Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 61

Archive 55

←

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

Archive 63

→

Archive 65

Proposed new criterion

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 propose the addition of G14: Material added in violation of Wikimedia Foundation terms of use. This would cover spam added by undisclosed paid editors. Guy (Help!) 15:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Amendment: The following has been proposed instead and I think will have the support of those who supported the original:

G14: Articles created in violation of Wikimedia Foundation terms of use

Obviously paid material added to existing articles can simply be removed. Guy (Help!) 14:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

2nd Amendment by SmartSE: Given the further discussion which I think makes valid points, and that this is what we're actually proposing:

A12: Articles created in violation of the Wikimedia Foundation terms of use that prohibit undisclosed paid editing

SmartSE (talk) 16:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Is there a way to reliably tell such articles? Not all promotion is paid for, after all. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

In a word no, but blatant promotion can already be G11d. This could provide a means to tidy up after editors who have been classified as undisclosed paid editors through community consensus. At the moment, if we can pin down a paid editor as a sock, they can be G5d, but if we can't then they need AFDs, heavy trimming, or all too often, no action other than a tag. SmartSE (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

And with the current example anything after April 7 when the master account was blocked is a G5, and anything before that isn't, despite the fact that the editor was abusing multiple accounts all the time. Guy (Help!) 16:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

JzG I am confused about what you are talking about above. There is no example and what does G5 have to do with your proposed new criterion? - GB fan 16:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Earflaps - accusations of being an undisclosed paid editor and a sock puppet. Earflaps (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an undisclosed paid editor and also a sock of MusicLover650 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry on April 7, 2012 (note to self: that year means more are eligible for G5, good thing too). Technically, anything after the block can be nuked under G5, and anything before, can't. That's the position we're in with that editor. In other cases there may be no proof of sockpuppetry, of course, it's just that the current rule introduces an inconsistency whereby some articles can be speedily ejected and others can't. Guy (Help!) 16:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I presume that MusicLover's contributions are the issue? Earflaps made their account two days after MusicLover's block, so all of his contributions would be G5 eligible. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:45, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, I was confused, had not seen that ANI thread. Two questions; How often does a case like this happen? How many articles are we talking about in this case that are not G5 eligible? - GB fan 17:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Difficult to be precise, but certainly regularly enough for it to be used. In this instance, it would be used to delete those articles created by the master rather than the sock, although since it was back in 2012, the ToU did not prohibit undisclosed paid editing. @Brianhe: my mind's gone blank - can you think of some cases where this would apply? i.e. obvious paid editing but nothing to link any account to an SPI? SmartSE (talk) 17:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jeremy112233/Archive#13_September_2016 is a recent example. SmartSE (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) BiH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) comes to mind. Give me a little bit and I could come up with a dozen. - Brianhe (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@Smartse: I've tried to provide several sorts of cases from recent COIN archives that could be of use for the discussion.

Here are several editors blocked for ToU violations or WP:PROMO, no known SPIs.

• Mouris Bashir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - WP:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_108#AuthBridge
• WaylandPR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - WP:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_108#Integrated Environmental Solutions (note clear off-wiki evidence of solicitation for article)
• Mindcap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive_108#Mindcap - undisclosed paid editor?
• EBY3221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 89#EBY3221 revisited

Other cases that might be instructive include

• Kenntybdv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Suspected, not blocked (yet): WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive_108#New promotional editing in the binary option.2FFOREX area.
• WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive_107#Offshore trading companies.2C_regulators and promotion agency named sixteen conflicted editors, one of whom turned out to be socking (Reuvengrish), many never connected through SPI. E.g. Euclidthalis was blocked for copyvio.
• WriterNeetin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) slipped through a SPI with inconclusive evidence and recreated Delhi School of Internet Marketing - WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive_108#Delhi School of Internet Marketing. Not blocked (yet).

Hope this discussion is successful as the current tools are clearly (from anybody who peruses COIN) inadequate. You might also want to have a look at User:Brianhe/COIask/log, especially the last six entries. - Brianhe (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I added EBY3221 to the list above. She may be an ideal case study for this discussion. This was an editor who was tied to an off-wiki editing service, denied connection, has a very long list of articles created/expanded. Never associated with socking, as far as I know, other than a single edit from 73.22.138.172. Started editing May 2008, probably promo from day one. First COIN case opened by me 8 July 2015 includes article list. Indeffed 13 July 2015. Denied being paid or contract editor on 26 July [1]. Linked to SEO company cluster by Chess at ANI here on 15 August 2015. - Brianhe (talk) 00:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support we need some way to deal with TOS violating editors/companies/cabals. As it stands we have tools to deal, more or less, with the one account per article and the really blatant new account writes promo crap type violations but more sophisticated/measured strategies means some of UPEs' work will stick. Simply put anything created in violation of the TOU should be nuked without having to spend volunteer time beyond proving the violation. Jbh^Talk 23:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Since we're on this subject, the only current way we have that I know of to enforce the ToU change – the sweeping mandatory requirement for paid editing disclosure (that is casually ignored all day, every day) – is by using {{uw-paid1}} through {{uw-paid4}}, and no one is using it. So, since we have some interested eyes here, I apologize for attempting to hijack this thread on this related tangent, but it would be really good if more people became aware of this facility. And it's really closely related, now that I'm thinking about it. The uw-paid series is the method to try to winnow out the disclosure when you only suspect paid editing; this proposed G14 is going to be really hard to apply in a lot of cases, without first seeking and getting confirmation that the editing you only suspect is paid, is actually paid.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: The template is nice but without admin/SPI guts to back it up, it's worthless. Did you look at the log I posted where I have asked editors if they are paid? Please do so and note how many of them just walk away and (presumably) start using a new account. Compare to the percentage that are blocked (hint, it's low). By the way, one of the leaders at SPI just told another editor that "nobody has enough time to train new clerks" because they are overwhelmed [2]. It's a well known HR downhill spiral from that point forward, if you don't have time to train people to offload you. - Brianhe (talk) 01:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey Brian. From your response, I'm not sure you looked at this template series in depth. It is self-encapsulated. It does not require some secondary process. It asks a person directly, are you being paid, explains how broad paid editing is interpreted under the ToU, tells them how to disclose, and tells them not to edit until they respond. If they don't respond and keep editing, you place higher levels. If they don't respond or comply after the fourth, then you seek a block at AIiV. Yes, it's true that some will just lie (we are not going to "get" the next Orangeoody through it), but it functions to i) inform many of the "lower grade" paid editors – "my boss told me to do a write-up" – of the mandatory disclosure requirements (where we have no facility right now to inform people of them); ii) it allows us to ask the question without needing some large scale investigation first, so it can be used broadly; iii) many people, once they are informed, will either disclose, or stop editing, but will not lie; and iv) once we get a disclosure, then our behavioral scrutiny for COI editing can kick in. Again, this will not stop the higher level paid editors who are already aware and intent on avoiding scrutiny and operating in bad faith, but it will go a long way to address lower level paid editing—if people started actually using it. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support excellent suggestion. Some teeth to the TOU. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose as stated WP:CSD refers to the deletion of pages whereas the ToU refer to contributions (edits). Is it proposed that any page is speedy-deletable if the ToU are infringed by (1) all of its edits, (2) most of its edits, (3) the first edit to a page, (4) any edit? Will these situations be the "most obvious cases" because, if not, CSD isn't going to apply anyway. Sorry to be raising a problem because I strongly support enforcing "no undisclosed paid editing". Thincat (talk) 13:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Good point. @JzG: I presume you only meant page creations? So it should be G14: Articles created in violation of Wikimedia Foundation terms of use

Fair, I'm happy to change the proposed wording. Guy (Help!) 14:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

If you're going to limit it to articles, it needs to have an "A" prefix, not a "G" prefix. How about simplifying it to "Creations in violation...", which would also apply to templates, redirects, categories, etc. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• Naive question: If a COI editor manages, in violation of our TOU, to make an article that is good enough to avoid G11, and improvable enough to avoid AfD, what...exactly is the harm to the project? Haven't we, at that point, managed to trick a company into paying to improve the encyclopedia? (...and likely taught a new user how to edit in the process?) TimothyJosephWood 13:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The harm to the project is that the ToU have been broken. That seems to me to be a problem somewhat like editing by an abusive sockpuppet and so a similar remedy might apply. Thincat (talk) 13:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• • (edit conflict) In the case of UPEs my very strong opinion is that it is much better for the project to be able to nuke their articles once they are proven to violate the TOU rather than have to spend the time and resources to debate whether each is 'acceptable'. Few if any articles created by UPEs are anything more than SEO and their incremental benefit is negligible. Also, as long as UPEs think they have a chance of having their articles stick, even if they are later found out, they have incentive to not disclose. If they know it will be deleted with no debate (personally, I'd like to see the titles salted too but meh) then that incentive is gone. In addition it will tend to force UPEs who do not disclose to avoid creating multiple articles under the same account. Jbh^Talk 13:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  • @Timothyjosephwood: Agreeing with everything jbh just said, I have an essay addressing your question: User:brianhe/What's wrong with undisclosed paid editing. I think one of the subtle things that gets overlooked is that ToU violations pull volunteer resources in the direction of improving/maintaining the corporate creations vice things of broader encyclopedic content. So one pernicious effect among many is that it tends to worsen the various systemic biases that have been identified. It also discourages volunteers who find out they have been duped into cooperating with undisclosed promoters, and volunteer goodwill is irreplaceable. - Brianhe (talk) 15:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)Brianhe (talk) 15:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I suppose I may assume that most paid editing is generally of...a certain quality...where it's painfully obvious even if it's not disclosed, especially on AfC, and so most editors who are helping are not, in fact, being duped at all. TimothyJosephWood 16:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes but not always. They can go for years before being picked up on COI radar like EBY3221 and Borntodeal (see above). Brianhe (talk) 16:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:CREEP. The terms of use are extensive and their application would often be quite debatable. If material is unambiguous promotion, then we already have G11. If a topic does not seem of credible importance, we already have A7. If there's some issue of law then that's best dealt with by the foundation using G9. We don't need some vague new criterion based on a subjective interpretation of the terms, without proper discussion at a forum like AfD. Andrew D. (talk) 15:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  • If the evidence is solid enough for a ToU blocking then it ought to be just as good for speedy. Making these tough subjective calls is why we have admins. The solution is involved in exercising good judgment, not in defensively disempowering the admins. - Brianhe (talk) 16:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Andrew D. The current case involved one account that created more articles than OrangeMoody and edited an undetermined number extensively as well. They must have made tens of thousands. If it wasn't for them slipping up right at the start, we'd have no grounds to delete them per G5. It's inconsistent for them to get away with it so long as they don't sock. SmartSE (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Why wait for the office to get round to doing something we as a community could do perfectly well ourselves? That makes no sense. Guy (Help!) 20:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Oppose per Andrew D, who has basically said everything I wanted to. I got "paid" a pizza and beer for creating Bullets and Daffodils, when I am I getting blocked and chucked off for that? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

