Misplaced Pages

talk:Speedy deletions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WikiSlasher (talk | contribs) at 06:45, 15 December 2006 (→Question: Notified on band article talk page). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 06:45, 15 December 2006 by WikiSlasher (talk | contribs) (→Question: Notified on band article talk page)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Misplaced Pages:Advertising as a Speedy Deletion Category

I have created a proposal for a new speedy deletion category. Please read it and comment on it (preferably on its talk page, not here.) Grandmasterka 21:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Neologisms as a Speedy Deletion Category

I have also created a proposal for a new speedy deletion category. Feel free to read it and comment on it either here, or on its talk page. J.J.Sagnella dated 22:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Question

I see a user creating a lot of pages about the songs of some non-notable band. These are candidates for speedy, right? --waffle iron  18:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I've put a note on the talk page (Talk:W (Double You)) of the article for the band about the existence of these articles. --WikiSlasher 06:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Updating through the backlog

I've done some but it's nearly 3.30am and I have to be up for work in the morning! I'll do the rest next time I'm online. -- Francs2000 02:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. I've also removed any listings that were placed on this page: listings belong on the main page, not the talk page. -- Francs2000 23:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Tagged for cleanup

The speedy deletions page has been messed up by a few bad edits, and needs some cleanup attention today.

Really, the list of speedy deletions and the policy should be on different pages to avoid problems like this. --John Nagle 17:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Redirects

On 22-May, two examples were added to the Deletion of Redirects section. These examples do not meet the speedy deletion criteria for redirects. I've removed them and placed a comment regarding criteria and RFD instead. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 14:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

question for any admin who knows the answer

can something be speedily-deleted and not reflected in the deletion log? WɔlkUnseen 19:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Any deletions of pages, images, or revisions should show up in the deletion log. — TheKMan 19:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
gracias. WɔlkUnseen 20:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Unsure, but if the article was oversighted it would not show.--Dakota 05:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Dakota is correct. Oversight can permanintly hide revisions from administrators in the case of libel or revelation of personal information. Administrators will not know if a revision is hidden. Teke 01:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Question moved from top of page

Why was my edit listing speedy deletion tags deleted? I finally found the list of all tags and since it took me a while to get there ive been posting relevant tags on all pages (Weasel on weasel, afd on afd, speedy deletion on speedy deletion, etc.) I seem to keep getting reverted, possibly some think that i am trying to take the tag's action? (Speedily deleting the page about speedy deletions, saying that there are weasel words in weasel words, etc.? Just to clearify, this is not the intent, this is meant to make the tags handy for any who need them w/o having to hunt down the tag page. :) Thanks, 72.197.2.40 07:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC) moved by · rodii · 16:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

As for the answer... when you added those tags, the effect was not to list them on the page as you might have thought. Instead you listed the page for speedy deletion in every category you listed. There were nine different speedy deletion templates at the top of the page. And the content you wanted to add is already on the page. · rodii · 16:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

removing tags

If I place a speedy tag on a page, and then the creator makes substantial changes so the page no longer meets the speedy criteria, can I simply remove the tag before it gets reviewed by an administrater? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.141.11 (talk • contribs)

certainly, but I would recommend instead of just removing the tag, replacing the speedy with a {{prod}} and whatever other tags it might need, based on what the speedy tag was for... - Adolphus79 16:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Coandă effect movies

The Coandă effect movies is suggested for speedy deletion. I agree that if it is only a suggestion in the sense of overall experiment it should be deleted. However 'suggestion' only refers to the content and the layout of the page. It is actually a very good thing to separate moving images from article pages as they are mostly very distracting, thus motivating a subpage. --Profero 11:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't delete Ultimate Improv!

It is a highly notable comedy trooop, founded by a very famous celebrity, JD Walsh.

Bert Flugelman, please do not delete

In process of developing it tomorrow. Frances76 12:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Visible From Space: please do not delete

The band Visible From Space meets these two criteria for importance/significance of a band: Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...). Mention in Rolling Stone and The Village Voice, both of which will be noted in this wiki article

Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such. Judd Harris, the lead singer, was a semi-finalist (the 11th place male) American Idol. Since the band he is in is receiving national (U.S.) recognition, it seemed appropriate for the band to have its own article.

I'm not sure how to assert that I am not associated with the band in any way except to say: I am not associated with the band in any way other than enjoying their music.

I had planned to use multiple saves in making this article, as my web browser and net connection are not the most reliable and I would hate to work for an hour before saving and then lose all my work. I have added the stub tag and plan to continue working on the article throughout the day today and tomorrow. Darwin's Pug 11:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Pro-Pain-Pro-Wrestling

Please don't delete this page! It does contain information and will definately grow! *Sam**Sam*

we just want to get the word out

I want my article about my band Viekis to be there in case anyone looking for something good to listen to they can find us on this website — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viekis (talk • contribs)

If you're trying to avoid getting speedily deleted, you've chosen almost exactly the wrong approach. In Misplaced Pages terms, "We just want to get the word out" == advertising, and "my band" == Vanity. The idea is that you get on Misplaced Pages after you've already successfully gotten the word out and established notability. It's not supposed to work the other way around. Kickaha Ota 04:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Crusade (album)

Please do not delete Crusade (album). If album covers are fair use, surely non plagiarized articles are fair use! --Alcuin 01:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Vanity articles on internet meme's that dont establish notability

Do articles on minor Internet memes (like this one: You Can't Help But Watch) qualify? I added {{prod}} since I was not sure if speedy was appropriate. The article makes some vague claims of some catch phrase "fast becoming iconic" on the net but there are no sources. Dalf | Talk 00:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh and the user who created it seems to have been banned after only a handfull of edits most or all of which look like vandalism. Dalf | Talk 00:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I agree that it's not-notable - but that's not a criterion for CSD. nn-bio is, but it's not a bio. It *is* verifiable, so not nonsense/empty. I think prod was the right step --- if that doesn't work then the Afd process is the next step. Brian 01:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)btball
I was afraid of that, though with the orginator banned I suspect the prod might work. Dalf | Talk 01:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

In Death Characters

This doesn't seem to fit the criteria, although it's very stubbish at the moment, consisting mostly of a list of names. exolon 22:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

{{Firstarticle}}

Perhaps we could inlcude this template in the instructiond for listing an article for speedy deletion (ie to say that the marker should leave the template, subst'd, on the main contributor's talk page (where the contrib. is one of the user's first - you can tell this by the fact that their talk page will be empty)). Just an idea for avoiding "biting the newbies"! Martinp23 21:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge

This page is only a few paragraphs long since it doesn't list candidates anymore. I understand the historical reasons for listing the criteria on a separate page, but in its current form this page seems irrelevant and confusing. Gareth Aus 05:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If a merge is justified (and I'm not yet convinced that it is), the merger should be in the other direction. WP:CSD is by far the more widely referenced and linked page. Rossami (talk) 00:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Whilst I agree that WP:CSD is now the main page, this page has a standard title & I feel having a "Criteria for speedy deletion" page without a proper (non-redirect) "Speedy deletions" page is a little bit weird. Having said that, I don't particularly care about the name - indeed the best name is probably "Speedy deletion".
As for the justification of the merge, we have four sections on this page, plus the lead. The Advice for administrators section could be merged with the Procedure for administrators section of CSD. The See also sections could be combined & the other two sections could be added after the lead (from CSD). The lead on this page could be disregarded. Whilst this does slightly add to the length of (what is effectively) CSD, I feel people unfamiliar with the deletion process would appreciate the easier structure. In my opinion Misplaced Pages has too many deletion pages (deletion is quite a complex process so to some extent this can not be helped), but this page in its current form seems to unnecessarily complicate things. Put simply, this is a brief page containing content that would be appropriate on another page (namely CSD) and does noting to justify its continued existence as a separate page. Gareth Aus 03:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deleted images

There may be a reason for this that I don't understand, but it seems to me that Misplaced Pages is losing hundreds of images every day because they have been tagged with licenses that we are not able to use on Wkipedia. These are then replaced with speedy tags, the picture's gone, everyone's lost out.

My question then is:

  • Why is it still possible to use these tags
  • If they can't be removed, why don't we create a new notice/process, something similar to WP:PROD, which proposes that these are deleted if not re-tagged. The uploader can be notified and if nothing is done for a week, then it is deleted.

This would save a lot of time and stop us losing valuable images over technicalities. --Robdurbar 20:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

If you're referring to {{noncommercial}}, {{permission}}, and the like, we use them because the images would get uploaded anyway, but would be tagged incorrectly, usually as {{no rights reserved}}, and would get lost. The vast majority of users care far less about licenses than they care about illustrating articles. --Carnildo 20:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand. How would the image 'get lost'? I don't see the point of 'permission' and 'noncomeercial' as categorising images if all that they do is cause images to be listed for speedy deletion. --Robdurbar 20:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
It gets lost because there's no easy way of telling a "tagged as no rights reserved but really Misplaced Pages-only" image from a "tagged as no rights reserved and we really mean it" image. If we don't have a "by-permission" tag, people will look for the next-best choice in the dropdown, which is usually "public domain" or "no rights reserved". --Carnildo 21:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I still don't see your logic. My point is that at the moment anything tagged 'Misplaced Pages-only' is basically going to be deleted - its a waste of everyone's time. If people don't want to release all rights then they won't upload it as such - OK, we miss out on the image, but that is happening anyway. If we got rid of those tags as an option, uploaders would either upload as 'no rights reserved' - which is good - or not upload it at all - which is a shame. I imagine, however, that the majority would upload it as 'no rights reserved'. --Robdurbar 10:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
This happened to an image i uploaded too. I used a choice in the dropdown-box that i gathered was ther because it was applicable - then it immediately got marked 'Speedy'. What's the use having such a choice? --Profero 21:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Did you read the message on the image page that explaiend why that license was not apropriate? Did you know that before you uploaded the image? Hopefully you learned something new about what kind of licenses Misplaced Pages accept, and wich not. At least that's how we intend it to work (that and it lets us easily "round up" images we can't actualy use that would otherwise often get mislabeled since many people just pick a "random" option if they don't find one that is an exact match). --Sherool (talk) 06:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
If they upload as "no rights reserved", but do not have the authority to do so (which is very common with by-permission images), we're worse off than if they'd not uploaded it or if it had been uploaded then deleted -- it now represents a potential lawsuit. --Carnildo 22:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, I think I see where you're coming from now. --Robdurbar 07:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

{{hangon}}

I recently did this: Template talk:Hangon#.7B.7Bhangon.7CComment.7D.7D

I figured I'd get more dialogue here. If anyone wishes to object to my change of the template, they're welcome to do it here, on the talk page linked above, or on my talk page. Right now, I'd like to ascertain what the most proper use of the {{hangon}} template is.

If a page obviously should be speedily deleted, do admins still commonly check to see if a {{hangon}} tag has been added and removed by the article's author? If it's custom to check talk pages regardless of whether this tag has been added, then what use is it? Why should it be used as a plea for admins to "slow down" while the author types up something that could have been done before the article was tagged for deletion? Lastly, what good is the tag if it's removed and the article is deleted by an admin who happened not to check history thoroughly enough?

I think {{hangon}} should be placed on an article either until its doomsday or until an admin decides it is not {{delete}}-worthy. Deletion taggers aren't required to remove their tags, so those on the defense seem to have the short straw, especially considering that deletion tags get plenty of different forms and opportunities for open-ended response.

That is why I've added an optional parameter to {{hangon}}. I have listed several additional reasons on the template talk page, and also would like to point out the time and database space it would save in eliminating the need for talk pages in many cases.

Objections? -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

If the extra parameter on the template is not rejected in general, by the way, I may soon change {{db-meta}} to reflect its usage. That's a relatively major thing, so that's why I'd like input on this if possible. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 03:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I like the change, although I would suggest directing further discussion to the talk page even when the reason is displayed - it'll give a good idea what the contesting is about, and perhaps differentiate a legitimate objection (e.g. notability is already contained in the article) compared to an ineffective one (e.g. why are these other articles considered notable?). --Sigma 7 05:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)