in the AfC process) to be a place for articles that are not ready for mainspace to hang out as they are developed? Why even have draftspace if it can be A7'd just like mainspace? Newbies need time as they learn to understand and fix problems with WP:CCS and WP:N, as well as the WP:V and style problems that often get articles improperly A7'd. Draftspace is not indexed by search engines and server space is beyond cheap. I just don't see any purpose of this proposal besides giving CSD taggers something to do in their free time. Can someone enlighten me? A2soup (talk) 03:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: I would favor modifying G13 to apply to everything in Draft: except obvious "project"-type pages (e.g. Draft:Thisisanexampledraft where that page is maintained by by the AFC WikiProject), with the proviso that the "start date" for all pages not already using the AFC template would be no sooner than the date the proposed change to G13 came into effect. In the meantime, the "bandaid fix" if you see garbage in Draft: is to slap an AFC template on it, decline it yourself, and sit back and wait 6 months and hope nobody edits it. Note: Any proposed change to G13 should be advertised to the AFC WikiProject, and any AFC-specific objections from them should be reason enough to push the "pause" button on any proposed change to G13. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
• The reason we have draft space is that articles which aren't suitable for mainspace can be made suitable for mainspace there. Allowing such pages to be speedily deleted under A7 etc defeats the point and the policy makes it clear that the A criteria only apply to mainspace. Drafts which are dead or which have zero chance of ever being suitable for mainspace should be dealt with through other mechanisms. Hut 8.5 06:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

As an editor who has some experience with Draft Space, AfC, CSD:G13, and the finessing of CSD rules I have some views:

1. CSD:G13, as it's written right now, applies only to pages that are either in the prefix Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/ or Draft: that have a ((AFC submission)) template on them that have not been edited in 6 months. There was a clarification question a while back as to if bot edits (or trivial edits) reset the clock on 6 month timer. As the author of the primary Bot that goes through to notify authors who are eligible for G13 and does the majority of nominations, I take the conservative viewpoint that G13 means zero edits (much in the same way that the template does not show the "This page is eligible for G13" sub-template).
2. The CSD:A series should not directly be applied to Drafts. End of line. I can see an argument for the CSD:A series being used as contributing evidence in a MfD discussion however there needs to be another fault with the page (Stale > 2 years, Blatant Advertising, WP:NOTWEBHOST, etc.) as Draft space is intended to be an incubator for editors to work colabberatively on improving something to get it to mainspace.
3. There have been multiple attempts to finesse G13 to apply to all Drafts and multiple suggestions to establish a procedural way of deleting drafts. All of these attempts have failed due to the "It doesn't harm anybody to do this".
4. Looking at the active MfD nominations I'm seeing some draft pages that could be disposed with by a new CSD rule, but it needs to be an unequivical deletion.
5. Rather than operating on a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS of CSD, I'd like to suggest a formal RfC with adverts to Wikiproject:Articles for Creation and Wikipedia talk:Drafts that proposes the new CSD rule.

For these reasons applying the CSD:A series directly to drafts is a non-starter for me. Hasteur (talk) 13:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose The A criteria should not apply to AfC, Draft or User spaces. Even A2 - the poster might be going to translate it, and it's not doing any harm sitting there out of article space. The G criteria apply anywhere, and they take care of the things needing sudden death. Peridon (talk) 14:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. The G-series criteria are sufficient to deal with any problematic pages in draftspace requiring immediate deletion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
• Clearly, there is consensus that the A criteria do not apply to DrafSpace. I have adjusted the thread title to reflect this, it will benefit linking to this thread. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, for similar reasons; but the suggestion that "G13 should have been widened to apply to all drafts regardless of AfC template" is a good one, and we should do that. DGG ( talk ) 00:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I've been dealing with a lot of article tagging and deleting recently. What I keep running into are non-notable films. From what I can tell, most of these are home-made films (maybe using camera phones), incorporating friends as actors and hosted on YouTube. The most ambitious of these "filmmakers" has created an IMDb page for their films but they are clearly non-notable and have no reliable sourcing. There is an A7 classification for non-notable bands (Db-band) such as Db-film and I wondering if there could be a similar categorization on Twinkle (which is the tool I use) for films that are not notable. Included in that might be non-notable films that are hosted on YouTube although I realize that there are some notable films that are hosted on that website.
Ordinarily, I don't make suggestions for policy changes or adjustments but I keep running into these high school age filmmakers who write, produce and direct their home movies and who want to have a Wikipedia page about their film. I imagine this trend will continue as long as movie-making now just requires a mobile device with video recording capabilities. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• RFC on comparable proposal last month failed. (Actually, it was closed only a few hours before you posted, after being moribund for a couple weeks). PROD works just fine for stuff like this. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
• That was Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 56#RfC: No indication of importance (films). See my views there DES ^(talk) 20:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
• I recommend you give PROD a chance but if you are seeing a lot of them challenged or un-deleted and later falling to AFD, then propose a special PROD, such as

PROD-no-sources-that-demonstrate-notability (creative works)

that would, like WP:BLPPROD, require automatic deletion after a week if there were no sources at all which could be used to demonstrate the subject's WP:Notability. So if the only sources were non-independent sources, un-reliable sources, directory entries, and the like, it could be tagged and you would be assured that either someone would add a compliant source within a week or the page would disappear.

Unlike a regular PROD, but like BLPPROD-deletion, this new form of PROD should not be un-deleted directly back to the main encyclopedia just because someone asks. However, if PROD is getting the job done there's no need to add more bureaucracy. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• If you're talking about kids fooling around on youtube, not real films that just happen not to be notable, isn't 'web content' good enough? Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
• such a new version of PROD would require site-wide consensus, just as the creation of the original PROD and of BLPPROD did. An RFC at the Pump, say, or some similar high-traffic place, widely advertised. DES ^(talk) 22:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

  Yes, I just assumed everyone reading this knew that already. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

  I keep being surprised at what people don't know that perhaps they should, so i think it is safer to spell such things out. I would add that I think such a proposal is not likely to gain consensus, but I've been wrong about such things before. I would object to it unless a through WP:BEFORE effort was mandated for the nominator, with sanctions if it later proved that obvious sources had not been added. DES ^(talk) 23:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

  I would support a mandatory WP:BEFORE if WP:BLPPROD's currently-suggested WP:BEFORE became mandatory, and would only mildly object to it as being inconsistent with WP:BLPPROD if it wasn't (in other words, I'm neutral or close to it regarding the idea, but I object to an inconsistency between otherwise-similar inadequate-or-missing-reference-prods). However, if there is a need for a new PROD to deal with clearly-non-notable creative works (which is a brand-new and not-yet-decided-on question), I'd rather have one that has a mandatory WP:BEFORE than not have it at all. I would be careful about formal sanctions though - save those for obstinate offenders who clearly and repeatedly demonstrate a refusal to follow established practice. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• Uh, @Liz:, I think this is going to turn out to be a really good example of the reasons commenters here have stressed WP:BEFORE. I've taken a look at the film you PRODded today and I think you've jumped to the wrong conclusion. Gandana Mane is a mainstream film reviewed by the Times of India[1]; it looks like a notable subject to me. Yeah, the article is in pretty ghastly shape, as though an inexperienced editor had gotten hung up trying to create the infobox and stopped in frustration. Moving it to userspace or draftspace with a few helpful comments for the editor would probably have been a better decision. I won't DEPROD it yet in case too many folks disagree, despite being tempted to. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 03:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for looking over the article. I am posting more comments to User Talk Pages than I ever did before regarding article deletion questions but I didn't in this case. I hope the article is improved. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment As OR says above, YouTube is covered by A7 as web content, as are Facebook, Vimeo, Flickr (...Old Uncle Tom Cobley and all...). Other 'films' can be prodded with an ordinary prod or (preferably) taken to AfD. Peridon (talk) 09:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Is it permissible for any editor to remove ((Keep local)) tags on a file description page? I'm thinking of instances where the uploader has retired or is long-absent. Kelly ^hi! 12:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Surely not. The tag still applies and F8 still does not, even if the uploader has retired. BethNaught (talk) 12:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Which policy governt the usage of ((Keep local)) tag? I looket into its talk page, and see the statement: "This page is meant for discussing improvements to the template, not changes to the policies which lead to it. ". So which policies?

It is not an idle question, because people need to know when this tag can be removed. I do not subscribe the idea that it is eternal. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

At least some admins think that it is eternal - the tag is being used as a "keep" justification even when retention of the file is not otherwise defended at WP:FFD debates. So far as I know, this is the only policy page on which the tag is mentioned. I asked a question at WT:OWN (which would seem to apply). Kelly ^hi! 17:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to start a Request for Comment to invite some input but I'm unsure where to put it - should it be here, at WT:OWN, or on the talk page of ((Keep local))? Kelly ^hi! 17:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The template is only meant to enforce policy, not to define it. Therefore, the template talk page seems to be the wrong venue. One problem with the ((keep local)) template is that those who add the template often do not keep both versions of the file up to date when the file exists on both Wikipedia on Commons, meaning that one file becomes outdated when the other file is updated, resulting in extra administrative work for others. Another problem is that the file might only be deleted on one of the project if someone nominates the file for deletion as potentially unfree but overlooks that the file also is present on the other project, causing copyright issues.

Did you read Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 55#Proposal to narrow F8 reasons for not moving an image to Commons from earlier this year? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

What a horrific discussion. The "oppose" votes, as in the previous debates on template deletion, seem to center on the argument "it's easier to get away with not following copyright law" at Wikipedia. Kelly ^hi! 22:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@Stefan2: re: template is only meant to enforce policy. You failed to answer, which policy. If there is no policy, then begone with the template. It was created in 2007, when everything was just starting coming out of mess. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC) For example, what's so special in File:Mazda3.jpg to keep it local? ...OK, in this case the solution is to rename. The same with File:Straight.jpg, which is just a clueless titling, and hence, a non-justified slapping of the template onto it. I picked these two examples on semi-random (names caught my eye). And I see the template is abused. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Staszek Lem: The template is meant to enforce the speedy deletion policy. If the template appears on a file information page, the file is ineligible for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#F8. There doesn't seem to be any policy which tells when the template may be added or removed from a file, so I think that we should try to define a policy for this.

I propose that people only may add ((keep local)) to a file if a) the file is a heavily used file, or b) there is a substantial reason to believe that the file meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria but not those of Commons. If a user questions whether the template has been applied correctly, the user may raise the question at the appropriate venue^[which?]. If the consensus is to remove the template, the template may not be re-added to the file without first obtaining consensus for this. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

There's also the situation of files that file are only useful or relevant locally, (like images uploaded to show software glitches in Mediawiki), user profile images and so on.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Those files are technically in scope on Commons, and it seems to be a bad idea to prohibit deletion of our local copies if someone decides to put one of those files on Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, File:Mazda3.jpg and File:Straight.jpg do not contain ((keep local)) but ((ShadowsCommons)). That is a different template indicating that Wikipedia and Commons have different files under the same file name. This is an unwanted situation and the ((ShadowsCommons)) template acts as a request to resolve the filename conflict by renaming our file (or by deleting either file, if appropriate under the deletion policy of Wikipedia or Commons). The ((ShadowsCommons)) template may be removed when the filename conflict has been resolved. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• (re: (b): AFAIK the only difference is that wp allows fair use. If an image is non-free, there is no conflict. If an image is free, what difference is in the inclusion criteria? IMO our criteria is stricter with respect to garbage than commons. If I am wrong, then the policy must clearly spell it. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Commons requires files to be free in both the United States and the source country whereas Wikipedia drops the source country requirement. See for example ((PD-US-1923-abroad)), ((PD-ineligible-USonly)) and ((FoP-USonly)). --Stefan2 (talk) 01:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
• IMO the policy must encourage resolving conflicts with Commons by image renaming. I find it improper that some image from Commons is blocked in wikipedia. In case of renaming I'd suggest to use a disambig suffix "(wikipedia only)", possibly plus template ((do not move to commons)) with parameter "incommons=filename" ("reason=" will work just fine as well). This would be much more flexible and and will allow us to deprecate "keep local". Staszek Lem (talk) 00:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • There are already rules for resolving filename conflicts, see WP:FNC#9. There are also users who are actively helping with resolving filename conflicts. However, this is out of scope for this discussion and unrelated to the ((keep local)) template. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Question Which policy was User:Explicit applying when declining the FFD nominations? The WP:CSD policy says that files with ((Keep local)) can't be speedily deleted under criterion F8, but User:Kelly didn't attempt to speedily delete the files. The WP:CSD policy doesn't apply to deletion discussions, and I can't find any policy for deletion discussions which even mentions the ((Keep local)) template. There is nothing at WP:DP as far as I can see, and the instructions at WP:FFD are silent on the matter. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

There has been way too much contention revolving around ((Keep local)) and the deletions that transpire despite it being placed on file pages. There has been a real crusade against the template, it being nominated for deletion three separate times, all resulting in keep. There is no evidence that consensus has changed as to how to utilize the template six years after the initial deletion discussion. This is not an issue of WP:OWN; the uploaders are not restricting the use or alteration of their work because the issue deals with deletion of local files, not the content of the files.

I'm also not understanding how an FFD nomination is suddenly grounds to circumvent a criteria for deletion a file simply does not meet. A file tagged with the aforementioned template is not eligible for deletion under F8, so a deletion discussion citing the first point of F8, while ignoring the third, doesn't change matters. Ultimately, the users seeking deletion have become overly bureaucratic on enforcing the rules. There is literally no benefit in deleting local files, but deletion can become a setup for a detriment. User:SlimVirgin, User:Spinningspark, and User:Alex Bakharev, among others, made a strong case for this in the second deletion discussion of the template.

If consensus on the matter changes—or more accurately, a solid one is formed—then I will have no problem abiding by this. However, the current state on the issue simply does not justify the deletion of the tagged files. — ξ^xplicit 18:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• The criteria for deletion that the files meet is WP:NOTWEBHOST, particularly if unused. Kelly ^hi! 21:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Just how many times are the people who want this template gone going to keep bringing this up? I have lost count of how many debates there have been. I get the impression they will keep nagging at it until it is gone. So the tactic now seems to be to attack it in increments. As xplicit says, this is just bureaucracy. There is no justification for this at all. The copyright argument has no merit, copyright problems are just as likely to be missed on Commons as they are here. The argument that the two versions might not stay in sync also does not hold water. That is actually one good reason for holding a local copy - files sometimes get changed to suite another wiki making them unsuitable for en. A case in point is File:Ohm's law triangle.svg which has a "V" at the apex, but most European countries would want to write "U", and this has been an issue in the files history. As for the specific suggestion, the local copy is not just for the benefit of the file creator. I have examples of files that have been incorrectly deleted or altered on Commons from retired editors and missed here because no one is watchlisting Commons. In fact, it was issues with such files that first prompted me to start tagging my own files. Yes, I can watchlist Commons, but many of us are not as active there as on WP and we shouldn't be forced to be so. Yes, problems can happen on WP too, but they are more easily spotted and quicker and easier to deal with when they do happen. Why force people to to unnecessarily find their way around Commons' procedures? SpinningSpark 19:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem with copyvios is not so much a difference between Wikipedia and Commons but that people searching for copyvios need to tag the file as such on both projects. If the file appears on two projects, there is a risk that the tagging user won't notice this and therefore only tags it for deletion on one of the projects.

If someone tries to overwrite a file to change the purpose (for example by changing the language of File:Ohm's law triangle.svg), then this should just be reverted – different language versions of the file should be uploaded under different names. The problem is that people sometimes make minor improvements to a picture but only make these improvements available to one project, and then the users who added ((keep local)) won't bother keeping the files synchronised, thus creating extra administrative trouble for others. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• I put ((keep local)) on my uploads and so will oppose any attempt to subvert this. Andrew D. (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Nobody's asking to delete the template. I'm just asking for clarification on then the tag can be removed from a file.Kelly ^hi! 06:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• Rather than trying to think up reasons for removing the tag, a more helpful and productive approach would be to address the problems that lead people to want to use the tag in the first place. I suspect that usage would largely fall away if files in an article were automatially watchlisted when a mainspace page is watchlisted, in much the same was as talk pages are automatically watchlisted. But since most Wikipedia files are on Commons that would probably need global watchlists to be implemented first. SpinningSpark 09:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The problem with watchlists applies to both local and Commons files: people who edit an article might not notice that a file has been nominated for deletion. In the past, there was a bot which placed a notification on the article talk page when a file was tagged for deletion. Maybe it would be a good idea to create a new bot for this purpose. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• • It is not just deletion that is an issue. Watchers need to know if the article has been messed with in any way at all. Making a change to an image can have a drastic effect on an article. Currently, the only way to deal with this is to watchlist every image individually. That is a major pain. Having to maintain a Commons watchlist as well, and regularly service it, is adding unnecessary complications to an already difficult problem. SpinningSpark 12:05, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• What about unused files? WP:NOTWEBHOST says unused files will be deleted. Kelly ^hi! 05:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

If the Commons had a template called

• "[[:Commons:Template:Don't delete from Commons if in use]]"

which meant any file that would otherwise be deleted from the Commons would, by policy, be copied to each Wikimedia project in which it was currently used prior to being deleted from the Commons, and the English and other Wikipedias had a template called

• "[[Template:Add [[:Commons:Template:Don't delete from Commons if in use]] if copied to the Commons]]",

would that reduce the need for the "keep local" template? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? We have a failed push to castrate keeplocal just above this discussion. (And that is itself forum shopping, as there was just another discussion that was a failed push to castrate keeplocal.)--Elvey^(t•c) 03:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, there seems to be a small group of folks that frequent Commons trying to undermine ((Keep local)). If they like Commons so much, maybe their time would be better served there instead of trying to force their ideologies on this project... —Locke Cole • t • c 01:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

There is also an potential RFC at File talk:Geraldine F. "Geri" Thompson.jpg. But we need to keep the discussion in one place. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

That talk page is only about that specific file. An RFC there can in my opinion only determine whether there is consensus for tagging that specific file with ((keep local)) but not whether there is consensus to tag other files with ((keep local)). The problem is that there does not seem to be any policy saying when the ((keep local)) template may be added or deleted, so it would be nice to have that question clarified since it affects the CSD policy which says that files with the template are ineligible for speedy deletion under criterion F8. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The primary justification for a keep local tag is that the image appears in one or more articles being watchlisted. The keep local tag should only be removed if all editors watchlisting those pages agree that it should be removed. SpinningSpark 13:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: I don't understand the watchlist connection. If I'm watchlisting article X that includes file :en:File:Y, I won't be notified if file Y is changed or if it is marked for deletion any more than if it includes file :Commons:File:Y. Yes, I can watchlist :en:File:Y but I can also watchlist :Commons:File:Y and in both cases, I can set my preferences to send me an email when a page on my watchlist changes. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

It is not possible to ask everyone who is watchlisting an article for permission because other people's watchlists are confidential and aren't accessible for other people.

What about files which are not in use in an article? In that case, there are no editors watchlisting articles in which the file is used. There's currently a request at WP:REFUND#File:Casey Anthony.jpeg to undelete a file which is not currently in use anywhere. WP:NOTHOST suggests that we should delete unused files. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Won't speak to the specific example you cite, but as far as WP:NOTHOST goes, it gives a bit of latitude as far as "are used (or will be used)" (emphasis added). Presumably if someone is requesting an image to be undeleted, it is for the purpose of using the image in an article or other appropriate place.

What's troubling to me is that a contributors wishes (in as much as we allow such things here, WP:OWN being a thing and all) seem to be under attack. If the image is licensed correctly on this project and is, or has the potential to be, used in an article, why the uproar just because the file also exists on Commons? —Locke Cole • t • c 22:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Stefan2, of course I know that watchlists are confidential, but the fact that a page is being watched by someone is not. SpinningSpark 23:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Per comments by Stefan2, I feel that this should be amended to say that file redirect removal doesn't qualify.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• There are currently several discussions about this at numerous places. Some of the followers of this talk page might not normally follow discussions at other places, so I'm linking to the other discussions I am aware of and pinging those who appear in any of the discussions:

1. User talk:Sphilbrick#File redirects and the section "#G6 on File Redirects" later on the same page, involving User:Sphilbrick, User:Sfan00 IMG and me, from where all of the other discussions started.
2. User talk:Sfan00 IMG#File redirects and the following section on the same page, involving User:Sfan00 IMG, User:Sphilbrick, User:Widr and me.
3. User talk:Stefan2#File redirects, involving User:Sfan00 IMG and me.
4. WP:AN#Need an admin, involving User:Sfan00 IMG, User:HighInBC, User:Sphilbrick, User:BethNaught and User:Widr.

It seems that you are confused about what to do with file redirects. WP:FMV#File redirects tells that a redirect normally should be left when a file is moved. WP:R only mentions file redirects at one place, quoting a user who thinks that deletion of file redirects is 'extremely user-hostile and makes the project less useful'. Last year, there was a short discussion on this talk page where User:Steel1943 proposed creating a speedy deletion criterion for unused file redirects, but the proposal received opposition from User:Davidwr and User:Thryduulf. Given this, I think that it is clear that unused file redirects shouldn't be speedily deleted on the basis that they are unused file redirects.

In one of today's discussions, I mentioned Special:PermanentLink/530592326 (an old revision of the article ...And So It Goes) which is currently broken because the old article revision depends on a redirect which has now been deleted. I think that it is a bad idea to delete file redirects as this creates unnecessary red links in old article revisions. Files are like templates, and you get the same problem with broken old revisions if template redirects are deleted.

In some of the discussions, User:Sfan00 IMG mentions the special situation where Wikipedia has a local file which hides a different file with the same name on Commons. 'Different' means that the SHA1 checksum differs – some of the files are in fact almost identical. There are currently about 3800 of these files on the English-language Wikipedia, and we are several users who are trying to solve these conflicts. If the outcome of the filename conflict resolution is that the local file is to be moved, it is not possible to leave a redirect as leaving a redirect means that the file on Commons remains hidden, so in these cases, it is necessary to delete any redirects created. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Stefan2: How do you work out that number 3800? Is there a database report I'm unaware of? Thanks, BethNaught (talk) 21:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I added the number of untagged files (3148 as of one hour ago) to the number of tagged files (currently 503). So the number was a little bit too high. I'm going through the untagged files by solving some of them and adding ((ShadowsCommons)) to the rest. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

But I mean, how do you find the 3148? Is there a list somewhere? BethNaught (talk) 22:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

See quarry:query/950. But consider starting with the tagged files first. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

There are some file redirects that will be harmful to keep (for various reasons; some of which will be covered by other speedy criteria) but many (probably the majority) do not have these issues, and it's always worth remembering that "whatlinkshere" and the like show only local pages that link to the file at the moment potentially missing many uses. Accordingly speedy deleting a file redirect simply because it appears to be unused is not appropriate - and absolutely not per the G6 criterion. Thryduulf (talk) 19:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Say what?

Could someone please start at the beginning? Is there a proposal here? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• The proposal is to add text to the G6 criterion to say that it does not apply to file redirects created by moving a file. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • G6 never applies to redirects created by moves unless it's an obvious mistake (like Wikipedia:File:Example.jpg). There shouldn't be any reason to add this text. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
• Note: I could only support this as long as the addition to the criterion would not hinder the ability/need to delete these redirects after a file is moved per WP:FNC#9 ... which is reason enough to oppose allowing this addition to apply to all redirects in the file namespace. (FNC#9 represents a reason to rename files if the file name has the same name as a different file in Wikimedia Commons.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • About WP:FNC#9, see also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 17#File:Mañana.jpg. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
• Sounds like what we might need is R4:File redirects blocking a file on Commons. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Oiyarbepsy: Notwithstanding I believe that redirects in the "File:" namespace that block Commons images should already have a criterion for speedy deletion (referring to your edit notice), (My apologies Oiyarbepsy, I read the wrong edit notice.) I agree that if G6 cannot specifically address such a situation, a new speedy deletion criterion needs to be created for these redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 02:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• A file redirect blocking a file-move should easily qualify as G6, as would any other non-controversial purely technical removal of a redirect in File: space. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I would assume that if the page creator admits a page is a hoax then it qualifies as blatant hoax. Just want to be sure, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

As long as it is the same person, the person understands what he is saying, it is not an article about a hoax. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The #AfC exceptions discussion above got me thinking about contested speedy-deletion.

As an alternative to speedy deletion, Administrators should seriously consider editing out the problematic text or reverting to a previous revision if doing so would not result in a page that, itself, would be eligible for speedy-deletion. If Criteria for redaction apply (attack pages, copyright violations, etc.), use Wikipedia:Revision deletion and/or the oversight process to remove the problematic material.

This is especially true if the deletion is contested by an editor who has not abused Wikipedia so much that WP:Assume good faith no longer applies.

Note: This mostly applies in project-space, article drafts, and discussion pages. It is rare that this would be used in "article" space except where the topic meets WP:N and the page could be reverted, stubbed, or otherwise fixed or where it could be quickly replaced with a rewritten article.

For copyright violations which can be fixed, ordinary editors should consider fixing the problem and applying ((Copyvio-revdel)) or following the procedures at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. For seemingly-unfixable copyright violations outside of the main encyclopedia, ordinary editors should consider gutting or even blanking the page entirely and and using ((Copyvio-revdel)) instead of slapping a ((db-copyvio)) template on it.

Do these seem like good ideas? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that's pretty much what I did at Bex Marshall (except as an admin I can revdel directly of course) - is that what you were thinking of? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, just that we need to agree that this should be the preferred way of doing things then update the instructions accordingly. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Is an app not web content? They are available online and typically need some degree of internet communication to function. I've gotten conflicting opinions on this. I'm guessing this may have been discussed before; links to a prior discussion would be appreciated. 331dot (talk) 11:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

• I would say no. An app is a program that runs on a local device. It may be obtained through the web, but then so may an eBook, or indeed a vacuum cleaner. It may engage in web access, but so does a browser, which is clearly not "Web content". The A7 provision for web content was intended to deal with the frequent creation of pages about web sites, often the creator's own site, and particularly often new web comics. If we have a similar proliferation of pages about new non-notable apps, a proposal to expand A7 or create a new criterion similar to A9 could be made. DES ^(talk) 12:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 54#Proposal: Include mobile apps without assertion of importance in A7 is a discussion from about 1 year ago where it is assumed that apps are not included in the current A7, and proposed to change that. The proposal did not achieve consensus. DES ^(talk) 12:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 37#Expansion of A7 is also a relevant discussion from several years ago where it is assumed by all that iPhone apps in particular are not "web content" subject to A7 as it then stood, but some propose an expansion of A7 to cover "software". The proposal did not pass. DES ^(talk) 12:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion from a year ago did not achieve consensus and had little participation. I think that it would be a good idea to start a new RfC and try to get more participation by announcing it in a few places.- MrX 13:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

It did not achieve consensus on a new proposal (which means the proposal failed). It did pretty clearly demonstrate consensus that mobile apps are not included in A7 without a new proposal passing. That was the question that 331dot asked above. You (or anyone) could make such a new proposal. Unless you have arguments that I haven't seen, i would expect to oppose it, for reasons similar to those listed in opposition in both linked discussions. DES ^(talk) 16:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

• By that argument, Firefox, Chrome, and Explorer would be "web content", wouldn't they? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
• Basically, if you use it on your machine, it doesn't come under A7. If you use it on their machine, it does. So, the website you get the app from is subject to A7, but the app isn't. This applies to games, too. If you download it and install it and play it at home, no to A7. If you play on a server belonging to someone else, against (or with) other people, yes to A7. Peridon (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
• Thank you all for your comments. 331dot (talk) 22:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Do we need a template like Template:Discuss before speedy-deleting this file for files such as File:Batsto Mansion with Fire Tower.jpg (see #Why use G5 for useful pictures? above)?

Perhaps something like

Please do not speedy-delete this file or nominate it for speedy deletion without reading (({this discussion))} first. This request is invalid in cases where policy requires immediate deletion. Editors and administrators have the discretion to ignore it in certain circumstances (see link to documentation page for template goes here for details).

"In certain circumstances" includes cases where a banned or blocked user placed the template, when the circumstances described in the discussion are not currently relevant to the reason the page is nominated, or where an attempt to communicate with the objecting editor has failed after a reasonable period of time (7 days seems reasonable - it's the same time the editor would have if the page were sent to WP:FfD).

The documentation would also give examples of when policy requires immediate deletion, such as WP:BLP violations or WP:OFFICE actions.

In the case of File:Batsto Mansion with Fire Tower.jpg, the "this discussion" would be a simple note on File talk:Batsto Mansion with Fire Tower.jpg#Please don't G5 this saying

I noticed that this image was created by a sockpuppet of a banned editor. However, the image is valuable enough to transwiki to the Commons and it is currently in use on List of New Jersey state parks, where its presence improves the article. Please do not delete it until it is moved to the Commons." User:Example (User talk:Example) 00:00 1 November 2015 (UTC)

followed by any comments made by other editors. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

As the person who wanted to save the picture above, I appreciate your idea, but I think that the list of your solutions above suffice. It's probably usually admins, anyway, who will find such things when they're going through Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, so one would hope they can do those steps. — Sebastian 07:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• No need for the disclaimers. It's not like reading the discussion will necessarily prevent deletion if it's warranted. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I doubt we need a template as it si not a particularly common occurence. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• Any admin considering deletion should look at the talk page of any page or image tagged for speedy deletion, particularly if ((hangon)) has been used. There any reasons to delay deletion or not delete can be listed. For the matter of that, any editor acting in good faith other than the page creator can simply remove a speedy deletion template if there is good reason to do so. So I don't see a need for a new, separate template. DES ^(talk) 14:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

One of the examples given for G6 is:

Deleting templates orphaned as the result of a consensus at WP:TfD

No comparable statement is given for any of the other types of deletion discussions. Shouldn't this be changed to something such as "Deleting pages for which a [[WP:XFD|deletion discussion]] resulted in consensus for deletion"? I don't see why we'd provide for deleting templates but not other pages in this fashion, especially since it's indeed rather common to tag pages of other namespaces for ((db-xfd)) when applicable. Nyttend (talk) 03:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• Agreed, no need to specifically list this example. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
• Articles and other pages are normally deleted by the discussion closer, as part of the close. Templates need to have their uses removed or subst'd (or replaced by some other preferred template) which can take quite a while after the close, h3ence there is a need to tag the template to indicate that it is ready for deletion. There shouldn't be much need for such tagging on other sorts of pages unless we start permitting Non-admin closes with delete results -- then there would be. DES ^(talk) 14:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• There was a long discussion here that closed in July to allow non-admins to close Templates for Discussion discussions and start the process of preparing the template for deletion. Allowing non-admin "close as delete + db-g6" for articles and other types of pages could be done but it would require a fresh WP:Request for comment. If it were restricted in some way - even if that restriction was as weak as "any non-involved editor may close the discussion, but any administrator may ban any editor from closing such discussions for good cause for a period of up to 1 year, with appeals to [some administrator noticeboard]" I would seriously consider supporting the idea. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:ArbCom-banned Leucosticte's articles. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I was wondering if it'd be a good idea to make AfC one of the exceptions to the "don't remove the tags on your own article" rule. I came across a recent draft article where it was G13'd, but there had been an edit by the draft's creator after the speedy tag was added. It wasn't noticed by the deleting admin, which is honestly a little understandable: many admins come across a lot of G13s at a time, so sometimes it's easy to miss something. There's not a huge-huge amount of error here that I'm aware of, but I think that it might be helpful in these circumstances if we allow the user to contest the deletion by removing the tags. The rationale behind this is that if they're actively contesting it then that would count. There also isn't an option for people to click a button and easily contest it. Given that many of the people who use AfC are new and/or inexperienced users, putting in something that says that someone can contest it by removing the tag would make this a bit easier and less confusing for them.

The only downfall is that someone could, presumably, continually remove the tags and indefinitely keep an article at AfC, but I don't see that being a huge issue and if this continually happens then this can always go through MfD or one of the other processes because at that point there may be other issues as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• Sounds like a good idea. G13 deletions can normally be contested at WP:REFUND, so contesting them by removing the template also looks valid. If an editor tries to keep rubbish forever, you could just take the matter to MfD, but I assue that this rarely will be needed. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with this - G13s were specifically designed for drafts that had been abandoned and left to rot. From my experience, the sort of people who remove deletion templates from drafts are the sort of people who are desperately trying to get a puff-piece accepted; in those cases, the usual scenario is to be declined 6-7 times for notability and / or referencing and then deleted via G11 anyway. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• If we get a good consensus for this, how would I go about changing the template? My experience with templates are mostly the basic things like author and film series templates. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support exemption for tags like G13 or G8 (db-author) for which the original creator could ask for and expect to receive a refund for or for tags that are falsely applied (e.g. bogus db-author tags). Support for other G-tags where the author fixes the problem (but would support revision-deletion where appropriate, e.g. blatant copyvio that was blanked by author as part of the tag removal - see ((Copyvio-revdel))). Support fixing the problem using editing and/or revision deletion instead of deletion and support NOT sanctioning or threatening to sanction the author for removing the speedy-deletion tag but instead giving him a kind reminder to make the edit himself before removing the tag. Strongly oppose allowing the author from removing the speedy-deletion tag if he is unwilling make the required changes or reverts (or has recently reverted) relevant changes made by other editors. Strongly oppose allowing the author to remove "unfixable" tags like legitimately-placed G4 (previous MfD), G5 (banned/blocked editors including topic-banned editors), some G6's (general maintenance), some G8's (dependent on nonexistent page), and G9 (office actions).

In other words, Treat such speedy-deletion-template removal as if it were a WP:Request for undeletion. If the page would be restored or restored but edited down and/or have revisions deleted, then the editor should be allowed to remove the template, otherwise, he should not. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Why would anyone ever use a tag for 'G9'? If the Wikimedia Foundation wants to delete a page, wouldn't the Foundation just delete it without tagging it with any template? I'm not even sure that G9 should be on this page in the first page. Wikipedia's policies are mostly meant for 'community actions' while 'office actions' are regulated by other rules. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

You are correct, G9 will almost never be there for more than a few seconds. There is a remote possibility that an admin acting on WMF's direction may put the G9 on the page right before he intends to delete it so that the last revision will have the deletion template on it, then his computer crashes or his internet connection dies before he can do the deletion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

G9 is mostly there so it can be listed in the deletion log, i think, but not every WMF employee has the admin bit, and such an employee might use a G9 tag while awaiting action by one who was also an admin. DES ^(talk) 16:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

• I have mixed views about this idea. In principal I agree with davidwr's suggestions above: If a WPREFUND would be allowed, there is no good reason to have the speedy tag on the page. But a deleting admin is supposed to check the conditions of the tag, not blindly accept it. If a good-faith editor/page creator uses ((hangon)) (as instructed) to explain any of the situations that davidwr describes above, and particularly if s/he then starts on any needed edits, no admin ought to delete in any case. How often do such improper speedy deletions occur? Do they justify making a fairly complex rule in place of a simple one? (by the way, a G4 is not "unfixable" either. If, as often happens, an AfD deletes for lack of sources, a recreation to which multiple new sources are promptly added isn't "substantially similar" and shouldn't be deleted under g4. I have declined a fair number of G4 tags on such grounds.) DES ^(talk) 16:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
• I hope you all don't mind me opining with respect to G13. Ideally G13 is supposed to be a soft delete in the same vein as PROD. If the author (or anybody else) removes the G13 nomination banner or indicates they're trying to rescue it, I'd consider that enough of effort that we should extend AGF and reset the 6 month clock on the page to give time for improvement. I would like to see ((AfC postpone G13)) applied to the drafts that end up in this case so that we can see how many times the page has been rescued from the chopping block (and start asking some blunt questions about dedication) if it reappears at REFUND/G13. Hasteur (talk) 15:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

Hi, need intervention in Vaikunda Perumal Temple (now Vaikunda Perumal Temple, Uthiramerur) - a speedy delete tag with "dup article" reason is placed without comparing articles. What was needed was a renaming and a disambig and not a delete. Thanks a lot in advance.Ssriram mt (talk) 14:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I removed the speedy-deletion template. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

KDS4444 made some changes to the style of the criteria. The main thrust was to change the first part of each criterion from a fragment to a complete sentence. I've since edited on top of KSDS4444's changes. Although I don't have strong objections to the changes, I don't necessarily endorse them, either. So, if someone chooses to back them out pending a discussion here, they are obviously free to back out my changes as well.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Though I hope other editors will like what I have done: I was following links from CSD nominations and as the links to these different criteria were all sentence fragments, I wanted to make them less confusing for new visitors. I think that we as experienced Wikipedia editors find it all too easy to forget what it was like when we first got here or how much struggle it was to understand not just the codes but the explanations given for the codes that seemed to be everywhere but didn't always make sense as many of them would begin as sentence fragments and we didn't realize that the whole sentence began a paragraph or two above were the link we followed had dropped us. I took some time (not insubstantial) to recraft these various criteria so that a newcomer would be able to stand on the surest footing possible once arriving. I did nothing to substantively change the criteria themselves, as that was far beyond my scope or abilities. But a little consistent editing for readability, that I could do and did. May it meet with broader approval. KDS4444^Talk 15:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

There's no need to revert them IMO. I like how you filled out the sentence fragments, and on the whole the relative pronouns are now clearer. I don't get why you changed "exclude" to "does not cover" but it's not a negative change. BethNaught (talk) 15:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks OK to me. I've taken out the colon after the 'General' general statement. It wasn't followed by a list within a sentence or a consequential clause. (Very minor nitpick here...) Peridon (talk) 16:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

In the face of thousands of nonsense invented words and terms used as redirects, we need to expand A11 to cover redirects or create a matching Obviously Invented reason for redirects. Legacypac (talk) 01:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• We already have the implausible redirects criteria. And the silly redirects are not a regular problem - they're pretty much all a single disruptive editor. We shouldn't make a criteria about something that only a single editor has done. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • There's a proposal at ANI to do this on a temporary basis just for the current problem. We have WP:G1 for patent nonsense (gibberish) and WP:R3 for recent implausible typos. One editor's clear nonsense is another's useful alternative spelling, which is why it's important to discuss these outside of the current unpleasantness. The volume of these that turn up at RfD is actually quite low normally, so there's no desperate need to expedite their deletion. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

What about unused "orphan" redirects? When nothing links to a redirect, it serve no purpose and just creates clutter. We should add "unused orphan" as another criteria for speedy deletion. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Like everything in ((R from typo))? T. Canens (talk) 05:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• We only know what things on Wikipedia links to redirects. If some other website links to them, we have no idea. Such redirects are often kept when discussed at redirects for discussion, so speedy deletion is out of the question. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• No to speedy. While it may not be used here, a lot of redirects exist because of the search engine here so people who make typos and the like get to the right page (including I believe google spidering those typo redirects). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I was wondering who I could speak to about the G11 speedy deletions at AfC. I've noticed that copyright speedies at AfD tend to blank the submission, which makes it more difficult for deleting admins to check for copyright violations because we have to pull up the page history and manually compare the entries. This isn't always a problem if the entry is particularly short, but sometimes the entry can be quite large and the copyvio might be a small portion of the entry. Blanking the page makes the duplication detector effectively useless. While we shouldn't rely only on this to check for copyvio, I've found it very helpful when it comes to locating the copyrighted material.

Is there anything that can be done about this? Is blanking the page really necessary, given that it can interfere with one of the tools used to detect copyvio? I also note that since this is at AfC, the copyrighted material isn't visible to the mainspace and most of the articles tagged in the mainspace for copyvio aren't blanked. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Is this new Twinkle behaviour? I've done G11 listings in the past with TW and the page has not automatically been blanked, so either that's changed or someone is manually blanking after the tag is posted. The only criterion I know of that TW blanks is G10 (attack pages), and rightly so, but G11 should stay up until the content is reviewed. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed in my sandbox just now that Twinkle doesn't automatically blank for G11 or G12 noms. Just to clarify, G11 is for spam, G12 is for copyvios. Someone must be manually blanking. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

If the page is marked as Copyvio in the AFC tool decline, by default the setting is to blank the page. Assuming the page is live, you can use Earwig's Copyvio Detector and plug in the revision ID to see how similar the content is. Hasteur (talk) 18:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

When the page is blanked, the AFC tool places a template with links to both Earwig's tool and, if a source was specified, the Duplication Detector tool. The AFC tool automatically makes these links use the last version before the page was blanked. No need to plug I the revision ID manually. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes I too would prefer that the page not be blanked for copyvios. As it does make checking much more difficult. In perhaps 5% of cases it is not a copyright violation (eg public domain source or Wikipedia clone), so these do need checking prior to speedy delete. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• It's something that comes up as an option when you're declining an article. If you decline it as a copyright violation then a number of tags will come up, one of which is an option to blank the submission and another to nominate it for speedy deletion. This box (along with the speedy nomination box) is automatically checked, so it's entirely possible for people to nominate and blank the submission without consciously making this decision. You can test this out on pretty much any AfC draft and see the box pop up if you select the decline option "cv". You can test it out on Draft:Michael Kibbe by selecting the criteria. You don't have to actually fully process the decline option to see the boxes, so you can test it out on this random AfC draft without worry that it'd muck up the draft itself. I basically just want to get the blanking removed as an option because it's more an annoyance than a boon when it comes to checking material. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't work in the reviewing side of AfC, but I've always wondered why the blanking was done when it usually isn't in article space (apart from that enormous bluish-greeny thing that suggests to me that someone is dealing with something so I don't have to...). Perhaps someone noticed the length of time it took for things in AfC to be dealt with... Things that definitely don't belong (like attack pages, which could last for years previously) are now sorted quickly. I'd be quite happy to see this go, or be made into a non-default option for cases considered extra serious - but even there, the content is accessible to anyone who knows what 'History' is for. BTW can I suggest changing the G11 in the title of this thread to G12? And the 'AfD' mention to 'AfC' too. Peridon (talk) 12:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I changed the header to G12 as that's copyright violations. It is AFC though. If that's a Twinkle issue, then WP:TWINKLE has a bug reports section. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Is 'Special' a namespace within the meaning of WP:R2? That is, is List of Major League Baseball teams by payroll in 2010 an invalid redirect? --Stefan2 (talk) 19:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Stefan2: In most cases, yes. However, this specific redirect is a ((R from move)) created when the page was moved to List of Major League Baseball teams by payroll in 2012 in June 2015. In fact, since List of Major League Baseball teams by payroll in 2011 exists, I would think that the move was improper since the List of Major League Baseball teams by payroll in 2012's edit history contains a completely different subject (List of Major League Baseball teams by payroll in 2010) and needs to have its attribution and content split. Steel1943 (talk) 19:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes this is more complex, and just deleting would be controversial. A history split may be in order here instead. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 19:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hm, yes, Natg 19 moved the page from 2010 to 2012 after it was updated to the 2012 figures, requested a history split, but never got anyone to do it. Despite screwing it up a few times I think I've managed to sort it out; 2010 has all the history up to when the 2012 data was added, and 2012 has the rest of it, with an attribution template on the talk page since I couldn't find a way to duplicate the histories. Sam Walton (talk) 20:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, User talk:Samwalton9! I wasn't sure how to do the update, so I did the redirect to the edit before the figures were updated, but it looks good now. Natg 19 (talk) 20:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

This picture was tagged for speedy deletion with the rationale "This file may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a page created by a banned or blocked user (ColonelHenry – SPI confirmed suspected) in violation of his ban or block, with no substantial edits by others. See CSD G5."

I was one of the people who set ut CSD, and it was never intended to to delete images like this. This is clearly a historical landmark, and a quick internet search confirms that it's indeed the described building. What reason is there to speedily delete it? — Sebastian 07:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

See WP:BMB. Banned editors often try to game the system by making constructive edits in evasion of the ban, to prove that they can't be banned or create this kind of dilemma for editors. If someone has been banned then we've made the decision that the negatives of their participation here outweigh the positives, and that includes uploading useful images. Hut 8.5 10:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

One could download such an image, and re-upload under a new name. The creator, who may be the banned user, would still have to be credited, of course, but not listed in the page history. Personally I don't really approve of G5 or of the WP:DENY philosophy behind it. But WP:BMB is policy, and G5 has consensus, and i will abide by them. DES ^(talk) 13:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I respect your position, and I guess I'll adopt it, too. Thanks to everyone for the explanations! — Sebastian 07:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, G5s are by far the slowest members of CAT:CSD to get deleted, because support for thoughtless deletion of everything is not that strong. WilyD 10:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• It's nothing to do with the image per se. Yes, it's a good pic of a valid subject - but accept it and you remove any point from banning and blocking. If you can come up with a way of allowing only good edits (or good pics) from someone who for one reason or another (or several dozen...) has been officially labelled persona non grata here, then it can be discussed in an appropriate location. The only way I can see would be to have every edit scrutinised by an appointed and trusted editor before it was officially posted. I'm not volunteering for the job - would you? Sometimes a banned or blocked editor can be rehabilitated - but violating their block doesn't bode well. Sound editing elsewhere with no problems can be of value in a reappraisal. I'm assuming that the image wasn't uploaded to Commons by someone who isn't banned or blocked there. That's a different kettle of fish altogether. Peridon (talk) 18:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Re "would you?". That is already part of my job as an admin. When I go through Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, I have to check each deletion request. ("Scrutinize" is a bit too strong.) That's exactly how I saw that this is a useful picture. — Sebastian 07:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm meaning every edit made by a banned or blocked user as part of rehab. I too look at Cat:CSD but I don't open every one there. I do check the ones I open. Peridon (talk) 09:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems we agree Wikipedia already has a mechanism in place to check edits. Why are you suggesting a separate checking process for this particular area? — Sebastian 18:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• The fact that someone has been banned from contributing to Wikipedia overrides the usefulness of the edit, because they are not supposed to be editing, period. If they are not banned there, they should upload the image directly to Commons instead. On a side note, it seems as if that the user in this particular case is disputing the accusation that they are a sockpuppet. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
• For free content such as this that is better suited for the Commons, transwiki to the Commons would be appropriate assuming the uploader wasn't banned on the Commons as of the original upload date or that Commons does not have something similar to :en's ((db-g5)). For non-free content that is still easily accessible (i.e. not in an obscure book or deadlinked web site), delete the page and have an arbitrary editor re-create the page de novo using an image from an available source, without giving any credit to the original uploader (WP:DENY at its finest - we keep the content but don't credit the sockpuppet because there's no original creative content that needs to be credited to him). Non-free content that cannot easily be re-uploaded and free content that even the Commons doesn't want is a more difficult issue. If it's not used in an article and doesn't need to be kept for administrative or other good purposes, and the Commons doesn't want it, delete it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

  Nice suggestions! This picture is clearly better suited for Commons. By "transwiki", you mean just downloading it from here and uploading it there, or is there a process for that? There seems to be no banning at Commons, at least it's not listed at c:Commons:Policies and guidelines. — Sebastian 07:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

  See Help:Transwiki. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

  Oh, of course, thanks, David! Well, I now already just re-uploaded the file. Do you see any problem with that? — Sebastian 18:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment It seems that there has now been two discussions at ANI regarding restoration of G5 content and this one regarding images. Is this a request for a change to the wording of G5? If so, then this seems appropriate. Otherwise is this a request for being an IAR exemption (an unspoken rule about when to use and when not to use G5)? If so, then I have to object so we have some idea of where these discussions should be. It needs to be systematic not ad hoc. I've proposed WP:DRV as this seems like just another example of an appeal of a speedy deletion and DRV will be a better place to formulate rules and precedents than using ANI and this page. DRV lets us argue it each article or work by piece or by user or whatever, it's been around for long enough and works better than this (and frankly, it's pretty slow right now so it can handle the volume the way this single talk page can't). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

  This question was simply a question, not an RFC. It has been answered sufficiently. A slight wording change to avoid such questions in the future might make sense, but it seems more effort than it could save. Instead of the vague references to ANI, could you please link to the specific discussions? — Sebastian 18:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

  My view is that instead of a change in G5 wording, and as a general principle, we can advocate that if someone thinks a picture is worth keeping anyways, we suggest a place for a discussion on the individual pictures. It would be more sensible to me to do it that way than "admins should decide on their own if a picture is useful" as there are likely to be differences of opinion on that. And the prior discussions were regardless articles here and currently here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

  Thank you, Ricky, for your reply and for providing the links. The second one is now archived here. It's interesting that both of them, while on the face of it the same situation, got resolved differently. As for the present topic, I think that pictures, at least photographs, differ significantly from articles in that they are less vulnerable to any tendentious intent the banned editor may have. (They either depict what their title says, or not.) Therefore, it is usually appropriate for the assessment being done by a single person. Of course, if the person who decided not to delete made a mistake, discussion is needed, but that doesn't require a special place, the user talk page will do just fine. — Sebastian 19:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

  I think Sebastian, as zzuuzz points out, it depends on why the person got banned. So a person banned for copyright violations violating it with a new sock doing the same thing should have their content deleted under G5. A person banned for incivility wouldn't have their content deleted that way because it's not a G5 situation. I'm still of the view that we defer to admins on the G5 deletion and if it's wrongly deleted, the proper remedy is a discussion at DRV to revert and restore the images. The user talk page of the admin is fine but we don't have a mechanism if the admin disagrees other than another admin IARing it (while not calling it wheel warring) and possibly a question of whether the IAR is appropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

  Copyright is unlikely to be an issue in a case of a self-shot image, as the one in this section. Maybe someone else pwns the picture and now the uploader can gloat about having lied successfully. But do we really have to worry about that? If the rightful owner complains, we can still take it down with very little effort. If the nominator thinks a picture is likely a copyright violation, then they should write so in the hatnote; that would be the smoothest and safest process. As for whether to use a talk page or DRV; you are right that many, if not most people would use DRV. I for one see DRV as just another drama board that is very costly for the community. I find it always more polite, efficient and WP:AGF to just talk with the person you disagree with before involving a whole bunch of people. E.g., if, after I restored the above image (and we didn't have this discussion already), you had left me a short note that you have reason to think it was taken by someone else and is therefore a copyvio, I would have had no problem removing it. — Sebastian 20:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

  I think Sebastian, this header implies you are arguing the general point not this particular image. I have zero opinions about this particular image or this particular banned user. I'm debating how images should be handled: there are WP:FFD discussions about any image but we have G5 (and other CSD criteria) which allow for deletion without those discussions. If you think we should change G5 to only articles and exclude images, that's a separate suggestion that you can propose but then arguments about images from banned users would flood Files for Discussion. That's what's going on with Neelix and his redirects and RFD). If you think G5 should require a notice timeperiod (seven days perhaps) as we do for other copyright issues with images, that's another perspective. Else, my view is while I'm certain that most people don't know what DRV is, I expect people to go to the admin's page, ask why it was deleted and absent the deleting admin overturning the deletion, I'd prefer we have a place for them to go which shouldn't be begging other admins to overturn it or starting discussions like this here or going to ANI or wherever else they want to argue it. I realize that I'm a lone dissenter here arguing a broader point no one really cares about but I am because we keep getting random assorted discussions without any coherent way to figure out a plan. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:18, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

  You're not that "lone", Ricky. We are largely in agreement: Some pictures from banned users should be deleted, and some shouldn't, and the one here is an example for the latter. Where we differ is in our experience; you apparently have made some unpleasant experiences with deletion which I haven't made. So I don't see a need for any changes; while I am not happy with the rules as they stand, I can live with them. — Sebastian 17:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• In quite a lot of cases users get banned for persistently violating copyrights, in addition to the deception you often see with violating bans and other policies. It is often safer to simply dismiss, or at least distrust, the information provided by the banned user. Saying they are good additions requires a high degree of vigilance. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• Note that any user in good standing can "take responsibility" for a banned user's edit or upload (an admin if it was deleted); however, in many cases this is inadvisable, as the edit or upload may, in fact, have the same issue as the reason for the ban. G5 doesn't mean that all pages created by banned users must be deleted, only that an admin may delete it on sight, without checking if it's god or bad. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to participate in Template talk:Category redirect#Change to include a speedy tag when target doesn't exist?. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Following this discussion, I think we need to include something about reversing G5. We have above and under this discussion and this discussion, the policy can probably be summarized as "Excluding official WMF decisions, admins are encouraged to restore good content provided that they have independently reviewed. Concerns about any such restoration can be taken to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard for review." I have a different viewpoint but I'd rather we have whatever the consensus is put in writing rather than the unspoken rule that we currently. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• I'll ping everyone from the last discussion as well: @Kevin Gorman, LjL, Opabinia regalis, Dennis Brown, and SebastianHelm: -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• I support G5 for documented banned paid editing firms if there's a solid reason to believe that G5ing articles from that group will damage that group's ability to subvert Wikipedia's integrity in the future. In cases like this, where the editing was solid (the GA's were checked by multiple people, and I spot checked many of the rest,) I don't necessarily support G5 deletion of good content. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