That's a facile argument - as already discussed, it would only apply in cases where users have already been blocked after community discussion for violating the ToU against UPE. SmartSE (talk) 16:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

But if an article can't be covered by the existing criteria (particularly A7 and G11), it must be a genuine topic for an encyclopedia and can be fixed by normal editing. Why are people so terrified of paid editing? Linux and Wine wouldn't have got where they are today on volunteer efforts alone, and required major corporate backing and funding. Honestly, I really do think people have got this taboo arse backward. Just because the encyclopedia content is free, doesn't mean writing it has to be. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: While is seems reasonable without context, the intended use of the rule is redundant to existing rules, plus as Thincat pointed out, is also inconsistent with the ToU because this process factors pages and not individual revisions. Anything that violates the ToU and has to be removed without falling under any current criteria can already be removed by order of the WMF. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

While it could maybe be done via office actions, are there any examples where they have done so? SmartSE (talk) 16:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose as too vague because the terms of use are too broad. If a proposal with wording based on specific violations of the terms of use that are not adequately covered by other criteria is put forth, I'd be happy to reconsider.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 16:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@Godsy: Fair point, I've amended the proposal accordingly. SmartSE (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't go as far as Carrite does below, but deeming something paid editing isn't tangible in most cases, making discussion due (as opposed to speedy deletion). — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 18:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Will add teeth to the TOU and help curb paid editing mills and abuses. Coretheapple (talk) 16:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - It is impossible to identify paid editors given anti-outing rules, which prohibit connection of real life name and real life employer with an anonymous account. Sorry, but that's show biz. Therefore, this ill-considered proposal would give a green light to mass deletion to a small group of crazed administrators on their white stallions to automatically delete anything they don't like, anything they think might smack of paid editing, without additional discussion or recourse. Not to mention the unintended consequences: company A's employee joe-jobs company B's page and WHAM!!! a crazed administrator on a white horse blows it away. Same for political campaigns taking on their opponents. This opens the door to a wild west wiki world that only a handful of fanatics want any part of... Carrite (talk) 16:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  • @Carrite: There are errors in what you just said. It is not impossible, we do identify and block UPEs all the time. Is it always definitive, as in provable in court? Maybe not. Again this is why we trust admins wih powerful tools: they are expected to use sound judgment. Also, the off-wiki connections can't be published on-wiki due to OUTING, but that doesn't mean the connections can't be made. Brianhe (talk) 16:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No it's not impossible to identify them at all (see ANI and the links Brianhe has linked to). This would be for use in cases where the infringement of the ToU is so clear that the user has been blocked, but where other CSD criteria do not apply. SmartSE (talk) 16:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Too many potential TOU violations would require analysis and discussion, making speedy deletion inappropriate. Carrite's analysis is quite on target. The proposal also opens the door to deletion of improperly created articles which have since been improved by independent users. By the time this proposal is whittled down to the undebateable cases that speedy deletion should be reserved for, there will be next to nothing it would apply to. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Spam is spam, and successfully exploiting the goodwill of volunteers to improve your spam doesn't make it any less of a problem. Guy (Help!) 20:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Spam is the same thing lots and lots of times. We already have CSD G4 and salting to deal with that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose this is too tricky to determine for it to be speedy delete. More useful would be to change the rules to permit outing of paid editors who have not practiced self disclosure. Deletion of contributions and pages could be the result of an investigation that finds undisclosed paid editing, but should not be a standalone speedy delete criterion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Right idea, wrong execution. Should be a criteria for deletion, not speedy deletion. Outright spam can be deleted as spam. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 00:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment, or actually a question. Is the act of blocking an editor for violating the TOU not ipso facto also a determination that the user's contributions are in fact spam, and thus deletable under G11? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 00:38, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  • If an undisclosed paid editor gets their target article to FA status, they would still be violating the TOU. Good luck arguing that a FA is G11 deletable. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. If it's not eligible under G11 or A7, it's likely too complicated for a CSD criterion. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)\
• Oppose largely per the concerns of other editors that the proposal is too broad. Should there be a significant issue in a particular case, and there is consensus that all articles should be deleted, then a temporary criterion can be established. Appable (talk | contributions) 01:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose all witch hunts, regardless of whether or not they weigh more than a duck. Jclemens (talk) 03:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose as a CSD but I would strongly support as a criterion for deletion at AfD. I very strongly support deletion in such cases, but the difficulty is that it usually needs discussion. The ANI/I case that led to this required substantial discussion until it became obvious what the situation was. (And there is one additional factor even for AfD--we have so far been encouraging undeclared paid editors to come clean and declare retrospectively their earlier work. I consider this an essential practice in encouraging legitimate editing--legitimate in this case meaning editing with a paid COI declared as such, so people can take it into account in judging the article. I want to very highly commend Guy fro bringing this here--I've been looking for a suitable occasion to propose something--now is the time, but this is not quite the right place. DGG ( talk ) 07:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
• Started a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Adding an item about articles or pages created in violation of the terms of use to DEL-REASON to have such an item added to the deletion policy rather than the speedy deletion policy, as some people were suggesting this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:49, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - The way it is written an article created by someone in violation of the terms of use that is edited by multiple editors and is now listed as a featured article would be eligible for deletion. A much more restricted version that only allows deletion of pages where all significant contributors are in violation of the terms of use, similar to G5 might be workable. - GB fan 11:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, as it's far too broad and complex for something as simple as a CSD criterion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:34, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
• It might work as an equivalent of G5 as suggested by GB fan Many cases of this would already be handled under G5 since the master editor would presumably be banned for promotionalism after the AfD. The difference would be that G5 is not applied retrospectively, and this would be. But this would be better discussed after we do the AfD criterion. DGG ( talk ) 16:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - As noted by multiple editors, too complex to be dealt with by CSD, which needs to be straightforward for the deciding admin. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I am not seeing how this is overly complex at all. If an editor is determined to be a UPE and blocked for violating the TOU then all the articles created by them and not significantly modified by others (ie like G5) are eligible for deletion. All this does is effectivly make G5 reach back to the start of their editing. Jbh^Talk 14:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support: Paid editing is a severe issue and needs to be stopped. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 10:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment We have accounts such as User:FoCuSandLeArN who are good enough not get caught by CU. We have good evidence form their clients regarding who they are and that they are involved in undisclosed paid editing. They need to keep their articles alive for a year to get full payment. Thus if we really want to deal with this issue we need to delete all their articles, especially those from the last year. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose If it's in violation of a ban, G5 applies. If it's straight-up advertising, we have G11. If the subject is completely insignificant, A7 can handle it. All other cases can be decided when investigating the user in question, including a mass-rollback of their edits. The ToU forbid undisclosed paid editing. They do not stipulate what we should do with content created by such editing. This is the decision of the project and we have tried several times to implement policies and guidelines handling paid editing. Afaik, there is no policy or guideline in place that forces us to delete contributions made in violation of the ToU without discussing the merit of the contributions themselves, is there? So this discussion should be placed at another venue entirely since it affects the whole project, not just this policy. IMHO, if someone is paid to write a neutrally worded and well-sourced article about a notable subject, we should be happy to have it. Regards SoWhy 11:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Spur Corporation was created by an editor recently banned for undisclosed paid editing (expanded from redirect [3]). The fact that the ban was enacted is proof by existence that "impossible to identify paid editors" is untrue. Also demonstration that such things aren't always immediately G11-able: whereas the original spammy prose was nuked by turning into a redirect, the new version has existed for 90 days or so without challenge. Presumably they hired somebody competent to do their advertising after the first attempt failed. There's vanishingly little constructive editing by anyone else on the article at this point. I've proposed it for G5 speedy but I fully expect that nomination to be shot down because it was created by the editor before he was banned. This is exactly what we need a new criterion for. Are we supposed to go through the AfD dance for every single instance like this one? - Brianhe (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, partly solution looking for a problem and partly not obvious and clear. Stifle (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Foreign Language Articles

Is there a historical reason why there is no speedy deletion criterion for articles in foreign languages? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

There is WP:A2 for foreign language articles already extant on other Wikipedias. For foreign language articles that do not have equivalents on other projects, there is "An article should not be speedily deleted just because it is not written in English. Instead it should be tagged with {{Not English}} and listed at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English" as per WP:CSD. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

If an article is listed at PNT, the author is given two weeks to get things sorted, and then a week's prod. Articles in Foreign are still subject to any speedy criteria that apply, such as A7, G11, and often G12. Quite a few go that way (but sometimes the deleting admin forgets to remove the entry at PNT...). Peridon (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I am aware that the current rule is to list the foreign language article at PNT, and that an article should not be speedily deleted just because it is not written in English. My question is why an article cannot be speedily deleted because it is not written in English. Alternatively, would it be appropriate to move an article that is not in English into draft space? (Sometimes I have tagged articles that are not in English with A7, although that involves my having to guess that the non-English isn't establishing a credible claim of significance. Is it reasonable to move non-English articles into draft space? And what is the historical reason why non-English is not a basis for speedy deletion? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't actually know, but I suspect it's because a foreign language article can often be translated easily and give us new content. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't here for the history of it, but I imagine it's because some of these article would be valuable additions if translated and, at least for some languages, there are enough people here willing and able to translate them (I enjoy doing it from time to time for worthy articles) that it's worthwhile to give them a chance. No harm is done by their short-term presence.

