Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 63

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 60 Archive 61 Archive 62 Archive 63 Archive 64 Archive 65 → Archive 70

Possible expansion of A9

I wanted to get people's thoughts on this before I formally propose it since it would potentially dramatically increase the number of article subject to speedy deletion.

The notability standards for musical albums is pretty basic as far as notability standards goes. No inheritance, must have been discussed in independent reliable sources, etc. However, just from personal experience it seems like album inclusion as a separate article is far closer to "it exists" than any semblance to meeting the actual notability standards. These do not meet A7 and 99% of the time do not meet A9 as it doesn't meet both conditions of the criterion. This leaves AfD or PROD which is a drawn out process. So, what are people's opinions on modifying the A9 criterion to strike the both conditions must be met part?

Note: This is not a RfC. More of a straw poll to see what people's thoughts are on the matter. --Majora (talk) 00:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

  • The "must meet both" requirement was included for a good reason. If the musical recording is significant or important on its own (and thus might be notable on its own), it does not matter if the artist(s) is/are not notable because there is no rule that says we can only have album articles for recordings of notable artists. That's why the notability criteria you linked to don't include this as a requirement. If, on the other hand, the artist is notable but the recording is neither significant nor important, we have WP:ATD, which is a policy that - despite what some might think - also applies to speedy deletion. In 99 out of 100 cases the article about a non-significant/important (and thus non-notable) musical recording can be redirected or merged to either the artist's article or an article about their discography (and ATD clearly says that you can be bold and make such changes yourself without prior discussion at AfD). So what articles are left that have to be deleted and cannot be handled by alternative outlets or procedures? Regards SoWhy 18:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
    I don't have a problem just changing them to redirects to the artist's article. The reason I brought this up was that the only way to currently delete non-notable album articles is to clog up AfD. And there are a lot of non-notable album articles sitting around Wikipedia. I fully understand that albums can be notable on their own when the artist is not. Redirects are a way to go and I'd be happy sticking to that route. Now that I think about it redirects are cheap. I just wanted to see what other people's opinions on the matter was. --Majora (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
    It's not only a matter of cheapness of redirects after all. As ATD teaches us, they allow readers to find the info they are looking for at another place in a way that deletion does not. Honestly, I cannot imagine any non-notable album that shouldn't be discussed in the artist's article, at least in a sentence or two. Regards SoWhy 06:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't think this is a good idea. It would allow articles about recordings to be deleted if the artist doesn't have an article, regardless of any other factors. Even if the article contained solid evidence that the recording was notable it would still qualify for speedy deletion, which is rather bizarre. Looked at the other way round if the artist is notable then the recording should at least be mentioned in the article about the artist, even if the recording isn't independently notable. If the artist is sufficiently high profile then the recording would almost certainly be notable in this situation and merely mentioning the name of the artist would be an assertion of significance. Hut 8.5 18:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
    • @SoWhy: @Hut 8.5: In other words, WP:NOTINHERITED does not apply to CSD, despite what some think? Is the fact that A7 covers a range of subjects the reason we cannot have similar wording there? Adam9007 (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
      • NOTINHERITED is a notability concept. A7 (and other speedy deletion criteria) do not attempt to determine whether a subject is notable. An assertion that the subject is associated with something important may well constitute an assertion of importance, even if it doesn't mean the subject is notable. Hut 8.5 19:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal, as per SoWhy's comments above. Speedy deletion should be only for things that are clearly not wanted here. An album with claims of significance, or that is by a notable artist, might be wanted, at least as a redirect. DES (talk) 07:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • No, some albums do not have artists with articles but have articles. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • While it's true that notability is not inherited, it's also true that improtance/significance is inherited directly from the notability of a clearly associated person. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

A7 - Are crammers protected?

Q: Are crammers schools for the purposes of A7? They're privately run businesses which appear to be sneaking the protection given to secondary schools. Crammers aren't compulsory education. They're not part of the normal K-12 educational process. They have no place in the standard flow. They ought not to get the exemption provided for schools. Cabayi (talk) 09:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Unquestionably not covered by A7. The policy is not "schools are exempt from A7", it's "educational institutions are exempt from A7". As a general rule, if for any article you find yourself having to ask "is this eligible for speedy deletion?", it almost certainly isn't. ‑ Iridescent 09:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Besides, countries other than the US have education systems as well... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus, since I'm not American, and didn't have the US in mind when I wrote the question, I'll take your comment as confirmation that I've avoided bias in the question's phrasing. :-) Cabayi (talk) 10:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Funny, I have the completely opposite conclusion. In my admittedly Amerocentric view of such schools, they would count as businesses, and be subject to A7. I don't see that a business should be exempt because it's service is training. Indeed, our own definition of Educational institution does not include tutoring services. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Agree with Someguy1221: these things see businesses, not institutions. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 10:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I also take this view, but I think it very much depends on context. Our article on crammers for the US says, "[these] businesses are called "tutoring services" or "test preparation centers.", which would qualify them. Other countries I'm not so sure. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Wheeerrre I've just removed spam from! 😃 — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 10:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I thought I might throw in my two cents on this. In my opinion, educational institutions are those that are government-recognised and government-inspected, since private schools adhere to the same standards. In the UK a school must have a 'Department of Education Number -DfE No' and an 'Ofsted' inspection. I assume these cram schools have no such bureaucracy put in place to safeguard learners? Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 14:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't know about other countries or even all states in the U.S. but from my experience private schools are not required to follow any curriculum or be accredited. There are K - 12 schools that have no oversight. A Church can open a school and not have to show any records to anyone but they can still be the only education students receive. ~ GB fan a "frantic, furious ball of anger" 14:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
If only we could use WP:IGNORE as a valid argument for submitting CSD's.... Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 16:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • A crammer is a training business rather than an educational institution, and so I would say susceptible to CSD categories such as A7 and G11. When articles on such firms have reached AfD, notability has been assessed as per company norms. Some examples from recent months: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OISE - Oxford Intensive School of English, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delhi School of Internet Marketing, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3A Tutors Ltd, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bansal Learning. AllyD (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • No The 'business' rather than 'educational institution' Is a false dichotomy: there are plenty of educational institutions that are for profit, just like we have for-profit hospitals in the United States as well. Being a business, or not being a business, does not change the educational institution status of an educational institution. Remember as well, that if there's any question at all about a speedy deletion, the answer is "No, take it to XfD". Jclemens (talk) 16:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with Jclemens. Our own article on such institutions starts with Cram schools or as a whole, crammers, are specialized schools (emphasis added). The educational institutions exception in A7 is neither in wording nor in spirit limited to government-run institutions or certain kinds of schools, especially when attending such "cram schools" is de-facto mandatory in many countries. Such schools are not limited to schoolchildren btw. For example, recent studies showed that 86% of German law students attend a commercial cram school (called "Repetitorium") before attempting their Staatsexamen (I was in the remaining 14% myself because I'm cheap ;-)) so it's fair to say such programs are established sources of education in many countries. Regards SoWhy 16:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
    • @SoWhy: I can't remember when or who told me, but I was once told that the educational institution exemption applies only to the types listed at Educational institution. Adam9007 (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
      • The main reason it says "educational institution" rather than "school" is to avoid arguments over whether it applies to colleges etc. Hut 8.5 18:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • There is certainly some room for discretion here but I'd say that crammers in the US sense are not exempt from A7. They're primarily thought of as businesses which provide educational services rather than being part of the normal educational system and I don't think they're considered to be institutions. In other countries where these schools are commonly attended as part of a typical education you could make a stronger case for them being schools. Hut 8.5 18:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Personally, I would never speedily delete an article under A7 if its subject could remotely be regarded as providing education, because it isn't worth running the risk of having to waste my time arguing about it at deletion review, AN/I, etc etc, when someone pulls me up on such a deletion. I may be wrong, but my guess is that for similar reasons most other administrators would take a similar view. If that is so, then de facto the criterion does not apply to these businesses, and will continue not to do so, whatever anyone says here or anywhere else, unless the policy is changed to explicitly say that it does. However, if I'm wrong, and somewhere there's an administrator who does speedily delete articles on insignificant businesses which are not schools in any normal person's understanding of the word but do claim to provide education, then good for him or her. If I set up a business in a back room in my house and call it "J B Watson Shoe Shine Services" then any article about it will rightly be speedily deletable. I see no reason whatever why it should be any different if I start giving a few evening lessons to a couple of neighbours' kids in my back room and call it "J B Watson School". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Recap

I've been a bit perturbed by the notion that some admins are shy of the topic for fear of deletion review. I was also taken by Iridescent's point that it's about "educational institutions", not schools; also by Adam9007's point about the linked article. So, time for a little research...

The schools exemption was added on 2 Oct 2008, then changed to, and linked to educational institution on 26 Aug 2011.

The establishments listed at educational institution have included clown college, sex universities, and Siting on your ass all day doing nothing. But the list has NEVER included crammer schools.

It seems clear to me that crammer schools are not protected from A7, but that they have gained that protection through intimidation. Do we need an RfC to clarify?

I'm also concerned that the wiki's policy leans on an unprotected article. In practical terms this would have meant that, at some point in the past, clown colleges and sex universities were protected from A7. Shouldn't the article have a little protection? Cabayi (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Change A11?

A11: An article that indicates that the subject is not worthy of inclusion, without any evidence to the contrary. This includes things claimed to be recently invented or discovered as well articles that describe the subject as insignificant. A lack of information about the subject is NOT sufficient for A11. Unverifiable claims inserted by anyone other than the first author aren't sufficient for A11 either.

This would not only include all "We discovered/invented this a week ago, and wanted to share it on Wikipedia" articles but also any other article that indicates that the subject NOT belong to Wikipedia. Articles that describe the subject as something that isn't really important, WP:Run in the mill things, or such... It is very unlikely that these should have an article.Burning Pillar (talk) 23:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Please read the box and the top and make sure this meets all 4 criteria. On the face of it, I don't think it does. ~ GB fan 23:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
It is objective? Yes, because the articles have to claim something that would make the article unsuitable for inclusion. You cannot make up criteria for yourself, and obviously, adding it yourself is WP:Disruptive editing(but that needs probably to be safeguarded against, so I edited this a bit)
Redundant? Well, if this is redundant, then the current A11 is, and I don't think so.
Frequent? Not less frequent than the current A11.
Uncontestable? How often do articles with a claim of insignificance, of being made up, of being an ordinary thing...(without a claim to the contrary) survive AFD? Uh... almost never.Burning Pillar (talk) 23:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't see how it is objective. What is something that makes an article suitable for inclusion? What is an "ordinary" thing? ~ GB fan 23:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
... If you want to delete an article for being about something ordinary, under this csd, you'd have to have a part in the article that describes it as such.Burning Pillar (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I would be inclined to oppose such a change. What is "worthy of inclusion" is a subjective value judgement, which should not be made by one or two people. Already I find that A11 tags are often overused, being placed on articles about real people or events, which the tagger thinks are unencyclopedic or non-notable. CSD criteria should be petty much objective, bright-line decisions, or as close to that as possible. DES (talk) 23:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Well, we could use not worthy of inclusion should not have an article according to our policies and guidelines. After all, there needs to be some claim that is contrary to our inclusion criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burning Pillar (talk • contribs) 23:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
      • Which would result in a single admin having to determine notability which is contrary to A11's purpose. A11 only serves to remove articles like "Bogglechessball is a game Tommy T. invented. We play it every day. It's really cool!" because those are articles we can all agree on to remove without further discussion. As DESiegel said above, speedy deletion is for objective bright-line decisions, not to replace PROD or AFD. As for the criteria for new or expanded criteria, can you name five recent examples of articles that you think should have been deleted under this proposed A11? Regards SoWhy 06:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • What problem is this intended to solve? Can anyone list say 5 moderately recent pages that were deleted at AfD, but would have been speedy deleted by this modified A11, when they were not in scope for the current A11? DES (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Educational institutions and A7

So, I think that the current first sentence of A7,

This applies to any article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event[1] that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, with the exception of educational institutions.[2]

should be changed to this:

This applies to any article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event[1] that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, with the exception of schools and post-secondary institutions (such as colleges) that are educational institutions.[2]

My reasoning for this is because of the fact that "educational institutions" can include things that I think that we agree should not be lumped in with schools, such as companies for educational consultants. And, even if most administrators would delete these pages due to differing definitions of "educational institutions". At least a few, although, broadly define the term "educational institutions", and are hesitant in deleting it. Thus, this is in fact a problem. The next step is fixing it. I think that this is making steps towards this. I did include the phrase "that are educational institutions" because of the fact that "schools and post-secondary institutions" might include things such as driving schools, or private companies that are considered to be schools but not educational institutions. Thus, the "that are educational institutions" is not redundant.

Votes

  • Support - As proposer. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As I said a few sections above, the point of this wording is to exempt any institution that provides education. Educational consultants don't provide education themselves, do they? But since they are already not covered by the current exception, why change the wording that has served us well in the past? Regards SoWhy 07:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Because, as mentioned, the phrase "educational institutions" can mean a number of things to different people. Thus, if anything, this is to clear up confusion. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 12:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose 1) Solution looking for problem 2) Adds complexity 3) Does not actually clarify anything despite best intentions of proposer. When in doubt, send educational institutions, of whatever stripe, to AfD. Jclemens (talk) 16:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Consultants, whether individual consultants or companies of consultants, aren't educational institutions. Nyttend (talk) 11:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose the policy clearly links to the article on educational institutions - enforce that definition rather than create a new policy or definition. Cabayi (talk) 11:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Haven't quite formed my thoughts yet, but I would suggest possibly updating the proposal to schools and post-secondary institutions. College can have a variety of meanings across the Anglosphere, and even within the States, where it is most commonly used in the sense you seem to be using it, it can have a variety of meanings. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Changing. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment There's a lot of NN "colleges" out there. Dlohcierekim 23:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    Note: A7 is not about notability as defined by WP:GNG, but rather that the article contains any credible claims to importance or significance. --Jayron32 11:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Got to agree with Dlohcierekim, this is going to create a giant amount of unneeded non-notable college stub pages. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 02:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Boomer Vial They're already ineligible for A7, and if you can find a source for them, they are all but guaranteed to get through AfD if they are an independent post-secondary institution. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Isn't this basically the same discussion we just had a few sections above? Regards SoWhy 06:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
It is. I just noticed this after I researched and added a chunk at that discussion. (TL;DR) The CSD text links to educational institution. That's been the basis of the A7 exemption since 2011. The scope of the exemption has crept beyond that through admins' fear of (distaste for ?) deletion review. The scope needs to be more rigorously adhered to. Cabayi (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Notes

References

  1. ^ a b Routine coverage of unorganised events – for example, shooting incidents – may not necessarily qualify on A7; deletion discussions should be preferred in such cases.
  2. ^ a b Past discussions leading to schools being exempt from A7.

