Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/10

This is part of Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Proposal.

10 (transwiki cleanup)Edit

"Any article that has been discussed at Votes for Deletion, where the outcome was to transwiki, and where the transwikification has been properly performed and the author information recorded" should be added to the criteria for speedy deletion.
  • This is to prevent a transwikied article from having to pass through VFD a second time.
  • This is a weaker form of proposition #8 and #9. In the event that all three pass, #8 and #9 shall be implenented.
  • If you are unsure about this proposal, consider that there is a proposed test run to try it out for a month.



This proposal is no longer open for voting. Voting closed on July 19, 2005 15:11 (UTC).


  1. Voting for this one as well, in case 8 and 9 don't pass. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 4, 2005 15:53 (UTC)
  2. Supporting this, although this really is a much weaker proposal than numbers 8 and 9. Oliver Keenan July 4, 2005 18:41 (UTC)
  3. Dragons flight July 4, 2005 20:57 (UTC)
  4. It is deliberately a weaker version of 8 and 9. When discussing this proposal in the discussion prior to the vote I suspected that editors would oppose 8 or 9 as too broad yet be able to support this much narrower criterion, just as Oliverkeenan in fact has. ☺ Netoholic's argument for opposing completely misses the points that (a) the consensus to transwiki (and delete) may form as the result of the VFD discussion, and (b) the editors performing the transwikification may not be (and in the case of transwikification to Wiktionary, probably will not be) the administrators closing the VFD discussion or even administrators at all. My suggested wording in the discussion prior to the vote was explicit that the consensus had to be one to transwiki and (then) delete. Uncle G 4 July 2005 21:40 (UTC)
    • Then this proposal ought to specify that it only applies to transwiki-and-delete cases, which it presently does not. NatusRoma 5 July 2005 01:07 (UTC)
  5. If anyone's not sure about this one, take a look at the monstrous transwiki log. Countless numbers of those entries were vfd'd, transwikied, and promptly forgotten. Now, with a huge backlog, they will have to be picked through and resolved, and this will help greatly. --Dmcdevit 4 July 2005 23:42 (UTC)
    Not strictly true. Many, if not most, of the articles on WP:TL were bot-transwikied without ever going to VfD; they need picking through to see what is savable and what is deletable. Physchim62 8 July 2005 15:39 (UTC)
  6. Utterly. — Phil Welch 5 July 2005 02:56 (UTC)
  7. mikka (t) 5 July 2005 03:25 (UTC)
  8. gadfium 5 July 2005 03:27 (UTC)
  9. Fuzheado | Talk 5 July 2005 03:51 (UTC)
  10. If someone wants to vote transwiki on a vfd but keep the article afterward, they should say so, for example "Keep. Transwiki current version to Wiktionary, too." If such happened more than twice a year, I'd be amazed. --Cryptic (talk) 5 July 2005 04:23 (UTC)
  11. Reasonable extension of CSD against recreation. Xoloz 5 July 2005 06:50 (UTC)
  12. G Rutter 5 July 2005 09:00 (UTC)
  13. Reasonable proposal. JoJan 5 July 2005 09:05 (UTC)
  14. Support. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 5 July 2005 12:29 (UTC)
  15. I think this more general criterion, not specifying particular sister projects will survive better in future when new sister projects appear. -Splash 5 July 2005 13:08 (UTC)
  16. Support.Ram-Man (comment) (talk) July 5, 2005 14:30 (UTC)
  17. Anything to make Transwiki easier, and thus help it actually happen. -- Cyrius| 5 July 2005 15:55 (UTC)
  18. OK — Bcat (talk | email) 5 July 2005 15:58 (UTC)
  19. SimonP July 5, 2005 16:02 (UTC)
  20. Support. Uncle G is persuasive. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 5 July 2005 20:09 (UTC)
  21. Support. A vote for "transwiki" is a vote for "this doesn't belong here". Leaving the article in place defeats the purpose. Gwalla | Talk 5 July 2005 22:13 (UTC)
  22. Strong support. This is a necessary clarification of the en: implementation of the meta:transwiki process. Rossami (talk) 5 July 2005 22:24 (UTC)
  23. Support although I think everything would fall under the category of recreated material deleted under the deletion policy anyway. David | Talk 5 July 2005 22:48 (UTC)
  24. Support. Good, than these articles can be tagged and deleted and don't have to wait 17 days for a sysop with spare time to close down the VfD. --Scimitar 5 July 2005 23:53 (UTC)
  25. Support. If the vote wasn't to keep the article, it should be (eventually) deleted... — Asbestos | Talk 6 July 2005 00:51 (UTC)
