Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tag: 2017 wikitext editor
Line 141: Line 141:
See also archived discussion [[Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 60#G4 deletion when the deletion rationale was a lack of notability|here]]. [[User:Curb Safe Charmer|Curb Safe Charmer]] ([[User talk:Curb Safe Charmer|talk]]) 20:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
See also archived discussion [[Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 60#G4 deletion when the deletion rationale was a lack of notability|here]]. [[User:Curb Safe Charmer|Curb Safe Charmer]] ([[User talk:Curb Safe Charmer|talk]]) 20:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
:I think this is pretty well assumed most of the time. Usually the best course of action is to reach out to your friendly neighborhood admin and get them to do a quick check to see if they are sufficiently identical. [[User:GreenMeansGo|<span style="font-family:Impact"><span style="color:#07CB4B">G</span><span style="color:#449351">M</span><span style="color:#35683d">G</span></span>]][[User talk:GreenMeansGo|<sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk</sup>]] 20:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
:I think this is pretty well assumed most of the time. Usually the best course of action is to reach out to your friendly neighborhood admin and get them to do a quick check to see if they are sufficiently identical. [[User:GreenMeansGo|<span style="font-family:Impact"><span style="color:#07CB4B">G</span><span style="color:#449351">M</span><span style="color:#35683d">G</span></span>]][[User talk:GreenMeansGo|<sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk</sup>]] 20:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
::That suggestion could also feature in the guidance. [[User:Curb Safe Charmer|Curb Safe Charmer]] ([[User talk:Curb Safe Charmer|talk]]) 20:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:22, 20 November 2017

New criterion - T4, aka Template PROD

There is no consensus to create this as a new speedy deletion criteria for templates. Those opposing suggested that this might be better proposed as part of PROD, and that discussion could occur at WT:PROD. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

I've been mulling this one over for a while now. One stalled discussion in January made me pause, but it's been mentioned to me a few times (most recently by Nihlus) and I think I'm going to put the question to rest.

At current we have no PROD-like system for Templates. We (obviously) have PROD for articles and F11 for images, but no way to quietly delete an unused template other than to clog up WP:TFD with nominations that almost everyone will !vote "delete" on.

I propose a new criterion, T4: If template is unused and shows no likelihood of being used, the item may be deleted seven days after notification of the creator. Templates deleted under this criterion would be refundable just like PRODs. This keeps some of the clutter out of TFD, still allows the creator to protest the nomination, and avoids gaming the system (one of my main issues that brought on the January discussion was the fact that users were nominating under G6 and G8 for unused templates).