Proposal: "CSD tag for WP:NOT violations" at WP:VPP

This is a notice to inform interested editors that someone proposed a change to this policy at WP:VPP. The section is called "CSD tag for WP:NOT violations". Regards SoWhy 06:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

F10 examples

Of the non-media file types listed in the examples for F10, only PDF is currently technologically permitted to be uploaded on enwp. Should we remove the other examples? – Train2104 (t • c) 04:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

A12:Articles lacking sources

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I propose :

A12: An article that was created more than one month ago that is completely unsourced.

It meets most of the criteria: Objective- yes, no sources at all are no sources. Uncontestable- yes, per WP:V:"Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." The existance of the article subject needs a source, always. Frequent-sort of. These articles are , currently at 206335 articles. Sending even half of that number to AFD would make it implode. They are simply not listed there for that precise reason, that is they weren't until now. Nonredundant-This is where I am not sure. You could simply remove the unsupported material(which is permitted) and then you could CSD it via A3 or A1(because there is nothing left, at least nothing that defines the article subject). But on the other hand, the CSD criteria are usually applied only when they apply to all pages in the history.Burning Pillar (talk) 23:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal: Expand A9 to also apply to articles where the artist has an article which is also tagged for speedy deletion

I propose expanding A9 like this:

This applies to any article about a musical recording or list of musical recordings where none of the contributing recording artists has an article (or has an article that is also eligible for speedy deletion) and that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant (both conditions must be met). This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. This criterion does not apply to other forms of creative media, products, or any other types of articles.

I think we can all agree that it makes no sense to have to wait for an artist's article to be speedy deleted before articles for their recordings can be tagged for A9 deletion. This way, the reviewing admin can first check the artist, decide whether to delete their page and then can handle the recordings afterwards. Regards SoWhy 08:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I really like this suggestion, although there has to be a better way to phrase it. The current proposal is a little hard to parse. Taking a stab at it:
This applies to any article about a musical recording or list of musical recordings where none of the contributing recording artists have an article which is not itself eligible for speedy deletion and that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant (both conditions must be met). This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. This criterion does not apply to other forms of creative media, products, or any other types of articles.
However, I'm starting t think that a couple of bullet points is a cleaner way to phrase this criterion. Tazerdadog (talk) 10:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
A9 was actually worded like this when first added, though it was quickly removed. I was actually surprised to find out how briefly it was there, since I remember the clause very clearly. (Maybe I'm remembering a previous discussion about it? I'm afraid I don't have time to go looking for it right now.) If it could somehow be worded such that it's clearly legitimate to tag but never actually to delete an album article prior to the artist's article being deleted, I'd have no objection; but I very much doubt that it can be done without being unworkably complex. —Cryptic 10:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I object to this. It adds complications for very little benefit. If the article about the artist is tagged for speedy deletion, it will probably be either deleted or declined fairly soon, and there will then be plenty of time to tag any articles about recordings. If this were to proceed, "eligible for speedy deletion" would need to become "tagged for speedy deletion" and if the speedy on the artist is declined, any deletion article about a recording would automatically be eligible for WP:REFUND. Why all all these hoops? What articles are being significantly held up by waiting for a speedy on a related artist? This seems like a solution in search of a problem. DES (talk) 12:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

G12 and coyvios report

I'm grateful for the copyvios report and wonder how it relates to tagging for deletion under G12. In this instance -> National Flagship was so tagged, but copvios gave a likelihood of 3.8%. The only duplication was less than a dozen words, some of which could not be rewritten to have the sense of the thing. Just wondering how the whole thing works.Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

You probably should ask The Earwig (talk · contribs) that directly. In the case you mention, the likelihood is low but the diff it displays shows that not only the text but also the lists were copied verbatim, so I have no idea why the copyvio detector didn't spot that. Regards SoWhy 13:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
@Dlohcierekim: At the point Yeryry tagged it (in this state), it was 98.4%. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 13:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Oh. Well then. I'll just go detag. ThanksDlohcierekim (talk) 13:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Commercial buildings and A7

I just had my {{db-inc}} on Shaftesbury Hotel Perth Western Australia changed to a prod, with the reason "non-notable building".

Aside from the format of the article title, it seems to me that this change was made on the basis that the one sentence that's there purely describes the building and its location, not the hotel business. (While it appears that the hotel may no longer exist, this doesn't seem to be a case where a building that was once a hotel later became a building of historical interest, which would be another matter.)

Is this a sufficient criterion for an article to be out of A7 scope? Furthermore, if an article about a commercial building contains information about both the business and the building, then does this bar use of A7 on the basis that the information about the building can be kept (at least pending a prod or AfD being raised) even if it has no CCS? — Smjg (talk) 11:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The statement 'The Shaftesbury Hotel was built in 1904 by Thomas Alfred Shafto and was situated on Stirling Street Perth' does seem to imply it is the building rather than the holding company that is the subject of the article. As such, I believe SoWhy's action to be correct, as buildings are specifically not covered by CSD criteria. As for your second question, I would suggest that if it is clear that a company is being discussed, then A7 clearly applies (amusement parks are a good example of things that are both companies and geofeatures). — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 11:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I see. FWIW I've just discovered the two previous discussions on this general subject. On the basis of these discussions, my hunch is that what you're saying is correct. But it does seem to me that we need clarification of this in the CSD description. Any thoughts on how best to explain it? — Smjg (talk) 12:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
(pinged) First of all, yes, I changed it to a prod because the article described the building, not the company running it and thus it falls outside A7's scope. I don't think we need to clarify the description though, such cases are quite rare actually. The basic rule I apply (and I think many others do as well) is "would this article exist if it were only about the non-eligible subject?" Like Fortuna mentions above, an article about an amusement park contains information about buildings etc. as well but the focus will always be on the business aspect of it; hotels on the other hand can be significant as businesses as well as as buildings, so it's better to err on the side of caution. Regards SoWhy 12:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
@Smjg: When you changed the A7 from building to company there was no change to the confusing message on the newbie creating editor's talk page! And @SoWhy: you've converted it to a PROD without leaving any message on their page either. Not helpful for a new editor. PamD 15:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
You are, of course, correct. I forgot that CSDHelper does not do so like Twinkle does. I have done so now. Regards SoWhy 15:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
@PamD: I didn't change it from building to company – I changed it from person to company. But point taken. — Smjg (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

U5 reason box

While I'm here- Is it possible to have such a box (don't know the tech term, sorry) that appears when you choose the 'U5' criterion? Similar to G5, G6, G12, etc. It would be useful for editors to explain how the page reaches that criterion, wouldn't it? E.g, 'per [[WP:NOTXYZ]].' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk • contribs) 08:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, when you speak about a box appearing, are you talking of placing the U5 tag using twinkle, or some other tool? It would be easy enough to add an optional parameter called, say "reason" which would add an appropriate reason string to the display of the tag, and pre-format the deletion log entry to include that, similar to what G12 does with a URL (only less complex). But to get Twinkle to prompt for and use that parameter would require a change to Twinkle, made by those users who maintain that tool. The same would be true of any other tool. I could do the changes to {{U5}}, but we could only ask the Twinkle people to use them. Does anyone else think this would be worth doing? DES (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
@DESiegel: Thanks for that- yes I was thinking of Twinkle and its optional parameters- but selfishly forgot that not everyone uses it! — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 16:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, Twinkle tagging works by placing templates and filling in their various parameters. So to implement this, we would first need to add a parameter to {{db-U5}}, and then ask the Twinkle maintainers to use it. I can do the first part. Is there enough interest in such an option o go ahead? Note: it would be totally optional, and no one need use it, nor would it break any existing uses or other tools. Does anyone else favor this? Does anyone oppose it? DES (talk) 17:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Can't object to something optional, beyond the effort needed to provide it: on the other hand I can't really see the point when the U5 box already says clearly enough that the page in question is not related to Wikipedia's goals, and the user has made few or no other contributions. What could you add, beyond an unflattering characterization of the content of the particular page?: Noyster (talk), 21:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I've not had this happen for a while, but when U5 was new, I had declines on fantasy Big Brother games because they were plausible drafts. A spot for an explanation would have been hlpful to explain why they weren't plausible drafts. But as for recently, I haven't had that happen. -- Whpq (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Ugh, the fake game show pages. That thankfully seems to have finally slowed down. I would disagree with whatever admin declined thse noms, they probably weren't aware of the scope of that particular problem. While I don't object to adding this as an option, generally it should be pretty obvious when a page qualifies for U5. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Pages which attribute anonymous individuals against their wishes

The page Marcus Hutchins has been created to detail the researcher who stopped the WannaCry ransomware attack. This is despite his previous request that he remain anonymous for his safety:

MalwareTech said he preferred to stay anonymous “because it just doesn’t make sense to give out my personal information, obviously we’re working against bad guys and they’re not going to be happy about this.”[1]

Is there any means by which this can be CSD'ed for the researcher's safety? — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 11:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, ignore the above; he has not been doxxed but has come forward.[2] Nonetheless, my question still stands in the hypothetical; is there an existing criterion under which this could be done (e.g. G10)? — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 11:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
There is only WP:BIODELETE afaik which allows admins to close deletion discussions as delete even if there is no consensus to delete. Usually there is no need for deletion anyway, just rewrite the article to be about the event etc. and request WP:RD4 revdel for the revisions that contain the name to be hidden until proper discussion about whether the name should be included had time to take place. The rare cases where there is no negative material, no other criterion fits and the article has to be completely deleted immediately anyway can probably be handled as IAR deletions. Regards SoWhy 12:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, SoWhy - that's exactly what I was looking for. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 12:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I think it be accurate to say he was doxxed first, then came forward. For the IAR part that SoWhy mentions, we also have WP:BLPDELETE. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Correct but BLPDELETE is about contentious material, which is not necessarily the case with correct, positive material that just also violates the privacy. Regards SoWhy 12:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
So I take it that in cases like that, the request would need to come from the subject of the article to be more likely to proceed through BLPDELETE? — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure it matters where the request comes from - BLPDELETE (summary deletion) is only used in exceptional circumstances, which may (but don't) include those you describe above, and may or may not be initiated by the subject. BIODELETE is intended mainly for AfD, which is the normal route for someone requesting their article is deleted. Although they may be speedy closed, AfDs are not always especially quick. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

He actually commented having a wikipedia account about him on his twitter account, saying that he would prefer it be under his online nickname instead. 88.111.90.73 (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Francisco, Nadia Khomami Olivia Solon in San (2017-05-13). "'Accidental hero' halts ransomware attack and warns: this is not over". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2017-05-18.
  2. ^ "'Just doing my bit': The 22yo who blocked the WannaCry cyberattack". ABC News. 2017-05-16. Retrieved 2017-05-18.

a page I created was false speedy deleted under one of these rules.

A page I created was speedily deleted without pretext and was quoted as "a personal attack", meanwhile I couldn't contest this and the editor threatened to block me, how do I report this? Donald Trung (talk) 13:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: The appropriate venue for an appeal of the deletion is deletion review. The deletion will be discussed on it's merits there. Tazerdadog (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

G4: but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy

I'd like to discuss this part of G4 briefly. Most of the speedy criteria are set up so that there isn't a whole lot of a judgement call going on--the intent is that speedies are for cases that are "obvious". But this part seems to be asking the deleting admin to guess why someone did something. If a user has a draft of a deleted article in user space and is working to improve it, it might only be there to "circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy", or it might be there to hopefully recreate a functional article. I don't think I'm comfortable with an admin deleting a draft because of their read of the motives of the user. What are best practices here? Is that parenthetical actually important to keep around? Could we change this that G4 only applies in draft space if a draft was previously deleted via a deletion discussion? Hobit (talk) 14:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Did you mean WP:G4? -- Whpq (talk) 14:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, yes I did. Sorry. Brain fart. I've fixed it (without doing a strikeout as that made it unreadable). Thank you. Hobit (talk) 15:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
I see this as the foil to "for explicit improvement", though I've never G4'd something after it's been userfied or draftified and then left to rot, nor seen anyone else do so. I have declined userfication on this basis a few times, for users who'd had dozens of articles restored and moved to their userspace post-afd but never actually worked on any of them. —Cryptic 15:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
We've got one at DRV right now... Hobit (talk) 16:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
The Draft:Maritime science fiction DRV, for reference. I guess the evasion-of-deletion-policy clause might sort-of justify User:Orangemike's deletions there, but he hasn't invoked it nor given any other explanation. They weren't the specific case I was referencing either, that of articles userfied and then proven to be circumventing deletion policy by being left untouched; they'd both been edited the same day they were speedied. —Cryptic 16:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't see the problem since it still only applies in obvious cases. However, with the introduction of G13, we have a criterion to handle drafts that are not being worked on, so that part of G4 no longer serves any purpose that G13 can't handle. I support removing that part completely. Regards SoWhy 15:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
G13 only applies to articles that've gone through AFC. —Cryptic 15:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Good point, that was probably a bit too broadly worded and thus confusing. However, we could consider expanding G13 to all pages in Draft:-namespace, not just AfC submissions. I don't really see a difference between those pages having the AfC-tag and those who don't. Regards SoWhy 18:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
The wording was added here, over three edits; the referenced talk page message is at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 29#Rewording to conform to a consensus I have seen. —Cryptic 15:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Nice detective skills. I understand the point, but I don't really think it's as obvious as he thought it would be. Hobit (talk) 16:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
CSD are supposed to read everything in the most favorable light for retention--that's why we have A7 only for specific categories of things that don't even assert any significance, not just things that appear to be non-notable. I think a clarification of this is in order, because in addition to G4, we've also seen some G10s that were clearly arguable. One option might be to change DRV to default to 'overturn and hold an XfD' for challenged speedy deletions, which could only be sustained by a clear consensus that the deleting administrator was correct. Jclemens (talk) 20:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Every spammer, garage band and busybody will be undeleting CSD content for no good reason. It will plug up XfDs for no benefit. Legacypac (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm unconvinced. If it goes in draftspace, it's NOINDEXed, so no one gets to use it for promotion. Can you be a bit more specific about how this is going to cause the sky to fall on the XfD process? Jclemens (talk) 17:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
CSDs are a short cut to save XfD time. They require a tagger and Admin to agree, plus anyone can dispute them before actioned. If we have automatic refund its just a little better than blanking. Legacypac (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Again, not seeing the harm. Blanking/redirecting is just fine for most stuff that doesn't belong. G10-11-12 take precedence over G4, so if any of them applied, this doesn't stop any admin from applying them correctly. Can you articulate a specific problem that doesn't involve draftspace content that would be speedyable by any other criteria? Jclemens (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
I was talking about all spaces, not sure I understand the question. Legacypac (talk) 04:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
This specific discussion involves articles in draft space or user space, not mainspace. What is going to be harmed by G4 not applying to those spaces? The other discussion my comment referenced has moved to WT:DRV. Jclemens (talk) 04:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

NOTWEBHOST U5?

