Wikiquote talk:Speedy deletions

From Wikiquote

Archives

2006

[edit] Proposed change to "unremarkable subject" case

A few times now (well, at least twice that I can recall), speedy deletion on the grounds of "unremarkable subject" has been proposed for pages that don't meet the criteria for that ("a real person, group of people, band, or club"). In one case, the subject was a fictional character, and in another, an apparently user-created Google video. In the first case, it was pretty clear from the outset that the subject was indeed not notable; the second (which at this time is still an open discussion) appears to be heading the same way.

Considering these cases, and I strongly suspect there will be others, would it worthwhile to eliminate the "real person, group of people, band, or club" criteria for the "unremarkable subject" case and make such a speedy deletion option available to any subject that doesn't claim or seem to have notability? I think it might be a good idea; I can't think of any problems that might arise as a result of such a change. —LrdChaos (talk) 15:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I definitely support this change. As far as I can see, notability should be proven for anything that is in wikiquote -- otherwise someone could use this loophole to put up a page for a fictional character that was created out of thin air (and is obviously not notable). ~ UDScott 21:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I support this, but with a caveat: we really ought to establish some policy for disagreements that arise. We sysops can make mistakes, and there is no universal, unambiguous standard for notability or non-notability. It's inevitable that we will occasionally overreach. Therefore, we should have a protest mechanism that's a little more organized than posting to the closing/deleting sysop (or another one) or to Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard. We've been talking about implementing a Wikiquote:Deletion review, but haven't done so yet. I've been trying to summon the focus to make a draft of this, but I'm afraid I'm taking much longer than expected to regain my enthusiasm for serious work. Does anyone else want to take a pass at this? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, as of May 2007, we have Wikiquote:Deletion review, even as draft and no deletion has been reviewed yet. --Aphaia 15:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Addition of "no quotes" clause

Something I've mentioned a few times on WQ:VFD and brought up when this was a draft policy is adding a clause for deleting articles with no quotes. The current "no content" clause specifies that pages lacking an intro AND quotes can be speedy deleted, and I think it's very clear that it doesn't permit the speedy deletion of pages with an intro but no quotes. I propose that we either add a "no quotes" clause, or rephrase "no content" to include pages without quotes. I have some proposed wording for a new "no quotes" clause:

No quotes. Articles which may contain an introduction, but do not contain any quotes. This does not apply to pages where quotes are present but their accuracy disputed, nor to pages from which quotes have been removed.

I'm sure that could stand a bit of refining before going "live", but I think it works at getting the point across: it's OK to delete a page with no quotes, as long as it's always been a page with no quotes. —LrdChaos (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I support this policy change, LrdChaos. I think this would be useful in weeding out some of the useless pages without unneccesarily burdening us with multiple VFDs. ~ UDScott 17:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Support. 121a0012 20:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to support this, but only if we come up with a practical system of holding off at least a week on new articles. We're getting more not-unreasonable objections to our habit of deleting (or nominating for deletion) new articles within hours — sometimes minutes — of their creation. We do this for practical reasons (namely, that we find these new articles through mechanisms like "recent changes" that only show the latest stuff, and there are precious few of us working on it), but I'm concerned that we're beginning to risk alienating potentially valuable contributors by our exigency-driven haste.

By "practical system", I mean something that allow RC patrollers to tag an article for review in a week or so, but only if we have folks who are going to actually do the reviews. I'm worried that if we make a practice of tagging articles with a "no content" template, we might not get enough people to take the next step and SD or VfD the articles after a short delay. (I'm not encouraged by the results so far of 121a0012's Category:Wikiquote no intro cleanup campaign; I suspect we're adding {{no-intro}}s almost as fast as we remove them.) Can we do this? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that I'd support a week, but I would support some period of waiting and watching (perhaps something like three days). I agree that sometimes we're a bit overzealous in deleting or nominating for deletion when a new page is created, but at the same time, I don't want to foster the idea that it's OK for someone to drop in, create a page with only an intro, and then not bother adding any of the important content, namely quotes. —LrdChaos (talk) 14:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Jeffq and User:LrdChaos. BTW, the {{no-intro}} business isn't me -- I think it was started by MosheZadka. Here's a proposed restatement of the proposal:

No quotes. Articles which may contain an introduction, but do not contain any quotes, and are at least three days old. This does not apply to pages where quotes are present but their accuracy disputed, nor to pages from which quotes have been removed.