Thoughts? Primefac (talk) 02:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – Looks like you beat me to the punch, so it stands to reason that I completely support this. My drafted wording was: Templates that are unused–that is, are not transcluded in any pages, are not being actively substituted, are not used as a preload for another template, and are not used in any editnotice–may be deleted after being tagged for seven days. In addition, I was going through and gathering data on any TfD that used the "unused" argument. None of them were kept, and all but one was deleted. One resulted in no consensus. Nihlus 02:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I like your wording better, though I think the after notification of the creator bit needs to stay in. Primefac (talk) 12:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's try:
    Templates that are unused–that is, are not transcluded in any pages, are not being actively substituted, are not used as a preload for another template, and are not used in any editnotice–may be deleted seven days after notifying the creator and being tagged.
    Gets a little wordy but gets the point across. Nihlus 12:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • So just add templates to the list of things that can be prodded? Why is this here? -- Tavix (talk) 03:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tavix: See the wording of T3. Nihlus 03:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So add templates to the list of things that can be PRODed and we won’t need T3 either... That would help a lot more than adding another criterion, and it’d simplify the system too. -- Tavix (talk) 03:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A PROD is a very vague "I don't expect issues" deletion. One could (in theory) set a prod tag on a sidebar or infobox that is in use with a perfectly valid rationale and it very well could be deleted. The point of this criteria is specifically for unused/never-going-to-be-used templates. Of course if a consensus develops to modify the wording of PROD, then that's what we'd go with, but I was looking for something a bit more specific. Primefac (talk) 11:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A PROD is simply for uncontroversial deletions, which seems to be your objective with the criterion (ie: to reduce the load at TfD). Adding templates to PROD would solve that issue, without muddying the waters further between PROD and CSD. -- Tavix (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Since F4 to F7 and C1 have a seven-day horizon, in addition to F11 and T3 already mentioned, it seems too late to achieve a clean separation between PROD-like processes and true speedy deletion: Noyster (talk), 12:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support so as to help free TfD of discussions with 10+ days between relistings. J947(c) (m) 03:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: How can you tell whether a template is being actively substituted? Doesn't substitution remove backlinks to the template? Regards SoWhy 12:25, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SoWhy: {{Substonly}} should be transcluded on the documentation page. ~ Rob13Talk 12:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • This relies on the documentation being done correctly, which is not necessarily true. —Kusma (t·c) 12:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Which is fine, because we give notice to the creator and a 7-day hold. If they're actively using their poorly-documented template, they can just remove the PROD. From experience, the vast majority of orphaned templates are not substitute only, and if they are, the majority of those are documented. The rest are usually pretty obviously substitute only. We then have to consider the trade-off between maybe having to undelete 5 templates that should have been documented better versus literally thousands of useless TfD discussions that require closers we don't have. The choice is pretty obvious. ~ Rob13Talk 12:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict × 2) I understand that but Nihlus' suggestion is to exempt templates that are not being actively substituted, so does that mean to exempt templates that have the {{Substonly}} tag on it (no matter if they are still used or not) or to exempt templates that are still being substituted? And if it's the latter, how can you tell? Regards SoWhy 13:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my comment above. ~ Rob13Talk 12:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only if... Ideally, PROD shouldn't be used for templates for the simple reason it's not used for redirects: they don't have enough watchers. In practice, however, I don't think this is going to lead to less scrutiny in the deletion of templates, given the low participation at TfD and its overall bias for deletion (e.g. a discussion consisting only of the nomination and a comment expressing doubts about the validity of the nominator's rationale, is as likely to be closed as "delete" as it is to get relisted or closed as "no consensus"). If a PROD-like process gets adopted, then it should have two explicit requirements: 1) The nominator should have made the effort to notify interested parties. Minimally, this should involve notifying the creator as well as a relevant wikiproject (for example by project-tagging the template's talk page, provided the wikiproject is active and subscribed to the article alerts). 2) An explicit check for substitutions must have been made by either the nominator or the deleting admin. This check is important for two reasons: a) most of the regular TfD nominators so far don't seem to have had the habit of checking for substitutions and that burden has traditionally been with the participants in the discussion (and no, the template's documentation is not enough: hardly any of the subst-only templates that get nominated as "unused" are documented as being subst-only); b) a check for substitutions will be able to pick the occasional case where template content has been merged into an article (or another template) and its history will need to be preserved for attribution. – Uanfala 10:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • If projects want to keep track of their templates, they must tag them themselves. We cannot be responsible for knowing every WikiProject out there; such a requirement is crazy. ~ Rob13Talk 10:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Crazy would be to expect projects to keep track of stuff they have no way of know of knowing it exists. Projects can come into the picture only once a page has been tagged. – Uanfala 10:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Uanfala, which project should be notified for e.g. Template:AFv5 hidden, or Template:Acd (now up for deletion), or Template:Agent? Fram (talk) 11:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • In the few cases when there are no relevant projects, then no projects should be notified. Aren't we supposed to use common sense when applying the rules? – Uanfala 11:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Incidentally, Template:AFv5 hidden is within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject User warnings, and Template:Agent is relevant for Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes (I don't know how active these are). Of course, it can be argued that if there's no way to make a nomination noticed by wikiprojects (or by other interested editors), then TfD should be the way to nominate the template for deletion. – Uanfala 11:22, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm not going to search around if there is perhaps some project which may or may not be related to a template created years before and never used. Rules making it harder to do simple maintenance, without a clear benefit, should not be imposed, as we are not a bureaucracy. Fram (talk) 11:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Projects interested in monitoring certain templates should use the WP:Article alerts system. --Izno (talk) 12:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with no requirement to notify some morbid wikiproject about some template no one is using. Lighten the kiad at TfD. Legacypac (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unless there is are explicit requirements that: (1) the nominator and deleting admin both check for templates being actively substituted, and (2) all substantial editors to the template (not just the creator) are notified, and (3) all projects that have tagged the template and/or are clearly relevant are notified. Article alerts are not enough imo and alerting inactive projects is not a burden. I don't expect nominators to do a deep search of all potentially relevant projects, but if a template is related to e.g. a geographical place then the project for that country should be notified even if they haven't tagged it, similarly anything that gives a warning to editors is relevant to Wikipedia:WikiProject User warnings even if they have never heard of it before. Thryduulf (talk) 11:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as proposed. The opinion about a template's likelihood of being used can vary from editor to editor. That, and unfortunately, we have no way to determine substitution counts to validate how useful a template might be in regards to substitutions. Best to keep template deletion proposals at WP:TFD so that editors can determine if an unused template can be saved or used appropriately. Steel1943 (talk) 20:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as proposed. I've been thinking about this for a bit, but I don't think it makes sense to insert a PROD-like process into CSD. I would, however, support the addition of templates to the list of things that are PROD-able since it seems the reason for this is to help unclog TfD. -- Tavix (talk) 21:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tavix: As explained above, F4, F5, F6, F7, F11, C1, and T3 all have the seven day window. This PROD-like process you speak of was introduced into CSD a long time ago. Nihlus 21:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is literally a "Template PROD", as nicknamed from the header. It would be less complicated to simply add templates to WP:PROD (like what was done with files a few months back) rather than a new CSD blurring those lines even further. -- Tavix (talk) 21:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Your argument seems to rely solely on semantics. T3 exists so it is essentially a template PROD already. There's no metaphorical line to be blurred as it already has been defined. Nihlus 21:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If "template PROD" already essentially exists, as you claim, then there should be no issues with adding templates to PROD. If "Template PROD" is actually added, then we can simplify the CSD list by deprecating the "un-speedy" criteria if desired. Instead, you're trying to add more criteria to CSD, which in my opinion is not the right way to achieve the objectives stated above. -- Tavix (talk) 21:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry to be pointing out the obvious, but there's a substantial difference between the PROD-like process proposed here and the kinds of speedy deletion criteria that happen to incorporate time delay. F4, F5, F6, F7, F11 are there to deal with likely copyright infringements and so are need for the fundamental purpose of staying on the right side of the law; T3 is for the removal of duplication (and hence the template-space flavour of A10); C1 is for empty categories, where this is virtually a technical deletion, where the non-technical and potentially controversial part of the process has already been done by its emptying (and hence anyone would have already objected before this point). These are all inherently uncontroversial deletions, which is definitely not the case for templates that appear unused, at least not any more than it would be the case that it's uncontroversial to have a speedy deletion criterion for orphaned articles. – Uanfala 22:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The definition of CSD, from the very first sentence of WP:CSD is "The criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, at their discretion, and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media" (my emphasis added). If we have a seven-day delay, then it's not immediate—let's not add another violation of this. Thankfully, the addition of File PROD has rendered the F time-delay criteria redundant. That leaves C1 and T3. I understand the delay for C1, but even empty categories can be a controversial deletion if there's articles to populate them, so I rather have a category PROD than C1. I don't see the point of having a time delay for T3. If there is substantial duplication of another template, that's still going to be the case seven days later, so I would support removing the delay for that criterion. -- Tavix (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This one doesn't seem to qualify as "speedy" to me. There are enough, if not too many, criteria using the seven-day period, like F7, which I think are starting to become more redundant to me. I'm thinking that "Template PROD" can be re-proposed with slight tweaks, Primefac, at either WT:PROD or WP:VPP. It doesn't have to be part of the CSD, does it? Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 05:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mostly technical oppose: Isn't this a proposal to expand PROD to templates? I think WT:PROD would be a better place. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:26, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Add a baseless claim extension

