Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 1-15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 16-31 2007 Deletion review archives August 16-31 2007 >

15 August 2007[edit]

  • Category:Converts from Judaism – "No consensus" closure endorsed. As an aside, some folks do convert from Judaism without renouncing it (eg., the late Jean-Marie Cardinal Lustiger), a consequence of the Christian belief that their religion represents the "fulfillment" of Judaism. A peculiar distinction for non-Christians, I know, but it does represent a real semantic difference. – Xoloz 14:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Converts from Judaism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

This seems to be a WP:CSD G4, recreation of previously deleted material from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 19#Category:People who have renounced Judaism. The discussion was closed as no consensus. The closing admin feels that this category is different enough from the original to preclude the application of a speedy delete. I disagree, and we agreed that bringing it here for a discussion would be the logical next step. Note: as the discussion was closed as "no consensus," there should be nothing here that would restrict anyone's ability to relist the article. Thank you. Avi 18:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and delete as a speedy (G4) Converts from vs. renounce does not seem to be a distinct enough difference. The only non-intersection would be atheists/agnostics who were once Jewish, and I do not feel that is a sufficient and notable enough differentiation from the previous category to warrant the non-application of CSD:G4. -- Avi 18:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was specifically the term "denounced" (being a negative term) that got the previous category deleted. This category has no such negative conitations, it is a neutral and unbiased category of people who moved from adherence to one religion, to adherence to another. It is in-line with all of the sub-categories of Category:People by former religion and Category:Religious converts. It should be renamed to Category:Former adherents of Judaism as discussed on the CfD, not deleted. —gorgan_almighty 11:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Renounced" <> "denounced". . Renounced is not disparative; it means a refusal to further accept a position or an authority. -- Avi 16:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse self. I personally thought that conversion from a religion isn't terribly notable, and wouldn't have shed a tear if this was deleted, but that was just my opinion, which I didn't voice during the discussion. When reading through the arguments, there was not even a majority opinion on what to do, and nobody seemed to have a stronger argument than any other. People knew about the "People who have renounced" CFD, and nobody seemed particularly inclined to call for a speedy of this based on that CFD. I'd be ok with a relisting if that's what's called for here, if only to get more people to participate, otherwise things aren't going to collapse if this sits around for a few months. --Kbdank71 18:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Kbdank71 without prejudice to relisting for further discussion. The differences are suttle, but I think they're enough to discount WP:CSD#G4. The major argument in the previous CfD seems to have been that the ambiguity of "renouncing Judaism" forces original research. The argument looses some of its strength when "renounce" changes to "convert from." There are still some very small ambiguities, but much less so. Given the lack of attention the CfD received, though, I'd be happy with it being reopened or relisted. — xDanielx T/C 18:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete as a speedy (G4). Too similiar. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete, because the earlier debate that resulted in deletion had a lot of participation, and the recent debate that had no consensus did not. Hence I do not believe that the latter meaningfully supersedes the former. >Radiant< 08:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - the idea of G4 is that "if an article/template/etc. is very similar to another article/template/etc. that has already undergone a deletion discussion and been deleted as a result, we can assume that another deletion discussion would give the same result". But obviously, in this case, the 2nd deletion discussion actually gave a different result and thus G4 no longer applies. ugen64 09:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please compare the number of participants in the first debate (approx 17) with the number of participants in the second (a total of 4). >Radiant< 10:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. Like Avi, I see this as a case for CSD G4. I also agree with Radiant's point regarding degree of participation. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Radiant!'s argument amounts to a complete reversal of WP deletion policy. There might be something to it--if applied to repeated AfDs where the !votes are for deletion, but there have been previous AfDs with large number of keeps, it would result in a keep result. It's also been suggested that evaluation of repeated AfDs should take account of the cumulative !votes. Interesting ideas, but need more discussion elsewhere. More precisely, Radiant!'s argument is to redefine "no consensus'. At present it is defined as keep, but no deterrent to another AfD. Changing this definition requires community consensus, and not just here. DGG (talk) 16:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I may, DGG, I think the deeper issue was not closing it as a speedy in the first place. The categories are extremely similar, and, as I mention above, the only logical area I can think of without complete overlap are atheists/agnostics who were once practicing religious Jews. Is this such a significant percentage of Jews who have left practicing Judaism that it merits a category on its own? The concept of the G4 is just as much policy as the definition of no consensus, and here the argument is that the no consensus is flawed and against policy, notwithstanding other arguments. -- Avi 16:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: G4 provides for deletion of copies "substantially identical to the deleted version". If, as you say, the categories are extremely similar except for atheists and agnostics, how can you say this qualifies as G4? --Kbdank71 18:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Endorse" at this point is, I think, supporting the category . The basis of the requested review is that G4 applies, because the no-consensus close should not be interpreted as keep, and the earlier delete result on a similarly named category is applicable. I am saying that the no-consensus close means no consensus to delete, and defaults to a keep, and that G4 is therefore inapplicable and against policy. So much for the technicalities. As for the underlying issue, atheists may consider themselves former Jews, but Judaism normally considers any Jew no matter how outrageously non-religious to be a Jew unless they join another religion. This category thus makes more sense than the previous one, because it may be difficult to determine who is an atheist, but formally joining another religion is an objective characteristic. I didnt participate in the previous CfD but if it is challenged again, I will in the next.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 14:42, August 16, 2007
  • Endorse. As the creator of the category, I stated my rationale very clearly on the CfD. The CfD nominator agreed with most of my points, and I compromised on his remaining points. I don't know why the CfD was closed as No consensus. If you actually read it, the consensus is quite clearly Keep and rename. All I can guess is that the CfD was closed by simply counting the number of bold Keep/Delete bullet points. Not a very good way of closing a CfD, although I do assume good faith. The consensus was clearly Keep and rename, for reasons stated in the CfD (not repeated here). —gorgan_almighty 09:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Names of Omagh Bomb Victims – Deletion endorsed. The fact is that this list had no sources whatsoever. In principle, the addition of sourced material to the article can occur at anytime, subject to consensus on the article talk page. However, the restoration of this particular source-less draft would be useless, and a disservice to encyclopedic accuracy. – Xoloz 14:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Names of Omagh Bomb Victims (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The result should have been Merge with main article. The result of the debate was simply not Delete. User:Neil's (See Neil's talk page ... of DOOM - Omagh bombing #List of names)interpretation of decision was to close down the debate using WP:NOT – This was not alluded to by anyone and remains hotly debated as to its correct interpretationWikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Memorial guideline Aatomic1 16:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and merge into main Omagh Bombing article. Although I appreciate the validity of the closing admin's rationale, s/he clearly ignored consensus (or the lack thereof) and closed according to his/her own opinion. A merge would have been the best compromise closure of this AfD; there certainly isn't a need for a simple list of bomb victims (which does indeed contravene WP:NOT a memorial, unless the victims are notable in themselves), but the information would be entirely appropriate in the main article. WaltonOne 16:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and merge into main Omagh Bombing article. There was absolutely no consensus for deletion. It will then be up to the editors of the Omagh Bombing article, whether they want the names in there, as an editorial matter. Bridgeplayer 17:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification comment Neil was Proto at the time the AFD closed. GRBerry 17:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse If it was sourced, merging would be a good idea. But, unfortunately, there isn't a source in sight. Some information on the victims may belong in the main article, but it should be sourced before it goes there. So merging isn't a good idea without the sourcing. The WP:NOT reason for not having an article is compelling, given the state of Talk:Omagh bombing/names; which might even merit BLP deletion given the privacy invading statements about people then living. GRBerry 17:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I promise I will only add a fully referenced namesAatomic1 17:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion The list of names add nothing to the article.--padraig 17:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion per WP:NOT, the article is not an indiciscrimate collection of information. --Domer48 17:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. A breakdown of deaths by nationality is fine, a mention of any notable victims is fine, but a plain listing of names (especially one that contains details like "had gone into the town that day with a friend to buy a pair of jeans") is not needed. A stronger case for merging could have been made if the article was sourced ... however, an admin is not obligated to merge unsourced content that goes against WP:NOT. Also delete Talk:Omagh bombing/names (per a mix of CSD G4, CSD G6, WP:BLP, and this DRV). There is no reason it should exist and it could potentially be libelous (it's unsourced, so we don't know that the people on the list are actually dead). — Black Falcon (Talk) 18:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, Wikipedia is not a memorial, nor is it a directory. Names add nothing to articles like this, and the list was blatant OR (which was not brought up in the AFD). I have gone ahead and moved the subpage back to its original space and speedied it under G4 and G6. --Coredesat 18:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I would have said delete at the AfD, but this is not AfD round two. In addition to the nom, two people spoke for deletion: One said merely "I don't think this should exist as it's own article. I'm not sure if ot would be worthy of inclusion in the main Omagh Bombing article though " without giving any reason, and the other said " Yes, that's precisely what i was going to say..." The nom had said "WikiP' is not an indiscriminate collection of information, this article clearly is. " which isn't much of an argument either, as this list, however misguided, was not indiscriminate. The closer wasn't much more specific. The reason we have admins close is to evaluate the arguments, and if there aren't any good ones, the discussion should be continued. Admins who wish to present arguments should present arguments like everyone else, and let someone else close. DGG (talk) 19:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Humm. I'm not sure merging is appropriate, as there doesn't seem to be any consensus to merge, either. Much as I agree with the deletion of this article there just wasn't any consensus to delete it. It should be overturned and kept as no consensus or relisted to get some more discussion. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 21:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and merge into main Omagh Bombing article - WP:MEMORIAL here, though the information within is encyclopedic and should be merged into the main article - Alison ☺ 22:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion - a list of names and ages is purely memorial and adds nothing encyclopedic to the article. If there was information about how each of the individuals died then that would be encyclopedic but a list is not.--Vintagekits 22:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and merge per nom. I would have expected this to be closed as keep, looking at the vote count and considering that the deletion arguments were "I don't think this should exist as it's own article" and "Yeah, what he said." I would go with merge since 2-3 editors expressed that view and nobody objected ... and it makes perfect sense, since (from what I read, not being able to view the article) it sounds like there were only a small number of names that merited inclusion anyway. I see no problem with splitting off the list if it grows large, as the AfD seems to support doing so. — xDanielx T/C 23:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as closer, wow, this was a long time ago. Given the information was already put at Talk:Omagh bombing/names (its subsequent deletion - not my concern), I'm not sure why this article needs to be restored, at all. The information from it is already available in multiple locations, and overturning it seems pointless, given it was entirely unreferenced, and no particularly useful content exists in it. However. If this is undeleted, merged to Omagh bombing, and left as a protected redirect, no problem. If it is not merged, it should not exist, even as a redirect. Neil ム 08:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and merge. WP:NOT#MEMORIAL does not apply as the information is encyclopedic and in no way serves as a memorial. (Concern noted on lack of reference - easily addressed, there is already an external link on the main Omagh bombing page to a reputable source). Such information is included in many similar articles not relating to Ireland, Northern Ireland or Britain. The names of the dead, their ages, and places of origin (Spanish and Republic of Ireland citizens killed in addition to those from NI) are most relevant. It must be noted that many of those endorsing deletion are members of WP:IRA and have a record of removing and opposing the inclusion of any material that could be perceived as negative to any of the various republican paramilitary/terrorist organisations - while at the same time supporting inclusion of similar material negative to the British in other articles (e.g. Bloody Sunday (1972). Those would be User:BigDunc, User:Vintagekits, User:Domer48 and User:Padraig. (Expecting another one or two along any minute...). Personally, I'm an inclusionist and would like to see the names of the dead included in the above two articles, Birmingham pub bombings and Dublin and Monaghan bombings. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 17:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not a member of WP:IRA so I don't know where you get that impression from and my reasons for not including simple lists of names in these type of article is that it adds nothing of encyclopedic value to the articles, all these people died in one event in this case an explosion, not in different related incidents where a discription of their deaths would provide a timeline of events to what occured.--padraig 19:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BastunBaStun not BaTsun having pointed out to you already talk page guidelines, [1] , you have decided to ignore my advice. I would now like to point out to you words to avoid, in you attempt to create straw man arguments, while engaging in ad hominemattacks on editors. Now you either back up your claim and prove them, or stop with your nonsense.--Domer48 13:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User talk:Vintagekits#Blocked(indefinitely) for threatening administrators?. Please consider Domer48 and padraig support of VK's actions at User talk:Vintagekits#Should the community waste any more time with Vintagekits?. Aatomic1 06:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and merge into main Omagh Bombing article as per nom, preceding comment (by Bastun) and WP:NOT#ADVOCATE & WP:NOTPAPER - provided no such merged list exceeds 10% of the character count of the merged article. Concur with closer User:Neil's comments above, since, without context, the list of victims is not sufficiently encyclopaedic and that was, of itself, the ulterior motivation for its original hiving off. W. Frank talk ✉  19:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse deletion, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Why not list all of the people who died on 9/11? All of the people who died in the I35W bridge collapse? All of the people who were killed in the Peru earthquake? Corvus cornix 21:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This point was discussed in this AfD[2]Aatomic1 08:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and merge into main Omagh Bombing article. From what I read some people had interpreted "delete and merge" as "delete" --Dumbo1 12:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Nobody wanting to keep the article refuted the argument based in policy, that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which "had gone into the town that day with a friend to buy a pair of jeans" is. Merging the content would be just as bad, the content would still be indisciminate. WP:NOT#MEMORIAL and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY apply equally as well. User:Bastun changes his view about memorials when it suits him, as [3] and [4] show. Brixton Busters 14:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Battle_Frontier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

As I understand, several pages on this topic have been created in the past and have subsequently gone to AfD and been speedy deleted. I understand, as stated in WP:CSD that recreation of deleted material is also criteria for sppedy deletion, however the new article adresses the issue as stated below. As stated in WP:CSD, the article is not an exact copy of the exact article and does not match the criteria. The reasons for the previous Battle Frontier article being deleted, as stated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle Frontier states the reason for the previous articles deletion was due to the fact that it failed to meet the criteria of verifiability and no original research, and contained no reliable sources. However, overall, while the article was deleted, many people agree that a BF aricle is still necessary due to the fact that it is actually a region on its own like Hoenn (also having its own respective season in the TV series) and is highly relevant to the Emerald video game (however there is so much information about it that it may not be able to be merged into the article on Emerald). Eternal dragon 08:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Just take it to afd-- there is nothing here to review. DGG (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. I think the nominator is asking for a preemptive review against G4. We don't do preemptive reviews, so speedy close. GRBerry 21:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Sundown and/or Last Stand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

no time or option to adapt the content given before deletion Sevenmish 02:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Would more time have mattered? I mean, could this band meet WP:MUSIC? If not, undeleting is pointless. --W.marsh 02:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe so, do you suggest I compile the complete article outside of wikipedia and post it as a whole. I am new to this process and may not have gone about it in the same way others do or in the right way...I dont know...I have gone into a lot more detail with the editor who deleted me as I had on the talk page that used to be here...there was no mention of WP:MUSIC in that discussion or in the deletion warning
    • I will refer to the criteria mentioned
    -the musician has created soundtrack for an award winning film
    -is a very prominent representative of a style in this city (the process through which he produces music is one utilised by only a few in the world)
    -was part of a Noise TV recording of the Maitreya Festival
    -the Musician has won in big music comp with his last band
    -Most importantly, I feel, though it is not included in the criteria, this band is an important contributor to a prominent art community, one that is identified as such in this country and internationally. I have included the article about Sundown and/or Last Stand as part of my attempt to document the uniqueness and significance of the Darebin community in international arts circles Sevenmish 03:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, there was no mention in the article of any of the above points, that's for sure. Any article that says the band has only one official member and tells us it is "so unique as to be almost indescribable" is not going to survive. Still, as this was a speedy someone can undelete it if they feel it's useful; personally I'm not inclined to. Splash - tk 08:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In two hours not a single assertion of notability made it in, nor a single source. The band has only one member, so it is essentially an unsourced article about a living person that contains no assertion of notability. Endorse deletion, without prejudice against creation of a sourced article that asserts notability. The nomination isn't sourced either, so don't take action now. GRBerry 21:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • i can see everyones point here....should i wait to get all the info and complete the article and then give it another go at posting? am i allowed to repost? is it possible to retrieve what i did post (it took me ages to figure out what i was doing and i'd like to build on what i have already done instead of starting from scratch again)...i was doing it as i researched it so was only putting in info that i knew off the top of my head, i didn't want to just say stuff without dates and all the technical info to go with it...i just felt that i had little opportunity to do this as it was deleted after its first day up, i felt a little put out.

