User talk:Dennis Brown/CSD

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Speedy Delete Discussion Page

As per the advice at my RfA, I will work with others to improve my skills at CSD. This page is for discussion to this end. The page is primarily for admins as they have access to the deleted articles, but other experienced editors are welcome to participate as well. Until complete, I will avoid administrative duties at CSD. - db

• Dennis Brown (talk · contribs) - my CSD log - my Prod log - RfA
• (For each blue link in the logs, I will add info, ie: "now a redirect", etc.)

Terms

Once given the admin bit, I was technically a full administrator, however, many people noted concerns about my previous CSD tagging. While under no formal obligation, I pledged to get mentoring in this area and have every intention of fulfilling both the letter and spirit of my pledge at that RfA.

Dates:

• Confirmed as admin: 25 April 2012 [1]
• As per my pledge at RfA, earliest possible date to end mentoring: 25 July 2012 [[2]]

• To further demonstrate good will, I will stay out of all but monitored CSD administrative duties until my mentor and one other admin or well established editor signs off, no earlier than 3 months after mentoring begins.

Dennis Brown has satisfactorily completed mentoring on CSD and is hereby released from any further obligation to limit his activities at WP:CSD.

• Signature 1: -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk). You have demonstrated excellent understanding of CSD.
• Signature 2: Seconded without hesitation. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The system

Just a few thoughts on what you were saying on my Talk page. Basically, I agree with you. The CSD system is intended to be solely for a very small number of circumstances that are unambiguously inappropriate and would be uncontroversial deletions. It is definitely not intended to be used for "I believe this should be deleted, so I'll use the closest category I can find, even if it doesn't fit." It's understandable that people make that mistake, but the correct response for an admin reviewing inappropriate CSD requests is to decline them, and to explain why - it's good to explain on the nominator's talk page, but often when there's a big backlog, I make do with an edit summary (though a proper explanation really is better).

Unfortunately, that often doesn't happen, and admins often just delete the article anyway. And that's clearly a mistake. But there does seem to be a bit of a subculture that seems to think that as long as it's an article that should be deleted, it doesn't really matter and it can just be speedy deleted even if CSD isn't right. To me, that's admins doing what they don't have the right to do - making unilateral deletion decisions without consensus. Ultimately, only community consensus can make a delete decision, and the community has reached a consensus that in some very specific circumstances, pages can be deleted with no further discussion needed.

The question is what should we, as individual admins, do about it? Should be have a word with admins when we see them making a mistake? I see no reason why not - we are all supposed to be open to review by others. Another option might be to try to get a general discussion started to get a new focus on doing CSD right. But I confess I haven't been doing either of those things, largely because I know there would be arguments, and I'm not sure it's the most productive use of my limited time to fight this particular battle - and there are so many things wrong in other areas, like RfA and like the inadequate measures we have for dealing with bad admins, that it becomes a matter of priorities. Personally, I just try to do CSD right myself. And even that causes argument - I recently had to threaten one very experienced but strongly deletionist editor with a block before he'd stop edit-warring to reinstate a completely inappropriate contested A7.

Anyway, I wonder what thoughts you might have on this? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

PS: I'll probably pop in here from time to time to air various pet peeves of mine and see if I can get your angle on them :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm making a log below for possible discussion, whenever. I'm still a little green to start debating other admins about when and how they delete, but I agree that all admins should be using the same rulebook, or change the rulebook and then all use it. I spent more or less five years doing it the wrong way, so it will take some thought and practice. I did notice that I just tagged one for A1, but it was deleted as A3 Mohammad reza Hosseini. When you get a chance, your thoughts on this one. I've actually tagged several today, been a lot to tag when I looked I guess, plus several AFDs and PRODs. More than usual. Some days I find nothing, or just stuff to fix. I try not to hang out too much at newpages, however. Don't need to over do it right now. And yes, that is fine. User:TParis might be a good person to invite over as well, if he has the time. Most people would probably label me as leaning more deletionist than inclusionist (I just favor quality over quantity) but I agree that CSD should be more strictly enforced since it has so little oversight, and let AFD handle the rest. I've wondered if Twinkle had an extra red box "are you sure this fits $x criteria? (submit) (never mind)" in the process if that would help. Annoying, perhaps, but it is almost too easy to tag for speedy and TW offers virtually no guidance to the tagger. Oh and yeah, feel free to vent about CSD here, no prob. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

  I think Mohammad reza Hosseini fits both A1 and A3, which quite a few articles do - if I see one like that, I tend to either just accept the nominated category or note the additional category in the reason. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

  I thought the same. Oh, and I dropped TParis an invite. He seems to have similar viewpoints and was very helpful before, figuring you both agree on most points so it would reduce the load for you. I know you are busy, and I appreciate. I don't expect updates every hour or anything, and will just drop stuff in for whenever it is convenient. I'm not in a hurry to start deleting. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Articles I found that were improperly deleted

• Kindle Fire Rooting Guide deleted via "wikipedia is not a how to guide"

• Was recreated, I sent to AFD. -db

Incorrect speedy deletion - "Not Howto" is not a valid CSD criterion -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

It then became a redirect, and I sent the source to AFD, Kindle Fire Rooting. I was also speedied, but proper, I discovered from Ladyofshalott at AFD. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep, the deletion of Kindle Fire Rooting Guide as "Not Howto" was wrong, but the deletion of Kindle Fire Rooting for A3 was fine. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't notice it was a redirect at first, one of those tiny things I need to be aware of. I'm actually moving fairly slow on using the tools, hopefully I'm not making a lot of mistakes. I've spent most of my time reading, actually, since I've had the time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Copy violation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lethal weapon 5th installment

Here is one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lethal weapon 5th installment. I'm thinking that technically, this is a copyvio and subject to deletion via G12. A little unusual since the copy vio is from Wikipedia itself, but it still applies and the article has no hope for redemption anyway. Whether or not zapping via G12 would have been appropriate (granted, a little heavy handed) I would ask the opinions of others. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Ha, yes, that's an interesting one. I guess it is technically a copyvio as it lost the attribution required by the CC-BY-SA. I don't think such an article would ever be deleted as G12 though, as the attribution could be fixed by making a dummy edit with an edit summary identifying the article it was copied from - at least, I think that would be acceptable. (The article is a pointless fork, mind, so it should be deleted) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

That was kind of my point, the only possible CSD criteria would be G12, which would be a bit ham-fisted to do. Of course it will die within a week at AFD anyway, which would be the proper way, even if it seems unnecessarily slow. I don't see another CSD criteria that applies. And of course it was unusual, I'm not going to bring run of the mill stuff here. ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Hehe, no, I wouldn't expect anything simple :-) But yes, there are no other CSD categories for that one. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Update

I haven't forgotten this, I've just been on other projects, including mentoring YouReallyCan on communications skills, which I think is going well. I have no intention of entering the sacred halls of CSD until you sign off, so it isn't an issue of time, be it 3 months or 9 months, it will just be when ever it is appropriate by your standards. I just wanted to be clear to you, and anyone else stalking, my intent and reason for the pause. I feel like a drama magnet this week. Fortunately, I'm not usually one to get caught up in it, but dialing it back takes time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• I did spent half an hour rereading the entire CSD criteria page, burning it into my memory. I still get a little bit new each time, so while it isn't particularly interesting reading, it is admittedly useful. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

CSD Review

Ok, as part of my prison sentence Jedi training education, here are some articles at CSD, and what I would do if I were there. Keep in mind, the articles may have changed (or been deleted) after I made this determination. Most of these will have been deleted already, or kept already, so I will try to keep the list somewhat short.

