Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Explanations

A suggestion to do

 * Dig into the archived discussions of Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion and copy the reasons why some of these CSD criteria were passed. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Also check WP:CSD. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 08:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops, I forgot to actually add the links to the specific archived discussions. Need to do that soon. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced
This page makes several claims that things are "often" used in such-and-such way, or that users "frequently" do this-and-that, but does not provide sources for any of those. It would seem, then, that these are the perceptions of the authors of this essay, rather than facts or statistics.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm fixing it up. We don't need items for obvious ones like patent nonsense that just repeat what's already on the main page. Also adding what are the central reasons for most of these. —Centrx→talk &bull; 15:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Done, except for the image criteria. —Centrx→talk &bull; 16:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's better. Thanks!  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  17:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Based on your comments, I think that this page just should consist of very brief explanations, then links to the relevant discussions. No opinions needed on here. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. I always prefer fact over opinion.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  07:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Update
Sorry, I haven't been paying much attention to CSD for the past few years since I contributed to the bulk of this essay page back in 2006. I will rectify and update this page in the next couple of weeks. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Outdated
This page is horribly out-dated and many of the explanations didn't really explain anything in the first place. I'm marking as historical. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of article Vasant Vihar
Hello, I have read this article Vasant Vihar, it is full (almost whole) writing goes against the rule of NPOV OR Neutral Point Of View. To inform you there are many places in India of name 'Vasant Vihar', at least this article should have written the article name as 'Vasant Vihar, Delhi', I there is one place called Vasant Vihar in Thane city too. The article looks (written things and photos) like it is an advertise, please check this out. Regards BOTFIGHTER (talk) 11:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, BOTFIGHTER, I've replied to you on Anna Frodesiak's page. You are right that the article is very bad and full of trivia and boasting. I've stubbed it. I don't think it's a deletion candidate, though. But the thing to do when you come across an article you think should be speedy deleted is to mark the article itself with this template: . This page that you've posted on is only for discussing the speedy criteria and propose changes to them. Thank you for helping Wikipedia! Bishonen &#124; talk 12:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC).