UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Speedy Deletion Criterion 14

Aim

This policy will introduce a fourteenth Speedy Deletion criterion. It's purpose will be to provide groups with a means of speedily deleting unwanted subpages belonging to their group.

Why not just expand Current Criteria?

For reference here are the current criteria for speedy deletion:

1. No Content: The page contains no more than a line or two of content that cannot clearly be expanded, consists of random or incoherent content, or is duplicated elsewhere to no purpose. Pages created by Spambots typically fall under this category.
2. Off-Topic: The page is a clearly off-topic page.
3. Unused Redirect: The page is an unused or underused (ie, only 1-2 pages using the link) redirect.
4. Empty Category: The page is a Category page that has no entries within it.
5. Missed Talk Page: The page is a Talk: Page from a previous deletion request that has not been deleted with the request (please note the relevant deletion request if this is so)
6. Deletion Workaround: The page is a duplicate of a page that has been deleted from a previous deletion request (please note the relevant deletion request if this is so). A page that fits this criterion is immediately qualified for deletion without requiring it be nominated on the 'Speedy Deletions' page. Recreating a page that fits this criterion will get you a polite message to stop doing so. Any further infractions of this nature will qualify as vandalism and will be treated as such. Note that criterion 6 does not apply when the page has been restored through Undeletions.
7. Author Edit Only: The page has been requested for speedy deletion by the original author, and has been edited only by its author. Note that edits by adbots or vandals and reverts caused by them do not count.
8. User Page: The page is a User subpage that has been requested for speedy deletion by the original author.
9. Personal Page (Prefix Rule): The page is named after a user without the "User:" or "Journal:" prefixes and its content has been moved to the appropriate User or Journal page. Includes pages that should be User subpages, ie. in-game characters.
10. Unused Template: The page is a template that has existed for at least one week and is currently unused within the wiki.
11. Non-existent User Page: The page is a User: page for a user that doesn't exist, and any content on the page has been moved to the appropriate User: or Journal: page.

    As of 20 June 2009, Crit 11 is now a scheduled deletion.

12. Defunct group page: The page is a non-historical group page, it is over two months old, it has not had an update in a month, and is not on the stats page. Such pages will remain in the queue for 5 days to determine their defunct status has been correctly identified. Due to the large number of pages that fit into this criterion, please {{speedydelete12}} on the pages to ensure that they are categorized differently from normal speedy deletion requests.

    As of 2007, September 16, this is no longer a valid criterion.

13. Missed sub-page: The page is a sub-page from a previous deletion request that has not been deleted with the request, and that serves no individual purpose (please note the relevant deletion request).

We could expand crit 7 to include groups however since the wording of crit 7 states The page has been requested for speedy deletion by the original author, and has been edited only by its author. Note that edits by adbots or vandals and reverts caused by them do not count and in most cases the group pages are edited by several users and may even be put up for deletion by a future leader of the group it would be easier just to make a new criteria just to save confusion.

The New Criteria

This policy would add a fourteenth criteria stating the following:

• Group Sub-page: The page is an unwanted group sub-page requested for speedy deletion by the leader of that group.

Simple as that.

Conclusion

The addition of this criteria would allow group's to quickly tidy up their namespace without having to take pages to deletions and waiting two weeks.

Simples no?

Voting Section

Voting Rules

Votes must be numbered, signed, and timestamped. They can take one of two forms: # comments ~~~~ or # ~~~~ Votes that do not conform to the above will be struck by a sysop.

The only valid voting sections are For and Against. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.

For

1. For - I think this would definitely be a good idea. -- Cheese 16:36, 13 May 2010 (BST)
2. For - I certainly agree that this is a useful criterion. If users have the authority to speedily delete their pages, it is only fair if groups have it as well. In cases where questionable leadership claims are made, the pages would go to A/D anyway due to the "rival leader" voting keep (or if the speedy deletion had already been served, requesting the page's undeletion), so I cannot see how this could lead to considerable abuse. G F J 20:19, 13 May 2010 (BST)
3. For - I hate this policy and I don't trust it. But what I hate even more is the fact that I see wiki users submitting their own group subpages to A/D because it doens't fit an A/SD criterea, only to have the community keep it for reasons which totally ignore the group in the first place. For example, here. What is effectively a crit 7 is being overridden by voters because they like the content of the page and want others to read it. If that were a crit 7, it would be deleted on the spot. We've always favoured author wishes over anything else, even policy, but this guy doesn't get off and I think that's garbage. Anything that will fix that and harm nothing else is something I'm willing to support. --
    
    
    
    
   01:34, 14 May 2010 (BST)

   Surely they could just blank the pages and then submit them? That would fufil an existing criteria? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 09:35, 14 May 2010 (BST)

   Yeah! So why should they have to do that if that's within their right but this isn't? You gave the same suggestion here, where you tell Izzy to blank his own pages to render them as scheduled, just to nullify Cyberbob's keep vote. He shouldn't have to do that, and thankfully, it was deleted anyway coutesy of Cheese but the point remains that if you have to go through 3 different alleyways of policies to have something deleted legally because the first, and most logical alleyway doesn't allow it, then the first alleyway should work. I don't like this policy much but until either a) something better comes along or b) sysops once again use crit 7 to accommodate these types of requests (which imo is the preferred option), then this policy is what I'll support. --

    

    

    

    

   12:48, 14 May 2010 (BST)

   Seems to me that I had a similar argument elsewhere. -Poodle of Doom^{M! T} 13:20, 14 May 2010 (BST)

   I hardly think so. We aren't arguing about any of the tenuous problems you had with the policy. My problem is that Ross seems to agree with the principle of having groups own the deletion rights to their pages but insists they go through unnecessary red tape to achieve it. Knowing that both Ross and myself are both heads of very small wikis I'm surprised he is fine with that principle. --

    

    

    

    

   13:46, 14 May 2010 (BST)

   Putting my little wiki head on, its less of a problem there. Group pages get created / moved etc pretty quickly. Here we're sometimes dealing with crap from years ago. Personally I feel that it should be down to sysops. If a sysop has a good understanding of a groups history (like say GFJ's involvement with the DEM, then its fine.) If its a group no ones ever heard of ownership can prove tricky, and the two weeks seem a prudent time to ask. We aren't swimming in red tape. All the orphan groups are listed or gone, all 10000 images are categorised. How much more work does it really take to put these on deletions? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 15:43, 14 May 2010 (BST)

   It isn't about having these on deletions, it's about having them on deletions and having them kept even though they shouldn't be. --

    

    

    

    

   15:50, 14 May 2010 (BST)

   Oh, OK. Well in that case, I'd pull the classic, sysops can do anything card. We've had deletions removed, deleted early etc for years. You just want to formalise the process yes? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 15:52, 14 May 2010 (BST)

   It doesn't specifically need to be formalised, I just feel sorry for the guy that I linked in the case above, in my opinion that shouldn't happen, and hopefully it won't. This has the potential to help, even if it has holes. Since I'm not an op I won't be overly courteous/angry if this passes or fails but until there are ways that group leaders can control their wiki content's deletions I wouldn't mind this being in. --

    

    

    

    

   16:18, 14 May 2010 (BST)

   Oh DDR... My God, would I have a Job for you when this passes,.... and I oh so hope it doesn't! -Poodle of Doom^{M! T} 23:20, 14 May 2010 (BST)

   Aaaaand once again you have proven that you jump into frays thinking you have any clue about what you're talking about when you haven't the slightest idea. Thanks for adding nothing of value yet again. --

    

    

    

    

   01:23, 15 May 2010 (BST)

   No the value was a formal request when this thing passes... -Poodle of Doom^{M! T} 02:03, 15 May 2010 (BST)

4. For - This would transfer some power from separatist groups to group leaders --> Groups are most effective when they stick together. --> This helps groups. --> It's more important for zombies to group together than it is for survivors. --> This helps zombies more than survivors. --> Barhah! --VVV ^RPMBG 05:02, 14 May 2010 (BST)

   Okay, except for the fact that your line of thought has nothing to do with the intent of policy, (or making any sense whatsoever) --Thadeous Oakley 14:45, 14 May 2010 (BST)

5. I'm all for this DI Sweeny 13:50, 14 May 2010 (BST)

Against

1. Against - There's been more than a few acrimonious splits in groups and it would be too easy for a leader to deny any splinter group work that they had done on the wiki under this criterion. Also it has in the past been prudent to allow other members the chance to gank any relevent historical details they have found important from group archives before said archives can be deleted. 17:35, 13 May 2010 (BST)
2. Against No argument has been presented that convinces me that this should be a speedy deletion criteria. And as Mis, and as my comments and others on the talk page. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:40, 13 May 2010 (BST)
3. Against - As above. Too much "maybe" ground.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:09, 13 May 2010 (BST)
4. Against - As below. --Thadeous Oakley 23:49, 13 May 2010 (BST)
5. Against I've never really had a problem with it just the way it is... -Poodle of Doom^{M! T} 23:57, 13 May 2010 (BST)