Wikinews talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive one

Introduction
I propose that we adopt the following proposal regarding Speedy_deletion. There is no policy currently, and I thought it would be good to set things up so that we all know where we stand.

This is essentially a copy+paste of the en.Wikipedia policy, with a couple of points clarified or changed (especially #7). It is also my proposal that existing Tsunami Help pages be exempt from this policy, although future pages will be fair game.

Votes
This is where this policy may be voted upon. Please use the Talk Page for discussion on this proposal, in order to keep this page from becoming cluttered.

Support
 * I think the policy is overall very well-done. Regarding "almost no content" pages, I personally think it does not hurt to wait a few hours or so. Tomos 11:15, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * If Google News ever starts crawling us -- then vandalized articles will go global unless we nip them in the bud at an early stage (Google usually crawls live news sites every 10 minutes or so for changes or new stories) -- Davodd | Talk 05:55, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * -- Davodd | Talk 05:55, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Dan100 22:44, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Opposition on lack of policy grounds
There has been no discussion of this policy, but it is already up on a poll. There is no way to actually certify the poll because:


 * There is no policy on how to create policy
 * There is no policy on how to determine if the policy "passed"
 * There is no policy on who may vote in the poll
 * There is no policy on how to validate votes
 * This poll has not even been listed on Polls

There isn't even a suggestion as to how long the poll can last. From the polls page, one poll was opened on Dec. 10, closed on December 18, with a grand total of 9 votes, only 6 of which were opposed (67%). Another was opened on November 16, is still open, has an average of 41 votes on the three proposal elements. (And did I mention there was no discussion on either page? just votes.)

- Amgine 07:26, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps "poll" was a poor choice of word. What I wanted to do was poll the user's opinions, to see if this proposal was acceptable in its current form, and if not, to discuss how it might be changed to become acceptable to most users. Lankiveil 05:29, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC).

Run with it
Until anyone someone objects, I think we should use this as policy. Dan100 (Talk) 16:27, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't object to the content, but I do object to the term policy. Can we title this a convention/guideline? Then it will more likely receive the updating/fixing/adapting it needs. If so, I will go through and clean it up, fill in redlinks, etc.


 * Also, can we place it under Wikinews:Policies and guidelines/Deletion guidelines/Speedy deletion? This would, again, make it easier to understand, modify, and contain a hierarchy link at the top. - 24.85.65.249 19:48, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC) This was me, and it's taken this long to get logged in - Amgine 20:19, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

addition
i proposed an addition to this "policy" or "guideline" or whatever it is concitered. See: Water_cooler/policy--Ryan524 09:20, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Proposed addition: Cut & Paste Copyvios.
Discussion on a proposed addition for speedy delete to Speedy deletion guidelines, see: Water_cooler/policy for discussion. -- Davodd | Talk 04:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete addition - Cut & Paste copyvio
I propose we add an additional speedy delete criterion to Speedy deletion guidelines: Cut & Paste Copyvios. My proposal:
 * 11. An obvious copyright violation that is a cut-and-paste exact or near-exact duplicate of content from a copyrighted source. Speedy delete does not apply for public-domain sources, when public domain reprint permission is granted from the original source and specified in the article talk page, or to articles with a third-party edit history.

We are getting a slew of these things and the WN:DR wait is too long since they are being listed on news feed like google news as seen here. We need to nip these obvious copyvios in the bud before they hit the feeds. -- Davodd | Talk 04:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Agree. ClareWhite 07:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I propose not that these articles be speedy deleted, but that they be tagged and given a 24 hour period since their creation to develop, and if they are not developed, they can be deleted on sight. This way, legitimate stories that users are willing to de-copyvio can't just be deleted immediately.  I've heard the excuse that it is Wikimedia policy to delete the history of a page if there was every any copyrighted material, but what I have to say back is that Wikipedia articles get tons of copyvios to their articles every hour, and they don't have any plans to wipe those article's histories clean because of one vandal.  -- NGerda 07:47, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * We would still need to delete the copyvio version from the article history. -- Davodd | Talk 15:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Davodd - delete at once. However, we should probably also leave a note on the talk page of the user to let them know what happened. Dan100 (Talk) 08:26, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * We could move the copy-vio on their Talk page with an explanation that they need to work it into a sourced story before re-submitting it? That should make the point and people can follow the trail if they wish. It won't be on the news space then. ClareWhite 08:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I like that additional guideline. It also could apply to many other speedy deletes. -- Davodd | Talk 15:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Agree with all this - allow editors to deal with it in the quickest way so we don't get copyvios showing up on Google News. - McCart42 (talk) 15:18:23, 2005-07-28 (UTC)

If you delete something you should tell the creator
If you delete something you should tell the creator. If you don't, they're probally give up on wikinews because the article/whatever magicly disapeared. the users are not going to know how to look it up in the deletion log to see what went wrong. They also can't fix the problem without it being told to them what it is. This seems kind of common sense to me. Bawolff ☺☻ 08:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with this idea for items deleted because they are not news or copyvio, however most things speedy deleted are complete rubbish and telling the person would only be a waste of time --Cspurrier 15:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Deletions are bad
People should be able to vote on a specific article as they view it. If the article is without merit, people should vote it off. Then you can choose to view questionable content or not.

Another idea would be to make a post or series of post be credible, only if the poster has previously posted credible links in the past, has been viewed by credible moderators, and has matured to some point. New posts should go trough a maturity phase, and be listed in imature links. Only kids and those who don't wish to view potential risky sites should view the links and updates that have been ... looking for a good phrase... "burned in".

Deleting Adhoc is Stupid and Dangerous. Only when things get out of control should the moderator bring in the hatchet.

Just Ideas,

Marc Noon


 * Hi. I think the idea is that you select administrators whose judgment you can reasonably trust, and let them make some of less important judgments. It is best of those judgments are routine and well-defined so that there is high likelihood that people agree most of the time. It is best of the consequences of those judgments are reversible, and not very big.
 * Discussion for deletion do happen, as you might be aware, but it tends to receive smaller attention than it should, if it were to handle all deletion candidates as you suggest. Think about the fact that, for example, in order to see if an article is a copyvio of an external site, you would need to see the matches between the two texts, see if the external site's text precedes the one posted on Wikinews, see if any license terms permits reuse on Wikinews, see if the copyright holder posted it on Wikinews, and judge if any reasonable chance that fair use defense could be made. That is a lot of work if you want to do it carefully. And people here are probably more interested in writing news stories, not assessing potential copyvio cases..
 * See also Proposed deletion.
 * Tomos 23:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

broken redirects
Hi. I was just informed that deleting broken redirects would increase the server load, while they are not that harmful if left undeleted.

If that is the case, I thought we should remove the broken redirects from the guideline.

Just to be clear, I am talking about the kind of broken redirects that cannot be fixed. When you delete an article for copyvio, for example, redirects to that deleted article become broken and you cannot fix it most of the time.

Tomos 23:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I've learned that some people do support the idea of deleting broken redirects. I don't have strong opinion either way. So I have just changed my mind and instead of proposing to change the guideline, I now suggest that we inform admins of this server load issue.

Indeed I just went ahead and inserted such a note. 

Tomos 14:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion
I think that a new criteria should be added : "articles on events that occurred over 5 days ago" Anonymous101  15:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree it would be helpful to speedy so-called "old-news" but I don't know how specific we want to get with a cutoff perhaps there should be some discretion given to the admin, but we also need allowances for events that happened a while ago, but only recently came to light. --SVTCobra 15:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think such articles should go through dr. Bawolff ☺☻ 09:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)