  How many such cases do we have? Is there a list for them? I see that as a separate rule or even process, not as a direct application of G5. That would be similar to the "official WMF decisions", which, if I understand correctly, are G9, anyway. — Sebastian 03:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Because of how hard they are to track and how little incentive we have to track them, I think... two? And one of those despite happening more than a year ago just got raised against me in an arbcom case, heh. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Also, since there's no requirement that they be discussed before restoration, it's only brought up if the admin chooses to bring it up. I could in theory go around restoring pages deleted under AFD but they can be deleted again and we could continue but everyone would say take it to DRV. We do nothing like that in this case. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Speaking in the generic rather than this case: Reverting a G5 isn't a good way to deal with them because that sets up a wheel war potential for an article that is a copyright infringing concern, or uses false sources as well. Reverting like this can be disruptive. A reverting admin should talk to the deleting admin beforehand if he wants to revert a G5 simply because he may not know about copyright or other issues that caused the deletion. The deleting admin should stop deleting any further articles (assuming there are multiples) except for obvious copyright infringing articles, and discuss first in good faith, and then let WP:AN settle it if there is a stalemate. I still think we shouldn't be slavish to G5 either. Deleting articles from socks is supposed to deter them, and sounds good in theory, but in practice hasn't been that effective, and arguably, may just give more incentive for them to come back and fix it again. If they are truly good articles, we should be open to just keep them. It is hard to give a real criteria here, it's a matter of judgement, which is our job. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Also note that a G5 may be for reasons that aren't public, such as CU provided info, which is another reason reverting them is probably a bad idea, unless you are sure you have all the right info. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

    (edit conflict)I agree with your first point, but not with your addition. CfD are meant to be a lightweight way to deal with annoyingly common cases. If a situation requires special handling, it should not be handled via CfD. — Sebastian 03:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

    • Just a note, but on this particular set of G5's, I both did check a lot of the sources myself, and have been in conversation with functionaries, WMF, and the user involved about it, so I was relatively confident in restoring them. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
    • If a G5 is not for a straightforward obvious case of a banned user, then there should be additional explanatory text, or G5 not used at all. If a copyright infringement is known at the tie of deletion, hopefully the G12 is also given in the reason box if there is a copyright infringement. Otherwise for what appears to be a simple G5, then it should be restorable if someone is willing to check it out and ensure it complies with policy. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I'll throw out my two cents. My view is that G5 deletions should be treated like all other speedy deletions: if you want the content restored, discuss it with the deleting admin or else take it to WP:DRV where we can discuss it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, my comment in the AN thread wasn't really about G5, but since you pinged me: I think this is a mountain out of a molehill. If someone does a restore without discussion, or over the deleting admin's objections, they own the content and take responsibility for it. I personally think the whole G5/WP:BANREVERT concept encourages the self-appointed would-be wiki-police more than it discourages banned users, but that's not so important in the case where something has already been deleted. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• One of the reasons I think it should be discussed is because some people think banned users should have everything deleted, some think we should be more selective. Policy doesn't require we delete it, it only authorizes it in an obvious way. The community isn't of one mind when it comes to using G5 wholesale, particularly with content that is worthwhile. Discussion would have prevented the WP:AN thread and this thread. It isn't about policy, it is about best practices and simply getting along. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Policy says that anything created in violation of the ban or block should be deleted. The controversy is rarely with the deletion, it's generally with the restoration as the deletion is line with the bright-line policy. This is the only CSD criteria that is independent of the content itself which is why there's so much argument about it. People just say there's an unwritten rule that allows for ignoring it and then reverse it. For example Sussex County Sheriff's Office (New Jersey) was deleted on October 31st by @Sphilbrick: (who I'll ping as well) under G5 (no one else other than the alleged sock edited it). The only discussion was at User_talk:Sphilbrick#JtV_G5.27s where Kevin stated that he felt he could unilaterally restore the content without any further discussion or approval (or notification). Kevin restored it all on December 8th. Literally no one else has edited that article so that's a pure G5 case, there's no conflicts or complications there. As everyone agreed, the deletions are in line with G5 policy as its written. This isn't Kevin disagreeing on a close and questioning it, he just disagrees with the policy and went IAR for everything that was done. It's basically the equivalent of disagreeing on a A7 deletion or other speedy deletion and responding by restoring it. As I note, I say that we require any restoration to be discussed at DRV. First, it allows for some serious discussion, not a quick "hey I restored all pages under IAR, if you object, re-delete them" which will never be done. I agreed with closing the ANI discussion. There was no separation between the pages that were edited extensively by others and made it to GA and a single stub created only by the alleged sock which is a pure G5 situation. I didn't really care enough to get into it especially given the "content creation matters most" argument. If restored for discussion purposes, it would allow for non-admins to opine on the issues rather than leave it to just admins who are the only people able to review the deleted content. If people want, they should suggest a footnote or something that say if the content has been extensively edited by reviewed by others, it should be allowed to stay but no one does. Instead we just get things deleted and then others restoring it and sometimes if the restoring admin decides to mention it, we'll know but otherwise no one will really know what's happened. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• • • Banning policy trumps CSD policy I believe, which says Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert.....Pages created by banned users in violation of their ban, and which have no substantial edits by others, are eligible for speedy deletion It authorizes it but does not mandate it. Nothing wrong with deleting, I'm just saying sometimes there is a good reason to have a discussion about NOT deleting them. The key is to discuss, not revert. Most of the time, it is moot and delete is appropriate or at least uncontested, but it is a valid point to contest. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Does banning policy really trump CSD? WMF bans, maybe, but those are essentially office actions. For other bans, I'd think CSD overrules anything that allows deletion without consensus. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
• I'll weigh in here, a lot of you know I'm a bit of a G5 crusader (as a non-admin) - my view is that, as written, any contribution from a user which contravenes a block (i.e. any and all sockpuppetry) can and should be deleted on sight, regardless of quality. Socks cannot contribute; allowing them to contribute weakens bans and encourages more sockpuppetry. In my opinion that is the only purpose of G5 - to remove sockpuppet contributions, because they're not welcome to contribute. My view is clearly not the majority view, however, as evidenced by having this discussion at all. In light of that, G5 should be deprecated, because in actual practice it is toothless and redundant to other criteria. That is, no G5 deletion can ever stick unless some other criteria also apply, so let's eliminate the confusion and simply not use G5 at all. What if we don't have G5? Well, banned users will still make new socks, they will still be blocked, their unconstructive contributions will still be reverted, and as is currently the regular practice, banned users who contribute nonetheless constructively will continue to have their ban evasion effectively endorsed by administrators who would otherwise need to undelete a G5 deletion. So not having G5 at all will actually save you lot some work, and guys like me can stop griping about it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

  Thank you, Ivanvector, this is a very noble and noteworthy contribution. It should be in its own section, rather than under the headline "G5 reversal". Of course, if it did pass, it would make the present discussion moot, so we probably should put this one on hold. Personally, I wouldn't throw out G5 – see following subsection. — Sebastian 22:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Simple process for G5 and its reversal

As Dennis said above, it's not a mandate but just another tool that makes life easier in some cases. We can apply the same simplicity throughout the whole process:

1. Editor E sees contribution by banned user B: E just adds "G5" without spending any time on investigating whether it's beneficial.
2. Administrator A sees it and either ...
   1. A just deletes it (without necessarily spending any time checking its validity)
      1. Another administrator R disagrees and reverses it. He just leaves a courtesy note on A's talk page to make sure that A didn't have a reason that wasn't publicized, and there's no wheel warring. If A disagrees, they'll discuss that there or by mail, as appropriate.
   2. A finds the contribution useful and removes the G5 and leaves a courtesy note on E's talk page, just as described above.

Isn't that simple enough? — Sebastian 22:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• The only difference is the order. To me, if you are going to discuss and you are going to use the admin bit (in this case, to revert a delete), then you should discuss before using the bit, unless the admin isn't around anymore or there is some other exceptional circumstance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
  • And is "just a passing note but I've restored what you deleted" sufficient? We don't allow that generally elsewhere. The real question is what to do if there's a disagreement on whether or not to restore. Normally, we'd say take it to DRV which is what I think we should do in these cases. I mean, I do know that there's a lot of items deleted after an AFD that get restored and userified without consulting the closing admin but that's not the same to me. We don't generally have the closings of AFD/TFD/MFD/FFD discussions ignored overall and we don't do the same for closings on RFCs/at AN/ANI or other places. And note that the discussion above where it was a block based on the WMF I believe had another admin restore the content and then it came back to AN where it was deleted again under G5. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

    I see no problem with just a note, if we agree on it. And I think we can agree on it since it makes the process much easier for everyone, which was the point of CSD all along: We started the whole thing because we wanted to have a way to easily handle annoyingly common situations. Not because we needed more bureaucracy. — Sebastian 07:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

    • For lack of a better place, DRV is probably the best place. With all this in mind (and I'm not saying it applies here, nor do I even know) the large principle that we may delete (and not must delete) need to be reiterated. If an admin simply went and started deleting a bunch of articles after a legitimate claim was made that this isn't in the best interest of Wikipedia, I would say that is also disruptive. We should stop and pick a venue, maybe WP:AN for that. It only takes a day to get a bead on community consensus, and after all, that is the real authority for using the bit. It all boils down to the same thing: if there is a question, discuss before using the bit. And again, most of the time this is moot. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
      • Even Ivanvector admit that a hardline view is a minority opinion. I created this discussion precisely because either (a) we retract or revise G5 to be more in line with what's policy or (b) we add at the very least a note that reversal doesn't require actual discussion with the deleting admin just to get it out there as policy. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
      • Dennis, I'm disappointed you bring up WP:AN here again as a possible location, since we talked abut the problems with that on your talk page just 14 hour ago. — Sebastian 07:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
        • We've used WP:AN before, where we catch a sock that has been around awhile and created 100 articles that weren't spam, and before we deleted anything, we had a discussion about what to do. That is how you get community consensus, and WP:AN is specifically the place to discuss those rare cases, the same place you discuss bans and reviews of bans. You can't discuss those at DRV, that is off venue as they haven't been deleted yet. Again......Most situations, it is just a few articles, they are PR spam and the answer is obvious; delete. Then best (with some common sense exceptions) to DRV before restoring. I feel like I keep saying the same thing, it seems obvious to me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
          • Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. In this subsection, I wanted to propose a simple process that does not require WP:AN. What I had in mind was the situation that triggered my question #Why use G5 for useful pictures? above, for which I saw myself in the role of admin A. After writing down the proposed process, I acted accordingly and left a message on editor E's talk page. So far, it doesn't seem they care, which is an example for how this process can work effortlessly. Of course, I'm not saying that everything always will smoothly – admins are people, too. Of course there will be some situations that still require the drama boards, but there is no need for them to be included in the standard process. — Sebastian 20:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
            • To the best of my understanding, the idea behind the ban is that the user can't be trusted, so we default to assuming that the edit is bad. If a user in good standing has decided that a specific edit, or set of consecutive edits to a single page, is good, then the user can "take responsibility" for this edit - with his/her reputation at risk if it was a wrong call. WP:BAN explicitly states that "Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content". And I believe that restoring a G5ed page, or removing a G5 deletion tag from a page, when the banned user is the only author of the page, is effectively the same as reinstating its content. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
              • You are absolutely right, עוד מישהו, "take responsibility" is the core issue here. In my mind, that was at the heart of my proposal, and I should have added that. It is precisely for that reason that in the case cited above I re-uploaded the file under my name. My intention here was to make that process easier. — Sebastian 08:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
          • If we have to discuss it before deletion, then it shouldn't be a CSD criteria. If we allow for deletion without discussion (which is what is done) then CSD is appropriate. As I've said before, the issue is rarely with the actual, it's on the reversal and I think the people supporting restoration should have to defend it via a discussion, rather than making the person who follow the CSD criteria the one at fault. I agree with Old Mishehu's view on restoration but the issue is what to do if there's a difference of opinion between the deleting admin and the restoring admin. If everyone is in agreement, no discussion is needed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
            • I'm getting tired of these opinion-only, "should"-based arguments. If this were an article discussion, I would shout out "((cn))!" In my experience, as I showed, my suggestion would truly simply the process, and I have not seen any link, diff, or other evidence to the contrary. — Sebastian 08:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
            • In every other type of CSD, anyone can use the talk page of the article to explain why it shouldn't be deleted, so CSD already allows for discussion; it is part and parcel of the policy and always has been. It is rarely needed, but both the banning and CSD policy allows for informal discussion. To say discussion voids eligibility for CSD is mistaken. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

May not must

I could have sworn that there was something on the CSD page saying that administrators may delete a page, but they don't have to. If that phrase is gone, perhaps it should go back in. Keeping this in mind might help settle this long-standing dispute. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Oiyarbepsy: It says at the top that and I quote that "The criteria for speedy deletion specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, at their discretion, and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media." There's nothing requiring deletion of anything which is logical. In theory, any can be changed instead to fix it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Policy addition

I've just reverted this addition to the criterion: Remember that speedy deletion policy permits deletion of pages, but in most cases, doesn't require it. This shouldn't be used to delete a page that is obviously beneficial to the project.