I understand your point about moving these articles to Draft space. But WP:PNT doesn't handle articles in Draft space. I suppose the process could be changed so that Draft space is where WP:PNT wants articles to be placed during the grace period. If we do that, though, then there's less chance someone will see them and notice that there's grounds to delete them speedily in the case of articles that really should be deleted (because they infringe copyright, carry negative BLP content, etc.) Also, even while in another language, they can be tagged appropriately with maintenance tags while in the main space, which I think is beneficial, whereas that wouldn't happen in Draft space. Largoplazo (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

A page speedily deleted is recreated

FIPP, which was deleted per G11, and then recreated, and then deleted per G12 (see log), was recreated. Is it necessary to add to the talk page that the article was speedily deleted? Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 11:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

You mean like using {{old afd}} or {{multidel}} for previous AFDs? Not really. Most, if not all, speedy deletion criteria are not about the subject but about the current shape of the page and thus there is no need to inform people about deletions that were based on previous iterations of the page. So if G11 no longer applies and it's no longer copyvio, there is no reason to mention those deletions anymore. Regards SoWhy 11:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC: A7 and tourist attractions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Proposal to add tourist attractions to A7 is not needed, suggestion withdrawn Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

---

As most editors think tourist attractions are organisations (They are not as far as I can tell. They are places; I checked the categories), unless there's something I'm missing (I didn't see anything in Category:Organizations that could have anything to do with tourist attractions), I'm proposing an extension of A7 to explicitly cover tourist attractions and similar places. This will certainly make life easier for everyone, especially editors like myself who go by the categories in determining what a subject is. If I am missing something, then I think an addition to the wording of the templates is necessary to make it clearer. Adam9007 (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC) I withdraw this per WP:SNOW. Adam9007 (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Even Stonehenge, despite its 5000 year history, has been turned into a business and there's no way of getting a good view without paying English Heritage. If somebody's charging an entry fee it's a business (organisation). Could you give some examples where there's confusion? Cabayi (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Correction: an organisation owns the attraction and charges for entry into it. That does not make the attraction itself an organisation. If you look at Category:Tourist attractions you'll see they are classed under places, not organisations. Adam9007 (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I'm not sure when WP:NPLACE was last checked for accuracy but if it's correct that attractions usually survive AfD, then tagging them A7 would be a mistake most of the time anyway. Per WP:GEOFEAT most attractions might be notable and if not, in 99 of 100 cases, there is another article (about the city/town/etc. they are in) which can serve as a target for redirecting/merging, so deletion would violate WP:ATD anyway. So IMHO there is no need for an amendment: The attraction itself will most likely be at least significant / important enough to survive A7's low bar and the company that runs it can be deleted as A7 anyway. Do you have any specific examples in mind where you felt A7 would be appropriate? Regards SoWhy 18:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The issue here is not whether there is a WP:CCS, but whether tourist attractions are within A7's scope. By what you said, they are not explicitly outside scope, but inherently have a WP:CCS, and I'm not sure if that actually answers the question... Adam9007 (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose extending A7 to explicitly cover tourist attractions and similar places. Being an established "tourist attraction" infers enough notability to minimally qualify as a credible claim of significance and we certainly know of many such places that are notable without question. Such articles should continue being examined on a case by case basis with AFD being the recourse for articles that should be deleted.--John Cline (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • It would appear that the community disagrees with you. If tourist attractions are organisations, they will be A7ed in the absence of a WP:CCS. Adam9007 (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

    The RFC asks if CSD:A7 should be "extended to explicitly cover tourist attractions and similar places". I oppose such an extension and it seems this opposition is in keeping with the emerging consensus. I make no assertions whatsoever regarding organizations, nor the effect A7 has on claims about them, (it would initially seem out of scope).--John Cline (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose adding pointless bloat; everyone except you already understands what the concept of "business" is. For the benefit of confused observers, this is a tantrum being thrown in response to this thread regarding the deletion of a substub on a water park. (It read—in full—Pars Aqua Village is a privately owned indoor water park located in Tehran, the capital of Iran. It is housed in a 150,000-square-foot hangar. Pars Aqua Village includes water slides, water coasters, wave pools, a winding river, a restaurant shaped like a wooden sailboat, and several concession stands. The complex is decorated with artificial palm trees.) You shouldn't be paying the slightest attention to what an article is categorized as when determining notability, as categories are the decision of whoever happened to categorize them and are themselves original research in Wikipedia terms (although if you really care, the particular category line for the article in question was Service industries→Entertainment→Entertainment venues→Amusement parks→Water parks). ‑ Iridescent 18:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • For the same article, line I'm getting is Category:Places - Category:Tourist attractions - Category:Amusement parks - Category:Water parks. Adam9007 (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Which is why we dont rely on categories to determine eligibility for anything. As it is also ultimately in Category:Soft matter Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Then the categories have no real meaning do they? There's no way of determining what goes under where. Adam9007 (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
        • Yes they do. Categories have a meaning that is unrelated to speedy deletion criteria, and they are completely irrelevant to this discussion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
          • Something can be both an organisation and not? How does that work? Surely something is either an organisation or is not? If I want to see if something counts as an organisation, the logical thing to do would be to check the categories. And if I cannot find it under organisations, the logical conclusion would be that it is not, no? Adam9007 (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
        • The only meaning they have is 'someone at some point has tagged this article with a category they feel is relevant and would help someone navigate to similar articles'. They have no bearing on defining the topic. Nor do parent categories which may be unrelated except via tenuous links. Some are even closed circular loops. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
          • I'm confused now. What's the purpose of categories if they don't categorise topics? Adam9007 (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
            • What's confusing about "Wikipedia categories are not related to Speedy deletion criteria"? This page is for discussing speedy deletion criteria. If you want to discuss Wikipedia's category system, you should take it elsewhere. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
              • I see. Something can be a place under the category definition, but an organisation under the A7 definition? Adam9007 (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
                • Yes. And a thing can be simultaneously under two or more non-exclusive categories under any categorization system you care to imagine. In this specific case, things can be validly considered to be under both places and businesses categories. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
                  • But therein lies the problem: A7 does not go into details about what is and is not an organisation for its purposes. Thus, one can only assume that "organisations" cover what is defined as such by the central categorisation system. Thus, I still think clarification is needed if A7 goes by a separate categorisation system, especially if things fit in multiple categories under the "central" one. Adam9007 (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
                    • No, there is no formal categorization system for CSD criteria, neither in existence nor needed. (For one thing, most articles deleted under CSD criteria are new and often haven't been categorised yet.) For CSD purposes, you read the article and use your own judgment, and if you personally think it is valid to consider the subject an organization (or anything else covered by A7) and that there is not a sufficient claim to importance, then you can tag it as A7. If a reviewing admin agrees with your judgment, they will delete it. Alternatively, if another editor (not necessarily an admin, as long as it is not the article's creator) disagrees with your judgment, they can remove the tag. And that's really all there is to it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
                      • "Alternatively, if another editor (not necessarily an admin, as long as it is not the article's creator) disagrees with your judgment, they can remove the tag" - except that when I do that, all hell breaks loose. Adam9007 (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
                        • If that happens, you need to consider whether your own judgment is faulty. If you remove A7 tags from articles whose subjects can obviously be considered organizations and claim that they can not, you should expect to encounter problems. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
                          • But can they obviously be considered organisations if the central categorisation system does not consider them as such? That's the crux isn't it? Adam9007 (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
                            • I'm sorry, but I'm not going round this circle again. It's been explained very clearly to you, and if you still can not understand it then there's nothing more I can say that will help. If you do not possess sufficient judgment to understand and apply the CSD criteria, I recommend you simply avoid working in that area. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
                              • It's just that if I have to think about whether something is obvious or not, the answer is almost certainly no. But that's just my judgement. Others' may differ. Adam9007 (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Then don't think about it. The bottom line here is that we are not going to rework the CSD rules just because you personally have trouble with them (where many thousands of editors don't have the same problem). If you find CSD so hard to understand, then you are probably not suited to it, so go do something else instead. And that really is the last I can offer on this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose (EC) There isnt any issue. A tourist attraction is not necessarily a business (a purely geographical one for example) but a business like a swimming pool or fun park is clearly not exempt from A7 regardless of it also being a tourist attraction. The category argument is irrelevant. A7 is based on the content not the category the article is tagged with. Adding 'tourist attractions' would clearly open up the geographic-based attractions for being speedied, which is clearly outside the intent of A7. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)But those sorts of articles are being speedied under A7 as organisations. That's my whole point. Adam9007 (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

If someone speedied as A7 an article consisting of 'Foo Rock Pile - the largest naturally occurring collection of Foo Rocks - attracts 15000 visitors a year' I would expect them to be trouted. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

If you see an article about a tourist attraction being deleted under A7 when you don't think it fits the category, take it to the deleting admin's talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I did, and apparently I'm throwing a wobbler. This is a legitimate question/proposal. And, frankly, I'm tired of being treated like this (see the numerous threads on my talk page). No wonder I'm considering jumping ship :(. Adam9007 (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes its not other people that are the problem. Look if multiple people (and after taking a look at your talkpage history thats an understatement) have taken issue with your treatment of contesting speedy deletions, perhaps you should listen to them. That some of them are correct is largely going to be forgotton. Its a fact of life people do not remember when you do something right. They only care when you do something wrong. Take a break from that sort of work for awhile and do something else. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I was actually planning on getting this article up to scratch today, but I no longer have time for that, so it'll have to wait until the weekend. I suppose I could have just ignored this whole thing, but for some reason (probably my Asperger's) I have a desire to have things clarified and find out who's right and who's wrong. Even if this doesn't go through, it's something for my essay on the subject, so at least something good has come of it. Adam9007 (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The specific one you're complaining about *is* a business, as has been explained to you. Now stop this disruptive whining(No, I'll withdraw that, and try to control my frustration over such timewasting). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. I see no confusion between businesses and tourist attractions. The latter, tourist attractions, is way too nebulous to use as an A7 category, as it includes so many different types of things, many of which are utterly unrelated to businesses. And I don't see any need for such bloat anyway - we really do not seem to be snowed under with articles about tourist attractions that need any sort of accelerated deletion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as unnecessary, mostly per Only in death does duty end. True, there are tourist attractions that are not organizations (Mt. Rushmore, Stonehenge, Angkor Wat, Taj Mahal), but being a tourist attraction does not exclude something from also being an organization. - MrX 19:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - Elements of this RFC seem entirely pointed; it should be speedily closed. More appropriately, Adam9007 ought to retract the request before such a close is enacted; for the many things dropping this stick may signify.--John Cline (talk) 21:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

---

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

G10 applies only to people?

