Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ilmari Karonen (talk | contribs) at 17:26, 18 August 2008 (→‎Template for talk pages with archived deletion discussion: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Proposal - new Image criterion: no permission

I've been spending some time at Commons lately, and have come to admire their npd tag that works alongside their {{nsd}} and {{nld}} and looks a bit like this (trimmed of the multi-lingual template we don't have/need here):

Warning sign This image is missing permission. It has an author and source, but there is no proof that the author agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to a webpage with an explicit permission. If you obtained such a permission via email, please forward it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and reference it at upload.
Unless the permission is given, the image can be speedy deleted seven days after this template was added and the uploader was notified: ({{{day}}} {{{month}}} 2024).

Admins: With the tool CheckUsage you can check the usage of this file in other Wikimedia projects.

When applying this tag:
Use {{subst:npd}}, to categorize by tag date.
Also, use

{{subst:image permission|Image:Criteria for speedy deletion}} ~~~~

to notify the uploader.

I think the text of the template speaks for itself, and think it would be a handy way to take some load off WP:PUI. Thoughts? --Rlandmann (talk) 05:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'm a fan of this. While {{nld}} and {{nsd}} are much more common, there are enough cases of people uploading works by others with the claim that permission is in the mail that it's useful not only for handling those cases where permission is obviously not forthcoming (e.g. movie posters and the like), but also those cases that have been tagged for weeks or months with {{OTRS pending}}. It also helps take care of those cases where someone uploads images obviously taken by someone else--to give an example, I have a case at Commons where an art teacher has been uploading images by his student and his son under a license claiming them as his own work.
So, would anyone object if I threw together a template that we can use as a basis for discussion? Since this is not technically a speedy deletion, we might also want to bring it up at WT:PUI. --jonny-mt 05:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. Actually, it is a speedy in the same sense that CSD:I4 is - that if an image has had this tag on it for seven days and the uploader was notified at the time, it can be deleted without any further ado. I already put a note on the PUI talk page, pointing to this discussion.
Maybe instead of a whole new criterion, we could just expand I4 to encompass npd's as well? --Rlandmann (talk) 06:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like it very much. It's basically what I've been doing a lot of at WP:CP with images anyway. It's clear on the problem and the solution. I would, however, tweak the template to include a link to WP:Permission, since it may help uploaders figure out how to get such a letter...and what it needs to say. Whether this is a new criterion or an expansion of I4, I think it's a good idea! :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a good idea. I often use I9 if the uploaders licensing and the source disagree, but in many cases it seems a bit harsh. This will cover the not so blatant cases well. Kevin (talk) 22:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When I come across an image like this, I just strike out the license tag and put {{nld}} and a comment that the specified license seems to be incorrect. Do we really need a new CSD to cover this? --Carnildo (talk) 04:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed wording

11. No evidence of permission more than seven days after the uploader has been notified. Images where a source and license have been provided, but there is no evidence (via the original source or via OTRS) that a third-party copyright holder or publisher has agreed to release the work under the specified licence, provided one of following conditions is met:

  • the uploader has identified a third party (even if an organisation that the uploader claims to belong to) as the creator or publisher of the image or
  • the uploader has identified a previously self-published source as the source of the image (eg. a private website)

Images where the uploader has not identified a source should be treated under CSD:I9 (where a source has been discovered) or CSD:I4 (where one has not) instead. Images where the uploader has identified a patently implausible source (eg. website of large entertainment corporation) should be treated under CSD:I9. Images where the uploader has not identified a license should be treated under CSD:I4. Cases where it is unclear whether the uploader is identifying him/herself or a third party as the creator of the image should be discussed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images.
Rlandmann (talk) 01:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed templates

