geni wrote:
On 11/21/05, Bryan Derksen
<bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
I've speedied articles occasionally myself,
and the only situation I can
think of where it would have been an actual problem not being able to
just click "delete" and be done with it would be when I'm trying to move
an article to a location where there's already another article or
redirect. This situation could be given an expemption to the "tag and
bag" requirement easily. Any other situations come to mind?
with permission images
These are have all essentially been marked as speedies already
("tagged") by the with-permission template.
orphan fair use.
One should not be speedy deleting orphan images the first time you
notice that they're orphaned. What if they're only orphaned for that
particular moment because the article that normally uses them has been
vandalized, and is going to be fixed in a few hours to use them again?
Since image deletion is irreversable, extra care should be taken with
such things and something akin to the tag-and-bag approach should be
done regardless of whether it's a general policy. I'd suggest putting it
on IfD, in fact, to make sure it gets a few days' delay before the time
comes to wipe it.
RC patrol when there is a lot of vandalism going on.
I don't see how this is different from tagging vandalism for speedying
when there _isn't_ a lot of vandalism going on. The RC patroller would
spot the vandalism, slap a tag on it, and then eventually the article in
question would be deleted. Why should there be an exemption to a rule
meant to ensure that speedy deletions are given due consideration
specifically during a situation where speedy deletions would probably be
given less consideration than usual? That would seem to me to be the
most important sort of situation to have it in.