I've just been told that a page whose only content was "This is a pants film" is not a G10 because the article was about a film, and therefore cannot be attacked. Also, although Wikipedia:Attack page, WP:G10, and {{Db-g10}} use the term "subject", the rest of the wording assumes that the subject is a person or people, and that the courtesy blanking the G10 tag does is intended only for people. Add that to the fact that G10 (originally A6) was enacted at the same time as (perhaps in response to) a serious BLP incident. I was told that all this means that strictly speaking, G10 only applies to pages about people, and not any other subject. Is this true? Does this mean that G10ing a page about some other subject is actually WP:IARing, and that we shouldn't tag such pages as G10? I always thought that G10 applies to any subject, but apparently the spirit never included other subjects (meaning G10 was only ever intended for people), and it's only the "subject" part of the letter that implies other subjects are covered by this criterion? Adam9007 (talk) 00:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

G10 also applies to businesses and organizations, although its promary focus is on persons. It's not well suited for creative works. The pages you describe sound like they could be handled as vandalism or as no context. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with the assessment of the admin who left that on your talk page. G10 applies to all articles which disparage the subject or some other entity. It doesn't specify what that subject is and the fact that BLPs are common use cases doesn't mean it only applies to articles about people. The articles in question read "This is a pants film" and "Why would you wanna watch a piece of poo like this", both of which only exist to disparage the subject, so G10 does apply. G3 (vandalism) does also apply, and it's a better description of the problem with the pages, but I think you were right to tag it. Hut 8.5 19:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. G10 is broader than just biography articles. That said, attack articles about people are the most likely to cause damage, and so are the ones that most urgently need to be deleted.--Mojo Hand (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with the assessment that G10 covers creative works and I think @Writ Keeper:'s interpretation of G10 is correct. G10 is meant for pages where there is a real person that can be attacked, either directly (BLP) or indirectly (as part of a certain group). Calling a work of art names is (misguided) criticism of the work of art, not necessarily of those who made it. If it's the whole purpose of the page, G3 might reasonably be applied instead. As Adam writes, G10 was created in response to BLP articles, not creative works. It shouldn't be expanded beyond that. To put it another way: Calling a person garbage allows them to sue you. Calling a movie garbage is just criticism. Regards SoWhy 17:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

well, I'm glad I'm not totally crazy Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• Judging by my experience of G10 nominations and re-reading the wording of WP:G10, I would say it is clearly BLP based, and therefore intended to target pages that could be seen as attacking identifiable people - individuals, groups, whatever, but still people. I think interpreting it to cover negative opinions of artworks or other creative works is not justifiable, and I would certainly usually reject G10 nominations that do not clearly attack identifiable people. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, thinking again, if an article is only an attack on a creative work, I can accept there is probably enough flexibility to cover it - but it would have to be an unambiguous attack-only article. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that some creative works receive overwhelmingly negative reviews, and the reception of a crative work should be an essential part of its article. Assuming the content isn't vandalism, the speedy nom must be reviewed to see if the commentary is accurately presented -- and, in most cases, if it isn;t reflective of the overall reception, the response should be to add more commentary, not to delete. And the review required should take it out of speedy territory. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• The way G10 is written is wider than BLPs or even people in general. If a page is created for the sole purpose of attacking a film, it can be deleted as G10 since the page does nothing more than attack its subject. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
• Although the focus of G10 is people, the "other entities" will include other things like organisations or creative works. So its use is acceptable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I deliberately waited before replying to see what sort of responses I get. So, basically, attacks on creative works can go under G10 or G3? Adam9007 (talk) 05:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Categorizing Deletion Criteria

One thing that has bothered me in the past about this page is that there is no way to distinguish different aliases for the same template with different templates corresponding to the same criterion. Since all the templates are currently in bullets, I propose putting materially different templates in separate bullets (under the same header). Rabbitflyer (talk) 01:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd try to mock something up to see how it looks. This doesn't seem like a substantive change, so be bold and try it. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I tried it, and am also adding sub-explanations to special tags. Rabbitflyer (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, the new layout is an improvement. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Drafts#RfC on G13

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Drafts#RfC on G13. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

X criteria

Let me start off by saying that I think the use of X criteria, for large groups of pages specifically identified as problematic, is a good thing. I'm proposing a rearrangement, not a fundamental change.

We've created two X criteria in little more than a year, and it's reasonable to assume that more will be created in the future; right now there's a discussion over at WP:AN about creating an X3. It wouldn't be surprising if we have more in the future, and in the long run, lots of "X" criteria will get confusing: how are we supposed to remember whether we need X187 or X178, for example? Instead, I think we should replace X1, X2, and any future X3 to Xinfinity criteria with a single "X" criterion.

X. Extraordinary situations

In certain extraordinary situations, the community has authorized the speedy deletion of large groups of problematic pages. Such groups of pages need to be well defined, and the authorizations need to have a defined expiration.^{[Note 1]}

[scroll down to the notes section]

Authorized uses of this criterion, so far, have been:

• [current Neelix wording] When created, this was referred to as "X1".
• [current content translation wording] When created, this was referred to as "X2".

How's this sound? Nyttend (talk) 00:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how this would help to be honest, all it would do is make it so you can't search by X1 or X2, unless I am missing something. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Giving non-reusable numbers to criteria intended to be temporary is going to be confusing down the road. The current X1 and X2 redirects would be retained, of course, since breaking links is harmful, but instead deletions should give a short rationale. X: Deleting WillyonWheels creations, for example, and someone curious to see what that is can always go to WP:CSD to see what the WoW creations are. Perhaps any current authorisations could sit on the main page, with former authorisations being relegated to the notes. Nyttend (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

If you make the X criteria permanent, there is no reason for the X designation anymore. What you propose is essentially a new G14, a permanent criterion that just changes scope based on community consensus. I don't think it's a good idea though. As Iazyges noted, the reason we use numbered criteria is that even in future, when the problem is contained, people can search for the criterion and find the reasoning. Also, I don't see a the problem that there will be too many X criteria. This policy exists since January 2004 and in the last 13 years we only created two such criteria. Regards SoWhy 07:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The only potentially bad thing about a lot of X criteria is page length, but if thats truly a problem we can split it off and link it, with only the most common ones actually on the page. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Assuming that there won't be hundreds of X criteria active at the same time, the obsolete ones can easily be hidden in a box anyway. Regards SoWhy 13:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I actually think this might work, but we need this criterion available on Twinkle and Page Curation, IMO. Patient Zero^talk 13:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I can definitely get behind adding the X criteria to twinkle. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• I wouldn't think that a G14 would be suitable as you may have more than one campaign going on at a time - as with X1 and X2. Combining would make it harder to find out exactly what was going on. Peridon (talk) 13:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Revenge Tagging

How common or uncommon is frivolous tagging of articles, in particular revenge tagging? I am asking because yesterday two articles that I had created a few years ago were tagged as G2, test pages, in revenge for my tagging of a page as a test page. It wasn't even a plausible act of revenge, to be sure; A7 would have been 'less absurd'. (One could argue that A7 would be inappropriate for Clothru because A7 applies to real people and she was mythological, but still 'less absurd' than test page.) So: How common or uncommon is revenge tagging? (I don't think that revenge tagging is a serious problem, because any reasonable administrator will decline it, and it may result in a block. In the particular case in point, sockpuppets then continued the tagging and were also blocked. So how common or uncommon is it?) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how common it is, but it happened to me on Puzzle & Action: Tant-R (I tagged one of his pages for PROD). In my case, he'd clearly made something up. Adam9007 (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I've seen a few cases. Mostly, they are so obviously wrong that no deletion takes place. Of course, it could happen that a revenge tagging actually hits something that should be deleted, but unless the author squawks loudly we'd never know. Interesting situation that could be. I have seen a case or two of random articles being tagged by a disgruntled 'victim', and of articles on similar subjects ('competitors') being tagged. I don't think it's common enough for anything to need doing about it, and I can't think what TO do about it anyway. Someone might come up with more info. Peridon (talk) 13:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

As was said, usually it is obvious that there should be no deletion. It certainly wasn't a test page in my cases. Obvious misuse of tagging is grounds for a block, which was done. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I've deleted (I'd have to check but more than 10,000) thousands of pages and only seen it a few times so while it's anecdotal, I'd say fairly uncommon. As said though, it's not as if the person will be successful if the pages they revenge tag are not subject to the basis tagged. When I first became an admin I was expecting a lot more attempts at retaliation for deletions but there have been far fewer than I thought there would be. Here's a "successful" one.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Fuhghettaboutit - Those appear to be revenge moves of your talk page, which is even sillier than tagging a stable stub as a test page. The cases I was asking about were tagging a stable article as a test page. I know what would have been a more effective form of revenge, but the beans essay applies. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

A12 - Articles with No Text

I would like to suggest that we need a new speedy deletion criterion, A12, for articles with no text. These are articles that consist of either a properly formed infobox or a malformed infobox. These are at least sometimes the work of clever spammers who know that they have posted something that isn't subject to A1, because there is just barely enough context to avoid A1, isn't subject to A3, and isn't subject to A7, either because it is a product rather than a person, or because the infobox makes what some administrators will consider a credible claim of significance. The encyclopedia definitely doesn't need articles with no text. These stupid no-text articles get indexed by Google during the seven days while the PROD is running. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I think WP:A1, WP:A3 and WP:A7 are sufficient to cover most incidences, and if someone (clever spammer or otherwise) provides enough content (infobox or otherwise) to avoid those then they deserve consideration beyond CSD. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Under the new regime, a newly created article shouldn't be indexed by Google unless they get through new page patrol. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:A3 doesn't apply to an infobox-only article, because the infobox is content. WP:A1 doesn't apply if it is clear what the subject is. My concern had to do in particular with infobox-only drafts for commercial products. As it is, I PROD them. The only drawback is that the spammer may remove the PROD, and we have to go to AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I may be repeating this proposal soon. I continue to see articles with an infobox only (either properly formed or malformed) that do not satisfy any of the A7 criteria. I am aware that they don't get indexed by Google unless there is a mistake by the New Page Patrol reviewer in accepting it. However, I still think that No Text should be a reason in itself to speedy them. The only real issue is whether this is a common enough situation that it needs its own tag, and I think that it is more common than A9. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I have reread the banner at the top of this page about proposing new criteria. It says that they should be Objective, Uncontestable, Frequent, and Nonredundant. Objective and Uncontestable are straightforward. The question is Frequent and Nonredundant. It is non-redundant, because the pages that I have in mind have to do with commercial products, or with films, or with other things that don't go in A7. I think that it is considerably more common than A9. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Have you always searched for sources for these articles you have come across and tried to improve them? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

No. Some pages, including infobox-only articles, are crud, and don't need improving. Some pages need deleting. The only question is whether to delete them via a speedy criterion or via PROD or AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Since when did you become judge and jury of what is "crud" and what isn't? What nonsense. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The CSD rules, in my opinion, provide a lower bound on what is crud. Not every topic that someone creates an article about is notable and deserves to be expanded. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I have been seeing quite a few of these for BLP-Sportspeople, especially football (soccer), where a person/persons create a slew of infobox only articles. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE: "summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored)". If we ignore the infobox on these articles then it is an empty article. This should either fit into A3 as such, or if needed create this new CSD criteria.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree that an article without a single line of text is essentially empty, but A3 as currently wriitten explicitly says an nfl box with relevant information is sufficient to avoid deletion under that criterion. I don't know why people create these articles, if you have info for an info box you should be able to come up with one sentence at least. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• We wouldn't need a new criterion. All that would need to happen if we decide this is a good idea would be to remove Similarly, this criterion does not cover a page having only an infobox, unless its contents also meet another speedy deletion criterion. from A3 and add "infoboxes" to the laundry list first sentence. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

It is certainly not good practice to create infobox-only articles - editors have even been blocked for doing lots of this - but we don't use speedy for poor style and format. Even without further research, anyone could write a one-sentence stub simply reproducing the information in the infobox, after which the article can be assessed in the normal way: Noyster (talk), 10:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't really understand this proposal. If the infobox makes a credible claim of significance, then the article should not be speedied in any case. If the infobox does not make a credible claim of significance, then simply apply A7. I don't understand what need is being met. A2soup (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

My concern has to do, among other things, with infobox-only articles that don't fit any of the A7 categories. These include commercial products and films. I agree that if the infobox is about a person or a company, either A7 applies, or PROD (or BLPPROD for people) is necessary. However, films and commercial products are not subject to A7. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

An Example of No Text

Here is a more or less typical example of the problem of articles with no text: Rebecca's Grave. My contention is that it illustrates that A12 should be added. It doesn't qualify for any A7 because films are not among the candidates for A7, but it has no text, is not yet released, and does not make a credible case for significance. Why shouldn't it be tagged for speedy deletion (other than, of course, that the rules don't currently provide an authority to tag it)? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

The infobox is the equivalent of a chunk of text starting with "Rebecca's Grave is a 2017 Canadian film directed by ... starring ... " etc, with every link a redlink (the couple of blue links in the infobox are clearly not to the film's actors!) I think perhaps there should be more advice to editors on not producing text-free stubs, as mentioned above, leading eventually to their being blocked if they continue to create these infobox-only stubs - as with User_talk:BKPATIL1234#Final_attempt.2Fwarning--call_it_what_you_will, mentioned above.

But perhaps there should be some A7-like category which would include unsourced future films clearly failing WP:NFF, and with no assertion that any notable person is involved as cast or director, through which this one could be made to disappear sooner than having to wait a week for a PROD! Given that "Indepth4 productions" produces 2 ghits, one of the FB, this looks almost like an A11, but perhaps not quite. PamD 15:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

We have A9 for musical recordings: This applies to any article about a musical recording or list of musical recordings where none of the contributing recording artists has an article and that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant (both conditions must be met). - perhaps something similar is needed for films? PamD 15:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, I would agree, but I think that rather than trying to identify every type of infobox-only article and have a way to speedy them, I would prefer just to speedy the infobox-only articles as infobox-only. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: What I was trying to say was that an infobox-only article usually has enough content to make it clear what it's about, a lead sentence could easily be constructed by any editor with a minute to spare, and, although editors who produce these consistently should be warned and ultimately blocked, the articles aren't appropriate to be speedied. On the other hand an article about a film involving no notable persons, no assertion of significane, and no sources should be able to be speedied, analoguously to a similar musical recording. So I'd like to be able to CSD Rebecca's Grave, but not on the grounds of not having an infobox. PamD 19:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

User:PamD - Then you and I are trying to approach the need to CSD more articles from different perspectives. You would need an A7 criterion of a film with no credible claim of significance. At present, films are not among the things to which A7 applies. I would apply it to anything where the author doesn't take the time to write the text. There is probably a reason why films are not included in A7, although consensus could change that too. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Heck I would like to see A7 apply to any article that does not make a credible claim of significance. But, then again, I also think that a sticky-PROD like BLPPROD should be used for all non-RS sourced articles and we all know that is not going to happen either. Oh well... Jbh ^Talk 20:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Infobox-Only (again)

Unless anyone can offer a reason why we shouldn't have a criterion for infobox-only, I will be posting a Request for Comments to add A12. I have PRODed infobox-only articles for films, concert tours, commercial products, and other subjects that don't qualify for A7, and don't qualify for G11 because there isn't any advertising (only promotional intent). Robert McClenon (talk) 04:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I suggest it would be more constructive to create a standard set of user warnings "Creating infobox-only article" which could be used to warn, with increasing severity and the chance of ultimately a block for this variety of disruptive editing. Meanwhile any concerned editor can rescue the articles by assembling at least a lead sentence from the content given in the infobox. PamD 08:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Pam's reasoning. Per WP:ATD, which also applies to speedy deletion of course, we don't delete articles for problem that can (easily) be fixed by editing. I'm sure you could fix the problem of missing text easily, thus deletion is not the real solution. To cite a different example, see Robert Snyder (civil servant). He is probably notable as acting head of a major US government agency but was tagged with A3 because the creating user only added an infobox. It took me ca. five minutes to fix that problem. I believe your approach (and thus any criterion like the one you propose) is a violation of our core editing and deletion policies which is why WP:PRESERVE says "Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't." That's the same reason why A1 and A3 only can be applied if there is insufficient content or context to fix the problem by editing.

Whether films should be added to A9 (not A7 imho since notable participants would always indicate significance) is a different question which might need some discussion (in a separate section). Regards SoWhy 09:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I Agree with this proposal if the following conditions are met:

1. Excluding templates, the article has no content AND

2. The article is about any commercial product or person OR The article was recently speedily deleted.

Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions)

How to categorise "articles" with some non-encyclopedic text in?

Sometimes people write stuff in an article, maybe random text about what they like to eat for dinner or something like that. I'm wondering which of the speedy deletion criteria it would fall under? I'm usually hesitant to call it G3 "vandalism" since that implies some sort of malicious intent, which I'm sure usually isn't the case. Often it seems like G2 "test page" would be better, as that very well may be what it is. Wondering if there's any guideline for this. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Presume you mean the whole article contains only such random text, in which case A1, A7, A11?: Noyster (talk), 10:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with that assessment. If it's clearly someone trying to test editing, G2 applies. Otherwise, I'd consider moving it to their userspace instead. Do you have an example? Regards SoWhy 10:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Those are options too, and the choice would depend on the actual content, its prospects of ever becoming an article or otherwise adding value to WP, and maybe a look at the editor's other contributions if any. The Userfication essay in fact suggests (item 2) quite a wide range of material that can be userfied, and Draft space is available too: Noyster (talk), 00:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Crossposting

There's a CSD/TFD question that I probably should have asked here, but didn't. The discussion is here and could use more input. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Are articles about a sport eligible for A7?

Are articles about a sport itself (as opposed to a sporting event such as a chess tournament) eligible for A7? I've had one such article tagged for {{db-event}}, but it was clearly about the sport itself, not a competition or over sort of event. I removed it because games and sports are not A7-eligible, no? I have since PRODed the article as WP:MADEUP. I did try to discuss my concerns with the tagger, but he made it crystal clear that he is not interested in talking to me, so here we are. Am I missing something, or am I yet again making up my own criteria?

I'm sorry I have to keep asking things like this, but it is really doing my head in. Adam9007 (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider that A7, as A7 scope definitions typically follow from the notability guidelines and sports fairly obviously don't fall under WP:NEVENT. It's too uncommon of a case to warrant a scope expansion for A7, at any rate. There may be a case for A11 (as an idea, which is in the scope of A11) depending on how clearly it was made up, whether it had any credible claim of significance, and so on. Appable (talk | contributions) 21:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, the article in question claimed the sport has spread across many US states, and reached Costa Rica. I treated that as a claim of significance, hence why I PRODed it rather than A11. Adam9007 (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

By my reading, articles about a sport are not eligible for A7 as written. However, I doubt we want articles like Terryball floating around in mainspace for a week. I would absolutely include an expansion of A7 to include sports. This seems to be a somewhat common issue in my experience. Tazerdadog (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd want to see some evidence that sports articles with no credible claim of significance are common, because I've never noticed that (which is one of the main reasons why I tend to oppose scope expansions of A7: no demonstrable need). Appable (talk | contributions) 21:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I've come across two or three other cases in the course of my wiki-career. Common may be overstating it, but they are not unheard of. I'm sure we can dig for statistics if people want to pursue this further, but I'm not convinced that it is a big deal. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Why isn't this G3 as a hoax? It's obviously not real. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I've just deleted it under A11. The original A7 decline was perfectly valid (sports aren't events, just as literary genres aren't books) but this has obviously been invented by someone known to the article creator. Hut 8.5 22:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

F12 Criteria

Can a new criteria for files be made for files that have no encyclopedic use? In my opinion it could help with backlogs, and allow photos that are useless to be purged much faster. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

This would be great. Uncontroversial deletions of such files make WP:FFD backlogged. The criterion would also mirror Wikimedia Commons' c:COM:Deletion policy#Out of scope. As with Commons, one should consider if files that are in use (anywhere in the project: in userpages, talk pages, etc.) are always automatically within scope (without being necessarily "encyclopedic", as this proposal has it). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I would think the consensus will be that unencyclopedic files in userpace may need to go to XFD, but personally I would like them to be FFDable. I think exceptions for this could be made for high-quality images of well known individuals in the community, or people who are confirmed dead. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

May work better as a Prod like process, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, unlike with article PROD, it's very unlikely for a file to be fixed, like an article can be. Generally such files will never have any use. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

However, a Prod is easier to contest. And given how fuzzy "unencyclopedic" can be, easy contestation is a plus. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

That makes sense. Perhaps a Prod and CSD could be made. CSD would be for blatant case, prod would be for fuzzy cases. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Pinging @Fastily and BU Rob13: As they commonly close FFD's, and will likely be interested. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I would strongly support a PROD system for files; 99% of the unencyclopedic files listed at FfD don't warrant a discussion, and are essentially deleted on a REFUND-able basis anyways. I can envision such a system reducing clutter at FfD, making it so that files genuinely need of discussion are not drowning in a sea of noncontroversial nominations. -FASTILY 02:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you think the 7 day time period of Article PROD would be good, or do you think that it should be shorter? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Let's go with 7 days; it's long enough so that interested parties can contest the deletion and short enough so that the file doesn't sit around forever. -FASTILY 03:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good. Shall I start writing the RFC now or do we wait for BU Rob? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

