The Masked Loser page shouldn't be deleted, speedily or otherwise. It should be sent to the bad jokes list. I'm setting a vfd tag on it, instead.

Does anybody else think that the opening sentence has a rather snide ending? In fact the whole first paragraph is pretty condescending. However, the end of the first sentence is the least useful and not welcoming at all. "If you've come here from a recently created page whose text may soon be deleted, then Welcome to Wikipedia."Raazer 01:54, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Made a little reorganization to better express what its meant to say. —siroχo

Nice, someone went through the trouble... should this "thank you" be a minor edit?Raazer 17:23, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The sandbox have been marked for speedy deletions. Surely this must be a mistake? The sandboks is still referenced from the mainpage.

The sandbox is an exception. Dont worry - no one is going to delete it regardless of what tag people might add to it. Angela. 22:54, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

Bitter Moon. I'd like to know why the stub article for the film "Bitter Moon" was flagged for speedy deletion please.... This is a mainstream film starring Hugh Grant, Kristin Scott Thomas, Emmanuelle Seigner, and Peter Coyote. Dlloyd 03:54, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I hope sysops will still be deleting test pages straight off, without bothering to link them here and wait for a bit, otherwise the sheer number of them will stack up. But I agree this can be a useful way for non-sysops to flag a page as a test rather than just blanking it. Evercat 01:38 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'm against this idea. The article namespace should not be cluttered with messages like this one. This belongs on the user talk page of the user who created the page. It would also break my recent improvements to the page deletion feature [1]. --Eloquence 03:09 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

That would just mean that "Delete test and welcome" were suggested for the deletion log for such pages. How would that break anything? Indeed, that seems to me good practice - just as I currently add "VfD" for VfD pages... Martin

I'm strongly against this. There would be too many articles left behind for people to have to go back to to clean up at some point in time. -- Zoe

I hearby volunteer to regularly come here and delete any test articles that link to this page. I don't expect this to become particularly onerous. Martin 15:09 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

How do you parse "Delete test and welcome", anyway? It doesn't sound like English to me... -- Oliver P. 14:25 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Feel free to move to a better name... :) Martin 15:09 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Okay... Erm... No, sorry, it seems that I'm far better at moaning about other people's use of language than I am at using it myself. ;) -- Oliver P. 00:08 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

How about this name, Oliver? :) Martin 14:00 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Aha! I like this name. :) -- Oliver P. 17:36 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

This seems like a good idea for people that can't delete pages. If it's used just for junk -- which admins could delete without listing of VfD -- then nonadmins can link here instead of cluttering up VfD. Any controversy, and then it goes to VfD. I'll try to keep an eye on this, if people start using it. (OTOH, there's no need for admins to link a junk page here rather than deleting it.) -- Toby Bartels 22:52 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Those of us who are fallible may wish to link here rather than deleting straight away, in case a page that we think is just a newbie test turns out to be a genuine article. Obviously there's no need, though - it's a question of style. Martin 23:26 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Isn't that what VfD is for? Miguel 20:07, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)

OK. But those of us who are infallible won't. ;-) Evercat 00:09 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I basically support the Idea, but I have some suggestions: When I discovered wikipedia several months ago, I didn't really understand what is a wiki, and didn't understand the difference between red links and blue links. So I kept clicking red links, where I though there should be an article, but instead got some weird message about the article "not being written yet", I geniunely thought there is some problem with the website, and didn't understand what I was supposed to do. In some occasions I even wrote some stuff inside, and clicked "save" on some instances (YES I AM A VANDAL!). After some time I got the idea of the red links, but when I wanted to make a new article, I wrote some nonsense inside, just to "create" the page -- I thought that there is some procedure for the page to be created, because I was used to edit "real pages" (not the edit box with the weird message above it) where you should click "edit this page". I know, I didn't RTFM, but that's my point exactly.

I support the idea of putting this notice, but I object to the way it's written right now, especially the use of "we" like there's some form of moderation elite on the site. It's like saying, even in the politest form: "Other users think you are clueless so they will delete your page, you are a burden for the established community of writers, you should read the fu***n' manual, damnit"

I will try to rewrite this -- Rotem Dan 11:36 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Please do.

I removed the "not officially recommended" disclaimer because I think I've satisfied Zoe's objection (by volunteering), Evercat's objection (by making it clear that it's optional), and Eloquence's objection (by saying, well, that's not a problem, is it?). Martin 14:20 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

there should be a boilerplate text to notify the user (sent to his/her talk page) who creates a garbage page instead. --Jiang

OK, apparently i messed things up! I will stop with this page and resume posting nonsense in VfD. But i still think it's a good idea to create an immediate deletion page. Cheers, Muriel Gottrop 11:23, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I changed msg to subst: it's friendlier (IMO), and these pages won't last long anyway... Martin 00:26, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I can't use this page to suggest "candidates for speedy deletion" because it implies that only "test pages" are thusly deleted. My last 2 candidates for speedy deletions are not test pages: one is the talk page of a deleted page; the other one, early programming projects contains just: "BASIC, assembly language, FORTRAN, etc. ". A newbie experiment maybe, but most probably not intended as a test page. I think it would be unnice to flag it as "test page" . So why not rename this page as "candidates for speedy deletion", with text that politely explains a few reasons that can make a page such a candidate (see guidelines on deletion) ? --FvdP 23:20, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I like "deleted test" because it marks the page as already having been logically deleted, even if in fact it takes a day or two. This is good for our readers, I think. Wikipedia:deleted page would work equally well, perhaps?

I would like to keep the current friendly text on the page though, rather than it becoming all legalese like VfD/deletion policy/etc. I don't think it's un-nice to flag early programming projects as a test, given that we explicitly say "if it's not a test, then...", but perhaps that doesn't come across very clearly? Martin 23:31, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't object to renaming the page to either "deleted page" or to "candidates for speedy deletion". Either way, a slight reword to express the fact it's not only tests that are listed here would be a good thing. Angela. 06:32, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Eloquence argued elsewhere that this page should be renamed to wikipedia:delete me. He wrote that "Delete me" is inclusive of all types of candidates for speedy deletion, and the imperative name is indicative of the special nature of the page (operated by "What links here").

"deleted page" already has those properties. What do you think of that option? wikipedia:candidates for speedy deletion is now a policy page, though of course we could move it to wikipedia:policy on candidates for speedy deletion. Another alternative is wikipedia:requests for speedy deletion.

On other wikis, DeleteMe is used as an "edit hint" to indicate that some particular (often signed) sentence or paragraph might need deleting shortly, so co-opting that term for whole page deletion might be a little confusing. Martin

• Wikipedia:Delete me
  • Essentially what Wikipedia:Deleted test is now (i.e. use "What links here" to determine Candidates for speedy deletion. Should become a category when the category scheme is activated. (See wikipedia talk:deleted test for discussion of this and other options).

Yes, we should do this:

1. —Eloquence
2. Tuf-Kat
3. Taku: Well, we are at weak side.

No, we should not do this:

1. Angela - There are problems with the name in that it has other meanings on other wikis
2. Martin (cf Angela, Wik)
3. Jwrosenzweig
4. Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
5. UtherSRG - keep Deleted test.
6. Wik - Wikipedia:Speedy deletions
7. Ryan_Cable

Abstain

1. Anthony DiPierro (I don't understand what the point of this is)
   • The point is to have a name that is more self-explanatory than "Deleted test".—Eloquence
2. Cyan
3. Jiang

I strongly support either changing the delete test into something like "speedy deletion candidate". Apparently "delete me" has some problems, so I guess it should be called something else. I have seen many people using the delete test message for speedy deletion candidates which are not covered by the guildelines of that message. Either we need a new message, or people need to stop putting the existing message on the majority of pages it gets put on -- Infrogmation 21:09, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I like Wik's suggestion of Wikipedia:speedy deletions. Are there any objections to using that instead of Wikipedia:Delete me? Angela. 02:16, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

• If we use that, I'll change my vote to Yes. Anthony DiPierro 02:18, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree with Anthony (thought I didn't vote) in that I'd vote for Wik's suggestion. Gentgeen 10:51, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this page? How long is the deleted test comment supposed to remain on the page before it gets deleted? Why not just delete it and have done with it? RickK 04:21, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It's to allow non-sysops to tag nonsense pages. Maximus Rex 04:22, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This should be merged with Wikipedia:Personal subpages to be deleted to handle all speedy deletions. Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion? --Jiang 05:16, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Wikipedia:Personal subpages to be deleted and Wikipedia:Deleted test should both be at Wikipedia:Speedy deletions. Neither are highly used pages so it makes it easier to only have to check one of them. Angela. 12:16, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

Nice idea, Jiang. I agree too. Martin 01:50, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Done. Some of the content from Wikipedia:Personal subpages to be deleted is now at Wikipedia:User page. Angela. 15:22, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

wikipedia:this is a candidate for speedy deletion should be the new place to collect back-links for deleted pages, I suppose? Martin 16:18, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, I've changed it to that now. Angela. 19:49, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

That didn't work. If msg is used instead of subst, nothing showed up in the what links here to that page, so I've changed it to be a what links here to the Mediawiki:Delete instead. Angela. 20:06, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

Since it is suggested that the original content of the page not be wiped, should we change the text of the dtest message? Right now it talks about retrieving the old contents from the page history.

Along the same line, should we make a synonym for dtest, say speedydel or something? Rholton

Renamed Mediawiki:Delete. Angela. 20:06, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

Eight things listed here currently; all of them belong on different pages. A bunch of redirects seems to have been deleted from here, none of which would merit deletion for the reasons given on Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. Please use this page appropriately! -- Toby Bartels 19:55, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, I am probably overreacting, since the redirects here seem to be a recent phenomenon. Still, they didn't satisfy the written requirements for deleted redirects, nor for speedy deletion. I shall now do my duty as an admin (as promised a ways up above) and actually watch this page to help out (as I just did with Live Nude Girls). -- Toby Bartels 20:04, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I submitted most of the redirects here. I read the guidelines for this page, and as far as I understood them they applied (I thought they fit #1). I made clear that they were redirects in my note. I have to say I found this whole experience very irritating. -- Walt Pohl 21:06, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've clarified wikipedia:candidates for speedy deletion to make this clearer. Martin 21:24, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Mistakes happen. I clarified point 1 in particular. The importance of putting redirect on the redirect page is so that people know the qualifications for deletion of redirects, which are rather specialised. On a related note, wouldn't it help to list the qualifications for speedy deletion on this page??? -- Toby Bartels 05:27, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Dont use this page for articles other than obvious tests. A page shouldn't be added if it has been here for a while and is not vandalism. Don't list articles here that you have an emotional tie to, such as articles created by a user who has a conflict with you(unless the case is obvious vandalism). Redirects should generaly be added to Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion, and should never be listed here unless they are obviously created by vandals. (i.e. a page called george bush is stoopid and will go to hell which redirects to George W. Bush.) Perl 02:00, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Also, don't add pages that are already on VFD! Perl 20:32, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I will list the criteria for speedy deletion on this page too, if there are no objections. Perhaps eventually we can combine the pages; but right now, they're still hashing out suggestions for criteria on Wikipedia talk:Candidates for speedy deletion, whereas here we're actually deleting things (or not, as the case may be). Thus right now, I do think that we need to keep a page each for discussion of theory and practice. -- Toby Bartels 22:56, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Some people seem to be slapping speedy deletions on pretty much anything they don't like. It should only be reserved for the most blatant tests, vandalisms, etc. Everything else should go on WP:VFD. Dori | Talk 19:50, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

It seems that it's some Wikipedia empirical law that Speedy Deletions tends to become the de facto VfD, and that WP:VFD tends become the de facto Cleanup, and that Cleanup just get ignored by most people.-- Decumanus 19:56, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Very well said! I'm trying to set an example by spending as much time on cleanup as I do on VfD. Not sure that the format of cleanup is quite right, but that's another topic!

But, I also think there are some cases that either aren't covered by the current policy and should be, or which may be but it's not clear. Specifically, I think that obvious pranks (especially and perhaps even only by anon contributors), and commercial abuse, should both be speedy deletes. What I think we should do now is to gather some examples of both to talk about. This is a little tricky for non-sysops, who can't see deleted articles, but possible. Watch this space. Andrewa 21:20, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oh - and it would help this project if people didn't delist good examples from VfD without mentioning it in the edit summary. TIA. Andrewa 21:32, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

My apologies for not mentioning that I delisted a self-described joke VfD entry - I did not feel the need since the article did not exist (and thus is not valid in VfD) and it was to prove someone's point - not to follow the process described for VfD - I qualify it as vandalism in that scenario - Texture 21:37, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No apology required, I'm happy to think this was all within current policies, and you had no idea I was about to launch this.

