Template:Sdd4/doc

Syntax
 Basic :

 Adding header : (" ==Declined speedy deletion nomination of PAGE== ")

 Excluding introductory text : (without the text: " Speedy deletion work is important and I do appreciate the effort. I would just ask that you to please review the criteria carefully because accuracy is also important. On that issue, ")

Usage

 * Mnemonic: Sdd =  S peedy  d eletion  d eclined

This template is placed on a user's talk page to explain why you have declined their speedy deletion nomination as to any page, in any namespace, with tailored language supplied for each and every CSD criterion.

To use it you must substitute it (prepend  at the start), and place three mandatory parameters:
 * 1) name of the page you declined to delete, e.g., ;
 * 2) two letter CSD criterion they had used (uppercase or lowercase will both work), e.g.:
 * i.     or  ;
 * ii.    or  ;
 * iii.   or  ;
 * iv.   or  ;
 * v.    or , etc.
 * 3) your explanation to the patroller as to why the criterion they tagged under did not properly apply. (See below for suggested text as to common mistakes.)

This template automatically links to the relevant CSD criterion you supply as a two-letter code, describes it specifically, and then places your supplied reason for declining after ... For example, the output for an article/user page/jpeg file/category, each using the example name "Foobar", and using the five respective two-letter CSD example codes in i-v above, would result in:

Removal of introductory text
As noted in the syntax section, placing  will remove the introductory text that says " " The no intro parameter can be placed at any point in the template after its name, and any character placed after the equal sign will work, i.e., it does not have to be "yes".

You may wish to exclude this introductory text especially where the template's use is not the first time you are declining a speedy tag by the same user. With the introductory text excluded, the template says instead (using A7 for this example):

Suggested "reason" text for common mistakes as to high-use criteria
The third "reason for declining" parameter can take any text you see fit to include. However, there are some CSD mistakes that come up over and over. To possibly save you time, set out below is suggested language for common tagging mistakes, depending on which CSD criterion your decline regarded. Not all criteria are included.

To be clear, each bulleted text segment below is a suggestion for copying and pasting into the third template parameter (do not copy the bullet; a period at the end of each is "missing" because it is supplied by the template code).

A1. No context
That criterion did not apply because...
 * it is only for articles where you literally cannot identify the subject of the article from its text. While the article was quite short, what it was about was plain

A2. Foreign language articles that exist on another Wikimedia project
That criterion did not apply because...
 * it is specifically for foreign language articles that have "essentially the same content as an article on another Wikimedia project". It is not for articles that just happen to be written in a foreign language. If no other criterion applies, in the future, use the template instead, and list the page at Pages needing translation into English for review and possible translation

A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events)
That criterion did not apply because...
 * it is only for articles on real persons or groups, individual animals, organizations, web content and organized events. This article's topic is not within the ambit of that list


 * the article was about a ______, and A7 only applies to articles on real persons or groups, individual animals, organizations, web content and organized events


 * educational institutions are specifically exempted from the reach of CSD A7. Please read it carefully


 * _____ is a credible indication of "importance or significance"


 * _____ is a credible indication of "importance or significance". Remember that CSD A7 is a lower standard than what is required to demonstrate notability – it does not, for example, require that the article's text already contain citations to reliable sources that would be necessary to prove notability, but only that it contain a claim that, were it true, might reasonably make the subject a valid encyclopedia topic (if proper sourcing could later be found)


 * even though the article's prose did not appear to indicate "importance or significance", it contained citations to apparent secondary sources that are commonly recognized as reliable . This is implicitly considered to meet the "importance or significance" indication standard, because the existence of such sources (discussing the subject in detail) is a chief basis we use to assess whether a topic meets the higher standard of notability, on the merits, at a discussion process such as AfD

A9. No indication of importance (musical recordings)
That criterion did not apply because...
 * it is only for articles on musical recordings where none of the contributing recording artists has an article, and an article on INSERT  exists


 * while there is no article on the band/singer, the content plainly contained a credible indication of importance or significance – both parts of the A9 criterion must be met for it to be applicable

G1. Patent nonsense
That criterion did not apply because...
 * it requires that the page consist entirely of incoherent text or gibberish, with no meaningful content or history. This content may have been poorly written but it was understandable

G3. Pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes
That criterion did not apply because...
 * vandalism is about intent to damage Wikipedia . The article's current content does have problems, but nothing about it implies the author created it in bad faith


 * the subject is not an obvious hoax

G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion
That criterion did not apply because...
 * its prior deletion was under a speedy deletion criterion. CSD G4 only applies to pages previously deleted after discussion, at an XfD forum such as at [ [WP:AFD|AfD]].


 * its prior deletion was under a speedy deletion criterion. CSD G4 only applies to pages previously deleted after discussion, at an XfD forum such as at [ [WP:AFD|AfD]] . Note also that even when a page was previously deleted on the merits, G4 is only applicable where the reposted page is substantially identical to the deleted version and any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted

G5. Creations by banned or blocked users
That criterion did not apply because...
 * the edit must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked. This user is banned/blocked  now, but was not at the time this page was created


 * the edit must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked. This user is banned/blocked  now, but was not at the time this edit was made

G7. Author requests deletion
That criterion did not apply because...
 * substantial edits to the page have been made by other users


 * You are not the author of the page


 * You are not the author of the page and it was not blanked by the author

G10. Attack pages
That criterion did not apply because...
 * while the page contains negative content and criticism, it does not appear to be intended "purely to harass or intimidate a person" and it was not "entirely negative in tone and unsourced"


 * while the page contains negative content and criticism, it does not appear to be intended "purely to harass or intimidate a person" and it was not "entirely negative in tone and unsourced". In fact, the [ [WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]] policy requires that all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic be included, which may at times encompass sourced negative material and criticism. This does not mean I have made an assessment that the negative material here actually belongs–it might, for example, give undue weight to a minority viewpoint – but this was not a 'pure' "attack page"

G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion
That criterion did not apply because...
 * while the page did have some promotional sounding text, it was far from " exclusively promotional", nor would it need to be "fundamentally rewritten" to become encyclopedic


 * while the current content might meet the G11 standard, this is a later addition. It is always a good idea to check the article history. I have reverted to an earlier version

G12. Unambiguous copyright infringement
That criterion did not apply because...
 * while the current content is a copyright violation, this is a later addition. It is always a good idea to check the article history. I have reverted to an earlier version, RevDeleted the infringing edits (which you can request using ) and warned the user who placed it using    (choose one)