Sevenmish 00:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion The article clearly met CSD A7. My advice to Sevenmish is that he should begin a new draft in his userspace. Xoloz 14:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Dove project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

When I was for adding content yesterday to the article Dove Project, I saw in the talk page that Jennylen provided proof that referencial material was soon to be posted. I also saw a reply from Peter Rehse that he should post in the deletion discussion that a reasonable wait was adviced based on the notification from Jennylen. I went today to the Dove Project article to insert periodical citations and journal references which may support the notability of the article, founding the article deleted. I have examined carefully the deletion discussion of that article and I observe that PeterRehse never posted such message, all by the contrary, the only position there is to urge for deletion. Please someone clarify this situation. Librarian2 09:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify I suggested that Jennylen post the information in the AFD debate. Since it was her article she should defend it. I only provided advice which was not followed.Peter Rehse 10:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw the message, the "I would" made the erroneous assumption, sorry about that. I anyway think that someone was too much in a hurry to delete the article but what's done is done, shame though, its an area with too many charlatans for letting a good scientific reference to be lost.Librarian2 10:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is probably the reason it was flagged so quick and why it is so important to provide the sources. Please let me know when it is up and running again with references.Peter Rehse 11:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Let's see the sources from the last state of the article, " its existence is worth to be noted at the light of recent discoveries in Quantum field theory which seem to provide ground for looking further into the possibility of an L-field of the human body, subject on which the independent researches of Rupert Sheldrake, Robert Becker, The Body Electric and of David Bohm have shown interdisciplinary supportive conclusions." If these are the references referred to, i dont see how they will necessarily support the notability of this earlier hypothesis. DGG (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is the complete citation to all sources and external links: "". That right, there were no sources or external links. Endorse deletion as the AFD consensus is obvious and, assuming solely for the purpose of discussion that the topic merits an article, it needs to be a sourced article. GRBerry 21:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion view - the project existed as shown by the 2nd and 3rd references here. However, the main reference costs $25 to read which I am disinclined to pay! Of course, existence is not equivalent to notability. Though the AfD consensus was clear, it was predicated on the lack of sources. If Librarian2 can produce sources to underpin notability then recreation should be permitted but for now it stays out. Bridgeplayer 23:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fair judgement in general. The Project existed and it was reference to other projects in Quantum Biology but was lacking references and citations so I was asked to find. I will ellaborate on that and if can be fairly refrenced and engage other notability articles then I will advise to put it again and if not I will advice the contributor to give up Librarian2 16:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Crimson_Editor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|AFD2)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Crimson_Editor

The result of the debate was Keep. So why was the article deleted anyway against community concesus? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.44.43.189 (talk)

  • The result of the second AFD was delete. GRBerry 14:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist There were two contributors to the 2nd afd, both of whom said weak delete. The closing admin then made a argument for deletion, evaluating the article more carefully than the two contributors did. He's not supposed to close based on his own arguments, but on evaluating the others. He would have done much better to contribute to the debate, and let someone else close. None of the participants in the first afd contributed to the second, and apparently they were not notified. They should have been. That way there might have been a real discussion in the first place. Personally, I have no opinion on the merits. DGG (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello DGG. I think you've misread the nomination as being part of the close (shows up weird if you mouseover the link in the box to the right). In fact, the closer said only "The result was delete". Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist view. This is an advanced text editor, a far more powerful tool than Notepad, aimed at programers. The article is not in the cache so I can't see if it is spammy but in any case that can be cleaned up. Across the two AfDs there was no overall consensus for deletion. Sourcing was the issue and that is readily fixed. Please see this comprehensive review here. There are other, less comprehensive reviews here and here.It should be noted that this is Freeware so the reviewing sites have no interest in bulling it up. If someone will userfy to me I'll add the refs. Bridgeplayer 00:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and keep This editor is a well known free text editor in the programming community. There are of course many text editors, so not everyone knows of it, but it is still a notable entry.Rcrossvs 07:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Relist. The 2nd AfD was closed after only two comments, both saying "Weak Delete". Instead of being closed, the AfD should have been Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.—gorgan_almighty 12:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have produced a new version at User:Bridgeplayer/Crimson Editor. I should be obliged, if this is relisted, if this version can be moved across first. Bridgeplayer 19:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per gorgan_almighty. Crimson Editor is very well known and widely used in the programming community. Bridgeplayer's user space version contains several examples of decent third-party references. — xDanielx T/C 21:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

14 August 2007[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Malden Catholic Pope John XXIII Model United Nations Conference (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was supposed to be the unofficial page for my high school's upcoming Model UN Conference. I do not understand why it was deleted and was not notified of these reasons. I request the page be reinstated, or if not, I can create a new one. TheDTrain89 18:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse Deletion and do not recreate. While it is was deleted by prod, this should have been speedied as a non-notable event between two high schools. Wikipedia is not the place to promote all your high school events. - Jaranda wat's sup 18:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Urk as a PROD, I suppose we should overturn it. Does WP:CSD#A7 apply? Debatably I think. It clearly does not belong here per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site (webspace provider portion). GRBerry 19:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The group/club part of A7 applies here. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 20:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Wikipedia is not a webhost. A site such as MySpace would be a good place for your Model UN conference page, but it isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. --Ginkgo100talk 00:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but if it's relisted it may go faster than the 4-hour Hawaii debate and G4 applies, so I won't be too disappointed either way, but the decision was clearly correct. Carlossuarez46 03:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion/Keep deleted - there are plenty of free webhosts out there, use them. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 15:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Although pages deleted via {{prod}} should be overturned on request, this article is qualifies for speedy deletion under CSD A7 (no assertion of notability). There's no point in undeleting since it will immediately be speedied. — Black Falcon (Talk) 17:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, would immediately be speedied as A7 (having no assertion of notability per the notability guidelines) if restored. --Coredesat 18:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: The editor filing this DRV is obviously a new user. Our criteria and norms would probably be better expressed in ordinary prose rather than jargon for aficionados such as "G4" or "A7". Newyorkbrad 19:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarified. --Coredesat 07:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - Generally, Wikipedia articles usually are composed of informaton from sources other than those connected with the topic. For your high school's upcoming Model UN Conference to be included in Wikipedia, newspapers or other such media would need to have written about it. It would be their written material that may be used in developing a Wikipedia article. In short, Wikipedia is meant to be a neutral and unbiased compilation of previously written, verifiable facts. The information added to the article was not a compilation of information previously written by third parties. In answer to your notice question, contributors usually are not notified of a deleted article after that article has been deleted. There was a notice placed on your talk page before the article was deleted, however. -- Jreferee (Talk) 16:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Even if the speedy delete of each individual BJAODN pages was justified under copyright and/or GFDL, speedy deletion of the BJAODN project is not. Speedy deletion of the project clearly was out of process. In addition, all the speedy delete pages have been restored and there is an open arbitration case on the matter. The May 31, 2007 deletion review was closed as deletion endorsed yet the BJAODN pages still are on Wikipedia. Even is this deletion review were closed as deletion endorsed, I do not see this effort resulting the in actual deletion of the project and its pages. In addition, the GFDL issues were raised more than three years ago in a March 25, 2004 MfD, which goes against a need to speedy delete this project. I have relisted the project on MfD at Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense (6th nomination). Given that this project has been on Wikipedia for the past seven years, it seems reasonable to spend five days at MfD properly addressing the matter. -- Jreferee (Talk) 20:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

One of the oldest pages on Wikipedia, non-mainspace. This and all related pages were deleted by an admin who had not gained consensus and just used WP:DENY as his reason for deletion. Whilst I think he had a reasonably valid reason to delete, he should have gained consensus from the community before deletion. Perhaps list on the miscellaneous pages for deletion page. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note, in total isolation from this debate, I've taken the decision to delete one page for linking to a personal attack on an administrator, for linking to a vandal being blocked - nothing short of humiliation, and the usual complete lack of any history for material copied and pasted. I'll undelete some of the page to any interested editor's userspace so it can be fixed up, made compliant, and re-added. Nick 21:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For prior discussions on the BJAODN project itself, see:
March 25, 2004. Miscellany for deletion #1. Results: Keep.
March 24, 2007. Miscellany for deletion #2. Results: Speedy close.
March 31, 2007. Miscellany for deletion #3. Results: Withdrawn, procedural keep.
May 31, 2007. Miscellany for deletion #4. Results: Nomination withdrawn.
May 31, 2007. Deletion review. Results: Deletion endorsed.
June 2, 2007. Deletion review (of subpages). Results: BJAODN should continue to exist, but it must be absolutely free of GFDL violations.
August 14, 2007. Miscellany for deletion #5. Results: Speedy close.
For prior discussions on BJAODN subpages, see:
July 19, 2005. Articles for deletion (of a BJAODN subpage). Results: Delete
August 26, 2005. Non-main namespace pages for deletion (of a BJAODN subpage). Results: Delete
May 20, 2006. Miscellany for deletion (of a BJAODN subpage). Results: Delete
March 21, 2007. Miscellany for deletion (of a BJAODN subpage). Results: Nomination withdrawn
-- Jreferee (Talk) 18:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer - An arbitration request has been made regarding the events surrounding this deletion. -- Jreferee (Talk) 19:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, BJAODN is little more than a shrine devoted to preserving vandalism and copyright/GFDL violations because "it's funny". We should be deterring vandals and not promoting them, and the deleting admin's reasoning was sound. --Coredesat 18:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I actually more or less agree with that, but I still think it should be given a proper community verdict first.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list in MFD, while I agree with Coredesat, it still was an very improper speedy deletion, it should have at least gone to MFD. Jaranda wat's sup 18:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I saw the comments in WP:AN and seems like many users of the community endorsed the deletion there, endorsing same here. Jaranda wat's sup 19:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • With all respect, a brief discussion on WP:AN is insufficient consensus-gathering for changes of this magnitude. Admin behavior like this on known sensitive hot-button issues gives us all a bad name. Georgewilliamherbert 20:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm forced to agree with Herbert here. A brief talk over an inflammatory matter doesn't tell one much beyond what those who are the most opinionated and the most eager to open their mouths think. Jaranda, if you can prove me wrong, please do, but otherwise, can I suggest at least a neutral position? --Kizor 21:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restored - This was too far to go with WP:BOLD. Someone can MFD it if you want. Georgewilliamherbert 18:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - deleting something as big as this isn't a simple deletion matter, it requires community consensus before deleting. Consensus can change. This deletion should have been discussed in a wider forum than straight-out deletion. Read my arguments on WP:AN for a further explanation. --SunStar Net talk 18:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regretfully, this is something that had to be done. An MfD will not solve anything. The reasoning is clear: The content violates the GFDL, the content violates copyright, there is residual SPAM in the content, there are left-over BLP violations in the content, and more. The GFDL reasoning is straightforward: see Section 4.B of the GNU Free Documentation License and the relevant speedy deletion criteria at CSD G-12 and thus must be kept deleted. See also Copyrights - Contributor's rights and obligations. In nearly every case, the content in the subpages had been copy-and-pasted from elsewhere, in the case of existing articles, content was copied without crediting the author(s) of the revisions and in the case of deleted articles, without fail, the content was not properly moved to preserve the history (and in increasingly many cases, that history is unrecoverable). To say that there has been no community discussion is incorrect: there has been an ongoing discussion for a fairly long time about the problems noted above (and more, i.e. the lack of actual humor, the ammount of vitriol, and WP:DENY), and a flurry of discussion when BJAODN was deleted last time 3 months ago. When it was restored out-of-process, the BJAODN regulars promised to get the job done right... they did not. There are so many reasons why this content should not exist, and so very few reasons why it should. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of people, including lots of admins, disagree that deleting it is the right thing. There has been no local discussion anywhere that I've seen that evolved to a consensus that it must simply all be deleted.