As far as how to handle marking these, I'd suggest something like this: put a template on the talk page of every new article that puts it into a category Category:Pages for review from Month, YYYY. After an article has passed its "probationary period" and proved to be real, remove the tag and/or delete the talk page. (It would be nice if MediaWiki provided a more direct mechanism to do this automatically, since all it takes is a database query to find out when the article was created.) 121a0012 16:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, 121a0012 — when I said "cleanup campaign", I was talking about your recent suggestion at WQ:VP to work on no-intro, not the original organization, and I appreciate that you called attention to the problem. Anyway, although I'd prefer at least a week, I'd agree that 3 days would at least give new editors some time and reduce the likelihood of targeting active articles vs. "abandoned" ones. I'm not sure I see a point to a category by month if we're only delaying further action by three days or even a week, though. If we don't have sufficient ongoing editor-time to remove articles from an overall Category:Pages for review within a few days (either by SD/VfD tagging or content addition), we shouldn't be doing this delay step. If we do have the editor attention, monthly categories would only generate ultimately leftover maintenance pages. If this system is to work, I'd expect it to have only a modest number of articles at any given time in the category that editors can review (like we do "recent changes" or "new articles") to swiftly tag, de-tag, or (for sysops) speedy-delete. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I deleted a no-quote article and found A1 says only "Articles which contain neither an introduction to the topic nor any quote." So "no quote but bio only" doesn't met our criteria of speedy deletion! (You may undelete my deletions, of course). I would also support to include this clause to Article part. --Aphaia 02:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I would definitely support the addition of this as a case for speedy deletion. A recent example was an article (Formiline) where the only content was an encyclopedic description of aindustrial company in Brazil. While the content was not nonsense and was meaningful, the page still does not belong here since it contained no quotes. These kinds of pages I think should be deleted on sight (which I did - although Aphaia called me on it since 'no quotes' is not yet an acceptable reason for deletion), but I also understand the need for a waiting period before deleting some pages that may or may not become viable pages as people add to them. In this case, I think that was highly unlikely, but I can see it for some people pages in particular. ~ UDScott 15:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I would just have liked you to pay attention to this discussion, UDScott, and the article you deleted seems to have no possibility to be expanded in a foreseeable future in my impression. It is okay with me - but I don't want to let this discussion die out.

Reviewing the whole discussion, I found there are two versions proposed, say

1. No quotes. Articles which may contain an introduction, but do not contain any quotes. This does not apply to pages where quotes are present but their accuracy disputed, nor to pages from which quotes have been removed.
2. No quotes. Articles which may contain an introduction, but do not contain any quotes, and are at least three days old. This does not apply to pages where quotes are present but their accuracy disputed, nor to pages from which quotes have been removed.

So we need to determine which version we are going to apply. I am afraid it becomes a burden for us to keep them at least three days, besides it may mean we need to make a limbo for those articles (perhaps as a category), keeping them would make the project look crappy. So I rather prefer the version 1. --Aphaia 15:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like we might be considering a Wikiquote version of w:Template:Prod, Wikipedia's means of tagging articles that aren't obvious SD candidates but are so sub-standard that they can be deleted if there are no objections after a few days. This has the additional benefit of warning the creator of the imminent deletion, especially if we adopt WP's recommendation to notify the article creator on their talk page. I'm not prepared to set up and test a prod system right now, but if someone else wanted to do this, I'd probably support it. If not, I'm still a bit uncomfortable about summary deletions of non-quote articles that have potential, but I might not oppose it if there is a strong consensus to implement the simpler SD case. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see a Prod system here as well - it would be a very effective middle position between speedies and full-out deletion debates. BD2412 T 06:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion, JeffQ. WP Prod system looks well-designed and a sensible solution. I'd love to test it. --Aphaia 08:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

See Wikiquote:Proposed deletion It is now almost a bare copy of Wikipedia version, and need your further cleanup. I listed up relevant pages on my user page (User:Aphaia/Prod). There are a lots of templates etc on our sister project, but I expect we don't need all of them for now, even they are nifty.

We have to determine how many days we allow those prod pages to survive; three days as JeffQ suggested, or the equal length of VfD as Wikipedia does. But it would be better to discuss on Wikiquote talk:Proposed deletion. --Aphaia 10:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New criterion

We should have a criterion for "obvious hoax" that is not quite nonsense.--Poetlister 17:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

And "quotes" from something before it is released? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, under articles:
5. Unreleased material. This includes films not yet released, and especially pre-release material illicitly available.

Tyrenius 23:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)