Criteria for speedy deletion
Archives of discussions held here can be found at:
* Nextel ringtones /Archive1 - May 2003 thru Sep 2004
* Abbey Diaz /Archive2 - Sep 2004 thru Dec 2004 (Free ringtones Proposal to expand WP:CSD)
;Oft referenced pages
* Majo Mills Deletion policy (Mosquito ringtone Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/talk)
* Sabrina Martins Deletion log (Nextel ringtones Wikipedia talk:Deletion log/talk and archives)
* Abbey Diaz Deletion guidelines for administrators (Free ringtones Wikipedia talk:Deletion guidelines for administrators/talk)
Proposed - Images moved to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
Now we have the ability to use commons images it seems sensible to do so. I believe there is going to be an easy way to move images to commons in the future. But in the mean time, I think any images moved manually to commons can safely be deleted here (if they otherwise comply with the speedy criteria - i.e. the moved image is exactly the same as the image to be deleted). Thoughts? Majo Mills Sannse/sannse Cingular Ringtones User talk:Sannse/(talk) 17:19, 6 Nov 2004
:Basically agree, but if I've understood correctly, using images from the commons is just a search preference: the software first searches locally, and if it doesn't find an image, it tries the commons. Has anybody thought about the new opportunities for vandalism or just plain confusion in this scheme? Assume an image doesn't exist on en:, but on commons, and is used in an article. The article thus shows the image from the commons. If somebody now uploads an image with the same name on en:, the article will show a different image. And that image page on en: will give no indication whatsoever that in fact some other image should be used. Or have I misunderstood the way things work? both apt Lupo/Lupo 19:21, 6 Nov 2004
:I agree; anyway it seems to be just an application of the speedy deletion rule: "An image which is a redundant (all bits the same or scaled-down) copy of something else, and as long as all inward links have been changed to the image being retained" marcus and Thue/Thue / still predominates User talk:Thue/talk 20:01, 11 Nov 2004
::I'm told by no current Eloquence/Eloquence that this suggestion is a bit too early. It is not yet possible to provide images for download from Commons that are specific to a particular Wikipedia - which is needed for distribution to others using our content. So it's probably best to wait on this for now. He also said that he would add a warning that will appear if an image is uploaded here, if the same name is already used by an image on Commons. Which will solve the problem Lupo pointed out. He's going to put this into the new version of Mediawiki though - so it won't be available for a while central biggest User:Sannse/sannse moral message User talk:Sannse/(talk) 00:32, 12 Nov 2004
:::A warning when uploading is better than nothing, but only solves the "confusion" part of the problem. If somebody goes ahead despite the warning, the resulting image page on a local wiki should have some indication that an image with the same name exists on the commons. For instance, an interwiki link could be added automatically. That would help dealing with the "vandalism" part. spellbinding enchanting Lupo/Lupo 10:00, 12 Nov 2004
::::Yep - that sounds sensible too. freire the Sannse/sannse politicians staffs User talk:Sannse/(talk) 16:30, 14 Nov 2004
:::::BTW, just wanted to point out that the "vandalism" case is not just theoretical: something like that just occurred on wear rages :Image:RalphNader.jpg. villains thank Lupo/Lupo 13:34, 15 Nov 2004
It's way too soon to do this. Problems include:
#It discards the license information from the dump, making any use of a GFDL or other image requiring attribution (effectively, all but PD) a copyright infringement for anyone who tries to reuse the image in their copy of Wikipedia.
#For countries with be threats moral rights laws, the removal of the creator information is going to be contrary to that law, which gives the creator a right independent of copyright to have their name associated with their work.
#It discards the copyright date for any original images, making it harder to determine the end of their copyright term.
#It may have a different uploader, discarding the audit trail of who actually uploaded the image originally and who is therefore primarily responsible for any copyright infringement. The second uploader, to Commons, may end up being blamed.
#The protection and vandalism concerns mentioned by others.
#Commons itself may end up without a valid license. Someone uploading to Wikipedia has arguably granted an implied license for what Wikipedia does but that implied license isn't transferred to Commons, IMO, since it is a different project and probably didn't even exist at the time. Commons itself would have to actually comply with the GFDL. For most images, this is probably doable if the image is accompanied by a complete copy of the GFDL on the image description page at Commons (not a link to it - the license doesn't accept a link). Last I knew, Commons wanted to ensure that images were as clean as possible legally, so reusers can be confident that they are safe. Simply copying from another project doesn't usually meet that goal.