I just want to know why only userspace pages get speedy deleted per NOTWEBHOST? I know just a little about this and don't know why it doesn't apply (the CSD, not the policy) to other namespaces. Thanks in advance. Lil Johnny (talk) (contribs) 05:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

  • It had to do with the new criterion criterion for frequency. MfD used to see an awful lot of project-unrelated pages, whether non-notable promotion, games, random stuff of no clear purpose, CVs, dumped in userspace by a recent registrant with no serious mainspace edits. These pages were pretty much only ever found in userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

This junk, if placed in mainspace, would be reverted. Legacypac (talk) 02:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:G12 courtesy blanking

Should we make {{Db-g12}} courtesy blank the page like {{Db-g10}} does? It should be noted that {{subst:copyvio}} already does this for possible copyright violations. G12 is used for definite copyright violations. — Gestrid (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea to me. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Only if one can readily compare the page content with the supposed source. An attack page you can easily identify by content alone, copyvios not so much. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
What if we made a bot that scanned for G12 tags, looked up the earwig copyvio report versus the source provided, and did a courtesy blanking if the earwig report was greater than some threshold (throwing out 90% as a starting point). Tazerdadog (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
A sort-of legal question: What is the legal standing of a "yes, we know this is a copyright violation and it's now marked for removal" notice above copyright violating content shortly before removal? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Not a copyright lawyer but imho marking content for speedy deletion should be sufficient for no reasonable judge to assume that wp intents to violate someone's copyright. Then again, I'm not versed in US law. Regards SoWhy 20:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
The automatic blanking that db-g10 does is actively harmful, in that it gives the tagger a false sense of security. The content is still present, and still gets sent to anyone viewing the page; it's just wrapped in a div that instructs normal browsers to not show it on the screen. Things like bots, text-only browsers, and search engines will still see it. Google might decide to honor that by not indexing the "invisible" text - I don't know one way or the other - but do you really want to trust that less-robust search engines do so too? —Cryptic 20:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Cryptic, I was under the impression that G10 (at least when used by Twinkle) actively blanks the content of the page by removing text?Page Curation does not do this, but the template tells you to blank it after you have placed the tag. G10 is one of the few CSD tags I normally add manually for this reason: I want to be sure the content is blank and only viewable from the history. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Twinkle might - and I certainly hope it does - but the blanking done by just manually putting the template on a page does not. Any text left on the page following the template gets wrapped in a <div id="AttackPage" style="display:none">, but it's still there unless you actively remove it like the template instructs you to. Just look at the source of the rendered html. —Cryptic 21:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose While being opposed, I am sympathetic to the thought process that led to this but would like to explain what I see as a difference. I've done a fair bit of work investigating possible copyvios. Not surprisingly, there is often a backlog at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. There are quite a number of entries a couple months old and some older. It is useful to include blanking in those situations for two reasons. First, we demonstrate our commitment to copyright issues by hiding material that might be a violation of copyright. While it can be viewed, it is awkward and I suspect that most casual readers won't even know how to see the material. Second, in the case of established articles of multiple editors, this ugly banner provides an incentive for contributing editors to help resolve the issue. So far, you might be thinking this sounds like an explanation of the support vote. However, blanking does create the need for the reviewer to take an extra step to view the material that needs review. Not a big deal, but for someone reviewing many issues in a day, it adds up. In the case of the CSD, most such situations are resolved within hours. I don't think it's particularly harmful that some material will potentially be viewable by readers for a few hours (in contrast to the months in the case of copyright problems), and leaving the material viewable makes it easier for the reviewing admin to quickly compare the material in the article to the purported source and do the necessary checks without the additional step of unhiding the material.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I tried to make my question sound neutral, but I obviously support this or I wouldn't have asked it. In addition to the templates I mentioned above, I'd like to mention that while, {{copyvio-revdel}} doesn't actually blank content (and it shouldn't), the content is still hidden by users before putting up the template. experienced users can still find the content before it's deleted by going into the page history. It's similar to both the {{subst:copyvio}} template and the {{db-g10}} in that users can still find the content if they know where to look until it's deleted. This is how I'm proposing {{db-g12}} should work: blank the page so that at least the inexperienced users can't find it, which is how the three other "delete" templates I've mentioned work. — Gestrid (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Pages with {{db-g12}} tags are generally handled quickly; there's no need to rush the blanking of the page. {{copyvio}} is different because there we keep the page around for a while. Unlike G10 cases (where the content itself is problematic and needs to be kept low-profile as a result), a copyvio is perfectly good text which was simply stolen - and so there is less of a need to hide it. I would also like to point out that while requests for revision deletion of copyvios are made on-wiki, revision deletion requestsd of attacks are never made on-wiki. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
    • An other reason against: There are external tools that help determine coppyvio status, which are linked from the speedy deletion tag; these tools work less well, or not at all, if the page has been blanked. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose, as per Sphilbrick, Od Mishehu, and Cryptic. I Further propose removing the blanking from the db-G10 tag as per Cryptic above. This makes my task of verifing the copyvio when patrolling Category:CSD significantly harder, and i always am frustreated by whoever chose to blank the page. Cryptic's reasons are more fundamental, however. DES (talk) 02:17, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
An advantage of blanking first before deletion is that blanking may cause the Wiki mirror sites to boank too, reducing the spread of the copyvio. Legacypac (talk) 12:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
The chance that even one mirror pulls an updated version of a page between when it's tagged G12 and is deleted or revdelled is somewhere between slim and none. —Cryptic 18:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
A major difference between {{db-g12}} and {{copyvio}}: the former is dealt with quickly enough that this makes little differnce; the latter sticks arouind for a while. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't like the G10 blanking very much, and I certainly don't want CSD patrolling to become more annoying by other well-meaning blankings that make it harder to do admin work. —Kusma (t·c) 19:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested clarification of G11

G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion

This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion. Note: Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion. However, "promotion" does not necessarily mean commercial promotion: anything can be promoted, including a person, a non-commercial organization, a point of view, etc.

Also Twinkle discription says User Pages: G11 Promotional userpage under a promotional user name. When you click ? It says "a promotional user name which promotes or implies affiliation with the thing being promoted. ... if a userpage is spammy but the username is not consider tagging with regular G11 instead.

I keep finding non-notable musicians and youtubers like this guy User:Greenmonsta92/Nick Corjay which seem to match Userpage G11 exactly and especially the twinkle instructions. His username is his brand/alterego mentioned 7 times on the short page beyond the title. No indication of meeting GNG. What kind of page does User G11 cover if not this? In other cases its User:XYZ or User:XYZ/XYZ and all about promoting XYZ. Often there are spam links too. It looks like WP:PROMO point 5 to me. What am I missing in my application of G11? Legacypac (talk) 10:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

This reads like the lead to any other page. A simple lead. Nothing unambiguously advertising about it.Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
For starters? That whoever wrote the Twinkle description has no authority to create policy by fiat. If the draft is even remotely neutrally written, then the username doesn't enter into whether the page should be deleted or not. —Cryptic 10:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Umm... so Twinkle and Curator basically aren't policy, so the wording is functional usually rather than prescriptive. The difference between G11 and the username G11 is the choice of template that gets applied. They both refer to the same policy, which is just plain ole G11, and is the actual consensus that allows deletion. Templates, like Twinkle, also aren't policy. The big difference is whether the reviewing admin is explicitly alerted that there is likely a username violation that should itself be addressed.
For instance, the "bar" for blocking a user for advertising is practically higher than blocking a user for spam and a spam username. A G11 article might just be bad writing, and a username violation might just be a bad choice of username, but both is pretty much immediately a blockable offense, at least until they request a name change. Blocking for spam alone on the other hand is going to require repeat offense after explicit warning, and well... a COI username block with no edits just isn't really a thing. Other options would be, leaving a COI user name warning on their talk, or just outright reporting to UAA, but why have more loose ends to be tied up by more people, when they all could be taken care of at once by the same person, because the G11 username template alerted them to the issue straight away. TimothyJosephWood 10:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand the twinkle description thing. WP:CSD#G11 reads pretty clearly to me. Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Twinkle and Curator both suffer from this problem in various ways, when they paraphrase policy and don't do so exactly. For example, Curator has lots of criteria like "Unremarkable Person" or "Unremarkable Company", when that's not policy at all. The policy has nothing to do with the existential nature of the subject, but whether the article makes a claim of significance, regardless of whether its true, and conversely, regardless of whether or not the subject is in face existentially notable or significant. (i.e., if a better writer could have mad an article about the same subject that would have passed A7).
But as far as this particular issue goes, it's just the difference between selecting Template:Db-spamuser, or Template:Db-g11, and the only difference between those two is that spamuser refers to both CSD criteria and our username policy. TimothyJosephWood 10:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 3) Despite Twinkle's usage, there is no different userpage G11. That description is merely used to alert admins about the possibility of a username block as well.
No matter where the page is located, for it to be deleted under G11, it needs to meet the written criterion. The example you mention doesn't. It might be an attempt to create a autobiography but G11 clearly does not encompass such pages because the page itself (ignoring the title or location) is not promotional. In fact, we usually encourage COI editors to create drafts first, so deleting them as G11 would be counter-productive. Regards SoWhy 10:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)G11 is about the contents of the page rather than the intentions of the person who created it. If you try to promote the company you work for by writing a neutral Wikipedia article about them then it would not be a G11 candidate. This page is clearly a case of somebody writing about themselves, likely for promotional purposes, but the page itself is not promotionally worded. Mentioning the name of the subject a lot is not a problem, plenty of articles do that. What counts is the language used to describe the subject, and here is just says he's an actor who hosts a YouTube series. Nothing promotional about that. As people have said above the TWINKLE descriptions are only reminders of what the criteria are, they're just meant to jog your memory rather than inform you of all the subtleties of the criteria. Hut 8.5 10:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be difficult just trying to understand. I'd expect a widely used tool like twinkle is compliant with policy as "someone" understands it. Legacypac (talk) 10:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

When I've reported new usernames like this they get instablocked but I don't report inactive promotional usernames. I assume everyone agrees this is a promotional username right?

Perhaps there is a range of opinion on what is promotional? Most advertising is not like late night infomercial promotional style. Legacypac (talk) 10:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

There is some range of opinions, which is why there is a multi-layered system where users alert admins to what they think is unambiguous advertising, and they offer feedback through deleting or declining (hopefully declining with a civil explanation to the user). Through all that, hopefully no one gets too far off the mark for what the community tends to think is unambiguous advertising. But overall, G11 is regulated by things like WP:AGF, WP:BITE, and occasionally WP:COMMONSENSE.
Is the userspace draft you refer to likely to ever actually make it to a neutral well sourced article? Maybe not. Maybe almost certainly not. But we've got a user who's figured out enough markup to make an infobox, which is no small feat, and they may come back at some point and make something better, that is, if they don't get the impression that we're all just assholes. And anyway, it's a NOINDEXed user space draft with no incoming links, so whether it gets deleted isn't terribly important anyway. TimothyJosephWood 10:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Legacypac wrote above I assume everyone agrees this is a promotional username right? Well no, it isn't. Our policy says promotional usernames consist of: Usernames that unambiguously represent the name of a company, group, institution or product ... Email addresses and URLs (such as "Alice@example.com" and "Example.com") that promote a commercial web page and don't simply identify a person. Nothing is said about stage names. It appears that "Greenmonsta92" or perhaps just "Greenmonsta" is the stage name of Nick Corjay, and that the user is probably Corjay, or perhaps a fan. He may well have had promotional intent. But if this name were posted at WP:UAA, I would decline to block with the "Not a blatant violation" template after having checked out the user's contributions. A user is free to identify with a legal name, a long-standing nickname, or a stage name, provided there is no issue of impersonation. The page should not have been CSD tagged, and the user name should not be reported at UAA. DES (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the insights into the thinking on the other side of CSD I'll modify my G11s appropriately. Legacypac (talk) 08:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Stale userspace drafts

We could take a lot of load off MfD and CSD by changing this template to blank the page.

. Nearly all the 30,000 pages its used on should be CSD/MfD or blanked anyway for various problems. I understand the template only applies to pages over 1 year old. Legacypac (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, I do use it on my drafts for a few days. I assume you want it to hide the page content after one year? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes. There is at least one other version that does hide the content, but this is the main template used. For the rare active user templated thus, I'd suggest removing the template. Legacypac (talk) 20:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

