Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:CSD)
Jump to: navigation, search

Waiting period for images tagged with OTRS received[edit]

Alright so, the RfC above with withdrawn after it became pretty clear that the correct tag for these types of images is F11 as the default. Now the question is whether or not the additional 7 day waiting period should be applied for these types of images. Note, it does not matter that the current F11 version does not include a type of "immediate F11". This is a question on whether or not the F11 criterion should be amended. The current practice with these images is for the permission holder to send in the proper permissions to OTRS. If the email has been reviewed by an agent but deemed not sufficient the image is tagged with {{OTRS received}}. After 30 days the ticket should be rereviewed by an agent and if no valid permissions has been received the image will be tagged F11. Should an additional 7 day waiting period be given after the 30 days have expired? --Majora (talk) 23:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Support 7-day waiting period[edit]

  • Wait an additional seven days. The vast majority will be deleted after the week, but doing it this way does not generate any extra work, and it gives the uploader one last chance to respond. It also makes the procedure uniform with other F11 deletions. — Diannaa (talk) 01:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I find Diannaa's reasoning compelling. Jclemens (talk) 04:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak Support per Diannaa's comments, combined with the observation that leaving the images floating around for an extra week is unlikely to be harmful. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
    Moving to oppose upon further reflection. BU Rob 13's argument seems sound on multiple different points. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose 7-day waiting period[edit]

  1. Waiting an additional seven days after the 30 days waiting period for OTRS received is illogical to me. Almost every ticket that is not sufficient is resolved within 48 hours and the review by an agent after the 30 days will make sure that ongoing discussions with the customer are taken into account when applying the tag. --Majora (talk) 23:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
  2. See my comment below. Nyttend (talk) 01:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
  3. This does generate extra work, as it requires admins such as myself to nominate images for deletion and then another admin to come through seven days later and delete them instead of the first admin just being able to delete outright. More importantly, we're talking about images that the Wikimedia Foundation could reasonably be expected to know are being hosted without permission. This is a massive liability for the site, so there is serious potential for harm. Uploaders have had their notifications, as they will have received an email about the inadequate permission via an OTRS agent a month earlier. At some point, we just have to delete the images or we're creating Exhibit A in a class action lawsuit down the road to show that we systematically store images without permission with full awareness that there is no adequate permission to use them (which means we aren't covered by safe haven provisions). The 30 day time is already absurdly long given norms of response at OTRS. Adding another 7 days after notifying them about their previous notice of requiring permissions is stretching things way too far. If the desire is a uniform 7-day waiting period, this could be achieved by lowering the current 30-day hold on OTRS received to a 14-day hold and then tagging for 7 days. This keeps the uniformity of F11 while also lowering the time within which we're blatantly disregarding copyright laws. ~ Rob13Talk 04:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  4. The point above about this making extra work for admins is very strong. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  5. Rob's got a point, you know. -- Gestrid (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  6. No need for the extra waiting period. Seconding Rob's excellent comment above. Regards, James (talk/contribs) 21:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion on waiting period[edit]

At Commons, the OTRS agents periodically update a counter for the oldest not-yet-addressed permissions email; if you've processed everything that's arrived since 8 August, you'll set the counter for 8 August. Any {{OTRS pending}} files that were tagged before the date are automatically nominated for speedy deletion. That system seems to work quite well, without the seven-day waiting period for Commons:Template:No permission since. Why would we want to make the related {{OTRS received}} process take longer here? By the time it's tagged, it's already been waiting quite a while (waiting an additional 30 days is unnecessary), so there's no reason to require yet another week. Nyttend (talk) 01:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

NOTE: I have posted a link to this at T:CENT since it is a proposed amendment to the CSD policy and it needs a lot more community input to determine a firm consensus either way. --Majora (talk) 01:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