• Acham Madam Nanam - TV show, so not really A7 material. Refuse, leave msg to tagger directing to AFD.
• Duška Vučinić-Lučić - Potentially A7 except the claim is strong enough. Refuse, leave msg to tagger to BLPPROD.
• ERTEKAZ Technology - G11, would either delete this, or search to see if G12 also applied.
• Kew Comets Football Club - A7 as group or club, I would delete.
• On Secret Hunt A7, and I would agree, no actual claim of notability.
• Lucas van der velde, no brainer A7, and why the criteria exists.
• Kozak System, listed as A10. I would probably just redirect to [[Haydamaky (band)] instead, as it might be a reasonable search term.
• SPEA Serbian Private Equity Association listed as a G11, but seems more likely an A7. Would search to see if G12 applied. Would be very willing to userfy if not a G12, but would delete.
• David-Seth Kirshner A7, I would do nothing as I'm not sure the criteria for clergy. If I had time, I would go research the criteria for future use, and perhaps act, but not sure how at this time. The one WP:RS only mentions him in passing. I would be tempted to remove CSD and send or suggest AFD.

This brings up another question: If I'm walking the halls at CSD, and I come across an article, say the David-Seth Kirshner article, and feel that A7 might not apply, is it proper to simply remove the tag and send to AFD myself? I would think so since I'm not involved, and this is no different than other editor doing the same. I assume that any time I take an action other than deleting the article, I'm not barred from any other action that is editorial in nature, such as removing CSD tag and adding BLPPROD, PROD, AFD, other tags, etc. Am I correct? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I just happened to be doing some CSD patrol, so here's my take on the above...

• Acham Madam Nanam. Agreed - this was the same nominator who put the Main Page up for deletion a few days ago :-)
• Duška Vučinić-Lučić. Marginal, but I think the Eurovision claim is enough to avoid A7 - I'd change it to BLPPROD.
• ERTEKAZ Technology. G11 as written (and yes, possibly G12). It could be reduce to a stub with one line and the infobox, but it also hasn't made any claim of importance - just being a company of some kind is not enough. So I'd delete it as G11/A7 (and no need to spend time looking for G12).
• Kew Comets Football Club, On Secret Hunt, Lucas van der velde - yep, all easy A7.
• Kozak System. I was looking at that, and couldn't decide. The two articles do seem to contain some unique content, though there's perhaps a bit of WP:UNDUE detail. I think they could usefully be merged, and a redirect would allow that by retaining the history. So yes, I think that would be a reasonable option.
• SPEA Serbian Private Equity Association. Some of it is G11, but that could be removed and a slightly stubby article left. But it looks A7 to me. I'd be tempted to delete it and then offer to userfy if the author responds - but definitely worth a G12 check before userfying.
• David-Seth Kirshner. I think I'd be tempted to decline that, as there's a list of leadership positions that sounds kind of important-ish, and I could see something of notability maybe coming out of it.

On to the general question, yes, it's fine to go for PROD, BLPPROD or AfD after declining a CSD - nominating isn't an admin action, so WP:INVOLVED doesn't apply. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I had asked DGG to come here as I thought you were busy. Thank you. DGG will have to wait to correct the error of my ways for another day I suppose. I should have noticed the Main Page tagger. Drmies and I are watching them after I blocked them and he refused to unblock for disruptive CSD tagging. This self-brainwashing of sorts really is helping, btw, as it is forcing me to be less reactive, so good is coming from it. Glad to see we generally agree on all the above, even if the nuances are a little different on a couple. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, here I am, and I agree with Boing closely enough. The only important thing I'd add is that not only may you send for AfD or prod is they're not speedy, you ought to do so--but only if you think the article should probably be deleted. In principle, the guy who put on the speedy tag should be watching and deal with it further if they still think it necessary, but many people don't; I think an admin has the responsibility once you come across an article that you think needs to be deleted to do something about it, not just hope someone else will. (The usual case, is someone putting A7 of a book or film or other subject not eligible, but one clearly not possibly notable--I just change it to a prod.)

The debatable case is what to do if you are not sure whether it should be deleted or not. In that case, I sometimes send it to AfD. Some people say that you should not take an article to AfD unless you want it deleted, but I think that's not always helpful--the place to see where w=something should be deleted is AfD, & if I come up with something questionable but in a field I don't know enough to tell, or where I am aware the standards are inconsistent, I'll send it to AfD. The speedy nom. is our chance to catch the problems. Similarly, if I decline a speedy, I check that the major remaining problems are tagged. Similarly, and this is the hard part that takes time and judgement, if the nature of the article, whether kept or deleted, indicated the contributor would be helped by advice beyond what is on the template, I go and give it. (for obvious I'm notable because I'm going to be famous someday" sort of stuff, I assume the person knows why its being deleted.) Besides helping people contribute better articles, if, say a businessman puts in an article on a very unimportant business, it's our chance to explain the purpose of Wikipedia in a friendly fashion. I do this about 1/5 the times I should: I can follow up properly only a few articles a day. But at least I try; almost no one else even bothers unless the person comes back and ask questions. DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: "In that case, I sometimes send it to AfD. Some people say that you should not take an article to AfD unless you want it deleted, but I think that's not always helpful--the place to see where something should be deleted is AfD". Yep, I agree. I sometimes take an article there on the grounds that I don't know whether or not it should be deleted and I would like a community opinion. It's never been a problem doing that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, both of you. I've become pretty good about leaving messages explaining my actions to users, perhaps a habit from working ANI, where I find it is quite useful at reducing tension. I find myself more a centrist now, so I guess I need a "Formed deletionist" button somewhere on my page. DGG had it right at the RfA, I would just get sloppy or careless, and all of this is helping to develop new habits. Perhaps every week or so, I will do the same with a group of then current CSDs, as this seems to provide a solid measuring stick. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

CSD Review 2

Walking the halls of CSD today, and here is my list:

• Bladder Run A7ed, claimed to be a movie, but could be considered web content. The problem is that the one source bolsters notability and was at the paper as a top story, and as such, A7 doesn't apply even if you do consider it web content. I went ahead and removed the CSD tag, and send the tagger this [3]. It will likely end up in AFD, although I would have tried to source it better before sending it there.
• Facenama A3 and A7. A3 doesn't apply as it has an info box. even if no body text. A7 does seem to apply, as it has no real claim, and a quick search doesn't show any anything substantial. No prejudice to recreation proper later, since it is a foreign language site and may just be harder to source.
• HindustanFoods was already deleted via G11, but I went and reviewed since G11 is easy to get wrong. In this case, it was completely proper and the reason the guideline exists.
• Aragvi Dam is a G6 that just confuses me at to why the deletion is needed. It would seem that simply moving the article would be the proper action (if the rationale is correct), but I'm not sure enough, so I wouldn't take action. This is more of a lack of experience on my part. I did note a lack of discussion on either talk page, so not sure it really is consentual.
• C-Skins listed A7, which probably fits. G11 might also apply, but A7 would be the better, and stronger choice (or use both) since I don't see any real claim of notability.
• Jesuswarhol A7, and likely a good example as they clearly make a claim of notability, yet that claim isn't valid. Kind of funny actually, as it can be summarized as "no one else sells our stuff". Would delete A7.
• The Role Call, typical band A7. Has one really weak source, no history of deletes. The source would probably be enough for me to just send it to AFD and see if someone could dig up more sources.
• added Ta3jet Nour Was A7, G11, I pulled both tags and PRODed, will AFD if that fails. Definitely needs deleting, but doesn't fit the criteria for CSD.

• Follow up, creator asked about getting the page deleted, I told him to blank, he did, someone else tagged, and I deleted my first CSD page. I didn't think there would be a problem as I was familiar with the case and this was obviously complying with the wishes of the creator, thus not a violation of trust of this training and my agreement for me to do so.
• Procedural question: Normally, I would not delete an article that I had previously PRODed or delete tagged at all, but the creator of the article had come to my talk page and asked me how to do so, I told him, he did, someone ELSE tagged, I just did the final delete. I assume this is a reasonable exception?

Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Looking at them at the state there were at tagging time...

