| Quicklinks |
|---|
| Other Excellent articles on CSD |
Original Article
edithey so this is lame you can do whatever you want to the site and people will beleve it ha ha thanks for veiwng
Nomination Criteria
editG3 Pure vandalism. This includes blatant and obvious misinformation, and redirects created by cleanup from page-move vandalism.
Deletion Options
edit| rationale | Count | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| Agree with ratioinale to speedy delete. | 59 | 66.3 |
| Disagree with rationale to speedy delete, but deletable by other criteria. | 27 | 30.3 |
| Disagree with rationale to speedy delete, but this is a case where IAR applies. | 3 | 3.4 |
| Disagree with speedy deletion (should be PRODDED, sent to AFD, or kept.) | 0 | 0 |
Survey Comments
edit| Common rationale | Count |
|---|---|
| G2 | 14 |
| A1 | 1 |
- agree with rationale, assuming there is no better version in page history
- simple vandalism, absolutely no dispute here.
- This isn't too bad, I'd be more inclined to call it a test page.
- I would delete instead under G2, but G3 isn't totally inappropriate.
- I think I'd G2 rather than G3, though that's an iffy.
- Depending on the author, possibly delete as a test to be less bitey.
- I can see how someone would tag this as pure vandalism, but for me it fits G2 better.
Balloonman's analysis
editG2 (test page) and G3 (vandalism) are both valid reasons to delete. G2 would be the better reason if there is no other indication of vandalism from the editor. It is less bity and assumes good faith. G3 would be better if there is a belief the individual was actively engaging in vandalism.