We need to make sure that images are not deleted before the OTRS folks get around to dealing with the OTRS permission. There are often long backlogs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
@Doc James: Permissions-en has less then a 10 day backlog nowadays. And this is about {{OTRS received}} which means the ticket has already been reviewed and deemed insufficient. --Majora (talk) 02:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes and at that point OTRS hopefully emails the uploader and they work on doting more i's and crossing more t's Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Of course. That is what the 30 days is supposed to be used for. We aren't just saying, "too bad, sucks to be you" and closing the ticket. We do what we can to get the proper permissions and 99 times out of 100 the issues get resolved within 48 hours. The 1% that doesn't is what this RfC is about. --Majora (talk) 02:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion criteria for books[edit]

I know that there has been talk about creating a speedy deletion criteria for books, but there's never really been any true consensus on this. I think I might have come up with something that could potentially be doable. My thought is that this would fall under WP:A9 for the most part, as that one of the main things I drew from, but it could potentially be a new criteria on its own.

The basic gist of this criteria is that it would only apply to books that are published through vanity or self-publishing outlets like AuthorHouse, Smashwords, and CreateSpace, where the books do not make a credible assertion of notability and the author/contributor(s) do not have an article. This would allow us to quickly get rid of the obviously non-notable stuff like some random self-published book by a non-notable author without having to go through a full AfD. There are too many articles that have to go through a full AfD, despite being so obviously non-notable that there's not even a question that they'll be deleted. This criteria would also apply to fanfiction posted to places like FanFiction.net, so that we don't have to have to bring something like this to AfD because fanfiction doesn't always cleanly fit into web content. I've included podcast novels in this since that's sort of akin to self-publishing, but I'm fine with that portion being removed since it's a bit of a grey area publication-wise.

The criteria would not cover any book that is published through a large, indie, academic, or small press. It would also not cover the deletion of any book where the author has an article, nor where any credible assertion of notability is made. This assertion would be considered to be things such as coverage in a RS (a trivial mention would suffice as long as the source is a RS), assertion of bestselling status, the book being adapted into a film/TV show/game, or a major award - the typical type of stuff that admins consider when judging A7 deletions. I am thinking about making the age of the book part of this criteria - if the book was published prior to 2000, it would not qualify under this criteria. People could self or vanity publish prior to this point of time, of course, but it was harder to do so and slightly more rare than it is nowadays. That would keep us from instantly deleting a book from say, the early 1900s or earlier, as there's the possibility that the book could be notable. I chose 2000 based on the date in the self-publishing article that stated that the 2000s were kind of a turning point as far as self-publishing goes. We could probably go later if anyone wanted, but I think that 2000 is a decent option that would cover the majority of self-published and vanity works without being too inclusive or exclusive.

Here's my mockup of the basic guideline, but feel free to suggest tweaks and alterations.

No indication of importance (books).
This criteria applies to any book that is either self-published or a vanity printing after 2000 and does not give any indication where the work is important or significant and where the author or contributors' article does not exist (all criteria must be true). Fanfiction and podcast novels would qualify under this criteria if there is no assertion of notability and the author does not have an article. This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion.
With new changes suggested by Graeme and Kevin (Updated again)
This criterion applies to any book that is published to the self-publishers or vanity publishers CreateSpace, AuthorHouse, Smashwords, Lulu, Leadstart Publishing, or the publisher is the same name as the author after the year 2000 and does not give any indication where the work is important or significant and where the author or contributors' article does not exist (all criterion must be true). Fanfiction and podcast novels would qualify under this criterion if there is no assertion of significance and the author does not have an article. This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion.

My basic thought is that this is kind of overdue, given that anyone and their mother can put out a work through a vanity or self publisher nowadays. Again, this wouldn't cover anything put out through regular publishing arms or anything with even a remotely viable claim of assertion.

