Wikipedia:Proposal to expand WP:CSD

''This is a proposed policy. For the record, the original author of this proposal is blankfaze. Proposals VI and VII were added by Isomorphic. Proposal VIII was suggested by Netoholic. Proposal IX was added by Eequor and adjusted by Brockert and Merovingian. Proposal X was added by Merovingian and adjusted by Eequor.''

For some time, discussion has been ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Candidates for speedy deletion about possible expansions to Candidates for speedy deletion (WP:CSD). I have decided to bring a number of these proposals to a formal vote.

Those who follow Votes for deletion (WP:VFD) may notice listings for pages which should obviously be deleted, and faster than the seven-day VFD process allows for. This proposal is an attempt to expand the cases in which a page can be speedily deleted. Additionally, some users consider current CSD cases to be vague or unclear; this proposal also attempts to clarify them.

This proposal is really a group of proposals; rather, it is entirely possible for one of the sub-proposals to fail and others to pass. As such, please treat each sub-proposal as a separate issue.

Voting on these proposals began at 00:00 UTC on January 2, 2005 and lasted two weeks until 00:00 UTC, January 16, 2005. Each sub-proposal required 70 percent support ("Agree" votes) to pass. Three of the eleven sub-proposals garnered the necessary 70 percent support and, having received the approval of Jimbo Wales, are now official policy.

There is a page for general talk on the expansion, not on any specific proposal.

Results
Only votes present at 00:00 UTC 16 January were counted. Any votes added after that time are null and void.


 * Proposal I (Amount of content I) passed with ~84% support
 * "Any article whose contents consist only of an external link, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, or interwiki link."


 * Proposal VI (Requested deletion) passed with ~88% support
 * "Any article which is requested for deletion by the original author, provided the author reasonably explains that it was created by mistake, and the article was edited only by its author."


 * Proposal X (Correspondence) passed with ~95% support
 * "Any article which consists only of attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title."


 * Proposal II (Amount of content II) failed with ~60% support
 * Proposal III (Vanity articles) failed with ~44% support
 * Proposal IV (Dicdefs) failed with ~33% support
 * Proposal V (Copyright violations) failed with ~37% support
 * Proposal VII (Article forks) failed with ~7% support
 * Proposal VIII (Procedure) failed with ~28% support
 * Proposal IX (Deprecation) failed with ~2% support
 * Proposal XI (Unimproved vanity articles) failed with ~58% support