Jump to content

Wikipedia:Proposal to expand WP:CSD

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MarkSweep (talk | contribs) at 01:18, 2 January 2005 (→[[#Proposal VIII (Procedure)|Proposal VIII]] vote: disagree). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Voting on these proposals began at 00:00 UTC on January 2, 2005 and will last two weeks until 00:00 UTC, 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.
Please do not alter any part of the proposal as it stands.

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

This vote is underway. Voting will continue until 00:00 UTC on 16 January 2005. The current date and time is 22 October 2024 T 11:31 UTC.

To keep this page from becoming confusing and difficult to read, please do not reply to votes. You may comment on the proposal's talk page.

Proposal I vote

Agree

  1. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ground 00:04, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ld | talk 00:07, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Smoddy | Talk 00:08, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 00:10, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  6. max rspct 00.15 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  7. Xtra 00:17, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. Sure. The case is clearly defined. -- Netoholic @ 00:18, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  9. David Gerard 00:36, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  10. Norman Rogers\talk 00:40, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  11. Wikimol 00:41, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  12. ugen64 00:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  13. SimonP 00:46, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  14. Sounds good to me. Josh 00:47, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  15. TwoOneTwo 00:50, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  16. Chris 73 Talk 01:01, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  17. Josh Cherry 01:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  18. Gazpacho 01:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Disagree

  1. JRM 01:02, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

Proposal II vote

Agree

  1. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ground 00:05, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Smoddy | Talk 00:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 00:10, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  5. max rspct 00.15 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  6. David Gerard 00:36, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. Wikimol 00:41, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. ugen64 00:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. SimonP 00:47, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  10. TwoOneTwo 00:50, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  11. Chris 73 Talk 01:01, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  12. Gazpacho 01:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Disagree

  1. Ld | talk 00:08, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. "Obvious" is not well defined and has been easy to abuse in the past, plus, makes no allowance for if the article is marked stub, categorized, interwiki'd, etc. Netoholic @ 00:18, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  3. Will lend itself to abuse in the future. Triped 00:25, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  4. for reasons above Xtra 00:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. JRM 01:02, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

Proposal III vote

Agree

  1. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ground 00:05, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ld | talk 00:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 00:10, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Xtra 00:25, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. ugen64 00:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. SimonP 00:47, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Chris 73 Talk 01:01, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Disagree

  1. Smoddy | Talk 00:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Guidelines for notability should be established before anyone can decide on their own. -- Netoholic @ 00:13, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  3. max rspct 00.16 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  4. We don't have non-subjective notability guidelines - David Gerard 00:36, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. JRM 01:02, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  6. Gazpacho 01:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC), too vague

Proposal IV vote

Agree

  1. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 00:10, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  3. ugen64 00:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. TwoOneTwo 00:50, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Gazpacho 01:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Disagree

  1. Ground 00:07, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Terrible wording, as many such articles can be turned into full articles, redirects, or disambigs. Neologisms are often retained after a VFD vote. -- Netoholic @ 00:08, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  3. Smoddy | Talk 00:10, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Ld | talk 00:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. max rspct 00.18 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  6. Xtra 00:27, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. David Gerard 00:36, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. Neologisms are hard to decide even by VfD. Wikimol 00:43, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. Many pages marked with the {{wi}} tag are now good articles. SimonP 00:47, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  10. JRM 01:02, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

Proposal V vote

Agree

  1. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ground 00:07, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 00:10, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Xtra 00:28, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Resolving this sort of copyvios by other means is a waste of time. Wikimol 00:42, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. ugen64 00:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. Would make checking New Pages vastly easier. SimonP, 00:48, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  8. TwoOneTwo 00:50, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. Chris 73 Talk 01:01, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Disagree

  1. Most users are very bad at determining copyright status. These need to be reviewed or VFD'd. -- Netoholic @ 00:09, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  2. Smoddy | Talk 00:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. I agree. -Ld | talk 00:13, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Needs checking each time - David Gerard 00:36, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. JRM 01:02, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

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)
  2. Ground 00:08, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 00:10, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Ld | talk 00:14, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. This is already done for redirects (typos) and images. Suggest that "article" be replaced with "page, redirect, or image" when this is written into the WP:CSD page. -- Netoholic @ 00:21, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  6. David Gerard 00:38, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. Norman Rogers\talk 00:41, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. ugen64 00:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. SimonP 00:48, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  10. TwoOneTwo 00:50, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  11. Chris 73 Talk 01:01, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  12. Josh Cherry 01:02, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  13. Gazpacho 01:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Disagree

  1. Smoddy | Talk 00:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. max rspct 00.20 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  3. Xtra 00:29, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. JRM 01:02, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

Proposal VII vote

Agree

  1. Xtra 00:31, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Disagree

  1. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ground 00:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 00:11, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  4. So, even if a dozen users work on an article fork, it's a speedy candidate? -- Netoholic @ 00:12, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  5. Smoddy | Talk 00:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. Ld | talk 00:14, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. max rspct 00.15 1 Jan 2004 (UTC) (shouldn't be fasttracked)
  8. David Gerard 00:38, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. Terrible wording. ugen64 00:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  10. Norman Rogers\talk 00:50, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  11. JRM 01:02, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

Proposal VIII vote

Agree

  1. A simple solution to avoid problems, it is done very often today already. Probably will make expansion of CSD's more acceptable because of the safeguard. -- Netoholic @ 00:06, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  2. Smoddy | Talk 00:13, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ld | talk 00:22, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Xtra 00:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. ugen64 00:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. TwoOneTwo 00:50, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Disagree

  1. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 00:07, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ground 00:10, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. max rspct 00.29 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 00:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. JRM 01:02, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  7. Chris 73 Talk 01:04, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  8. MarkSweep 01:18, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Proposal IX vote

Agree

  1. Smoddy | Talk 00:14, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ld | talk 00:16, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Disagree

  1. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 00:11, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ground 00:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Xtra 00:33, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. max rspct 00.34 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  6. David Gerard 00:40, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. ugen64 00:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. JRM 01:02, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

Proposal X vote

Agree

  1. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 00:11, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ground 00:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Smoddy | Talk 00:16, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Ld | talk 00:17, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. David Gerard 00:40, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. ugen64 00:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. Wikimol 00:49, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Disagree

  1. JRM 01:02, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

Proposal XI vote

Agree

  1. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ground 00:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 00:12, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Smoddy | Talk 00:17, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Ld | talk 00:18, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. Xtra 00:34, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. max rspct 00.38 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  8. Norman Rogers\talk 00:49, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. Wikimol 00:52, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Disagree

  1. Still too subjective - David Gerard 00:40, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. JRM 01:02, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Proposal_to_expand_WP:CSD&oldid=9026238"