You can always start drafting in your user space :) Feel free to ping me if there's anything I can do to help. -FASTILY 04:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Iazyges, make sure that both the WP:DEL and WP:PROD allow this kind of deletion, and if they don't, suggest changes to those. Here's my take: PROD only recognizes deletions of "articles", so I'd say under current policy, files can't be PRODed. DEL recognizes the deletion of "obsolete" files, but no effort is made to define it (old files? NOWCOMMONS files? superceded files? unencyclopedic files?). I don't think we necessarily need a special PROD category (since PROD lets you fill in any reason), just the relevant policies to allow us to PROD files and recognize unencyclepedic nature as a deletion reason. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I would support this provided that all closers here agree that we should decline PRODs and send things to FfD if they're not clear-cut. I'd recommend also restricting PROD to things other than copyright concerns. Unused, out of scope, low quality, etc. can all be handled by PROD, but we often need some eyes on copyright situations. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

That sounds good, I personally would support, but I am not sure if I speak for the crowd. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• @BU Rob13, Fastily, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and Finnusertop: The current draft of the proposal is here. Feel free to add comments and suggestions. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Iazyges: I disagree that WP:DEL doesn't allow us to delete unencyclopedic images. Unencyclopedic images aren't suitable for the encyclopedia, so WP:DEL#14 applies. We absolutely don't want to put up the idea of no longer allowing unencyclopedic files to be deleted to a vote, lest we become the next Brexit. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

You're right, I have no idea how I missed that, I'll fix the RFC immediately. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Alright, it has been fixed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• Firstly, "files that have no encyclopedic use" is too open to interpretation, making it unsuited to speedy deletion. Secondly, some files meant for use in the userspace would be eligible for deletion under this wording. I would strongly oppose such a criteria. However, I'm open to considering a proposed deletion type system.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 06:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The RFC being drafted is based entirely on PRODing. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I usually steer clear of Files, but I too would think the use of the word 'unencyclopaedic' could cause problems. With text, something like "Hi folks!!!!! Here's some shit about Pronky Fidgettt!!!" is very definitely unencyclopaedic anywhere on WP (except here, of course...). But exactly how is a File defined as unencyclopedic? A very shaky and distant pic of someone alleged to be Pronky Fidgettt (the well-known up and coming rapper about to drop his first single on soundcloud)? A pic of a user who has edited from 2010 to date for use on their userpage? Or what? Peridon (talk) 11:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Up for the Admin to decide. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

On Commons, they do a better job of defining scope for images, Peridon. See c:COM:SCOPE. We basically steal their policy, in terms of general practice. Of note, if an image depicts something with an article, it's automatically in scope/encyclopedic (with perhaps common sense exceptions for obviously inappropriate images - Obama photoshopped onto the body of Hitler, etc). A limited number of personal files from someone with contributions is fine (or at least deserve an FfD). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I've made a proposed definition of unencylopedic based upon commons scope:

1. It is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Cannot be used in any article, either for an article about the image, or with the image used in any useful role. Use on talk pages do not count. (The article requirement does not apply to "maintenance" or "Wikipedia" images such as amboxes, or barnstars, for obvious reasons.)
2. It is a "vanity image", i.e. Pictures of users, or else files only usable by that user (such as a file signature), who have made few contributions to the English Wikipedia, or short-term users have been inactive for a long time without explanation. (Confirmed dead users whose user page serves as a memorial page are exempt from the inactivity restriction.)

what do you think? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Not so sure about the short term users - I take it that their contribs are sufficient to exclude them from the first part of that section. Some specialist users do make contribs with several years gap. If their contribs have been OK, they should perhaps be allowed a pic on their user page. Not a gallery... Although, they probably aren't the sort of people to go for that anyway. I'm also not sure about "Use on talk pages do not count.". Should be 'does' for a start (agreeing with 'use' not 'pages' - yes, I am a nitpicking proofer...), but I'm not sure how use on talk pages comes into play. I rarely see Files on talk pages - mainly trout, Winter Seasonal cards, New Year fireworks, barnstars etc, or images that are obviously used elsewhere with their correct captions replaced by something humorous. Do they appear much in places I don't get to? Peridon (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

By short term users it's supposed to imply they made a few edits in a couple weeks or so, then left without adding a "break" template. The talk page is to prevent people protecting their files by arbitrarily adding it in to a talk page. People adding them in to talk doesn't happen much as of now, but it does happen. Without that criteria people may try to circumvent deletion by posting it to a random talk page, and then that would make the whole thing pointless as it would have to go to FFD to be deleted. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't work with Files as such and haven't come across that trick. Also the short term ones you are thinking of aren't the ones I was. Possibly needs clarifying - how short a term and how many years ago. We have some editors that like to have everything clearly laid out with no wiggle room. Things are improving, though, in one case at least. To get a new criterion through needs answers to things like 'How many cases per week?' and 'Is there really a need?'. I don't need convincing, but the !voters will. (BTW I've never even uploaded a pic - I went off on my bike once to get one of something, got a nice one, came home and found someone else had beaten me to it...) Peridon (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I have dropped the "short term" issue from the RFC draft, as the "low contribs" will likely be a catch all regardless. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd probably say that files used anywhere or keeplocal'd are not eligible, but ignore the contributions otherwise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@Iazyges: Is this worth bringing to WP:VPP? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: BU Rob13 and I are ironing out the details of the RFC. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:A5 Question

Another New Page Reviewer, User: Cyrus noto3at bulaga has in good faith tagged Mr. O Band as A5. It is an article in Spanish about a band that, based on my limited knowledge of Spanish, makes no claim of notability and does not appear to make a credible claim of significance. I think that this was a good-faith incorrect tagging, and that A7 was in order. It appears to me that A5 would only apply if the article had previously been moved to the Spanish Wikipedia. It appears to me that A5 is meant to be used rarely, for a page that is already properly in another WMF wiki. Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I have in past done the same thing, but been instructed that A5 is only if it exists on another wiki, and the text is the same language. I argue that this is the best use of it, but it may need clarification. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

You are almost correct. A5 only applies when it's something for another wiki but it specifically mentions that the article's content has to be a "dictionary definition" or "primary source" and that in other cases it only applies if there was consensus to move it elsewhere at AfD. None of those apply here. For the record, A2 would have been incorrect as well since it does not have an article at es-wiki. As A2 says, such articles should be tagged {{not english}} instead if the content does not meet any other criterion. In this case, A7 was borderline (it did include this link after all which might be considered a RS) but I assume Mfield meant to use this criterion when deleting. Regards SoWhy 07:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I would add that the second part (the discussion thing) only applies after a successful transwiki-ing has been made. That is, no discussion - no A5, no transwiki-ing, no A5. I can't remember seeing an A5 in the time I've been an admin, except perhaps for one that got transwikied to the Luanda WP (which was a right load of hassle). Peridon (talk) 12:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. As I thought, A5 is a relatively rare criterion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Deleting user pages of LTA socks

My addition of the {{Db-lta}} template, which I created earlier, has been reverted by Euryalus. I believe the template would be useful as I have, in this past, come across multiple situations where user pages and user talk pages of LTA socks have been created, against consensus at MfD discussions, and then speedily deleted, and it would save having to provide a custom rationale when speedy-tagging these pages. Thoughts? Linguist^talk|contribs 22:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Reason for the revert is here. It is good practice to seek consensus on new CSD criteria, even if you consider them uncontroversial. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. So, why do you think this fails #3? Linguist^talk|contribs 22:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

(ec)Me? Not sure that it does, but i wonder how often we are actually seeing offensive but non-identical userpages created by confirmed socks of LTA's, such that this needs calling out as its own CSD criteria. It seems a very narrow use-case, but if you're seeing a lot of these it would be good to have some detail posted here so it can be considered by the community in this discussion. In passing, thanks for agreeing to bring this here for debate. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I believe the user pages of certain LTAs have been to MfD and can be easily G4'd (others should not be deleted without cause). {{db-lta}} says as much. I also believe there is no consensus to delete talk pages of LTAs which consist solely of warnings. RBI would be better in those circumstances. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Supreme Genghis Khan's talk pages were all deleted, but that not what's relevant here. The problem with the G4 tagging is that the pages created are brand new; deleted ones are never recreated. Linguist^talk|contribs 22:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Some examples would be great, to properly evaluate the frequency. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

If the deletion consensus was to delete all their sock-tagged pages, although it might not always prevent their creation, it should certainly assist their deletion under G4. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

User talk:ClubGK, User talk:I have an unhealthy obsession for trolling Sro23, User talk:Chicken & Beef Pork, User talk:Genghis Khan des Etats-Unis d'Amerique. Linguist^talk|contribs 22:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that if you're relying on a deletion discussion for the deletion, it belongs firmly in G4, where it's already covered. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Euryalus and Zzuuzz: Then I'll propose this: just like we have {{db-spam}} and {{db-spamuser}} under G11, where the templates are worded similarly, but one is specifically intended for a user whose username is a UNP violation, I'll change the template's criterion to G4. I don't think, for user pages like this, the {{db-g4}} template will work on its own, due to its wording and the "you can improve it but don't untag if you created it yourself". Of course, the user page must be deleted per the relevant deletion discussion, so they can't be "improved" in any way, and the tag should be removed if the sockmaster's and previous socks' pages were not deleted. Also, I'm not sure if the user who creates a user page needs notification of the deletion, since the deletion would be entirely uncontroversial, but it may let them know not to warn or socktag socks of that particular user again. As Zzuuzz said, the template is worded similarly to {{db-g4}} anyway (it's just directed specifically at user pages), so I think this would work, and it would be preferable to scrapping the new template entirely. Linguist^talk|contribs 04:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: I've temporarily moved the template into my own user space until this discussion concludes. Linguist^talk|contribs 10:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think some simplification to the wording of the template based on the G4 template would work. It's difficult to think of other uses for such a template, so I see no problem with having it at its previous dedicated name. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm opposed to blondly dleeting all LTA user talk pages. Among other things, a user amy be mis-identified. Note that some LTAs use attack user names - and those are covered by G10. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

There was a consensus to delete all Supreme Genghis Khan's user talk pages. Some usernames attack other users, but not all. It becomes very obvious it's him when he starts e.g. spamming images of Genghis Khan or doing the things he does regularly, described at WP:LTA/SGK. G10 doesn't always apply, as while the usernames attack other users, the pages themselves don't always attack other users. Some user talk page are created by ClueBot NG when warning the user; one reason why I originally suggested the template be put under G6 as entirely non-controversial deletion. Linguist^talk|contribs 08:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

