User:Niteowlneils/csdornot/

Examples of speedy-tagged articles (some are actual articles I've seen with {delete}, others I made up, but accurately represent some type of article I see get speedied).

There seems to currently be a very wide range of interpretations of the deletion cases, and I am hoping that this exercise can narrow that range, as well as find areas where the deletion cases are too ambiguous.

Are they Speedy candidates? Please cite which case they fit, or most closely fit, and exactly why they do or do not qualify. Also, do you feel that the candidate cases' descriptions clearly reflects the appropriate status for the given type of article?

For the record, I believe only one of these clearly falls under any speedy case as they are currently written, and one other probably does. The rest I can't find any current case for. However, I DO believe most of them should be valid speedy candidates.

• Speedy candidate cases
• Further clarification of "vandalism" (case #3)
• Further clarification of "patent nonsense": (case #1)

1. "Total nonsense, i.e., text that has no assignable meaning at all. This tends to be created after the consumption of too much alcohol."
2. "Stuff that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irremediably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to try to make head or tail of it.".

---

NOTE: I am still trying to collect examples. If anyone is interested in helping co-sponsor this as an actual poll in the future, I'd appreciate it.

---

Doesn't even try to establish notability

User:Niteowlneils/csdornot/Chris Mathers

Should not be a CSD (why)

1. Notability is too subjective to be used as the standard in an entirely opaque process like SD. Also, the question is whether the subject is notable, not whether the current version of the article proves notability. Obviously, articles should show notability, but Wikipedia is home to many articles in development. --L33tminion | (talk) 13:39, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Does not fit any current case but should be a CSD

1. Little notability established. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 06:21, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
2. With some qualifiers. There are two arguments why this should not be an automatic CSD. 1) The subject might be notable even though the current content of the article does not demonstrate it. I consider this a very weak argument. If the content does not establish notability, then it's probably not content that we would want in the article anyway. 2) A very common newbie mistake is to create their userpage in the main article space. This could become a CSD case if the description of this case includes instructions to assume that it is a newbie mistake and to give them every opportunity to move the content onto a user page first. Rossami (talk) 17:10, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Legit subject, but very brief content

User:Niteowlneils/csdornot/Henry Lukens

Should not be a CSD (why)

1. Substub. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 06:21, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
2. The decision to call something "substub" is a judgement call. CSDs should be completely non-controversial. For something requiring this kind of judgement, the full VfD is more appropriate. Rossami (talk) 15:54, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
3. Also, stubstubs are valid. Wikipedia is for completed articles, but also for articles under development, so just being small is not a delete condition (and certainly not a speedy). --L33tminion | (talk) 14:01, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

"ASCII art"

User:Niteowlneils/csdornot/Cows (there should probably be an exception for articles about notable ASCII art)

Already is a CSD (specify case)

1. Nonsense. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 06:21, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
2. Nonsense, little or no context, and probably either test or vandalism. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:30, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
3. Nonsense. --L33tminion | (talk) 14:02, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Does not fit any current case but should be a CSD

1. Your example is an obvious delete under the rule that Wikipedia is not a mere image gallery. I'm not sure how you'd word the case, though. Rossami (talk) 17:14, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Useless, counter-productive redirect

User:Niteowlneils/csdornot/white house (to my knowledge, redirs are mostly to make sure people using searches find what they're looking for, ie other capitalizations (especially given Wikipedia's strictness), other names, or other word orders. This redirect does nothing to help searches (the article would be found without the redir), but a) causes an unnecessary 'redirected from' message, and b) makes it more likely that someone will link to it, instead of the real article.)

Should I pretend that this link is named "white house"? [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 06:21, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, a lowercase redir to White House. Niteowlneils 19:09, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Should not be a CSD (why)

1. Someone already made this mistake. Chances are that someone else will again. Redirects are cheap. Unless the redirect is patently offensive or deliberately misleading, redirects should be kept. By the way, the "search engine is good enough" argument has been discredited for many situations. See Wikipedia talk:Make only links relevant to the context/Archive 1 (almost at the bottom) for the argument that Stan_Shebs used to convince me. Rossami (talk) 17:22, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
2. Agree with Rossami. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:32, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
3. Rossami said it best. --L33tminion | (talk) 14:04, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Someone's resume

User:Niteowlneils/csdornot/Neil Smith

Should not be a CSD (why)

1. Should be sent to cleanup first. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 06:21, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
2. I think this should be a CSD (see below) but here's the argument why it should not. Suppose someone saw that we had no article on Henry Ford but had a historical copy of his resume. They provide it knowing full well that it's not yet in encyclopedic format. But it's full of factual information. Why shouldn't that form the starting point for a good article? Rossami (talk)

Does not fit any current case but should be a CSD

1. While there is a chance that this is a newbie error, it is more likely to be evidence that someone is trying to abuse Wikipedia by using it as a job-search engine. Rossami (talk) 17:26, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
2. Agree with above. Resumes are also not articles. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:34, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Link to website, with little other content

User:Niteowlneils/csdornot/ginger-or-mary-ann.com

Should not be a CSD (why)

1. Little is subjective, and little articles can be valid articles in development. I think that an external link with no other content should be speedy material; articles of this type may still be deletable, but not as a speedy. --L33tminion | (talk) 14:11, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Does not fit any current case but should be a CSD

1. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 06:21, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Comment

I'm having trouble with this one. Your example is a website which clearly would fail the Alexa test and therefore be deletable regardless of the amount of content under the rule that Wikipedia is not a webguide (though not speedily - several VfD discussions of particular websites have resulted in Keep decisions even though they had high numbers).

A harder example would be a page about a valid topic but where the only content I knew to add was a weblink to a good reference that I hoped someone else would turn into a good article. In that scenario, I think it ought to be a CSD but I'm not sure how to word it. Rossami (talk) 13:16, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Utter bullshit"

User:Niteowlneils/csdornot/Grunderlings (one I made up)

User:Niteowlneils/csdornot/Kingdom of Vicia (actual contrib that was speedied)

Already is a CSD (specify case)

1. Probably. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 06:21, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Should not be a CSD (why)

1. A better title for this case would be "Hoaxes". Unfortunately, I don't think that we can speedy-delete hoaxes. Too many of these articles survive the VfD process. In some cases, the articles are successfully converted to articles about the hoax. In others, the topic turned out not to be a hoax at all. See the early comments in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Karafuto Prefecture for a recent example. If hoaxes were speedily deletable, the article would have been gone with no opportunity for the discussion. Rossami (talk) 13:25, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Does not fit any current case but should be a CSD

1. —No-One Jones ^(m) 20:11, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Genealogical research"

User:Niteowlneils/csdornot/Fluge Flugel Flugelman, III

Already is a CSD (specify case)

1. Just a plea. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 06:21, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
2. Not an article. —No-One Jones ^(m) 20:12, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Does not fit any current case but should be a CSD

1. However, the same comment created as the article's Talk page would probably not be deletable. Rossami (talk) 13:29, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Fan mail"

User:Niteowlneils/csdornot/NameofWhatever Star

Already is a CSD (specify case)

1. Probably. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 06:21, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
2. Little or no context - Once the irrelevant parts are removed, all that's left is "Star whatevers". -- Cyrius|✎ 22:29, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
3. Probably deletable under case 4 (no context). Certainly should be deletable. Rossami (talk) 15:28, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Does not fit any current case but should be a CSD

1. —No-One Jones ^(m) 20:12, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Info request"

User:Niteowlneils/csdornot/Federal_Correctional_Complex,_Coleman

Already is a CSD (specify case)

1. Probably deletable under case 4 (no context). However, the same comment created on the Talk page might not be deletable (even if the article's page is still a redlink). Rossami (talk) 15:30, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Random data"

User:Niteowlneils/csdornot/Server Prices

Already is a CSD (specify case)

1. Case 4 - very short article with little or no context
2. Case 4 (no context). Rossami (talk) 15:40, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Personal info" (email address, phone number, etc.)

User:Niteowlneils/csdornot/Bill Gates contact info

Does not fit any current case but should be a CSD

1. In most cases, your example would be information that is public. However, many would consider it an abuse of privacy. In any case, it is not encyclopedic content. Rossami (talk) 15:43, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sensitive personal info (social security number, mother's maiden name, birthdate, etc.)

Already is a CSD (specify case)

1. Case 3 (vandalism). Given the current rise in identity theft, posting of such private personal information can be assumed to be a deliberate and malicious attempt to incite others to abuse that data. Rossami (talk) 15:48, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Does not fit any current case but should be a CSD

1. Only because of the Social Security number. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:25, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Personal attack

User:Niteowlneils/csdornot/Trey's sexual preferences

Already is a CSD (specify case)

1. Pure vandalism - Cyrius|✎ 22:21, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
2. Case 3 (vandalism). Rossami (talk) 15:49, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"blanked by author"

Already is a CSD (specify case)

1. Newbie test, generally. Context-specific judgement must be applied. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:24, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
2. Agree with Cyrius - will usually be a newbie test but judgement needed. Rossami (talk) 15:50, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)