I'm going to ping the following editors, who were active during the bestseller as notability conversation at WP:NBOOK, are still reasonably active, and are editors that I'm fairly familiar with. @AngusWOOF, DGG, Coolabahapple, James500, Piotrus, and Dream Focus: I figure that you all run the gamut on how you approach articles, so we'd get a nice variety of input from all of you. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

  • I know that this might be a long shot to get this approved, but I figure that it'd be worth opening it up for discussion again. Also pinging I JethroBT to weigh in here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • It looks like this was brought up a little bit ago, but my proposal is a bit more specific than the prior proposal and likely more so than any of the others that were previously brought up. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Also to reference the last proposal by Largoplazo, the book discovered by Frimley (brought up by Peridon) would not presumably fall under this criteria because while the book itself was found and presumably published for the first time post 2015, the original work itself would obviously predate 2000 and the idea of an old manuscript being discovered in this manner would be something that would have a valid assertion of notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • My basic thing with this is that we've had a sharp increase in people trying to add self-published and vanity works to Wikipedia in the last few years and it's inevitable that we'll have at least 3-4 of them a week at AfD, possibly more. Sometimes we're able to slightly justify speedying them under criteria that doesn't really fit (like obvious promotion), but by large we have to take them to other outlets and the number of these is only increasing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
For this to get up, there must be a very well defined way to tell if a publisher is a vanity publisher or not. Otherwise there will be too much room for argument. If we can stick with publisher = " AuthorHouse, Smashwords, or CreateSpace" or the publisher name = author name, then this could get my support. Otherwise you could have a list somewhere of vanity publishers. But Category:Vanity publishers is empty. There is however Vanity_press#Examples and Category:Self-publishing companies to get a handle on something definite. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Tokyogirl79: Quick question-- what differentiates a vanity publisher from a self-publishing company, and how do we identify vanity publishers? I'm pretty new to that term, so I'm just seeking some clarification. For now, I think I'm more or less in agreement with Graeme Bartlett; I think because the criteria depends on editors knowing what publishers are self-publishing or not, we probably should build a Category or a Wikipedia: namespace page enumerating the usual suspects. I think it is also OK to note on that page or category that "this is not an exhaustive list", but care needs to be taken about what publishers are added. The language of the mockup seems pretty good to me, but I'll come back to this next week to provide any suggestions I might have on phrasing tweaks. (Sorry, busy week at the WMF for me...) I JethroBT drop me a line 08:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • There's not a huge amount of difference, but the main one is that authors pay up front for vanity publishing whereas they do not for self-publishing. The reason for this is that vanity publishers require the authors to name a specific amount of books they want printed up front and the author pays for these books. They're also typically expected to sell the books themselves after this point in time. With self-publishing they aren't asked to specify print amounts, as the publisher will print the book after a customer requests the work in question. Self-publishing companies also tend to offer store fronts (like Amazon with CreateSpace or Smashwords with their website) to sell the works. Many vanity publishers don't really offer this, at least not to the extent that you see with self-publishing. This is pretty much why most authors have eschewed vanity publishers as a whole. They're on the decline, but still exist enough to warrant mentioning here. You typically see them in other countries - I know that there are quite a few in other countries, like Leadstart Publishing. There's a better description of the differences here from the SFWA. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I have no problem with limiting this to specific publishers for the time being - that's probably a good limiter to add as well. I'll add this to the criteria. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Don't forget Xlibris and PublishAmerica (and its variants for outside the USA). I'm in favour of this as it gives a bit more definition. Self-publishing outfits are fairly easy to identify - just drop their name and "self-publish" into your search engine of choice. The basic search is the book title and Amazon - you can get the 'publisher' by scrolling down the Amazon page for the book. If it's new, is from the Western world, and isn't on Amazon, it ain't notable. If it looks like a regular publishing house, a search will quickly reveal whether only that book or that author come from that 'house'. If you can't find the 'publisher' at all, it's the author masking self-pub through CreateSpace. A Category would save repeated searching, though. The vanity publishers often have something like 'a different approach to publishing' in their intro. (It's interesting looking at their charges - why the heck anyone does business with them is beyond me when it can be done at the new-style on-demand places. Sometimes they do include proof-reading in their services, though.) For the benefit of those who can't see what's wrong with self-pub (from the Wikipedia point of view), being published by a regular house doesn't mean instant notability. It does mean a proofed, editor checked and advised, and well setup product with a publicity machine and press reviews behind it. Self-pub means you have to do all your own publicity (apart from the self-pub site), get reviews (Goodreads and Amazon reviews don't count for tuppence) and get the book onto shelves (as the browsing market is still alive). One other point about self-pub and notability: if a self-pub book looks like it's getting sales, a regular house will snap it up. I can think of one case here (but can't quote it). Peridon (talk) 10:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I can think of a few cases like in Peridon's last sentence, too, and it's not an argument in favor of this criterion. This criterion as worded relies on the tagger and deleting admin both doing their own research into who published the book, and if the self-published version was doing well and it was picked up by a small press with little marketing clout, it's the initial version that's going to dominate google results. The situation's worse if it's expanded to all vanity publishers instead of a specific list; while some are laughably easy to identify, the majority are not. "3-4 of them a week at AfD" isn't particularly compelling, either; 3-4 a day still wouldn't be. This fails the Objectivity and Frequency guidelines at the top of this page. AFD's the proper venue. —Cryptic 13:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
If it's "picked up by a small press with little marketing clout", it's not going to be any better off. It's only being picked up by a more major publisher that will make a difference. There's still no guarantee of notability or even significance resulting from the pickup. Peridon (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
yes, there's no guarantee of significance in such cases, but there possibly might be significance, so Prod or AfD is the place for it. And there have been cases, especially in SF and self-help books where the person continues to prefer self publishing, sometimes for ideological reasons. But there's no problem here, for such authors will be notable. DGG ( talk ) 16:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • My objection against speedy deletion criteria for books stem from this, which nearly got deleted before I actually figured out what the editor, likely a child, was trying to say. It's now a bit better. Given how other speedy criteria are routinely "loosely applied" by administrators, I would be hesitant to endorse any speedy deletion criteria for books that fails to assure the survival of such admittedly terrible articles for unquestionably notable books. Jclemens (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • My reaction to that, Jclemens, would be: You should know, you used to be a sysop. But that wouldn't be very friendly. Nevertheless, I do think we should accord more trust, confidence, and good faith in the work of our admins - too many RfC have oppose votes based on simply not wanting to horizontally increase their mandate, rather than an arguments based on policy or guidelines or whatever else we're trying to get introduced to keep or encyclopedia clean. Whatever we do, there will be collateral damage, but that's also why around 20% of our 5 million articles have been passed through NPP to remain perma-tagged and get Wikipedi its reputation for inaccuracy and unreliability. WP:NBOOK is a clear, unambiguous set of criteria, and the language of Tokyogirl79's mock up seems OK. What we do need to do however, is to find a way of greatly, and I mean greatly, improving and insisting on much higher degrees of knowledge and experience on the part of RfA reviewers and NPPers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Kudpung, and it is from that fount of experience--I have deleted 14,000 articles, if memory serves, but there's no easy way for an ex-admin to see their admin stats--and seeing seen countless cases of administrators interpreting criteria their own particular way and deleting things in a way neither consistent with our stated policies, common interpretations thereof, or even any reasonable interpretation of improving the encyclopedia that causes me pause with any new expansion of the speedy deletion criteria. As we get fewer administrators, the relative workload increases, and the pressure to 'just do something' can overwhelm well-meaning individuals and cause them to shortcut good due diligence in order to rapidly decrease backlogs. Yellow Star is an example of a book that should have been kept, but if it had been speedied, almost certainly would not have been, thus my opposition to speedy deletion criteria for books, because I don't see how anyone can safely guard against that outcome. I have a far higher tolerance for things being in process, and prefer that shoot-on-sight criteria be limited to copyvio, attack, promotion, madeup, hoax, and a few other things where substantially no one can fix them and nothing salvageable remains. Jclemens (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
      (Some admin stats for prior admins show up here, 19642 of them are deletions in your case) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
      Oh, hey, cool, I'd seen that page before but missed that that stat was buried in there... Jclemens (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
      Former admins also show up on the misguided local scoreboard at WP:ADMINSTATS. —Cryptic 18:22, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
      No one can guard against admins making mistakes - I make mistakes, fortunately they are a very low percentage (41 restored out of 7,000 deleted articles) and I don't get all my AfD nominations right, and possibly 3 of my 1000s of CSDs have been overturned, but when I look at the stats of other admins, I don't find their error rates generally worse than mine. Problem is, when admins make an error, because we're held to be infallible it gets blown out of all proportion, the admin gets tarred and feathered (and in some cases will retire completely) and the entire corps of sysops gets a bad name again. I don't think that the error rates therefore, are a sufficiently significant concern to be taken into consideration when discussing the creation of a new CSD criterion. If we did, we would need to be reducing the list of deletion criteria rather than expanding it. On the other hand,however, having a highly granular set of criteria can add to the confusion indeed, but not to the bureaucracy. What we should perhaps be examining is how often do book articles come under fire, and is it essential to create a CSD for them? I can't answer that, but perhaps someone else can. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
      As you are likely aware, I am personally aware of how a single controversial decision can lead to having one's livelihood threatened. CSD isn't that level of hating-on-admins, and by opposing this proposal, I'm actually advocating for a more limited set of CSD criteria that would, in my estimation, reduce the risk of such hating-on-admins. Wouldn't be the first time a couple of long-term editors have disagreed over the best way to implement shared values. Jclemens (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
      In the beginning, there were very few controls on Wikipedia - it would have been impossible to pre-empt every possible situation. As Wikipedia grows, more areas for control become evident. Wikipedia must introduce more controls if they are required. No one forces anyone to be an admin. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I think that we might be able to help prevent a deletion like the potential one for Yellow Star by virtue of the requirements: no assertion of notability, not published by one of the specified publishers, and the author lacks an article. YS would've passed because it was published through a major publishing house - and admins should be at conducting a cursory check for notability before speedying if the article is unclear. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. At the very least, this proposal needs to be limited to books whose only form of publication falls into the self-published/vanity category. It's becoming increasingly common for authors (particularly genre writers) to revert rights to their out-of-print books and self-publish ebook editions while making hardcopies available through commercial POD publishers. Even authors as prominent as Lois McMaster Bujold have done this See July 13 blog entry. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
I'll go along with that proviso. It should be common sense that if something has been regularly published first that it should not come under this criterion. However, I would point out that books by that author would not come under it anyway as they have an article. Whether this became part of A9 or a new A14 (or whatever), it would be a two part criterion. Self-pub book AND no-article author. Peridon (talk) 09:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that this proviso is warranted for the reason Peridon stated (a book by a notable author wouldn't qualify regardless of whether or not the work is self-published), but if it'll help get this passed and make it easier to get rid of the CreateSpace, Smashwords, and Lulu books that people toss up here, then I'm all for it. I think it's great that an author can put together a work, but it gets kind of old seeing them go to AfD when deletion is all but a foregone conclusion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak support. I am not fully convinced we need it, but it seems like a minor helpful shortcut to deal with spam. As the revised version is worded, it should not result in deletion of anything notable, so if it can save us 1-2 AfDs a week, why not. Every little bit helps. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I see a lot of books coming through new page patrol coming from new editors where there is no author article. Some are advert-csd'ed, others are afd'ed, while others are notability/advert tagged. It would be nice to have this option to clear up some clutter. It would be better to have a category of publishers though; it is almost as easy to make your own e-publisher (or self-seller) as it is to write a book.--☾Loriendrew☽ (ring-ring) 12:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • As far as publishers go, I'd say that any of the publishers on this page should be listed: List of self-publishing companies. I'll list them here for posterity but also because we will need to have a set list somewhere in case someone tries to remove one of the names in the hopes that it'll keep their book around.
  • American Biographical Institute
  • AuthorHouse
  • BiblioBazaar
  • Blurb, Inc.
  • Bob Books
  • Books LLC
  • CafePress
  • CreateSpace
  • Darkside communication group
  • DiggyPOD
  • Famous Poets Society
  • Greyden Press[10]
  • iUniverse
  • Kindle direct Publishing
  • Kobo Writing Life
  • Lightning Source
  • Llumina Press
  • Lulu
  • Notion Press
  • Outskirts Press
  • Poetry.com
  • PublishAmerica
  • Self Publish, Be Happy
  • Smashwords
  • Tate Publishing & Enterprises
  • Trafford Publishing
  • Vantage Press
  • Wattpad
  • Xlibris
  • Xulon Press
If anyone wants to add to (or take anything away from) this list, feel free - just note what you're removing and why. I was only familiar with a few of these, but I figured that since these are the outlets that are known enough to warrant an article, that they'll be the ones we'll most likely see for an article. Offhand the article had all of the names that I was going to suggest adding. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
That list looks good to me. (And I've learned how to do columns too...) Peridon (talk) 09:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Same here - I really only learned to do columns via this one author's article, which I use as a "go to" for the column template when I'm feeling lazy. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
@Peridon and Tokyogirl79: {{Multicol}} isn't an ideal way of doing columns, the presence of {{Multicol-break}} splits one list into two (or more), creating an accessibility problem. It's better to use constructs like {{div col}}/{{div col end}}, which you can see in action at Wikipedia:Meetup/UK#Oxford. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Nice! That looks far easier to use overall. I changed it up to the version you posted here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I have a problem with the wording: "does not give any indication where the work is important or significant and where the author or contributors' article does not exist (all criteria must be true). Fanfiction and podcast novels would qualify under this criteria if there is no assertion of notability". Which is it, significance or notability? Significance is a lower standard than notability. Lumping the two together would only increase the amount of confusion regarding them (as if there isn't enough already). Also, "this criteria" should be "this criterion", as we're only talking about one, and I'd suggest changing "all criteria must be true" to "all conditions must be true" to avoid confusion. I'd also strongly suggest that if this is passed, it is an extension of A9, not A7 or a new criterion. A9 already has a very similar requirement of no contributing artists, expanding A7 would make that criterion even more confusion than it is already, and a new criterion would make CSD in general more confusing, as we would have three criteria for very similar things. Adam9007 (talk) 15:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't think anyone has seriously suggested adding this to A7, as it is a two part criterion. It can fit into A9 quite well for that reason. (I mentioned 'A15 or whatever' just in case anyone objected to adding to A9...) That 'notability' can be 'significance' instead, and I do agree about 'this criteria'. Should be 'criterion' and both changes can be made now by the proposer or later by the scribe of the rolls if this is passed. Peridon (talk) 18:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I've made the tweaks in the updated version - feel free to make as many tweaks as you like - just note next to the updated text and/or down here that you added or changed something. I actually don't have a huge problem with this being lumped in with A9, since that's mostly what I modeled this after. By the by, should I open a RfC on this just to make sure I get more voices? (I probably will.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

