geni wrote:
On 11/21/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@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.