Rlandmann (talk) 01:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still in support of this. :)
Wording question: "including an organisation that the uploader claims to belong to." This seems to me that it might be read as a requirement. What about a minor change like:
  • the uploader has identified a third party (even if an organisation that the uploader claims to belong to) as the creator or publisher of the image or
Not sure if "even if" would be final wording. I do agree with you that whatever wording reached needs to make it clear that it doesn't matter whether the uploader claims to be a member of the organization if verification is not provided, but I suspect that if it can be read as a requirement, there will be people who will read it as a requirement. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, not sure where you've publicized this for wider review, but might I suggest WP:MCQ might be a good place? Seems to me some of the responders there may have insight into the matter. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - that's a great tweak to the wording, and while I can see that you knew what I meant, I take your point that others wouldn't necessarily! Since this discussion is so small so far, I've gone ahead and made the change. Once (if?) more people join in, I'll freeze it.
So far, I've only brought this up here and at PUI. Thanks for suggesting MCQ as well - I'll head over there now :) --Rlandmann (talk) 20:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I like the idea in general, but I'm not sure if the text needs to be as long and complex as the proposal above. I'm not quite getting the motivation of the distinction between the two sub-points ("organisation" versus "self-published source"). Do we need that? I'd think of something simpler:

No evidence of permission: If an uploader has specified a license and has named a third party as the source/copyright holder without providing evidence that this third party has in fact agreed, the item may be deleted seven days after notification of the uploader. Acceptable evidence of licensing normally consists of either a link to the source website where the license is stated, or a statement by the copyright holder e-mailed or forwarded to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Such a confirmation is also required if the source is an organisation which the uploader claims to represent, or a web publication which the uploader claims to be their own.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first subpoint catches instances where an uploader identifies a third party as the owner of the image ("Photo taken by Fred Smith who said I could upload it"), even when this third party is an entity that they may claim to belong to ("Photo from the Pigeon-Breeder's Society of Outer Lilliput website") - your paraphrase of this above is exactly right.
The second criterion catches a different situation - where the uploader identifies themselves as the source of the image, but where they also link to self-publication elsewhere (a personal website, blog, myspace page etc - "Photo taken by me - www.myspace.com/somebody) and there's no free license visible at that site.
Maybe to clarify this, the second subpoint above should say "the uploader has identified their own previously self-published source as the source of the image (eg. a private website). Better? --Rlandmann (talk) 21:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just re-reading my original wording - I can see how I completely failed to make that distinction! Great catch - thank you! :) --Rlandmann (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay, got it. I'm not sure if we always need to be so distrustful where uploaders identify themselves as owners of some private website, but I must admit I've seen cases where I have felt I had to insist on such a confirmation too. I've added a phrase to my proposal above, do you think that covers it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Elegant and succinct! I'd certainly endorse that version over my own bureaucrat-ese attempt.
As a procedural note, I'd still like to emphasise that it is the uploader who has identified the third-party source, not a copyvio patroller ("I just found this same picture on a geocities site") - this can probably be addressed just by bolding "uploader" in the first sentence if others agree that this emphasis is helpful
There are probably some instances where it would indeed be very petty to try and invoke this criterion for a private website - if the uploader here is User:TimCitizen837 and the private website is at geocities/timcitizen837 and titled "Tim's Holiday Snaps of Outer Lilliput". But it seems rarely that clear-cut; the images this criterion is mainly aimed at are those where the uploader, User:Coolguy71, sources them to "his" site cacti-of-lilliput.com, where we really have nothing to link the uploader and the site together. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like the rewording as well. And I'm for bolding or otherwise emphasizing uploader, because, again, if it can be misinterpreted, it will be. Best to be clear. :) (Alternatively, I suppose, we could expand at Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Explanations.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This has been widely publicized with no opposition. Is it time to implement? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, it hasn't attracted much comment at all, so it's hard to know what people's thoughts really are (Warnock's Dilemma). I guess it's time for the bold part of the BRD cycle. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Sorry about that! From reading through this a little bit more, I think we may need to tighten up some of the wording to make sure that I9 speedies aren't kept around for a week just because the source is given as a third-party website. I know this is kind of a gray area, but saying something along the lines of "Instances of obvious copyright violations where the uploader would have no reasonable expectation of obtaining permission (e.g. major studio movie posters, TV screenshots) should be speedily deleted per Criteria I9" would save a lot of hassle.