I don't think this is a good idea. For a start it contradicts the reasoning at WP:BMB, which is entirely valid, and in doing so it sets up a strange situation whereby edits by banned editors can be reverted at will except when that edit created a new page, in which case it would be sacrosanct. It's one thing to say that admins should be able to reinstate constructive material added by banned users if an editor in good standing is prepared to take responsibility for it, but it's quite another to say that constructive material by banned editors shouldn't be deleted.

If we do want to add this as a policy change then I suggest that it be done as part of a wider change to the banning policy, which would require wider input than just this page. Hut 8.5 11:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll agree with that. Typically we have one admin who follows G5 and deletes the content and usually someone else who restores it. The issue I have is whether there a discussion should be required before restoration of the content and what to do is there's a disagreement. Currently essentially the restoring admin has a veto on deletion (absent office override which happened once). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

If any user knowingly reinstates the edits of a banned user, this edit should no longer have the status of a banned user's edit, and the reinstating user has taken responsibility for it at the possible expence of his/her own reputation if it turns out to have been a wrong call. An admin restoring a G5 page, without claiming that the G5 was incorrectly used (that the author wasn't banned from creating the page) is, effectively, reinstating the edit. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

And I think we should add that text to the section on G5. See #G5_reversal above. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

As a result of discussions on my talk page, I no longer have the faintest idea what A7 was originally supposed to mean. The official definition is "No credible claim of significance", and significance is supposed to be a lower standard than notability. What isn't clear however, is how much lower than notability it is, or what "significant" actually means. What I consider to be significant, others may not, and vice versa. It's stated explicitly here that it's a fair bit lower than notability, whereas here it's implied there's hardly any difference, because it goes on about notability. As such, I've noticed many (the majority I'd say) editors seem to be taking A7 to mean "No credible claim of notability" rather than "No credible claim of significance". Some seem to have taken it a step further and think it means "no notability", regardless of the claim and its credibility and sources. Furthermore, what's credible and what's not also depends on who you ask. Some editors also don't seem to understand that A7 is about the claim itself, not whether it's true or has sources. I could give you more contradictions, but I'll give an example from here. It says a claim such as a kid receiving an award from a president is sufficient to save an article from A7, but given my experience here so far, I think few others would agree, and I'm pretty sure that such an article would still get A7ed. With all this contradiction and confusion, It's clear to me that A7 is far too open to interpretation, and I've had certain editors moan at me because my interpretation is not the "correct" one, no matter how valid I think mine is. On that basis, I think A7 should be completely reworded, or perhaps even scrapped and an new, much more specific criterion put in its place. I don't see anywhere where there's a specific policy or guideline as to what qualifies for A7 and what doesn't on the basis of no claimed significance. It's all vague, self-contradictory and open to interpretation. I realise the pages I've linked to are essays which represent viewpoints, but that only strengthens my case of the criterion being too vague. And I haven't even started on A7's scope, which even I think is quite specific, but that doesn't stop people from tagging any article with it. Adam9007 (talk) 03:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

You concerns seem to be about editor behavior, which is not a reason to scrap a speedy deletion criterion. VQuakr (talk) 04:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

No, my concerns are about edit behaviour due to misunderstanding of the criterion. The criterion is very badly worded which leads to such behaviour. Editors wouldn't "misbehave" if the criterion was worded so as to make its meaning clear. Adam9007 (talk) 04:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

First, the issue is a "claim" of significance. Second, this claim must be credible. Mostly these are biography articles (bands, actors, artists) that simply state "X is a band from place Y." There is nothing there that remotely even claims anything that would make them significant. So next you get an article that says "X is a band from place Y that has sold 10 billion albums" without a source. That claim isn't credible because there's no sources. An article that says "X is a band from place Y that has two albums out" with sources that confirm the album exists isn't A7 because it's a claim and the claim is credible so it's a PROD or AFD at that point, based on whether or not the albums are from a mainstream producer, etc.. The fact that the band wouldn't pass WP:MUSICBIO is only evidence that it's not notable, not proof and thus it's not an A7 meaning that someone has at least a chance to prove that its' notable. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Ricky81682: Sources have nothing to do with it. Otherwise your generally correct. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

You're right but the lack of reliable sources can be a reason to remove the claim and thus it falls under A7. Bootstrapping a bit but it goes to credibility of the claims. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you really think that this "bootstrapping" procedure complies with the statement in A7 that it "does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source"? I think your view here is emblematic of the confusion that needs to be resolved. A2soup (talk) 10:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I think that the presence of sources indicating notability should invalidate A7, but their absence doesn't make it inevitable. Peridon (talk) 12:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The question is whether it is okay to remove a claim of significance because it is unsourced and then A7 the article because it has no claim of significance. It seems to me that course of actions should never be acceptable under the current A7. Thoughts? A2soup (talk) 18:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Adam9007:, do you have a suggested rewording? It could always be better, after all. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not Adam9007, but I have seen A7 misused a great deal and thought about this a lot. One small change to address perhaps the most concrete and serious mistake people make with A7, which is thinking that it has anything at all to do with WP:V, would be changing "credible claim of significance" to "plausible claim of significance". To me, language about credibility implies the need for supporting evidence. If I make an assertion, but have no evidence for it, can it be a credible assertion? I don't think so. But it can it be a plausible assertion. I understand that this is a subtle change based on very fine semantic nuances, and I agree that a complete rewrite might be best, but I think this could help a bit while being less controversial. What do people think? A2soup (talk) 09:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I think you'll have to explain that one. To me, 'plausible' is connected in common use with rather negative things like 'plausible villains', while credible is 'can be believed without much effort'. I can't see any improvement there. Peridon (talk) 11:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I remain convinced that "credible" is confusing in the way I described. See Ricky81682 (an admin for 10 years!) above: "That claim isn't credible because there's no sources." I agree that plausible may not be an improvement. I think Ahecht's idea of removing the qualifier is excellent-- it dispels the confusion elegantly and ((db-hoax)) should cover non-credible claims. A2soup (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Just take out the word "credible" and make it into "claim of significance". If the article has a non-credible or non-plausible claim of significance ("John Smith is the first person to eat an entire elephant in one sitting"), then tag it with ((db-hoax)). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I've looked at thousands of ((db-a7)) tagged pages, and my general philosophy is "if in doubt, don't" and "draft on request". AfD should go for cases where inclusion is difficult or controversial to justify, while A7 is for cases where inclusion is blatantly impossible beyond all reasonable doubt. On occasions I have been annoyed enough at people ranting at my talk asking why I removed an A7 tag for somebody who is "not notable" to think "okay, if you're so clever, let's abolish all policy and make you decide everything by fiat since your opinion is clearly more important than everyone else's" >:-( Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• People do tag the wrong things with A7, and I used to blame Page Curation for a lot of that (but I can't remember exactly why). That's no reason for scrapping or rewriting. The errors in that are clearly against the wording that gives what is and isn't liable. Things like tagging an article about a mobile phone with A7, for example. No way is that a valid A7. It might be a G11, a G12, or even a blatant hoax, but it cannot be A7, or A9 come to that. The problem with apps that is part of the reason we're in this thread is that they are downloaded software (not A7) used to access internet info (websites - liable to A7). An app is useless without a website, so is it 'part' of the website or merely downloaded software? IMO, it's not liable to A7, but I can see the argument for counting apps as part of the website paraphenalia of access. As to 'significant', another part is whether a 13 year old had a claim to significance for getting an unnamed award for solo musical work. No details given, except that the kid was in his school band (no significance there) and I would guess got a certificate form the school's Head of Music for his performance in the end of term concert. A young musical friend of mine regularly got things like that. The article went on to say he'd achieved a 'star' in Boy Scouts, and the only reference given was 'my butthole'. On Google, the kid's name comes up with three Facebook pages, the article, and an page talking about someone totally different. To my mind, a clear A7. Yes, there are semantic problems between significance and notability, and I don't think anyone is going to solve that to everyone's satisfaction. The review procedure is straightforward, and many people just post again (some actually asking for advice first...). Quite often when I've A7ed something, I refer the author to the notability and sourcing policies. There's no point in explaining significance vs notability as notability is the thing to prevent deletion at prod or AfD. Aiming merely to pass A7 is pointless. A7 is here to help prevent overload at AfD. We could always try suspending it for a couple of weeks to see what happened... Peridon (talk) 12:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the A7 clarification to the meaning of "lower standard" I suggested here would in some measure help with the issue this thread raises.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I see A7 misused all the time too, even by deleting admins. This is possibly because the chunk of text that is there is a bit of a kludge; we could clean it up, and personally I think that the "lower standard than notability" bit is only adding to the confusion. This should be as concise as we can make it. Here's an idea: (feel free to reformat this)

A7: No indication of importance

This applies to any article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This criterion does not apply if an article makes any credible claim of significance, regardless of notability or verifiability. If the claim is dubious or unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion.

This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works. The criterion also does not apply to educational institutions.^[ref] This criterion does not apply to species of animals, only to individual animal(s).

• ((Db-a7)), ((Db-person)) – for people, ((Db-band)) – for bands, ((Db-club)) – for clubs, societies and groups, ((Db-inc)) – for companies, corporations and organizations, ((Db-web)) – for websites, ((Db-animal)) – for individual animals, ((Db-event)) – for events
• If the claim of significance is credible, the A7 tag can not be applied, even if the claim does not meet the notability guidelines. Topics that seemed non-notable to new page patrollers have often been shown to be notable in deletion discussions.

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

@Ivanvector: I disagree strongly with the language "If the claim is dubious or unclear...". Dubious and unclear claims are exactly the sort for which A7 is intended, "dubious" being nearly a perfect (albeit less precise) antonym of "credible". If a claim is dubious or unclear, i.e. not credible, A7 must apply. Proper language would be "If the claim is credible...[improve, prod, or AfD]". Let's stick to defining only one slippery term per slippery concept, please.

I also strongly disagree with "regardless of notability". If a claim is credibly true, but does not credibly indicate notability (E.g. "I have earned seven merit badges"), it must not be allowed to stand in the way of an obviously-called-for speedy deletion. Your sentence tries to disavow criterion (b) in Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance, to which it has just pointed! You simply cannot divorce notability from A7 without destroying the intent and usefulness of the tag and conflicting directly with Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance. —Swpb^talk 15:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

A credible claim of significance should indicate at least the possibility of a finding of notability, but it need not establish notability, nor need it be sourced in any way. To that extent it is and should be "divorced" from the concept of notability. DES ^(talk) 16:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I said "credibly indicate notability", not establish. Credible indication of notability is absolutely vital. —Swpb^talk 14:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

How about the following revised wording:

A7: No indication of importance

This applies to any article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This criterion does not apply if an article makes any credible claim of significance. The claim need not establish the notability of the topic, nor does it need to be sourced at all. If the claim is marginal or unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion. But unless the claim is clearly not credible, or clearly not a claim of significance, this criterion should not be applied.

This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works. The criterion also does not apply to educational institutions.^[ref] This criterion does not apply to species of animals, only to individual animal(s).

• ((xt|((Db-a7)), ((Db-person)) – for people, ((Db-band)) – for bands, ((Db-club)) – for clubs, societies and groups, ((Db-inc)) – for companies, corporations and organizations, ((Db-web)) – for websites, ((Db-animal)) – for individual animals, ((Db-event)) – for events
• If the claim of significance is credible, the A7 tag can not be applied, even if the claim does not meet the notability guidelines. Topics that seemed non-notable to new page patrollers have often been shown to be notable in deletion discussions.

I think that covers things well enough. DES ^(talk) 16:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:I wouldn't know him from a hole in the ground is a good essay that explains a suitable thought process for this. To take an example, consider Daniel Bogado as I found it. This is clearly not a candidate for A7 as although unsourced, it mentions several television programmes and awards. This gave me enough to type these phrases into Google and easily find reliable sources to prove the article met our inclusion criteria - the fact it subsequently hit the main page via "Did you Know"? would seem to bear this out.