  26. Support. Golbez July 6, 2005 02:28 (UTC)
  27. Support. Doesn't belong here? Get rid of it. Jayjg (talk) 6 July 2005 02:31 (UTC)
  28. Strong support. per above reasons. Sasquatch′TalkContributions July 6, 2005 04:37 (UTC)
  29. Support. -R. S. Shaw 6 July 2005 05:10 (UTC)
  30. Trilobite (Talk) 6 July 2005 10:54 (UTC)
  31. Strong support. No need to keep articles that belong elsewhere. Sietse 6 July 2005 11:02 (UTC)
  32. ➥the Epopt 6 July 2005 13:46 (UTC)
  33. Support -- Joolz 6 July 2005 14:20 (UTC)
  34. Support per Uncle G and Dmcdevit. --Deathphoenix 6 July 2005 15:13 (UTC)
  35. Streamlining. --ArmadniGeneral 6 July 2005 16:21 (UTC)
  36. I'll vote for this, as long as it's explicitly checked that the article's been transwikied. Thanks,
    Luc "Somethingorother" French 6 July 2005 20:32 (UTC)
  37. Carnildo 6 July 2005 22:10 (UTC)
  38. ABCD 6 July 2005 22:47 (UTC)
  39. Kaldari 6 July 2005 23:11 (UTC)
  40. This is just janitor work. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 7 July 2005 02:44 (UTC)
  41. Support. ral315 July 7, 2005 05:28 (UTC)
  42. SupportTobycat 7 July 2005 08:16 (UTC)
  43. 'Support -- Ricky81682 (talk) July 7, 2005 08:25 (UTC)
  44. Support The Uninvited Co., Inc. 7 July 2005 19:51 (UTC)
  45. weak support.  Grue  7 July 2005 20:47 (UTC)
  46. Support thames 7 July 2005 20:53 (UTC)
  47. Support - Tεxτurε 7 July 2005 21:28 (UTC)
  48. Support. Once consensus has decided something needs to be transwikied to Wiktionary (or wherever), it shouldn't then also stay at Wikipedia. --Angr/t?k t? mi 8 July 2005 06:58 (UTC)
  49. Support. Not really a weaker version of #8 and 9 at all, since this is based on the results of a VFD and the other two are not. Kaibabsquirrel 8 July 2005 08:09 (UTC)
  50. Merovingian (t) (c) July 8, 2005 09:23 (UTC)
  51. strong support. If consensus has been reached, then it has been reached. transwiki-ing implies deletion. Brighterorange 8 July 2005 21:06 (UTC)
  52. Support --Doc (?) 9 July 2005 18:41 (UTC)
  53. Support. Absolutely. TheCoffee 21:31, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
  54. Support. Some might consider this redundant, but if it is then its also harmless. -R. fiend 21:33, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
  55. Support. Peter Isotalo 17:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  56. Support. Certainly. --Canderson7 18:47, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  57. -- nyenyec  00:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  58. Support. I can't see any benefit to VFD giving its opinion a second time on something so simple. - RedWordSmith 05:15, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  59. Support --Mysidia 13:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  60. Support. - McCart42 (talk) 13:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  61. Dsmdgold 14:53, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  62. Johnleemk | Talk 14:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  63. MarkSweep 01:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  64. Zeimusu | (Talk page) 02:41, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  65. Support Dan100 (Talk) 09:01, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  66. Makes sense, if there was a decision to delete it after transwiki on VFD and it isn't happening it should be speediable without further discussion. Mgm|(talk) 12:16, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  67. Support. JuntungWu 14:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  68. Support – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 15:35, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  69. Support. Pavel Vozenilek 19:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  70. Support, I see no fault in this. IanManka 06:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  71. Support. See no drawbacks. -- Marcika 14:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  72. SUpport Vegaswikian 05:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  73. Support Nothing more than housekeeping. CasitoTalk 02:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  74. Support EnSamulili 10:32, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  75. Support. But all information and attribution must be transferred. Superm401 | Talk 13:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  76. Support Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 20:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  77. Support Hiding 23:15, July 17, 2005 (UTC)


  1. Nothing that comes from VfD is a "speedy deletion". Just follow the consensus decision all the way through as is done today. Better yet, transwiki first, THEN VfD. -- Netoholic @ 4 July 2005 19:08 (UTC)
    • To counter Uncle G's comment in his support vote, if a VfD discussion results in a "Transwiki and delete" decision, then why does anything need to be added to the WP:CSD? Carry out the VfD decision (by transwiki'ing and deleting) and leave it at that. CSD is for documenting reasons why pages don't need to follow longer deletion processes. In other words, it is a mistake to think that the outcome of a VfD discussion creates a "speedy deletion" candidate. -- Netoholic @ 5 July 2005 02:18 (UTC)
      • Please read (b) again. Uncle G 5 July 2005 02:40 (UTC)
        • So what. An admin can still justify deletion by referencing the VfD vote result. We don't need this - we need admins to follow through. -- Netoholic @ 5 July 2005 02:55 (UTC)
          • I can tell you that's just not how it works, and this criterion would be a great help. When I transwiki an article with a previous VfD ruling, it's generally an incredible hassle to try to get someone to delete it (as in the hassle is prohibitive). You see, saying we need more follow-through when admins aren't the ones doing the transwikiing is really saying that the transwiki-er should spend more of their own time contacting interested admins after they've done the deed. It's asking a lot, and since a CSD would accomplish the same as contacting an admin (but a whole lot faster), there's no reason why we shouldn't just have it. --Dmcdevit 5 July 2005 03:02 (UTC)
            • Whether this is added or not (and it is not necessary to add it) you STILL need to find admins who can help do the deletion. What possibly can this do to help that? -- Netoholic @ 5 July 2005 08:39 (UTC)
              • It would change the method of "finding an admin" from "submit the article to VFD a second time" (which is what the transwikification process currently requires for articles that aren't speedily deletable via existing criteria — which articles that had to go through VFD the first time around won't be) to "simply flag the article for speedy deletion". Uncle G 5 July 2005 12:15 (UTC)
                • A second VfD vote is not necessary unless the page has changed. Speedy deletion is for removing obvious nonsense from the site. It is not a "delete this now" service for notifying admins of other tasks. Try using Template:Pending deletion. -- Netoholic @ 5 July 2005 21:39 (UTC)
                  • I note that you just invented that template (as it now stands) for the purposes of your argument, and it has not yet been used in practice and thus shown to be an effective mechanism. Uncle G 09:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. I would very much like to support this proposal, but it does not specify that it only applies to cases in which the consensus is which to transwiki and then delete. I do not agree with the current language. NatusRoma 5 July 2005 01:08 (UTC)
    • That is a good point. However, it seems to me that most of the time when people vote 'transwiki', they mean move it to the other wiki, not copy/paste it to the other wiki and leave it here. The only things that get substantial transwiki votes are source text, howto guides (sometimes) and dicdefs (but only if the voters see no room for expansion, because then several people are going to vote keep as well). Thus, just like 'redirect' usually means 'delete content, replace with redirect' (because people would vote 'merge' otherwise), I'd say that 'transwiki' usually means 'transwiki and delete'. Radiant_>|< July 5, 2005 08:32 (UTC)
  3. For once, I am in wholehearted agreement with Netoholic. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 5 July 2005 03:59 (UTC)
    • Netoholic is basing xyr arguments upon the false premise that it is administrators that are doing the work. I suggest looking at Wikipedia:Transwiki log and seeing that it is not administrators doing the work there. Also notice that the administrators who are stating and agreeing here that "administrators should follow through" have not edited Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old/Transwiki to follow through, and do not perform transwikification work. "Administrators should do X" arguments are much more convincing when the administrators that are propounding those arguments themselves do "X". Uncle G 5 July 2005 12:15 (UTC)
  4. This is VfD territory. Article gets a transwiki vote, a lot can happen in the meantime. Discuss again. See also Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/Z --Tony Sidaway|Talk 5 July 2005 15:19 (UTC)
  5. Redundant - the deletion would be part of the VFD process, not the CSD process - David Gerard 5 July 2005 21:54 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Netoholic is correct. This is nothing more than unnecessarily winding a CSD string around an already existing tool. Carrying out the VfD consensus doesn't require a specific case instruction in the CSD instructions. Unnecessary interweaving of policies will only (eventually) lead to confusion. Unfocused 6 July 2005 08:18 (UTC)
  7. Oppose unnecessary since deletion is part of the VfD process. Stewart Adcock 6 July 2005 08:53 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. Netoholic is right on this one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 6 July 2005 10:56 (UTC)
  9. Oppose, Netoholic is right. James F. (talk) 6 July 2005 14:26 (UTC)
  10. Dan | Talk 6 July 2005 15:16 (UTC)
  11. Oppose If an article goes through VfD without being deleted, then it definitely needs to go through VfD again before being deleted. Nohat 7 July 2005 16:20 (UTC)
  12. Oppose Transwikying an article to another wiki gives no guarentee that the article will survive there. In fact, I have used this route to support speedy deletes on foreign language articles (if an article is deleted on a foreign wiki as nonsense, it can safely be deleted here as well). Given the fact that bots have operated transwikying huge numbers of short articles to wiktionary, this proposal seems dangerous. Physchim62 8 July 2005 15:43 (UTC)
    • It specifically does not open up such a loophole, however. This proposal does not apply to articles where someone has simply tagged the article for transwikification, but applies only to articles that have "been discussed at Votes for Deletion" and the consensus has been to transwiki. Uncle G 09:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  13. 24 at 9 July 2005 18:40 (UTC)
  14. Shanes 06:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


  1. Changing vote to oppose in protest of User:Radiant!'s vote-tampering. This election is no longer legitimate. — Phil Welch 5 July 2005 10:17 (UTC)
    • You know, I just went through the page history and I didn't detect any signs of vote tampering by Radiant. Could you give me a diff link? Gwalla | Talk 5 July 2005 22:17 (UTC)