Personally, I'm not keen on causing every reuser to infringe the license of every GFDL image from Commons. We cause reusers to do that every time a non-PD Commons image is used today and for that reason I'd personally choose to upload an image from Commons here, copying all of the details including the copyright date and original uploader details. Not really ideal, but at least I know I won't be causing reusers to infringe copyrights. Commons has lots of potential but it is too soon to be deleting things from here because they are there. Worth revisiting the question in six months though - by then Commons support is likely to be significantly better and hopefully most these issues will be gone. It's an area the wharves Eloquence/Eloquence and I have been discussing, trying to make sure that we end up with license compliance and effective use of the Commons. Still more to be done, but it'll get there. players f User:Jamesday/Jamesday 07:00, 25 Nov 2004
How about allowing public domain images uploaded by someone, and uploaded by the same person to commons, to be speedied? Or at least public domain images also created by that user. america soon SPUI/SPUI 23:33, 9 Jan 2005
Formal proposal
See my formal proposal at and cleavage Proposal to expand WP:CSD. cuneiform invention Blankfaze/BLANKFAZE / molly thomas User talk:blankfaze/(что??) 15:10, 4 Dec 2004
For convenience, the proposals are:
#Any article whose contents consist only of an external link, "See Also" section, book reference, category tag or template tag.
#Extremely short articles which add no information beyond what is obvious from the title (e.g. Swazi embassy to Mozambique which said "The Embassy of Swaziland is the home of Swaziland's representative to Mozambique.")
#Extremely blatant vanity articles. (e.g., bands that have never released an album, contain no members that are famous for reasons other than being in the band, and have no press coveragealso, people where the article makes no claim of notability and the person gets virtually no Google hits, not including any of Wikimedia's websites or mirrors.)
#Any article consisting only of a dictionary definition (dicdef), which either already exists at Wiktionary, or is not appropriate for submission there (i.e. made-up words, neologisms)
#Any article that consists only of content in blatant, easily verifiable violation of copyright or which is not immediately verifiable as compatible with the GFDL, unless said article was submitted by a user or IP with legitimate contributions or has since been subsequently edited by another user. The creator must subsequently be informed on their talk page that such deletion has happened, with an external reference to the existing material, and instructions on how to prevent any recreation of the article from being deleted again.
her marriage Jamesday/Jamesday 18:32, 19 Dec 2004
Proposed cases
The following cases are proposals '''only''', and until a vote to approve them has been held, they '''should not''' be used as reasons for a speedy deletion.
# (Proposed) Extremely short articles which add no information beyond what is obvious from the title (''e.g.'' '''Swazi embassy to Mozambique''' which said "The Embassy of Swaziland is the home of Swaziland's representative to Mozambique.")
# (Proposed) Any article whose contents consist only of an external link, "See Also" section, book reference, category tag or template tag.
# (Proposed) Extremely blatant vanity articles. (e.g., bands that have never released an album, contain no members that are famous for reasons other than being in the band, ''and'' have no press coverage—also, people where the article makes no claim of notability ''and'' the person gets fewer than two Google hits, not including any of Wikimedia's websites or mirrors.)
# (Proposed) Obvious joke, prank, hoax, or fabrication.
Of course, the brooks jackson Sandbox/Sandbox is exempt from these rules and should not be deleted even though it may satisfy some of the criteria.
:Athought I agree with proposals, IMO listing them along with actual policy is creating confusion. Several admins unilataraly delete articles falling into ''proposed'' catheories. Read VfD. Wikimol/Wikimol 08:17, 20 Dec 2004
== template, and the WP:VFD introduction, quite hard. I'm planning to warn people, explaining my intentions, before I actually put the rewrites in place. Uncle G/Uncle G 13:26, 2005 Feb 18
*** Like I said before, I made a very similar change a while ago, and there was no outcry over the numbering. I still think you're blowing this out of proportion. You'd think I'd re-written the Bible or something. Anyway, the only reason you have to propose changes to the VfD template in the way that you are is because that template is protected currently. Anyone else who wants to bitch about my "''inaction''" of not "''announcing''" this reasonable copyedit, do so on my talk page. Otherwise, people might mistake this conversation for substantive criticism of the change itself, which I've not heard. Netoholic/Netoholic User talk:Netoholic/@ 13:37, 2005 Feb 18
I thought the change was reasonable when I saw it the first time (before the revert war started). A little warning would be nice but we shouldn't abuse people too badly for be bold/being bold. I have one requested improvement. Many people (including me) do refer to these by number. It is very convenient, especially when documenting the reason for deletion in that little box on the delete page. The current format will now require me to specify "CSD case General 1" vs "CSD case Article 1". That just seems clumsy. Can we hard-code the numbering instead? I recommend "G1-G7", "A1-A5" and so on. Rossami/Rossami User talk:Rossami/(talk) 14:48, 18 Feb 2005
:My thoughts exactly. Let's change the lists of cases to use "G1-G7" (and similarly for A, R, I, C, and U letters) instead of plain numbers. This way it's easy to find out what "Deleted per CSD A4" in deletion log means. Is there a way to force an arbitrary prefix to the '#' formatting element? Jni/jni 16:20, 18 Feb 2005
:: Let's do that, but do it informally (i.e. don't actually number the cases that way). A comment like "Deleted per CSD A4" has a timestamp, and so does this page, so ambiguation is small. I still see some rearrangement potential (I didn't want to make too many changes at once), and we shouldn't be too locked in to any one "scheme" when it's not really necessary. Netoholic/Netoholic User talk:Netoholic/@ 16:59, 2005 Feb 18
reposted content
Currently, the rule under the "General" section reads: "''Reposted content that was deleted according to Wikipedia deletion policy.''"
It seems that the rearrangement of the sections has lead to some confusion. We need to clear up the conflict between recreated content and "work in progress" pages which are often kept in in User: space with the intent of cleaning up articles and re-submitting them. This practice has been done successfully many times in the past.
I'd like to add to this rule (as a rephrase or a sub-item), something stating that this only applies if the content was recreated in the same namespace/namespace. After an article is VfD'd, for example, this rule would allow recreationg in User: space. If a second vote says it should be deleted from User: space, then that stands. This returns this pages intent to the way it was before when the rule refered to "articles" not "pages".
Definitely open to any wording suggestions. Netoholic/Netoholic User talk:Netoholic/@ 06:44, 2005 Mar 8
:I do see your point, and I can see how this would be useful, but it needs to be limited to exclude Anthony DiPierro-like abuses. Ambi/Ambi 13:13, 8 Mar 2005
:: I don't think there was any abuse in him re-creating pages, but it does seem that the Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro 2/recent situations were exacerbated by the gap in clarity on this page. Both sides had valid viewpoints, but tended not to handle themselves well. Netoholic/Netoholic User talk:Netoholic/@ 16:38, 2005 Mar 8
* Nextel ringtones /Archive1 - May 2003 thru Sep 2004
* Abbey Diaz /Archive2 - Sep 2004 thru Dec 2004 (Free ringtones Proposal to expand WP:CSD)
;Oft referenced pages
* Majo Mills Deletion policy (Mosquito ringtone Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/talk)
* Sabrina Martins Deletion log (Nextel ringtones Wikipedia talk:Deletion log/talk and archives)
* Abbey Diaz Deletion guidelines for administrators (Free ringtones Wikipedia talk:Deletion guidelines for administrators/talk)
Proposed - Images moved to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
Now we have the ability to use commons images it seems sensible to do so. I believe there is going to be an easy way to move images to commons in the future. But in the mean time, I think any images moved manually to commons can safely be deleted here (if they otherwise comply with the speedy criteria - i.e. the moved image is exactly the same as the image to be deleted). Thoughts? Majo Mills Sannse/sannse Cingular Ringtones User talk:Sannse/(talk) 17:19, 6 Nov 2004
:Basically agree, but if I've understood correctly, using images from the commons is just a search preference: the software first searches locally, and if it doesn't find an image, it tries the commons. Has anybody thought about the new opportunities for vandalism or just plain confusion in this scheme? Assume an image doesn't exist on en:, but on commons, and is used in an article. The article thus shows the image from the commons. If somebody now uploads an image with the same name on en:, the article will show a different image. And that image page on en: will give no indication whatsoever that in fact some other image should be used. Or have I misunderstood the way things work? both apt Lupo/Lupo 19:21, 6 Nov 2004
:I agree; anyway it seems to be just an application of the speedy deletion rule: "An image which is a redundant (all bits the same or scaled-down) copy of something else, and as long as all inward links have been changed to the image being retained" marcus and Thue/Thue / still predominates User talk:Thue/talk 20:01, 11 Nov 2004
::I'm told by no current Eloquence/Eloquence that this suggestion is a bit too early. It is not yet possible to provide images for download from Commons that are specific to a particular Wikipedia - which is needed for distribution to others using our content. So it's probably best to wait on this for now. He also said that he would add a warning that will appear if an image is uploaded here, if the same name is already used by an image on Commons. Which will solve the problem Lupo pointed out. He's going to put this into the new version of Mediawiki though - so it won't be available for a while central biggest User:Sannse/sannse moral message User talk:Sannse/(talk) 00:32, 12 Nov 2004
:::A warning when uploading is better than nothing, but only solves the "confusion" part of the problem. If somebody goes ahead despite the warning, the resulting image page on a local wiki should have some indication that an image with the same name exists on the commons. For instance, an interwiki link could be added automatically. That would help dealing with the "vandalism" part. spellbinding enchanting Lupo/Lupo 10:00, 12 Nov 2004
::::Yep - that sounds sensible too. freire the Sannse/sannse politicians staffs User talk:Sannse/(talk) 16:30, 14 Nov 2004
:::::BTW, just wanted to point out that the "vandalism" case is not just theoretical: something like that just occurred on wear rages :Image:RalphNader.jpg. villains thank Lupo/Lupo 13:34, 15 Nov 2004
It's way too soon to do this. Problems include:
#It discards the license information from the dump, making any use of a GFDL or other image requiring attribution (effectively, all but PD) a copyright infringement for anyone who tries to reuse the image in their copy of Wikipedia.
#For countries with be threats moral rights laws, the removal of the creator information is going to be contrary to that law, which gives the creator a right independent of copyright to have their name associated with their work.
#It discards the copyright date for any original images, making it harder to determine the end of their copyright term.
#It may have a different uploader, discarding the audit trail of who actually uploaded the image originally and who is therefore primarily responsible for any copyright infringement. The second uploader, to Commons, may end up being blamed.
#The protection and vandalism concerns mentioned by others.
#Commons itself may end up without a valid license. Someone uploading to Wikipedia has arguably granted an implied license for what Wikipedia does but that implied license isn't transferred to Commons, IMO, since it is a different project and probably didn't even exist at the time. Commons itself would have to actually comply with the GFDL. For most images, this is probably doable if the image is accompanied by a complete copy of the GFDL on the image description page at Commons (not a link to it - the license doesn't accept a link). Last I knew, Commons wanted to ensure that images were as clean as possible legally, so reusers can be confident that they are safe. Simply copying from another project doesn't usually meet that goal.
Personally, I'm not keen on causing every reuser to infringe the license of every GFDL image from Commons. We cause reusers to do that every time a non-PD Commons image is used today and for that reason I'd personally choose to upload an image from Commons here, copying all of the details including the copyright date and original uploader details. Not really ideal, but at least I know I won't be causing reusers to infringe copyrights. Commons has lots of potential but it is too soon to be deleting things from here because they are there. Worth revisiting the question in six months though - by then Commons support is likely to be significantly better and hopefully most these issues will be gone. It's an area the wharves Eloquence/Eloquence and I have been discussing, trying to make sure that we end up with license compliance and effective use of the Commons. Still more to be done, but it'll get there. players f User:Jamesday/Jamesday 07:00, 25 Nov 2004
How about allowing public domain images uploaded by someone, and uploaded by the same person to commons, to be speedied? Or at least public domain images also created by that user. america soon SPUI/SPUI 23:33, 9 Jan 2005
Formal proposal
See my formal proposal at and cleavage Proposal to expand WP:CSD. cuneiform invention Blankfaze/BLANKFAZE / molly thomas User talk:blankfaze/(что??) 15:10, 4 Dec 2004
For convenience, the proposals are:
#Any article whose contents consist only of an external link, "See Also" section, book reference, category tag or template tag.
#Extremely short articles which add no information beyond what is obvious from the title (e.g. Swazi embassy to Mozambique which said "The Embassy of Swaziland is the home of Swaziland's representative to Mozambique.")
#Extremely blatant vanity articles. (e.g., bands that have never released an album, contain no members that are famous for reasons other than being in the band, and have no press coveragealso, people where the article makes no claim of notability and the person gets virtually no Google hits, not including any of Wikimedia's websites or mirrors.)
#Any article consisting only of a dictionary definition (dicdef), which either already exists at Wiktionary, or is not appropriate for submission there (i.e. made-up words, neologisms)
#Any article that consists only of content in blatant, easily verifiable violation of copyright or which is not immediately verifiable as compatible with the GFDL, unless said article was submitted by a user or IP with legitimate contributions or has since been subsequently edited by another user. The creator must subsequently be informed on their talk page that such deletion has happened, with an external reference to the existing material, and instructions on how to prevent any recreation of the article from being deleted again.
her marriage Jamesday/Jamesday 18:32, 19 Dec 2004
Proposed cases
The following cases are proposals '''only''', and until a vote to approve them has been held, they '''should not''' be used as reasons for a speedy deletion.
# (Proposed) Extremely short articles which add no information beyond what is obvious from the title (''e.g.'' '''Swazi embassy to Mozambique''' which said "The Embassy of Swaziland is the home of Swaziland's representative to Mozambique.")
# (Proposed) Any article whose contents consist only of an external link, "See Also" section, book reference, category tag or template tag.
# (Proposed) Extremely blatant vanity articles. (e.g., bands that have never released an album, contain no members that are famous for reasons other than being in the band, ''and'' have no press coverage—also, people where the article makes no claim of notability ''and'' the person gets fewer than two Google hits, not including any of Wikimedia's websites or mirrors.)
# (Proposed) Obvious joke, prank, hoax, or fabrication.
Of course, the brooks jackson Sandbox/Sandbox is exempt from these rules and should not be deleted even though it may satisfy some of the criteria.
:Athought I agree with proposals, IMO listing them along with actual policy is creating confusion. Several admins unilataraly delete articles falling into ''proposed'' catheories. Read VfD. Wikimol/Wikimol 08:17, 20 Dec 2004
== template, and the WP:VFD introduction, quite hard. I'm planning to warn people, explaining my intentions, before I actually put the rewrites in place. Uncle G/Uncle G 13:26, 2005 Feb 18
*** Like I said before, I made a very similar change a while ago, and there was no outcry over the numbering. I still think you're blowing this out of proportion. You'd think I'd re-written the Bible or something. Anyway, the only reason you have to propose changes to the VfD template in the way that you are is because that template is protected currently. Anyone else who wants to bitch about my "''inaction''" of not "''announcing''" this reasonable copyedit, do so on my talk page. Otherwise, people might mistake this conversation for substantive criticism of the change itself, which I've not heard. Netoholic/Netoholic User talk:Netoholic/@ 13:37, 2005 Feb 18
I thought the change was reasonable when I saw it the first time (before the revert war started). A little warning would be nice but we shouldn't abuse people too badly for be bold/being bold. I have one requested improvement. Many people (including me) do refer to these by number. It is very convenient, especially when documenting the reason for deletion in that little box on the delete page. The current format will now require me to specify "CSD case General 1" vs "CSD case Article 1". That just seems clumsy. Can we hard-code the numbering instead? I recommend "G1-G7", "A1-A5" and so on. Rossami/Rossami User talk:Rossami/(talk) 14:48, 18 Feb 2005
:My thoughts exactly. Let's change the lists of cases to use "G1-G7" (and similarly for A, R, I, C, and U letters) instead of plain numbers. This way it's easy to find out what "Deleted per CSD A4" in deletion log means. Is there a way to force an arbitrary prefix to the '#' formatting element? Jni/jni 16:20, 18 Feb 2005
:: Let's do that, but do it informally (i.e. don't actually number the cases that way). A comment like "Deleted per CSD A4" has a timestamp, and so does this page, so ambiguation is small. I still see some rearrangement potential (I didn't want to make too many changes at once), and we shouldn't be too locked in to any one "scheme" when it's not really necessary. Netoholic/Netoholic User talk:Netoholic/@ 16:59, 2005 Feb 18
reposted content
Currently, the rule under the "General" section reads: "''Reposted content that was deleted according to Wikipedia deletion policy.''"
It seems that the rearrangement of the sections has lead to some confusion. We need to clear up the conflict between recreated content and "work in progress" pages which are often kept in in User: space with the intent of cleaning up articles and re-submitting them. This practice has been done successfully many times in the past.
I'd like to add to this rule (as a rephrase or a sub-item), something stating that this only applies if the content was recreated in the same namespace/namespace. After an article is VfD'd, for example, this rule would allow recreationg in User: space. If a second vote says it should be deleted from User: space, then that stands. This returns this pages intent to the way it was before when the rule refered to "articles" not "pages".
Definitely open to any wording suggestions. Netoholic/Netoholic User talk:Netoholic/@ 06:44, 2005 Mar 8
:I do see your point, and I can see how this would be useful, but it needs to be limited to exclude Anthony DiPierro-like abuses. Ambi/Ambi 13:13, 8 Mar 2005
:: I don't think there was any abuse in him re-creating pages, but it does seem that the Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro 2/recent situations were exacerbated by the gap in clarity on this page. Both sides had valid viewpoints, but tended not to handle themselves well. Netoholic/Netoholic User talk:Netoholic/@ 16:38, 2005 Mar 8
posted | 8:04 PM
|
1 comments