Georgewilliamherbert 19:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Jeffrey O. Gustafson was the admin who boldly deleted a lot of the BJAODN a while back, suddenly and out of turn, using many of the aforementioned arguments. That also led to a wheel war and even to unwarranted and sudden deletion of some of my own personal subpages. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Close Let's just let Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense (5th nomination) take its course now... — Scientizzle 19:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I did but it was reverted, I protected the MFD to avoid new users trolling Jaranda wat's sup 19:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The Mfd is closed. Its just not the appropriate place for this discussion, and will cause more problems than good. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, I guess. — Scientizzle 20:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per pretty much everything Red Link Jeffrey said. --Kbdank71 19:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep delete Huge GFDL nightmare that apparently nobody is really interested in fixing. I'm not opposed to restarting it with new content going forward; provided it is done correctly with attribution (I happen to quite like the concept), but realistically it is time for the historical quagmire of pages to be laid to rest.--Isotope23 talk 19:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist on MfD. Pros and cons of this deletion must be discussed thoroughly. Although I find valid the reasons cited for deleting BJAODN, I can also think of a series of reasons for keeping it. Thus, more discussion is needed, in the appropriate place which is MfD.--Húsönd 19:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I actually liked some of the stuff there, but the GFDL issues with the current material seem intractable, and WP:DENY seems just as well heeded. — TKD::Talk 19:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note a prior Deletion Review for the subpages at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 2. GRBerry 19:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that the pages were restored independently of the DRV at the time. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - major GFDL violation, helps keep defamation and vandalism online, waste of our time, etc. MessedRocker (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. How can it be a waste of our time when all the time we spend here is freely given? Unless you mean that causing the loss of the time it takes to sort its status out is an offense worthy of deletion, in case we can throw out AfD and install the Fire Pits... but you didn't, so I don't quite get the argument. --Kizor 21:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partially Restore I think some of the very best, most ridiculous examples should be saved (Maybe 20 or so) and the rest are left alone. Metakraid 20:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Overturn (Keep), perhaps list at MfD - An important part of Wikipedia culture that predates, well, just about everything. Something like that should at least get a fair hearing at the appropriate venue (MfD), rather than being speedied, especially since it survived being deleted a few months ago. — PyTom 20:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It didn't actually "survive" by any consensus, it was restored out of the blue while discussions were ongoing. And while it has been a part of our culture, it violates so many rules that policy must take the front seat. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion in the spirit of WP:DENY, but also because it violates GFDL, is a massive troll magnet, and by virtue of existing encourages vandalism and similar non-constructive contributions to what is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Burntsauce 20:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Violation of GFDL, "featured vandalism," WP:DENY, etc. but keep its main page and mark it with {{historical}}. Tim Q. Wells 20:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per burntsauce and tim wells, etc. --Quiddity 20:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion of every BJAODN page after having reconsidered my comments above, per everyone else. I've always seen BJAODN as just "featured vandalism", although per Tim Q. Wells mark main page with historical tag.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 21:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep restored without prejudice against the option of creating a proper MfD. This article has been well-known and well-liked by many for quite some time. Speedy deleting it absent consensus is taking WP:BOLD rather far, as Georgewilliamherbert said. — xDanielxTalk 21:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep About the only source of sanity left around here half of the time. --D-Day 21:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - regardless of the merit or, er, dismerit (what's the real word?) of deletion, this seems to have been procedurally imprudent for such a massive and ancient thingy. A fair hearing is needed, and I'd quite like circumstances more amiable to a compromise or the mounting of a rescue attempt. Also? Agree with D-Day. --Kizor 21:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It cannot be stressed enough that the BJAODN regulars had enough warning when it was deleted three months ago - and they failed to fix the problems with BJAODN. It would take hundreds of editors and dozens of admins to dedicate all their time in order to make BJAODN GFDL compliant, that it did not happen last time means it will not happen this time, because frankly, admins and editors alike have far more important things to be doing: Are we an encyclopedia, or a joke book? And if we cannot be GFDL compliant, than what is the point of the GFDL at all? (And this still doesn't address all the other issues involved like WP:DENY, the spam and slander...) --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh well... Sorry to see it go (ASCII cows are still my all-time favorite), but GFDL problems are quite valid, so keep deleted, but without prejudice to restoration of some content, should anyone eventually elect to clean the mess up and only under the condition that it's kept in compliance with the license (though not much content can be preserved this way). Миша13 22:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - cesspool of libel, and GFDL violations. Also, I note that this was a very bad idea. Sean William @ 22:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Deletion Just Keep the Damn Thing -- Hush this fuss. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 23:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per GFDL concerns and general non-funniness. It'd be nice to trim out the large volume of crap and ordinary vandalism that's accumulated in BJAODN over the years, and just keep the truly funny material. This, of course, would also make the collection more manageable, making it easier to provide attribution for the remaining entries. Unfortunately, any cleanup attempt would almost certainly result in tons of reverts and arguments saying "Sure, that may not be funny to YOU, but...", and would never go anywhere. I can't see any other solution than tossing the whole thing. WarpstarRider 23:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn- C'mon. Wikipedia needs some humor! :PNeranei (talk) 23:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fail to see how that is at all relevant to the issue at hand. Do you have anything to contribute to the discussion? --Cyde Weys 03:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • He has a point there, if we tear the page down, we would be destroying a part of ourselfs, and Wikipedia do need a lot of humour too Af648 12:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • To make my point: Wikipedia is a serious project, and we do need some things to lighten it up periodically. Perhaps having 66 volumes of it is overkill, but sometimes people do funny things, and we should have some humor around here. (And, as a response to the people below, isn't the definition of a wheel war when two (or more) admins repeatedly undo each other's administrative actions? One admin deleted, another undeleted, and it got taken here.) That's all I'm saying. Neranei (talk) 14:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Insanity. Where did people get the idea that the way to solve long disputes is to deliberately create long painful discussions by speedy deleting things? -Amarkov moo! 23:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because it gives them the best chance of winning... --W.marsh 23:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - No matter how often we vote, we still can't magically fix the deeply set GFDL violations in BJAODN. An MfD endorsement seems to overlook this salient fact. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at MfD (where the following brilliant (to one person) proposal actually belongs)Possibly dumb and out of left field, doesn't really belong in DRV solution. Undelete one subpage at a time, for (say) 3 days to one week, and give supporters time to move whatever portion of that subpage they can salvage and still comply with WP:DENY, GFDL, etc. into a New and Improved! (TM) BJAODN section. In 8-14 months, you'd have a smaller, GFDL compliant BJAODN, only a tiny little bit of illegal stuff woud exist at any one time. Meanwhile, re-organize BJAODN so that going forward it is compliant. Those not willing to devote time to saving the best parts of BJAODN would no longer have reason to complain. The one-subpage-at-a-time thing makes it more manageable. JOG et al should be reasonably happy because there isn't a gigantic wad of non-compliant stuff sitting out there in public. --barneca (talk) 00:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC) --barneca (talk) 14:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot summarize my opinion as either "endorse" or "overturn." The recurring debates about BJAODN are starting to remind me of the fourteen AFDs, two DRVs, and one arbitration case regarding Daniel Brandt. Back in March 2007, a well-intentioned admin, who is now a well-intentioned former admin, deleted the Brandt page without an AFD, starting a wheel war. As in this case, an AFD (the 12th, I think) was started and speedily closed, while a deletion review (the 1st) proceeded simultaneously. The page was repeatedly deleted and restored because of the conflicting rules governing AFD and DRV. The DRV, one of the longest I can recall, resulted in an inevitable decision to relist at AFD because the deletion occurred out-of-process, without consensus and without incontrovertible evidence that the article violated policy. Regardless of other factors recommending deletion, the correct approach to such situations is to overturn and relist. When in doubt, it is better to take an extra step or two to verify whether the initial action was correct.
Notwithstanding, I believe there are "other factors recommending the deletion." Jeffrey O. Gustafson rightly points out that most of BJAODN violates the GFDL (though I made a user subpage, in response to Mr. Gustafson's deletion a few months ago, to identify BJAODN pages that are GFDL compliant.
Other users have suggested that BJAODN glorifies vandalism. I don't think this is a serious problem. Wikipedia:Deny recognition and Wikipedia:Revert, block, ignore recommend that the best way to discourage the Oompapa vandal (for example) from creating new user accounts is to pretend he never existed. I have found the list of Oompapa sockpuppet names mildly amusing (Oompapa on the moon!, Oompapa on a boat!, etc.), but I certainly would not recommend that such disruptive trolling be immortalized in BJAODN, or even in a Newgatery page. BJAODN is intended to glorify bad edits by good editors. The history of tomfoolery on April Fools Day fits this pattern, as does the related list of really, really, really bad article ideas.
I have consistently supported BJAODN, and I created a personal BJAODN collection to circumvent the problems of the original BJAODN. However, given the unresolved GFDL problems, I think the traditional "bulletin board" format should be discontinued, with those 63 or so pages permanently deleted. The other subpages of BJAODN, including the April Fools jokes and much of CAT:BJAODN, should be kept, perhaps in a different format. Shalom Hello 00:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thoroughly endorse deletion. I already posted my reasoning on WP:AN, so here's a crosspost: I'm all for it. BJAODN is a bunch of crap, and it gets worse with every iteration. Half of it is one-liners about sex (Ha...ha...hilarity. If I was five.), and the other half is defamatory to random people. The very few snippets of it that are funny hardly make it worth keeping, and let's not even get into the GFDL issues. Wikipedia has enough amusing stuff - just look at the weird articles list. What do we need bad jokes for when we've got exploding whales? Kill it with fire, and keep it killed. ♠PMC♠ 01:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see that these pages make a significant contribution to the encyclopedia. The reasons for deletion seem cogent enough to me - in particular, many of these pages are in violation of copyright. But more importantly to me, these pages seem to be an episode in Wikipedia's youth that at some point will be disavowed, and playing young too long as you grow old isn't cool. While editors who were here in the early days may look on these with nostalgia, I don't. Anyone is free to (while copying edit histories at the same time) move these to another wiki somewhere, and I think that would be the right thing to do. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Something this big needs community consensus. There was no consensus to delete in either MfD. Dbromage [Talk] 01:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can have a big consensus cakewalk right through the middle of Tienanmen square, but it won't make a lick of difference, because the GFDL has been deeply and repeatedly busted in BJAODN, and no amount of process-bound MfD will fix that. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse While some of it was funny most appeared to be vandalistic postings. Resolving the GFDL issues would ensure that vandalism was rewarded. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per (1) the GFDL issues, (2) it being a time-sink for energy better spent on writing/maintaining an encyclopedia, (3) feeding trolls and vandals by making this stuff look clever and, (4) it not being very funny anyway. WjBscribe 02:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion It stopped being funny ages and ages ago. It's full of spam, slander, libel, and well... non-sense. It arguably glorifies vandalism. We have more sophisticated forms of amusement today. That said, throwing my tech hat on:

    The copyright issue is mostly a red-herring. If the material is kept I will, sooner or later, run a matching script for BJAODN against the entire text history (including deleted revisions) of enwp. This should locate the overwhelming majority of the history. The only copyright issues which would remain would be edited BJAODN entries, and places where the deleted nonsense was itself a copyright violation.

    But I'd much rather save myself the good couple of weeks of CPU time that would take, and do ourselves a favor and ditch it. But the history shouldn't record we deleted BJAODN because of copyright issues, since we can solve them. --Gmaxwell 02:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nobody bothered to do this during the X months since the last time this happened, why should anyone believe this copyright-fixing will happen now? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No on asked me about it until now. I certainly don't want to do it. It would be a huge waste of time. But if we keep it I'd rather we avoid leaving the copyright issue around when we can avoid it. I certainly don't want people to claim that we had to delete this due to copyright issues, since that wouldn't be true. It's worth deleting on it's own lack of merits. The arguments here are still convincing even if you completely ignore the copyright angle. --Gmaxwell 02:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion 1/ WP:DENY and WP:BEANS. 2/ Unconvinced of merits of a place where if an edit is bad enough it will be preserved indefinitely to mark the editor's 15 minutes of fame. 3/ The usefulness of "BJAODN" as a label in debate does not require all 65 pages of "whatever caught people's attention" to be preserved too. (Saving the original page only, for historic value, wouldn't hurt.) Concerns over communal page needing wider debate are probably met AFAIK - likely most long term editors have become aware of this debate if they are aware of anything. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: Even though there's been a push toward suppressing the idea that Wikipedia is a community (e.g., deleting userboxes), I still think it should be able to contain some of its own history. BJAODN isn't just a place for lulz anymore - it contains a great deal of information on what Wikipedia is, what its culture looks like, some of the behind-the-scenes stuff... it's a tenet of Wikipedia that Wikipedia itself shouldn't be referenced in mainspace (except in its own article), but I really see no harm in referencing it in any other space. BJAODN does far more good for the community than harm. --Hyperbole 02:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean "Keep"? This is a DrV, not an XfD. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, well, since almost all the arguments for endorsing deletion have focused on the merits of BJAODN and not on whether it was deleted out-of-process, and the issue is likely to be decided on the merits of BJAODN, I thought I'd just cut to the heart of the matter: this is actually an MfD disgused as a DrV (especially since the content at issue is not, last time I checked, actually deleted). --Hyperbole 20:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion folks have been saying they'd fix the copyright issues lierally for years, it's never happened. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. BJAODN stopped being funny ages ago. There was no bar for inclusion and all of the entries were mere boring tripe, vandalism of the lamest variety. This is not anything worth preserving. As many others have pointed out, keeping it around as a shrine to vandals runs counter to the principle of Denying vandals recognition. We should take a cue from how real world local governments deal with vandalism: they clean it up as soon as possible, leaving no trace that it was ever there. This is the best way to discourage vandals, by showing them that all of their effort is for naught. The worst thing you can do is put it up on a pedestal where hundreds times more people will eventually see it, and perhaps be "inspired" by it, than if you simply just painted it over and never mentioned it again. --Cyde Weys 02:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Are we doing this again? Yeesh. 1. WP:DENY is an essay, not policy or a even a guideline. It is the opinion of some editors on how to deal with vandals and vandalism. 2. If the GFDL violations are really that bad, then just start again with new pages. 3. Many people enjoy this page, and since it is out of the mainspace, I don't see the harm as long as everything is properly attributed. 4. Every once in a while, an editor will come across some truly inspired vandalism, above and beyond the usual crap. It would be a shame to delete it. 5. Just deleting this page, without taking to MfD or having any sort of conversation, violates the spirit of consensus. There should be a discussion before deleting any page that doesn't clearly fall within the guidelines of WP:SPEEDY. --Phirazo 03:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In response to 2, I don't see how you can justify overturning the deletion of the GFDL violations. This was already done three months ago with the expectation that some people would go through, clean up the mess, and fix the attributions. But nobody did. And hell, I don't blame them, because it's terrible, worthless work. But since it's not going to happen, the content can't be restored. So you really shouldn't be saying "Overturn". --Cyde Weys 03:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd rather see these restored, but if there is a consensus that this is not possible due to the GFDL, then the page should start over. That is what I was trying to say in point 2. It seems some of the votes are to nuke the whole thing forever, and I think it would be a shame to do that. Perhaps a fresh start, with enforcement of attribution and perhaps a criteria for inclusion, may be in order. --Phirazo 03:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion I really do not see the point of this whole thing. This really belongs on a WP fan site or something similiar (or a fan wiki!) Corpx 04:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endore Undeletion. Remembering that DRV is NOT WP:MFD the only argument needed here is that the deletion was speedy, and was overturned already, never should have come here. — xaosflux Talk 05:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note:A majority of these pages have already been undeleted, I've undeleted the other ones to keep consistency in this matter, all deletions were done as a speedy deletion reversal. — xaosflux Talk 05:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn/ no delete/ keep BJAODN/ WTF was Alkivar thinking? No really, wtf? Where the heck were you the last time this became a mess and tons of people objected? This is not something you speedy, regardless of how you feel about. The community makes these decisions, and the community wants these pages. -- Ned Scott 05:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • By singling out Alkivar you're ignoring the 19+ people here, many of whom are long time expirenced Wikipedians in good standing, who have endorsed the deletion. --Gmaxwell 06:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • He's the one who pressed the button without a discussion. A major WTF considering the last drama we had with BJAODN. -- Ned Scott 06:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Alkivar did the right thing. The community has had three months to bring BJAODN up to the benchmarks prescribed to it per the GDFL. That failed. And there is no reason to believe it will ever succeed. --Hemlock Martinis 06:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, and also? Policy trumps consensus. Every. Single. Time. --Hemlock Martinis 06:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • He deleted the ones that had attribution as well. Policy. Wasn't. A. Factor. For. Those. -- Ned Scott 06:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • So those ones can stay, per the policy. But that hasn't happened for the other ones, so the basis of the majority of the deletions remains valid. --Hemlock Martinis 06:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Thankfully this is a discussion, not a vote, and I have confidence that the best interests of our encyclopedia will prevail. RFerreira 06:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. We should not recognize vandalism. The GFDL problems are not being worked out adequately. And it's not funny anymore. Singularity 07:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move offsite This, sadly, will probably not survive. We should at least give a bit of notice and time for someone to salvage BJAODN to another site, which isn't so strict with copyright law, like the many other "stupid things people have said on the internets" sites out there, just Wikipedia flavored. I really don't want to see this go, but it seems like that's what the community wants --Lucid 07:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse move to another site. It's probably more appropriate off-Wikipedia than on-Wikipedia. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I hate seeing bloody people using copyright issues as why to a page should be deleted, For one, can somebody tell me where in the entire collection was a copyright violation. This copyright paranoia is everywhere, half of the comments talk about copyright issues without even listing one out, what the hell man?, where is the proof that there is a copyright violation.
    Secondly, I found the page quite amusing, I know we are trying to write an encyclopedia but that doesn't mean some of us can't have fun. I know some of you hate it, saying it is a piece of crap, Right, ok, but do you repersent the majority? if everybody thinks it is a piece of crap why would there be a deletion review? This is deletion review and we dont care if you think its a piece of crap or not(we want the facts as to why it should be deleted or kept), it is whether or not violates any rules on wikipedia that matters.
    Thirdly, for those of you saying its promoting vandals to attack wikipedia, again there is no proof. How do you know? Do you have a source listed? Do i have to put a "source needed" tag on every sentence you write? How would vandals know of this page in the first place anyway? And even if they see it, it doent encourage them to copy stuff into out articles, if they do, we have something very handy called the ban stick.
    I'm not even going to bother with a conclusion, I'm sick of people deleting everything fun that is on wikipedia Af648 08:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kill it with fire. ➪HiDrNick! 08:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And for reasons? Af648 08:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete again, and WP:TROUTwhack GWH for wheel warring. Copyvio, data dump, not actually funny. >Radiant< 08:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wheel warring? GWH rightly saw a large group of pages being deleted without any prior discussion. An administrator has a duty to prevent that kind of thing from happening. --Hyperbole 09:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    ...by restoring them without discussion? As in, it's not wheel warring as long as your friends are doing it? That's funny. >Radiant< 09:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No. It's wheel warring when two or more admins repetitively reverse each others actions. If an admin disagrees with some other one's action and simply reverts it, they're well within their rights to do so and shall not be shunned for this. It is a very unhealthy practice that any mere reversion of administrative action is now considered wheel-warring - this is a misinterpretation of WP:WHEEL. Sysops are entitled to one revert (because the first admin may simply be wrong), after which discussion should ensue. Миша13 10:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are welcome to your opinion, but precedent indicates otherwise. >Radiant< 11:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What precedent and indicates what, exactly? It is not just my opinion, it is what WP:WHEEL clearly states: "struggle between two or more admins in which they undo another's administrative actions" - so that it counts as a struggle and they both undo the other's actions, there must be more than one revert. BJAODN is does not seem to be the case (one deletion, one restoration). Finally, in reference to your "it's not wheel warring as long as your friends are doing it?" and the original "whack GWH for wheel warring" comments, one might get the reverse impression that for you it is wheel warring whenever it is not one of your friends (or you otherwise disagree with a particular action). It is a double-edged sword, you know... Миша13 11:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion: Leaving the GFDL concerns behind, this is an extremely useless set of pages that serve no remotely encyclopedic purpose other than to show that there are idiotic pages on this website. Uncyclopedia is that way.Ryulong 08:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion of subpages on the GFDL concerns alone and for that reason only; Allow reinstantiation of material in sourced & attributed, highly culled and selected form (for example, reinstantiation of the "best of BJAODN" series, the April Fools things, etc). In my opinion, there's absolutely no concern other than GFDL compliance to delete these. This is a case where people are attempting to use our policies to trample something that's ultimately harmless and benign; the intention of our policies is to strengthen articles, not use them to randomly get rid of stuff we don't like on technicalities. Okay, so we have GFDL issues with these; if there's admins who really want these restored and can do source searching and some vetting on their spare time, I don't see a problem with that - the page isn't that bad. I don't see the vandalism-glorification an issue here. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do whatever the hell you want. We are the mighty admins. We have the buttons. We answer to no one. Thatcher131 11:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that's funny! We should move your post to BJAO...er, never mind. --SGT Tex 21:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Your sarcastic remark likely isn't helping. --Cyde Weys 03:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - For all of those that didn't find BJAODN funny

    "Feminism is the movement of women. Sometimes they move to the right, and sometimes they move to the left. Sometimes they move up and down, and sometimes they vibrate. Yes, feminism is really a plethora of movements all shoved into one...."

    If you didn't laugh, you obviously don't have a sense of humour and it is no suprise that you voted "DELETE", 'cos the whole point of BJAODN is that its funny Af648 11:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment humor is individual, I'm sure most vandals think they are witty as hell, that doesn't mean we should preserve everyting they write because it's funny though. Besides WP:NOT a jokebook, Uncyclopedia is over there. --Sherool (talk) 12:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I didn't find that funny at all. It has all the offensiveness of a good joke without any of the actual humor that makes it work. --Cyde Weys 13:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm with Cyde, I don't see what's funny. ^demon[omg plz] 14:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Q: How many feminists does it take to change a lightbulb? A: THAT'S NOT FUNNY! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted On strictly procedural grounds I'll agree that speedy deletion was not the ideal avenue here, however I have to say I would not miss this "institution". GFDL issies aside it serves no usefull purpose (and so spending time tracking down attribution for each entry is a waste of time), at times it at least comes close to glorifying vandalism and it also acts as a magnet for people who want to write silly joke articles because they know theyr "work" will be preserved in the BJAODN archives rater than be deleted. These things belongs on Unencyclopedia (though frankly a lot of it would probably be deleted from there for not beeing funny), not here IMHO. --Sherool (talk) 12:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion. Speedy deletion was completely inappropriate for a longstanding Wikipedia institution, for which there is clearly no consensus for deletion. Kudos to the admin who was brave enough to undelete it (I would have done the same). The only valid concern here is the copyright question, but it seems from the discussion above that this has been resolved. As to the idea that this is somehow detrimental to the encyclopedia, I will re-iterate a point I've made in dozens of MfDs and DRVs. In addition to being an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is a community. It needs a community infrastructure - not all of which will be directly related to building the encyclopedia - in order to support that community. No evidence whatsoever has been presented for the spurious argument that the existence of BJAODN encourages vandals to create joke pages; human nature is such that some people will always be driven to create joke pages. In any case, if such an argument is the basis for deletion, it should be presented to the community at MfD. Deletion on the whim of a single admin is utterly unacceptable in a case like this. WaltonOne 12:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - agree with much of this. Yes it should have gone through MFD rather than AFD, and should have not needed xD then undelete then DRV. But it's getting a thorough discussion now, so for me it's a "no real harm done in the end". All these processes are merely ways to get communal views, and that's being done finally here. I also agree that bad jokes and humor are integral. The copyright issue we also agree on, perhaps for different reasons - there is a lot of non-copyvio material, and in other xFD's copyvio is not a good argument for page deletion if there is also significant valid non-copyvio material too. However for me one thing overrides these. I don't believe (as stated above) that advertizing in effect, if you make a bad enough article edit or hoax, you might permanently get in the Wikipedia hall of fame, is a good thing. That concern (which broadly mirrors BEANS and DENY) is my main concern. I also don't think we need a 65 page archive. It was funny once, but 65 sequels dim the humor. My $0.02. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough. I certainly agree in principle that a 65-page archive is unnecessary; in fact, the very early quote on the main BJAODN page talks about the need for "frequent updates of this page" to prevent it turning into an "encyclopedia of silliness". Possibly this will improve once all the copyvios are removed, or maybe someone should go through and prune the archives (not all the stuff in there is that funny, IMO). All in all, though, I don't think this is a good reason to delete the entire thing. WaltonOne 16:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted Unencyclopedic crap that needs to stay deleted. WP:DENY vandalism glorification, and move to uncyclopedia if you're only purpose was to contribute to this. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, where you should contribute to the sum of human knowledge, not contribute to sum of stupidity. — Moe ε 13:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It Deleted. People keep saying "we'll source it"...every time it gets deleted. The trouble of the matter is, they don't. We've had years of promising to get it all sourced, but it's still not all sourced. I for one say that the BJAODN folks have had their chance, and don't deserve another. ^demon[omg plz] 13:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and give people as much time as they need to source it: there is no deadline on Wikipedia, well as long as it gets done. Whoever that Sun guy is that suggested the sourcing thing, credit to him... what a suggestion!Also agree with Walton One as well... now let's allow it to be undeleted. Walton One, what a great argument... enough said!Heh, now this debate could be BJAODN'd, oh the irony! --84.45.219.185 14:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no deadline on Wikipedia is only in regards to articles. There is however, no time to put up with crap that hasn't been attributed to properly for a year or so. — Moe ε 17:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list on MFD Deleting this without a MFD discussion will inevitably result in a deletion review. Therefore, if we're going to delete it, lets at least have a commmunity consensus on what to do with it. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 15:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The community has already proven themselves incapable of doing what's right in regards to BJAODN. ^demon[omg plz] 16:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So the cabal has to step in? Seriously, that is a very disturbing statement. -Amarkov moo! 17:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think ^demon could have chosen wording a little clearer. The problem is that no matter what the community votes, it doesn't change the fact that clear GFDL violations are not allowed. We can vote until we're blue in the face, but it doesn't change the fact that a base policy is being violated, a policy with legal ramifications, and that if we decide to "selectively observe" the GFDL, then we lose all credibility in terms of licensing and set a precedent that Wikipedia only observes the GFDL when it is popular. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • How much longer do we have to give for editors to try and source the pages as they should be. It's distrubing to see established editors actually caring about something so useless to the project. — Moe ε 17:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • GFDL violations don't matter for deletion of the entire thing. We can just delete all the subpages and start over again, if the only serious problem is the GFDL. -Amarkov moo! 17:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • That is actually something I suggested and supported the first time around. Starting over would get rid of the overall GFDL violation. I just don't know how willing editors will be to restart the entire process and start sourcing it correctly. If there was that kind of willingness, the problem would have been solved by now. — Moe ε 17:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Starting over was done the first time. Problem is, it was done with a complete lack of prior discussion, which caused a reflexive undelete of everything. We've only tried sourcing all the old entries (which clearly does not work). -Amarkov moo! 17:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Then starting over again with new material may be for the better if the old material is unsourcable. I'm not sure, but I don't think there would be any objections to recreating a properly kept BJAODN. — Moe ε 17:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I don't understand why BJAODN is considered copyright infringement. Rather than deleting a funny and interesting page edit, someone elected to move the change to BJAODN and revert the original page, retaining both the changes and the original text both in their proper areas. Moving text around in an effort to maintain the website is not and should not be considered copyright infringement. The arguments that keeping BJAODN encourages vandalism are completely unfounded, the original edits that made up the first page of BJAODN obviously weren't inspired by BJAODN seeing as it did not exist at the time, and if BJAODN were to be deleted these sort of edits would not stop appearing. I see no viable means by which we could separate those edits inspired or promoted by BJAODN from those that were not influenced by BJAODN, so the point is moot. If some action must be taken than I would ask that BJAODN be moved somewhere more appropriate (offsite if necessary), but to simply delete such a wealth of insight into the very nature of humor would be a horrible waste. --Odin_son 17:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC) — Odinsonnah (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • It's not a copyright infringment. It's a violation of the GFDL which is the concern. See also Chairboy's comment above yours. — Moe ε 17:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I mistakenly referred to copyright, which is not related to the issue at hand, in my post above. I don't know much of anything about the GFDL personally, but following the link in Moe's post above, the first quote I find directly from the GFDL is this "You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute." Now maybe I am misinterpreting the quote above but doesn't that mean deleting BJAODN would be a violation of the GFDL since you would be using a technical measure to obstruct the reading of the copies made of the original edits of Wikipedia pages? --Odin_son 17:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that were the case, any deletion from Wikipedia would be in violation of the GFDL. This material was in violation of the GFDL even before it was deleted, then restored. The material was copied from other various places on Wikipedia, then copied and pasted to BJAODN, that was the violation of GFDL. — Moe ε 17:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose I don't know enough about the GFDL to contribute to this part of the discussion. I will research the topic and return when I feel I am knowledgeable enough to contribute. --Odin_son 18:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like how this is your first edit to Wikipedia as well. — Moe ε 17:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have edited other pages before I created my user account, but that's irrelevant to the current discussion. --Odin_son 17:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I do see your IP has done some work [5] — Moe ε 18:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • One, this is not the computer I typically use to edit Wikipedia, so any other edit under this IP address likely belong to someone else. Two, what part do attacks on my person play in this discussion? I intend to defend BJAODN, because I believe it has a valuable use and merit and the problems with it are surmountable. --Odin_son 18:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • One, people usually finding DRV on thier account as a first edit is always suspicious. Two, this problem is pretty unsurmountable, as people who have been working on this GFDL violation for a long time, haven't been able to correct it. Three, if you could name one valuable use of unencylopedic page with potential legal issues, it would be news to me. — Moe ε 18:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The value of BJAODN, like any comedy, is purely subjective. If you do not find BJAODN to be funny and/or interesting, then it holds no value for you. I agree that BJAODN has no place as an encyclopedia entry. But outside of the regular encyclopedia, I view it as a valuable and irreproducible testament to human creativity and humor. -- Odin_son 18:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please try to keep things civil. -- Jreferee (Talk) 06:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As I edit this, I see in giant bold letters: "Do not copy text from other websites without a GFDL-compatible license. It will be deleted." It seems weird that copying text from other websites is allowed, but not from wikipedia. Perhaps this disclaimer should be clarified? — PyTom 17:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN aside, I don't think we have a problem with internal copying often enough to warrant us changing that disclaimer. It's still not allowed, but it's not a daily occurence. --Hemlock Martinis 18:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have several questions that I would like to ask, but this may not be the proper place for them. If you know of a better forum for my questions please kindly link me to it so that I will not clog up this discussion area needlessly. -- Odin_son 18:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is a full record kept of all changes made to Wikipedia, including any edits that are later reverted? If so the best thing to do would be to change BJAODN into a list of links to the individual pages showing the edit before it was reverted. This process could be automated using a search program, with direct human action only needed to confirm the results. If the original records of the edits shown in BJAODN were never made or are irrevocably gone then the problem becomes quite a bit more complex, I will wait for a response to my first question before commenting on that possibility any further. -- Odin_son 18:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A full history is kept, but without Greg's assistance and the involvement of a large number of administrators, locating page histories for articles and edits that have long since been deleted will be impossible. It can be done if someone is willing to do it, but people promised to fix the situation several months ago and we've come back to find nothing meaningful has been done, so I really don't see why Greg or anybody else should waste time now covering for two seperate sets of failings here. Everything gets more complicated and entirely impossible to fix if anything that appears on BJAODN was oversighted (perish the thought) as it will most certainly need to be deleted. Nick 11:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at MFD. An essay is not adequate grounds to delete a page without discussion. This is clearly a contentious deletion, so procedure should be followed in this case. JulesH 19:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If an essay isn't good enough, hopefully the GFDL should suffice? --Hemlock Martinis 20:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The GFDL wasn't mentioned as part of the original deletion reasoning. Also, there has been discussion above about ways to prevent the GFDL from being an issue... these should be given a chance now the problem has been raised before deletion is decided upon. JulesH 07:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list Long enduring feature, deserves community discussion at least. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a long enduring feature that also happens to violate the GFDL. --Hemlock Martinis 20:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feel free to say that at the community discussion. The point is that it's been around for years, so it's not a sudden burning issue that requires speedy action. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But this isn't the same kind of issue as an article needing cleanup. BJAODN presents two immediate problems, both of which cause harm for every hour that BJAODN remains in existence: it is a violation of our core licensing policies and it serves as a hall of fame to vandalism, encouraging further copycats in the hope that people get on BJAODN. When the vandal hall of fame was still up and running ("Long-term abuse"), we actually caught, with CheckUser, people creating account names that appeared to be sockpuppets of Willy on Wheels or other "well-known" vandals, vandalizing in the appropriate pattern as described by the long-term abuse page, and then reporting the vandal account with their main account and adding it to a sockpuppets category. Why? Because they wanted the recognition that came with helping to "track down" these vandals. I do not doubt that a similar thing is going on with BJAODN, with people vandalizing an article and then adding it to BJAODN under a different account. --Cyde Weys 03:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Any true BLP concerns can be dealt with by editing. Copyvio likewise. GFDL is a red herring--GFDL requires only the most recent edits, and these can in almost all cases still be traced. (and if necessary added). This are all excuses only, for those who think that these pages lower the serious level of WP. That's a policy question worth further discussion--elsewhere. DGG (talk) 19:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The community has had three months to add the edits, and it has not yet been done. It is foolish to continue to wait in the abstract hope that someone somehow will do it. --Hemlock Martinis 20:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I, for one, only became aware of this issue yesterday. I'm sure plenty of the other people who have commented on this DRV are in the same position. The situation is now different to what it has been for the last 3 months, so what has happened over those 3 months is now irrelevant. JulesH 07:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DGG, a correction on your claim about attribution. The GFDL requires attribution be preserved for the principle authors of a document. BJAODN is an aggregation of many GFDLed documents, for each of these documents we are required to pass along the attribution for the principle authors. Doing so is rather difficult because BJAODN has long been maintained without any care given to the license requirements, many of the source documents have been deleted (hidden) on Wikipedia, and there is often no link to the revision. A prior AFD was closed months with the decision that it could be kept but the copyright issues must be resolved. As far as I can tell no progress was made on that front. While the copyright issues can be resolved (and I pledged to take a crack at it if this somehow survives), the libel issues are much harder since none of that work can be automated. ... If no progress was made on the copyright issues, can you honestly claim any will be made on the BLP issues? How many hours per week are you willing to personally spend resolving the issue? ... If no progress was made on the copyright issues, can you honestly claim any will be made on the BLP issues? How many hours per week are you willing to personally spend resolving the issue? ... and how is that a good use of our volunteer labor? --Gmaxwell 22:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn BJAODN is an 'institution'! And WP:DEADLINE applies to this as much as any article - sort out the GFDL issues in as much time as you need. Besides, it's got students at colleges in the West Midlands to edit Wikipedia positively, which can only be a good thing. WP:DENY - it's just an essay, get over it! This doesn't glorify vandalism, it's just a meta-collection of meta-jokes, so let this return! --Ashton sub Hamdon 20:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC) — Ashton sub Hamdon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • This is the user's only edit to wikipedia.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Wikipedia has matured. We've outgrown BJAODN. Certainly, we've outgrown what BJAODN became, which was an unfunny collection of vandalism. This diminishes our reputation as a serious encyclopedia. Moreschi Talk 21:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • GFDL issues - I'm not clear on the assertion that BJAODN violates the GFDL - about ten people have said that it does, but no one has made a case for why. What's the concern here - that archiving funny vandalism is violating the vandals' rights to have their work attributed to them? That in mainspace, "attribution" is based on history pages with archived IPs, but that this history may not be transferred to a page like BJAODN, leaving the content without attribution? Obviously, this sounds ridiculous. Help me out here. -- Hyperbole 21:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is ridiculous. Editors move text -- sentences, paragraphs -- from an article where it's inappropriate to a more appropriate article all the time. Since they're not moving the whole article, the source of the new material isn't always obvious, unless the editor makes a note of it. Is that a licensing issue? Surely not. Surely that was what the FDL was intended to avoid having quarrels about. Or so I've always understood it. RandomCritic 21:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Substantial amounts of text (i.e. things large enough to carry a copyright) sure as heck shouldn't be copy and paste moved without attribution. We have a whole process set up to clean things up like that over at WP:SPLICE. Breaking the attribution of the text is both a violation of the license, and it's an unethical violation of the expectations we give our contributors. Mistakes happen and are unavoidable, and we shouldn't worry too deeply about them... but to claim that following the license and our keeping promise to the copyright holders of the content on our site isn't important is deplorable. --Gmaxwell 22:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sometimes substantial movement of text cannot be repaired and the edit history of the text found only at one page, is unavoidably spread out over several different pages. See WP:SPLICE#Requests which cannot be fulfilled, for some examples. The only way to attribute in those cases is to link to the originating page in the edit summary. It was my impression that much of BJAODN falls under this criteria, with the problem being that the place you would normally link to has been, well, deleted. I'd be interested in how your script would work. Would it locate the diff used to create each bit of the BJAODN text for a particular entry? What would it then do with that? Create a list of authors and post somewhere in BJAODN? Carcharoth 15:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore, or failing that relist on MFD. WP:DENY is an essay, not even a guideline. It is most certainly not a criterion for deletion, speedy or otherwise. WP:BJAODN is a place for harmless fun, which is (rightly) kept out of the rest of the Wikipedia. Copyright issues are a red herring - as we've seen above someone has a script to cut out anything that's a copyvio. Finally, the decision was a speedy deletion, which was not made in accordance with process and policy, so it's essential that MFD is used if nothing else. Stifle (talk) 22:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Someone has a script? Oh really? Where would that be? Let me be perfectly clear: I have nothing. It will take me a good few days of development work to write the software to do this, and then weeks of cpu time running the software. This time could be better spent developing better search software for Wikipedia and commons. Virtually everyone who has supported the deletion of BJAODN has also cited a reason unrelated to copyright. If you're so concerned by process why are you not decrying the actions of the wheelwarring admins who undid the deletion out of process while the discussion was ongoing? --Gmaxwell 22:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I made a proposal for future GFDL compliance in BJAODN here. What I am thinking is that if the decision is to delete the subarticles due to GFDL issues, then we can use the template I'm suggesting to ensure future GFDL compliance in a uniform way. I think this might be the way to go if the GFDL issues are truly insurmountable. --Phirazo 23:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion I liked BJAODN. I found parts of it funny. I have no personal beef with it, however, I can find no reasoned arguement for keeping it at wikipedia other than I liked it. Regardless of how much I enjoyed it, without any reason beyond that, I must say that it should probably go. I will miss it, but c'est la vie. The internet is filled with other funny stuff. I will have to go laugh at that instead. Since BJAODN as an acronym is so prevalent a single historical page explaining what it means should be preserved. But I seriously, as much as I enjoyed it, can find no way to defend it. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to put this out there, if BJAODN goes, I might as well... T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 02:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC) Ah! I'd never do that! T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 06:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete it, just fix it. — The Storm Surfer 03:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This option was tried, and failed. There was no apparent effort actually spent to do the fixing requested X months ago after a previous drama like this. Segments of the community have clearly argued in favor of "fix it" without any actual willingness to do the dirty work. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Considering that what we're concerned with is apparently the rights of vandals under the GFDL, I don't think there's any desperate rush to get this done within a three-month time frame. The more recent pages actually tend to be attributed pretty well; I wouldn't have a problem if it took the community several years to go through the backlog and attribute it. Yes, we're talking about copyright here, but it's not as though any serious copyright violations, like plagiarism or unauthorized distribution of for-profit material, are at issue. This is really about a technicality of the GFDL. My view: these pages need to be fixed eventually, but there's absolutely no urgency to do it fast. --Hyperbole 04:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The point isn't protecting the rights of vandals under the GFDL. If any vandal complains about certain entries, then it is trivial to go source those. We can't claim to follow the GFDL and then say "oop, it's not convenient here, so we'll just say that it will be made GFDL compliant eventually". Like I've said above, it's probably a good idea to try just restarting so we don't have to deal with a backlog that nobody ever wants to clear, but since nobody is willing to go through and attribute the archives, they really need to be deleted. -Amarkov moo! 04:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I DID do some actual fixing. There's just a lot to fix. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it seems to me that we're creating a really dangerous precedent by lauding the behavior of people who act completely outside of process, spark massive disruptions, and then claim victory by shouting the loudest. I've seen people say things like "well, I don't like the process, but the outcome is what's important." And, frankly, that's absolute nonsense. The "outcome" every single time this happens is that good, valuable editors get treated like crap and driven from the project. If you want to say the ends justify the means, just stop for a second -- look back at some of these episodes -- and consider what all of the ends are; I bet you'll find somebody who used to be a really good editor who isn't here anymore. --JayHenry 05:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Overturn and wtf. Wildly out of process speedy deletion, adhering to absolutely no policy outside of WP:IAR. Highly disruptive as evidenced by this discussion, when there was no reason not to send it to MfD. Speedy deleting material, in any space, in order to force the opinion of one administrator, when there is obvious community controversy, is wholly unacceptable. Evouga 07:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Possible sockpuppet, first edits were to WP:AN, very few edits outside of DRV and AFD.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 16:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn It was a out of process deletion pure and simple. Whispering 11:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It simply isn't an issue if this was out-of-process or not. For the most part, WP:IAR applies. Utterly useless projects that contained GFDL violations simply has no place on Wikipedia. — Moe ε 15:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At this point, this discussion is no longer about process (which is what DRV is supposed to be about). This discussion has become a de facto MfD, and you may want to base your arguements as if it were an MfD. --Phirazo 16:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion: The page I deleted (for reasons below, only tangibly related to this debate) is the finest reason for the deletion, or at lease, cessation of the project, a whole page that consisted of a personal attack on an administrator, a common piece of vandalism being reverted then the vandal being blocked - in my book we shuffle off quietly and ignore vandals, we don't ridicule them or laugh at them being blocked, and of course, no history for anything copied into the page. Now, you're all saying, well, we know the project isn't GFDL compliant and we can fix that, indeed it's possible, but this was a page created days ago when the importance of GFDL compliance was made abundantly clear to all working on the BJAODN project. In my view, there's no sign that histories are being correct preserved with the very latest BJAODN pages so I can't really see any way forward other that a cessation of the project and deletion of material. Nick 11:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion The restoration of these pages is simply an act of copyright infringement. The GFDL license requirements for those contributions have not been met. We need to respect out own license agreement. Regardless of the consensus here, we cannot use a copyright infringement, I don't see why there is even a discussion about it. The only people who can dig up the history are admins, so if they really want to make it meet GFDL, then deleting it in the meantime will not hinder them. The pages have no encyclopedic value. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 16:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, and spin off to an independent website. While there are some GFDL violations, we could eliminate them or source them out. Furthermore, a lot of the contribs are probably hit-and-run editors who don't want to be cited or remembered. GFDL never took that into account. Nonetheless, since we started doing this in the first place, we should work hard to cite everyone as we signed up to GFDL to begin with. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC) Furthermore, the collection of BJAODN may be better off as a different website, taken care of by editors dedicated to BJAODN, rather than as a part of Wikipedia proper. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have to assume that the authors have not given up the rights they released it under, the contributions are copyright and to say that "perhaps they don't want that copyright" is contrary to law and general copyright interpretation. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 17:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list it on that lame edit wars page. Catchpole 17:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, it's a pretty lame edit war. LOL. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you do anything besides making worthless petty comments? --Cyde Weys 03:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah. Answering worthless petty questions ;-) — Rickyrab | Talk 00:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Start over I like BJAODN. It is one of those quirky features of Wikipedia that makes this site what it is, and sets it apart. The GFDL concerns are legitimate, however, and flies in the face of what Wikipedia wants to be. In as much as deleting the 60(?) BJAODN articles will lose us some unique and very funny moments in this site's history, I think the best idea is just to start over, this time properly attributing the contributions. Resolute 17:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's face it, there's no consensus here. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consensus doesn't trump blatant violation of the GFDL, one of the basic foundations of the entire Wikimedia effort. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • A user above has offered to fix the GFDL issues, so this is really irrelevant. JulesH 12:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is what people said last time it was undeleted, but nobody sourced it. What is more, much of the attribution is in the history of deleted articles, so it takes an admin to source it. An admin can do this on a deleted BJAODN as well, so this whole "it can be brought into compliance with GFDL" is a red herring. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 13:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This has nothing to do with consensus. Chairboy is right, the fact that we are not meeting the GFDL license requirements makes it illegal, and even worse it is ripping off the contributors. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 18:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's one thing if one side is saying "the GFDL is violated", the other side is saying "no it isn't", and there's no consensus. It would be very bad if people said "There's no consensus, but I'm right, so it should be deleted anyway" in that case. What we have here is one side saying "the GFDL is violated", and the other side saying "yes it is, but..." There is no "but" which can excuse breaking the license Wikipedia is supposed to be under. -Amarkov moo! 18:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Consensus is also a foundation of Wikimedia, and GFDL and consensus must work in harmony with one another. Otherwise, we have a lot of unfortunate editors who thought they were getting a good deal when they agreed to the GFDL terms, only to find that managing GFDL was trickier than they originally thought. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Furthermore, censoring something due to laziness and GFDL may well be theft of intellectual property, given that people might be denied access to their own edits, which are, after all, their property. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But common sense dictates that someone shouldn't bar their entry into their own apartment in a co-op to get the furniture out if someone else doesn't want the furniture there. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See foundation issue #4, "Copyleft licensing of content; in practice, defined by project, either GFDL or CC-BY." This is not negotiable, it is one of the fundamental ideas behind the whole Wikimedia Foundation. A consensus that goes against a foundation issue must be ignored. Content that does not meet these requirements must be removed. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 18:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or made to fit the requirements. The problem is that people are lazy. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me?! Who the hell are you to call other people lazy? First of all, I don't see you pitching in to help clean up BJAODN in any meaningful capacity, so the pot shouldn't call the kettle black. Secondly, we are all volunteers here, so nobody has to do anything. And finally, given the limited man hours we have available, it makes no sense to waste precious administrator time cleaning up the cesspool that is BJAODN. That's why you don't see any of us doing it. We have much better things to do, like blocking vandals, closing AFDs, etc. --Cyde Weys 03:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To find the attribution history you need to be an admin to see the deleted pages. So if this is deleted the same people could still look up the history and do a DRV after it meets GFDL. Deletion does not prevent potential sourcing in any way because many of the sources are themselves deleted. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 18:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is only true for deleted pages, and many of the sources come from pages still undeleted. Furthermore, if admins can source the BJAODN, then why aren't they doing it? They should. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because we can think of many more important things to do than waste our time finding sources for jokes. ^demon[omg plz] 18:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So it is "wasting time" to make sure something complies with Wikipedia policy? — Rickyrab | Talk 18:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For some humor thing? Yes. --Hemlock Martinis 18:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. If Wikipedia has information that some people like, and that information is not compliant with copyright or GFDL because it is not sourced, and if GFDL is the backbone of Wikipedia as it has so often been claimed, then the proper thing to do is to take the time to source the material behind the information, even if it is drivel! — Rickyrab | Talk 19:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so you want to spend admin's time sourcing BJAODN. Good, we don't. If you want to have an admin while away the hours of the day digging up sources for an unfunny joke, then you should run for adminship and do it yourself. ^demon[omg plz] 19:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once again you mistake the fundamental purpose of Wikipedia. The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide a free and libre encyclopedia in all the nations of the world. It has nothing whatsoever to do with "information that some people like". Guess what people like? Pirated music, TV shows, movies, and porn. But we don't host them here at Wikipedia. Likewise, we don't host unattributed text that violates the GFDL. And we don't host vandalism hall of fames. --Cyde Weys 03:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suppose a pluralty of Wikipedia editors want to negotiate GFDL in order to make information more accessible. What would you recommend they do? — Rickyrab | Talk 18:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To extend the GFDL license beyond its current limitations, you would need the permission of all contributing editors. Wikipedia does not own its content, all individual contributions are owned by the authors, but released in such a way that Wikipedia can use it, if it gives proper attribution to the authors. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 18:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble with that interpretation of the GFDL is that not every editor of Wikipedia necessarily thought it was a good idea to begin with. Besides, you're causing everyone to "agree" to GFDL by inserting a statement that people "agree to license their contributions under the GFDL". Suppose some prankster or wheel warrior were to change that statement, or, even worse, some editor were to openly contradict such a statement. See the ethical problem here? — Rickyrab | Talk 18:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What in the world are you talking about? How would a prankster change the GFDL? --Hemlock Martinis 18:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ignore the question about the prankster. (I'll assume this hypothetical prankster is some stupid leet haXXor, it's not important how he would do any such thing and I don't know how he'd do such a thing anyway.) However, are people who agree to the GFDL necessarily aware of what they are agreeing to, or of its complexities? — Rickyrab | Talk
