On 11/21/05, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
geni wrote:
These are have all essentially been marked as speedies already
("tagged") by the with-permission template.
Not always correctly
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.
Can IFD cope with 5000 images?
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.
Eventualy? Most people accept rollback of vandalism should be as fast
as posible. I see no reason for article creation vandalism to be any
different. It is always posible to undelete.
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.
Content of article:
"PERSON X IS GAY"
I think that took me 2 seconds to give due consideration to.
--
geni