Commons talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

Self-requested copyvio

Sometimes we will have uploaders nominate their own photos for speedy deletion as copyvio. If it happens within a week of upload, then it doesn't matter whether the copyvio rationale is valid; my view of COM:CSD#G7 is that uploaders are entitled to this one-week grace period to have their uploads removed for any reason, or no reason at all. Beyond this period, however, sometimes uploaders will tag their images as copyvio for reasons like no FoP, which is normally not a valid reason for speedy deletion. Where does the community stand on this issue?

1. Continue to follow current CSD requirements to the letter. Since the images do not qualify for any applicable criteria such as F1, F3, or G7, the speedy deletion shall be declined and converted to DR.
2. Allow speedy deletion if there is a reasonably high chance that the images will be deleted at DR and the uploader agrees with their deletion.

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

The point of 'speedy deletion' is usually confused, because it's poorly named. These are not 'urgent' deletions, they are clear and unarguable deletions. Ones where there is no valid reason to challenge them (and if there is, we convert to DR). So the deletion reason needs to be clear, and beyond likely challenge.

That means that the reason must firstly be clearly identified. So "speedy delete" isn't. Nor is "user request" (that will be bounced forthwith, owing to age). They might be categorised after upload into Category:Minecraft, Category:L'Arc de Triomphe, Wrapped or Category:Atomium, where these categories then highlight a not-obvious, but pretty unarguable copyright problem. A speedy on that basis should be accepted: evidence has been added since upload, the outcome is now clearly for deletion.

FoP might meet this same test, if it's clear; i.e. it's a route we've been down before. So 2D public art in countries where that's obviously stated to not be free. But this would only be the case if it's a clear and unarguable situation, i.e. the identification into the problem group has been done and is beyond challenge, and the applicable law is equally clear. Again, this is likely to be because it has been placed into a category that's already marked as not readily populatable.

User request doesn't move content into the "clear and unarguable deletion" group by itself (we'd still need some licensing-based reason, or an obvious scope reason), but it does remove 'potential uploader challenge' as a reason to disallow a speedy otherwise. So I think this is permissible, but it has to give the other reason along with it, at the time of nomination. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Pretty much what Andy said. It can't be a speedy-deletion criterion all on its own, or it opens a back door for anyone to delete an image they uploaded, no matter how longstanding and unproblematic the image may be. - Jmabel ! talk 15:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: The examples you cite are not actually unarguable: Minecraft textures may be self-created (which may lead to a COM:SCOPE problem, but scope is not a reason for speedy deletion unless F10 is met). And anything involving FoP is explicitly banned from speedy deletion (F3), even if it is "obvious" in the subjective judgment of one or more users.

But my point here is not to discuss where the line for speedy deletion should be drawn when it concerns normal copyvio tagging (i.e. by users other than the uploader). I want to ask whether the fact that the tagger is the uploader ever results in moving the line. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

BTW, we delete self-created textures for Minecraft too. We also delete blocks that are user-written (and open-sourced) Java mods, no part of Mojang's Minecraft. Also Minecraft cosplays. Probably wrongly, but we do. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I say continue with current practice, though I'm OK with closing discussions early if everyone agrees there is a problem, in the spirit of w:WP:SNOW. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 20:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

"Advertising, linked page" request

I have a request for delation using this message. I can not find anything with page. This request maybe a personal message or spam. Aimty17 (talk) 07:54, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Four proposed additions to the text

When we introduce {{SD}}

Please be careful to write "SD", not "sd" or "Sd": the latter mean "Sindhi language".

For G11

For copyright violations, please use {{copyvio|reason or source}} rather than {{speedydelete|G11}} or {{SD|G11}}.

For C1

For badly-named categories, after moving any contents feel free to use {{badname|correct name}} rather than {{speedydelete|C1}} or {{C1}}.

For F8

For duplicates, please use {{duplicate|other file}} rather than {{speedydelete|F8}} or {{SD|F8}}.

Jmabel ! talk 19:35, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Photo

desole je me suis trompé sur la photo je veux modifier je n'arrive pas si vous supprimez je vais le reprendre Gonemili Grace (talk) 04:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

What should I post on Wikipedia?..

what type of post should I post here on Wikipedia? Can I post a story book or upload my documents like pictures and videos or an audio track song... Masteryucap02 (talk) 23:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

No Template:Db-multiple on Commons

I found out when trying to add multiple speedy deletion tags using Twinkle that Commons doesn't have a Template:Db-multiple. I know Twinkle on Commons is currently experimental, but can someone create a Template:Db-multiple? Un assiolo (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

G2 on redirected categories?

Re Category:Eurofighter Typhoon braking parachutes Unused and implausible redirect (G2): author's request on creation day

Is it a valid G2 when a used and stable category is moved (undiscussed, naturally), and the redirect then G2'ed? This is far from an 'implausible redirect', it had been the category name for a year and a half and that format of the name is still the one matching the rest of the sibling categories. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

How to change the text in a deletion?

I have changed the meaning of GA1 to "Gallery page without at least two images or other media files" in this page (see User talk:JopkeB#Gallery pages with only 1 image), but when I use this code in a gallery, the old text is used in the deletion, see for example Giusto Le Court. How can I change that text as well? I think it is hidden somewhere, but I cannot find the right place. JopkeB (talk) 05:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

This discussion has been moved to Village pump JopkeB (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)