Message Edit

Is there anychance we can get a boilerplate message for articles and images for immediate deletion? Posting a typical {{deletion}} won't link you to this page in the cases when something needs to be deleted immediately. --Gvsualan 05:06, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Question about immediate deletionsEdit

Moved from User_talk:Captainmike:

Hey, quick question. I noticed you deleted USS Dauntless (NCC-71879) citing that it was an immediate delete because it was fan fiction or something to that extent. What I am confused about is why other fan fiction pages, like Phaser-Type II-G, remain(ed) in the votes for deletion page and were not immediately deleted in the same manner? What makes these two articles different, or rather, where exactly is this fine line drawn for immediate deletions when both of these pages seem to fall into the same category? Thanks:)--Alan del Beccio 22:00, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)

To be exact, "non-canon" content is not a candidate for immediate deletion... -- Cid Highwind 22:19, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Well, either way, they both were "non-canon", yet what makes one different from the other? --Alan del Beccio 22:58, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Well, I guess I was wrong to phrase it as "speedy deletion" in the deletion field summary -- it was qualified for deletion for being non-canon and having been listed two days. I apologixe for the confusion, and the fact that I haven't had a chance to answer since this was left on my talk a few days ago i guess, but I was referring to a section of Memory Alpha:Canon policy:

Deleting Invalid Articles

If you believe an article contains nothing but non-canon information, or is sourced solely from non-valid resources, they should be listed on Memory Alpha:Votes for deletion. They may be deleted two days after they have been listed. In this time, other users may defend the article's validity.

I had thought that two days had passed, although it might have been less, but I figured the time the article spent on this deletion page might qualify us to be done with it. My concern was that it was a totally non-canon thing to begin with, and not applicable for merging into a games article due to copyvio. It might have been preferable to leave it on the second deletion page for another two days, but i guess i woke up impatient that day :P-- Captain Mike K. Bartel^talk 16:18, 14 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Banned users criterion Edit

I know it's there to reinforce the point about vandals, but doesn't this fall under the catch-all of "pure vandalism"? If a banned user hypothetically created a legitimate article upon returning, it wouldn't qualify as a speedy delete. --Vedek Dukat ^{Talk | Duty Roster} 05:48, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Most cases will probably be "pure vandalism", but what about a user that keeps posting copyvios or fan fiction until that gets him banned? Without that additional rule, we'd still have to list each and every one of those on the appropriate pages, or alternatively, each time explain why "this contribution is considered vandalism". I think the rule makes sense, although it might be one of the least-used... -- Cid Highwind 11:56, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)