Wikipedia talk:Field guide to proper speedy deletion

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Initial thoughts

Hey Jeff -- this is good stuff. I have a few notes, but since this is in your userspace right now I'm not going to edit directly. Under G7 you might mention user blanking, and you might also mention the business about G7'ing a redirect left behind from a page move. You might note under G11 that A7 and G12 can often apply to the cases that merely have "questionable tone". (Especially G12. That stuff isn't easy to write, it's probably ripped from the company website.) Under A1 - I disagree, this criterion actually comes up a lot, especially when A7 doesn't apply in the strictest sense. Imagine an aritlce like "Dave Smith is the captain of the football team at Jefferson High. He is famous for his ability to play drums, which is said to rival John Bohnam's." A7 maybe does and maybe doesn't apply, but A1 certainly does - there could be hundreds of Jefferson Highs out there and a great many Dave Smiths who once attended one. Or, on the other hand, there might (somehow) only be one. But the lack of context makes it impossible for a non-psychic editor to improve the article, which is what kills it. Mango juice^talk 20:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps some more clarification would work on A1, as you do have a point. But edit at will - it's just something I'm playing around with. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G8

You say that "As long as the article's talk page doesn't predate articles for deletion (when deletion discussions took place on article talk pages as opposed to a centralized location), talk pages of deleted articles generally get deleted." however, it sometimes happes that discussion on whether to file an AfD, or why an article is or isn't a speedy, or resposnes to an AfD, wind up on teh talk apge, or discussiuons of why or under what circumstances a future editor should or shouldn't create a new article at that title. In any of these cases, the talk page may well be left undeleted. DES ^(talk) 00:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may, but it still qualifies for speedy as I understand it. I've been through too many Talk page DRVs with the same result using the same rationale to know of anything different. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A1

I would emphasize that having context means that you can figure out where and how to look for more information. No context means that you have no way to know what the article is really about, and no way to find out. DES ^(talk) 00:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that not clear? I tried to make it clear. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think also that there should be more emphasis placed on little context, not just no context. Your example of Joe, Montana is an interesting one, but if the place does not exist, then there is indeed little context. Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Joe, Montana is a real place. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! But that still doesn't answer my question, which is if it doesn't exist... let's replace, for the sake of this discussion, Joe, Montana with Fred, Montana. If it doesn't exist, then it can be argued that there is little context. Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R2

Please note the exception for WP: style shortcuts. DES ^(talk) 00:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I4, I5, and I6

Please note that all of these absolutely require that the image have been tagged for 7 days, and a history check is needed before the image is deleted. DES ^(talk) 00:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notifing users

Please emphasize that when tagging soemthing for speedy delete it is strongly encourged to notify the origianl creator that it has been so tagged. DES ^(talk) 01:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General note

Feel free to make any edits you'd like to this. Seriously! --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G11 addition

First off, I would like to thank you for an excellent guide here. I think the CSD bases better than any other text I've seen. Per your invitation to edit this, I added a little note on G11, due to one example of a non-G11 you gave. "Computer Solutions, Inc is a leader in providing technology solutions to consumers in the United States. Formed in 1994, it is a Forbes top pick..." may not be a piece of spam, but the first thing that rings alarm bells with me when I see a thing like that on Special:Newpages is that the thing is probably a direct copy of a company webpage and therefore a blatant copyvio. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-random question about a particular article

The article in question may have been deleted by the time you read this, but I'm curious which category you would place it under. For reference, the article was/is a direct copy of Tom Green with the name replaced, and a user nominated it for speedy under A7. To some extent, this is incorrect, as it asserts all the same things that make Tom Green notable, although it obviously doesn't do so in a serious fashion. I wonder if G3 might be closer, and if not, if one of the other categories should be adjusted to cover this situation (which I've seen arise several times in the past). JavaTenor 21:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per "the encyclopedia is better off without this than with it", which is one of the Criteria for Sensible Deletion. Friday (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I generally try to cite one of the official WP:CSD guidelines when marking an article for speedy, so I was just trying to figure out which one this situation falls under (as, again, it's reasonably common). Looks like G1 is a popular choice, which works for me. JavaTenor 21:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sensible doesn't mean abuse. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would probably be vandalism, would it not? Perhaps G1. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not Patent nonsense, in fact I think it only qualifies for a speedy under G3 Pure Vandalism. Franlly I think overly loose use of the CSD is abuse, and i will often summarily undelete in such cases, but this (assuming that it was a copy as asserted above) is obvious vandalism, so ther is no reason to do that. But I strongly disapprove of the attitude expressed by Friday above. DES ^(talk) 23:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The pub-quiz test

Maybe there aren't so many pubs in other countries, but the quizzes in the ones in Britland are fun. They ask you obscure, short questions and you need to give a few words (at most) of answer. I rarely get them right, as I don't watch enough soap opera, sport or read enough encyclopediae. The questions typically have the form "what is", "who was", "when was" etc. They get harder as the beer level in your glass falls.

Anyway, I apply a kind of "pub quiz" test to A1 speedy tags: If asked, "What is <title of article>", could I use the small amount of information in the article to score a point in a pub quiz? If I could, then there is sufficient context for it to survive speedy. Splash - tk 23:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like this analogy. We do trivia contests in the states - that's the closest cultural analogy I can make, so it might be worth mentioning. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to project space?

This is useful, and since Jeff doesn't seem to be concerned about ownership, I propose this be moved to Wikipedia:Field guide to proper speedy deletion. Mango juice^talk 18:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If people believe that it's worth having in Wikipedia space, you have my blessing, not that you need it. I'm simply glad people are finding it useful. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We already have Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Explanations. And I think it would take a lot of work to make this be broadly representative. (and I think leaving it more as an inclusionist perspective wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing) --Interiot 20:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's not broad? I'm not following. I also hadn't seen the explanations page - I would have likely simply overhauled that as opposed to making this if I had. I don't know if my examples are better or not, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging this into an existing page seems better than making a new one to me too. The last thing we need is more contradictory guidelines. Friday (talk) 20:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's contradictory here? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that anything is. But multiple pages addressing the same issue are what allows contradictions. Friday (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well then. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's useful. But I do agree with Friday... we don't want multiple pages. So either we use one or merge the two. I'm for merging. But good job, Jeff. We've had our spats in the past but what you've done is good. Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest merging. I would also suggest separating the instructive explanations from the opinions given herein - e.g. that certain issues are "controversial" is an opinion not shared by everyone. People are welcome to have such an opinion, but an instructive page that explains CSD is not the place for it. >Radiant< 09:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, this isn't meant to be solely instructive, as much as being blunt and straightforward - even A7's strongest proponents can't argue with the fact that it's controversial, for instance. If merging is equal to watering down the language and turning it into a mirror image or close to a mirror image of /Explanations, no thanks. /Explanations, while worthwhile, isn't as straightforward and simple as this, IMO. Had I seen /Explanations when I started this little project, I likely would have simply rewritten this there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There appear to be two different definitions of the word "controversial" here. There are a few other issues on the page which match your opinion rather than community opinion. If you consider a change from your opinion to community opinion to be "watering down" then I suggest you keep this in your userspace. >Radiant< 12:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Examples, maybe? --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A3

I noticed that WP:CSD A3 states: "Similarly, this criterion doesn't cover a page with an infobox with non-trivial information." While this field guide essay states that "an article with just an infobox lacks actual content" alluding that articles with only infoboxes fall under A3 criteria. They sort of contradict each other. Killiondude (talk) 08:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the difference is that an article can have an infobox and still not have any real content. An infobox could, for example, just have the name of the article and maybe identify what it is by the type of infobox used and little else. Substantial content in the infobox, though, is where the line is drawn. Khalfani Khaldun 21:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G10 Link

This link (#1 in the section) results in an error because the page has been deleted. I dunno whether to just delete it or try and find a more recent example to replace it with. Khalfani Khaldun 21:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A9 on this page is NOT in line with Wikipedia:Notability (music) or Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion

Wikipedia:Notability (music) states, "That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article. Conversely, an album does not need to be by a notable artist or ensemble to merit a standalone article if it meets the general notability guideline."

Articles should not be speedy-deleted, or deleted at all, solely because the artist does not have their own WP article or established notability. Speedy deletion criterion A9 says "An article about a musical recording that has no corresponding article about its recording artist and does not indicate why its subject is important or significant (both conditions must be met)." Dcs002 (talk) 01:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing this! Dcs002 (talk) 05:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated statement

In #6. Housekeeping, the page says that "[G6] also allows disambiguation pages to be deleted if they only disambiguate one or no articles". This is no longer correct; that is now handled by G14. How should this be replaced without impacting the full statement? Geolodus (talk) 10:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced it with "This criterion also allows pages to be deleted if they were unambiguously created in error". Geolodus (talk) 10:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A11, I'd like to add...

Since there is no information on this one I'd like to add the following text in place of the template placeholder: Some users will make up a word, a place, an activity, an event, anything! This happens through our daily lives and it's fun to have something known among your friends. Wikipedia is not the place to make this a reality. This is really a combination of a few other criteria listed on this page such as unremarkable content, but more specifically would be used when the context, tone, or subject is obviously known to this person or their acquaintances. "Jason Reager holds the record for most wins in the Gamertsfelder Hall beer pong league." but doesn't quite state that they know the person. Refer to the credibility/significance criteria for this. Pages that say use terms like "I" or discuss personal interaction without quotation or citation are clear infringements of this. Think of it this way, to be notable enough, you shouldn't have to be the one to write the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cliffsteinman (talk • contribs) 22:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]