• Bladder Run. I'd say not eligible for A7, as it's a film. And it did have one reliable source, which I think would be enough to defeat A7 anyway. A local newspaper is not enough for notability, so I'd have expected the final outcome to be an AfD delete, and not the G11 that eventually happened.
• Facenama. Easy A7 - and yes, I would have declined A3. Some seem to think that an infobox is not enough to avoid A3, but I think it should be judged on the contents of the infobox - and this one had a little bit more than specified by CSD:A3.
• HindustanFoods. Yep, blatant G11. I would then have gone on to block the creator with a {{spamusernameblock}}, which I have now done.
• Aragvi Dam. Possibly a mistaken attempt to request a move by someone who didn't know how to do it - now moved. But clearly no need for G6 deletion.
• C-Skins. Looks like a clear A7 to me, and I'm surprised it survived for so long. And while the tagged version was G11-ish, I expect it could have been reverted to a previous version that was not too promotional, which would rule out a G11 deletion. So yes, a straight A7 deletion seems right to me.
• Jesuswarhol. I'd go for A7 too - I see no credible claim of importance. (And yes, I did chuckle at the claim of importance that "nobody sells our stuff" :-).
• The Role Call. I'd have deleted A7. A link to somewhere that says "Get the free download" doesn't strike me as anything important - any amateur band can find a site to host those.
• Ta3jet Nour. No CSD categories fit, certainly not A7 - it's a PROD and then AfD if disputed. I generally won't delete anything I've tagged myself either (with a few exceptions - for example, I might tag a G10 attack page using Twinkle as a quick way of notifying the author, and then delete it), but honoring a G7 self-request is pretty uncontroversial and I'd be fine with that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks I will wait a week and follow up with more. I may build the list over a few days, and start cherry picking more borderline cases, so I won't expect you to jump in until I have a list, unless you prefer otherwise. Whenever appropriate, I would want you and DGG to "sign off" and release me into the wild. I would prefer that both of you do this when you feel it is right, as to clearly and obviously fulfill my good faith obligation promise via my RfA. I can't help but wonder how rare this actually is, both to accept, and then fulfill a mentoring promise at RfA. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, it might be better to get a few together and build a list of them first. In the meantime, I'll make a list of ones that I think are tricky, so see what you think of them - there are plenty where there is no obvious right answer and different people will judge them differently. I don't think you're far away from being signed off on this, to be honest - your judgement already seems to be a good bit better than some admins who work on CSD! Accepting and fulfilling an RfA promise might make some people suspicious, though - it's probably evidence of some sort of rogue admin cabal hidden agenda ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's a few for you

I'd be interested to hear what you think of the following...

• SNOINIONS

• Not exactly clear vandalism, per se, more of nonsense or G2 test page.

• I'm always wary of G2, because there seems to be a sub-culture of deleting things that don't fit the other criteria as G2. But taking into account the talk page comments, I thought G2/G3 was good enough.

• Best lead guitarists of all time

• Not speedy material. Should be a list of, formatted. Actually, there is a chance the topic would be notable as the List of highly acclaimed guitarists if you could source it with with multiple sources. I played guitar all my life, so I might be biased. And Stevie Ray Vaughan should be #1. ;) But more of a PROD or AFD is someone thought it needed deleting, and I might have saved it if I had the time. Clearly not a test page as it seems obvious the article creator was sincere in the efforts, just misguided as to format.

• I may have gone for an A10 on this one, topic already covered at Guitarist#Notable guitarists. Or perhaps merge it if the-top-tens one was notable enough, and then redirect to maintain the history. But clearly not a G2 to me - another example of the sub-culture.

• Interpreter preferred over compiler

• Not an A7, G2 or a G2 with A7 rationale (odd). It would be difficult to make this article without it being essayish or OR, and a comparison of interpreted vs. compiled code is probably already covered somewhere else, or should be but in a neutral manner (ie: not "preferred"). PROD would be the best option, or AFD.

• Another possible A10, I thought - already covered at Interpreter (computing) and Compiler.

• Turbo twist math

• Not an A1, as the product is clearly identified. PROD or AFD if you can't find a source readily.

• I agree, though the definition of sufficient context is debatable - what sort of device and what sort of functions?

• Polu Khenpo Dorje

• There is a claim, the abbot of Polu Monastery, which is the leader. I went ahead and removed CSD tag and BLP PRODed it instead.

• Check the talk page - he's dead ;-)

• Delabar

• What a mess. Likely a copyvio, although from print rather than web (I looked quickly). It is rather incomprehensible as written, making determining more difficult. Because of the tone, G11 was probably appropriate since it appears to have come from marketing literature. I would not have removed the tag, would have scratched my head a few times, and likely deleted it.

• It caused me to think we perhaps need an additional reason - "Makes your eyes bleed". But yes, I think G11 is good enough.

-- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• All but the last seemed easy, which either means I've got a clue, or I have none, depending on your observations. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Commented on each one, above -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Doh, so I did get busted a little bit on the BLP. A10 is something I need to now focus on. Not one I used much, so it is a weakness I see. Thanks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I made an effort not to pick ones that were too easy ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

CSD Review 4

• Ripping through the current CAT for CSD, not cherry picking. To reduce the workload of my mentor, I have added my interpretation on the same line as the article, and on a separate line, indented the actual result.
• Congresbury Skatepark Technically a place that doesn't exist, but that would make it a future business, and A7 slides by.
  • Was G12'ed and salted for repeated under diff names. A punt.
• Daynix A7 - No claim of notability is given. No sources passing WP:RS. Quick searching shows nothing that jumps out and keeps me from deleting.
  • was done as stated.
• Det Ny Kammerkor A7, and it applies. Delete, no claim.
  • was done as stated.
• Electroqute A7 band, and it applies. Delete, no claim.
  • was done as stated.
• Flemings ultimate garage G11, but I would likely delete as A7. No claim.
  • was done as G11, I would have chosen the A7.
• Galilee Community General Hospital of Uganda Not sure. It is a hospital, likely some press, I would likely try to save, if not, perhaps PROD or AFD to allow a little more time to develop while being reviewed. update I actually did clean it up and try briefly to source it, not much could be done. Would still leave to others to delete since I edited it.
• Raphaël Hamburger G5, new article, some others have edited but minor. I would do nothing, watch what others did, and learn. If you put a gun to my head and said "choose", I would delete per G5 and WP:DENY, as it is otherwise a little weak.
  • was done as stated.
• HKAGEG8, applies, would delete. Searched for a proper place to redirect, couldn't find one.
  • was done as stated.
• Iamreallycoolful11 A7 web, fully applies.
  • was done as stated.
• Ibn al-Khattab G6, Not sure. Another area I will learn over time. Would do nothing, but watch and learn.
  • RHaworth moved over redirect. I'm still too clueless on this topic area to have an opinion.

Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

G2

After my joking comment on "Meh, just close it as G2", I found this jewel THE RUDIMENTS OF WISDOM FOR A BETTER YOUTHFUL GROWTH AND NATION while patroling DGG's talk page, and found yet another jewel by DGG here [4], which honestly, got me a bit tickled as of course, it is so counter to why I am here. In all honesty, I would agree with DGG that this would have been better as a G2 than G3, for politeness, and this had a snowball's chance in hell at AFD (no pun intended), justifying IAR in this limited circumstance. In the context of this mentoring page, where I am to pay for my sins learn to discriminate better, I just found it worthy of mentioning, if only because it made me smile. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

CSD Review 5

In the interest of good faith and all, here are more observations regarding what is in the current CSD bin, waiting to be sorted. I will now add version diffs to making it easier to see what I was seeing at the time, where it makes sense. Randomly selected without cherry picking.

• Babycall [5]- Listed as A1. Rather borderline as A1 as it does say what it is. It doesn't give any indication of importance, but A7 wouldn't cover that. The talk page is likely right that the tag was applied too soon. I removed the speedy tag, fixed it into an acceptable stub with a couple of external links here, [6], and moved on.
  • Right after this, I moved it to The Monitor (film) with redirect as I discovered that Babycall was the original name, but it was renamed to The Monitor, which is how IMDB lists it. Added link at dab page The Monitor.
• Lee Valley Clothing Ireland [7] listed A7 - It would also qualify as G11, but would stick with the stronger A7.
  • Was deleted A7 and G11.
• Queen Kamanawa I checked history, it was the original author who blanked and tagged, fits criteria G7.
  • Was deleted G7
• Thamby Rajah blanked as a G12 copyvio. Verifying shows it is a 100% copy with no other material, so G12 applies at it would require a complete rewrite.
  • Was deleted G12
• Sweden Songs [8] G7. Tag was placed by someone who didn't create, but after the original creator blanked it. Other edits had taken place, but they were maintenance. Was previously PRODed. Key here is that the article is over 1 year old. Really, I don't think it should be deleted because of the addition of other sources and the age, but will leave it for others. G7 doesn't mention time being a factor, but in this case I think it is relevant.
  • Was deleted G7. This was a borderline case, and would have varied from admin to admin, I think.
• Eric Browser G3 hoax. Can't find info, sounds right.
  • Was deleted as G3.

(adding more)

• Birthday Cake (Remix) Listed as A10.[9] Honestly, the sheer volume of material and sources on that page says it should be at AFD or a merge discussion, not speedy delete, but I left it alone.
  • Ended up being deleted G12, didn't check for that.
• FC Gullegem Listed as A7 [10] but doesn't seem to apply, as I think it is a professional team, and that should be enough to save it. Should be going to AFD if there is a question, not CSD.
  • User:Phil Bridger pulled the tag.
• User talk:Marylibrary Listed G3, the only edits were one vandalism by an IP and the tag itself, so I was going to just delete it myself, hit a conflict and got beaten by the buzzer by a few seconds.
  • Already deleted.
• Kevin Mesa Listed as G4 recreated, but is also at AFD, which is how it got the CSD tag, from a previous AFD. Honestly, it has been four years since the last AFD and there is a possible claim that he played for a pro team, even if that is being ignored at AFD, so I would either ignore, or look a little more and if he did play for a pro team, remove the speedy tag, go to AFD, vote to keep and provide the citation for proof, then add that to the article.
  • User:Tonywalton deleted as G4
• Dominique cohen was listed A7, G11 also applies.
  • Was deleted for both A7 and G11.
• Tornadoes of 2012.. I sent to CSD as an A10 of Tornadoes of 2012, since it wasn't a likely typo, thus redirect didn't make sense.
  • I ended up indef blocking the author for a string of hoaxes and bad articles, as a vandalism only account. Also did the Daniel Vargas below, and others.
  • Was deleted A10
• Daniel Vargas. I sent as G3, hoax, trying to work around the salt at Daniel Vargas
  • Was deleted G3, I went after and salted due to both versions being recreated so many times.

Section done: Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

CSD Review 6

Continuing like previous, not sure the links do anything, but will keep adding the final results as they come in. I also reread CSD criteria, again. You might notice I'm doing more tagging myself now, and adding them here, providing you with a bit more info.

• T.R.I.P. Inc I added as a rare G2. I changed to G12 after finding the source
  • G12'ed, as expected.
• Time Records Publishing Inc Same as T.R.I.P., same author. I left messages on their talk page.
  • Was also G12'ed.
• Andrew C. Weber -G5'ed due to User:Slytherining Around32 creating it. I would agree in this case, being familiar with the sock and the other edits weren't substantive.
  • User:Nikkimaria refused CSD and removed tag, I disagree.
• Deconbrio G4'ed, due to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deconbrio, which was pretty recent. Looking over the article, it isn't a clone of the old article, but it is essentially close enough to qualify. If anything, it is less developed. Generally applies.
  • Was G4'ed.
• Delta Phi Kappa A7'ed, but my gut says it really should go to AFD and not speedy, for no apparent reason.
  • Milewent removed CSD tag, GrapedApe sent to AFD, I agree.
• Rolando Baute A7'ed, doesn't apply
  • I removed tag with summary: "Says he has been on a number of TV shows, so A7 doesn't really apply. AFD would be the better choice." Although I don't think it will have much of a chance at AFD at first glance, but who knows, and A7 isn't the right call anyway.
  • Update - Was PRODed, which is fine.
• Repulsed A7, good call, no claim as they are "working" on their first EP.
  • Was A7'ed
• Xombrero didn't give a rationale, but it was an obvious G6 situation
  • I went ahead and just did it myself as the author requesting was the only one that had ever done any real work on the previous copy, etc. I don't see this as a breach of my restrictions because of the obviousness of the situation, almost like deleting a page in userspace.
    • unfortunately, not so obvious: there seems to be a move war about the title. DGG ( talk ) 22:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Not sure what you mean, on the talk page, I see multiple editors who all agree that it needed moving, which was the only reason I went and moved it. Perhaps I've missed something? There seems to be a consensus, else I wouldn't have moved. I didn't see one objection. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
• Concept Educations A7, and it applies. Not spammy enough to justify an additional G11.
  • Was A7'ed
• Talk:Kemal mohammed kemal G8 and it applies.
  • Another that was so obvious that I went ahead and just deleted it as there is no potential controversy here.
• James N. Miller G5, same as G5 above, applies equally.
  • Anthony Bradbury G5'ed it, then Nikkimaria recreated it.
• Teri M. Takai G5, same as above, applies.
  • Was G5'ed.
• Section complete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

CSD Review 7

• Half Price Geeks Listed A7, it applies.
  • Deleted as advertised
• Khin Yaminn Listed G12. Agree, and G11 also applies.
  • JBW G12 and G11, so I picked that one up.
• Lawless (film) G6, and it applies
  • I went ahead and deleted then moved the article to the new space.
• List of MasterChef (România) contestants Listed A7. Not an individual, and loosely a group, but A7 seems to apply here in a rough sense.
  • A7'ed
• A Scientific Fantasy Listed G7, I checked, it applies. Original article was made in one edit, so I checked for prior versions (sock, etc.), found none.
  • Was G7'ed.
• Maulvi iqbal haider Listed A7. Made my eyes bleed to read it, but seems to be the right call.
  • Deleted A7.
• Moawya El-Amin Listed A10, Moawya Elamin, and technically applies, however both pages have PRODs. If not, I would just change to a redirect as a logical misspelling. Otherwise, I would hesitate to delete a page that is A10'ed to another page with a PROD on it in general.
  • A7 for some reason.
• Moo Duk Kwan (disambiguation) G6 as orphaned db page, and really applies. The articles listed on it shouldn't be there as they aren't the same term.
  • Was G6'ed
• Paradox Development Studio Listed A7. I think this is too borderline for A7, would remove and maybe send to AFD myself, but did nothing here as I'm not completely sure.
  • Was A7'ed
• RetroShare Listed G11. Not really G11 however, possibly A7, but better as an AFD candidate, to put more eyes on it and give it a chance to get sourced.
  • At AFD, very little action.
    • how could it possibly be A7--it's software. DGG ( talk ) 22:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Was thinking company not product, you are correct. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Adding: I think that is a mental block I need to work on, as seeing all open source software as "projects" rather than products, ie: groups, companies, even though it be both but separate. From being around open source projects, for some reason my brain gravitates that way. IE: Apache=project, CentOS=project, compared to MS Office=product, Windows XP=product, that kind of thing. But again, you are correct, and the mistaken perception is mine as this was a singular software program, not the project itself. It just kind of dawned on me why I've done that a couple of times, and it helps to understand why. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
• Complete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for not having commented here for so long - I've just been unexpectedly busy in real life. But I have had a look over a selection from the past few review sections now, and I'm seeing good stuff - you have a much better grasp of CSD than a lot of our more experienced admins. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.