I like DES' wording; the only thing I would add is that BLPs can be sent to BLPPROD if unsourced, even if they may be notable. I completely disagree with the view that "Dubious and unclear claims are exactly the sort for which A7 is intended" - that's what I would send to PROD / AfD, and would instead say "Blatantly unworthy claims are exactly the sort of for which A7 is intended". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

No, DES, the above does not solve the problem, because it requires only credibility, while accepting any (italics yours) claim of significance. That is the crux of the matter. We need to define the "claim of significance" to at least be specific (not vague like "prize winning" or "one of the best") and of sufficient magnitude that there is at least some chance that it could justify inclusion in an international encyclopedia. I can show you many recent examples where totally vague and trivial "claims of significance" were used to remove an A7 tag. --MelanieN (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Which to me isn't a problem. Even if the claim is trivial as hell, then it can be prodded or taken to AFD where people can discuss whether the claim is trivial or not. This is a speedy criteria, meaning something that no one would really dispute doesn't belong here, something that can be deleted without notice and an opportunity to object. If we deleted every claim of a certain type because it is "trivial" without an actual discussion about it, we'll never know if the actual consensus forms to treat the claim as not trivial and thus to keep these pages. For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Article alerts is now regularly debating articles such as Anders Engberg in which the claim is "this guy lived to 111 years old and was the oldest man ever in Sweden". There are pages on "the oldest person ever born in the British Raj", "oldest person ever born in the state of Illinois from 1999 until 2011" Is that trivial? Is that a legitimate claim? Those are all claims, ones I find silly for a separate article on each person but they all get discussions and debates and some get deleted, some get kept and some get turned into redirects to a "List of"-type page. Same thing with any criteria. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The "Credible claim of significance" essay

Thanks for starting this discussion, Adam. The confusion between "significance" and "notability" is reflected in the essay Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance, which is internally contradictory. At first it says "A claim of significance need not amount to a statement that, if sourced, would establish notability." That reflects the wording at A7: "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. " But the "credible claim of significance" essay later modifies that statement in several places - for example "A good mental test is to consider each part discretely: a) is this reasonably plausible? and b) assuming this were true, would this (or something that 'this' might plausibly imply) cause a person to be notable?" and "Conversely, an article describing a subject whose main claim to fame is that they've been the top of their class for the last four years would pass a, since it's quite plausible for that to be true, but not pass b, since that kind of thing is not likely to lead to notability." Notice the word "notable". The guideline also defines a claim of significance as "Any statement which, if reliably sourced, would be likely to persuade some of the commentators at a typical articles for deletion discussion to keep the article" - which of course would mean that some people would find the subject to be notable. These examples suggest that there has to be some requirement that the claim of significance is itself significant, and that potential notability is at least implied by the claim.

Differences between editors arise because some people subscribe to the more nuanced version given in the examples, while others follow only the extremely limiting summary at A7, which they interpret it to mean that ANY claim of significance - no matter how vague, no matter how trivial - means you can't apply A7. I have recently seen this interpretation invoked to remove the A7 tag from this article: "He is a thirteen year old student at Fairfield Middle School. He is in the band and plays the tenor saxophone in the school band and enjoys playing jazz. Last year he even won an advanced soloist award. He is also in the Boy Scouts and has achieved the rank of star." And this one: "National Under 15 footballer of Trinidad and Tobago. He is a short boy but dangerous when the ball is at his feet. He grew up in the area of Morvant he is a good young man from where he is from he goes to church he also played for his church Daybreak United he now attend Success Laventille Secondary School he is the starting right winger he also plays with Ron La Forest Soccer Academy." And this one: "(subject) is one the best DotA2 players.He is 17 years old and plays for Newbee Diablos." To me these are classic examples of why we have A7.

Based on this I think the guideline needs to clarify that the claim of significance must not only be credible; it must also be specific (not vague like "prize winning" or "one of the best"), and it must be of sufficient magnitude that there is at least some chance that it could justify inclusion in an international encyclopedia. Everyone in the world, and every company, could claim SOMETHING unique or significant about themselves. If A7 is to be of any use at all, the claim has to be something that, if properly sourced, might conceivably qualify the subject for an article here. --MelanieN (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The speedy deletion criteria should be as specific as possible - it should be possible at a quick glance to determine if any criterion applies or not. If there's doubt about whether or not a criterion applies, then there should be a discussion instead. The "more nuanced version" given in the CCS essay has made this criterion open to subjective evaluation, which gives rise to the differences between editors that MelanieN describes, and which is apparent above; not to mention the editors who will simply say that essays are not policy and ignore it. We really should do away with the essay, or at least summarize its intent within the A7 definition as much as we can, otherwise this confusion will continue. So, can we come up with a bright-line rule for what makes a claim of significance? Or should we replace that language altogether, and with what? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I started a discussion partially about this at the village pump some months ago. There, I proposed to define a "claim of significance" as a "claim to belong to a category the members of which are often notable". As I recall, however, consensus was that this criterion was too permissive. Still, I thought it was relevant to bring up here, since it is an attempt at a bright-line definition of claim of significance. I would also recommend dropping the "credible" since it makes people think sources are relevant (see discussion near the top of this thread). A2soup (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@A2soup: Too permissive? Huh? Actually, that criterion (which I like) is much LESS permissive than the current "any credible claim of significance". Suggesting that the claim at least put the subject into a potentially notable group would allow us to A7 claims like "one of the first companies to offer this product in this area" and "was named to the city high school all-star team" - which are arguably claims of significance under the current language. I would certainly support some language like that. --MelanieN (talk) 19:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Glad you like it! I'm just giving my recollection of how the discussion went. People focused on things like footballers and actors. But it was more nuanced than that-- you can read the discussion if you are interested is what the response was. A2soup (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

That is no better than accepting any claim at all. Every musician in the world can "claim to belong to a category the members of which are often notable". There must be nothing less than a credible claim that this subject is significant; a claim that similar subjects often are significant is worthless. I appreciate your desire for a bright line, but this isn't it. For firmly establishing notability, we have subject-specific criteria (WP:MUSIC, WP:ATHLETE). For speedies, then, "credible claim of significance" should mean "credible chance of meeting the appropriate subject-specific firm criteria". —Swpb^talk 21:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this is the problem people had before, and it is a real problem I think. How about this for a different bright line-- change credible claim of significance to indication of possible notability, then define the latter term like this: "An indication of possible notability is a statement that, if true, could be legitimately used as part of an argument in favor of a Keep vote at WP:AfD. It does not matter whether a full argument for a Keep vote is possible with the present facts, whether the final decision would be likely to be Keep, or whether the balance of the present facts lean towards Keep, only that the individual statement could legitimately be cited as part of an argument for a Keep vote." It is bright-line, and I think it strikes a good balance, but I worry that it is inaccessible to new editors. Thoughts? A2soup (talk) 00:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

The word "possible" is far too permissive. Anything is possible. "Credible" is exactly the right balance point; it implies the application of common sense. —Swpb^talk 14:31, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

MelanieN's final sentence sums things up perfectly: "If A7 is to be of any use at all". All 7+ billion of us can make credibly true claims about ourselves. If we don't require those claims to carry a real chance of notability, then we get the sort of absurd A7 tag-removals that Melanie has cited. Under current practice, such articles are (usually) speedied, as they should be. There isn't a problem with consensus practice; there's a problem with the text of A7, in that it (apparently) leaves room for the sort of disingenuous "don't speedy anything" selective interpretation that resulted in speedy tags being removed from the utterly speediable pages that Melanie cited. —Swpb^talk 19:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the "don't speedy anything" interpretation is problematic, but, respectfully, there are real issues with consensus practice. Here is an album with screenshots of a few pages that were A7 speedied last summer (just what I noticed on occasion, not an exhaustive survey or anything). Do you agree that those pages deserve at least a PROD? And yet, they were all deleted by highly experienced sysops, including the most prolific speedy deleter on enwiki. A2soup (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I have to say - most or all of these look like incorrect speedies to me. Chunky Rice (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

There are improper speedies, but they are not the norm; in attempting to get rid of the few speedies that really do violate the current criteria, the proposed changes invite a flood of time-wasting prods and AfDs for utter junk. I'll stick with the lesser evil. Making plausible notability irrelevant is cutting off the nose to spite the face. —Swpb^talk 21:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

In my experience patrolling Category:CSD, from 1/2 to 2/3rds of the A7 speedy tags I find are improper and I decline them, and from 1/3 to 1/2 of all speedy tags are improper. A7 is perhaps the most overused and mis-used criterion in the CSD. (I include A9 as a variant of A7.) ("No Context" and "Patent Nonsense" are also frequently mis-used.) I remember the debates when A7 was introduced: the fist version applied only to bands. But in all of those debates a key point was that an article did not have to establish notability to avoid an A7 speedy, that A7 was a different and lower standard, having little to do with notability. There was never consensus to insist on demonstration of notability, because notability is not something that can be properly evaluated by one or two people.

I think that the WP:CCS does a pretty good job of describing the correct meaning of the criterion as it was adopted, and as it should stand. Not every claim of "something special" about a person or thing is a claim of significance. I would say that a statement which, if sourced, would establish notability, or one which, if sourced, would suggest that notability might be present, is a claim of significance. "Plausible or credible" should not be taken to mean "sourced", it should be understood as "not incredible on its face", or "reasonably believable". Such a claim may be proved false, in which case a speedy for hoax might apply. Or it might not lead to notability, in which case an AfD or perhaps a PROD will lead to deletion. Or the page might be overly promotional, and be deleted for that reason. But an A7 will not apply as long as such a plausible claim of significance is present. DES ^(talk) 22:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Re improper speedies: I understand that most speedies are not improper, but when the most experienced speedy deleters are making mistakes like this (and I emphasize that the album represents just 1 or 2 checks a day for a week, plus on one additional day) doesn't it indicate a problem with the consensus procedure? I would suggest that this problematic consensus procedure thrives on ambiguities in the current wording of A7 that can and should be eliminated. A2soup (talk) 00:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Before I say or do anything else, I feel I should explain precisely how I'm interpreting A7 as it stands:

It is not about non-notability; it is about there being a lack of credible indication as to why it might be Wikipedia-worthy. As to what constitutes such an indication, judging by WP:Credible claim of significance (and everything else I've read about it), I believe it means any claim that, upon further investigation, might establish notability, assuming such notability exists. I think this is the part a lot of editors don't understand; A7 does not care whether or not such notability actually does exist or not; if the claim may lead to notability, it's significant. As for credibility, any reasonable claim of significance that is not blatantly false is credible. Not too long ago, I saw an article about a person, and there was a claim that the person was the first person born on Mars. That is clearly not true and therefore is not a credible claim of significance, even though if it was true, it would indeed almost certainly establish notability. As it is, such a claim clearly has absolutely no chance of establishing notability. None. Zero. Zilch. Despite that however, someone actually did seem to think it was credible (either that or he missed that part of the criterion), and changed its A7 tag to a G3 (I don't remember which criterion the artice was deleted under). Going back to the "award-winning" example (see my talk page), although that claim is a little vague, I believe it still has a reasonable chance of establishing notability if one digs deep enough (how deep depends on the subject, and how specific the claim is of course) into it, therefore I believe that claim is a credible claim of significance. However, had it said something like "won first prize in a school sports competition", that would be an A7 as that's clearly nowhere near significant because it has no chance of establishing notability. The term "award-winning" could easily mean something much more major, and therefore I think it is a credible claim of significance. Same with Jackson William Cowan and his "advanced soloist award". I think this is a case of where less is more. As for Nedim Malicbegovic, I think the claim is both credible and of significance, because the game is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and him being one of the best players may well establish notability (again, assuming such notability exists). As it is, he's clearly not notable (that being said however, I do think obvious cases of non-notability should be speediable. The problem is that A7 doesn't actually do that. How about a new criterion; A12 - Obviously not notable? Then we can get rid of articles like this one quickly).