The warning has a link to the GFDL text. It's not like they can claim ignorance. --Hemlock Martinis 18:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless, the wording may be rather heavy and people may be busy with other things. Furthermore, some people just want to edit, and so they skim and say "Okay". That doesn't necessarily make them aware of what they're agreeing to. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please. People still have to obey the law even if they're not a lawyer. Ignorance is not innocence. --Hemlock Martinis 18:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who made the law in this case? And how democratic was the process to begin with? — Rickyrab | Talk 18:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo Wales and the Wikimedia Foundation. Wikipedia is not a democracy, it's a constitutional monarchy. --Hemlock Martinis 19:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok. I wasn't aiming to undermine GFDL itself, I am trying to save at least some or even most of the BJAODN, and I think people are just using GFDL as an excuse to be lazy and delete when they could be sourcing the material instead. — Rickyrab | Talk 19:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - there are obvious GFDL problems with it ... and let's face it - even if someone were to dig up article histories, we don't know whether or not these hoax/joke articles were actually original works to begin with or copied from a message board or some other website. What do you think the odds are that someone posting a joke page really cares about the copyright of the page? Consensus can't override copyright and thus keep deleted. --B 18:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then delete the rest of Wikipedia, too or otherwise trust the authors. Who knows how much of WP is really a copyvio? — Rickyrab | Talk 18:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well ... there's a bit of a difference there. If someone is contributing constructively, we assume good faith. If someone is vandalizing, why should we assume good faith there? --B 18:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Some people consider comic intent to be "good faith". After all, those edits could always be reverted, and so they are. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please tell me you're joking, Rickyrab. It's vandalism, pure and simple. --Hemlock Martinis 18:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Okay, I'm joking, if that's what you want to hear. But bear in mind that there's an Uncyclopedia out there because people like comic intent. However, some people think stupidity and vandalism are good things, and so they need a place. That is why I think there ought to be a separate website dedicated to nonsense. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Wikia might be willing to host such a site, and you're welcome to take any content which is fully compliant with the GFDL provided you're prepared to re-licence under the GFDL licence. Personally, I'd rather such a site didn't exist as may encourage people to vandalise Wikipedia, but if you want to go for it, you're entirely welcome. Nick 18:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Rickyrab, if you want to go to Uncyclopedia, then go. But we won't keep GFDl violations for the lulz. — Moe ε 20:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Overturn in strongest possible terms, relist at MFD if issues remain. Since the article was deleted out-of-process, I don't think that this DRV is at all appropriate; speedy close this DRV. The article has already been restored, and ought to be brought before MFD first, before any further discussion can even be considered. The habit of leaping to IAR before even holding proper discussions is just a way of stirring up trouble... most importantly, though, out-of-process deletions should absolutely not be allowed to put a page's fate in the 'default keep deleted' nature of DRV when an MFD hasn't even been held yet. The results of this DRV should not, under any circumstances, be taken to support re-deletion unless a clear majority in favor of that course of action appears. This is not a minor procedural matter... it is one thing to ignore MFD, skip consensus and invoke IAR or some other rule you hold to be non-circumventable after you think it's given a bad result, but to just recklessly zoom past the consensus-building step and do whatever you want without making even a basic effort to seek consensus through the usual channels is beyond reckless. This DRV should be shut down immediately in favor of a proper MFD, before any other options can even be considered. If we're not even going to run things by MFD, why do we have it in the first place? --Aquillion 18:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The deletion was entirely correct, the material does indeed constitute a copyright violation. What must be decided is whether rectifying the problems with the history is really worth the hassle and whether there is an appetite to carry out this work. Nick 18:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I somewhat disagree with the first part, as some of the material involved was sourced and not a copyvio. I agree with deciding whether to rectify the problem with the history, though. The wheat must be separated from the chaff! Or at least the chaff must be made into wheat! — Rickyrab | Talk 19:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, the vast majority of the material was unsourced. Just because some small percentage of it was doesn't excuse the rest of it. As for "separating the wheat from the chaff": you've had three months to do it. Nobody's stepped forward, and nobody's even stepping forward to say that they will do it this time. They're just using the hypothetical "Well, someone might". Whether an action that fixes a huge problem will actually be done is a legitimate concern. We have all the evidence we need that it isn't going to happen. --Cyde Weys 03:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion I've never been much of a fan of BJAODN, especially because of al the divisions it has caused here. Deletion is not a perfect option but there are few other viable alternatives. We can leave it as is but it would violate the GFDL. We can assemble a team of editors to make it GFDL compliant, but this seems like a huge waste of effort on something not too important to the encyclopedia. Or we can delete it. That's not to say we can't start it over, making any new BJAODN GFDL complaint from the beginning. Unfortunately, I don't see this discusion getting any consensus. It's been through 5 MFDs, another DRV, 88kb of discussion here so far, a myriad of discussions elsewhere, and an arbitration request was just made. There are just too many issues here for us to decide on anything: GFDL, Wikipedia history, WP:DENY, the amount of work put into it, etc. With any luck, the arbitration case will come up with an enforceable solution and we can stop wasting so much time. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Bad idea to go around speedy deleting things that are obviously polemic. Since everybody is going waay off-topic here... why not me too? Here goes... Undeleting was a bad idea too, there was no hurry, so opening this DRV was a better option. GFDL issues? I suppose "bad jokes" and "nonsense" are, by their nature, original work by their editors. As such they agreed to release them as soon as they wrote it in WP. Plus, it is not up to us to be a court of law. Yes, we should do our best to respect and uphold the law, but lacking consesus, the issue should be dealt by the Foundation. If they want it deleted on copyright violation grounds they'll do an "office action", case closed. Finaly, BJAODN should be deleted, because they either glorify vandalism, or insult poor, but otherwise good faith, additions, thus being detrimental to WP development. - Nabla 19:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Process isn't the issue anymore, thus the speedy deletion isn't what is the main question. It's the content, which you said should be deleted if I'm not mistaken. If we are going to restore, there should be an actual reason for keeping it, but restoring for the sake of process, isn't something we should be taking in for consideration. — Moe ε 20:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is DRV, process is the only issue, or at least it should be the main one. And process is important, otherwise it would be impossible for so many people to collaborate in any productive way. - Nabla 21:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You misunderstand the copyright issue, when people submit something to Wikipedia they are giving permission for anyone to use it if attribution is given to all authors. The problem is that this much of this attribution has been lost to deleted articles. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 20:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right. I forgot those where copy/paste moves. Striked that. Anyway the rest of my reasoning still stands. - Nabla 21:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion of main page At least keep the main page around, if the rest is to stay deleted, tag it as historical. Kwsn(Ni!) 20:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • When did the deletion of the main page come into discussion? — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 20:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion. Casting my vote. I don't have new stuff to say, but: I don't think it conflicts with GFDL; the vandalism is original work; the vandals and contributors inadvertently agreed to Wikipedia's GFDL when they edited. WP:MfD is more proper way to discuss this before WP:DRV, even though it has been to MfD countless times. WP:IAR has its limits and it may not be used all the time. Using WP:DENY is not a reason to delete BJAODN; it is not even a guideline. Deletion of BJAODN is disruptive. People enjoy this humor; at least I do. There is not much harm, if any, to the mainspace and other places of Wikipedia with its presence. (I understand my points have been mentioned and have been battered, but my vote holds.) — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 20:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The vandalism is indeed original work, but without the history, the creators are not receiving due attribution. If we can't do that for any contributor on Wikipedia, which should any outside site, body or person using our work feel the need to provide due attribution ?. Nick 21:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's still a red herring: User:Gmaxwell has offered to do the work of fixing the attributions if the page is kept. The only question left, then, is whether or not WP:BOLDly deleting it per WP:DENY is good enough reasoning. Clearly this user believes not. Controversial decisions should be taken by the community with consensus, not by unilateral action. JulesH 11:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article (overturn deletion). It's indeed unruly but we've lived with it from the early days and it is not hurting anything. Quite the opposite, it is an irreplaceable piece of our history, like Gradma's old stuff in the attic or that dusty box at the back of a museum. I wouldn't mind deprecating and locking it in its present state. But if we delete it without at least archiving it and putting it somewhere else for people to read we're erasing history. Years from now when historians want to know how this crazy Wikipedia thing came to be, they'll be wondering why we did that and wishing we hadn't. Wikidemo 21:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the sake of the future is not a reason for keeping this sack of crap. — Moe ε 21:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's suggest forking the content with history to a separate site, that should keep both parties happy. Nick 21:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion We don't discuss and bandy about blatant copyright violations - we delete or fix them. Plenty of time was given to fix this one and it was not progressing. Deletion was the proper response, ethically and legally. --ElKevbo 21:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Gmaxwell has offered to fix the problem, so deletion was not the only proper response. The proper response was to get consensus before deleting, rather than doing it unilaterally. JulesH 11:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I salute bold actions so long as they don't engender animosity or form the foundation of a useless shitstorm. The GFDL concerns are a red herring: Wikipedia produces GFDL-licensed article content, everything else exists as the background mechanism. One of the more important background diversions at Wikipedia is taking a load off, amusing oneself after hours of article writing or vandal fighting. Yeah, BJAODN is unfunny/stupid/violates every sacred right of human dignity and copyright, but it isn't exactly something that the Wikimedia foundation publishes. It is a cavernous warehouse of amusing crap kept around to show that yes, we can occasionally take a break from endless arguments and policy debates to appreciate the dumber things life. Clearing out stale/unfunny BJAODN is easy, and those who really, really give a damn about maintaining the GFDL requirements in never-going-to-be-published content might be inclined to go and fix all their own concerns, but categorical deletion is going too far. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 22:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clue: WP:ILIKEIT only pertains to articlespace deletion discussions. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 22:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Well, you presented two other arguments besides your ILIKEIT, so I'll go into those. First, the GFDL violation is not a red herring; it is at the center of this debate. The GFDL makes it quite clear that you must provide sourcing for the history of material copied from one part of the encyclopedia to another. This has not been done. And the GFDL does not make exceptions for "cavernous warehouses of amusing crap". Second, if people really, really gave a damn about BJAODN like you state, they'd have fixed it over the last three months. This has not been done, and I see no reason to believe it will ever be done. It is pointless to wait for some knight in shining armor to come rescue BJAODN when history clearly shows a lack of effort. --Hemlock Martinis 22:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - BJAODN is the only section of the encyclopedia where questions about being able to trace the source of content moved from one page to another have ever seriously come up. This does happen on a regular basis, and nobody tracks what is being done well or consistently. If this is in fact a legitimate issue we need to address, the way that large portions of the editors and admins edit and expand the encyclopedia will have to be reviewed and corrected, and large portions of the encyclopedia are vulnerable to history-tracing challenge.
Maybe we legitimately have to do that, but please acknowledge that if you open that can, there are many many worms in it beyond BJAODN, and that the worms are carnivorous... Georgewilliamherbert 22:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's something that'll have to be looked into (and indeed, should be looked into) separately. But this is about BJAODN. --Hemlock Martinis 23:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can't entirely be separated out. If we propose that the problem is both legitimate (which I don't disagree with) and requires draconian enforcement (which I do disagree with, but agree is up for legitimate debate), then we're grossly neglecting a whole bunch of other related problems out in article space. The policy adopted has to be consistent for BJAODN and article space, if we change anything here, and making the changes that most of the deletion advocates here recommend would have catastrophic consequences beyond BJAODN... Insisting that you can propose what is effectively new policy, and then apply it only here, is unreasonable. If you're going to make policy, then the wider effects of that must be on the table in the discussion. Georgewilliamherbert 23:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The GFDL is a license chosen by Wikimedia Foundation to distribute the sum output of Wikipedia projects, that is, articles (& the accompanying categories/templates/maybe portals). BJAODN will never, ever be distributed under the GFDL or any other license, by Wikimedia. Wikimedia may selectively enforce GFDL in any way, so any representative of the foundation would be well within their right to delete BJAODN if it was deemed a real concern. Us mere editors have to watch out for GFDL violations, especially in articlespace, but shit like BJAODN just isn't important. If the contributor of a bad joke or other bit of nonsense was to ever complain about their GFDL-given rights, the offending content would be deleted without a second glance. This has never happened. If someone is offended by any content in the BJAODN archives, they would be free to remove it or request deletion. This deletion review concerns a solution to a non-existant problem. (e/c) ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN is available under the GFDL licence from Wikimedia as we speak. It's packaged up as part of the database dumps. It's downloadable from this very website this very instant. It's printable. It's searchable. You get the idea. Nick 23:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not presented as an article or anything remotely encyclopedic or in any way useful. Anyway, there's enough other questionable content/non-GFDL compliant material/crap on the backend of wikipediaspace to fill a thousand BJAODNs. Wikipedia makes no warranty of merchantability or complete GFDL compliance and no one has seen fit to publish this content anywhere else. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I spent about five minutes with Google and found a few sites with BJAODN content. [6] has a copy of Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense: The Next Generation for example. Nick 00:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose there are a few other mirrors that also do that, as part of reproducing the full database dump. Should have qualified that statement by saying that BJAODN has not been singled out as a piece of unique, worthy content and distributed as such. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP DELETED - One of the major reasons we created this page all those years ago was related to not having the ability to restore deleted pages. This page now simply encourages vandals by having a 'best of' archive. Let WikipediaReview do that. --mav 22:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shouldn't community consensus be determined before such an action is taken? It isn't policy-based, and this isn't a forum for gaining consensus to delete. JulesH 11:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But Wikipedia isn't as fun without a little bit of "spice" from time to time. — Rickyrab | Talk 00:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why in the world would you come to, of all places on the Internet, an encyclopedia to look for "fun"? --Hemlock Martinis 01:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • And what's wrong with the rest of the Department of Fun? Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 01:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Nothing's wrong with them, I was just curious why someone would come to Wikipedia looking for fun, out of all the places on the Internet? --Hemlock Martinis 02:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I was responding more to Rickyrab, about his comment saying that Wikipedia needs some fun. I just didn't want to put my comment in the middle. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Maybe a good part of this DRV should go on BJAODN itself. — Rickyrab | Talk 01:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Are you going to contribute to the debate, or just sit back and make snarky comments? --Hemlock Martinis 01:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Please keep it civil. The last couple of days are more than slightly surreal. Georgewilliamherbert 01:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I have, by the way, contributed quite a bit to the debate. And my comments are more on point than snarky....oh yeah, and as for the encyclopedia, the fun comes with the seriousness. One can't expect all work and no play, can one? — Rickyrab | Talk 01:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Well, this is about building an encyclopedia, not a carnival fun house. You're a contributor to Uncyclopedia. Certainly that'd be a better place for "spice"? --Hemlock Martinis 01:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                        • While the project has a very serious set of core goals, it's unreasonable to expect that the community of people built up around here to accomplish those goals will not want to have avenues to let off steam and have a little fun as well. Community projects which have no internal social release and relaxation mechanisms implode. We might not need BJAODN in particular, but the class of "fun things" has to be non-empty for us to survive in the long term. Georgewilliamherbert 01:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                          • There's a difference between something that someone writes for fun like this, and reposting vandalism. --Hemlock Martinis 02:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For the record, I really REALLY want to know -- why the in the WORLD do some people consider anything that "doesn't contribute to the encyclopedia" a "waste of time" as if people were required to do it? Are we not ALL volunteers? I've never understood this argument and it seems as if some people have the opinion that any of us have actual obligations to do anything around here. And, GDFL issues aside (which I admit I don't really understand...especially as I've seen that most of the edits since last time have given a diff), I think an archive of the more creative attempts is worth keeping simply for the sheer chutzpah people had in creating them. Yes, they are vandalism, but I say why NOT have them? I'm not talking about the personal attacks or the one liners (and yes, I know what some find funny others don't and vice versa). Uncyclopedia is all good, but its funny in and of itself rather than related to WP. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 02:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why would we reward or honor vandalism? There's no such thing as "good" vandalism. --Hemlock Martinis 02:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • logical-negate WP:DENY - because sometime's it's funny as hell for the rest of us? Georgewilliamherbert 02:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Really? Can you point to one thing on BJAODN that's legitimately funny as hell? And how does "funny as hell", assuming it exists, trump something like "attribution required by GFDL"? If you're valuing humor over fundamental requirements of the license used to keep this entire site libre, there's something wrong with you. --Cyde Weys 03:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not unless you have a sense of humor. And no, it doesn't, but we aren't talking about articlespace here. And yes, there is something very wrong with Georgewilliamherbert, his is a dark and twisted soul. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • There's a lot of stuff on BJAODN that really cracks me up. It's one of the few places that doesn't make Wikipedia feel sanitized. --Hyperbole 04:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • As a user above has offered to do the work of adding the required attribution to the pages, it doesn't have to trump the attribution required. If the outcome of this debate is to overturn the deletion, attribution will be added. JulesH 11:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for those who wish to downplay the issue of the GFDL, from Jimbo's userpage, principle 5: "The GNU FDL license, the openness and viral nature of it, are fundamental to the long-term success of the site. Anyone who wants to use our content in a closed, proprietary manner must be challenged. We must adhere very strictly to both the letter and spirit of the license." --Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 06:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We're really not talking about using content "in a closed, proprietary manner." We're talking about preserving vandalism written specifically for this site. And even then, we've all realized even vandalism needs to be attributed to at least an IP. So recent BJAODN pages are actually very well sourced - and I see absolutely no rush to bring the backlog into compliance. For god's sake, they're vandals. They're not going to sue the Wikimedia foundation for preserving the work they intentionally posted to the site. They'd be laughed out of court. --Hyperbole 06:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not giving attribution to the original authors is exactly the type of violation Jimbo was talking about. It is not just the vandals that go unattributed, but the authors of the text the vandalism was based on. You can say "They are vandals so they don't get a copyright", but the very fact that people want to keep it demonstrates it has value, and they deserve their copyright either way. This is a matter of law, not just something we can decide to ignore. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 13:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is irrelevant, because of the offer above to fix the copyright issues. JulesH 11:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion per WP:DENY and copyright vios. The "Overturn" arguments don't convince me that BJAODN needs a place on Wikipedia. GizzaDiscuss © 12:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a pretty weak reason, given that other people are convinced that the decision should be overturned. Of course, if this argument were made in support of an overturn, it would still be a weak reason. — Rickyrab | Talk 14:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I fail to see how copyright violation is a weak reason. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Persuasion is a weak reason. Copyright violations can often be fixed. — Rickyrab | Talk 15:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • If they are so easy to fix, why in all this time hasn't been? You know, it hasn't just been 2 months people have been worried about this and BJAODN keeps promising to fix it, and they don't. I would personally like for this to go to no consensus about the deletion, so I can place it on MFD. — Moe ε 16:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Because somebody with the ability to do so has only just offered to do the work. Many of us were unaware of this issue until a few days ago, so the last two months have been irrelevant. JulesH 11:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • First off, it can't be done by someone, it has to be done by a lot of users and administrators. Second, the last two months have actually been the most critical if anything. BJAODN have promised to remove the violations for way over two months. Just because one or two new editors say they are going to do it when no one else does, thats a reason to keep it? No. The GFDL has been violated for way too long for someone to say that they are "going to fix it" when clearly it hasn't been done and there is a lack of effort to do so. — Moe ε 18:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, keep, quit worrying about it and let's work on the parts of the encyclopedia that outsiders actually use. 1) BJAODN deserves preservation as part of Wikipedia's history, much like the NostalgiaWiki and perhaps some of the oldest articles on Wikipedia: where, guess what, many of the early edits may have also been lost, a clear GFDL violation. We take great pains to preserve a record of our culture, with all its various and sundry jokes and insider references; it's part of what makes Wikipedia a community, rather than a bunch of unconnected people schlepping away for free on a project. BJAODN, as much as some of ya'll don't like it, is a part of that heritage, along with WP:LAME (where this thoroughly belongs). 2) We do take pains to preserve vandalism -- every single minute of every single day, someone's vandalism gets enshrined for all time in the edit history of some article or another. It's one of our core principles: all revisions are kept, no matter how ridiculous -- unless that work is so extremely egregious that a team of people steps in and deletes it, and even then they are kept. Most of the stuff on BJAODN are one of those vandalised revisions of a page, preserved elsewhere but copied to the BJAODN space for posterity, because some editor thought it enlivened their day. 3) It's not a time sink if you don't choose to work on or read about it. 4) Regarding the GFDL -- this is the biggest question, and one that I can't tell we've gotten any real expert outside opinion on to date. Many people who are extremely competent and that I know to have a good understanding of the legal issues have disagreed, as reasonable people. It is clear that there are articles with lost histories in BJAODN. However, I feel, with GMaxwell, that it's something of a red herring. For one thing, there are other, more pressing GFDL issues. If we delete BJAODN on grounds of not adequately preserving page histories, then how about deleting every single article that's ever been merged or split from another article? How about deleting every article that has content from a now-deleted article? What about tracking down every single copyvio? That is a bigger GFDL issue, folks, and one that affects our reputation to the outside world and our outside readers. Let's get to work, and let's be consistent in how we interpret policy. -- phoebe/(talk) 14:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So your saying keep this copyright violation because there are other copyright infringements? I don't see how that excuses us from our legal and moral responsibility to attributed the authors of the content we use. Even if there was a backlog of copyright infringements to clear, I would put content without encyclopedic value at the front of that list. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You'd fix it over fixing content that other people might actually try to do something with? Content that's mirrored out to dozens of sites (unlike WP-space pages)? Why? Also, my argument is not that we should keep it because other stuff exists; my argument that we should keep it is in in the first two points, the latter two are responses to other arguments. -- phoebe/(talk) 14:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN is out and about on mirrors. See the link I posted above. Nick 14:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I've heard of people who have already saved BJAODN to their hard drive. who knows what sort of BJAODN might be floating around with a Wikipedia origin years down the road, even if the thing were to be promptly be nipped in the bud? Besides, a deletion of BJAODN would make any standing violation of GFDL worse, because owners of mirror sites wouldn't be able to access the contrib list to find out sources for themselves. — Rickyrab | Talk 15:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been following a deleted article on various mirrors to check how often they get updated, and it can take many months. We should also distinguish here between mirrors that just copy and update themselves frequently, and those sites that are more snapshots - dumps of the entire database at one point in time. Some of those snapshots allow people to view deleted content like BJAODN. And technically, if people have a copy of BJAODN on their hard-drive, they can republish it under the GFDL as when they got it from Wikipedia, there was an authorship history. It might be the wrong history, but it is up to Wikipedia to track down those copies and retract them, not those who took a copy (allowed under the GFDL) and gave authorship credit (as required by the GFDL). Who can verify whether or not it is the right credit without the original Wikipedia pages available? Carcharoth 16:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment By now, this argument is really boiling down to WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT, with a lot of arguing over whether it's worth the effort to ensure GFDL compliance. (This translates to "I want to work for it" as opposed to "I don't want to work for it", which is a variant of WP:ILIKEIT.) — Rickyrab | Talk 14:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And of course there's the issue of nobody having done any work to fix the GFDL issues in the 3-4 months since a flock of them promised to, after the last drama. That's something that shouldn't be overlooked when mentioning the "I want to work for it" viewpoint, one that is unsupported by evidence. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • How about I want to make an encyclopedia not a joke book? ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Rationalized variant of WP:ILIKEIT. WP:ENC, on the other hand, raises some valid points, which is why I support forking BJAODN off to another site. — Rickyrab | Talk 15:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know about older pages, but I noticed (as I mentioned above) a CLEAR normal posting of diffs to new pages after that last time. Most of the ones that weren't seemed to be personal attacks which should get deleted anyway. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 15:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good point, maybe we should keep those BJAODN, since they are GFDL-compliant. But maybe we should weed them to remove unfunny vandalism. — Rickyrab | Talk 00:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to fork BJAODN off to its own site, I'm willing to host it. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 15:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please do, and get the content before it's deleted and only old dumps are available --Lucid 16:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support the creation of a site to host this, the copyright issues will no longer be a Wikipedia issue. BJAODN.com is available. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 16:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If someone is willing to register a domain, then I'm willing to put it on. In the meanwhile, I've set up a subdomain on my website, [7], and I'm in the process of installing MediaWiki 1.6.10 (I don't have PHP 5 yet). Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 17:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems quite unethical for those who have argued that this material violates the GFDL to support moving this material offsite so that it's "not Wikipedia's problem anymore." --ElKevbo 17:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree-- the entire concern is the Wikimedia foundation being held responsible for copyright violations. The chance of BJAODN ever being subject to legal action is incredibly small, but off site Wikimedia doesn't have to worry about it. Unfortunately, someone from Wikitruth already snagged bjaodn.com, dammit --Lucid 14:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speak for yourself. My concern is not necessarily legal but ethical. The odds of someone filing suit or issuing a takedown notice for this material are exceedingly small. But that doesn't excuse our blatant infringement of the ideals and license(s) upon which we have built this project. --ElKevbo 14:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think copyright infringement is fine, but that is my opinion and it does not belong on Wikipedia. I pirate stuff all the time, but on Wikipedia I respect its decision to follow copyright law. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 03:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats the point- we can deal with it privately, and Wikipedia doesn't have to be involved in it. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 18:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and on the server, I've requested that my account be moved to a server to PHP 5, so that I can upgrade from MediaWiki 1.6 to the latest version available. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 18:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The BJAODN website is now up; I'm going to begin work on porting the entire thing over. Any help would be appreciated. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep restored. It is part of wikipedia history and culture. `'Míkka 00:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That isn't a reason to keep anything that is a foundation issue or irreparably violate the GFDL. --Coredesat 01:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's asserted widely that it's a foundation issue and that it irreparably violates the GFDL, but that's just opinions of BJADON critics, not any settled policy or policy statement from anyone "above". I invite their opinions, but operating as if they already have issued such a statement or policy in absence of one is unjustified. IF they issue a ruling then this debate is all moot. In the absence of one, it's an invalid argument that the issue is settled conclusively. Georgewilliamherbert 02:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Neither of those points are true. The foundation has made no comments regarding BJAODN and the archives could be brought into compliance with the GFDL - some already have direct attribution and all are stored in their respective article histories. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC) (edit conflict, might as well post anyway)[reply]
        • That isn't what I meant. They're issues with the foundation (backbone) of the project and not Wikimedia Foundation issues. --Coredesat 03:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • And exactly how is BJAODN a foundation issue, aside from the aforementioned concern about licensing? This whole deletion discussion is infected with a hyperbolic assumption that BJAODN is somehow a pressing danger to the project - it isn't. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do we really need a pressing danger to follow copyright law? Isn't the fact that it is a foundation goal to offer copyleft licensed material enough? ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 03:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I thought that at en.Wiki our only tangible, important output was our collection of articles. The foundation isn't exactly offering BJAODN as copyleft material to the masses, it is rather a half-maintained diversion for editors, nothing that is in any danger of being a copyright threat. This is due in no small part to the disclaimer about the archive being, you know, a list of bad jokes and other deleted nonsense. Prior to this deletion discussions the content was only occasionally included in mirrors as part of the database dump. Because of this deletion discussion there are now several users intent on forking out content, thereby actualizing real copyright problems predicted by the deletion itself, and doing so at the behest of deletion endorsements! Instead of keeping BJAODN as an editable, obscure, and ad-hoc process, deleting it has created friction, attracted notice, and resulted in the creation of mirrors. Now I don't care about specific deleting specific instances from BJAODN, for what it's worth all non-attributed content could go, if that is really such a huge problem, but BJAODN has value as an informal recreational process. It is vital that Wikipedia contributors have diversions *that they like*, because such diversions provide a direct incentive to focus on other, more important tasks. An inability to accept this fact, or the willingness to ignore it, is not healthy for the project as a whole. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The foundation is exactly offering BJAODN as copyleft material to the masses. At the bottom, of every page, not just article pages, every page it says: "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License". ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 04:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, but not as something useful, not as an article. en.Wiki doesn't link to BJAODN from a community portal or a front page, it's just there in the background. It's not a high-priority piece of content to meticulously maintain. It has a copyleft license, and any reader is able to trace the source of any one bit of BJAODN by looking at the history of the linked article. I suppose that all BJAODN entries could be histmerged, but, again, this maintenance is not necessary for an informal, even disposable, process. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's forked over to a website off of Wikipedia, I'm willing to favor a deletion on Wikipedia proper. — Rickyrab | Talk 00:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What the hell, give them a week to copy everything off-wiki, then delete everything here. That's probably the most amicable resolution to this. I think I echo most of us when I say: as long as long as it's not hosted here, it's not our problem. --Cyde Weys 03:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with Cyde, which isn't something I do often, when it's off off Wikipedia, it ain't our problem. — Moe ε 18:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per best practice for trash bins.VirtualDelight 08:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am starting to agree with the forking off to another website. The main page should not be deleted, but a link would link to the entire collection of BJAODN to the new website. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 14:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Strongly agree on deletion. We don't allow reposting of deleted content. --Kjoonlee 15:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh, that's a good argument that I hadn't even thought of. In addition to all of the CSDs (probably every general one) that BJAODN meets. Patent nonsense? Check. Attacking users? Check. Vandalism? Check. Et cetera. --Cyde Weys 15:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, or else rename to Bad Jokes and Other Nonsense which we Inexplicably did NOT Delete (BJAONWWIDND). Or, more seriously, move it off-wiki, and keep easy-to-find links to it. A move to meta is fine with me. And in the bigger scheme of things, it's just not as big a deal as all the drama surrounding this episode suggests. Antandrus (talk) 16:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deleted outside of process and is a piece of Wikipedia history, so it should be preserved.  Grue  16:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Grue. One 17:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Short sweet and too the point? Provide a reason please. — Moe ε 18:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

