Warcraft Wiki talk:Speedy deletion policy

Suggestion

Name

I like everything but the name of the template. {{sd}} seems way too short and non-descriptive. Perhaps {{speedy-delete}}? --Fandyllic 6:37 PM PDT 7 Apr 2006

I changed the name to {{speedydelete}}, but {{sd}} will still work, if anyone wants to use that shortcut. Schmidt 22:29, 9 April 2006 (EDT)

{{subst:sd|<reason>}} is now something a bit different.   --Mikk (T) 01:21, 11 September 2006 (EDT)

Rewording

Agree, {{sd}} is way to vague. Also the template says, "Please vote on this article's discussion page." The whole point of speedy delete I thought was to avoid a vote. Maybe that should be removed and below the 'tag' it could say something like:

---

If you do not feel this page should be speedy-deleted:

1. Replace the {{sd}} tag with the {{Delete}} tag.
2. Create a talk page for this article if one does not exist.
3. Place the {{Delete/Vote}} tag on the talk page.
4. Vote to keep the page and comment on why (or Vote to delete the page and explain why it should not be a speedy delete).

Please also review the Deletion Policy and Speedy Deletion Policy.

---

Also I am giving it a trial test on Aofbanktwo.

--Ralthor 20:47, 7 April 2006 (EDT)

I didn't mean to indicate that there would be a vote following. I don't honestly see where you got this idea. I simply said, If another user feels that speedy delete is unwarranted then that user could change the sd (or whatever) tag and replace it according to the typical deletion policy. I'll think of another tag instead of sd and let you all know shortly. But anyways, I'll consider changing the wording to make it more precise. Thanks for the suggestions. Schmidt 17:30, 9 April 2006 (EDT)

I know the intention was to avoid a vote, thats why I was questioning the second sentence of the template which says to go to the discussion page and vote. --Ralthor 18:14, 9 April 2006 (EDT)

I don't see what you're talking about. Do you mean the line in the template {{policy}}? I understand now. I corrected it. Schmidt 22:22, 9 April 2006 (EDT)

Clarity

Alright got another suggestion for you, on Deletion Policy it says, NOTE: Admins may use the process of speedy deletion, for such cases as empty articles without a stub or without any substantial content that will probably never have any new content. Which makes it sound like only admins can use the speedy deletion tag. Maybe a topic called speedy delete should be added to the exceptions section, which a quick list of requirements to use the speedy delete template.--Ralthor 22:44, 9 April 2006 (EDT)

Well, my mind is lacking in clarity right now, so I don't think I can solve the problem at this time. But in case someone else can reword it, my intention is that anyone can flag articles, provided the qualifications apply. But as a matter of course, only admins can actually execute the speedy delete. I hope that covers it, and I hope that's not stepping on anyone else's toes. Schmidt 22:48, 9 April 2006 (EDT)

Time Limit

So its speedy delete because we don't have to wait 3 months or something to get the votes (or forver in some cases), however, perhaps you should decree a time period between when the article is first marked with speedy delete tag and when it can be deleted, to give people time to protest just in case? Although it is likey people will only mark junk with the tag, and the admin won't actually delete it unless it is actually junk, it might be good to keep one just in case. (For example, I think everyone thought Ubarlight was just some random article until someone who actually knew what it was saw that it was being deleted). --Ralthor 01:38, 10 April 2006 (EDT)

Well in a case like that specifically, well, we can undelete edits. Even then, if there was no decent content, that doesn't mean the article may never be created again, or that if it is created again it'll be deleted again. It just means that nothing there so far has been worth anything. If someone has anything decent to contribute that's fine, but currently (v.z. at the time of deletion) the content isn't worth its own article. Also, any admin that would delete an article so tagged would (should) check first to see if there has ever been worthy content, and so on.

Furthermore, if no one disputes the fact the flag on an article, that kind of indicates that no one cared about it. Not in all cases of course. And I do recognize the fact that there are some articles that no one is watching yet is important. But I also know beyond the shadow of a doubt that Fandyllic and I have decent judgement enough to know whether to remove an article.

And referring specifically to the Ubarlight article, well, like I said above, at the time there was no useful content on the page. So if it was then deleted, there wouldn't be much loss. From then on, if someone wanted to add the article again, they could say "Ubarlight is important in the <whatever server name> community" and give the article a PC stub tag, and hopefully it would develop more content, as necessary. Schmidt 13:30, 10 April 2006 (EDT)

I agree with Schmidt that we shouldn't worry too much. Articles marked for "speedy delete" will only get deleted after a review by an admin and I know that I'm pretty lazy, but thorough when I actually get to it, so I usually err on the side of leaving it there. Ultimately you mostly just lose the history of an article that gets deleted, since most articles marked will have little or no content. Users are always free to recreate stuff and they can often re-grab content from Google cache if hasn't been nuked for too long. An example is some placeholder/stubs for Cosmos developers that could get marked for speedy delete, but I check what links here before even marking them and noticed they were linked to Cosmos, so I left them alone as regular {{delete}}. --Fandyllic 12:50 PM PDT 10 Apr 2006

Creator deletes his whole text = "Requests deletion"

I'm going to unilatirarily decide that "The author requests deletion" includes "The original and only author deleted his entire text and doesn't seem to know about Terminate / Speedydelete tags" and go right ahead and tag such pages when I find them. Scream at me if you disagree :-) --Mikk 23:25, 22 May 2006 (EDT)

That only makes sense. If I had thought that that was uncertain, I would have mentioned that as well. Schmidt 11:39, 23 May 2006 (EDT)

I'll clarify it in the intro for speedy deletion. --Fandyllic 2:13 PM PDT 23 May 2006

Can we unstubbify this?

From my admittedly non-admin standpoint, I think that this page is done. It contains everything I need to see, is as clear and concise as it can be at this point, and .. well.. it just looks done to me. Of course, policy evolves, but I just don't think it deserves having that ugly stub tag cluttering the formatting any longer :-) --Mikk 03:03, 24 May 2006 (EDT)

Users can't delete though

Just one thing from the text...

The user that tags an article thus must not delete the article himself unless it's confirmed by another WoWWikian.

I don't get this line. Users can't delete :-)   --Mikk 03:06, 24 May 2006 (EDT)

Good catch. I'll remove that line. --Fandyllic 11:17 AM PDT 24 May 2006

I wrote that, and at first I thought, "Why would I say that?" But I remember. I guess it may simply have been poorly written, but basically if you replace in that sentence administrator for what appears as user, you get my meaning: An admin shouldn't delete an article without its having been tagged already for speedy deletion. (I guess I used the word user perhaps for lack of better term because the term admin didn't cross my mind. But it still applies, because admins are users, after all.) Also, if an admin tags an article thus, he should let someone else confirm it before he goes ahead with it. At least, that was my intent. It can be left for debate whether or not an admin should be authorized to straight up delete what seems to be junk without another set of eyes. So far, however, I'm quite confident that both of us are even-minded well enough to know a good article from a bad one. Schmidt 21:25, 24 May 2006 (EDT)

External links are valid content

Links to external sites like wowhead are useful and valid content. Frankly, those sites do a great job covering content like quests, NPCs, and items, and duplicating that information here on the wiki is of marginal value. However, having articles for that content on the wiki is useful, if only to provide a simple way for users to click through to the detailed coverage on the external sites.

For example, Death's Embrace is marked for speedy deletion with the reason "no content". But it contains links to all the major quest sites where you can find out everything you need to know about the quest. That's useful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bonesbro (talk · contr).

Just to make it clear: External links can be useful information, but they are not content. Reeina (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Emphasized use of reason param by decree

I'm skipping the policy change process to add that not using the 2= or reason= parameters weakens your case when you use {{speedydelete}} without it. I've seen admins abuse this by what appears to be laziness of not wanting to type an explanation. Unless the reason for {{speedydelete}} is obvious (clear violation of another policy or requested by sole author), the reason should be included.

I'd love to hear arguments against this change, because I doubt they will be rational, sensible, or valid. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 4:33 PM PST 23 Dec 2008

I additionally added a note about adding an explanation/reason that isn't relevant or meaningful being treated as if none were given. I have also seen admins try to game the system this way. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 4:41 PM PST 23 Dec 2008

Can pages be speedily deleted for any reason?

Currently, the policy does not have an exhaustive list of valid reasons for speedy deletion, merely a set of three examples of valid reasons. Based on my interpretation, the current policy permits any page to be speedily deleted at any time for any reason, which seems excessively broad. Perhaps the policy should state that, if a page does not meet any of the criteria outlined in the qualifications section, it should only be speedily deleted if the rationale provided in the speedy deletion tag includes an explanation of why there is an urgent need to delete the page without going through the normal deletion process. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:29, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Why? --Pcj (TDrop me a line!•C207,729 contributions and counting) 02:35, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

I think it's up to the discretion of the admins, which I'd say is probably the best way to do it; there's no way we could possibly outline every single reason for page deletion in order to make a hard and fast ruling about it. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 02:35, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, a lot of "unlabeled" speedy deleted (those caught by admins) qualify for the "violates policy" qualification. If you want to expand/restrict that qualification, I would suggest going for the governing policies, not the speedy deletion policy. --Pcj (TDrop me a line!•C207,729 contributions and counting) 02:37, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Pcj, under my proposal, a rationale would only be needed if the page does not meet any of the three explicit criteria outlined in the qualifications section, so pages which violate policy could still be speedily deleted without any rationale being provided in the tag. Zeratul, there would be no need to outline every single reason for page deletion, an editor wanting to have a page which does not meet any of the three criteria would only need to come up with a decent justification for speedy deletion of that specific page. Editors who don't know why they're using the speedy deletion tag probably shouldn't be using it. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:59, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Pages which violate policy do not require a speedy delete tag to be delete. Administrators who catch such policy violations can immediately delete such violations. --Pcj (TDrop me a line!•C207,729 contributions and counting) 04:13, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

And its not that hard to ask for the page to be restored, such as you already did. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 04:17, November 4, 2009 (UTC)