I was wondering if a "baseless claim" extension to either G3 or G10, leaning G3, can be added. It's already partially covered by G6, but I think some additional parameters can be added in order for pages to qualify under the extension:

  • The extension would apply to WP:ARBREQ, WP:LTA, WP:RFC, and WP:SPI, to name a few.
  • To qualify, the filing user must have had little or no prior experience in the given administrative area, or have had a generally bad reputation there.
  • To qualify, practically everything presented by the filing user must be baseless, subject to a few exceptions.
  • To qualify, the targeted user (if there is one) must have a generally good reputation on Wikipedia.

Administrators can check out Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Oshwah, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NeilN, and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oshwah as a few examples. ToThAc (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G6 is fine for the links you posted. G3 also covers it. G5 probably also covers these particular ones. G6 is already kind of the catch-all for "this should obviously be deleted but none of the criteria fit exactly". Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Ivanvector that G6 covers all this. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think G3 covers it since WP:Vandalism is defined as "intentionally making abusive edits to Wikipedia" and creating obviously baseless SPI reports surely can be considered abusive. Regards SoWhy 09:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • G3 and G10 cover this well. Delete, block and WP:DENY are the correct answer here, not any changes to our criteria. —Kusma (t·c) 09:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: replace A11 with G14

I propose that criterion A11 be replaced with a new criterion, G14. This is because the criterion (that the subject was obviously made up) can be reasonably applied to spaces such as template: and draft:. The proposed new text is similar to the existing A11 text, and would be:

This applies to any nominally encyclopedic content that plainly indicates that the subject was invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and does not credibly indicate why its subject is important or significant. 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 under Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Note: This is not intended for hoaxes (see CSD G3).[1]

References

  1. ^ Unlike a hoax, subject to deletion as vandalism under CSD G3 as a bad faith attempt to deceive, CSD G14 is for topics that were or may have been actually created and are real, but have no notice or significance except among a small group of people, e.g. a newly invented drinking game or new word.

Thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 03:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • It seems sensible. "Obviously made up" should be speediable in any namespace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite reasonable. Support. J947( c ) (m) 04:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as written. Doesn't seem to be solving an actual problem, while causing some new ones. Draft space may be a good place for such topics in borderline cases, even when they are speediable in main space. User space should be left alone. I haven't seen any cases where this could have been applied in other spaces. —Kusma (t·c) 06:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma: the idea was prompted by the discussion at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:The Republic of Myhös. VQuakr (talk) 08:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't dispute that this happens, but I don't think this happens frequently enough to be a CSD. —Kusma (t·c) 08:59, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. We should not have to go to MfD or wait six months for G13 to kick in in order to delete something that we could speedy as clearly made up if it were in mainspace. Kusma, I recognize that userspace is traditionally given more leeway for borderline or even personal topics but we already have U5 for WEBHOST violations, so I think your concern is somewhat misplaced as there's clearly a precedent for getting rid of inappropriate content from userspace. That being said, I don't have an objection to carving out a "no userspace" exception for this one if we really have to. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    U5 has an important exception for real long-term contributors, who are allowed to keep otherwise inappropriate stuff in their userspace. —Kusma (t·c) 09:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose--Unless and until user-space is left out of it's purview.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 11:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support WP:U5 is used to delete such material in userspace now, but this crieria would be easier for new users to understand. There is no reason any page should be hosting stuff a user made up one day. We need this for Drafts for sure and we should being CSDing such Drafts instead of rejecting them at AfC. Legacypac (talk) 11:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Legacypac:--Well, will the new expanded criterion cover User:Catherine de Burgh/Catherine Bonkbuster?Regards:)Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 12:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - It makes a lot of sense to extend this beyond just article space.- MrX 12:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - First, I think it's important to remember that deleting something doesn't actually do anything other than hiding it, and most of the content in draft or user space is pretty well hidden already. Second, drafts and user pages aren't just areas for creating future articles (although ideally they are primarily for that and that alone). For a lot of new users, it's also a safe space to more or less tinker with the software and figure out how it works, which is not an easy thing to sort out. Even though those of us who use it every day are want to forget the steep learning curve. It's also in many ways a space to tinker with policies, and figure out exactly why a draft or a subject isn't acceptable. Third, most editors, especially new ones, don't actually fire up Wikipedia before they've had their morning coffee, and check their watchlist before they go to bed. That's why six months is six months: because it's realistic that a good faith editor might only return to work on a draft after several weeks of absence.
Overall, I think it's a recipe for WP:BITE, and while it might solve a problem from our perspective, it seems doubtful that most readers will ever at all notice any difference, and I don't think that's a level of potential improvement that justifies really much of any level of acceptable risk. GMGtalk 12:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Draft space is where such articles could be drafted to eventually indicate why they are significant, and there is no requirement for them to immediately do so. In fact, draft space is exactly where such a thing should be done when it was created/invented by someone the author knows personally, or themselves. Smartyllama (talk) 12:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No Draft space and userspace is NOT where people should be writing about the drinking game or micronation they invented last week. Facebook or their own blog or nowhere are better places. No such page is ever kept a MfD. Also note the page must not assert notability.Legacypac (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those are obvious cases. Sometimes it may not be so obvious. That's why we have drafts and MfD. An article may not assert notability at the moment, but if it can be edited so it does, it shouldn't be deleted from draft space, yet alone speedied. If it were ready to be put in mainspace, it would be there. Articles in draft space don't have to indicate significance the moment they're created, only when they're moved to mainspace. There are two reasons we have that criterion, to prevent articles from being created about topics without any indication of significance and to prevent people from creating articles where they have a conflict of interest. Neither of those policies apply in draftspace. Users with a conflict of interest are explicitly told to create the article in draftspace rather than mainspace, and articles in draftspace are not, and never have been, required to indicate significance the moment they were created. Smartyllama (talk) 17:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose we shouldn't be using significance-related standards to delete things in draft space. A page in draft space shouldn't have to indicate how the subject is notable from the moment it is created, which is why A7 doesn't apply there. I am also concerned this might be used to delete jokes in project or user space. Hut 8.5 17:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hut 8.5: in user space the analogous deletion criterion is WP:U5; I do not think an existing problem of applying this criterion to wikihumor exists or would be exacerbated by the proposed change. The proposed criterion is substantially narrower than A7, in that it requires the candidate material to both make no claim of significance and to state that it was invented/made up by the author. VQuakr (talk) 01:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
U5 is widely misused to delete harmless material in userspace, that doesn't really inspire much confidence in me. A11 is effectively an expansion of A7 to include pages which were obviously coined by the creator or an associate, as it imposes a significance test. I'm also not a fan of writing speedy deletion criteria based on a single example. Hut 8.5 06:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak support: Make sure there's an exception for drafts. Even then, I'd wonder if this would work as an extension of G3 instead. ToThAc (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@ToThAc: as noted in WP:A11, G3 implies an assumption of bad faith (vandalism) while A11 (and by extension G14) does not. G3's generally are identified by the implausibility of their claims (ie, "Joe McMiddleschooler was the first person to walk on the moon"). A11's generally make mundane but plausible claims (ie, "Joe McMiddleschoolball is a game I invented last week"). Draftspace is the primary space this proposed change would apply to, since similar candidates can often be deleted per WP:U5 in user space and are covered by A11 in mainspace. VQuakr (talk) 01:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning towards support. Let me present an example that I think this new criterion is intended for: Draft:Spangclanism. As it stands, we have to wait for G13, or waste time at MfD. Adam9007 (talk) 22:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously created in wrong namespace, and could have been moved to mainspace instead of draftspace and deleted as an A11. I would also delete this as a G3 hoax at its current location. —Kusma (t·c) 07:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not understanding why you feel that page was “obviously created in the wrong namespace”. Saying anything that could be taken as a suggestion of moving drafts to mainspace to seek deletion will get you in serious hot water. That is very unpopular. Legacypac (talk) 07:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't "feel" it was created in the wrong namespace, I looked at the page history and noticed that it was created in the Wikipedia namespace. Someone then moved it to the draft namespace instead of article space. I assume it was intended for article space, as many newbies think that "Wikipedia" is a space for articles. —Kusma (t·c) 08:36, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And I have "abused" my powers to delete it. —Kusma (t·c) 22:06, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It would have been easier to mfD than to start this discussion. In general, in draft space we give more tolerance for things that may appear unjustified, as the purpose of draft space is for drafts that arestill unsatisfactory is for articles to get improved into articles. DGG ( talk ) 21:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this is hardly a problem. Very few pages fall into this category. MFD will do fine, or if it does go to an article it can then be speedily deleted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Currently leaning oppose but can someone supporting this proposal demonstrate that such pages are created frequently enough that MFD can't handle it? After all, convenience is not really a reason to create a new criterion. Regards SoWhyMobile 00:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