It could probably be made to hide the content (imperfectly, see the preceding section) and show text similar to that on {{Userpage blanked}} if the page it's on hasn't been edited for some given amount of time. (6 months? A year?) —Cryptic 21:09, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
I would be very in favor of this - I have always advocated blanking as the most sensible solution to stale userspace drafts. If implemented, this solution would take a load off MfD and admins (at MfD and CSD), as well as being minimally BITEy compared to deletion (provided it clearly explains how to recover the text from the history). A2soup (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
blanking does not permanently kill the undesirable content but nearly all of it would be hidden forever out of sight of the search engines. Can anyone think of a way to flag blanked pages that get unblanked aka blanked template removed? Adding 30,000 pages to one's watchlist is a little extreme. Legacypac (talk) 00:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't like this at all. Copyvios, spam, BLP violations, etc., should be deleted, not blanked, and blanking might keep someone from noticing the problem. If it's not one of those things, and not a U5 violation, people can work on drafts as long as they want in userspace. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree but there are 30,000 stale draft, as old as 11 years, with these issues. Not enough volunteers to work on them and those that do get attacked. There are many more untagged and more created daily. I doubt we are even keeping up to rate of new creations. Blanking automatically allows the rare user who comes back over a year later to continue (which maybe undesirable in many case where the page should be deleted.) Legacypac (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't entirely agree with Seraphimblade. Firstly, beware copyright paranoia and BLP paranoia. Wikipedia version histories contain untold quantities of copyright infringement, but it is not realistic to scour old version, and old versions are not to be realistically considered "published". I would want to see evidence of offsite linking to infringing versions of content not freely available elsewhere on the web before agreeing history version infringements are a problem requiring a solution. "BLP violations"? So often, this term is widely misused to include mere personal information. If it is in the version history, who cares? It is not published by Wikipedia, it takes a lot of effort to find it, less effort than other methods to find others' personal information. If there is a problem, not the Streisand effect, which means, either it is so serious that if you are an admin just G10 it immediately, non-admins email the oversight team. The effort to objectively identify residual deleteable BLPDELETE and G10 material in abandoned never-viewed pages massively outweights the importance of doing so, as opposed to the routine blanking. I support blanking them all. I support G13 applying to everything untouched in draftspace for 6 months. I support deleting them all. I support deleting all of draftspace as unrealistic to maintain to any reasonable standard. I oppose selective or random curating of the old stuff to bring up at high profile forums, like MfD, everything arguably problematic. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
"Blanking automatically allows the rare user who comes back over a year later to continue (which maybe undesirable in many case where the page should be deleted.) Legacypac (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)" Agree, very much. Deleting pages is very bitey for tentative contributors. Tentative contributors include people who put their toe in, and then return a couple of years later. Many active, valuable regular contributors have early contribution histories that match this pattern. Maybe this is talking about one in ten thousand draftspace drive-by contributors. I think they are worth reaching out to, until presented with evidence to say otherwise. I seriously do not understand why Wikipedia new registrants are not auto-welcomed. The {{welcome}} template gives them a much nicer welcome and better advice than does WP:AFC. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe, I almost moved the part of your comment that's after your quote to a new line before I realized you were quoting Legacypac. At first, I thought you had forgotten to indent. May I suggest using {{tq}} when you're quoting someone? — Gestrid (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC). OK. {{tq}} to makes it green? Not a big change to me, I'll make it small as well. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I've been promoting the very best of stale userspace because there was such a cry against losing possibly useful content. For my efforts, some of the same people frantic to preserve old user drafts in case it might be useful are trying to impose bans against me from page moves or BLP on me at ANi right now. If the rapid inclusionists don't want the best of the material in mainspace, let's hide it all. Legacypac (talk) 02:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Legacypac. I don't know who the rabid inclusionists might be, but on my part I saw these concerns:
  • (worst of all) Moving something to mainspace so at a CSD#A* criterion might apply, or so that AfD, which unlike MfD considers WP:N, will apply, so as to get it deleted, or at least tested, on your timescale. I think you have to really believe it is acceptable, meets WP:STUB, and are prepared to speak for it if listed at AfD, for you to boldly move someone else's draft to mainspace.
  • Deletion of something with promise, just because it is old and not ready, will have an ostracising effect on the author, in the possible event of their return. This is where blanking i superior. Assuming that the blacking summary says that it was blanked due to being abandoned, thus not due to be unsuitable, the author should feel welcome to unblank and continue.
If 95% of what you move to mainspace gets improved and not deleted, then you are doing very well. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure not moving content to mainspace to seek deletion. In one slightly embarrassing case I failed to detect copy vio (I think off a pdf) while researching the notability of the topic. Obvious if I'd found copyvio I'd have speedied the userpage. In one other case an experienced new page reviewer questioned notability and after a bunch more checking decided to AfD it. We both agreed it was a borderline case, and I deferred to his judgement. AfD will decide. Anything else questioned or tagged I defend and try to overcome the objections. Legacypac (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

  • I don't think there is any shame in failing to detect copyright infringement when looking at the question of notability of a draft. Copyright infringement is arguably worse in the backrooms than in mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The WFLabs created The New Page Feed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:NewPagesFeed allows selection of User or Article pages. Reviewing new user pages there shows the same issues exist as in the "Stale" pages. Currently

  • filtered for "New users" 21979 total unreviewed pages (oldest: 4849 days) 1440 pages reviewed this week
  • filtered "New Users" gives 14950 total unreviewed pages (oldest: 57 days) 84 pages reviewed this week

A good portion of the reviewed this week is my reviews. I did a bunch of the new pages and found exactly the same mix of issues. Clearly there is no way we can keep up and we need an automated blanking solution. Legacypac (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

  • The template mentioned at the s5tart of this thread is not for only old or "stale" userspace drafts -- it (or a variant) should be on every userspace draft, and when i move a page to userspace, or assist a new editor who has recently created a userspace draft, I always place this or a similar template on the page. As such it should NOT blank the content, and if it were changed to do so, I would promptly create a variant that did not. This template is to indicate that the page has not been tested in the way mainspace articles are. It is particularly aimed at mirrors, but asl at fake articles, as well as potential articles that are just not ready. DES (talk) 02:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Any way to put a time constraint in it. It blanks the page if creation date is more than 1 year ago? No one is trying to blank recently created pages. Legacypac (talk) 02:16, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I should think it was technically possible. We do something similar with old AfC drafts, and dated PROD tags. If this is done, it should be from the date of the last edit, however, not the date of page creation. There is no justification for blanking a draft that is being edited, however long it has been in draftspace. I would still oppose even that sort of blanking, but not nearly as strongly. In fact, I oppose the whole concept of "stale draft". The age of a draft should have no bearing whatsoever on whether it is deletable, in my view. DES (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
I also oppose the concept of stale. Some things go stale fast. Some things are never stale. "Old" = "Stale" is obviously flawed. Mainspace articles aren't criticized for being old. Where "stale" means "dated", "obsolete" or "superceded", I agree with cleaning it, but too many people used the flawed "Old" = "Stale" definition. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:25, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Another editor posted on an MfD "why don't we have WP:ABANDONED" That is a better word for what should be deleted or blanked. If no one is working on something, and no one else sees how it will be useful (or its harmful) why keep it around. Imagine if you abondoned this junk in a physical library, introduced it in your office filing room, or clogged up the servers at work with junk files? At some point someone is going to clear it out. Legacypac (talk) 06:58, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
There are several situations to consider about drafts in user space:
  • Stale drafts - In MfDs of "stale user drafts" I have most often seen the term used to refer to drafts that are out of date because there is a newer version around, either in Draft space or in mainspace. These need to be deleted or merged, not just blanked.
  • Abandoned drafts - Drafts created by users who have not edited for years could be blanked with a template with a link which opens an edit window to the last non-blanked revision so that returning editors can just click on then and set to work. Alternatively, if they show promise they could be moved to Draft space where anyone could work on them and a redirect left at the old userpace title.
  • Fake articles - These are user drafts which the editors, usually single purpose accounts, have deliberately left in userspace so as to make it look as though the topic has a Wikipedia article. Often there are links from external websites for promotional purposes. These should be deleted if purely promotional, blanked if just in need of improvement, or moved to mainspace if the topic is notable and the text doesn't contravene WP policies.
  • Old drafts by active editors in good standing - These should likely be left alone unless they have serious issues. Lots of authors have partially completed manuscripts in their desks which they may finish much later. However, it's easy to forget about these unless they are specifically linked somewhere, such as on an editor's user page. It may be useful to send an automated reminder message, say every two years, saying "Here's a list of user pages that you haven't edited lately. No action is required, but you may wish to (1) tag unneeded pages for deletion, (2) move drafts that you no longer want to work on alone to Draft space, (3) submit your draft for review at AfC, or, (4) if you're confident it will pass AfC, move a draft to article space."—Anne Delong (talk) 12:15, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Stale drafts - In MfDs of "stale user drafts" I have most often seen the term used to refer to drafts that are out of date because there is a newer version around, either in Draft space or in mainspace. These need to be deleted or merged, not just blanked.. No. A newer version calls for a redirect of the older version to the newer version. Accidental content forks should be fixed by redirection. The redirect tells everyone, especially the old author, where the topic now is. Not infrequently, the old version is connected to the new version, and deletion will hide evidence of failure to attribute. Also, "out of date" and "better version" can be matters of opinion that can change, better to leave it for editors to be able to fix. No need to make the permanent decision and hide the records. --SmokeyJoe (talk)
You are accurately describing the current process. Ideally we could curate 30,000 pages in this category https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Stale_userspace_drafts but it will take years and uses up a lot of time. Automatically blanking the whole lot would solve a lot of issues quickly. Legacypac (talk) 12:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, I was agreeing with you to a certain extent, in my second bullet point above. If only user drafts of editors who haven't edited for years were blanked, and the template left instead had a direct link to an edit window of the last version before blanking, that would take care of some of the 30,000. Can a bot distinguish between draft articles and other user pages? For example, a list of resources on a specific subject, or a list of the articles the user created, or a page of barnstars or userboxes? These shouldn't be blanked. If there's a consensus that the abandoned drafts should be blanked, but a bot can't tell which user pages are drafts, maybe a semi-automated process could be used, where a bot makes up a list and an editor clicks blank or don't blank for each entry. This was done for the abandoned AfC submission, and dealt with a backlog of more than 50,000 pages. By having a person do a quick check, a lot of good content was discovered. (HERE is a list of just the ones that I worked on, and there were a number of other users also involved.) —Anne Delong (talk) 13:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not a technical person, but the category already only applies to creations more than 1 yr old. Before some people were freaking out that valuable content was being CSD or protesting at MfD. So I have taken to promoting everything that is at least a stub on a notable topic with refs and not already represented by a page. Now some of the same people are try to crucify me for using content from the same pool they wanted to protect from deletion.
How do we record the you or I checked it? With twinkle its not hard to CSD or MfD an unsuitable page and its out of the pool to be checked. A good page can be promoted out of the pool. There is the occasional page with templates or other sandbox stuff but if untouched for a year+ blanking that is not going to annoy many people. If we check them all we can action them all and mass blanking is pointless.
I redirect many pages to the topic in mainspace but that really serves no purpose when the userpage contents have nothing worthwhile to add, the user has been gone for years and hardly needs the redirect from the forgotten draft to find the mainpage topic, and for the most complete versions the same user copy pasted to mainspace and got the atrribution that way. It just turns userspace clutter into redirect clutter for the mainspace article with titles that are not search terms like User:Mo7amiq80/Enter your new article name here. Legacypac (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I do not see why you (or anyone) feels urgency to deal with large numbers of these so-called "stale" drafts. Why not simply leave them alone? Promoting ones that you honestly think are valid articles is a good thing. Promoting pages likely to be speedy-deleted or deleted by AfD is not, but you say you aren't intentionally doing that. Deleting copyvios is always good. If promotional pages truly have little or no useful content, and would require a '"fundamental rewrite" to be valid, they can by tagged for G11, of course. But why do anything at all about the ones not good enough to be moved to mainspace, and not bad enough for G11 or G12 or G3 (vandalism)? Why worry about them? DES (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
You can do your own samples at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Stale_userspace_drafts just hit the random article button to get a fair sample. Some username ranges like A and Z and those that start with numbers have been nearly cleared out now except for pages belonging to active editors so they are poor areas to sample. If there is no point patrolling userspace why Userspace the only other space built into New Page FeedTool? We can't even patrol Draft space there. Someone at WMF must think it important. Legacypac (talk) 23:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
I didn't say there there was no point in patrolling userspace, I said there was no urgency in dealing with "stale" userspace drafts. Userspace needs to be patrolled to remove attack pages, copyvios, promotional pages, hoaxes, and blatant vandalism. All of these are particularly likely to be created by new users, and far more often in their userspace than in draftspace. But once such pages have been deleted, or so dealt with that the problem is gone, there is no need to patrol old or "stale" userspace drafts. What policy do they violate? What harm are they doing? Note that to be a legit draft, such a page must be an apparent attempt to create a valid article for mainspace, even if it is nowhere near ready, and may never be. So they do not violate WP:NOTWEBHOST, and are not vandalism. On what basis, then, is deleting them or blanking them even authorized, much less essential? I don't see one, and I think blanking would be revertable, and mass blanking would violate the Wikipedia:Bot policy or the rule against Fete accompli editing -- that is, editing which uses mass changes in advance of consensus to in effect force a policy change. DES (talk) 00:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

As you point out, the number of [UP#NOT] vastly exceeds valid drafts. Deleting is not needed, but "blanking during periods of inactivity" is established practice no one contests. Automating long standing practice should not violate policy. Legacypac (talk) 03:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I contest such blanking, whether done via template or manually. I consider that it harms the project and provides no benefit. It is not mandated nor suggested by any policy or guideline, nor do I know of any RFC that endorsed such a practice. It is not "long standing practice" in my experience, but if it is, an RFC should promptly be held to disapprove such practice, and make it clear that it is against policy. Such blanking hinders any effort to collaboratively resume editing on such pages, thereby attacking the very basis of Wikipedia, in my view. DES (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I think DES is mistaken, on basically every point. An RfC would appear needed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, SmokeyJoe, I am glad to have you views clearly stated. However, I'd like to ask for some clarification:
  • I wrote that blanking of old userspace drafts ... is not mandated nor suggested by any policy or guideline, can you link to any policy or guideline page I have overlooked? Can anyone?
  • I wrote It is not "long standing practice" in my experience. While I can hardly be wrong about my own experience, it may be that my experience is not representative. Can you (or anyone) show diffs of several different editors, over a period of several years, doing such blanking?
  • I wrote that Such blanking hinders any effort to collaboratively resume editing on such pages, thereby attacking the very basis of Wikipedia. Do you deny that such blanking hinders any effort to collaboratively resume editing on the pages involved? Or do you think I am mistaken that collaborative editing is at the heart of Wikipedia?
Asking others who have commented in this thread: @Legacypac, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Cryptic, A2soup, Seraphimblade, Gestrid, and Anne Delong: Do you think my comments above are mistaken, on basically every point? Do you think an RFC on this issue would be helpful? DES (talk) 23:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry David. It took me longer than expected to complete a proper response, which is below. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
Arguably, leaving useless abandoned junk around is damaging. More arguably, leaving problematic things around is damaging. Problematic included: material that is now dated; material that is old and borderline promotion; material that sounds interesting but on examination is not suited for an encyclopedia. One way these things are problematic is in contributing junk hits to internal all-spaces searches.
Blanking is not mandated. In userspace and draftspace, I think it is not worth the effort. At least, I don't think it is worth my efforts. However, it is not appropriate to tell other volunteers how they should choose to spend their efforts. If someone else wants to clean up old abandoned back workrooms, as long as they don't bother others (eg by bringing it all to MfD), and don't do actual damage (eg by insulting occasional editors), they have my support.
Blanking of dubious pages in inactive users' userspace is most certainly long standing practice. I have long advocated it, for pages not offensive enough to be speediable, and not interesting enough to be worth a discussion. Many found mild promotion in userspace too offensive to just blank, they considered it unacceptable that the author might read permission to unblank, and so we introduced CSD#U5.
{{Userpage blanked}} is recommended for dubious userpages, not speediable, but not worth a discussion because there is no one to have the discussion with. It currently has 135 transclusions.
{{Inactive userpage blanked}} is a very gently worded blanking template suitable for any inactive users probably-not-useful userpage, but without any implied connotation that there is actually anything wrong with the page. There are currently 2644 transclusions.
Blanking is supposed to be applied to pages for which, in the judgement of one user, there is no plausible future collaborative editing potential. If some editors are getting wrong, revert them. If they don't like being reverted, they should bring the page to MfD for a community discussion, and ongoing editor education. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, SmokeyJoe, for that more detailed explanation of your views. I find that I do not disagree as much as I had expected to do. Please note that this thread started with a proposal to blank any and every userspace draft that is more than a year old, provided it used the standard template that marks a page as a userspace draft. Note further that the post I was replying to at 19:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC) Said"blanking during periods of inactivity" is established practice no one contests. Automating long standing practice should not violate policy.. That is the such blanking that I did and do take exception to, a blanking that, as far as I understand, makes no distinctions based on the problematic nature of the page, or its lack of such nature. That is what I suggest is not established practice: knee-jerk blanking of every userspace draft older than some particular age. I think it might be argued whether a few thousand uses of a blanking template constitute "established practice", but it clearly is not an effectively automated practice. Note that WP:CSD#U5 says ...with the exception of plausible drafts... and so is not relevant to a mass-blanking. I do support U5, and have deleted pages tagged under it this very day (although as with several criteria, I think it is often over-used.) Perhaps that clarifies my views a bit. DES (talk) 00:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Blanking *all* old drafts would be a dramatic new practice. I am somewhat relaxed about it, because it would require a bot, and the bot would have to pass Wikipedia:Bot requests, and I think that is a tough procedure not easily passed.
I support blanking of old userspace and draftspace stuff if done manually, on the judgement of a single editor. This is a long way from supporting auto-blanking of everything. For that, I would want to see an estimate of the ratio of offensive problematic pages versus possibly useful pages. The cost of hosting never-view offensive pages versus the cost of intimidating occasional editors by blanking their work, needs consideration.
At Wikipedia_talk:Drafts/Archive_5#Tagging_drafts, I was proposing a tagging system through which any editor alone might curate drafts. The most important part would be the identification of {{Promising draft}}s. These should never be blanked. If tagged and categorised, they could be a very useful resource. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


Blanking has been in the Stale User Draft category (current [Category:Stale userspace drafts]) instructions since March 2015 [1]. But the idea predates that I'm sure. Working through WP:ABANDONED drafts is a long standing thing at [Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts] back to 2011 and also since Nov 2015 at this subpage of the same Wikiproject [2] where blanking is one of the options to consider. The idea has been to eventially empty the category, as unrealistic as that might be. In my view the only "Abandoned" or "Stale" drafts in userspace should be stuff active editors plan to work on and these pages should be deleted from the stale category. Anything utterly useless written by a departed editor should be deleted, redirected at a mainspace topic, moved to Draft space under an appropriate Draft title so others can find it and feel empowered to work on it, or promoted to main space if suitable as at least a stub or merger material. Its a maintenance category and every page should be processed out of the category. Otherwise it just grows and grows and those of us that work it end up evaluating the same pages over and over.

Even in the hot debates with rabid inclusionists last year I never recall anyone demanding we not blank. In fact they advocated that was the overriding policy and we should not be using CSD and MfD for cleanup. Legacypac (talk) 00:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The instructions in Category:Stale userspace drafts, in the version you link to, say In cases where the main user page has been used to create drafts whose subject already is in the mainspace, and the user is inactive, replace the contents of the user page with {{Inactive userpage blanked}}. That applies only to pages where the subject is already covered by an article in mainspace, not that a category page exactly defines policy. DES (talk) 01:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
The instructions have evolved over time, I linked back to the version that first detailed blanking. Now we often redirect the userpage to the current content but that has its own problems. The overriding idea is that "something" be done with the page and it is no longer in the stale draft category. As a practical matter I'll often just blank the test edits and other random harmless stuff left by throw away accounts. Automatically blanking test edits while intentially hiding all the problematic stuff would be beneficial. I see thatbas no different then how Wikipedia/Sandbox is automatically cleared. A throwaway account user is not coming back to complain their 5 year old test was blanked. Legacypac (talk) 02:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
  • (responding to ping further up the page after being away) I'm not sure how often user pages are edited collaboratively; someone wanting to edit a certain topic likely wouldn't find a userspace page on that topic, even if it had an appropriate title, unless he or she was experienced with the advanced search features. Collaborative editing is more common in Draft space, where some tools have been developed to draw attention to the drafts. However, I agree that if old abandoned userspace drafts are blanked without human eyes checking them first, useful content that could be moved to Draft space will be missed. On the other hand, blanking old abandoned user pages that don't contain much if any usable content prevents other editors from wasting their time checking them again later, while still leaving them in a state where they can be easily restored if the original editors return and want to add to them.—Anne Delong (talk) 02:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
We are using the term "stale drafts" but 80%+ are not real attempts at a draft article. Perhaps "abandoned pages in userspace" (which include some actual "stale drafts") is a bette description which will not get some people so excited. Legacypac (talk) 08:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Yep. "Stale" gets used for drafts that are still as valid as the day they were written, and gets used for pages that aren't drafts. I've tried removing the shortcut, and changing the "stale" language, at least twice, but was reverted. I find it very frustrating because the poor word choice in the shortcut distorts and dumbs down people's thinking, and they write things, especially in nomination statements, that on examination are not true. I'd prefer to see things like "abandoned borderline-notable promotional written and sourced" described. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

why bother

To find useful articles (gems) in the garbage pile you have to sort the garbage pile. If you just toss the assessed garbage back on the pile, instead of disposing of it permanently, you and the next gem searchers have to reassess the same garbage again and again as you hunt. Over time the gem hunting gets harder and harder as the ratio of garbage to gems rises.

Arguably the garbage pile is so big already it makes sense to at least hide the garbage (if not burn it all in place). When I am threatened with topic bans at ANi for moving the best gems forward, by the same people who object to to deleting garbage because there might be a gem, it gets pretty discouraging. I don't see any of the loadest voices at ANi actually assessing pages or actioning them.

The flip example is NPP. If we did not remove Patrolled articles from the Patrolling list how would we ever find the garbage? We'd be patrolling and repatrolling forever. Legacypac (talk) 02:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Personal Info

Occasionally I find userpages with extended personal info. Like DOB, full name, parents full names, place born, address, phone numbers, facebook link etc. One case that really concerned me was a 10 year old girl complete with b-day and school she attends. Others are more like a social networking attempt. What is the correct procedure in these cases? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 23:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

For the minor, if you can't revdel it yourself, then do not edit the page, do not ask on ANI; go directly to oversight.
For cases like the others you describe, I usually give them a week or two to see if they begin to edit mainspace (assuming the pages aren't already at least that old), then start to consider U5. —Cryptic 23:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
(Addresses and phone numbers are oversightable, too - I overlooked those in favor of facebook and social networking in my haste to reply about the minor. —Cryptic 23:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC))
Ok thanks for the explanation. I CSD'd the minor which quickly wiped out access to the info. I don't think I can rev del myself - is that not restricted to Admins? . I've deleted info from some cases myself like here User:Rajeshwar55. Would you rev del that one edit and wipe out his whole page? On others I went U5 especially on older pages or did nothing. Legacypac (talk)
(edit conflict)If there is other possibly useful content on the pages, I don't CSD these. I simply remove the personal info by ordinary editing, or by editing followed by revdel if the person is a minor, and leave the rest of the page (If there is a rest), in place. DES (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

User:C.murugan engineer? Treating WP as social networking site or self promotion? Would you accept a CSD? New page, no other edits yet. Legacypac (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I for one would accept a CSD-U5 for that, not because of the personal info, but because it seems to be nothing but a contact page or a CV. To my mind this doesn't qualify under If there is other possibly useful content on the page. DES (talk) 19:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • For C.murugan engineer (talk · contribs), his userpage is appropriate for a contributing Wikipedian. I would give him a week to contribute before blanking. As an "intending Wikipedian", he really ought to state his editing interests. The "engineer" in the username makes it sound probably promotional. CSD#U5 it if you like, but please don't MfD it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I also don't think we should be deleting User:C.murugan engineer at this point. The content isn't promotional, it is basic facts about an adult. The account was created less than 24 hours ago. If there is no more activity on the account to actually help build the encyclopedia then in a couple of weeks, at the least, we U5 it. We don't know less than 24 hours into it what they are going to do here. ~ GB fan 11:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Remove auto-blanking from Template:Db-g10 in draftspace and userspace

{{db-g10}} (attack pages) currently blanks the content of the page with which it is tagged. It does so not by deleting (much less revdel-ing) the content, but simply marking it with CSS so that it will not be displayed. This does not prevent non-css browsers, text-only browsers, and speech browsers from displaying the content, nor does it prevent search engines from indexing the content. Thus it gives a largely false sense of security that the content is not being displayed. It also makes it just that little bit harder for a reviewing admin to determine if the page should in fact be deleted.

In article space this blanking is perhaps justified, although nothing requires it. (Nor is it specified in the criterion itself.) But in draft or userspace where search engines do not index pages anyway, this serves less purpose. Comments in the #Template:G12 courtesy blanking section suggests that others agree with this idea. I therefore propose that the template be made namespace-aware, and not blank content in the draft or user namespaces. (Alternatively it could blank only when an explicit optional parameter calls for blanking.) Many templates are namespace-aware, this is not technically a problem. DES (talk) 01:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

  • It occurs to me that instead of blanking, the template could add a NOINDEX directive, so compliant search engines would not indes the attack page in article space. DES (talk) 01:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
    So far as I am aware, all CSD templates add NOINDEX. --Izno (talk) 03:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
    This is correct, unless there are any that don't use {{db-meta}}. I'd be very surprised if that were the case. —Cryptic 03:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
    Thank you I should have checked that. Struck my suggestion above as pointless. DES (talk) 03:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I've had to deal with G10s in userspace, including some pages that were a direct jab at me. (Long story short: the vandal noticed I was the one G10-ing all their stuff and decided to start naming the pages they created after me.) Just having a large red banner at the top of an attack page (instead of hiding the content) would likely just cause people to ignore the banner altogether. I don't recall the exact psychological term for this (I know there is one.), but I've seen it banner blindness time and again. For a real-life example, I would ask someone "Hey, are you going to [special event] at the dining hall [on-campus] tonight?" They would have no idea what I'm talking about even though there would be a sign sitting out in the middle of the entrance to the dining hall for at least a week in advance, as well as several text messages and tweets, all from my university. This happened several times during different times of the year with several different people, including my RAs, who are supposed to keep up with this kind of stuff. Anyway, my point is, people will most likely just ignore the big red banner right in front of them and go ahead and read the content (which the "owner", for lack of a better word, of the draft/ userpage probably doesn't want others to read if it's in a page not "owned" by the vandal) anyway. I would support having the tag add NOINDEX, as that would hide the attack page even more, and that plus the blanking would more-or-less take care of both compliant and non-compliant search engines. — Gestrid (talk) 02:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
    • (TL;DR)  Blanking G10 pages is needed. I gave a personal example from my time on Wikipedia (which I purposefully kept vague), as well as a personal real-life example. I also said that if there's a giant red sign right in front of someone, they will ignore it. I also voiced my support for adding NOINDEX in addition to the blanking. — Gestrid (talk) 02:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
      • Struck my comments about NOINDEX since it's apparently already included in every {{db-meta}}-based CSD tag, making it a moot point. That's the American definition of "moot", by the way. — Gestrid (talk) 03:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
      • I did read your entire response, Gestrid. I do not find it persuasive. It may be that some will ignore the CSD notice, but if the page is truly an attack page, it will probably be deleted fairly promptly. You didn't explain why an optional parameter to blank the page (defaulting to off) would not do as well. Note: blanking does not "take care of" non-compliant search engines. The entire content is served to their crawlers, and they are free to index it. Let us see what views others have. DES (talk) 02:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
        • @DESiegel: I didn't notice you say anything about an optional parameter. To that I would ask what general criteria should people apply to turn the blanking parameter on. The page is already openly attacking someone, so we obviously couldn't have that as a criterion. As for the "take care of" part, you'll notice I also said "more-or-less" before that. I know blanking doesn't completely take care of the problem, but what can we do about non-compliant search engines? Nothing that I know of. Blanking at least usually hides it from the inexperienced user. — Gestrid (talk) 03:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
          • Gestrid, I wrote above Alternatively it could blank only when an explicit optional parameter calls for blanking. You do have a point that criteria for using such a parameter would be hard to define. While it is true that some attacks are far more serious than others ("Joe Blow rapes little girls." is a bit more serious than "Joe Blow never formats citations correctly."), deciding where to draw the line, or how to judge relative seriousness in less clear-cut cases might be more trouble than it is worth, so perhaps this idea isn't such a good one. DES (talk) 03:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I would think that blanking the pages has a real benefit. I think that many, many more people will not read the attacking content if it is blanked, versus if it just has a big red banner. I am not convinced that the current situation creates significantly more work. It is an extra step for the deleting admin, but G10 is used infrequently enough that this extra step is not a huge drain on resources. Attack pages are also being dealt with quickly in most cases, it's nt like we have a backlog of them we're trying to plow through. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • There's a couple different issues being conflated here. The proposal is not that attack pages shouldn't be blanked. Let me ask you this: if someone comes across an attack page, would you rather: 1) he thinks that he blanked it, but he didn't actually do so; or one of 2a) he actually blanks it, 2b) he thinks that he blanked it, but didn't, but sees after making the edit that he didn't and fixes it, or 2c) he doesn't bother to blank it, and the admin who deletes the article leaves him an irritated note on his talk page to the effect of "Please blank attack pages when you put db-g10 on them like template tells you to"? The proposal is to move from 1 and to 2. —Cryptic 04:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
    • @Cryptic: I assume you mean 2a? — Gestrid (talk) 04:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
      • No, I mean from always 1 to an indeterminate one of 2a, 2b, or 2c. (In practice, I'd expect they'd eventually all gravitate to 2a.) —Cryptic 04:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) As for 2c (which I would probably do, hopefully not including the irritated admin's note), those who know that the text is actually still there (if the tagger didn't blank it) will likely also know that they can just go back in the page history to get the text (if the tagger did blank it).