Putting on my still-fairly-brand-new Commons admin hat, the npd criteria seems to be primarily used as a control on images uploaded with {{OTRS pending}} and a way of allowing a little breathing room for questionable cases. I'll go ahead and leave a message for User:ShakataGaNai, a Commons admin who deals with this kind of stuff on a regular basis, and see if he wouldn't mind providing some input on how best to word the criteria. --jonny-mt 01:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haz been paged by name. I can tell you what we generally do on Commons. Our NPD template is used most of the time an image sites a 3rd party site (mainly when the link is to somewhere smaller, more personal). Even if User:JimBobSmith29 uploads an image from geocities.com/JimBobSmith29, it might not be the same person. Alot of times we find that vandals will create accounts specifically because they think we're stupid enough to believe that same username = same person. Additionally we also use it when we believe the user didn't take the picture (For example: Professional looking shots). Yes, this can lead to Copyvio's sitting around for 7 days, but if it is possible - we give them a chance (AGF and all). Sometimes the users even respond to tell us "Oh we found it on X site as a PR image, can't we use that?", we explain it and delete it. Additionally if they make the text claim to permission somehow on the image, I'll leave an NPD (Mainly so they'll get the "how to get your permission to OTRS" text). No, we do not tag this on images that OBVIOUS copyvio's (IE: Movies, TV, "Hey I found this on X Site"). If someone says "Found it on Google" or gives a URL of a big companies website, we assume copyvio.
I hope this answers most of your questions. If you have anything else about "How commons does it" feel free to poke at me (I'll try to remember to come back and check this page again). --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 02:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would anyone here object to me adding jonny-mt's disclaimer to the version that now appears on the CSD page? --Rlandmann (talk) 09:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None from me. I think it's a good clarification. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Proposed" tag

I think it's time to remove this. It's been 8 days since it was tagged. The proposal was widely publicized when it was made. It seems to have settled. Are all the templates for implementation in place? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: I11 (or I12 maybe):

Okay, I think its quite stupid that if someone uploads images for a article that gets speedy deleted, the images the author uploaded for it don't get speedy deleted too. So this is why, I'd like to propose this:

Proposed Wording

12. An image that was uploaded for an article speedily deleted under criteria A7, orphaned for 7 days, with no possible use elsewhere on another page or Wikimedia project.

If the image can be used "elsewhere" (defined as any other Wikipedia page, or placed on the Commons), its not defined as "possible encyclopedic use elsewhere". If the image is non-free, it will automatically qualify under this criteria. ViperSnake151 00:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the image is non-free, then it's already speedy-deletable under I5; images uploaded to support blatant advertising are already speedy-deletable under G11 (the G-series applies across all namespaces). So I guess this proposed criterion really only needs to be linked to A7. The main misgiving I have is that a speedy might not be the best way to judge the lack of encyclopedic value of an image. Consider that the image that someone uploads of their completely un-notable band might still be useful to illustrate an article on an instrument, fashion, hairstyle, musical genre etc. Do you have examples of some images that you think might fall under this proposed criterion? --Rlandmann (talk) 00:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right. if the image is free, it may be possible to use it elsewhere. Of course, such images with possible general usefulness belong on commons, and they really should be moved there. DGG (talk) 03:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's why it says no possible encyclopedic use elsewhere.. If it can still be used somewhere on a Wikimedia project, it is not subjected to this criteria. ViperSnake151 03:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too sure I like the idea of a single admin making a binding judgment call about something as nebulous as the potential encyclopedic usefulness of an image--that's why we have WP:IFD. As Rlandmann says above, we regularly delete images under G11 and the like, so it seems that those should be sufficient. --jonny-mt 16:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. That would finally put an end to images for user pages violating WP:MYSPACE. Admiral Norton (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, made a little "adjustment", new wording time. I added a 7 day rule that will allow us to either find a place for it to go, or be uploaded to the Commons if possible. ViperSnake151 17:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No real need for this, we usually delete these under G6 if they aren't copyvios, non-free, or vandalism. Stifle (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion race

Please take a look here where there's a user who is engaged in a race to delete new articles as soon as possible (typically within seconds of creation). This policy might need an update to clarify that "speedy deletion" does not mean deletion of new articles as quickly as possible. Socrates2008 (Talk) 14:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Likely just a talk with the user will do. I'll go leave him one. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on G8 and namespaces

My understanding of G8 has been that it applies in multiple namespaces (being, after all, a general criterion), but I recently saw a user noting that its summary reads: "Talk pages whose corresponding article does not exist." It goes on to mention user talk pages, of course, so the waters are a bit muddy. Should "article" be replaced with "page," here, or is a more nuanced clarification required? – Luna Santin (talk) 03:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Page" probably would be better for the bolded portion. -- Ned Scott 05:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the change. Since it is a "general" criterion, G8 has traditionally been interpreted as applying to talk pages in all namespaces (except, as noted, user talk pages and some image talk pages). –Black Falcon (Talk) 05:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria proposal

Hi. How about CSD for POV forks? Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 17:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, deciding whether or not something is a POV fork is a bit too subjective for CSD. And are there really so many POV forks that they can't be dealt with through other processes (PROD, AFD)? Hut 8.5 17:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that it would be way to easy to abuse. --76.69.165.93 (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. No, I meant POV forks as subpages of the main article, not POV articles and pages in general. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 23:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"A content fork for an article in the main namespace as a subpage of its subject's article (such as John Doe/Criticism of John Doe for example). Note, that this excludes subpages made for the rewriting of an article due to BLP or copyright concerns." ViperSnake151 23:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Asserted notability and masonic Grand Lodges

There's an argument currently going on about Grand Lodges and whether they should be put through speedy deletions under A7, or whether as a matter of course they should go through prods and AfDs. On one side of the argument is that the speedy deletions tags are mostly being applied to articles with little in the way of external independent links and there is no evidence (or assertion) of the idea that they are not three men and an apron. The other side of the argument is that these call themselves Grand Lodges and so within the very title there is an assertion of notability and national coverage. This makes it an unsuitable candidate for a speedy deletion (although in some cases these will fail an AfD).

There is another point about membership of an international grouping, but this is incidental.

Some background is here:


Which view is right?

JASpencer (talk) 20:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've read in a couple of the AfDs, I can make a good case that these are not uncontroversial deletions. That alone would disqualify them from speedy and prod.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If an article has an assertion of notability, even if the assertion is undocumented, or false, then the article is not eligible for A7. If, as a rule, Masonic Grand Lodges are considered notable than an assertion that an organization is one would make an article ineligible for A7. Dsmdgold (talk) 10:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G8 and Copyvios

I have noticed a problem with G8 being used to delete talk pages without reading the entries, even on very short pages. This is a problem because the reason that G8 does not apply is often apparent there. It is established procedure for copyvio articles to have a new "clean" article started at Talk:article_name/Temp and normally to note this fact on the main Talk page, then when an admin reviews the copyvio, he or she should generally move the /Temp article back and delete the redirect. This doesn't always happen, however, as there is a lot of misunderstanding of copyvios. Some people incorrectly blank the pages, others delete without reading anything (especially if they come across the article independent of WP:CV). The /Temp article ends up hanging out there, generally unnoticed, while the underlying talk page is deleted under G8. I bring this to everyone's attention here in hopes that someone has some good ideas on how to prevent this, as well as to simply get the word out. If there is discussion of a copyvio please look for a /Temp page.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 03:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, you're only talking about article tagged with {{copyvio}} and not those tagged as G12s? It would be very rare that a G12 would have /temp page because the only way anyone even knows to make a /temp page is through the copyvio tag. If this is the situation you're talking about, why not add to the copyvio tag, in glaring red, right above where it says "By default, this template blanks...", something like: Note to administrators: If the following link is blue ([[{{PAGENAME}}/Temp]]), a temporary page exists per the instructions given below, which should be assessed and if acceptable, moved to this name after this page is deleted. That would take care of the G8 issue as well, because talk pages are almost always deleted as an afterthought following the article deletion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Speedy deleters help vandals

An anonymous vandal comes along and blanks a page. It was a biographical article. So then our heroic ever-vigilant speedy-deletion people come along, tag it for speedy deletion because it doesn't (after the vandalism) assert notability. And it gets deleted accordingly.

True story.

I restored the edit history.

I hope you're all proud of this. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's your point? Mistakes happen... they can be fixed and apparently were in this case. Do you somehow think a mere policy page was responsible for a tagger/admin acting too hastily? No policy can ever be written such that someone, somewhere, won't make a mistake. But Wikipedia is built so that all mistakes can be undone. Guilt tripping people over already fixed oversights seems unneeded. --Rividian (talk) 06:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have suggested on this page such things as:

  • Before speedy deletion, one should look at what articles link to the article in question. Sometimes that sheds light and suggests further edits that would make speedy deletion inappropriate.
  • Before speedy deletion, one should Google the topic to see if that indicates anything about notability. Sometimes it does.
  • One could look at category tags; that sometimes tell one where to look for further information about notability.

...and various other things of that sort. And I meet with opposition to these suggestions, and with orders to bow down to those who spend most of their time on speedy deletions, like a plantation slave to an overseer.

I thought these problems had gone away after I raised a big fuss about them in March 2008. And they had. But I'm starting to wonder if they might be starting to re-emerge. Michael Hardy (talk) 07:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about "before one speedies an article for being blank, one should check if it just got blanked by a vandal"? I somehow seem to be avoiding being hit by falling chunks of sky right now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree entirely with Michael on this, a little more care from both taggers and deleting admins could reduce the effects of vandalism, and also reduce the tension between creators and deleters. DuncanHill (talk) 09:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We already have notices to warn admins about the problem - the deletion form asks the admin to look at the links to the page, and the speedy deletion tag itself asks the admin to check the history, logs and links before deleting the page (and this is going to be far more visible than something added to the policy page). Wikipedia is going to delete around 40000 articles this month and if one or two have this problem that means that well over 99.99% didn't - there's no need to describe it in such overblown language. Hut 8.5 09:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think mistakes are somehow never going to happen when there are thousands of speedy deletions every day? This thread is rather insulting... "Speedy deleters help vandals"? Because one guy made a mistake that's been fixed? It's very rude to come in here and accuse us of helping vandals because you found one mistake that no one argues was a good deletion. mistakes happen, this page advises checking the edit history first, everyone knows this was a bad deletion because that didn't happen. What can we really do now except insult people over an already fixed error? Apparently not much. --Rividian (talk) 12:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When you hit the delete button the first line of the page that comes up reads "Warning: The page you are about to delete has a history". We are supposed to check the edit history for just this reason. That said, I am certain that every admin has deleted article without checking the edit history, and every admin, including me, has had their sloppiness bite them in the posterior. You learn from your mistakes. Dsmdgold (talk) 10:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't agree more. No we're not proud of it. What do you want us to do about it? Aside, that is, from the jaw-droppingly obvious don't-make-the-same-mistake-again? Happy‑melon 11:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holy shit, you found a mistake! Break out the gibbet.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been dealt with at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_August_16#Cassi Davis (closed). Alexf made a mistake by not checking the page history. The article has been restored, Alexf has acknowledged the mistake and will presumably try not to do it again. Short of tarring and feathering him, I'm not sure what else we're supposed to do here. Incidentally I've informed Alexf of this thread, as Michael seems to have forgotten to do that. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 12:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Iain for letting me know (Michael should have but forgot I guess). As many admins I do a fair amount of CSD work. I have deleted what seems like hundreds of crap articles (most of them garage bands - what is it with these kids?). Yes, mistakes happen. As you already now I acknowledged a mistake in the Cassi Davis case. Also as pointed above you will notice that over 99.9% of the deletions are correct. When you are faced with a flood of crap, mistakes are bound to happen but they are easily corrected and restored. What else can I say other than try to be careful. No matter what the policies are, mistakes will always happen. Conversely I have seen (one just recently) pages that should have been challenged and deleted and they were allowed to live for months for whatever reason. That is also a mistake. We have to live with them and correct them when we see them. -- Alexf42 12:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alexf wrote "you will notice that over 99.9% of the deletions are correct". I will notice nothing of the sort. That number is fiction. It is patent nonsense. I challenge anyone to be specific about how it was computed. Show me the precise data. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In June 2008 Wikipedia deleted 37400 articles. You have presented one example of an article being incorrectly deleted as the deleting admin didn't check the edit history. Suppose there are three a month, that equates to 0.008% of all deletions. This is not a massive, widespread problem, this is one admin making a mistake that was corrected. Alexf has made 5142 deletions and I would be very surprised if there wasn't one bad one in there somewhere. People make mistakes - big deal. I fail to see what this thread is trying to accomplish. Hut 8.5 15:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All this came within minutes of my finding this absurd edit, and that article actually got deleted, and I restored it; and this edit. In the latter case, the "algebraic geometry" and "homological algebra" category tags were there when the speedy deletion proposal was put there, and the proposer could easily have looked further. Cooler heads prevailed and a badly needed "context" tag replaced the absurd speedy-deletion proposal and the article got cleaned up. Remember that last February and March the mere fact that a new article was on mathematics was treated by numerous admins as grounds for speedy deletion and that went on daily for maybe about six weeks. Michael Hardy (talk) 14:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what is the point of this thread? No one denies that there have been various silly deletion taggings over the years. In an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, there will be some bad edits. What are you expecting to accomplish here, other than embarassing some people who made bad deletion taggings? --Rividian (talk) 15:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. What do you want, Michael Hardy? Happy‑melon
