Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion - Wikipedia

There are thousands of unpatrolled pages dating back to November 24. After a month, new pages are automatically marked as patrolled, and this makes it quite likely that articles will slip through the cracks. How can we encourage more people to be NPPers? — Timneu22 · talk 16:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Don't know how to encourage editors to join in. But posting the link makes it easier for readers of you message to drop in a do a few. Also, if this is a problem, should the 30 days be changed to 60 days? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

And in addition to those, there are the Article Wizard creations from January 2010 articles that need looking at. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Maybe it would help to stick Special:NewPages in right above or below Special:RecentChanges on the sidebar. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

As I understand it, these pages aren't marked as patrolled after 30 days, but that they simply fall off Special:Newpages. Kudpung and WereSpielChequers are having a similar conversation at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol, if anyone is interested.  -- Lear's Fool 22:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Currently the flag of patrolled or not is only maintained for articles in their first 30days, and there are techy reasons not to extend that. We could continue it by getting a bot to add a hidden category to any such articles so they can be followed up and dealt with, but we'd need a bot writer..... On the broader issue of handling the flow of new articles better, one of my favourite ways is to identify potential new candidates for WP:Autopatrolled status so their subsequent articles don't go through NPP. I did a big trawl about a year ago and identified dozens of them, its probably time for another such trawl. But of course any newpage patroller can nominate candidates for AutoPatroller status. ϢereSpielChequers 22:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

If pages are reaching the end of the NPP 'conveyor belt', it is because they are not being removed from the stream as fast as they are being replaced. Extending the length of time that they remain in the system (which equates to extending the duration of RecentChanges since the two are tracked through the same database structures) will merely hide the problem for 30 days, after which you will see exactly the same flow of pages into the ether; it will do nothing to address the fundamental issue which is, as Timneu says, that articles need to be removed from the system at a faster average rate than they are put in. Happy‑melon 23:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

The backlog has fluctuated in the past, and will doubtless fluctuate in the future. Keeping some sort of tag on the ones that currently fall off the end is one part of the solution, recruiting more patrollers is another. We have plenty of backlogs, I can think of no other where we automatically approve things at the end of the queue. ϢereSpielChequers 14:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

(To WSC) i'm just thinking out loud here, but would it be worth a broader rethink of the autopatrolled userright? Currently it's quite tricky to get (I certainly wouldn't qualify), and I wonder whether reducing the requirements and allowing more autopatrolled editors would work. I'm not sure how far this would go to reducing the backlog, but it may be a good idea to bring the standards for autopatrolled more into line with those for rollbacker and reviewer regardless. Regarding the unpatrolled backlog, it may be worth getting the wikify WikiProject involved, as I imagine there's a lot of overlap.  -- Lear's Fool _mobile 02:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't qualify either if I wasn't an admin (or maybe I would - if I wasn't an admin our coverage of Magonids would probably now be rather more complete). Currently you need to have created 75 articles and shown that your new articles don't need to be patrolled by others, or you need to go through RFA and it is then awarded to you as part of the mop. I can't remember the last time we had a successful or even near successful RFA candidate who had any opposes for not yet being ready for autopatroller, so in theory we probably could lower the bar. But I'm convinced there will be loads of candidates out there who are quietly submitting an article a week and finding and appointing a bunch of them as autopatrollers would make a difference. A year ago I trawled for them manually and I suspect the hundred or so who I appointed then have subsequently contributed thousands of articles. But without a bot producing a list of article contributors it is very time consuming to do this. If we were to run such a bot and exhaust our prospect list then I guess we could lower the bar and look at candidates with fewer new articles created, but the gain would also be lower - someone who has created sixty articles in three years might only be contributing one or two articles a month. It takes much longer to check a candidate for Autopatroller status than it does to check one of their articles and mark it as patrolled, so it is only worth doing if someone creates lots of articles. ϢereSpielChequers 14:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

There is a fundamental problem in that there are plenty of pages which tell an editor "how to edit", and are often added as a welcome to their talk pages. For the more mundane matters, there is no "advert" - there's no "volunteers wanted" on the main page. Unless one is really curious or has made some bad edit, I would suspect there are lots of editors out there totally unaware of how they could possibly help Wikipedia. I drifted into vandal fighting as I was curious to find out what TW and HG stood for in an edit summary. The work of an NPPer is even more harder to observe.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I got into NPP because I was on recent changes and came across a new article tagged by CorenSearchBot. It took me a couple of weeks to even find Special:NewPages, so I was watching RecentChanges looking for new articles for a while. I suspect that we'd get at least a few people by simply making NewPages more prominent. As to the autopatroller right; we really need to make that easier, although I'll leave numbers up to those who are more experienced. I'll say this, though; the 1-2 articles a month doesn't sound like a lot, but when you multiply that by a few thousand it can make a difference. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

75 articles!! Needs to be a lot less than that. Hell, I'd give it to people who have 1000 mainspace edits or who have previously created 5 articles without problems. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

^Strongly agree with this point. 75 articles is overkill by a longshot. Few users qualify for this, so the benefit is minimal. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Have started discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Autopatrolled_-_reduce_number_of_qualifying_articles, see if anyone can remember why it was set to such a high number. If that doesn't turn up anything dramatic, someone could start an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Autopatrolled.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

One thing I've wished for is a way to subdivide the list. If I could get a list that was automagically filtered to display (for example) medicine or military-related articles, then I think a couple of the big WikiProjects would be happy to do some subject-specific patrolling (perhaps leveraging the AlexNewArtBot). But most of the stuff is pop culture, which I have basically no interest in. I do trawl through the list on occasion just to see if there's anything that seems relevant, but it's primarily a sea of BLPs, with no way of knowing what might be what I'm looking for. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Back to this topic briefly. I ran a Special:Newpage query that included 10,000 articles and searched for "band". I was able to nominate quite a number of awful band articles for AfD or CSD. And I was just looking for "band", because it's an easy thing to catch. I'm sure there's much more rubbish in the pile of 10,000 that isn't band-related. I see how this discussion turned into ways to automate the patrolling and such... I really think we just need more humans to go through the backlog. It's horrible how some articles can "make it" just because no one is on patrol. Can we get more humans? — Timneu22 · talk 15:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I remember doing that with him, and it was rather startling; I think the total I got was 56 CSDed garage bands, and about 10 more that we PRODded. The autopatrolled issue is a part of the problem, but we do need more people as well. I can only think of a very few of us who regularly do NPP; maybe we can pull a few vandal fighters over, especially now that a certain user is back. We could also make some noise in high-profile areas, like the people handling unsourced BLPs have, and see where that gets us. A few loud notes at the Village Pump might help. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Give more people the ability to actually delete junk, rather than just slapping a template on. Friday (talk) 00:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

That'd be nice too; you have anyone in particular in mind? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I suggest that photos over 5 years old NOT be speedied for the following reasons:

• It's very likely that the rules on uploading photos have been changed since that time
• It's very likely that editors other than the uploader have an interest in keeping the photos, and these editors may be difficult to find and inform
• It's very likely that the original uploader will be difficult to contact
• It's very unlikely that anybody is being hurt by copyright infringement - if the copyright holder hasn't contacted us in 5 years, he probably won't ever contact us.

I'm not asking that the current rules not be enforced - only that some time be taken so that all the people involved can be properly contacted and participate in a non-speedy deletion discussion.

Smallbones (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

If a photo meets any of the speedy criteria, it should be deleted regardless of how long it has been on Wikipedia. I think the only criterion for which that could be disputed is criterion F10 (useless media files), which is for files, including pictures, which have no foreseeable encyclopedic use. That's regardless of whether it is of any other use to anyone. However, an alternative to outright deletion would be to transfer the file to Commons if any of Wikipedia's sister projects could conceivably make use of the picture.

Often, unused pictures that old were uploaded to insert in an article that was itself speedy deleted, and I disagree with the assertion that someone other than the uploader might have some interest in keeping the picture. Should that be the case, it shouldn't be that hard to show that the picture does indeed pass the F10 criterion or is otherwise transferable to Commons. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Again, I'm not saying don't delete them if they don't meet current criteria, I'm saying don't speedily delete them - just take the time to get proper input that may take longer to get in these cases.

After 5 years or so there are many people other than the uploader who may be interested in the photo. In my case, I try to make sure that lists of National Register of Historic Places listings are completely illustrated. There are often over 100 listings in a county (up to about 600). My specific problem involves "F4. Lack of licensing information. Media files that lack the necessary licensing information may be deleted after being identified as such for seven days if the information is not added. Be aware that editors sometimes specify their source in the upload summary." Requirements for licensing information are likely to change over a period of 5 years. I'd hate to think that every 5 years, I'll have to find new pictures for each site, essentially because 5 year old photos are going to be very easily deleted without any discussion effectively allowed. Just slow down the deletion process, please, for this small subset of our files to allow proper input. Smallbones (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Five years, plus a week to fix the problem should be more than enough time. NRHP content already gets a free pass on WP:N, I don't see any compelling reason to give them a free pass on copyright policy as well. I also think it's unlikely the image use policy is going to radically change every five years. if somebody snaps a photo of a building and uploads it at Commons as a free image it should be fine permanently. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Please take this request seriously, nobody is asking for a "free pass on copyright policy." All I'm saying is that if a photo has been in use for 5 years without any problem, it's rather extreme to have a procedure where it can be deleted speedily with the only notice going to the uploader. Why is there a rush to delete these without comment or calm consideration? Example: on Jan. 31 files were listed for deletion and only the uploader was notified. On Jan. 6 a bot commented out the photo in a NRHP list with a notice that the file could be deleted by Jan. 14. I noticed it and asked the nominator to give me some time to see what was happening. On Jan. 7 the photo was deleted. What possible reason is there for this rush?

Most cases handled by speedy are for new articles that don't meet the basic requirements for being on Wikipedia. These photos have been around for 5 years and contributed to the encyclopedia during that time. All I'm asking for is to have a reasonable chance to find out about the proposed deletion, comment on it, and check whether the problem can be rectified. Smallbones (talk) 03:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I see what you are saying here and completely agree. Where there is a known copyright infringement we are right to get rid of it as soon as we can. Where there is no suspicion that something is a copyright problem, only that there is a chance it isn't free because we don't know enough to be completely certain either way, then there is no harm (and possible benefit) in not being in such a hurry. As to what to do about it, perhaps we should add a requirement that the 7 day period does not start until messages have been left on both the uploader's talk page and the talk page of any page that uses the file. I'm tempted to suggest that any for any uploaded with no edits in the past year that a human is required to see if there are any other contact details (e.g. links to other project's talk pages, email addresses, etc) and attempt to make contact via any method as well. 19:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a push to get the lack of licensing fixed at the moment, see User:MGA73/No license. The problem is not jsut for over 5 year old pictures, but more recent stuff too. Even if the photo is speedy deleted, if a license or evidence is forthcoming the picture can come back on line. I can assist if this is required, or you can use WP:REFUND. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the information and for concentrating on the basic issue - speedy vs. non-speedy. Now I know at least where to look for these soon-to-be deleted files [[Category:Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status]] , which has sub-cats by dates and appears to be semi-hidden. I understand that there are a lot of improperly uploaded files - maybe 70 in the January 9 sub-cat - and something needs to be done. I'd say ones that have been uploaded in the past year almost have to a pretty strict culling process. But in the January 9 list, I browsed through 8-10 proposed speedy deletions of photo that looked old or interesting, finding only 3 or so that were over 18 months old. One was uploaded by a user who says he is in the top 400 editors by number of edits. He forgot to put a copyright notice on the file when he uploaded it, but did put in the information that he took the picture himself. This tells me that even an experienced editor can have a couple of oversights now and then. Interestingly, when notified he did add the copyright permission, but forgot to take off the "This file has no copyright information" tag. So who knows whether it would have been deleted or not? (I took that tag off). Another older file File:Raffles Lighthouse.jpg was quite interesting. The original uploader did everything right, but another editor uploaded a non-free image over it, and changed the copyright permission. (I reverted to the original). Would this have been caught in a regular speedy process? Another obviously inexperienced editor just filled in the form sparsly on a fair use image- that looked pretty straightforward to me to fill in a few obvious details. So based on a very small sample - I'd say that there are not that many photos here that are even 2 years old and being careful with them won't hold up the process. And older photos are affected by quirks that I never would have even imagined. Why not just say that photos over 2 years old cannot be speedied, or at least add a requirement that timely notifications be put on the article talk pages where the photo appears? Smallbones (talk) 05:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think the simplest short-term measure would be to simply require that for all photos nominated under this category, the seven-day period does not start until notices have been placed on both the uploader's talk page and the talk page of any page that includes them. This should be easily doable by bot, and if so done, should delay the process by only a few seconds for those images that should really be deleted (thus not affecting the legal issues at all), while providing more time for cases such as those Smallbones identifies in the original message. If after a few months this hasn't fixed the problem, then we can look at more complicated ways of solving the problem, hopefully with more data to work with. Thryduulf (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

So the new wording should read as follows?

"F4. Lack of licensing information. Media files that lack the necessary licensing information may be deleted after being identified as such for seven days after the uploader and the talk pages where the file appears are notified if the information is not added. Be aware that editors sometimes specify their source in the upload summary."

The text in bold being the new wording; it wouldn't be bold on the CSD page. Does everybody agree? Shorter or simpler variants would almost certainly be acceptable to me. Smallbones (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• This sort of thing has come up in the past, and the general consensus was that multiple notifications would be nice but could not be mandated. In fact, even notifying an uploader or article creator is not actually required by policy. It's something that everyone should do of course, but it has never gained a consensus as a absolute requirement. I know I have seen it in the past that when an image is tagged for CSD a notification is placed right under it on any page it is used on. If we could automate that process there would be no need to try and require mass notifications. If I recall correctly, the main objection in the past to such requirements was that if an item was that important to you you should have it on your watchlist. That's why we have them after all. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

So a photo that's been around for awhile, where somebody has over-written the properly entered copyright info (see File:Raffles Lighthouse.jpg as explained above) can simply be "disappeared" without telling anybody? If this is the sense of this provision, then I'd guess 90% of Wikipedians would say you are over-stepping here. Smallbones (talk) 22:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Why can't notifications be mandated? They are for other types of deletion - if we create the relevant templates (which probably already exist) it's only 1 edit for the uploader's talk, and 1 edit per page the file appears on - edits that could easily be done by bot. Thryduulf (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

5 days and no responses as to why notifications cannot be mandated. Am I then to presume that there is no reason we can't implement this way to improve the deletion process? Thryduulf (talk) 12:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Not saying that automatic notification is bad but have we any evidence that editors dont notify when they add Template:Di-no license as it is part of the instructions. It only really needs to automated if we have evidence that editors are ignoring the instruction. MilborneOne (talk) 13:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Instructions are only to notify the uploader, not the talk pages of the articles that use the photo. Smallbones (talk) 14:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I don't know, but the problem that this is trying to address is that interested editors aren't getting to find out about images that might be deleted in time to do anything about it. This is why the suggestion is to require notification on the talk pages of pages that use the file as well as the uploader's talk page. Say that file:Example.jpg was being marked for deletion because it wasn't explicitly released under a free license according to current standards. Currently, only the uploader (user:example) would be notified, but if that user has retired then it is not unlikely that the editors at Example, where the image was used, would not have their talk page on their watchlists. As such the first they might know about the file being marked for deletion is a bot removing the image after it has been deleted.

Under this proposal, the file would not be deleted until 7 days after notifications had been placed at user talk:Example and Talk:Example. Thryduulf (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Still confused Template:Di-no license says that the uploader should be notified and the article use tagged with a deletable caption. So I am confused that you think the editors with the article on the watchlist would not see the deletion caption being added. MilborneOne (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

If it were reliably used then yes they should, but in practice the addition of "deletable caption" is not consistent and when it is added is frequently done several days after the image was tagged. As it currently stands the deletion period starts with the image tagging, not the notifications (which should be given, but are not required to be given, so deletions can happen even if they aren't). This change would mandate the notifications and the deletion countdown would not begin until they are. So it would give a guaranteed 7-day period after being notified rather than the current somewhere up to 7 days but sometimes none. Thryduulf (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Just seems strange that you would tag it days later, normally you add the template and do the uploader notice and add the captions. Not sure why anybody would come back to it days later. Have we any stats that people go back days later to add them, most people would just do the job then move on. Sorry to go on but I am still not convinced we have a problem. MilborneOne (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I don't know that anybody collates stats on this sort of thing, but it's sometimes a bot or another user that adds a delayed tag. See the very start of this thread for details of the problem. Thryduulf (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

OK - I dont agree that it is a problem, if it is a copyright issue it does not matter how long since it has been uploaded. If the image doesnt meet the copyright rules then it will go, giving a longer notice is unlikely to help and the suggestion to wait until the last notification is unlikely to delay the deletion by more than a few days. If a user is really miffed about an image dissapearing then they can take it to a deletion review. But I do agree and would support a case for automating the notification process, but I dont think that would require a change in the text here. I will leave it to others to comment now, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Since you asked for stats, I went and checked out a small sample. For the first 10 files on the page "Category:Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status as of 12 January 2011" (date chosen to see how long it takes to notify) that had been included in at least one article

• 8 files did NOT have notifications in the articles
• 2 files did have notification in the articles

• 10 articles with the above photos were NOT notified
• 2 articles with the above photos were notified - and none were notified late.

Obviously a small sample, but equally obvious that non-notification is much more common that notification. As far as getting the photos reinstated after they have been deleted - that is incredibly hard. But correcting them while the upload info is available, I'd guess about 4 could have been rectified if somebody bothered to inform the uploaders a few basics, rather than biting the newbies. For the very few older files (over 2 years old) that I've seen, I'd guess 80-90% of the problems could be rectified, if the uploaders were still available. Smallbones (talk) 05:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Point of order: F10 applies only to non-media files. Stifle (talk) 10:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Mandatory notification for deletion of files

So we have evidence there is a problem (interested editors not finding out about files that may be speedily deleted before they're deleted), and a suggestion for how to solve this problem (require notifications to uploader's user talk, and page talk of pages that use file; start 7 day period only when these notifications have been made). How can we move forward to implement a solution, either this proposal or a better one (not that any have been made)? Thryduulf (talk) 01:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I would like to get other opinions about whether the following situation falls under criteria R3 and/or G10, and if it doesn't, whether we should add or alter a criteria so it is.

If there is a redirect from the name of a living person, that does not contain any edit history not directly relevant to the redirect, to another article in which this person is not discussed, and where the association of that persons name with what is discussed at the target is a potential BLP issue.

To give a specific example, currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 January 2 is a redirect to Julian_Assange#Alleged_sex_offenses from the name of one of the women who is making the allegations discussed in that section. There is consensus at the target article not to include the names of the accusers, so she is not discussed there. I believe that were her name mentioned in the article without any accompanying verification that explicitly mentions her that thsi would be a BLP issue; and as her name is not mentioned there there is no such source (as there is no need for one).

User:TeleComNasSprVen suggested that this might fall under criteria R3, but I don't think it does (it is not a typo, and if she were discussed in the article it would be a plausible redirect so it's not a misnomer either). I think G10 is a closer fit, but the purpose of the redirect isn't solely to attack or disparage the subject - as I said it would be a good redirect if she were discussed there (positively, negatively or neutrally), and you can't add sources to a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I should also add that where BLP issues are not involved, I do not see the need to speedy delete - WP:RFD works fine for these cases. Thryduulf (talk)

Good question. When it's blatant, such as redirecting "John Doe" to Pedophilia, I think we can use G10. In this case, the matter is more complex and even with BLP policy in mind, a discussion at WP:RFD, even when it's longer, should be preferred. The fact that redirects are less exposed to the common reader and that there is some plausibility to have one with that name are good reasons to allow a discussion. The RFD shows that there certainly is controversy over it, so speedy deletion would not be in anyone's best interest. Regards SoWhy 19:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, but I was referring to this criteria when I cited R3, not CSD. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 15:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think that that R3 you stated is intended for areas where G10 may apply, but it's likely that some admins will think otheerwise; or for borderline cases. At any rate, this list of criteria is for listing the redirects at RfD, not for speedy deleting them. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think this is patent nonsense. It's code, which isn't patent nonsense to me, but it's not at all prose, so is this patent nonsense?

                  'gui_Singleton',  gui_Singleton, ...
                  'gui_OpeningFcn', @dsp_project_OpeningFcn, ...
                  'gui_OutputFcn',  @dsp_project_OutputFcn, ...
                  'gui_LayoutFcn',  [], ...
                  'gui_Callback',   []);

  gui_State.gui_Callback = str2func(varargin{1});

   [varargout{1:nargout}] = gui_mainfcn(gui_State, varargin{:});

   gui_mainfcn(gui_State, varargin{:});

   set(hObject,'BackgroundColor','white');

   set(hObject,'BackgroundColor','white');

   set(hObject,'BackgroundColor','white');

   set(hObject,'BackgroundColor','white');

   set(hObject,'BackgroundColor','white');

   set(hObject,'BackgroundColor','white');

   set(hObject,'BackgroundColor','white');

   set(hObject,'BackgroundColor','white');

   if (mod(i,scale)==0);
       c1=c1+1;
       d1(c1)=i/scale;
       y1(c1)=signal1(c1);
   else
       c1=c1+1;
   end

   set(hObject,'BackgroundColor','white');

   set(hObject,'BackgroundColor','white');

   set(hObject,'BackgroundColor','white');

  '*.m',  'M-files (*.m)'; ...
  '*.fig','Figures (*.fig)'; ...
  '*.mat','MAT-files (*.mat)'; ...
  '*.mdl','Models (*.mdl)'; ...
  '*.*',  'All Files (*.*)'}, ...
  'Open');

  disp('User selected Cancel')

  disp(['User selected', fullfile(pathname, filename)])

'*.m', 'M-files (*.m)';...
'*.fig','Figures (*.fig)';...
'*.mat','MAT-files (*.mat)';...
'*.mdl','Models (*.mdl)';...
'*.*',  'All Files (*.*)'},...
'Save as');

Discussion

Thoughts? — Timneu22 · talk 15:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Speedy delete as A1, unable to identify the subject, lack of context. Fram (talk) 15:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Nope. Patent nonsense means it's incomprehensible, not non-encyclopedic. If anything, I'd say the speedy deletion criterion which most likely applies to this is G12--code is automagically copyrighted when written, and there's no copyright notice that I see on first glance, so I'd call it a likely copyvio. ec: I'd not call it A1, there's comments in the code. Jclemens (talk) 15:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well G1 worked, but I guess A1 is better. The title was DSP TOOL USING GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE, so it was clear that the code was for whatever that is... but I guess "whatever that is" was unclear, so yeah, A1. — Timneu22 · talk 15:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Either of those, or A3. Code is not meaningful, substantive content. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

No, code is not G1, and is not G12 either unless a non-free copyrighted source is identified (many of the source code submissions to Wikipedia are in fact written by contributors). It is rather likely to be either A1 or A3, though, unless it contains explanatory comments. Dcoetzee 01:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

If if has explanatory comments comprehensible to anyone besides the programmer himself, it's likely to have been written by someone who was forced on pain of termination to write said comments, hence copyrighted. :-) Jclemens (talk) 03:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

G1 is not applicable. The content is coherent, though not in English. A3 does not apply, because there is certainly plenty of (admittedly non-encyclopedic) content, and A3 is only for short articles, which that was clearly not. A1 would demand that someone knowledgeable in the language in question couldn't understand what is going on. And has been pointed out, G12 should probably be able to specifically identify the source. So... I'm thinking it should have been PROD'ed. Not everything that's clearly non-encyclopedic should be speedily deletable. Jclemens (talk) 03:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

In this case, I'd say it's so clearly non-encyclopedic that G13 (hopeless to the point no one would argue, get the hell rid of it) would apply. There's still no Office of Speedy Deletions to my knowledge. But could be PROD'ded, too. It's not actively harmful content, and one's not worse than the other. (Though one might want to direct the author to a site like Pastebin, as that may be what they're looking for anyway. In that case, removing it quickly would discourage the practice. (Off the topic, Jclemens, how do you get by without commenting? If I look at code I did six months or a year ago, it can take me some time to even figure out the details of what the hell -I- did, let alone to have someone else figure it. And besides that, explaining it in a clear form makes you think about what you're doing anyway. Comments are good!) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

J, you say the content is coherent, just not in English. Gimme a break. That provision is intended for material in a foreign language, not computer codes. Let's not pretend the intent was to protect an article like this. The criterion was never intended to be wiki-lawyered in such a manner to protect an article that is not in any language spoken by actual human beings. I also don't see where it is specified that A3 is only for short articles. It is for articles with no substantive content. Like a bunch of computer code without any explanation of what it is. And let's not forget that we are allowed to use our own brains once in while to make a decision. I would have accepted IAR as a reason to delete something like this. Dumping code on us without explanation could only confuse our readers. I have been among those who have criticized Tim in the past for trying to stretch what CSD is for, but he's right on in this case. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Seraphimblade, when I code (which is entirely uncommon--I don't think I've written anything more than a shell script in a decade or so) I write comments to help me remember what I did, not introduce someone else to the topic.