  • Weaponhouse – Speedy overturn of a clearly out of process deletion. First, the speedy tag was removed by Dsmdgold, the article was created by Arve Holmeide. The removal of the speedy tag should not have been reverted, it was a valid contesting by an independant user. Second, the deleting admin admitted that it was not patent nonsense (and it isn't). Finally, A7 can only apply to people, groups, companies and web content. This article is about a room in old churches. – Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Weaponhouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Improper speedy deletion. This article was created August 5th by relatively new user. The text of the article was "In old times weapons should not be carried into the church. Therefore the churches often have an addition to the main entrance where people could place their weapons while they attended service. This addition was called a weaponhouse." It was tagged with "db-nonsense" within ten nimutes of its creation. I removed the tag a short while later, as the text was clearly not patent nonsense. Ten minutes later the same editor retagged it with the edit summary of "do not remove speedy tags on articles you have created yourself", without noticing that I was not the creator of the article. A couple of quick google searches ([8], [9]) indicate that the content of the article was substantially correct. I contacted the deleting admin explaining all of this. His response was less than satisfying. Dsmdgold 14:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rapid Overturn and remind the admin about deletion policy, in particular the limitations of speedy A7. The article however is in need of immediate expansion. DGG (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recreate Article this should not be deleted. Needs expansion, perhaps from non-Internet sources. Shruti14 ( talk • contribs ) 18:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn This is neither patent nonsense nor a case where A7 may apply. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
NYU in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

New Information - Yale in popular culture was also under Wikipedia:afd review at the time, but after the NYU review was complete the Yale review was decided in a different manner. Both articles are almost exactly the same. As such, I propose either deleting Yale in popular culture or restoring NYU in popular culture -- Noetic Sage 13:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion - clear consensus to delete the article. Concerns raised for deletion were not countered. The fact that another article was kept at AFD doesn't constitute new information for this AFD. Otto4711 14:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow re-creation when expanded and sourced. There was relatively little content, and the decision was not absurd. Noetic Sage, do you want it userified so you can improve it? DGG (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion in terms of similar articles being deleted. I'm afraid that's just the way to cookie crumbles. There were just more Yale fans !voting than NYU fans, and I guess the admin had no choice. Bulldog123 17:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, consensus was clear. --Coredesat 18:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am the creator of this article, and I can explain its purpose for being created. It was primarily created to eliminate excessive information on the New York University article which was growing very large. And as Orlady commented on the Yale AFD page: "If there is a continuing trend to delete "in popular culture" articles such as this one, Wikipedians are going to be reluctant to put this information into separate articles, with results that will not be pretty." In addition, the article was poor because it was seemingly indiscriminate, but as the creator of this page I was getting around to it after the NYU page was at least a good article. So I pledge, upon restoration, that I would ensure this article more reflects the notability and format of the Wikipedia in culture page so it is not a list but is a discussion of the university in the setting of popular culture. Per the discussion in the Yale in popular culture article I think this is a valid reason to keep the article. It needs a lot of work but I am willing to take care of that. -- Noetic Sage 21:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would like to add to my previous comment. Per Wiki:"In popular culture" articles, these type of articles aren't delete-able simply because they are trivia-like articles. Although only mentioned by one user in the original deletion log, the problem with the article is that it lacks sources. It is not an indiscriminate list any more than any other "in popular culture" article. It needs sources and some work as far as notability, and I will ensure that happens. The reason this article is still notable is to highlight an important aspect of NYU history; Before 1990 NYU was hardly known at all and was more of a regional school rather than a national school. In the coming years NYU became more prominent, recruiting nationally and internationally, and thus it was more in the public consciousness. As such, it was mentioned and portrayed in the media and popular culture more frequently. I know that the article didn't convey this importance at the time of deletion, but I am reviewing the deletion because most of the suggestions on the AfD page were arguments to avoid according to Wikipedia. In addition, the fact that not many spoke up during the deletion process is not sufficient reason to deny the reinstatement of this article. -- Noetic Sage 00:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with the article was not that it lacked sources. The article was not deleted because it lacked sources. It is simply not true that the arguments advanced in the AFD are arguments to avoid. Arguments included WP:NOT#DIR, WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:TRIVIA All of which are either official policy or guidelines with consensus and none of which were refuted by such arguments as "it's only nominated because it has 'popular culture' in the title," a staggering failure to assume good faith on the part of the person saying it. Otto4711 00:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Consensus was interpreted correctly; the two keep recommendations didn't provide any concrete evidence for sourcing or notability. Allow re-creation if sufficient evidence of notability and sources can be established. — TKD::Talk 23:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't see how it would harm the encyclopedia to let the creator work on it in userspace, then mainspace it as it improves. In the interest of disclosure, I received a message about this deletion review on my talk page, which is why I will comment but not even !vote. Antelan talk 23:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disclosure: I came here because of a note that User:Noeticsage left on my talk page. I am assuming that the editor did so because s/he is unaware of the faux pas this brought with it. I left a note on his talk page telling him about the guideline, and making a suggestion of how to better proceed in the future. That being said...
  • Reverse and recreate, provisionally. I'm not versed on the actual cultural impact of NYU; however, if editors can work the article into a sourced discussion on this topic, it is worth creating (NYU is one of the top institutions in the US, so I wouldn't be surprised if said impact does exist and is a writable article). Give these editors a chance to improve this article. If it does not improve in a reasonable amount of time, go forward with deletion. Alternatively, keep the article deleted, but userfy the contents so that these editors have the opportunity to present to the community a better article in the future. CaveatLector Talk Contrib 00:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC) NOTE: Noeticsage has since confirmed my assumption of good faith, and says s/he will proceed differently in the future. :) CaveatLector Talk Contrib 00:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Noeticsage (talk · contribs) has canvassed all editors who said keep in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yale in popular culture (and none who said delete), asking them for support here. PrimeHunter 00:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addition: It appears Noeticsage didn't canvass DGG who said keep in a post [10] where the signed paragraph is a little to the right of the paragraph saying Keep (at least in my browser), so Noeticsage may have thought it was a comment to the Keep post. PrimeHunter 01:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. We who were recruited duly noted this in our posts. If you're concerned, you may want to toss {{subst:template:!vote}} at the top of this section. Antelan talk 01:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update - I'm adding the template. Antelan talk 17:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with "canvassing" users for support -- this is surely a tool that cuts both ways -- but unless someone can point me to a copy of the original article, I'm unable to comment on its suitability for deletion or retention. RandomCritic 01:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I too was "canvassed" because of my !vote in Yale in popular culture. The question I would ask about this article is whether reliable sources have said anything about what it means to reference NYU in fiction. If you say a fictional character went to Yale, there are some clear associations that come along with that: a degree of intellectualism, prestige, political connections, possibly snobbery (COI: I say this as someone who attended but did not graduate from Yale). Saying that a character went to NYU also conveys certain qualities, but it's harder to articulate what they are. I'd look for a source describing how NYU is used as a signifier, in order to provide some context for the listings — otherwise, it's hard to see what Washington Square, The Cosby Show and Rent have in common apart from tangential geography. That said, there's no harm in userfying the content so that a better-sourced article could be written, as CaveatLector suggests. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion another "unfair" result because we're damned if we don't nominate alikes together, this time: NYU is out but Yale gets to stay. Perhaps Yale has a greater place in pop culture? Probably so, but may still be nn. Perhaps more Yalies showed up? No way of really knowing who went where among Wikipedians as we know all too well. Perhaps inconsistency is a good thing? Not IMHO, but no one asked. Perhaps the Yale article should also be deleted and we'll get around to it? Here's hoping... Carlossuarez46 03:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
that articles was nom for deletion, and was kept by a very clear consensus of almost everyone except those who always !vote for deletion of IPC articles, regardless of their individual merit. I see we'll have to defend it again. I think it should get an even stronger consensus this time round. 19:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion; there was clear consensus for deletion in the AFD, obviously the creator of the article doesn't like it, but that isn't a reason to overturn a consensus decision. Masaruemoto 03:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion; a total junk page, and why the Yale page was kept, I have no idea, that should go to. Biggspowd 05:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation as per Noetic Sage. Harlowraman 16:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from closer—as the closer of this AfD, I should probably explain. I did close this article several hours before the usual 5-day deadline; however, many of the other "...in popular culture" articles being closed were a near-unanimous delete, and I felt this one could be closed with them (especially given the consensus to delete, except two one-line comments). Yale wasn't a clear consensus to keep either, so it's not necessarily a good reason to recreate the article. If someone wants a userfied version, I'll be more than happy to provide it; just give me a message on my talkpage so I know for sure. — Deckiller 20:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments (1) How is the user who is not an administrator to see the article and therefore to decide how to opine here, when the history seen when one clicks on "history" is not really the article's history? (2) What efforts were made to solicit comments from people knowledgeable in the subject matter of the article, as opposed to whoever happened to look at the AfD page? There are obvious reasons why it's a good idea to do that. When I've mentioned this before, I was told only that it's not REQUIRED in some set of codified rules. That reasoning seems to rest on nothing better than the premise that in order to improve Wikipedia, one should do only such edits are are required in some set of codified rules. Michael Hardy 20:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As to #1, the article is currently at the DRV notice template for a retention, not the one for a deletion, which is normally protected with the history visible underneath. I, or another admin, can change that. However, even if the history wasn't there, because it isn't always worth doing, the "cache" link in the template at the top takes you to a copy of the article as it stood on 8 August. GRBerry 21:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Allegations of state terrorism by Russia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I dissent with the closing of this debate. The closer has not given a comment other than "keep", but it appears that he has judged the debate on strength of numbers, rather than strength of argument. As we know, AFDs are not decided by vote count. None of the "keep" commenters has given a meaningful rebuttal to the fact that this article violates WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH, instead many of them resort to various forms of WP:ILIKEIT, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or "don't delete new articles". >Radiant< 12:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse closure view. There was a clear consensus for keep and there were no policy grounds on which the closing admin could overturn that consensus and delete. Sure there are issues with the article but those are matters of policy interpretation not policy application and are for further editorial, as opposed to DRV, debate. Bridgeplayer 23:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-open AfD for a more explanatory close rationale. Will (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although I have not given the reason that I've closed the AfD, I found it to be a pretty simple case. The article is verifiable, notable and contrary to the nom's belief, is not original research. This is shown by the many reliable sources in the article. The claims of violations of WP:SYNTH can also be contested. I fail to see how a "terrorist act" labeled by a former president of the United States has any synthesis whatsoever, as it specifically refers to Russia, and an allegation of terrorism...[11] Back to the closure of the afd, I see no consensus to delete the article. Most of the delete comments cite a bad title name, or WP:SYNTH as the deletion reason. For the name of the article, there has been no consensus in any of the "allegations of state terrorism in X" AfDs and talk pages for a change. As for the synth arguments this could be fully fixed with more sources. Taking particular weight on the sources by manticore which assures notability and counteracts the SYNTH argument. "Unfortunately, we can't see any serious democratic movement against the state terrorism in Russia."[12] "the state terrorism in Russia against China"[13] State terrorism in Russia is specifically mentioned in the sources, the article is notable, and Wikipedia does deal with allegations, see for example Bulldogs gang rape allegation and [14] --DarkFalls talk 06:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the consensus was to keep despite what I believe to be compelling arguments to delete this and all "allegations" articles, but the ArbCom is busy with apartheid allegations now, perhaps state terrorism ones will stay or go based on the outcome. Carlossuarez46 03:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The numbers in this case are really overwhelming -- 18 keep, 7 delete. Clearly the arguments that you thought compelling were not compelling to many other editors. The only real argument for deletion offered was WP:SYNTH, and such an application is possible only with a very loose interpretation. Does categorizing certain allegations as "allegations of state genocide" constitute "advancing a position" (which is what WP:SYNTH forbids)? Probably not, since the existence and contents of an allegation are factual issues. Editors having to make reasonable judgment calls is an inevitable process in Wikipedia, and that is not something WP:SYNTH forbids. Perhaps the specifics are somewhat ambiguous -- but that's a reason to let the community decide, and a strong consensus rejected the application of WP:SYNTH. — xDanielxTalk 06:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I clearly explained in the nomination here, AFD is not decided by vote count. Your claim that it should have been is therefore entirely baseless. >Radiant< 08:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did not say that AfD is a vote. I said that overriding an overwhelming 18-7 majority requires a very good reason, and no such reason has been provided. Unless you joined Wikipedia yesterday, which you didn't, surely you must agree that absent exceptional conditions the opinions of representative editors play a significant role in decision making. Sometimes I wish we were still following the 2/3 vote rule, so that we wouldn't have to deal with all these cases of "my argument was better, even though it failed to convince anyone." — xDanielxTalk 09:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Contrary to the nominator's AfD rationale, the article is not "about alleged state terrorism" (which would violate WP:NOR). Rather, it is about allegations of state terrorism. The existence of allegations can be factually verified. The notion that "encyclopedias deal with facts, not allegations" is seriously misguided as it confuses the creation/introduction our own allegations with the reflection of the allegations of others. If the encyclopedia made no mention of allegations, we wouldn't be able to present the US' rationale for invading Iraq in 2003 (after all, the notion that Iraq had WMDs was alleged but never proven). — Black Falcon (Talk) 17:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakly and temporarily endorse closure The article was nominated for deletion very soon after it was created. I am well aware that there have been many such allegations/accusations/etc... over the years. The question of WP:SYNTH is whether there are secondary sources that discuss the allegations. At this time, I consider the question unproven; because nobody stepped up and said "I looked and couldn't find such sources." So I think, as RJ CG said in the discussion, that the topic may have merits but the current state is a problem. If it doesn't shape up and use secondary sources over the next few weeks, bring it to AFD again and kill it then. On the other hand, this and Allegations of Iranian state terrorism do look like they might be the first step along a WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND mess akin to the allegations of apartheid series (but at least this doesn't have the template to link them all together yet). Yuck. How do we prevent this from recurring? GRBerry 21:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as consensual. Consider renaming to remove the word "Allegations". AshbyJnr 18:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Mankiewicz family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