F9 and XfDs

At Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Consensus_and_copyright_law, it was pointed out to me by Adam9007 that while we do list G12 as a reason to delete a page regardless of the outcome of an XfD, F9 is not listed here. Is there a reason why it isn't? I'd also highly suggest that we go ahead and add it: consensus cannot override copyright law, and this is already acknowledge in the policy by having G12 listed as a reason to delete a page that has survived an XfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do think it's rather queer that we must technically go to FfD if a file has survived FfD and it later turns out to be an obvious copyright violation. Copyright is something that the participants at the first FfD may not have considered. Adam9007 (talk) 02:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gone ahead and added F9 to that list: [1]. No objections raised here and G12 is already listed and also applies to the file namespace, so logically F9 does as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed additional guidance for G4

I am a non-admin, and having just been chastised for tagging an article with G4 wrongly, I think the guidance for its use should be expanded as follows:

Non-administrators do not have access to articles that have been deleted as a result of an Articles for Deletion discussion. They should therefore only nominate an article for speedy deletion under the G4 criteria if there is certainty that the new article is substantially identical, for example through familiarity with the article prior to its deletion.

See also archived discussion here. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is pretty well assumed most of the time. Usually the best course of action is to reach out to your friendly neighborhood admin and get them to do a quick check to see if they are sufficiently identical. GMGtalk 20:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That suggestion could also feature in the guidance. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion&diff=prev&oldid=811307872

Leave a Reply