      To comment further on my doing 2c, my main experience with G10 involved a fast-moving vandal that was copy-pasting the same message to multiple pages, mainly in the talk/ user talk namespaces. I had to keep up with them without rollback (I discovered them using the CVN IRC channel.), so I was tagging with Twinkle and moving on to the next one as soon as possible. What I had to undo (since we don't delete user talk pages with substantial contributions like a welcome message) instead of G10 was later (at least) RevDeled (and possibly oversighted) when I had a chance to type up a request for it. — Gestrid (talk) 04:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Blanking, of any Wikipedia content that needs it, should not rely on browser behavior, but should be something handled on our end. Thus, I am in favor of getting rid of pseudo-blanking, and instructing users adding a template associated with a need for blanking to remove all the content from the page themselves: if the template request is declined, the admin declining it can restore the page content, but I'd rather err on the side of caution. Jclemens (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Template auto-blanking is not real blanking? The offensive material is just not displayed? It is on the page, downloaded with every download, duplicated with every archive, indexed by search engines? That seems pointless, even worse than pointless. Worse than pointless because Wikipedians don't see the content, but it is there the same as always. Proper blanking means removal of the content from the current version. I have understood that no search engine or archival service archives old versions, but just the current version. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
      • Yes, SmokeyJoe, what {{db-G10}} does is what Jclemens called "pseudo-blanking". It wraps the page cont in <div>...</div> tags, assigns a style to that div, and includes CSS designating that style as "display:none" Any browser that does not support CSS will display the content. Any browser with a local CSS file that overrides the designation will display the content. Search engines will receive the content. They may choose not to index it -- I don't now how search engines react to "Display:none". I am pretty sure that nothing requires them to ignore such content. That is why such blanking was called "a false sense of security" above. I am not sure if all templates that do blanking do it in this way, but I suspect that most do. What such blanking will do is hide the content from the ordinary reader unless that ready goes to some trouble. DES (talk) 23:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Couldn't a bot just do this (remove all wikitext that is not associated with a CSD template from pages with a CSD G10 template on them)? Tazerdadog (talk) 00:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
      • It could do so, of course, if someone wrote such a bot and got it approved. That would make an extra step when (and if) a reviewing admin or editor declined the speedy, since the content would not be automatically restored by removing the template, and would require a reversion to an earlier version. DES (talk) 01:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
        • I like the bot idea; I think the logic's pretty straightforward and a bot task would have minimal difficulty being approved. Jclemens (talk) 05:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Oppose - we want this information on many attack pags to be as hidden as possible as quickly as possible. Although anyone who knows how Wikipedia worls can find the content, it;'s still hidden in that you need to go looking for it. This is no less true in the userspace and draftspace than in the mainspace. An explicit parameter would be a good idea though. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
@עוד מישהו: To quote what I said about using a parameter above: To that I would ask what general criteria should people apply to turn the blanking parameter on. The page is already openly attacking someone, so we obviously couldn't have that as a criterion. I may be open to using a parameter, but the criteria for the parameter would have to be specific and, as I just quoted, couldn't use "It's an attack page" as one of them. It would also be hard to develop some sort of scale to "grade" attack pages on to determine whether or not the "level" of the attack warrants blanking. Also, I have a feeling that creating such a scale would just give vandals another "trophy" to achieve, and I believe WP:BEANS would apply in that situation. In my opinion, it's just best to leave it at one set level where all pages perceived to be attack pages get blanked (or not, depending on the outcome of this discussion). Like I said, though, I could maybe be convinced to accepts criteria on using the parameter if the criteria were very specific and left little room for an editor's own personal interpretation since we would be dealing with attack pages. I also think such criteria would need an RfC in order to be approved because it would essentially be an addition to policy. Twinkle and Huggle (among other lesser-known tools) would also have to be modified to allow users within their respective interfaces to set the parameter to yes or no or whatever we would use as options. — Gestrid (talk) 07:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

General criteria applying to draftspace

With this edit Legacypac added draft space to the list of spaces where the Gx criteria apply. The edit was promptly reverted in this edit by Bbb23.

Now I have often disagreed with Legacypac on deletion issues, and no doubt will again. But here I think that he (or is it she? I don't know) has a point. Certainly some general criteria, such as copyright infringement and blatant promotion apply in draft space, and I see no reason why thy don't all except those that specifically exempt draft space. I suspect this is just wording that wasn't changed when draftspacce was introduced. I do like to see some discussion before policy pages like this are changed, but we are having that now. G1 and G2 don't apply in userspace, and probably shouldn't apply in draft space either, although the reasons aren't so strong. G4 excludes draft space under particular conditions, as was discussed recently.

Any other views? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't see my edit as any policy change at all as Draft space is included within the "etc". However, Draft space is an area where ONLY Gx applies and it's one of the major areas where Gx is applied. The addition was just to make it more clear for users trying to understand the CSD criteria.
Where does it say G1 and G2 don't apply to Draft space and why would you want people creating nonsense pages in Draft? I agree G4 has a limited exemption for Draft space use.

Legacypac (talk) 00:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

What I wrote was G1 and G2 don't apply in userspace, and probably shouldn't apply in draft space either (emphasis added). People can, in the course of creating drafts, have partly-done pages which may look like nonsense. Similarly, tests might be appropriate in draft space. In user space, of course people can easily create nonsense in the course of learning how editing works, or testing templates, or for various other reasons, and may surely create test pages (I have several in my own userspace). I was suggesting (or perhaps just hinting at) extending the exemptions from G1 and G2, now valid for userspace, to draft space, not claiming that such exemptions are now in place. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
There are 16 non-talk namespaces, the G series applies to all of them and all their counterparts in talk:, and it already says it does. There's no need to further lengthen the already-too-long list of examples. —Cryptic 01:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The perennial A7 discussion

Over CSD/Reviewing a few thousand articles, this has come up probably a half dozen times, which is not my concern primarily, but what is my concern is that we have reviewing admins who seem to be consistently applying a standard that has no basis in policy, and no broad consensus. Simply put, there is nothing in policy and no broad consensus saying that the existence of sources in and of themselves constitutes a claim of significance.

Previous discussions have all failed to find consensus on this either in principle or in the support of a concrete addition to policy ([3], [4], [5], [6]) but it has nonetheless made it's way into this this essay, and being applied as if there is actually some consensus.

What there is consensus for (WP:NOTCSD) is Reasons based on essays. ... are not valid reasons for speedy deletion. and it is beyond me why this apparently works in one direction and not the other. Citing essays and multiple instances of prior non-consensus does not constitute a consensus in and of itself, even if the people who are applying it as such themselves happen to agree with it.

So part of me wants to open an RfC on this just to watch it fail, while the other bashes that part on the head and says "why the heck do we need a fifth failed effort at consensus to establish no consensus" and not inconsequentially "that's not your job anyway, if reviewing admins want to apply a new standard then the onus is on them to be the ones to establish consensus on the matter". TimothyJosephWood 14:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Pinging the folks guaranteed to disagree with me on the issue: User:SoWhy, User:Ritchie333 TimothyJosephWood 14:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I've pretty much said everything at User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7, but in a nutshell, the use of subjective terms like "significance" and "importance" has made things complicated, and if you use a very strictly defined deletion criteria that allows the use of admin tools without any discussion, any wiggle room has to defer to not deleting otherwise it's admin abuse (at least from the creator's POV). That's it. The world won't collapse if you drop-kick an A7 to PROD and AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Criteria that allows the use of admin tools without any discussion works both ways. TimothyJosephWood 14:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
While a clear addition to the policy has so far not happened, the discussions you mention above all reflect a basic consensus that non-routine coverage in a reliable source is sufficient to pass A7 unless it's crystal-clear that this coverage is all there is. Which is in line with the purpose and goals of A7, i.e. to weed out those articles that clearly need no further discussion. If a reliable source thought it prudent to publish information about a subject, then this assumption is almost always refuted.
That said, I would welcome a change to A7 that reflects said basic consensus. How about:
Significance or importance is presumed if the article contains a link to a reliable source with non-routine coverage.
Regards SoWhy 14:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Perfectly happy to open an RfC on the matter and settle it either way. At the very least we'll get some consistency one way or the other. TimothyJosephWood 14:59, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
...After reviewing again, I really don't think your characterization of a "basic consensus" in the prior conversations really holds up at all. The first three went basically immediately nowhere, including your own observation that there is no consensus for defining this in anything else but essay-form. The final 2013 discussion is the one with real substance, and it's heavy on nuance but light on clear consensus, wording of whatever that consensus might be, or even how to interpret the proposed wording.
Looks to me a lot like simply multiple failed attempts to change policy that got put into an essay because there was no consensus for anything else, and which got (or continue to be) acted upon because people wanted to, regardless of whether they had consensus or not. TimothyJosephWood 15:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I would be concerned with the proposed change (addition?) to A7 on two separate grounds, false positives and false negatives. First, and probably most important, if the text of A7 say: "Significance or importance is presumed if the article contains a link to a reliable source with non-routine coverage." Then many taggers and at least some admins will interpret this to mean "No cited reliable source? Then it can't be significant. DELETE!" That would be a disaster I would do a great deal to avoid.
    In the opposite direction, is it always true that non-routine coverage implies significance, or at least enough than an A7 speedy delete is incorrect? Let me propose a hypothetical example. A new article comes along, whose text starts: "Jane Doe is an American lawyer. She has a varied practice, dealing with Will, family practice, estate practice, and contracts. ..." It goes on to briefly describe Doe's education and family life. The education is cited to a web page from her school, and the family life to a personal web page of Doe's. But the major cite is to an article in a major publication, say the NY Times Sunday magazine, the New Yorker, or some similar work. This publication has done a feature on "What is it like to be a lawyer today?" and it selected 4 lawyers involved in different types of practice, interviewed each, interviewed their colleagues and a few clients, and shadowed each lawyer for a week. 3-4 pages of the feature are devoted to describing Jane Doe's working life based on these interviews and observations, but it is largely in the form of a review or profile, not an interview. This is clearly non-routine independent reliable coverage about a person, but in the end it doesn't describe anything particularly significant or encyclopedic about Doe. In fact it shows, in fine detail, how her life is WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. No mention of any achievement or event that would constitute a "claim of significance" beyond "was profiled by X magazine" is mentioned in the source or in the new WP article. Should such an article be immune to A7, as this proposal would make it? DES (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Can we avoid these two opposite errors? (That is, speeding anything unsourced, and not speedy deleting anything sourced but essentially trvial.) DES (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I highly suggest those here review the previous discussions linked to above, because these are exactly the same types of arguments that have already been brought up. I'll let this sit for a while, but barring some emerging consensus, I probably will open an RfC, because I feel this needs a level of formality that hasn't happened yet (over many years), and had just birthed more unfruitful discussion as the result of its own shortcomings. TimothyJosephWood 23:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @DESiegel and SoWhy: From a grammatical viewpoint, I think the "no sources means no significance" misinterpretation is more likely to be avoided if the assumption of significance goes in the rheme. How about If the article contains a link to a reliable source with non-routine coverage, significance or importance is presumed? Adam9007 (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd prefer If the article contains a link to a source with coverage above a single mention, significance or importance is presumed. Suppose this article existed: John Smith is a French actor. [1]
  1. ^ [IMDb mention]


That article would probably fail A7. J947(c) 03:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Since IMDB is not a reliable source, that alone should not prevent A7 deletion with either wording but the IMDB source will probably allow assessment whether this actor is significant or important based on their credits.
@DESiegel: I don't see the problem you see with false negatives since my proposal included the word presumed. As for the false positives, one can argue that such coverage indicates that someone is actually not WP:RUNOFTHEMILL because they were chosen to be reported on and others were not. Yet, the common sense exception that a single coverage that indicates that no more coverage has happened is not enough could be included.
Maybe we can use this discussion or the RfC Timothy proposes to clean up A7 while incorporating the proposed change?

Rough idea/proposal

This applies to any article about a real person, individual animal(s) (not species), organization (with the exception of educational institutions), web content or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is a lower standard than notability, distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources. 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, although the inclusion of a reliable source containing non-routine coverage of the subject usually indicates significance or importance (except in cases of clear one-time coverage). The criterion does apply if the claims are not credible. A7 does not apply to any other subjects, even if they are connected to eligible subjects, such as products, creative works (except web content), software, albums (see A9 below), buildings, locations etc. If it's unclear whether an article meets this criterion, try to improve the article yourself or use another venue, such as proposed deletion, proposed deletion for BLPs or articles for deletion.

That should address the concerns mentioned above while also streamlining the currently cobbled-together A7 wording. Thoughts? Regards SoWhy 06:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

  • You have shortened, and thereby weakened, the reminder that species articles, and articles about creative content, are exempt from A7. Both of those were put in precisely because we were getting significant numbers of CSD tags, and some deletions of articles of those types, even though they were not technically eligible under the previous wording. This concerns me. Moreover, although this, in effect, says that the presence of a cite to a reliable source is sufficient, but not needed, to avoid an A7 speedy, any mention of sourcing beyond "a source is not required" will lead to "no source, no significance" from some NPPers and some admins. I don't see enough gain here to balance this possible issue. (And don't tell me that the wording precludes this. Some do it now, and the proposed wording will encourage this.) DES (talk) 07:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Also, if we are going to do this level of rewrite of A7, I want a clear, mandatory delay of at least 15 minutes from creation before any tag is placed, with any tag placed less than 15 minutes after article cretion to be declined for that reason alone. DES (talk) 07:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • On single-source examples, if my previous perhaps a bit unlikely lawyer hypothetical did not convince, how about a more likely one. There is an up-and-coming pop musician, or perhaps better a pop music producer. He has received a fair amount of routine coverage, but nothing significant. Then a writer for Allmusic does a 1000 word profile on him, saying that he is "a man to watch". This is cited in an article about him, which lists his full discography, but makes no other claim of significance. An NPPer tags for A7. Should an admin delete or decline? Again, we have single-source (but clearly RS) non-routine coverage. Would the new wording change the result? Should it? DES (talk) 07:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
As I said, it's just a rough proposal but I don't think it weakens it since it clearly says it's exempt. English is not my native language but I fail to see how one could justify a mistagging based on that wording. "Does not apply to other subjects" seems clear enough to me.
I also don't see how any AGF editor or admin can misunderstand "no source required although it helps" as "no source no article". That would be such a trout-worthy mistake that any admin routinely doing so should be stripped of the mop immediately. That we have admins ignoring A7's restrictions already is a different problem and should not preclude any changes. But since you disagree, can you think of a possible wording to include the idea that sources lead to significance without the problems you mention?
As for a 15-minute-wait, we can discuss that, although a hard and fast rule is probably not the best idea. Or do we need to wait 15 minutes when the article reads "Hi, Im John a twelveyear old highschool student for Anyville. I like pokemon!"?
As for the example you mentioned, I would decline the speedy tagging both based on the current wording and the proposed new wording since being called an artist to watch is sufficient enough to indicate that the artist has or will get more coverage. Regards SoWhy 07:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  1. "That would be such a trout-worthy mistake that any admin routinely doing so should be stripped of the mop immediately." I hate to tell you, attempts to even censure an admin for egregious errors in speedy deletion, or to get Deletion review to act on blatantly improper speedy deletes of borderline articles are uphill battles, and as for desysoping over such issues, it just won't happen. (I have tried for censure in the past). So anything that might encourage mis-tagging and poor deletes must be avoided like the plague.
  2. I am notorious for being ready to decline A7 speedies, but "artist to watch" is almost a sign meaning "not significant yet", and "there will be more coverage coming" falls afoul of WP:CRYSTAL.
  3. We already have a strong suggestion of a delay for several criteria. it doesn't work, I routinely see A7 tags for articles 1-2 minutes old. Nothing but a mandatory delay (that gets enforced) will stop this. It is a matter of avoiding WP:BITE as much as anything.
So far I am not convinced this is enough of an improvement to be worth the effort and risks. This is to avoid a few improperly tagged articles in over a thousand, you say? DES (talk) 08:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Couple of thoughts, I'll be more thorough later. I don't personally think that this should be a standard at all, but the only way to establish that is to put forth the best good faith proposal possible, and see if it passes or fails conclusively. I think adding sources as an ipso facto significance actually lowers the standard more in an age when every town has a local news website, and many have these new crap chute "hyper local" ...things. There's undoubtedly been thousands of stories published since I started writing this, and at some point being covered in some source becomes close enough to the standard of simply existing, and existing doesn't constitute significance. A7 can already be easily flouted by simply lying fairly well.
As to the few articles among thousands, that's my experience, which is of course highly dependent on the types of articles that I CSD, and not necessarily representative at all. But I don't want this to get bogged down in needing a peer reviewed study before we even consider any type of action on an issue that has obviously come up repeatedly over many years.
And for whatever its worth, tagging within a 1-2 minutes isn't the same as deleting within 1-2 minutes. If someone is actually not biting good faith attempts at creating non-COI-advert-hopeless articles, it's too easy to reply the the editor when they comment, and move to draft space before an admin ever sees it. That we don't see this more often says more about the types of new articles were getting than it does about the types of people who are reviewing them. TimothyJosephWood 10:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I would not support adding "although the inclusion of a reliable source containing non-routine coverage of the subject usually indicates significance or importance" or anything like it to A7. Inclusion in a reliable source is a very low bar, and is not a claim of significance nor evidence of notability. I see no benefit of complicating the criteria any more than it is without there being a clear benefit. If some editors want to tighten up A7 to make it more difficult to have article speedily deleted, then there needs to be substantive discussion that starts with convincing evidence that a single source has any relationship to subject notability. - MrX 14:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
The problem is that there have already been multiple discussions, none of which resulted in any kind of precedent setting conclusion, and we have reviewers applying the standard fairly wildly inconsistently because of the guidance vacuum. TimothyJosephWood 14:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposal 2

Per this and the previous conversations this is kindof along the lines I'm thinking. I'd much rather start an RfC as a clear yes/no, but I loath to start an RfC with a better than average chance of being decidedly inconclusive one way or the other (read a complete waste of time). So I'd narrow it down to four options:

Note:This is not an RfC - This is a proposal for an RfC to see if anyone believes the wording options could be improved prior to beginning a period of comment.

  1. "the inclusion of a reliable source containing non-routine coverage of the subject usually indicates significance, although the lack of the sources itself is not a valid reason for nominating."
  2. "the inclusion of reliable, independent, and non-local sources containing non-routine coverage of the subject usually indicates significance, although the lack of the sources itself is not a valid reason for nominating."
  3. No additional language should be added because the sources included should not be a primary consideration when deciding whether the article's content makes a credible claim of significance
  4. No additional language should be added because considering the presence of sources is already implicit in the current guidance

Thoughts? TimothyJosephWood 12:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Just popping this up on everyone watchlist again. Any criticism/suggestions/comments? I'll probably pull the trigger on it next week if not. TimothyJosephWood 12:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
As mentioned in my comment above, we should not be advancing an interpretation of A7 that makes it more difficult to speedily delete articles of subjects that are non-notable as evidence by a lack of claim of significance. It's scope creep, and essays are not guidelines.- MrX 14:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I... I mean I agree with you. But I'm more trying to decide if the community agrees with us, one way or the other. TimothyJosephWood 14:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I am concerned that the proposed wording might reinforce the erroneous yet widespread idea that a lack of sources can contribute to A7 eligibility. If sources provide a reason to not A7 an article, then surely a lack of sources is a reason to A7 an article? It might not be logically rigorous, but that is the way a lot of people will (and already do) reason. We should not be encouraging that line of thinking. So I'm going to support option 3. A2soup (talk) 16:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Given the previous discussions, this was a fairly foreseeable line of opposition, although it doesn't address the central question of whatever bearing sources, high quality or low, may have on a credible claim of significance. I have added wording clarifying this to the proposal which hopefully will cut off this avenue of opposition. TimothyJosephWood 17:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
While the added language helps, I am still not convinced that any benefits to such a change will be worth the degree to which this change may promote the misunderstanding I and others above mentioned before, and i maintain that sourcing should be largely irrelevant to av A7 decision in any case. This "avenue of opposition" is not at all "cut off". DES (talk) 01:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Well if there's a way to cut it off more, I'm not immediately seeing it. And per the above, I agree that they should be irrelevant, other's don't, and so the idea is to get consensus one way or the other. You're more than welcome to oppose once things get underway if that's where you're at on the issue. TimothyJosephWood 17:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
On option 2, I recommend removing the word secondary. Most editors have figured out what WP:Independent sources are, but quite a few still struggle with the fact that WP:Independent does not mean secondary. Also, breaking news and eyewitness news is always a primary source, but it really can be a credible indication of possible significance, even if it's local (as well as a credible indication of a possible WP:NOTNEWS violation ;-)). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 Done TimothyJosephWood 17:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Personally, I prefer the option 2. I don't share concerns about such a clarification. People who nominate articles for lacking sources with the current wording will continue to do so but maybe adding the wording will decrease nominations of articles that do have such sources. Regards SoWhy 18:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm going with option 1, modified to "the inclusion of a source containing valid information more than a single name mention of the subject(s), usually indicates significance, although the lack of the sources itself is definitely not a valid reason for nominating. This guideline should be used with common sense." An article that links to a source is definitely not automatically out of the run for A7, but if the source—reliable or not—contains valid information more than a single name mention it is out from the application of A7, with common sense applied. A7 is supposed to be narrow in its application, and it has considerably become broader and broader as the years go on. J947(c) 19:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I think you'd have to specify that you're speaking of WP:Independent sources. Your own personal blog is "a reliable source" for information about yourself (e.g., under BLPSPS), but the fact that you have a blog and like to post about yourself doesn't indicate significance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
option 3 having reliable sources is the realm of Articles for Deletion; it has nothing to do with speedy deletion. When it comes to not speedy deleting, even a poor source, say IMDb, used above in an example, is probably enough to decline, or to not tag. I'd say the problem comes from way upstream: we don't really have a clear and consensual definition of notability; but that is quite another issue (and then we have three/four levels of deletion/retention which increases the number of gray areas - is it a speedy? a prod? a afd? a keeper?...) - Nabla (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Agree of course but the proposal is not "Anything without a RS can be speedy deleted" but rather "Anything with a RS cannot be speedy deleted". Regards SoWhy 19:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Sure. The point being that the need for reliable sources is so far away from the needs to avoid speedy deletion that it is a mostly useless information. Having a reliable source is a obvious claim for notability, having a reliable source is likely enough to survive deletion altogether, let alone a "speedy". Kind of (please allow the exaggeration) as useless as saying that featured articles should not be speedy deleted. So options 1 and 2 are not wrong, they are correct, but they also sound like overkill; option is 4 wrong, IMO; so option 3 is the best (but not the only possible one) - Nabla (talk) 01:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC) PS: Iridiscent, bellow, explains well why having a source may not be good a claim of significance, please read it. - Nabla (talk) 13:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, an A7 exclusion should not be expounded as the mere presence of a reliable source, but instead as the presence of a reliable source that itself makes a "credible claim of significance or importance". For example, where it says:
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.
We could instead say:
The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance. This can be an explicit claim from the article's prose, even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines, or an implicit claim not made in the article's prose but instead, found within a reliable source the article does include.
It seems to me that incorporating a reliable source exclusion in this way achieves the thread's goal while better alleviating the valid concerns I have seen raised above.--John Cline (talk) 11:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
But isn't the fact that a RS found the subject worth covering already a sufficient claim of significance? Regards SoWhy 11:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
@SoWhy: No—"coverage in a source" isn't equivalent to "claim of significance" even at the most generous end, since that would imply notability for anyone who's listed in a "I was at Woodstock", "Korean War veterans share their memories", "local youths explain why they voted Republican" etc vox pop. (To pick just the first example that was to hand, in this feature Ethan Hogan is asked why he refers to Jeremy Corbyn as "Daddy", but create Ethan Hogan using this as the sole source and I'll A7 it instantly.) At least for the US, UK and Canada, I could with little effort find a reliable source for every soldier who served in the two World Wars, but that doesn't mean we want all their biographies. ‑ Iridescent 12:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
I say your example shows why having or not a reliable source has nothing to do with speedy deletion. As you say, "John Doe was a US soldier fighting in the Korea War[1]", has no claim of significance (as there are lots of such soldiers, most with no significance for a encyclopedia) although it has a source. But "Jack Davenport was a United States Marine who received the Medal of Honor for his actions during the Korean War.", without any source at all, has a claim of significance. - Nabla (talk) 13:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
At the same time I don't think we would want to CSD an article that said "John Doe was a US soldier fighting in the Korea War[1]", for not making a claim of encyclopedic significance if the included reliable source itself mentioned his having received the Medal of Honor even while the article did not.--John Cline (talk) 13:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
I... Think the thing is that if you were starting a stub about a CMOH recipient, it would be pretty hard not to mention that bit. (And anyway AFAIK, you have to go back to the Indian Wars or the Civil War to find CMOH recipients that don't have articles, in a totally off topic comment). TimothyJosephWood 22:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
I guess I would also add that there is a bit of a slippery slope here in requiring reviewers and administrators to get well into WP:BEFORE while nominating for CSD, when CSD itself is supposed to be an approximation of whether BEFORE is even needed, and mopping up the instances where it clearly isn't. TimothyJosephWood 22:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposal 3

Just add a footnote to "claim of significance" that says "A reliable source with more than a passing mention of the subject is generally a claim of significance. The lack of such a source itself is not a valid reason for an A7."

Again, as above, this isn't an RfC, but rather the start of an idea for an RfC. I understand the pushback against having important footnotes, but frankly, I think it's too hard to put as much as we want into a linear document. Another option would be to write a guideline that specifies what a "claim of significance" is, using the essay as a starting point, but I think that way lies madness. Hobit (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

It does seem like one of things that's come up repeatedly is how much of the "beef" do you include when describing the nature of the source. So...
  • Reliable (without qualifier)
  • Local/Regional/National/Global
  • Trivial/In-depth/Something in-between
  • Independent/Self-published
I would expect in my naivete that we can likely find agreement that independence is required, otherwise we'd be disqualifying every company with a website from A7. I would expect more disagreement on whether local coverage should count or how much. I would expect more disagreement on whether trivial mention should count and how much.
But I'm not really sure what to do with it, since a completely comprehensive proposal is gonna have 15 freaking options, and basically be impossible to gauge consensus on. As to whether its a footnote or incorporated into the body... I'm largely indifferent. TimothyJosephWood 15:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Independent should certainly be added. The others I wouldn't. Local, IMO, is too hard to measure and so doesn't belong in a speedy criteria anywhere. Hobit (talk) 16:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
(I feel like we need an RfC for what we put in the RfC.) The problem with local coverage is that it doesn't really contribute to notability (thinking of small town newspapers and the like), and so it's questionable whether we should really consider it as an indicator of significance, since it likely doesn't indicate to any large extent that there needs to be an AfD discussion, since those sources themselves are going to be immediately and automatically discounted in that discussion. TimothyJosephWood 21:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not unalterably opposed to the overall idea (and I'm least opposed putting it in a footnote), but I'm not convinced it's necessary. As a matter of practice, most admins recognize any external link that might even arguably be put towards notability is enough to indicate significance for A7, and if DRV has ever endorsed an A7 deletion where the article that already had such a link, I can't remember it. A7's biggest flaw is how much it's diverged from notability - if you research how it came to be back in 2005, the idea was clearly "doesn't say anything indicating this article might get kept at AFD" - and any explicit wording here risks creating a similar divergence between "source that could count towards WP:GNG" and "source defined by A7 to indicate significance". —Cryptic 04:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposal 4

Ok, so I've been trying to figure out how to do this in what apparently needs to be a multi-step AfC. My initial inclination was to have many more variations of options 1 and 2 (far) above, but that would make gauging consensus fairly difficult, since it would probably result in a half dozen or more options. So instead of deciding on wording first, what if we decided on principle first. Something like this: TimothyJosephWood 23:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Note:This is not an RfC - This is a proposal for an RfC to see if anyone believes the wording options could be improved prior to beginning a period of comment.

  1. Some language should be included in the guidance for A7 regarding what types of sources should be considered in-and-of themselves a claim of significance. (That language will be decided in a future RfC.)
  2. No additional language should be added because the sources included should not be a primary consideration when deciding whether the article's content makes a credible claim of significance.
  3. No additional language should be added because considering the presence of sources is already implicit in the current guidance.
Again, just popping this back up on everyone's watchlist. If there's no opinions to be had here then I'm likely to just go with this version, and have an unfortunately long explanation about the nature of the qualifiers that have to be decided among if there's some feeling that this, in principle, is something we need to be considering at all. TimothyJosephWood 12:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

F5 – orphaned non-free file; is removing files okay anymore?

After the bot disaster, File PROD implementation per RfC, and more "orphaning" drama, I wonder about the F5 criterion (orphaned non-free image). The F5 is also enforced by WP:NFCC#7 (one-article minimum). Actually, when File PROD was used in the early start, I thought it could be frequently used and would surpass F5. However, the usage dwindled as of now. Meanwhile, Category:All orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files contains 1000+ files. (See also Category:Orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files.) Currently, I'm resisting temptations to remove images to make them orphaned and unused. Why orphaning files rather than using PROD or FFD? Maybe files are simple to remove, or why else? --George Ho (talk) 01:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Um, what is the problem? These files do not become eligible for zapping immediately, and we use the subcategories of Category:Orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files to determine which ones need to go. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I know the files may become ineligible if removed. However, do you think the "orphaning" system has been gamed? Before the File PROD was implemented, I orphaned some files because they obviously didn't meet NFCC and because FFD has been heavily backlogged. Even PUF and NFCR ran their days before being considered no longer useful. Since the implementation, I don't orphan them anymore. However, files have been still orphaned because some people either are unaware of PROD or don't consider PRODding them (probably due to one-use rule) or taking them to FFD without being aware that FFD has been cleaned up. Also, I was pressured into finding free replacement image of a deceased person because an admin who orphaned the non-free image refused to reinsert the image and didn't consider re-taking the image to FFD. But then someone else reinserted the non-free image. Also, the bot inadvertently made files "invisible" (<!--Example.jpg not meeting NFCC#10c-->) until the bot issue was fixed. Again, has the "orphaning" thing been gamed? George Ho (talk) 15:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC); Pinging Jo-Jo Eumerus. 04:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Pings don't work if you try to add them to an already existing post. You need to make a new one. Anyhow, I don't see much of an issue, unused non-free files are not supposed to exist after all. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I figured out how to prevent new articles about notorious alleged criminals from getting deleted pursuant to G10

If you're writing an article about a guy whose claim to fame mostly consists of bad stuff he's alleged to have done, I think the way to do it is to just not include any negative information about him in the first revision. You just look at the articles about him and find everything you can that's positive and put that in the article instead. Here's an example.

The folks at NPP tend to have a hair-trigger mentality where they want to delete any article that says there's some controversy surrounding a living person, regardless of how well-sourced the article's coverage of these controversies is. So, just avoiding all mention of such things is the only way to prevent deletion. Compy book (talk) 01:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Compy book: WP:IAR. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 01:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:no source under discussion

Currently, Template:no source and Template:nosource, both of which redirect to template:di-no source, are nominated for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 14#Template:No source, where I invite you to comment. --George Ho (talk) 03:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit?

Is changing a tag or adding a tag the sort of edit that prevents speedy deletion? See here, where the article speedy was declined on that basis (and even more - the editor declining said that the request for speedy was an "edit" to the article that pushes off a future speedy by an additional six months). I understand User:Nyttend has a view that is different from mine.--2604:2000:E016:A700:A00C:7F46:822D:9F12 (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Do WP:ACSD criteria apply for set-index articles?

Do set-index articles count as articles in the context of AfD, i.e. can criteria for articles be used to speedy delete a set-index article? My understanding is that disambiguation pages are not treated as articles for CSD, but what about pages that mark themselves as set indices? feminist 10:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Feminist: I just added set index articles as an exception to A3. What other criteria might apply to a legitimate set index page? —Guanaco 10:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Set index articles are not disambiguation pages, although some are very poor list articles that might have some superficial resemblance. older ≠ wiser 10:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, set articles are subject to CSD. An empty set article can be deleted under A3. There is no value in treating them differently than any other article.- MrX 11:43, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation pages can be deleted under G6 (presumably why they are exempt from A3). G6 allows for "Deleting a disambiguation page which either: disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)"; or disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title."- MrX 11:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
The majority of chemistry set index articles are nothing more than a list of compounds by that name. The only difference between these and disambiguation pages is that they usually consist of the same elements (cobalt oxide for example). I made this edit to WP:CSD#A3 because the criteron could plausibly be used to delete a large number of them. The edit I made was reverted, and I don't understand why.
If the exemption applies to disambiguation pages, shouldn't it apply to a set index that in truth is exactly the same thing? —Guanaco 11:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
How can A3 be used to plausibly delete a large number of them? If they meet A3, why bother keeping them and if they are not, where is the problem? I understand why the change was reverted in this case. As MrX mentions, G6 covers disambigs, so A3 is not required. Do you have any examples of set-index articles that could plausibly be deleted under A3 and shouldn't? Regards SoWhy 12:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
(after ec) This reflects a misunderstanding of the difference between a set index article and a disambiguation page. A disambiguation page is by design nothing more than a navigational aide to resolve ambiguity in existing articles. Set index articles may contain non-article entries and references. As described at WP:SIA: Fundamentally, a set index article is a type of list article. The criteria for creating, adding to, or deleting a set index article should be the same as for a stand-alone list. older ≠ wiser 12:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
The issue is that a large number of set indexes could be expanded, but right now they're simply relabeled disambiguation pages. Dimethylethylenediamine is one example. —Guanaco 20:43, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Are set indexes actually being nominated for A3 deletion? If I came across Dimethylethylenediamine, I would not nominate it for deletion under A3 or G6. However, if it only had one entry, and did not have the explanatory text and index template, I would assume that it was an unnecessary disambiguation page.- MrX 20:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't think they are, no. This is all BEANS territory, but the question was asked, so I thought the criterion should reflect actual practice. —Guanaco 21:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

G13 of userspace drafts with afc template applied by another user

User:Example creates User:Example/X. The page bears no articles for creation template. User:Place holder either simply adds {{AFC submission}} to it or moves it to Draft:X (perhaps per WP:STALEDRAFT) and adds {{AFC submission}}. Six months later User:Place holder or another user requests it be deleted per G13. This seems like blatant gaming the system (or an end run if you will) to subvert the deletion process to me. Any thoughts? An exception stating something like "in the case of userspace drafts or drafts moved from the userspace to draftspace, the {{AFC submission}} temlate must be added by the creator to qualify for deletion" could be added; someone recently posted something related to this (I'm not sure whether or not they've used the practice in the past), and I've recently seen userspace drafts which bore no {{AFC submission}} template moved to draftspace and submitted to articles for creation by a user other then their creator. However, this probably isn't a common problem, so maybe a note at Help:Userspace draft would suffice. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 02:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Applying the AfC template to someone else's work would appear to be a dishonest end run around the original limits on G13. The limit on G13, to apply only to AfC created drafts, was, as I remember, because many pages, whether in userspace or draftspace, are not simply drafts. They may be notes, or something else. I don't attest to this logic, but G13 was created restricted, and if it is to be loosened, it should be loosened overtly, not by dishonest end runs. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I know at least one editor who will add the AFC template to draft-spaced-from-main-space articles (ping czar). Is that practice also questionable? --Izno (talk) 03:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Draft:Philippe Vachey for example. Translated from the French Wikipedia by the occasional editor Feor (talk · contribs). czar (talk · contribs) is enacting a back-door deletion process on Feor's new page. I was talking to User:Robert McClenon about this sort of thing, and I think we are in agreement that unilateral draftifications should be subjected to some documentation. Czar's marking them as G13-eligible raises the seriousness of the issue. As draftification and AfC tagging leads to auto-deletion, I wonder whether the criteria for draftification be that the page meets a CSD#A* criterion? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Question answered as previously discussed at Wikipedia talk:Drafts/Archive 5#RFC: Clarification over main-space to draft-space moves. I've moved new articles unfit for mainspace into draftspace and notified their authors appropriately and in good faith. Some new authors need help meeting basic guidelines and providing basic sourcing, which is the onboarding process AfC is designed to provide. I too help with these drafts and I don't mark anything for G13. Some drafts graduate and others are abandoned—same as if they were to languish in mainspace without anyone ever leaving comments, except one approach leaves junk in mainspace for others to cleanup-tag or otherwise neglect and the other attempts to socialize editors into better editing habits and our base level of quality. Don't malign my goodwill and moreover tell me the former makes the encyclopedia better. I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 06:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
No need to get sensitive, but aren't you unilaterally deciding that Philippe Vachey is to be deleted. AfC/Draftspace is not a place for receiving help and socialisation. Sure, you provide nice author notifications, but are you comfortable with anyone doing the same as you do? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
User:Czar, I hoping that we can continue this constructively at Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol#Clarification_and_guidance_for_draftification. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe, if that question wasn't rhetorical, no, I don't see how anyone would construe that page's move as deletion. Yes, I'm comfortable with my fellow editors exercising judgment as the community affords them the tools to do so. I don't see what needs further codification (e.g., that proposal), but feel free to ping me if you'd like feedback on something specific. czar 05:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
User:Czar, just to be clear, you understand, and are comfortable, that by draftifying that article with an AfC tag, if no one touches the draft, it will likely be auto-deleted under G13 in six months? NB I don't intend to convey opinion or judgement on this, instead, if you are happy with that, then so am I. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • G13 was originally formulated to get rid of the pile of drafts that had been submitted, reviewed, declined and then abandoned by the author. Someone other than the original author adding an AFC template without ever intending to actually submit the draft for review is imho a bad faith act. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
    • I agree with that. I would further add that as far as I can see, adding an AfC template to a draft without doing or intending to do any work on it yourself can't really be anything but an attempt at a backdoor deletion. Are there any other reasons to do it? (serious question, not rhetorical) A2soup (talk) 06:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, if anything is in draft space for six months without being edited, it really is very unimportant. I agree that tagging someone else's draft with AFC and not working on it is an act of bad faith, but I don't care much what happens to drafts that aren't improved in six months. Maybe I don't understand the question. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I have come around to accepting (though not supporting) the deletion of stale and hopeless drafts, although I am more comfortable with 1 year rather than 6 months. I do think that such deletions should be carried out at MfD, though, where the hopelessness can be assessed (and debated if necessary), rather than by hacking an automated process intended to serve a different purpose. I think we're probably on the same page. A2soup (talk) 06:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I think that assertion is unsupported: something can languish for quite some time without being actively worked on, even in mainspace, and be both in a terrible state and unquestionably important. The real question is whether the benefits of keeping such around outweigh the costs (including risks) of doing so. Lots of people want to "clean up" wikipedia without realizing that we must tolerate gross imperfection to make any progress. Jclemens (talk) 06:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't have much problem with this, so long as the original author is explicitly informed of what's happening, and the AFC template is well-formed so that he gets the automated AFCH messages instead of you. In particular, I continue to believe that it's perfectly legitimate to require an article to go through AFC (and hence eventual G13 if not worked on) as a condition of restoring a properly-deleted mainspace article. —Cryptic 12:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • When i move an article from mainspace to draft space, perhaps as an alternative to deleting something tagged with a CSD template, I invariably mark it as an AFC draft, and notify the creator of the text about what I have done. I do this fairly frequently, and I must have done it hundreds of many times by now. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
    Not as many as I thought. Checking my own conribs, i find 15 instances of this still in draft space, not counting any pages since deleted or promoted to the main article space. Conuting those would be hard, and i am not going to bother, but such placement of an AFC template (by me) is normally in a separate edit with a clear edit summary. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • A few notes:
    1. G13 applies to any page that has {{AFC submission}} on it that has been unedited for 6 months
      • There is a debate going on of completely unedited vs "Unedited by bots". Your interpertation and mileage will vary.
    2. Typically the only pages that meet the above criteria are pages that are declined (i.e. it was submitted for review and found wanting) or Draft mode (submitted but wanted to be held back for more effort).
    3. I believe any page that is sent to Draft namespace over outright deletion should be forced to have the AFC submission template on it (and be subject to the G13 rules). An Admin has found it wanting, but sees potential in it, we'll AGF that the creator is going to make an effort to fix the significant problems. Treating the page like a softer delete to let the user fix problems.
    4. The UserPages RFC last year, I think, decided that we shouldn't be appropriating userspace drafts into AFC or draftspace. I personally disagree with this, but have to accept the consensus. Hasteur (talk) 02:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Opinions: G13 is easily reversed. Hopefully the request comes from someone that wants to improve the draft and resubmit. I don't think it is useful to request undelete for a political purpose to make a point. If the draft times out again and it is deleted, then if another person asks it can be restored, if it was improved it can be restored, if a good reason is provided it can be restored. AFC templates can be provided on request (I have done so) but they should not be added for no reason. People that add for no reason should be warned. Instead they whouild do the work themself's to get the draft up to the standards of an article. So overall I don't think there is any big problem. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Reasons for deleting drafts

Let's take a step back and consider the various valid reasons for deleting drafts. Unreviewed drafts may be attack pages, may contain libel or copyright violations. They may violate various provisions of the BLP policy or simply be spam. Such drafts must be deleted, and we have various speedy deletion criteria to get rid of the worst of them. Such problems are normally caught and dealt with in the AFC review process. Even abandoned drafts that do not have any of the aforementioned issues, or have never been through AFC, will at some point be regarded as violating the NOTWEBHOST rule, pages that do not in some way contribute to the improvement of Wikipedia.

The U5 Speedy criterion currently covers NOTWEBHOST pages only in Userspace. However such pages do not neccessarily exist only in Userspace, thus I think U5 could be changed to a G# criterion which would then apply to all namespaces. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

  • I'd probably be alright with extending U5 to pages "in userspace or draftspace", but I don't think it should apply to pages in the mainspace, as we already deal with pages of this nature well enough there. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 15:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
    • I see what you mean Godsy, the G and A criteria have mainspace well covered, so extending U5 there is redundant. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Submitting an old page of AfC is a great way to bring it forward for possible promotion to mainspace. If one uses the AFCH tool one can submit on behalf of the creator who will be notified on wiki and maybe even by email. A good draft may be promoted immediately or someone else might touch it up. It's a service to users who may not realize they can submit for review or know how their draft will get to mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 02:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Other than actual problems, as articulated above, there is simply no reason to delete drafts. NOTWEBHOST was made for a very different time, and a problem that pretty much no longer exists. Wikipedia has plenty of money for server space to host draft content, but yet some people have the misguided notion that it must be cleaned up for some reason or another NOT involving actual problems, which are dealt with by applying existing methodologies to draft space just like anywhere else. Jclemens (talk) 07:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Which A7?

Maybe this is a trivial question. I see a lot of stubs, usually with no references, about individual musical performers or rappers who have no particular claim to fame other than that they perform. (Nearly everybody performs at something sometimes.) My question is simply: Is there any particular reason to tag them as A7, person, or as A7, musician? If it is one person, they are a person and a musician. (If the article is also promotional, it is easier, because for a multiple tag, I just use a generic A7 and G11). Robert McClenon (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it makes any difference at all. Musician is a type of person, and band is a type of organization.- MrX 00:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Regardless of what Twinkle or Curator might say, A7 is A7, there is no multiple tag because there is no multiple criteria. The choice seems different in these interfaces because they are applying specific templates that relate to the portion of A7 they are referencing. But they're all A7. TimothyJosephWood 01:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
User:Timothyjosephwood - Let me clarify about multiple. I was referring to a promotional article about a musician. In that case, the multiple criteria are A7 and G11. If I am using Twinkle to do a multiple tagging, A7 is just A7, with G11 being the other criterion, but if I use Twinkle to do a single tagging, I specify which of the A7 versions to use. Okay. I have normally used musician/band because that has its own notability guideline, WP:NMUSIC. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
That's the point of the multiple templates, to allow both creators and admins to know which subset of A7 you think the article meets. Plus, they are combined with sub-templates of the (horrifically misnamed) {{db-notability-notice}} that reflect the specific A7 templates (e.g. {{db-band-notice}}, {{db-bio-notice}} etc.). Regards SoWhy 06:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Pretty much this. Ideally the reviewing admin understands that the difference between musician and person is cosmetic. I suspect the original purpose for curator was more than anything to prevent generic A7 tagging for things that are categorically disqualified, like books. The patroller is forced to show that the subject fits into at least one of these specific categories. So if they look for the book A7 tag, and realize it isn't there, they hopefully go read the policy itself and realize why. TimothyJosephWood 10:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC
It is also true that the various clauses of A7 were added separately, and each tended to get its own template as it was added. But I must agree, A7 is A7. It can be helpful if the template indicates which clause the tagger had in mind, but if a reviewing admin can't tell the difference between a person and a band, either s/he shouldn't be editing, or the article has serious context issues. So use whichever A7 template seems best, and don't worry about it. My issue is taggers who put A7 on things that are unsourced or possibly not notable, but have pretty clear claims of significance, or who tag for A7 within minutes of creation, thereby WP:BITEing the creator. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_63&oldid=1137407565"