First off, thanks for the amount of effort you've put into this, and thanks also for the talkpage message alerting me to the proposal. Regrettably I agree with Od Misheshu and Zzuzz there are already options within G4 and G10 for many of these pages, and I'm not convinced there are enough other cases to justify adding a new criteria. Also agree with Od Micheshu that there are occasions where deleting a suspected or actual LTA sock talkpage is counterproductive. Taken together, these leave me on the side of opposing the proposed addition to CSD. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:G4 seems a kludgey choice: doesn't that specifically require that a user's page is deleted at MfD and then recreated? These pages ought to qualify under WP:G5 with no discussion required. For the Supreme Genghis Khan situation, use WP:G6 housekeeping and refer to the discussion where it was agreed to delete the pages, we did that for tens of thousands of the Neelix redirects, although that eventually became a special case. As for mass-deletion of all user pages of long-term abuse cases, I think you'll find that consensus does not support that blanket action. Besides, isn't the standard for those sorts of cases to just redirect the user page to the LTA page, i.e. User:Grawp~enwiki? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Agreed re G4 in most cases, and agreed re consensus not to support a blanket action. My argument is that there are various avenues to deal with most of the already small number of occasions where this issue arises, to the point where we don't need to create another special mechanism. G4 will occasionally suit, G10 will occasionally suit, so will G6 and so will redirecting or doing nothing at all. Neelix needed calling out for its own criteria because there were thousands upon thousands of pages. In this instance we are talking about a handful only, and they're sufficiently covered by what we already have available. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Any page with an attack name may be deleted under G10, even if created in good faith (e.g ClueBot NG). To quote G10: Both the page title and page content may be taken into account in assessing an attack. Other CSDs which may apply are G5 for self-created pages, and G4 for individual pages which had previously been deleted. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Infobox-Only Articles (yet again)

Well, I had been planning a Request for Comments to add A12, articles with no article text, only an infobox or malformed infobox. I think that it still would be a good idea, but I don't think that I will propose it, because it appears that I won't get consensus support for a mixture of reasons. I see that most editors (with a few exceptions) agree that infobox-only articles should be deleted somehow. (It appears that a few editors here are what I will call radical inclusionists, and think that an infobox, or any other very incomplete article, should be treated as a Requested Article, and that the job of the New Page Patroller is to keep Wikipedia clean by turning all of the crud into good stuff. I realize that comment sounds snarky, but I feel a little snarky about some of the comments that I see about very incomplete articles.) I see that some of the editors here think that the real problem is that A7, A9, etc., should be more inclusive, to delete non-notable articles. I wouldn't mind seeing A7, etc., expanded, but I think that the real problem is clever spammers who are figuring out how to fly under the CSD radar, and that they are not limited to any one topic, such as films or commercial products. I don't think that I will be proposing A12 unless other editors express support, but I think that it would be helpful if there were consensus for it. Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'd agree somewhat, but there doesn't need to be a new criterion. Just remove Similarly, this criterion does not cover a page having only an infobox, unless its contents also meet another speedy deletion criterion. from A3. If an article has no prose, there's no content. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• I don't think this is a good idea. If an article with just an infobox doesn't meet A1 then it has enough content to identify what the subject of the article is, which means it would be easy for anyone to write a lead sentence from the contents of the infobox, at which point the article no longer qualifies for the suggested criterion. Speedy deletion shouldn't be used for such an easy-to-fix problem. Hut 8.5 19:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• If the situation like we had before is common, with users mass creating obviously promotional product profiles with basically nothing but an infobox, and doing so apparently intentionally to circumvent CSD, I fully support removing the infobox exception from the existing criteria. I think if it could be shown to be largely a good faith problem with regular stub creators it would be different. But as far as I can tell with the phone article situation, it was an obvious COI editor saying Screw you, I found a loophole. Now you either have to fix these articles for me or accept the fact that they're going to languish in main space indefinitely. TimothyJosephWood 20:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

  Do you have a link about the phone article situation for those of us who are out of the loop?Tazerdadog (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• Here is the previous discussion from this talk. Here was one of the more substantial AfD discussions which resulted in no consensus. Here was the user in question, who sprung to life, created nine product stubs (one was speedied), and then disappeared. TimothyJosephWood 20:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• Disagree. I'll just quote myself from the previous section you created about this topic a few days ago:

I agree with Pam's reasoning. Per WP:ATD, which also applies to speedy deletion of course, we don't delete articles for problem that can (easily) be fixed by editing. I'm sure you could fix the problem of missing text easily, thus deletion is not the real solution. To cite a different example, see Robert Snyder (civil servant). He is probably notable as acting head of a major US government agency but was tagged with A3 because the creating user only added an infobox. It took me ca. five minutes to fix that problem. I believe your approach (and thus any criterion like the one you propose) is a violation of our core editing and deletion policies which is why WP:PRESERVE says "Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't." That's the same reason why A1 and A3 only can be applied if there is insufficient content or context to fix the problem by editing.

Whether films should be added to A9 (not A7 imho since notable participants would always indicate significance) is a different question which might need some discussion (in a separate section). Regards SoWhy 09:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Not much to add. Calling those who argue in favor of simply following the existing editing and deletion policies "radical inclusionists" might offend some people and rightly so (someone more snarky than me might wonder if you shouldn't drop some kind of wooden tool). Regards SoWhy 20:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• Disagree: if an article has an infobox any editor can easily create a well-formed lead sentence in next to no time. It's not appropriate to CSD these articles. On the other hand, we need to censure editors who create such text-free articles, using a set of "User warning" templates, so that if an editor persists they can be warned appropriately and ultimately blocked if they refuse to change their ways. PamD 21:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

And of course any article with no references, and no text asserting anything at all, can be PRODded on the basis of "No evidence of any notability" (whether or not some kind soul has created a lead sentence from the infobox content), so is unlikely to Languish in main space indefinitely if it's not appropriate. I think the concern that this is a "loophole" is misplaced. PamD 22:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I think we all want to guard against encroachment upon good faith edits. But would those in opposition support a provision against specifically spamming these types of articles? ...In the sense of...if a user posts one of these it's not eligible, but if a user obviously spamming them, they should, as a whole, qualify for CSD? TimothyJosephWood 00:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• Spamming is too subjective. If there is consensus on another board that a user is spamming articles in an effort to avoid CSD, then a multi-article AfD nomination may be applicable (probably with a concern of notability or promotional content). Regardless, that sounds like a case too nuanced and too minor to develop a criterion around. Appable (talk | contributions) 01:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• Agree. If it were really that obvious that the only reason for those articles was to disrupt, G3 would be applicable anyway. Regards SoWhy 07:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I partly agree with User:PamD that any editor can easily create a well-formed lead sentence in next to no time if an article has an infobox, but think that misses a point. If an article has a reasonably complete infobox, that is true. (If the infobox is very incomplete, as it sometimes is, one can create a very incomplete lead sentence.) I admit that I don't look at the details of infoboxes to see if they are complete. However, I cannot recall ever having seen an infobox-only article that, in my opinion, deserved to be tagged for improvement. That is, every infobox-only article that I have seen deserved to be tagged for some sort of deletion. Conceptually, an infobox-only article is like a one-sentence article. One-sentence articles may deserve to be tagged for deletion (not notable, incomprehensible, whatever), tagged for improvement, or occasionally actually kept as stubs (a species, a named place). However, I have never seen an infobox-only article that deserved to be tagged for improvement rather than tagged for deletion. I agree that infobox-only articles are not likely to "languish in main space indefinitely" because they can always be PRODed. (After I PROD one of them, I very seldom see it dePRODed, although anyone is entitled to dePROD an article for any reason, so I think that indicates that the spammer was seeing if he could fly spam under the radar, and doesn't want to bother to go to AFD.) I agree with User:Timothyjosephwood that we all want to guard against "encroachment on good faith edits", but I have never seen an infobox-only article that I considered a good-faith edit. I have seen one-sentence articles that were good-faith edits that I tagged as needing improvement. (A few hours ago, I saw a one-sentence article saying that someone had been appointed as an ambassador. I tagged it as a stub needing a reference. More commonly, one-sentence articles deserve deleting.) So I personally think that all infobox-only articles are crud and need deleting. That is my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't have time to search for examples but I can assure you that I have seen and reworked some infobox-only articles created in good faith. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 05:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Here is the example I cited above at the time of creation. Do you think, this article should have been deleted instead? Regards SoWhy 07:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The editor who created that one has created at least two infobox-only stubs, but no-one has commented on his talk page to stress the importance of including text from the start and criticise the textlessness of these stubs ... until I did so just now, along with a formal level 1 warning of "disruptive editing" (though I had to tweak the message left by the template). PamD 08:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I've made a suggestion at Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace#Warning_for_creating_infobox-only_articles.3F. Do join in the discussion there. PamD 09:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

<-Here is another example to consider: Yehiel_Bar. If I had known anything about Israeli politics I might have left it, but we can't expect admins to know all of the world's political structures. --Versageek 15:29, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

(ec)There's a Jan 2013 discussion of that and similar stubs at User_talk:Od_Mishehu/Archive15#Your_recent_edits, including the statements "I figured that since the infobox is enough to survive speedy deletion, ... that I could subsequently work on the articles later on." and "You might find not every admin would view nothing but an infobox sufficient". PamD 16:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

You don't have to know all about the world, doing a basic online research usually isn't that complicated (certainly shouldn't be for admins active at CAT:CSD) and can often help to form an opinion: Is there a possibility to improve and enrich this project? Sometimes I lack creativity when I check the CSD backlog. People just read what is posted, tag an article, tag the creator and continue without looking around. I know they aren't obliged to do the work but I think our new page patrol would be a better place with using more creativity. To me, working at new pages and with CSD nominations is an improved and intelectually more demanding version of doing crosswords :) But I digress. Infobox-only content cannot be a CSD criterion, as the infobox can contain crucial information to develop a notable topic. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Yehiel Bar, it's rather easy to write one sentence from the material in the infobox in this: "Yehiel Bar is an Israeli politician and member of the Knesset". I didn't have to do any research beyond clicking on one link provided. Hut 8.5 18:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I could be entirely wrong, but doesn't sound like there's any evidence infobox-only articles are the problem. Instead, they may be a symptom of spamming - which I think can be handled by other speedy deletion criteria or PROD/multi-AfD if needed. I therefore question whether the infobox-only article criterion is really targeting the right problem, or instead targeting a general symptom that could potentially indicate spamming or could simply be a good-faith contribution by an inexperienced editor. Appable (talk | contributions) 19:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - if the infobox has enough information to survive other CSDs, the article shouldn't be speedy deleted. For A7/A9/A11 (CSDs for subjects which lack improtance), all links in the infobox should be considered before saying that there is no such claim. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose The purpose of Wikipedia is to add to reader's understanding. So removing suitable topic pages is not the way to go. Infobox only articles are usually just under construction. There can be other reasons to delete, such as BLPPROD, or A7 if they are justified. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Disallow nonsense characters in redirects, or else make a CSD for them