But I do think the guidelines need a little clarification (first), and perhaps change (second). To this effect, would you like to say exactly how (under current policies, ie what they do say) and why (for the good of Wikipedia, ie what the policies should say) this qualifies for speedy delete, in your opinion? Andrewa 21:54, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I didn't delete it (merely removed it from VfD after it was deleted) but I will defend the deletion anyway. Content was a single link and thus a candidate for speedy deletion. Here is the deletion log entry: - Texture 22:03, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

19:51, 19 Mar 2004 Infrogmation deleted "List of clinically depressed oceanographers who have made contributions to the field of aeronautics" (content was: '* Jacques Cousteau')

Resetting indenting <-

Thanks. Is this log only available to sysops?

I'd like to say again I'm not attacking the deletion, so there is nothing to defend. What I was after was info on the way the system is working. Specifically, how the current policies are understood and used by sysops.

There are three different things to look at:

• What the doco does say (without getting too legalistic).
• What the doco is perceived to say, and this is IMO more important, as it governs what happens.
• What the doco should say. Specifically, we might be able to improve:
  • Clarity. If there's a big difference in perceptions, let's try to get something that is more consistently interpretted.
  • Policy. Specifically, I think there are cases that should be speedy delete and possibly aren't now. Specifically:
    • Obvious pranks.
    • Abuses where the site is being used for commercial or other purposes unrelated to the goal.

The program remains: Gather info, then clarify doco if needed and agreed, then change policy if needed and agreed. Patience required to do it properly. I notice User:RK had a go at something similar at Wikipedia:Pages_that_has_been_on_VFD. One difference is, this seems to have been an attempt to build up an ongoing library of past decisions as precedents, similar perhaps to case law. This project, on the other hand, seeks to analyse the data to provide policy input. Andrewa 21:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the deletion log is available to non-sysops. I think the discussions you propose should take place at Wikipedia talk:deletion policy or wikipedia talk:candidates for speedy deletion rather than here. And it was BL, not RK who made that page. (off-topic: would you have objected to me changing that in what you wrote instead of pointing it out?) Angela. 21:27, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you! Yes, agree this discussion (well, it's been a bit of a monologue so far) should move where you say. Correction noted.

On the off-topic, I think what you did is the way to go in a talk page where the text is signed. I don't even correct typos in signed text myself, and at least once when I've been tempted to I've later realised that I'd misunderstood and the text was exactly as intended. I think it should stay as typed until refactored in general. Andrewa 03:47, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Not another page of bad jokes and other deleted nonsense/April Fools 2004 - This is already preserved in the page history and is honored on page 1. - Woodrow XXIII^II, Emperor of the United States, Minister of Ministry 21:41, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep the copy, since it keeps users from poking around in the edit history, lest they may accidentally revert to that version. Dysprosia 22:51, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • I see the reasoning, but I think it would be like any other vandalism; it would be reverted either by the reverter themself or someone else within five minutes. - Woodrow XXIII^II, Emperor of the United States, Minister of Ministry 23:32, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      • Why make more work and clutter up the edit history of an already oft-reverted page? Having a copy of the work does no harm whatsoever. Dysprosia 23:35, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
        • I don't think you're having enough faith in Wikipedians to not accidentally revert the page. - Woodrow XXIII^II, Emperor of the United States, Minister of Ministry 00:49, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
          • I don't know what this has to do with faith in Wikipedians, I was talking about anonymous or new users to the Wikipedia. If you feel so strongly about it, it's no big deal in deleting, and not worth a large discussion over it... Dysprosia 05:38, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• FFS, woodrow; take this to vfd. ✏ Sverdrup 12:43, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Speedy got duped five days ago, how did it last that long? With this much traffic, I thought it would have gotten fixed quicker. --Ben Brockert (:talk:) 01:53, May 24, 2004 (UTC)

I only ever look at the last section so wouldn't notice if it was duplicated elsewhere. I expect others are doing the same which explains it being unfixed for so long. Angela. 12:23, May 24, 2004 (UTC)

VfD suffered the duplication problem a while back, and I think it was like 3 days before anyone noticed. That was a real mess to clean up. Just a data point. -- Cyrius|&#9998 17:50, May 24, 2004 (UTC)

I asked this on the template discussion page, but I figured more people would respond here. Why was the category added to the speedy delete template. What's wrong with the normal way of using "What links here" for the template? It seems like the category message just adds more clutter.  – Jrdioko (Talk) 02:03, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Image:Clitoris.jpg - This buggy image can't be deleted. It won't go away even with &wpConfirm=1&wpForce=1. If anyone knows what to do, please try it, because this has been here long enough. Guanaco 02:16, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Why was that picture deleted ? SweetLittleFluffyThing 06:02, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It now resides at Image:ClitorisNewLoc.jpg, because any images at Image:Clitoris.jpg seem to be auto-deleted. Guanaco 16:27, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Please delete Image:USS Monitor.jpg; it's made redundant by Image:H59543.png. -- Djinn112 10:28, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Please transfer the license and source and painter information first. Also consider a better name. ✏ Sverdrup 16:02, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This isn't an eligible candidate for speedy deletion. It's not a bitwise identical copy because it's a switch from JPG to PNG, hence it fails to meet the requirements that an image must be identical in every bit, redundant and unused. It needs to go via Wikipedia:Images for deletion. Agree on the better name as well - something like a combination of both names would be a start, but including artist name would also be good to help those searching for works by that artist find it. Jamesday 08:42, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Two points

1. I routinely delete images that are in the wrong file format after uploading them in the correct format. Have i been breaking policy all this time?
2. Whjy on earth has a painting been swapped from a jpg to a png? Pngs are for diagrams ann images with large areas of solid colour. The correct file format for a picture like this is surely 8 bit greyscale jpg ? theresa knott 17:23, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

   I agree, this image is inappropriate for PNG. If you want a bigger copy, go back to the original and make a JPEG. The original is already a JPEG, so it's not like a lossless source is being degraded. The PNG's name is terrible as well. -- Cyrius|✎ 17:43, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

   Yes, that's contrary to policy as its written now. It's not unusual to see such images listed on images for deletion. Might want to add "a replaced image, where the same person uploaded an image and its replacement before it was ever used in an article. You must say what the replacement image is" as another speedy deletion option. I agree that it's inconvenient as it is. Jamesday 15:40, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

And Jamesday, saving any image as PNG *is* a bitwise identical copy (at least in terms of the image data itself), since PNG is lossless and supports all color depths. DopefishJustin (・∀・) 03:55, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The "all bits the same" wording was added to clarify that "an exact copy of something else" meant no differences of any sort. Format conversions are not always agreed on, as this example demonstrates, and speedy deletions are supposed to be uncontroversial. Jamesday 15:40, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm wondering why it was added, I don't see anything wrong with it other than it's a Latin Rapper. Cap n1ne --TIB 20:03, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

please don't delete the radiohead.com article - i assume the name may have made the rules assume that it was promoting a website, but it is in fact and exploration of a series of artworks which happpen to be websites and the article incorporates the work of many people who will come and develop it. I tried to follow the like to defend it on its talk page but it just said that the article doesn't exist. I'm sorry if I'm doing this wrong but I'm rather panicked by the speedy deletion thing and find the layout of the talk page confusing. Thank you.

I'm listing it on votes for deletion to see what the community thinks. Theresa Knott 04:16, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

please, visit radiohead.com|MAINFRAME VERSION 1.2 and see for yourselves that it isn't a traditional fansite. It's a new way to do art, perhaps be very complicated for many of you to understand this, will we have to wait years until this is recognized as art? mifluki

I just can't believe this guy. He comes along, drops his stubs, ignores users...then we have a "radical inclusionist" who comes along and merely formats them and removes the speedy delete and B-Movie Bandit notice.

If someone really wants to take the time to expand these, great. If all someone is going to do is format them, we're just as bad off as we were before.

No less than Jimbo Wales has suggested these stubs be speed-deleted and the proxies blocked. We shouldn't have to clean up someone else's mess, especially when that "someone" has a history of vandalism. - Lucky 6.9 18:53, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't believe General Mayhem is qualifies for speedy delete...Even though its users are very annoying and their edit war resulted in > 50 edits to the same page in less than an hour, the forum very large. I has > 10 000 000 posts (most of them utterly useless, I'm sure) and an Alexa rank of ~50 000. I believe that makes them borderline notable.

The page should be listed for cleanup.

— David Remahl 06:57, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Formatting-wise, I can't find a place to add Template:deletiontools to this page, although it would be very appropriate. Can anybody have a look? -- Itai 00:13, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've added it now. Angela.