RfC[edit]

Not sure if I'm doing this part correctly, but I'd like to have some comments on this potential addition of self-published and vanity books to the speedy guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

  • I saw the RfC notice, and my first reaction (after having read the discussion above) is that I'm a little uncomfortable about making something like this, where there is some judgment about notability involved, eligible for CSD. CSD should really be for pages where it is abundantly obvious that it is either an attack or is something that could not possibly be notable, and this seems a bit more subtle than that. On the other hand, I'm very sympathetic to what new page patrollers have to deal with, and I certainly favor dealing speedily with spam. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Churches, hotels, hospitals etc. Are they buildings or organisations, and are they eligible for A7?[edit]

I have recently encountered a confusion regarding these and A7. It was insisted that Churches are eligible for A7 as organisations. However, I look through the categories, and they are definitely classed under Buildings and Structures, and I haven't yet found any indication of them being classed under organisations (unless I missed something?). Even the article about Churches explicitly identify them as buildings. Hotels and hospitals appear to be classed under both; what does this mean exactly? Does it mean that both WP:ORG and WP:GEOFEAT apply? If so, how does that work? And are they eligible for A7 or not, or both (???). This is all rather confusing because, if I go to (for argument's sake) Wexham Park Hospital, 2 of the 3 categories there are Hospital Buildings, and Buildings and Structures. No indication of it being classed as an organisation yet. Only after digging through the categories do I find that Hospitals are also under Medical and health organisations. Same with (again, for argument's sake) Imperial Hotel, Tokyo; categories include Hotel buildings, and of course, Buildings and Structures. No explicit indication of it being an organisation. Again, only after trawling through the categories do I find that hotels also come under companies. At face value, hospitals and hotels (or at least the two examples given here) appear to be classed under Buildings and Structures only. Does this mean they are primarily Buildings, and secondarily organisations? My query is thus: are these (for the purposes of A7) buildings, or organisations, and are they/should they be A7-eligible? And if they're under organisations, perhaps a note explaining all of this should be put somewhere (the templates perhaps?), or maybe a new (sub)category for A7 should be implemented? Adam9007 (talk) 01:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I will at this point just assess the church question, but the answer can probably be extended to more of the question. I see the possibility of three different answers, yes, no, and maybe. Don't take my examples as actually being eligible under a7 they are just examples. Yes, the article is about the congregation (an organization), example Citadel of Faith Covenant Church. No, the article is about the building, example Immanuel Episcopal Church (Bellows Falls, Vermont). Maybe, it is a hybrid of the two, it is about both the congregation and the building itself. If the building is non descript, no historical significance and there is nothing that shows significance I would say yes. If there is any question, no. The same could be said about your other portions of the question. -- GB fan 01:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I would go with that, and add that hospitals are usually organisations, IMO. The buildings are not usually likely to be notable, and the article will often be plugging the specialist toenail transplants they offer (or whatever...). A notable hospital building will be fairly obvious as being architecturally out of the ordinary, or definitely historically important. As the NHS here and the hospital trusts and companies try to keep the cost of new buildings down as far as possible, architectural adventure is not really on the cards, except in oil-rich states who have to spend the money on something... Peridon (talk) 09:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

G12 - is 95% "unequivocal" ?[edit]

In discussion with Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi about Thomas FitzGerald, 7th Earl of Desmond I was told "if you think that 95% copyvio is unsufficient for G12, then you should probably head elsewhere for clarification". So here I am.

Earwig had reported a 95% overlap with one particular source, although the article had been worked on for 6 years by many editors. Eventually I reverted the article to what appears to be the last good version before one particular copyright-ignoring editor's editing spree. I would hope that a deleting admin would have stopped and checked the article's history, and reckoned that the other 5% was likely to be worth saving (even if it had just left the article with infobox, lead, categories, succession box, image, incoming redirects, etc - all this work which would have been lost unnecessarily if the article had been speedy-deleted), but I believe it wasn't eligible for nomination for speedy deletion.

If a long-standing and much-edited article in its current version shows as 95% copyvio, should it be nominated for Speedy Deletion G12?

Any views from other editors? PamD 11:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: I've mentioned this discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems#When does speedy G12 apply? PamD 11:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
The percentages refer to how good the match of the article text and the compared-with source is, not how much of the article matches. In that case the article would not be eligible for G12 because it's not the whole article which is a copyvio. Also, one needs to always keep the possibility of {{Backwardscopy}} in mind, but I don't know if that is the case here. Finally, the way to handle a disagreement is not by edit warring over it - that also applies to Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:CSD
en.wikipedia.org
crawl=CC-MAIN-2016-36
110696
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:G6PGUACDIAIXGH7POB53VEH6RHF6UXOK
<urn:uuid:e959cefc-7caa-4061-b537-98606c3d50d1>
2016-08-28T08:07:56Z
208.80.154.224
sha1:IJVDEYYAYJAYL6UDW6UCQIXLLQ2QLDVI
<urn:uuid:1b570af0-96eb-4bd4-8d17-13b040ed1bec>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:CSD
response
<urn:uuid:53d0eabd-d735-497e-9743-edf2409eaa30>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-153-172-175.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2016-36
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for August 2016
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf