Wikipedia:Proposal to expand WP:CSD

This is a proposed policy. For the record, the original author of this proposal is blankfaze. Proposals VI and VII were added by Isomorphic. Proposal VIII was suggested by Netoholic. Proposal IX was added by Eequor and adjusted by Brockert and Merovingian. Proposal X was added by Merovingian and adjusted by Eequor.

---

For some time, discussion has been ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Candidates for speedy deletion about possible expansions to Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion (WP:CSD). I have decided to bring a number of these proposals to a formal vote.

Those who follow Wikipedia:Votes for deletion (WP:VFD) may notice listings for pages which should obviously be deleted, and faster than the seven-day VFD process allows for. This proposal is an attempt to expand the cases in which a page can be speedily deleted. Additionally, some users consider current CSD cases to be vague or unclear; this proposal also attempts to clarify them.

This proposal is really a group of proposals; rather, it is entirely possible for one of the sub-proposals to fail and others to pass. As such, please treat each sub-proposal as a separate issue.

Discussion on this page will last for the next few weeks. Voting on these proposals will begin on January 2, 2005 and last two weeks until January 16, 2005. Each sub-proposal will require 70 percent support ("Agree" votes) to pass. Sub-proposals garnering 70 percent support will, subject to the approval of Jimbo Wales and/or the Board of Trustees, become official policy.

Voting is now open.

The proposals

It should be noted that Proposal I and Proposal II articles are today routinely speedy deleted, and adopting these propositions would merely be updating the rules to match reality.

Proposal I (Amount of content I)

(Jump to vote) (Discuss)

The following case should be added to Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion:

Any article whose contents consist only of an external link, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, or interwiki link.

Proposal II (Amount of content II)

(Jump to vote) (Discuss)

The following case should be added to Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion:

Extremely short articles which add no information beyond what is obvious from the title.

Proposal III (Vanity articles)

(Jump to vote) (Discuss)

The following case should be added to Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion:

Extremely blatant vanity articles. (e.g., bands that have never released an album, contain no members that are famous for reasons other than being in the band, and have no press coverage—also, people where the article makes no claim of notability and the person gets virtually no Google hits, not including any of Wikimedia's websites or mirrors.)

If an article is an autobiography, the administrator may, at his/her discretion, move it to the author's userpage.

Proposal IV (Dicdefs)

(Jump to vote) (Discuss)

The following case should be added to Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion:

Any article consisting only of a dictionary definition (dicdef), which either already exists at Wiktionary, or is not appropriate for submission there (i.e. made-up words, neologisms).

Proposal V (Copyright violations)

(Jump to vote) (Discuss)

The following case should be added to Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion:

Any article that consists only of content in blatant, easily verifiable violation of copyright or which is not immediately verifiable as compatible with the GFDL, unless said article was submitted by a user or IP with legitimate contributions or has since been subsequently edited by another user.

The creator must subsequently be informed on their talk page that such deletion has happened, with an external reference to the existing material, and instructions on how to prevent any recreation of the article from being deleted again with a wikilink to wikipedia:Copyrights.

Proposal VI (Requested deletion)

(Jump to vote) (Discuss)

The following case should be added to Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion:

Any article which is requested for deletion by the original author, provided the author reasonably explains that it was created by mistake, and the article was edited only by its author.

Proposal VII (Article forks)

(Jump to vote) (Discuss)

The following case should be added to Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion:

Clear forks of existing articles, where a redirect from the second title is not appropriate. A fork is an alternative version of an existing article. An article section split out into a new article is not a fork, even if it duplicates text.

Proposal VIII (Procedure)

(Jump to vote) (Discuss)

The following should be added to the lead (or other appropriate section) of Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion:

Interpretation of these guidelines is very often subjective, and sometimes controversial, especially when an article's deletion could be later contested. In order to avoid most problems, every deletion of a page under these cases must be the result of a request made by a user other than the deleting admin ("tag and bag"). The most common way this can be achieved is for one editor to add the {{delete}} template to the page. Whatever the method, the request must be documented before deletion on either the article itself or its talk page. The only exceptions are:

1. undisputed vandalism or test pages/gibberish
2. an admin's own user space subpages
3. the admin is the sole editor

Proposal IX (Deprecation)

(Jump to vote) (Discuss)

If any specific proposal from I to VII (or proposal X) receives a 70% majority of disagree votes, Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion should explicitly rule it out as a criterion for speedy deletion.

Proposal X (Correspondence)

(Jump to vote) (Discuss)

The following case should be added to Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion:

Any article which consists only of attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title.

Proposal XI (Unimproved vanity articles)

(Jump to vote) (Discuss)

The following case should be added to Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion:

Extremely blatant vanity articles listed on Category:Articles which may be unencyclopedic at least for 3 days without any improvement or dispute. (Examples of blatant vanites are bands that have never released an album, contain no members that are famous for reasons other than being in the band, and have no press coverage—also, people where the article makes no claim of notability and the person gets virtually no Google hits, not including any of Wikimedia's websites or mirrors.)

If an article is an autobiography, the administrator may, at his/her discretion, move it to the author's userpage.

Because proposal XI is a weaker alternative of proposal III, if both pass, Proposal III should be implemented.

The vote

To keep this page from becoming confusing and difficult to read, please direct discussions to the talk page.

Proposal I vote

Agree

1. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Disagree

Proposal II vote

Agree

1. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Disagree

Proposal III vote

Agree

1. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Disagree

Proposal IV vote

Agree

1. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Disagree

Proposal V vote

Agree

1. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Disagree

Proposal VI vote

Agree

1. I'm not really adamant about this, but I don't oppose it. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Disagree

Proposal VII vote

Agree

Disagree

1. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Proposal VIII vote

Agree

Disagree

1. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Proposal IX vote

Agree

Disagree

1. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Proposal X vote

Agree

1. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Disagree

Proposal XI vote

Agree

1. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Disagree