As the title says, people should either be disallowed by edit filter from adding in useless/nonsense characters, such as ᶘ, as every redirect I've ever seen it in has been deleted, or else a CSD (R1 or A12) should be made. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

R3 covers good-faith creations that are implausible. G3 covers bad-faith creations. A new criterion is not really needed. As for requesting an edit filter, see Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested. Regards SoWhy 19:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@SoWhy: The problem with R3 is that it only covers recently created ones. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm trying to remember a case of nonsense characters in a redirect - and failing. Does this happen often (and I'm missing them)? Peridon (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Are you referring to long s? There's an RFD currently open concerning a redirect with a 'long s', and it doesn't look like it's going to be deleted (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 11#Congrefs). If you know of other redirects you think should be deleted, your best option is to take them to WP:RFD. A new CSD criteron is not going to happen. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It would be very difficult to determine the exact meaning and scope needed for such a criterion (i.e. what would explicitly qualify for deletion under it). Such cases are seemingly better suited for redirects for discussion. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 21:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't G1 apply if the redirect is total nonsense? Adam9007 (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

If it successfully redirects, and the title has some meaning, then it is probably not patent nonsense. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Reversion trumps deletion (G12, copyright infringement)

This article gives an example of how mindless deletion is unconstructive, and an article reversion to a previous state will often be preferable, as a policy which applies not only in case of G12 violation. Why deletion anyway? --liquider 16:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liquider (talk • contribs)

No speedy deletion criterion applies unless all revisions of a page meet the criterion. That sometimes admins make mistakes and ignore this rule does not mean the rule does not apply. That some admins make more such mistakes than others is unfortunate but not really a problem with the policy but with the admin in question and thus can and should not be discussed here but possibly on a noticeboard regarding user conduct. Regards SoWhy 17:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hitomi Tanaka

The Hitomi Tanaka page has been put up for speedy deletion based on the argument of "is substantially identical to the deleted version" that was based off of her not meeting WP:BIO and WP:GNG. No one except admins can see the old version of the page, so we can't go off of that, but we do know the discussion was over whether she met WP:BIO and WP:GNG. I believe I have provided sufficient sources to prove that she is since she won an AVN award, appeared on TV Tokyo, has 430+ films to her name and has sources from The New York Daily News, Playboy and The Score Group amongst others. I don't know what the previous user who posted this article put up, but these seem more than enough to pass the notoriety test.ChiefWahooMcDonalds (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The reviewing admin will check whether the page is substantially the same, so the tagger not being able to check it is not a problem. I declined the speedy solely based on those sources since the previous article did not contain them but I sincerely doubt that she now passes any notability guideline. Alas, this is for a new AfD to decide. In future, please restrict your comments on the worthiness of an article to its talk page which will be read by the reviewing admin before deciding. This page is solely for discussing the policy itself and such posts might be considered canvassing. Regards SoWhy 07:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

CSD proposal

There is a thread at ANI which has suggested a new CSD criteria similar to X1. Your input is appreciated. Primefac (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

X2 revision

The proposed edit is this one. Please see my talk page for the background; but essentially the problem is that the inherent confusion between speedy deletion and snow in the current wording is not very helpful. The discussion that established this criterion can be reviewed at WP:AN/CXT, and I believe my proposed wording more accurately reflects what the community actually said. Pinging @Dank: at his request.—S Marshall T/C 21:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not involved, but I do want to stay informed. - Dank (push to talk) 22:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The straw poll there actually does include wording to the effect that the reviewing admin has to believe it would be snow-deleted at AFD. This is both surprising and appalling to me - the one because I don't remember noticing it as the AN discussion was playing out, and would certainly have spoken out against it; the other because the "AFD is not cleanup" culture is so ingrained that it'll snow-keep articles where the majority of statements are known to be false, let alone ones like these where a minority of statements are reasonably likely to be. I can't imagine an article properly deleteable under X2 as written that wouldn't also be speedyable under some other criterion. I'm all in favor of removing the clause. —Cryptic 22:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

RFC drafter here. The reason I included that clause was to emphasize that the bar of certainty for X2 was to be set quite high. The intention was for borderline cases to be sent to AFD. It also tried to tie in with the Neelix X1 criterion to try to set a standard for X-series criterion discussions.

However, I do have a lot of deference to the people who are actually performing the cleanup. While the clause was very intentional, I am open to the possibility that it is incorrect. Given that @S Marshall: tells me that the wording is problematic, and he's been doing the bulk of the cleanup, I'd be inclined to allow him lots of influence in the wording of the CSD should be. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

If the point is to blindly delete all those articles, an admin bot could do it: Review article, check if history contains any major edits, delete. I think the point is that sometimes an AfD will end in delete despite the notability of the topic because of the rationale behind WP:TNT; X2 should cover those cases. In all other cases, it would probably be a benefit for the project to keep the machine translated version instead of having no article about the topic. The proposed wording would eliminate them all, even if the machine translation is good enough to actually inform readers. Tagging those articles for cleanup would suffice though. Regards SoWhy 14:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd be happy to support changing the first sentence of the criterion to

"This applies to any page created by the content translation tool prior to 27 July 2016, if the reviewing admin reasonably believes that it is faster to make an acceptable article on the topic by starting from scratch rather than using the existing article."

Or something like that. This would be a significant change that we should solicit wider input on, but might make the cleanup process go more smoothly. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2017

No, guys, this is wrong. These articles were generated by scripts. They were not checked. They are not better than nothing. They're worse.

Last week I dealt with an article machine translated from French. I tagged it for X2 and one of Wikipedia's more intelligent sysops, who usually has good judgment, declined it. She cleaned up the translation (and she does speak French) and moved on. I went to her talk page and pointed out that the script had screwed up -- this was a BLP and it had the subject married to the wrong bloke. She went back and deleted it.

I can't do that level of fact checking in every case, folks. There are 3600 to check and this is mostly a solo effort by me. If you're going to put bureaucracy in the way of the deletions then you need to help with the checking, and that does mean reading all the sources in every article you check.—S Marshall T/C 00:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

If your evaluation is correct @S Marshall:, then the appropriate response is a belated nuke, not a weakening of X2. If you say that that is the situation with these articles, I'm inclined to believe you, as you have but a lot of time in the trenches on this one. Another option is a mass-move to draftspace, followed by checking from there. In any case, the proper venue for that discussion is probably WP:AN. Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 01:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a nuke, just a rewording of X2 that makes it quick and simple to remove a script-generated article which a human believes is unsatisfactory. —S Marshall T/C 01:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

One approach that has worked well for me in the X1 cleanup is to create a new section in the cleanup list (call it X2 nominees or something). The understanding is that every page moved to that section has been nominated X2. The paged are not tagged with a CSD notice. Periodically, an admin who is familiar with the cleanup then goes through, checks or spot-checks the articles in that section, and deletes or retains them as appropriate. This works well because the admin evaluating the speedies is usually very knowledgeable about the history of the cleanup (they would not miss that X2's have a pattern of non-obvious translation-induced blp violations for example), and the normal CSD queue is not flooded by x-series nominations. Perhaps this workflow will work better in this case? If you are dead-set on amending the criterion, we can absolutely have that discussion, but I'd encourage you to try this workflow first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tazerdadog (talk • contribs) 02:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Would it be possible please just to make the amendment I asked for? Thanks very much.—S Marshall T/C 13:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I still don't understand your logic. You are saying that those articles should all be deleted if no one else has cleaned them up, right? But consensus as determined by the closing admin at AN was that there

... is a consensus, however, to approach these new temporary criteria with a degree of caution. Note that they do not authorize administrators to delete any page created by CXT. Administrators must apply judgment and speedily delete only CXT articles that would obviously require more effort to fix than to start from scratch.

I fail to see how your proposed change, i.e. "delete if there is no non-CXT version", can possibly be considered the same as "delete only if fixing would be more effort than starting from scratch". I understand that you are doing the work almost single-handily and I applaud your effort but that alone cannot suffice to overwrite the consensus that led to X2's creation in the first place. Regards SoWhy 18:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Closer didn't envisage that this'd be done by so few editors, or that it'd take us this best part of a year to get 10% done. But if you'd like to be obstructive and bureaucratic about this then I can't stop you. I do hope I'll see you pulling your weight with the cleanup from now on?—S Marshall T/C 20:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Please do avoid such straw men, okay? Neither whether I or anyone else helps or does not help nor whether it took much longer than envisioned does change the fact that the current wording does reflect consensus and your proposal does not. And me pointing this out is not "obstructive and bureaucratic". Consensus can change but it takes a new discussion. Regards SoWhy 21:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Hardly a straw man. I've shown you why the current wording is useless, and I've shown you inaccurate BLPs in our queue eight months on. This should prompt you to be accommodating and flexible. We're talking about a CSD criterion that applies to a finite list of 3600 articles which was rightly established after a brief discussion that fell well short of an RFC and was poorly worded from the get go. I want to apply an impromptu fix to an impromptu fix. You should be helping me.—S Marshall T/C 22:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Again, I'm not arguing for or against the change you propose, I'm merely pointing out that the change does not reflect current consensus. That is the "straw man" on your part, defending your change as sensible (which it might be) instead of reflecting consensus (which it definitely does not). Regards SoWhy 07:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

If you were minded to be helpful and supportive, then you could have (a) suggested how to achieve a consensus you would approve of, (b) started the process, and (c) expressed a reasoned view as Cryptic did. His has been the only contribution to the debate so far that in any way moves us forward; I feel bogged down in bureaucracy and process. I note the community decided it was needless to go to RFC on this a long time ago, and I don't expect to be told that a full RFC is needed to put a sticking plaster on a short term fix.

My position is still that the community wanted to authorise the deletion of these articles after a human has reviewed them and if the closer thought otherwise then he misread the debate and mistook a minority view for the consensus. That discussion was far more hostile to these articles than the closing statement was. Please do not respond by advising me about the process to change a close, though; I'm looking for a response that is neither process-focused nor bureaucratic, but outcome-focused and productive.—S Marshall T/C 13:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The three of us are not likely to come to an agreement at this point. I would suggest an RFC is in order to hammer out how exactly the criterion should read. I would also encourage you to try a modified workflow, or a smaller edit to the criterion, see if it resolves the problem, and come back if it does not. I am sympathetic to your concerns, and I understand the need to dispose of problematic articles quickly, but surely there should be some provision to prevent throwing out the baby with the bathwater Tazerdadog (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's preposterous and bitterly disappointing. Since you're taking this attitude I will post on WP:AN seeking consensus for a general nuke of all these articles; it's the least time wasting solution at this point.—S Marshall T/C 23:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)