Beeblebrox, you've got it 100% backwards: Speedy criteria don't exist to "protect an article", they're a very limited set of things, defined by the community, which can be deleted without debate, fanfare, or even much in the way of notice. Using initiative to expand speedy definitions without consensus is improper, and while computer code may indeed be pointless and non-encyclopedic, it's hardly downright harmful. PROD works fine in these cases. It's not like a raft of code hanging around for a week is going to hurt anything. Jclemens (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but the criteria are deliberately narrowly worded to protect articles from being deleted unnecessarily. I think your contention that computer code qualifies as a foreign language is deeply flawed and sets a precedent we don't want to set. If it's a foreign language, then how about you translate it into English for us so we can all understand it? That's what the prohibition against deleting article just because they are not in English is for. Any article that cannot be translated into English because it is not written in a language intended for use by human beings should not qualify for that protection and should qualify for speedy deletion. Wikipedia may be written on computers but it is meant to be consumed by people. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Go read G1 again... Fanfic isn't G1'able. Bizarre conspiracy theories aren't G1'able. Why should computer code be different? Jclemens (talk) 04:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Because it is impossible to turn a bunch of code into an article. Fanfic can be read and understood in general terms even if a person is unfamiliar with the fictional universe it is based in. Conspiracy theories may be nonsensical from a logical standpoint but if the gist can be comprehended by the average person they do not qualify. Computer code is different in that it has no meaning in any language used by humans to communicate with humans. It's irredeemably incoherent and cannot be translated into something that can by understood in English. As I said, if that's not the case I'd be interested to see a translation of the code into English. Not an explanation of what it does or what it's for, if that had been included we could have just cut the code out and decided if what was left fit a CSD, but rather a translation of the code into comprehensible English. It's my contention that this cannot be done. Prove me wrong and I'll happily concede the point. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Beeblebrox is largely correct. Computer code is a set of instructions, meant for a compiler or Interpreter (computing), not a description or explanation primarily for a human reader. Even where these code instructions can be translated into English, they would clearly be WP:NOTMANUAL, as well as most probably incomprehensible to anybody not intimately aware of the particular task they were created to perform -- and of no interest to anybody not wanting to perform that task. NotEnglish+InstructionManual+Incomprehensible+ExtremelyNarrowInterest = blatant SPEEDY in my book. It's not so much a matter of whether, but under which rule -- as it would appear to be under the overlapping penumbra of several. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

This seems to one of those times when we run the risk of tying ourselves in knots over technicalities of CSD. This to me screams WP:IAR; not encyclopedic, never going to be encyclopedic, shouldn't be here, so delete. GedUK  13:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

That's common sense. You'll find that common sense and IAR are hated by many of the hard-core admins here. Yesterday Life is the name of strive and struggle was written by a guy who said it was his own personal essay and that it was a place for people to add things about positive living (or something). No chance of ever beingencyclopedic, but an admin left me a message saying that it could not be CSD. So people can self-proclaim that I wrote this essay that is nonsense!! but admins would rather we follow procedures than use common sense. You're spot-on, Ged. — Timneu22 · talk 15:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

You're all missing the point. Or rather, you're making points that are invalidated by the presence of other, non-speedy deletion processes. In real life, I can't go out and find a murderer and bash his head in, but if I catch him in the act and that's the only way to stop him from killing someone right then and there, I can do so and it would be called justifiable homicide. In much the same way, speedy deletion criteria are the limited, closely defined set of things where a single admin, with no notice or review, is allowed to summarily execute an article. If any of you think computer code should be G1-able, then by all means start an RfC and seek community consensus to expand the speedy criterion definition; I wouldn't oppose such a proposal. But don't pretend that there's something wrong with IAR being insufficient grounds for a speedy: any remotely controversial speedy, any one that's contested in good faith by a single editor in good standing, goes to AfD instead, where things can be sorted out appropriately. (The exception being articles where real, ongoing harm is an issue) Jclemens (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

What about something that isn't remotely controversial? Like an essay that someone says is an essay, that isn't encyclopedic. The essay I'm talking about today is different than anything else I've brought up, because the user said he created the essay for people to comment on it! Use IAR here; there's no reason to leave such nonsense around! — Timneu22 · talk 17:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

In the case of essays there are some that are suitable for moving to user space, some that should be in Wikipedia space and some that don't belong anywhere on Wikipedia. People have different opinions on what is suitable for essays in userspace (and sometimes this depends on the contribution history of the user in question) and what is suitable for essays in Wikipedia space. So unless the essay meets an existing speedy deletion criteria then it should go to AfD. IAR is never a suitable reason to delete something. Thryduulf (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I would have to agree with Jclemens here. Mixing WP:SPEEDY with WP:IAR is a very bad combination. I would probably argue for its inclusion under G1 -- as (i) it is not meant to make linguistic sense to humans (ii) it is not covered by any of that criteria's exclusions. A bit of a stretch, but sufficiently relevant/analogous to pass muster for a non-controversial deletion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 18:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

IAR doesn't say "If a rule prevents you from improving the encyclopedia, unless it has to do with CSD, ignore it", it says, "If a rule prevents you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore it". There are some times where IAR is the right thing to do, and this would seem to be one of these times, as it improves the encyclopedia by not having random computer code floating around. If we were to let this go, someone might take the opportunity to post malware in code form that would sit around for 7 or more days. CSD is not here to prevent people from using common sense, as you seem to be suggesting; I actually trust our admins' judgment when it comes to this matter. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

What's not said in IAR, but probably should be, is that given the amount of controversy an IAR decision can prompt, IAR is often an inappropriate choice because shortcutting existing processes can consume more time in drama than simply following the seemingly overly bureaucratic community processes would have consumed in the first place. IAR is more for "marching off the map" into unknown territory where no processes exist than for saying "the community processes take too long to do this". Thus, while I entirely agree that IAR can apply everywhere, there's rarely a good reason to use it instead of established process. Jclemens (talk) 22:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

And this would seem to fall under that category, unless someone can remember another time where a new article was entirely made up of computer code. If that has happened before (maybe it has, I've only been around since March 2010), that would be a starting point, but I certainly don't know of it. I also know that IAR can excite controversy; that's why this thread is still alive. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

WP:SPEEDY+WP:IAR=arbitrary article deletion at admin discretion -- not a good idea in my book. In fact, I'm not sure if I'd ever be in favour of a WP:IAR utilisation of admin tools. It would set a dangerous precedent. I would consider widening the interpretation of G1 to include information that is encoded (particularly when it is non-encyclopaedic even when decoded) is far less dangerous. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 03:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Negative unsourced BLPs can be speedy deleted at present (G10). Attack bios obviously should immediately be. But sometimes it isn't so clear. For example, I came across this this article yesterday. Now, it was obviously unsourced and negative - and technically I could have deleted it immediately. But, it is also the case that the article was probably substantially factual, notable, and harmless. When I've been patrolling BLPs, I've often found similar cases with bios on old mafia bosses, or disgraced Fijian politicians - dozens in the last few weeks alone.

The difficult for someone patrolling is what to do. Tag it, and it will sit for another 4 years. I could research it myself, but if I don't choose to do that (and I don't usually like doing research), what else? Prodding isn't any use since BLPprod doesn't apply to older articles, and regular prods will get removed with "seems notable" -often with the thing still unsourced. I could send to AFD, but again, I'm not saying there shouldn't be an article here, merely that there can't be an unsourced one - and AFD does sometimes tragically keep something because it can be sourced, without actually sourcing it. (In this case, I raised the matter in IRC and invited interested editors to fix it, rather than me deleting it.)

What I'm wondering is whether admins ought to have another option. The option of saying "this needs sourced soon, or it must die" - and giving a short period of grace before speedy deletion. In that period, if any other admin judges the article harmful they can still kill it, but otherwise those who like to rescue such things get a short window (if they miss the window, it can still be undeleted later if someone wants to fix it.)

Currently, I tend to speedy such articles, and then undelete them if someone asks and offers to source them. However, that does tend to lead to friction, and doesn't allow non-admins to review. Some time ago, I put together Template:G10 delayed (indeed I forgot I created it until now) - just to see what this might look like.

This would NOT represent an expansion of the CSD - because all the applicable articles would already be speedy candidates. It would simply allow an admin to take the decision to slow down his speedy, in the hope of another solution, rather than deletion, being found. It would also not preclude attack articles being instantly nuked.

Thoughts?--Scott Mac 14:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• You raise a lot of interesting and meaningful concerns, and I am really happy that you are thinking about the substance of such articles instead of simply G10 them (which would be a completely understandable response). I tend to think that the best course of action would be to incubate them somewhere outside mainspace, noindexed, and then notifying them to some interested wikiproject (or even the, admittedly debated, ARS, which could help in rescuing these things and sorting them). Also on a personal note: I know we have our grudges, Scott Mac, but in the interests of the encyclopedia I'd be very happy if you can pop on my talk page and notice me of some of these articles -I'd be happy to source them if I can or put them to deletion if I can't find anything. --Cyclopia^talk 15:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • This isn't just about me or you. So me putting them on your talkpage won't upscale. What I'm trying to do is to tweak current practice to find a place where negative unsourced BLPs (whose notability is generally not in question) can be fixed by those who want to - but are now allowed to hang about indefinitely in hope. The incubator idea is interesting, but we'll not get consensus for such ideals. We might get consensus for my small tweak. --Scott Mac 15:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
    • I know it wouldn't upscale, it was just raising a hand to help you now. It was, so to say, a deflamatory gesture in the name of common interest. But fine. The delayed G10 sounds interesting but I doubt it will be of real help if a mechanism to notify people interested in the potential sourcing (either by notifying wikiprojects or otherwise creating a "hub" where to deal with that) isn't also put. --Cyclopia^talk 15:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
      • It could create a hub. It could add the articles to a special category, and a bot could generate a list for sorting. I don't imaging this tag would be applied very often or to very many articles. Even when I'm at the height of my searching, I'm only finding a few utterly unsourced negative bios per day - and some obviously need immediate deletion because they are scurrilous. But if you look through my talk page you'll find a steady stream of people saying "can you undelete this?" I always do if they are willing to source it, but it would be good to have a less heavy way to the same result = "either no article or a sourced one".--Scott Mac 15:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• (edit conflict)I'm just thinking out 'loud, but how about a system where the pages are blanked and editors are invited to draft a sourced version on the talkpage or a subpage thereof? After a period of time (2 days, a week, whatever), an admin reviews the new draft. If it's good, they replace the blanked page with it. If it's no good, they delete the article.  -- Lear's Fool 15:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Interesting, but won't get consensus. The current norm is to speedy negative unsourced articles. You'll not get that changed, but we might give admins a little leeway to be more creative.--Scott Mac 15:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
    • edit conflict to SlimVirgin, below Okay. I suppose my main concern with your proposal is having negative, unsourced BLPs still being indexed by search engines. {{noindex}} doesn't work in the mainspace, so the only way to prevent indexing would be to accompany your delayed G10 with a courtesy blanking, which means further improvements would have to be drafted elsewhere (the talkpage?). What do you think about adding a courtesy blanking to your template, and a note inviting people to source the pre-blanked revision?  -- Lear's Fool 15:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
      • Yes, blanking is a good idea.--Scott Mac 15:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
        • The regular G10 template asks users to blank the page in a warning below the speedy box, we could use an appropriately modified version. Cenarium (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
• I think this is an excellent idea, assuming the period of grace isn't too long. But it's certainly very fair, in that it gives people a reasonable chance to find sources. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • I'd say 7 days MAXIMUM. But a list could be kept of any not sorted in that time, so people can offer to source them beyond the deadline.--Scott Mac 15:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Some recent examples of my G10 deletion (any of which I'm happy to undelete if someone is willing to source): Oreste Scalzone, Mickey Featherstone Virgilio R. Gonzalez.--Scott Mac 15:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• • • Mickey Featherstone had sources listed as "Further reading", and those sources do all refer to him as far as I can see from Google Books: Davis, John H. Mafia Dynasty: The Rise and Fall of the Gambino Crime Family. New York: HarperCollins, 1993, English, T.J. The Westies. St. Martin's Paperbacks, 1991. ISBN 0-312-92429-1, _____. Paddy Whacked: The Untold Story of the Irish American Gangster. New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc., 2005. ISBN 0-06-059003-3, Mustaine, Gene. Murder Machine. Onyx Books, 1993. Scott, you really shouldn't be speedily deleting such articles. Fences&Windows 19:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
• I tend to think that permission to delete without review, a la G10, implies permission for an administrator to take any lesser action which might also solve the problem. Thus, I really don't think blanking should be off the table--it, along belongs alongside research/expansion, incubation/NOINDEXing, and other sub-deletion approaches as a valid way to handle such an article. Jclemens (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • I tend to agree with Jclemens. In the interests of consensus, I definitely prefer this to simple G10. One can also get a list of articles tagged by seeing what links to the template, which is nice and neat. I am happier again with mass deletions if we have a log somewhere of all the articles so far removed, so that any admin other than Scott or a TPS of Scott can take a look and undelete/userfy/email/whatever. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
• Can we not widen BLP PROD to include such BLPs, so long as they are stubbed? My experience of this kind of thing was Yoshinori Watanabe, about a Japanese yakuza boss - it was nominated for speedily deletion as an attack page, declined, then blanked, then deleted. I came across it because it was debated at ANI, hardly the optimum way to deal with such articles. Fences&Windows 19:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • • Let me be clear. We are not talking about mass deletions - there are hopefully very few negative unsourced articles - or about controversial deletions. We are talking about articles that currently fall within the CSD - but can sometimes be fixed. All I'm saying is that things might be smoother if a reviewing admin has the option of slowing down his speedy deletion. Unless and until someone puts a valid reference on such a negative article, it would still remain eligible for speedy deletion. I'm happy with blanking, as long as it is understood that the blanking is a temporary measure, to allow some grace for fixing the article. I'd only be willing to use such a "delayed speedy" if the time allowed were less than 7 days. (I'm still willing to userfy or undelete for immediate sourcing beyond that time).--Scott Mac 19:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• I had suggested sometimes ago the option to delay a speedy, see Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 36#'Delayed' speedy deletions, which generated support, but didn't follow up. I proposed it for G11, A1, A3 and A7, but it could certainly be extended to G10, possibly others. Technically, this can be implemented with an option delayed=yes, which changes the template wording and categorization (so no need for new templates). Generally speaking, users could delay a speedy if there is a reasonable possibility for the concerns qualifying the article for speedy deletion to be addressed, and doing so seems worthy (i.e. if it's a certain AFD-kill it's not worth it). Cenarium (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• I like the delayed-G10 template idea, and would some kind of small info box, perhaps on the BLP noticeboard, to give folks visibility to articles tagged with the template. Something simple, just listing the articles tagged, and perhaps (if it's possible to do with template coding) the date they'll be deleted. --InkSplotch (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• The specific case that sparked this is indeed an interesting object lesson in checking for sources, but there are varying degrees of attack pages, and this one is more the exception than the rule. The vast majority of attack pages I have deleted are just that, pages clearly written from a specific point of view to defame or insult a specific person. We don't want to open the door to keeping that sort of thing on-wiki for even one second. Blanking is not an acceptable alternative because anyone with even a passing understanding of WP can still see it in the page history. Don't get me wrong, I like this idea, but it needs some tweaking or it could be gamed to keep libel and other garbage on-wiki. What about RevDel? We could use that to remove the most negative information and inform the article creator that it can only be restored if they provide a source. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Personally, I'd still delete most of the examples given here, but would want a noindexed list of redlinks created somewhere so people can work on recreating the articles if they want to do so. The redlink list would include the birth and death years and 'profession' and 'nationality' of the person in question (i.e. basic biographical metadata). Cases where the basic biographical metadata is not probably not worth spending time on if any sort of priority is applied to such a list. The system would intentionally not give people access to deleted revisions unless they asked, as it should be possible to write a new stub just from the basic biographical metadata (name, dates, country, profession) and available source. In many cases, the redlinks might already exist at name (disambiguation/set index) pages, but a central listing of redlinks would help, split by topic probably. This could be in addition to the slower G10 proposed above, if support can be found for that. Carcharoth (talk) 08:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
• Very often, especially with Mafiosi and Pornstars the profession is itself negative. I'm loathe to keep such things longer than necessary. If the admin who finds them has any hesitation then its perfectly possible to tag rather than delete. I suggest that a better approach would be to come up with a gentler message to the author, I have done some very apologetic ones that have made it clear how to get there article restored if they can provide a reliable source. ϢereSpielChequers 13:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm attempting to find an admin to delete an image of photo identification that has been edited to blur out the subject, but the underlying layer is still visible in the image preview (.jpg keeps a record of the preview, but for some reason it isn't the same as the censored version). It's some kid's ID and I'd rather not broadcast it all over the place so how can I get in touch with an admin with access to commons? Thanks. 64.180.84.184 (talk) 03:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