Speaking of non-notability, a few days ago (before this began) I removed several A7 tags applied by SwisterTwister because he seemed to be doing so on notability and/or verifiability grounds. The prime example being Apologies, I Have None; I can see 1 (possibly 2) clear credible claim(s) of significance in the History section. I don't know if the band is notable or not, but it's certainly not obviously non-notable. Non-notability seems to be a common A7 misconception; it's about the claim of significance. I've seen articles deleted under A7 which I could have sworn made at least one of the claims listed here (Apologies, I Have None clearly makes the "Has received airplay on larger radio stations" claim). Adam9007 (talk) 02:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

To my mind, some of that is virtually saying that unless it's a blatant hoax, A7 doesn't apply. "Bowser is a dog that has lived with the Bloggs family for 10 years. He has been a great companion for the kids as they grew up. When Tiddles, the cat from next door, went missing, he found her stuck in a bramble bush." Very likely to be totally true. But is it encyclopaedia material? As to the 13 year old with the award, if the award were of any real significance it would have been named - and the article would not have been referenced to "My butthole". The 'star' in Scouting was named specifically, and is a good award - but not of encyclopaedic significance, and nor is the much higher Eagle Scout (or the Queen's Scout award over here). This looks to me very much like one of the thousands of kids who post pages about themselves. I'd be happy to be proved wrong. I can't find anything on Google, either under "Jackson William Cowan", or "Jackson Cowan" saxophone, or "William Cowan" saxophone. I like to check things, remembering Bobble-head doll syndrome, which was tagged 'hoax'. Google presence is not a be all and end all, and I might have missed something. At the moment, I can't even find three Facebook links that I saw at the time, and which appeared to be the only evidence of existence, let alone significance. Peridon (talk) 13:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

You are the only person here, and perhaps the only person on the wiki, who doesn't agree that a page like "Jackson William Cowan" should be speedied. A7 will always apply to such a worthless page. As I explained on your talk page, when literally everyone disagrees with you, you should stop digging. —Swpb^talk 15:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Swpb: what's the point of your aggressive tone here? This is a discussion about how to improve the policy language so that it's clearer that pages like that qualify and are speediable. If you don't want to contribute to the discussion but just lambaste other editors' interpretations and suggestions with unwarranted insults, kindly go away. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, but everything I said is true and relevant. This editor has been repeatedly disruptive, and must understand in no uncertain terms that his particular view is utterly without support, and is not on the table; that is the only way anything productive can occur here. —Swpb^talk 16:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@Swpb: I think you are wrong to describe Adam's good-faith disagreement over criteria as "disruptive". I would suggest you strike or delete that word. It is not helpful or relevant, and in fact is likely to derail this discussion. (If you delete it, delete this comment also.) --MelanieN (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@Swpb:Just because one particular viewpoint is the most common, doesn't mean any other viewpoints are invalid. After reading the A7 documentation (for want of a better word) and related pages, it seems much of it is open to interpretation. If this is the case, this is where the problem lies, not with me. Just because I'm interpreting it differently to you, doesn't mean I'm willingly going against consensus (who makes the criteria? The community. If we can't come up with wording that makes its meaning clear and concise, conflicts like this are inevitable), nor does it mean I'm incompetent. I should point out that even here, there are different viewpoints and interpretations of it, all perfectly valid. Although I'm not a total newbie, your response to my A7 tag removals was a clear WP:BITE violation, as you didn't really try to point out where or how you thought I went wrong; you immediately came down on me like a ton of bricks. Peridon was telling me I should go for the spirit rather than the letter; I think the letter should reflect the spirit, rather than the spirit ignoring the letter, because the letter means nothing if it happens too often. You may believe non-admin removal of speedy deletion tags (for whatever reason) is disruptive, but it seems hardly anyone else agrees with you; otherwise only admins would be allowed to do it. It is made clear we may do so if we disagree. I disagreed and did so on multiple occasions. I don't see what I've done that's against policy. Adam9007 (talk) 00:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Adam, thanks for explaining your understanding in detail. I continue to think that a "claim of significance" (and we are not saying the article has to meet WP:GNG as it stands) must include at least some sort of detail or specificity. "Award winning" or "one of the best" is not enough, it must say WHAT award, or how they have been SHOWN to be one of the best, aside from the opinion of the article's author. Then we can evaluate whether the claim of significance is actually significant or if it is trivial. If the claim is vague, the article qualifies for A7. And if it is trivial ("he won an award at the school's music festival" or "he won in a local video game tournament"), it qualifies for A7. I have always thought this was obvious, just common sense, and did not need spelling out. But since you believe, in good faith, that it amounts to an actual claim of significance to say a 13 year old has won an unspecified music award, or that a 17 year old is "one of the best" players of a video game, maybe "significance" needs to be clarified. To me it is totally obvious that things like this are never going to be Wikipedia articles and should be gotten rid of as soon as possible; that's what speedy deletion is for. And it appears most people agree that A7 applies in both of these cases. The musician kid was speedied. The video game player was speedied, reverted at your request, taken to AfD, and snow deleted. Clearly most people do think that A7 applies to cases like this. Must we change the wording, clarify what "significance" means, on your account alone? Or might it be possible to persuade you to accept the consensus understanding of significance? --MelanieN (talk) 15:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

FWIW I understand Peridon's position, as I happen to share that view of the letter of the policy, but obviously it currently does not reflect standard practice and we should correct it so that it does. I've never understood A7 to require any kind of specificity, only some statement about why it's important that we know about a subject, which is so that articles which are about things that are clearly not important can be deleted without discussion. Vague language like "award-winning" and "one of the best" indicates significance, because the supposed award could be a major one, and we frequently write about people who are the best at things, but it does not indicate credibility necessarily. A question I have is: what exactly are we trying to do with this criterion? Is it for any page that doesn't meet WP:GNG? The policy refers to a "lower standard", but how much lower? Is it for topics which clearly aren't encyclopedic? And how do we determine that without discussion? As it's stated now, it encourages reviewers to make snap judgements about big-N Notability on brand-new articles, and that doesn't seem right. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Re-reading some of the above comments, maybe the wording should be changed to "any credible claim which, if it were true, could establish notability". That seems to be the interpretation we're coming around to here. I used "could" deliberately - if a topic could be notable, then discussion is warranted. Then A7 catches the cases where a topic is clearly non-notable (my neighbour's cat) as well as those which are obviously false (the first person born on Mars) which I think is the intent. I guess the language here does not need to be clear to newbies, they're not going to read it before they try to make an article anyway, it should just make the criterion clear for the people who are applying it, as well as for the people (like me) who occasionally go around removing improperly applied criteria. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:23, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I like that, but I am not in agreement that vague claims should be taken seriously as indications of possible significance. And "could" establish notability may be too strong a requirement. How about "any specific, credible claim which, if verified, might establish notability"? --MelanieN (talk) 16:32, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Possibly it IS the 'credible' bit that's the real sticking point. There are people who write to soap opera characters. There are those (not so many now) who believe the Earth is flat. There are people who believe Man has not walked on the Moon (despite the to me obvious problem of keeping thousands of NASA and other workers quiet for all this time without shooting them all, and then having to keep the execution squad quiet etc etc). If the award had been listed as 'American Saxophone Society Young Soloist of the Year', I would accept that as a claim of significance (until it emerged later that the society was founded last year and has three members. An unnamed award is to me not a claim of significance in itself as it could equally well (or perhaps more so) be a school award. And, personally, I would treat anything in an article referenced solely to 'My butthole' with grave suspicion. Peridon (talk) 17:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, no, just to be clear I mean that vague claims indicate significance as the policy is currently worded, not that that should be the case. I don't think that "could" is too strong a requirement, because the criterion applies to the opposite: a claim which could not establish notability. An article containing the claim "Guy Mansmith is the manager of the Wal-mart in Shreveport, Texas" is both significant and credible by various interpretations (or at least it's open to various interpretations) yet there's absolutely no way that this could establish notability on its own, even if it were reliably sourced. Peridon, I think this criterion doesn't need to catch all of those examples, we already have WP:A3 for people who write letters to TV characters, for example, and I think WP:G3 or WP:A11 apply to anything referenced to 'My butthole'. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't mean people writing letters here - I meant there are people that think the soap characters are real. What's quite credible to them is not credible to us. A11 is for things made up, but there is an element of good faith (and also 'can't prove either way') in it. It's for things like 'Vodka Pong' invented by Herbert Jones two days age (and merely being a version of Beer Pong that flattens you quicker), or the word 'Squoddelity', which is widely used (in Class 3B at Bungwood Junior School) and means 'French toast', 'the feeling you get when you see the school bus disappearing round the corner', or 'over ripe lemons'. (These are fictional - the real A11s are very little different.) The game and the word may be real - but outside Herbert's five friends or Class 3B no-one knows or cares. Hoaxes are deliberate misinformation, and are intended to devalue the encyclopaedia, or prove a point (usually, that Wikipedia is inaccurate - these can come from university professors rather than students), or simply make the author look clever to his equally stupid mates. Peridon (talk) 18:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

(Out-dent) WP:G11 is a the lazy catch-all that's used a lot. Your "Vodka Pong"s and the like can also fall under the same issues as WP:GARAGE covers, and the result is WP:G11 or it will be taken to AFD. To me the point is is there a claim that someone will bring up at an AFD as a basis for notability? If so, fine it won't be speedy deleted, it'll be discussed and then deleted. An extra seven days but not terrible (you should see how WP:MFD discussions go). I always found that the A7 new page patrolling deletions never accomplish a ton as the person who created it will invariably ask to recreate it or draft it or whatever and if done, it'll probably languish until Category:Userspace drafts can clear out the nonsense from 2005. I'd rather take it to AFD and just have the argument, it can be deleted with sufficient speed there if need be but at least everyone has a chance to discuss their content and recreating it will be easier to justify WP:G4ing it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

A11, surely? G11 is advertising/promotion. A11, like other CSD things, does get misapplied by taggers who use it for people and so on (where either A7 or hoax should be used). Peridon (talk) 10:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@MelanieN:To me, the fact that a vague claim could be something major makes it a claim of significance. Take "award-winning". When I see the word 'award' used in such a context, I think big awards along the lines of "Gold award for achievement xyz" or a major "something of the year" award, not some trivial "first place in some minor competition" prize. One brand of cheese I often buy has a "Gold Award" from the Nantwich International Cheese Awards. I know A7 doesn't cover foods, but that's the sort of thing I think of when I see the term "award-winning". I've won a few awards, though nothing of particular note. Because they're not of note, I'd hardly describe myself as "award-winning", as that's not what springs to mind when I see or hear the term. "One of the best" may or may not be significant to me; best at what? Best at snap? No. Best at Poker or Blackjack? Maybe. Best at Minesweeper? No. Best at Call of Duty or Gears of War? Maybe. Unless a particularly significant achievement is claimed (such as playing for 6 weeks straight or amassing a quadrillion points in 5 minutes, merely being "one of the best" at some things is likely to be insignificant. I'd say that A7's wording doesn't reflect the community's interpretation of it as I understand it. Whether it's the significance bit, or the credibility bit, or the entire wording, I'm not sure. It could be (I'm not saying it is) we merely need to add the word "specific(ly)" into the mix somewhere. Adam9007 (talk) 03:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

If you think an unspecified claim of "prize winning" is probably significant or means a big award, I think you are falling for a common commercial/personal scam. If the company or person had actually won a major award (Gold medal at the Great American Beer Festival! First place in America's Got Talent! Won the Goren Trophy at the spring 2010 North American Bridge Championships!), the person writing the article would certainly say so. In my rather long experience, "prize winning" without details almost always means some utterly trivial prize - what you aptly describe as "first place in some minor competition" (Most popular hair salon in this shopping mall! Listed in a Who's Who knockoff! Won a commendation at the school's Solo and Ensemble Festival!). As you said, you can think of reasons to call yourself "award winning" - and if somebody was writing an article about you, they might well do so. In my experience it usually means next to nothing - just hype. Remember that an awful lot of articles are written by people who are trying very hard to make their person, company, band, etc. look good. --MelanieN (talk) 04:45, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@MelanieN:And they succeed! Isn't A7 for getting rid of "ordinary" subjects? Adam9007 (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

No, they don't succeed. Vague claims like "one of the best" don't get anywhere with me, or with most people here. A7 is partly for getting rid of articles about ordinary subjects that are being hyped, without any specifics, to pretend to be something special. --MelanieN (talk) 02:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Over the past few days I've noticed editors misapplying A7. Articles which are clearly outside its scope (such as schools) are being tagged. It seems people aren't reading the criterion, so it's no wonder there's confusion. I really don't know how its scope can be made clearer, or maybe we should extend it? Adam9007 (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

You can always do what I usually do - explain it to then. The use for schools/universities has no justification, as it says 'not' on the label. Otherwise, be polite and explain clearly. Peridon (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Peridon: Sorry for the late reply; I didn't see your response. I've forgotten which articles I was referring to, but I've removed an A7 tag from Original Batman because I just don't see how it applies (not that it really matters as it's also tagged with other criteria), and another one from Blue Neighbourhood Tour because I believed there is a credible claim of significance (hosted by a notable person). I considered removing one from TVonTheLines but thought it wouldn't be accepted due to vagueness, which brings me back to my point; are specifics required in a credible claim of significance? If so, the criterion should say that. Adam9007 (talk) 03:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I would say you were correct on original Batman, but the Blue Neighbourhood one possibly not. I'm not a Pope speaking here ex cathedra, but I feel that a band tour could be classed as an organised event (or a series or organised events). (I'm also not commenting on the notability of the band - if they ARE, then a tour is quite likely to be notable (unless they are touring nine months of every year, in which case probably not). The fewer tours a notable band makes, the more notable a tour is likely to be. A tour by Status Quo nowadays is unlikely to be, unless they suddenly appear singing Christian Country & Western, or Bollywood hits of the nineties. The third one, I wouldn't touch. I normally leave Bollywood stuff to people who know about it. Always remember you aren't the only patroller/reviewer/admin around (even though it sometimes feels that way. There are people all round the globe, and others who keep odd hours anyway. It's only attack and copyvio that need really quick action. (And with copyvio, quite often it was posted by the agency that wrote it anyway, and we want shut of it mainly because it's spammy. But they aren't going to take us to court for having it up...) If really not sure, leave alone. If 'sort of sure, but...', ask someone. Peridon (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

So, are we happy with the current wording, or is it going to be made more specific? Adam9007 (talk) 02:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

New criteria idea (A12): Articles should be eligible for speedy deletion if they are a duplicate of an existing article that would not benefit from being changed to a redirect page because of WP:R3. See Jarsh Jarsh Binkss for an example. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 03:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Already covered in A10. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

And it is now deleted under A10.--174.91.187.180 (talk) 04:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I tagged 2015 Kansai Collegiate American Football League Division 1 football standings for speedy deletion back in October, but there's been no action. Can an admin please take a look? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

It was invalid timed speedy delete, template deletion reasons do not apply to articles. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

It should have been a template. I missed that it was in the article namespace. Anyway, thanks for taking care of it. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)