I'm impressed that Michael Hardy has never made a mistake of any kind and so can cast the first stone. Seriously, though, this particular mistake was acknowledged, corrected and apologized for. Yes, there are some bad apples on Wikipedia. Those are the editors who need to be dealt with, and I can't see that this is one of those cases.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am closing this thread which serves no purpose but to be divisive over a resolved issue that resulted from a good faith error--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(as the discussion is continuing, I removed the archive tag that had been placed at this point.) DGG (talk) 17:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the archiving of this thread, as well as the offensive tone of some of the comments. Michael came here in good faith to point out a problem (and it is not a one off). He then gets attacked, and editors who should know better make up figures like "99.99% of deletions not having any problem". Care to give some evidence of that? Well it is not good enough. This self-satisfied "so what if we make mistakes, how dare you suggest ways of preventing them" attitude is anti-collegiate and demoralizing. DuncanHill (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the discussion had actually generated any usable suggestions for preventing such mistakes (other than those that are already in place) then there would not have been any problem. The issue was not that the discussion highlighted mistakes so much as that it highlighted mistakes for no apparent purpose other than to disparage those who made them. Happy‑melon 16:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DuncanHill, I can tell from your comments that you are upset. But I would ask you to take a minute and try to look at all of the comments, including the ones you just made, with a neutral eye. The only actual proposal made for how to improve the speedy deletion process (which was not made in the initial post) pretty much duplicates what WP:SPEEDY already says: "Before nominating an article for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere or be handled with some other action short of deletion. If this is possible, speedy deletion is probably inappropriate."
If you or anyone else has a constructive suggestion for how to get more editors AND more admins to follow along with this, I'd be delighted to hear it. I am probably just as frustrated as you are about the number of articles that are inappropriately speedied, especially under G1 patent nonsense, when a 15 second google search would show the article can be improved. If the debate can become constructive, then by all means lets continue. If it's going to be a forum for name calling, then the debate is not at all appropriate (or even a debate).--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is possible to get many more admins to follow what speedy actually says. There are too many who enjoy the ability to disrupt the encyclopædia by creating drama or driving away editors. In my time on Wikipedia I have seen several workable suggestions to improve speedy, but absolutely no interest in improving speedy from the majority of deletionist admins or wannabes. DuncanHill (talk) 17:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I just want to be clear on what you're saying; you're talking about a subset of admins who you feel are a problem, rather than every admin? And you feel that a debate is a waste of time? If I've got this wrong, please enlighten me. Thanks!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We do need to continue this. I've long intend to do an analysis of the speedies. There are 3 sorts of incorrect speedy deletes: where t he article is valid, usually as a stub, or the sort of vandalism mentioned at the top. where the article would not hold up in the end, Second, where the article would not have held at Afd but did not meet the criterion for speedy given. Third, where the article did meet the critrion but could be fixed, and the ones that are correct. Let me use my estimate of my own work to avoid the charge of blaming others: I think that 80% of the speedies I place are correct, and unfixable. I think another 9% might be fixable, but I didn't have time or energy to fix them (eg copyviols that could have been stubbified). Perhaps 1% of the time I speedy an article that didn't literally meet the criteria, but is hopeless anyway, And I known i make at least 1% outright mistakes. There are probably some admins more careful than I; I know there are some much sloppier, and there are even some who deliberately speedy articles that do not match the speedy criterion but which they think hopeless, or match what they think ought to be the speedy criterion. DGG (talk) 17:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any suggestions for improvement?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template for talk pages with archived deletion discussion

I've just created a new template, {{deletion discussion}}, for tagging talk pages that contain archived deletion discussions and should not be speedied per criterion G8. Feel free to tweak it if you can think of any improvements. Comments are also welcome. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion&oldid=232724695"