You need to go here:[1]. Actualy in this case emailing oversight-commons@lists.wikimedia.org might be a better idea. There's nothing we can do about it from over here. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks I'll do that. 64.180.84.184 (talk) 06:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

So I apparently misused this criterion recently, and I'd like to propose a little bit of "corrective and preventive action" to make sure someone else doesn't make the same mistake.

Current version:

G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion.

A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion. This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and content moved to user space for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy). This criterion also excludes content undeleted via deletion review, or which was deleted via proposed deletion or speedy deletion (although in that case the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy criteria, may apply).

• {{db-g4}}, {{db-repost}}

Proposed version:

G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion.

A copy, regardless of title, of a page deleted by a recent deletion discussion. G4 does not apply to pages deleted through a speedy criterion, pages where the reason for the deletion no longer applies, content moved to user space for improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy), or content undeleted through deletion review. This criterion should not be used if the copy has additional content, references, or major changes, even if the topic and intent of the article is the same, and a new deletion process should use WP:PROD or a speedy criterion other than G4. If the content is a clear copy-paste of the deleted content, use G4.

• {{db-g4}}, {{db-repost}}

Summary of changes:

• Indicates that it only applies to recent deletions (i.e. consensus can change).

• Gets rid of undefined terms like "substantially identical" which are so subject to interpretation that they are meaningless. The same sense is still included ("additional content, references, or major changes").

• A lot of rewriting, hopefully clearer and a little less legalistic.

• Attempts to explain some things which are in the current tag which I fell afoul of.

Something to consider. SDY (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

The last clause seems extraneous. You've actually made the bar much lower and far more subjective and difficult, since "additional content" could mean.. what? An extra sentence is additional content, so is an extra paragraph, or 30,000 fully-referenced words on the matter. Ironholds (talk) 10:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm certainly no deletionist, but I think "copy" is too strict. If "John Doe is great" is deleted at AFD, a new article called "John Does is a good guy" still qualifies for G4, even if the content is different. The point of G4 was that people should not be able to circumvent a community decision by slightly altering the text while not addressing the problems that were the reason for its deletion at all. I am more in favor of the other proposals, although I'm wary of the "recent". If I recreate a page after two years, I see no reason not to use G4. On the other hand, if it's recreated immediately and then tagged after two years, I interpret the fact that it was allowed to exist for such a long time as a sign that consensus might have changed. Regards SoWhy 11:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Instead, I think this is trying too hard to prevent "mistakes". I think G4s, and others, such as A7s, defy precise codification, and we should rely on human intuition to make the calls. There will always be "mistakes", and to account for this, protests or contests against the speedy should be invited, and where the contest is are even close to reasonable, simply undelete and list at XfD for a discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Taking another stab at the language:

G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion.

A copy, regardless of title, of a page deleted by a deletion discussion where consensus has not changed. G4 does not apply to pages deleted through a speedy criterion, pages where the reason for the deletion no longer applies, content moved to user space for improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy), or content undeleted through deletion review. This criterion should be used with caution if the copy has additional content, references, or major changes, even if the topic and intent of the article is the same, and a new deletion process should use WP:PROD or a speedy criterion other than G4. The intent of G4 is to avoid repeated discussions of the same deletion discussion when the reason for deletion has not changed.

• {{db-g4}}, {{db-repost}}

Changes include "recent" to "no change in consensus", changed "not used" to "used with caution", and explicitly states the gestalt of the idea that we've been discussing. SDY (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

The proposal is confusing. A page is not a copy if it "has additional content, references, or major changes", so what's it trying to say? Is it proposing to delete under G4 pages that are not copies ? --Bsherr (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

A copy need not be exactly the same and it can still be called a copy. See SoWhy's example above. Semantics aside, yes, G4 could be used to delete things that are not exact copypasta. The intent, as I understand it, is just to avoid having exactly the same discussion over again, and if the changes don't address the reason it was deleted, it can be re-deleted under G4. SDY (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, "sufficiently identical and unimproved copy" meant that a copy only need be "sufficiently identical", which, I presume, would include trivial and other changes that do not improve the article. The proposed text does away with that, and instead advances that an article with, for example, "major changes" is still a "copy". I think that's a much more unclear connotation of what a copy is. If the goal is to clarify the language, this seems to aggravate the problem. --Bsherr (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• FWIW, I think that this is important to clarify. I also think it's a bit silly that as the policy is currently written someone can create a brand new article on an AfDed subject (say, for notability concerns) twenty minutes after the first is deleted and it has to go through AfD again if the content is not "substantially identical". (I'm sure it could be deleted under WP:IAR, but it shouldn't have to be; G4 should help prevent that.) So I applaud this effort, and I hope we can come up with something reasonable. To avoid ambiguity, I too think we should avoid the word "copy" here, though. What about "A recreation" or "A new or recreated version"? Beyond that, I don't understand what this means: "This criterion should be used with caution if the copy has additional content, references, or major changes, even if the topic and intent of the article is the same, and a new deletion process should use WP:PROD or a speedy criterion other than G4." "should be used with caution" suggests that you can G4. The second half of the sentence seems to say you cannot. I would support stopping that sentence with the words "is the same." The rest of the sentence seems unnecessary to me. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion.

A copy, regardless of title, of a page deleted by a deletion discussion where consensus has not changed. G4 does not apply to pages deleted through a speedy criterion, pages where the reason for the deletion no longer applies, content moved to user space for improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy), or content undeleted through deletion review. This criterion should be used with caution if the copy article has additional content, references, or major changes, even if the topic and intent of the article isare the same, and a new deletion process should use WP:PROD or a speedy criterion other than G4. The intent of G4 is to avoid repeated discussions of the same deletion discussion when the reason for deletion has not changed been addressed.

• {{db-g4}}, {{db-repost}}

Another stab, hopefully addressing some of the concerns. SDY (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

It's better, but it's still not workable as is. The "used with caution" language is still problematic. The criterion needs to provide explicitly when it should and should not be used. Otherwise, it fails criterion 2 of our four criteria for CSDs. --Bsherr (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

What about "This criterion should be used with caution if the article has additional content, references, or major changes, even if the topic and intent of the article are the same, as it is not for use when alterations could reasonably have changed the outcome of the deletion discussion. The intent of G4 is to avoid repeated discussions of the same deletion when the reason for deletion has not been addressed." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

You know, folks, you're giving me Fledgling Jason Steed flashbacks here. Thank you so much. (In other words, take a look at the related discussions for multiple recreations of substantially-identical content.)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• So if consensus hasn't changed, and any attempt to create a new article is subject to G4.... how is consensus supposed to change? Jclemens (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• There are a lot of ways to change consensus that are not enacted at article level. For example, if WP:CREATIVE decides to regard authors as notable if they publish a single book, then a single-book author's article is no longer G4able. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Not a really clear answer, unfortunately. Walk through this with me: Article is deleted properly. New article is created which solves the issue... at least in the author's good-faith opinion. How, aside from every single admin agreeing that the reason for deletion no longer applies, is the article safe from G4? Jclemens (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• How does an author who creates an article that he believes clears A7 escape CSD aside from every single admin agreeing that does? or G11? All speedy deletions rely on the good sense of those who apply them. Fortunately, we have WP:DRV where something goes awry. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• A7 and G11 aren't subject to the historic level abuse that G4 has been. I entirely empathize with the need to quickly quash bad-faith readditions, but see an enhanced abuse potential with the proposed re-wording. I'd rather have something like "...created by an editor with less than 50 mainspace edits". It's an objective criteria, even if irrelevant to the content of the article, which would serve to deter SPAs while ensuring that G4 is not used as a hammer in good-faith disagreements over notability. When one editor in good standing recreates an article in good faith, it should be sent to AfD instead of G4 (although some other CSD could apply, e.g. G10-12). How can we state that without giving the SPAs a field day? Jclemens (talk) 19:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

"Fledgling Jason Steed" doesn't help. It's an AFD, not a deletion review about a G4 deletion, so it doesn't really determine anything. Jclemens's question is right on, and Moonriddengirl's point is also right on. "Sufficiently identical and unimproved copy" means just that. Just change a few words around, and it's probably sufficiently identical and unimproved. Because it is uncontestably redundant to run the article through AfD, consensus allows admins to delete them speedily. Add a substantial amount of text or references to the article, and it's no longer identical and probably improved. A discussion then needs to occur to arrive at consensus about whether the article overcomes the prior reasons for deletion. Admins don't get to make that decision unilaterally. As always, bad calls about G4 can go to DRV. Speedy deletion is always about erring on the side of giving users a chance to participate in a discussion when they're editing in good faith. --Bsherr (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fledgling Jason Steed (2nd nomination). We had to fight this one too many times in too many places.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• In my experience, G4 is no more liable to abuse than the other criteria--the same 3/4 or so of the G4 request I see are clearly valid, just as with any of the other reasons. The problem is more precisely that G4 when borderline is often a controversial situation, involving divided or unclear or erratic consensus at the original AfD. The current wording is a little too imprecise,but the proposed one is a good deal too loose. It should be major additional content, and significant key references--but this is really covered already in the requirement to address the deletion reason. I'm also a little dubious about the wording "where consensus has not changed" but I cannot immediately think of a better. DGG ( talk ) 22:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Should worse recreations fall under G4? The examples I found indicate that it does not apply: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 July 5#Paola Di Maio (keep deleted, G4 not applicable; July 2009), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Beale (4th nomination) (G4 reversed by deleter, sent to AfD, IAR speedy; October 2009). If admins are not allowed to judge that a recreation is worse, then how can they evaluate "sufficiently ... unimproved"? Flatscan (talk) 05:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Beale (4th nomination) seems like a strong indication why they should. If an article is deleted for not have sufficient sources, say, to verify that its subject is notable and a new article is created with entirely different language but with no new sources, is there any reason that we should have to go through AfD again? What if it adds a Myspace link? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

That's the situation that would posssibly call for redrafting of the criterion, I think. But we need to remember that speedy deletion is often so efficient that content creators would suffer by never knowing exactly why their recreation wasn't considered improved. Proposed deletion allows such users to understand the issues and choose to improve the page or consent to deletion. If they do legitimately believe their recreation addresses the issues raised in AfD, they should have a chance to make that argument. Using "obviously" or "blatantly" with "unimproved" might be the best way to go. --Bsherr (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Attempting to incorporate proposals, focusing on the intent of G4 (not to repeat the same discussion when nothing has changed):

G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion.

A copy, regardless of title, of a page deleted by a deletion discussion where consensus has not changed. G4 does not apply to pages deleted through a speedy criterion, pages where the reason for the deletion no longer applies, content moved to user space for improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy), or content undeleted through deletion review. The intent of G4 is to avoid repeated discussions of the same deletion when the problems that led to deletion have not been addressed. If the article has changes such as additional content or references that attempt to address the original reason for deletion G4 should not be used.

• {{db-g4}}, {{db-repost}}

Tempted to mention Fight Club in the last sentence, frankly, since that's really what G4 is about. My expectation of G4 is that it would quash attempts by users to "test into compliance" deletion arguments and keep forcing the deletion argument until they get the answer they want (diehard fanatics have problems with admitting defeat). Just as my .02 on the "same article but worse" question, multiple authors in good faith attempting to create the same article (i.e. three members and two fans of the same lame garage band that has extremely dubious notability) should not force repetitive discussions, even if all five of the articles share nothing but the name of the band. SDY (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Getting close. For starters, it shouldn't self-reference as "G4". That should be replaced with "this" or "this criterion". I'm going to think on the rest of it. --Bsherr (talk) 05:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Nope, still not workable. It needs to eliminate a good faith attempt to address the deletion cause. Further, there is no way a speedy deletion--an action by one admin--can test consensus, so "consensus has not changed" is inherently a non-sequitor. Jclemens (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

A good faith attempt to address the reasons for deletion will never be mistaken for "a copy", so I think that is addressed. A agree about your latter point, but I think SDY's intent can be accomplished by other means.

We discussed above that there are other means by which consensus changes other than at the page level. I think the right way of addressing this is by exclusion of situations in which consensus has changed, rather than inclusion only of situations in which consensus has not changed. Furthermore, we're not really concerned with consensus at the XfD; really, it's about whether there has been a change in policies, guidelines, etc., forming the foundation of the consensus at XfD. I too struggle with the wording, but perhaps, "This excludes pages the foundation (e.g., policies, guidelines) of the consensus of the deletion discussion of which has significantly changed such that it is credible to argue that the consensus of the deletion discussion is in doubt." ?

--Bsherr (talk) 01:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

The last sentence: "If the article has changes ... that attempt to address the original reason for deletion..." was my attempt to address the "good faith attempt" that Jclemens is concerned about. This could be made more prominent. I agree with reversing the first sentence, maybe shift to "copy deleted by discussion where it is clear that consensus has not changed" so the burden of proof is on the deleter rather than on the deleted and disallows the criterion if there is any ambiguity about the consensus. SDY (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Arbitrary break

G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion.

A copy, regardless of title, of a page deleted by a deletion discussion where no attempt has been made to address the reason for deletion through additional content, references, or changes. This criterion does not apply to pages deleted through a speedy criterion, content moved to user space for improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy), content undeleted through deletion review or if consensus has changed on the deletion, such as a change in notability guidelines. The intent of this criterion is to avoid repeated discussions of the same deletion when the problems that led to deletion have not been addressed.

• {{db-g4}}, {{db-repost}}

I think it addressses all of the concerns that have been raised. I reorganized it slightly to make the "no attempt" more prominent, and modified the language about consensus changes to make it clearer. Tempted to also add "A user wishing to challenge a previous deletion should use deletion review instead of reposting the same article." but maybe that's more for the tag, which may also have to be rewritten. Frankly, since this is a rewrite more than a real change it might be OK to leave it, though again I'd like to avoid the "substantially identical" language since it is so incredibly vague. SDY (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I agree, this version addresses all of my concerns. Jclemens (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I know I'm coming late to the discussion but I just noticed the edit and I have, well, many changes I would propose.

• Starting with "A copy" is likely to confuse since copy implies an exact duplicate, and while this criterion does cover exact copies, the whole point of all the explanation included is to address pages that are more than duplicates. This was noted by more than a few people above and I would second Moonriddengirl's proposed "recreated version".
• "No attempt to address..." is the biggest problem I see. Someone may have "attempted" to address the deletion basis, but done so quite insufficiently (in fact this is very common). This sets up an intent standard. Was it the person's intent to address the deletion basis even though failed miserably? Yes? Okay, then article X which had no reliable sources must be kept because a Myspace citation was added and the person intended that to fulfill the deletion discussion basis of lack of reliable sources. Oh, but Myspace here is not a reliable, independent, secondary source—doesn't matter; the person "attempt[ed] to address the reason for deletion." What to replace this with is the biggest hurdle I think. Is it a page that does not sufficiently address the deletion bases? Substantively? Reasonably? The closest I've seen to an objective standard also comes from Moonriddengirl: "when alterations could reasonably have changed the outcome of the deletion discussion". All of these though require some judgment on the part of the tagger and the admin reviewing, and all are better than judging from the perspective of whether the re-creator thought they were attempting to address the deletion bases.
• I would add prod to the list of things not covered by deletion discussions, after speedy deletion. Some might say that prod is a form of speedy deletion but this needs to be explicit since the vast majority do not understand it this way.
• "or if consensus has changed on the deletion" is another problem. The intent here is to refer to a change in outside policy or guideline that underlies the deletion basis. It does not read this way. It reads as referring to a change in the consensus at the deletion discussion itself (a non sequitur, since the deletion discussion was the source of the consensus). Let me just propose language that I think addresses all this and more:

A recreated version of any page, regardless of its title, that was deleted through a deletion discussion which is an exact or substantial copy of the prior version or where additional content, references, or changes from the previous version could not reasonably have changed the outcome of the deletion discussion. This criterion does not apply to pages deleted through any speedy criterion (CSD), proposed deletion (prod), content moved to user space for improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy), content undeleted through deletion review or if consensus has changed on the policy or guidelines underlying the deletion basis, such as a change in notability standards. The intent of this criterion is to avoid repeated deletion discussions of the same topic when the problems that led to deletion have not been addressed.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I just noticed too, and I'd tend to agree. Though I'd shorten it: "An article which was previously deleted as the result of a deletion discussion and which does not remedy the issues which led to deletion." You don't just need to try to fix it, you need to actually fix it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I just inserted a missing "not", but I think this is workable, too. It can still be tightened a bit, but I agree with the emphasis: if an editor has made a good-faith effort to address the deletion discussion, whether from a copy or by creating a new article from scratch, going back to AfD (with the possibility of salting the title if the community's patience has become exhausted with good faith but chronically insufficient efforts) rather than G4 is the right process. Jclemens (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

We need to keep the "exact or substantial copy" part of the wording. This is what G4 is there for. Too many editors are apt to put their own interpretation on whether or not the previous reasons for deletion have been addressed. I think it was unwise by the way to change this with only a few editors contributing to the discussion here, and it should be changed back until there is clear consensus for a change. --Michig (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Silence is sometimes just an indication that no one objects. If you look at the way I posted it (I requested reverts in the comment, after all), I clearly did not expect it to be final, and the edit had the desired effect of generating additional input. Just for the record, "exact or substantial copy" and "copy" don't have a lot of difference for me, as I expect the criterion will be applied by humans, not lawyers or computers, who understand the nuance that moving a word or two around does not change whether or not it is a copy. SDY (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Legalese is a swear word for what is often an attempt to obfuscate (insurance contract anyone); good legal writing, by contrast, is all about clarity and precision in language. I have trouble imagining anyone feeling talked down to or insulted by this language and I do think it provides clarity for a small imprint of verbiage.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

(undent) I use the term "legalese" to mean anything that is stated in sesquipedalian overcomplexities that add lots of words but don't add lots of meaning. We can haggle over the wording later. The main thing that we appear to be disagreeing on now, though, is whether a good faith (but ineffective) attempt requires a full discussion or is G4-able. As Jclemens has pointed out, we have other tools available if an editor decides to abuse a more lenient version. I'd rather see discussions than speedies if there's any doubt, though I think we might be able to wrangle in some of MRG's expectation of a "clueful" good faith attempt. SDY (talk) 04:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I really don't see how good faith is relevant. We delete hundreds of things that were created in good faith every day. You can have all the good intentions in the world and still create an inappropriate article. Either they have rectified the issue that led to the initial deletion, or they haven't. If there is a reasonable case to be made that they have, then we let the article stand. If not we delete it. I don't think it is really flawed and needs to be changed. The way it was written was working fine. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

The previous version did not address the issue of what "substantially identical" meant (which this whole "attempt" business is clearly related to), so it appears that there is some uncertainty about what the policy should say. Frankly, the previous version is probably only clear to you because you were familiar with using it, and policy should be clear at first reading, not simply through experience, especially for things like speedy criteria because of the WP:BITE potential. Reading the old policy, I have no clear idea what "substantially identical" means. SDY (talk) 14:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

(e/c) I don't understand why we are going anywhere near an intent standard. It makes no sense to me at all, and talk about an ambiguity-riddled thing to judge. A person's additions/changes to a recreated article either do, or do not, address the deletion bases. What they intended/attempted to do in making the changes seems to me exquisitely irrelevant. I can't imagine where we would begin to make an assessment of whether such changes/additions were in good faith or not. Going back to the example I used before of adding Myspace links (or Facebook; some blogs; maybe some unreliable sources that are not so blatantly invalid on their face) who's to say this wasn't a good faith attempt to address a deletion discussion's basis for deletion of lack of sourcing, albeit, without a good understanding of the relevant policies? It seems to me if we enact this we would need to take every article that contained additional content to AfD because only in the most blatant cases would good faith be able to be judged against the recreator (we do assume good faith after all).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

My impression of the speedy criteria is that they were intended to be used if and only if no community input is necessary. If there is any doubt, it should be going to a full discussion, not arbitrary deletion. Note that at no point was there a suggestion that WP:AGF was part of the policy, and adding a few clearly inappropriate references isn't much of an "attempt." MRG's comments about things that might "change the outcome" I think hit the nail on the head. SDY (talk) 14:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• If the issue here is that "substantially identical" is something that people don't understand, then why not simply try to clarify that (not difficult I would have thought) rather than altering the wording in a way that allows people to delete articles simply because they alone have decided that the new article doesn't address the reasons for deletion from the original AFD. --Michig (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
• Trying to unambiguously define this is a mistake. If the article is the same as the previously deleted version, delete it. If the wording is altered but not in a way that addresses the concerns that led to the deletion, delete it. If substantive improvements of any kind have been made, keep it. That is the intent behind this csd. While the criteria are deliberately narrow, they also deliberately contain phrases like "substantially identical" so that the reviewing admin is permitted to ast in the spirit of the criterion. A7, the mst widely used criterion, uses the phrase " credible claim of significance or importance " and we trust admins to be able to evaluate that as well. Mistakes will be made in both directions no matter how carefully we try to word the criteria. Being too specific is as bad or worse than being too vague. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• I agree with your interpretation of 'substantially identical' but I've seen others interpret it as 'same issues as last time', irrespective of the article content. Yes, it's difficult to define it too tightly but it may be useful to specify some specific instances when G4 does not apply, such as an article deleted at AFD 4 years ago, where a new and completely different article has been created by a different editor - I've seen two of these in the past 2 days - one tagged as G4 (and detagged by me) and one deleted as G4 without prior tagging. --Michig (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I originally interpreted "substantially identical" to mean "similar content and problems" (spades and shovels) and not "copies or near-copies" (spades and shades). Which is it? The current policy does not say. It does not address what the article's author could have or should have done but did not do that led to a speedy deletion, and it sounds rather arbitrary and capricious. SDY (talk) 01:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

What the author should or could have done was address the deletion basis announced at the deletion discussion. If an article was deleted at AfD because notability was not shown, the additional content in the reposted article that would invalidate G4 applying would be reliable, independent secondary sources that treated the topic in some detail. Similar for verifiability, except that it would the information content and not the topic that would be the focus of the sufficiency of sources. If the article was deleted at AfD because it was too close paraphrasing, the changes would be a rewrite so that copyright was not violated, and so on for any deletion discussion. There's nothing arbitrary or capricious about it. I am implacably opposed to any standard that asks us not to judge whether the additional content addressed the deletion discussion basis, but instead asks us to gaze into a crystal ball to divine whether we think the person was acting in good faith in an attempt to address the deletion basis, regardless of whether they were successful or failed. It is a non-starter.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Fuhghettaboutit's view of the purpose of this CSD criteria and also that it is not our purpose to assess the intent. But, Michig, it should be used when there are the "same issues as last time", irrespective of the article content, when those issues led to an outcome of deletion at deletion debate. To use the same example I raised above, if an article deleted at AfD for lacking sufficient sources to substantiate notability is recreated 15 minutes later with entirely different text but the same sources, it does not need to go back through AfD. The sources are not improved by the change in language. There are many possible scenarios where articles are deleted at AfD for reasons that have nothing to do with the specific text in use; limiting this criteria to those cases where the same text is used would generate unnecessary waste of community resources. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think you're missing the point. If someone is reposting a deleted article with no improvement, then yes, G4 applies. What I'm saying is that if someone else (who may never have been aware of the original article) creates a new article with completely different content, then G4 does not apply. The new article may lack sources, but that would not justify a G4 as it isn't a repost but a new article. One example I came across was about a musician who had released two albums since the AFD - it isn't appropriate for an individual to decide unilaterally that he isn't notable now and delete it as a G4 based an outcome from years before relating to a different article. In short we need to distinguish between reposting deleted articles without improvement, and new articles about the same subject created by different editors. G4 should apply to the former but not the latter.--Michig (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think, actually, we may be disagreeing on what the point is. :) I believe that the point of the criteria is to avoid wasting community time on deletion debates where the community has already passed judgment and there is no reason to believe that the judgment would have changed. If User:JohnSmith creates an article on musician AllThatandMore citing only his Myspace and it is deleted because the Myspace does not verify notability, the Myspace still does not verify notability when User:JaneDoe uses it to create an article. I believe the criteria should bridge the gap between ordinary speedy deletion candidates (that is, content which by broad consensus is inappropriate) and content that would not normally meet speedy deletion criteria but which the community has already judged. If a musician has released two albums, that is a material change of circumstance that might result in a new outcome of a deletion debate. That's a different kind of issue. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Many of the criteria here help to avoid wasting time on deletion debates. We agree, it seems, that a material change in circumstance may result in a different outcome, so G4 would not be appropriate. Where we perhaps differ is that I don't think it should be used for completely new articles where the AFD that resulted in deletion is from years ago, with the possibility that new sources exist that did not back then. It's for dealing with reposting against consensus, not for preventing new articles from being created, which are better dealt with via a new discussion. Consensus can also change. --Michig (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I would agree with you that in many cases if it was from years ago G4 is probably not appropriate. But I do disagree if you are saying that User:JaneDoe's article, created 10 minuted after the one deleted by User:JohnSmith, needs to go through AfD again even though it uses the single same source to substantiate notability that was rejected at AfD. I think it is important to recognize the reason that the content was deleted and to exercise good judgment in determining whether a new article has any hope of addressing that reason, so that we avoid process for the sake of process. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

(undent) I had originally been tempted to not include the "attempt" language but Jclemens had objected to a criterion that didn't include it so I left it in. I think the main question is how we address a reasonable attempt that might still ultimately fail but shows that the re-poster made every reasonable attempt to conform to notability policy but still fell short (e.g. article deleted per WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and the recreated article addressed the memorial and battleground issues but debatably still failed to demonstrate encyclopedic value). I totally agree that if it's obvious that the changes fail to address the reason for deletion then G4 it is, and that was what the edit I placed attempted to say (this whole discussion of AGF is not even hinted at in the actual text). In these marginal cases, how much discretion do we give the speedying administrator in determining whether community input is needed? It sounds like F_a_i's stance is that the administrator should have broad discretion, and I'm not really comfortable with that. Speedy criteria should have predictable outcomes. SDY (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well, I'm not sure what you mean by my stance being that admins should have broad discretion but, I can tell you that the language tweaks most were suggesting, including mine, which incorporated suggestions by others, were clarifications of the existing standard's language The standard for additional content has had since at least January 2007, a reference to additional content addressing the deletion bases. In 2007 it said ""Substantially identical" means that the new article doesn't attempt to address the reason for which it was deleted." This was more explicit in the last version and I think better than the current, e.g., as of July 2009. That standard is now contained in the language "the reason for the deletion no longer applies", which has the same result. The change to language that asks us to assess whether the attempt was in good faith is a sea change to the standard (and one which I think I've made clear, makes no sense at all to me).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I know hoaxes have been discussed, and it's always been decided to not speedy them if they're not blatant. But, wouldn't it make sense to say a BLP that's unsourced, that may be a hoax, should be speedied on sight, since any hoax would expose the subject to ridicule, even if the claims are positive, and even they (the subject) were the author of it. I use this model's bio as an example, which could be embarrassing to the subject, if people thought she was making these claims about herself. Keeping the article around a few days, and having an AFD (which remains visible), just invites people to use Wikipedia to make up plausable false claims about a person, just for kicks. --Rob (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I don't see any reason to do so. There is consensus against speedy deleting unsourced BLPs and there is consensus against speedy deleting non-blatant hoaxes. So why should there be consensus for the combination of both? If the claims are not clearly a hoax, then there is no reason to treat them like a hoax. Both AFD and WP:BLPPROD were designed to handle such cases after all. Anything might expose any subject to ridicule by third-parties, even sourced facts. But while a person's life and the effects of a Wikipedia article on it are acceptable reasons for deletion in certain cases, I don't see a reason why it has to be handled by speedy deletion. Potential misuse by other people is not a valid reason for deletion after all. Otherwise we would have to delete quite a lot of material (just think about pornography-related pictures that might seriously offend some people but are still encyclopedic). If material is purely negative and unsourced, we have G10. If it's clearly a hoax, we have G3. If there is no indication of importance or significance, we have A7. But for the rest, we should always give the creator the benefit of doubt and allow some time to decide about them. Regards SoWhy 22:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

There are gradations between speedy and 10 days on AFD. I'd suggest poping a fairly obvious hoax on the BLPNB, where a few people can review it. If it's obvious, someone may well ignore the rules and speedy it after a bit of discussion.--Scott Mac 22:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Generally, SoWhy's position pretty much mirrors my position on Speedies, but here I think we differ... but WP:BLP already covers this, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion"---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Balloonman has hit the nail on the head here. If you remove all unsourced or poorly-sourced contentious information from a BLP, and there is no content left, then you can speedy it under A3. Typically though, at least a stub will remain (e.g. "Jane Doe is an actress.") While A3 does not usually apply if there is a more substantive version in the history, I think it should if reverting is not an option. Dcoetzee 01:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Lead section, 4th paragraph down, 2nd sentence: "Before nominating a page..." <-- Would a link to WP:BEFORE be appropriate/helpful here? Or will that possibly confuse people? -- œ^™ 22:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'd still like to create a "BEFORE creating an article..." page, myself. I've never much cared for the hideously overused WP:BEFORE. "BEFORE creating an article, ensure that you have found adequate source material in order to ensure that the subject of your article passes the notability requirements, and that the article adheres to all other content policies. If not..." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'd kind of rather you not do that. In addition to being more related to AFD than CSD, BEFORE is being used more and more as a blunt object to accuse users of acting in bad faith. That's something I'm not keen to encourage. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

FWIW, I agree with this. Speedy deletion should be based on what's currently in the article and/or can easily be deduced from what's in the article. It is intentionally a lightweight process, and should not be overly burdened with the requirements of BEFORE. Jclemens (talk) 22:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have been going through a lot of old, orphaned templates lately, and I often find ones that contain no more than a few words, or a single link. Here's an example: {{Hovet}}. It contains a piped link only:

[[Johanneshovs Isstadion|Hovet]]

No documentation (even in edit summaries), it's totally orphaned (not even any incoming links except from lists of orphaned templates), it's been sitting around for awhile (i.e. it's been given a chance at life, which it hasn't taken), and it has no scope for future use. (In this specific case, the template was used briefly in the article 2009–10 Elitserien season, but then it was removed. The creator, Heymid (talk · contribs), no doubt created it in good faith, and not as a test.)

I've been nominating these for G2, and admins have been deleting them. But they're not really "test pages". The wording of G2 doesn't say exactly what a "test page" is; it provides no guidance at all. Twinkle's popup tip uses the example "Can I really create a page here?" The kind of template I refer to here is not similar to that stereotypical "test" by any stretch - often, they appear to have been created in good faith, but they aren't serving any purpose and won't serve any purpose in the future.

Here are a couple more examples: {{Hulk & Joseph 10}} (which contained the name of the template, before an IP changed the contents to "Template:Hulk"), and {{Imbucent succession box}} (which contains some parameters for something). Same arguments apply to both: no documentation, totally orphaned, both old (2009 and 2007 respectively), and no scope for future use. Again, I would have nominated these for G2.

A third kind: templates that contains only the name of the template, like {{Important Buildings}}. They would be an obvious candidate for A1 as articles, but for templates all we are left with is, again, G2. (This is maybe a clearer use of G2 than with the others I mentioned before.)

My concern with G2 is that its name "Test pages" doesn't reflect the contents of these pages. They are not necessarily tests - there may once have been a use for them. But they are long forgotten, and won't be used again. Seeing "test page" in the deletion log does not help a creator or contributor to understand why the deletion took place - the template was not a "test" in their mind, it was a good-faith contribution (albeit a useless one in the long run). Do we need a new criterion? Or do we need to explicitly word G2 (or some other criterion) so this kind of thing falls under it? — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'd rather go with G6 or G8. If they are completely unused for a long time, then removing them is just cleanup and as such probably always unproblematic. If they are unused because the page that used them was removed, G8 applies. In the first example you cite, T3 probably applies (not directly but its spirit), since it's a hardcoded instance of a link that can be created dynamically by the software. If those don't apply, I would use WP:TFD though, unless it's obviously created as a test. If they exist for such a long time, then there is no harm in keeping them a little longer. Regards SoWhy 10:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I noticed an article that had been marked for speedy deletion a month ago, and I spent a few minutes checking. It is very short, cut and paste from a promotional website, contains just 3 references which are blind, states qualifications that I could not verify, and irrelevant name dropping puffery. I list these concerns in the Discussion. Do articles actually get deleted if they are not actionable? Michael P. Barnett (talk) 11:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

If is totally cut and pasted from a website it would probably qualify for deletion under criterion G12 (copyright infringement). ThemFromSpace 11:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Are you sure it's correctly marked for speedy deletion? Right now there are no articles older than two days in the speedy queue. Thparkth (talk) 12:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

The article is Paul Karslake I assumed the article was marked for deletion because, on my PC, I see "Paul Karslake FRSA This file is a candidate for speedy deletion. It may be deleted after Friday, December 17, 2010." in red, below the hat-notes (I think this is the correct term). I put in the four of these that are marked with a ! (exclamation). The fifth, that is marked with a ? on an open book was there already. I should explain this is remote from my interests -- I registered to edit WP articles to provide verified information on technical topics from 50+ years ago, started to practice on articles about places where I have lived, and this led me to Karslake article when searching web for material for Leigh-on-Sea. I have been putting a lot of effort into WP because I think so many articles are good, and the method of working is essential to many situations, but I am alarmed by the amount that is not good that seems irremediable. When I encountered an article that was actually marked for deletion (or appeared to be) I thought it could be salutary to see whether this really occurred. Hope I am not out of order in raising this question. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 13:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I see what you're referring to - the message about speedy deletion refers to an image that was previously used in the article. It looks like it was deleted on copyright grounds. I'll remove the now-useless message in the Karslake article itself. Thparkth (talk) 13:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I am reassured that "marked for speedy deletion" is not ignored. That leaves open the question of whether articles that are as bad (and in violation of WP guidelines) as I think this is can remain. I am particularly bothered by the contrast between tolerance of what I think blatant violation of WP guidelines in an article like this, and the hair splitting wiki legalisms that make writing good faith material that seems to conform to common sense interpretations of guidelines an invitation to wiki-legalistic arguments that preempt time that could be spent on substantive contributions. Are there processes that review the kinds of criticisms I posted?. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 14:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Certainly it will remain as-is, unless someone is motivated to improve it, or if it can't be improved, to nominate it for deletion. The article isn't an obvious candidate for speedy deletion though. Thparkth (talk) 14:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I have a more general question that I think can be posed as a follow up to this exchange. I do not want to nominate any article for deletion, only to warn readers when I think an article is seriously flawed. Of the 80 articles to which I have made changes (several of these minute and / or non-controversial), I think errors in less than 10 merit hatnotes. For some of these, I would need to construct new templates, to display "an Editor thinks that this article departs from mainstream usage of the term ... see Discussion" or "an Editor thinks this article deals with only a few of the topics that are covered by standard monographs with the same title -- see Discussion". Is putting hatnotes on 10% of the articles that a contributor edits wiki-"bad form" or exceptional. The articles are on topics I used for initial self-education and then substantive work, and in a few cases, that my wife and consulted for ephemeral reasons. I am trying to extricate myself from all articles except those of close personal interest to which I think I can make a useful contribution. I have draft information for other articles that I do not have time to research adequately. I am putting these in Discussion pages, for other people to follow up on, if anyone thinks this beneficial. I realize I am straying from the deletion issue, but this question is so close to what is in this paragraph already, I hope it is ok for me to ask for a referral to where I can find if a template stating "more information in Discussion" is permissible and, if so, how to find if it exists already. I have a morass of template material already, and think there may be a lot more. Also, related (I hope not obviously) how to alert appropriate Wikipedians to a possible harmful practice based on a principle I described in an invited talk to a reputable professional meeting some years ago, that has been published conventionally. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well, for the second template you mention, you could use {{cleanup-weighted}}: "This article is weighted too heavily toward only one aspect of its subject." The first one doesn't seem to exist as you mention it; {{off-topic}} is as close as I can find. These boxes that are placed at the top of articles are not "hatnotes", they are known as "cleanup templates" or "maintenance templates" (or even sometimes "amboxes"). Placing them on 10% of articles is probably not a concern, particularly if the articles are less developed (shorter) or poorly constructed. Still, this is all off-topic for WT:CSD. Let's end the discussion or carry it on elsewhere. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Another editor objected to my tagging an article as A7, because (he said [2]) even though the article text itself gave no claim of signficance (simply said Company X exists, does Y, has N employees [3]) a claim of signficance exists in one of the sources cited in the article. I say that the text of A7 -- An article ... that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. ... 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... (my bolding) -- strongly implies that the claim of significance has to be visible in the text of the article, so one need not rummage around in the sources to find even one reason the topic might be notable.

In particular, since A7 provides that it "does not apply ... even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source" the implication is that the required claim must exist whether or not any source exists i.e. it needs to be in the article. It seems to me A7 has little value if one has to look through all the sources to see what might be there, when the originator of the article couldn't be bothered to mention even a bare minimum of one qualifying claim of significance. Thoughts? EEng (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

FWIW I agree with you.  – ukexpat (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Opinions will vary, and the wording isn't clear on this, but I would consider it inappropriate to speedily delete an article where you know there is a credible claim of significance regarding the topic, even if is not explicitly present in the article text. Thparkth (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well of course, if I knew such a claim was in one of the sources, I'd just add it to the article and the problem would be resolved. And I agree the wording isn't clear. I'm trying to see if we can decide on what the right interpretation is and and (maybe) get consesus for clarified wording. Take a look at the article I linked [4] and tell me whether you think it's incumbent on an editor to read through the 500 words in the three sources cited just to see if, somewhere in there, there's some claim of significance, before nominating for A7. EEng (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

If there's a list of potentially reliable independent sources, in my mind that's an assertion of significance that the subject may meet the general notability guideline and should be discussed at AfD, not left to just one or two people to determine the article's fate via speedy. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

The key there, of course, is potentially reliable independent sources. So, Facebook, Twitter, Official Site, BandCamp, YouTube, YouGetThePoint... don't apply! — Timneu22 · talk 23:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I agree with that. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

This seems to be going in the direction of saying that the simple fact that sources (other than of the Facebook variety) are listed, then that counts as an assertion of significance on its own? That means that any article which cites any non-Facebook-type source immediately escapes A7? EEng (talk) 23:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

We want editors creating articles to be paying attention to WP:N, so in some ways listing sources is the best way to assert significance. It's asserting that independent sources have written about the subject. See also User:SoWhy/Common A7 mistakes#Common indications of importance or significance. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Agree that we want to encourage sourcing, but the question still is whether listing some sources, without giving any idea in the article itself what the source of the subject's notability even might be, passes muster. The essay you linked says Yes, setting a very low bar:

If the article makes any of these claims, it almost certainly does not meet A7...Has received coverage of any kind in possibly reliable sources...

Now, that essay is just an essay, not policy. The question is whether this is an appropriate interpretation of the A7 policy. I would advocate that it is not, and that the article text itself should have at least something to indicate significance. I'd endorse pretty much the full list of significance-signifying items in the list given in the essay, if at least one of them is given in the article text. I think that last provision is asking very little, and is a useful requirement. An example:

The article (about a company called AnaJet [5]) which started me thinking about this question lists three sources. One [6] is your standard dry company-profile piece (# of employees, revenue, etc); one [7] is a (surprisingly interesting) discussion of the technical challenges involved in printing on textiles (mentioning several companies) and the third [8] is about Anajet itself. I read through all of them and I can honestly say that nowhere is there even a single instance of what one might call a claim of significance. The closest I could come is:

• "The printers are AnaJet founder Chase Roh's answer to the clothing industry's problems with traditional screen printing."
• "Brother and AnaJet are considered by many to offer the only printers specifically designed for printing on fabrics and textiles."
• "Notice that Silevitch mentioned the print heads. There is a reason for this. While AnaJet’s machine was designed specifically for printing on fabric, it does utilize Epson print heads."

Really, that's it. There's no claim of even tenuous significance in the article because there's none in the sources which is why, of course, there's none in the article either. Yet despite this (under Paul Erik's interpretation) this article survives A7 and goes to AfD, and everyone has to suffer through all boring this stuff to discover for himself or herself not only that there's no notability, but that there's nothing that even hints at it. They should't have to do that, and under my interpretation of A7, they wouldn't: the article text should be required to give some indicator of significance (wregardless of whether sources are listed and regardless of what those sources might say). If the article can't do that, as this one can't, then it's deleted under A7 and we can all move on to other things. The above is longer than I intended but there it is. Since I've gone this far I'll propose (in order to keep discussion concrete) that the policy's A7 text be modified thus:

An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization [etc etc] that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. contain, in its text, at least one credible assertion of fact constituting a suggestion of the subject's importance or significance. [etc etc]

Thoughts? Don't all yell at me at once, please. EEng (talk) 00:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

(@Paul Erik e/c with large block of text above) Agree wholeheartedly. Here's where I stand on this.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

A7 is for cases where one sees no reason to believe the article could ever develop into something viable. If there is any reason to believe an article has a chance of surviving an AfD because of cleanup/expansion that could take place during the AfD itself, then A7 must not be used. And if a cited source gives a reason to believe the article could be expanded into something viable, then the article is simply not an A7 candidate, even if the claim of importance is not within the text itself. Although in such a situation, criteria A1/A3 may apply, but not A7. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Assuming that your interpretation of A7's current text is correct, I'm suggesting that we change it, in a very minor way. To repeat, I'm proposing that the article's creator, or just one person who cares about it, be required to trouble himself to take something indicating significance from one of those sources and put it into the article. That's it. Is that asking too much? The point of my long excursion above was to show that, where this isn't done (even now, when it's not required to be done) it's a pretty good indicator that there's nothing at all even suggesting significance that can be added to the article. That's the question on the table. EEng (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC) P.S. to User Fuhg: all of the examples you gave, with the possible exception of poet Penrose, would survive under my proposed version of A7.Reply

My post was very specifically responding to another which was talking about the inclusion of reliable sources in the article text. They are an indication of importance and significance by virtue of the fact that we hold up sourcing as the wellspring of notability. The whole nature of notability is that for purposes of an encyclopedia, reliable sources taking note of a topic is what's important and significant for a topic's inclusion. But application of notability requires us to make a determination of whether the reliable, independent, secondary sources significantly treating the topic actually exist. So when we go to the far lower threshold of an indication of importance or significance (A7), putatively reliable sources being included, all by itself, is a fundamental indication. I was not targeting the scenario in your original post which, by contrast, contemplates us taking on the obligation of surveying the content of the sources included, in order to find an assertion in their text. That is totally unworkable. So I would have declined your A7 request—not because of anything in the sources, but because the sources themselves are not Myspace or Facebook but Business Week and others.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I agree that there should be at least one credible claim to significance in the article text. Just because an article lists a source like Business Week doesn't mean the source is even relevant, let alone contain any claim of significance. I don't think it's too much to ask that if someone has gone to the trouble of finding sources that they include at least one claim from those sources in the article text. Regarding the specific wording suggested above, I'm happy with most of it but not the ending. I'd suggest instead:

An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization [etc etc] that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. contain, in its text, at least one credible assertion of fact that indicates why its subject is important or significant. [etc etc]

Although I'm not 100% happy with this I think the slightly simpler language will help more people understand it. I would make it clear and explicit in an explanatory note that the inclusion of sources does not, on its own, constitute an assertion. I'd suggest making the same wording changes to A9 too.

To me, A1, A3 and A7/A9 together constitute the absolute minimum standard that are required for an article to be acceptable: There must be actual content that gives enough context to identify the subject of the article and contains a credible assertion that the subject is significant and/or important enough for an encyclopaedia article. Thryduulf (talk) 12:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I disagree with your proposed wording. I feel that if an article contains a reference to a relevant reliable source, then that itself is a credible claim of significance, and the article should not be speedily deleted. Thparkth (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

The point is that it should be possible to determine whether a credible assertion of significance/importance is made by reading only the text of the article. The evaluation of the relevance and reliability of sources is something that is AfD's job. So either every article that includes a source (regardless of relevance or reliability, including myspace and facebook links) but does not state it's importance gets sent to AfD, or the claim of significance must be in the article text. Those are the only two options that meet the objectivity requirement of speedy deletion criteria. Thryduulf (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

This is a false dichotomy. Myspace and other obviously-self-published material never counts as evidence of notability, so no judgement call is necessary. If a topic has been covered in an independent reliable source, that is prima-facie evidence of a claim to notability, and speedy deletion under A7 is not appropriate even if the article text itself isn't explicit about it. This is the current practice for what it's worth. Thparkth (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

The concept that sourcing alone is a statement of importance isn't reasonable. There are a lot of sources that convey no importance or notability. Should an article contain a statement that demonstrates notability? Certainly. Should a nominator take a quick peek at sources and fix instead of nominate when the source contains a statement of importance? Generally, yes. Should the admin processing the same article make the same check? Generally, yes. Has either the nominator or the admin made a serious error if they don't notice the statement in the source when the author failed to include it in the article? No. It's unimportant, and the worst that will happen is that a poorly written article gets deleted, and someone with better skills will have to recreate it. An excusable mistake with insignificant consequences. —Kww(talk) 21:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Thparkth (and disagree with Kww that the consequences are minor): Noting coverage in independent reliable sources is prima-facie evidence of a claim to notability, and this is the current practice generally, if not universally among admins. We practically hit new editors over the head with the message that the best way to demonstrate notability is to show independent coverage—it's in all the introductory material, including the Article Wizard ("If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."). It appears in the {{Notability}} template: "Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic." The core policy of WP:V notes in a section all its own, "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." The edit notice when anyone creates a new article says, "When creating an article, provide references to reliable published sources. An article without references, especially a biography of a living person, may be deleted." A new editor who pays close attention to that is someone we want to keep around, even if they aren't getting all other aspects quite right. Quickly deleting such articles sends a frustratingly mixed message. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

(@ Thryduulf) You miss the point. "[T]here should be at least one credible claim to significance in the article text" you say, but you are limiting that claim to a prose assertion for unknown reasons. We are talking about indications of importance or significance for encyclopedic purposes. Our underlying goal is to separate wheat from chaff, and the wheat is topics that are likely to merit inclusion. Where would we look to down the road, on the merits, for whether a topic merited inclusion? We would look to whether it was the subject of treatment in reliable sources. That is how we ultimately assess whether a topic is "important or significant" enough to be included. With CSD A7, we are not down the road yet. We are not exploring whether the topic actually meets these standards but looking for a mere indication that it may. At the A7 assessment point, we don't know whether any statements of fact are true. We don't know whether a statement like "is very well know X" actually should continue "...in my high school only." We don't know whether, even if the statement is true, there are sources backing it up. Sourcing is the goal and the touchstone and the standard we will look to and require an article to meet to substantiate its importance. But as a practical matter we can't ask for that to be shown in an article's first version, so we ask for an "indication of importance and significance". That indication does usually take the form of a statement of fact, but because of what we are, and concomitantly, the grounds upon which we decide whether topics merit articles, there can be no better and direct indication of importance than cited reliable sources already present; they indicate that the higher level standard of proof notability calls for, may actually be met.

• John doe is an artist (born year) haling from X.
• John doe is an artist (born year) haling from X. He is very well known and has exhibited widely.
• John doe is an artist (born year) haling from X.<Citation to The New York Times and a book on impressionist art>

The first is uncontroversial A7. The second asserts a fact indicating importance, though we don't know if its true. The third indicates that the New York Times and a topic specific book have content on the subject—the very types of material that the second would need to show, if questioned, is already indicated in the third.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

That's true, and I think both the tagger and the reviewing admin have an obligation to review it. But if the sources were articles in a high-school newspaper, it's still A7 material. I don't think A7 should be written to force retention of an article sourced to questionable sources in an effort to avoid an occasional error with articles sourced to legitimate sources.—Kww(talk) 13:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Re the 3rd example, if both citations are linked to an on-line, or other source the reviewer has access to, and neither seem to indicate any actual notability, it may well still be A7. He may well, for example, have been mentioned in the NYT as the art student son of Jane Doe, the famous artist. However, I agree that if no such access is available one should AGF and decline the speedy (possibly PRODing it) even if the text itself fails to assert notability. Ben MacDui 16:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

As the editor who began this thread, I can only say... Oh my goodness! What a firestorm I've set off! I'll wait until the dust settles a bit before commenting. I do appreciate everyone's efforts to help answer this innocent question posed by lil' ol' me. EEng (talk) 14:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

That would be equivalent to where the assertion of fact is not true or deceptive or overblown and the tagger or reviewer takes on the task of checking. We get a lot of that in new pages. Based on placing and reviewing a few thousand csd tags, I think there are far more pages (by percentage) where the prose assertion is a lie, deceptive or overblown, than it is the case a citation to a seeming reliable independent source that someone has bothered to include turns out to be bullshit.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

True enough, but I have seen it. Ben MacDui 19:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Oh sure. Seen it many times.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

This happens a lot with articles about criminals; without any references, they're usually G10s. But if they have a reference, you have to check and see if it backs up the claim; there was one instance where I came across a screed of text accusing a man of child molestation, and the one "reference" was an article about three guys going to a basketball game. It was an obvious attempt at bullshitting; on borderline cases with A7 or G10, I always check the prose and the references. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Under what circumstances is an F7 deletion appropriate without a dfu tag or similar process? I've just restored three images (File:Complete androgen insensitivity presenting with inguinal hernia.jpg, File:Complete androgen insensitivity syndrome.jpg, File:Complications from infant genitoplasty.jpg--NOT SAFE FOR WORK) which were deleted because the uploader added a {{Non-free newspaper image}} tag for the licensing section presumably because we don't have a licensing tag for journal images. The tag notwithstanding, detailed copyright and source information were present in the fair use rationale. Is it appropriate to delete those kinds of images on sight (I'm not looking for answers to whether or not it was appropriate to delete those three per se, that's in the past)? The only discussion I see on it (admittedly without deeply searching WT:CSD) is on the template talk page from 2006. Protonk (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm unsure why those examples were deleted - a detailed {{Non-free use rationale}} tag and a license tag were present after all. Even if one were to argue that F7 was applied correctly, not even notifying the uploader is not really the correct way to act in this case. In general, F7 specifically mentions that images should only be deleted if there is a clearly invalid fair-use tag present. In cases where the uploader clearly thought about those things, one should never use any of those criteria to immediately delete an image. Regards SoWhy 21:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

There's a redirect for discussion about foreign redirects: here. I'd really like to see a policy that makes sense on this, and I've stated it repeatedly and in my delete vote on that page. If something originated in that language, a redirect is valid, otherwise it is not. Voiture→car is not a valid redirect. If anyone wants to weigh in on that discussion, it may help for setting a policy. — Timneu22 · talk 21:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

The situation here is a problem. Currently, R3 states that "Redirects from in other languages [are generally useful]." But no explanation is given, and the word "generally" is very forgiving and subjective. Several arguments are used against these unhelpful foreign redirects: they are very unlikely to ever be used (people wanting content in other languages are probably going to be browsing their language version of Wikipedia); they set a bad precedent (if allowed, it opens up the way for the creation of potentially millions of foreign redirects which are in all probability never going to be used); it is redundant to the interwiki linking system; and it is extremely difficult to maintain foreign redirects on a mainly English-speaking project (case in point: is "Fizbucket boo" -> "Wikipedia" an appropriate redirect? No. What about "Свеча аромат мыла" -> "Wikipedia"? Who knows, without going to the trouble of using an online translator). I believe this discussion has been had to death in the past, but the discussion at this RfD made me realise that there appear to be many people in favour of deleting "random foreign redirects", as well as a few against. So I decided to contribute here.

Perhaps we need a new CSD. The situation here is quite hard to pin down in a terse criterion, but here's an attempt (which might still be too general):

Redirects in a foreign language and/or writing system, where the subject matter of the target article is clearly not related to the foreign language and/or writing system (or, for redirects in foreign languages, any aspect of any country in which that language is spoken, broadly construed), and where the name of the subject described in the target article does not originate in that language and/or writing system.

(Just to be clear, this isn't a proposal with which I (personally) really have the time or patience to follow through; it's just an idea.) — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

There are so many generalities and exceptions to that I have to wonder why you think a speedy deletion criteria is needed? The merits of each individual redirect can be, and are, discussed at RfD. While foreign language redirects to unconnected subjects might not be useful or needed, they almost never going to be harmful such that discussing them for a week will be a problem (or, at least they are no more or less likely to than any other redirect). It has been suggested elsewhere (and this is at least the third concurrent discussion of which I'm aware) that proposes to presume that every redirect that someone has gone to the trouble to create manually is useful, and even if they aren't if they don't conflict with anything they aren't doing any harm so why go to the trouble of deleting them, particularly speedily. Any that do conflict or have other issues that prevent this general state of affairs applying will best be dealt with at RfD. As such I'd have to oppose any speedy deletion criterion for them. That a significant number of people object to their deletion should be a clue that speedy deletion isn't going to be uncontroversial, which precludes speedy deleting them. Thryduulf (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/brest-bot regarding a bot to create redirects to articles from the equivalent titles in Macedonian may also be of interest. Thryduulf (talk) 21:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

There have been a number of articles that don't "assert" or "indicate" importance in the text, but are backed up with citations to (obviously) significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Since such articles will always survive AfD discussions, it seems senseless to permit them to be speedily deleted. There is nothing in the notability guidelines about "assertion" or "indication" of notability, just reference to the actual criteria, which relate to the subject's coverage or other fact patterns—not text in the article.

I've tweaked the text at A7 to reflect this.

^Bongo_matic 07:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Makes sense to me. Shame we actually have to say this, though, since the general instructions for CSD clearly support this: speedy deletion is only for things for which everyone (or everyone familiar with and understanding Wikipedia's inclusion policies, at any rate) agrees that no encyclopedia article should exist OR that there is a fatal flaw (G10-12) with what's currently there. Jclemens (talk) 07:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've always thought this to be implicit in both A7 and (per Jclemens) speedy deletion policy in general but there's absolutely nothing wrong with spelling it out explicitly. Also, mentioning notability as one of two ways to cross the A7 bar should draw attention to the distinction between "notability" and "claim to significance or importance", which in my experience is lost on a number of editors. So I agree with the change. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've always taken the existence of a source to be an inherent indicator or assertion. No harm in this change. GedUK  12:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

(In response to all.) I totally agree that this should be obvious, and it's a little pathetic to have to add the clarification. However, I've seen a number of speedy nominations (including a successful one today for Van Dykes—an admittedly lame stub sourced to a 6,000 word New Yorker dedicated solely to the topic) of articles that have been sourced to overwhelmingly meet the guidelines' hurdle. Moreover, the "assertion" language has crept into {{prod}} and AfD nominations, so this should help nip those in the bud. ^Bongo_matic 14:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Needs more discussion. I thought it was pretty obvious that something for which there is demonstrated notability will obviously and necessarily be of some importance or significance. However , I would not change the language in the way suggested, because the moment we accept the word "notability" into the guideline, people will list articles for speedy on the basis of not meeting WP:N, whereas the actual standard is intended to be a lot less. (That's not the real problem with deletions such as the one mentioned: the actual problem is that if there is no indication in the article, how far is the nominator or deleting admin expected to go to find one? I'd say they must at the very least look at any refs the article contains, but what if the refs do not contain any, but a cursory search would easily find them? I admit that I do not always look if there's nothing present and the situation looks borderline and I'm doubtful whether I will find anything, though I will look if I think I can find something. ) Perhaps we need a rewording, but not this one. I predict that the effect would be the exact opposite of what is intended. recall proposing a very similar change my first year here, but more experienced people explained this to me. I have consequently reverted, and I think we need some discussion first about a proper wording. As for a wording, I think the effect would be better gained with almost the exact opposite. It is not necessary to show the subject would actually meet a notability guideline. , or perhaps the more elaborate It is not necessary to show the subject would actually meet a notability guideline; merely an indication or credible assertion that there is some importance of significance or notability is sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I always considered citations to reliable sources to be very literal "assertions of significance". There's no difference to me between saying, "this band was written up in a full page article by The New Yorker", and simply linking to the article, as far as A7 is concerned. I actually prefer it, because it avoids the awkward "X is notable because" phrase you sometimes see in stubs. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I agree that more discussion is needed and that the language used was worse than what we currently have. To be honest the only way I can think of that an article could demonstrate that it meets the notability guidelines without asserting importance or significance would be if it included an external link that showed it met WP:N without asserting anything in the article text. We had a very recent discussion about this, and it didn't quite reach consensus. Personally I still feel that as soon as you start needing to look at anything external to the article to text to determine whether it asserts significance or not then it clearly doesn't. Thryduulf (talk) 00:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Myself, when I look, I find enough about 25% of the time. But since I only look when I think it worthwhile, I estimate thats about 5% of the articles that would otherwise be deleted. That someone write an uncited unclear article on a notable topic is a very frequent occurance, and it doesnt't mean that it should be deleted, but used as a starting point, or at least as an indication to write something. DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

DGG, I think your point on the wording is well-taken. However, your edit summary (reverting the changes, not here) suggests (whether or not intentionally) that there isn't consensus that articles that fail to assert importance—but actually demonstrate (WP) notability should not be nominated for speedy deletion. I don't think that's correct.

Thryduulf, I considered adding this topic to the discussion above, but I don't think it's relevant. I'm not referring to articles whose subject is claimed to be important by third-party sources, I'm referring to topics that are the subjects of in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources—whether or not such sources describe the topics as "important". To pass the notability guideline, a topic doesn't need to be asserted to be important at all&either in Wikipedia or in a third-party source. The notability guidelines—even the subject-specific ones—all tie back to coverage, not descriptions as "important" (indeed the second sentence of WP:N states "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity.").

Here's alternative wording to the original tweak—welcome everyone's improvements.

An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. 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. The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion. In addition, this criterion does not apply to to articles that demonstrate that their subjects meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, even articles that fail otherwise to indicate why their subjects are important. moved Note: 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. This criterion does not apply to species of animals, only to individual animal(s).

Thoughts? ^Bongo_matic 01:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Far too many words. KISS.--Scott Mac 01:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

As the person who originally suggested "no assertion of notability" I'd resist any change in this. Firstly, guidelines are guidelines, and not policies. Personally, I don't read them - I'd rather take each article on its merits YMMMV. The point of "no assertion of notability" was that it ought (mostly) to be cut and dry - and not intended to do AFDs work for it. If the article doesn't contain any claim, which if true, would assert anything important about the person, then it may be speedied. Of course, the subject of the article might be notable, and it is just that the notability hasn't been mentioned - but that's by and by. If someone writes an artilce and can't tell us why the person is important, the onus isn't on the patroller or the reviewing admin to separate the article from the other 99 about someone's favourite uncle. The criteria has NOTHING whatsoever to do with sources - and I'd strongly resist any attempt to insert any instruction creep here. If we insert a source consideration, then we'll get it cutting both ways - because people will start deleting articles WITH unsourced assertions of notability - and retaining articles with sources but no assertion. The point about a speedy is the face of the article ought to tell you whether it qualifies, without looking at sources or guidelines. That means speedy decisions can be quickly standardised. Sure, articles with assertions of notability will get kept, even when the article fails the guidelines (that's a matter for AFD or prod, not speedy), and occasional articles lacking an assertion will notable despite that (but they can be recreated with the default remedied). No change here please.--Scott Mac 01:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

We have WP:REFUND and WP:DRV to challenge any deletion don't forget.

Because notability is just about existence of sources, the inclusion of sources in an article is an assertion of notability. There is no requirement that the article has to say "This topic is notable because"; just putting in a reference to the topic of the article is a clear statement that there are sources on the topic. When I create articles, I make sure to include a source for exactly this purpose. For example, the inline citation to Kechris in Lusin's separation theorem is an assertion of notability. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

If this Help Desk post by Intelligentsium (talk · contribs) is correct, can it be added as a note at "U1" on this page, and in the documentation for {{db-u1}} itself? It's something that gets asked about from time to time. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Let's say I copy the entire contents of Solar system and put it on a page like "John Smith." What's the appropriate tag here? I think it should be included under test pages. It's not a duplicate (because the title is unrelated to the existing article). Thoughts — Timneu22 · talk 00:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)Reply