I am going to take the rather unorthodox step of bring a debate that I myself closed to deletion review. When I initially closed this discussion, I closed it as keep, as I felt that the consensus indicated that precedent did not apply to this case. After being approached by the person who initiated the discussion, I checked with a couple of other admins, and I now feel that my decision warrants further review. If less time had passed since my initial action, I would simply revert my closing, but that would probably lead to a DRV eventually, so I'm just going to bring it here directly and hopefully reduce some pain and anguish along the way. --After Midnight 0001 10:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and delete (as nominator) - no arguments presented by keepers that overcame the precedent of dozens of similar previous deletions and the guideline found at WP:OC#Eponymous_categories_for_people. Arguments for keeping are based in the supposed prominence of the family (other families of greater prominence have had their categories deleted and endorsed at DRV), the supposed lack of general consensus about family categories overall (not relevant as it was not asserted in the nomination as a reason to delete), the number of articles in the category (we routinely delete categories with many more articles) and a concern over the supposed loss of data that deleting the category would cause (simply not true as the article Mankiewicz family already contains more data than the category ever can). Otto4711 12:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. When the only other person to agree with the nominator says "weak delete", it's clear there's no particular consensus to delete. Tim! 16:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nonsense. CFD does not have a quorum. >Radiant< 09:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please do not call my argument nonsense, it is not very civil. Tim! 20:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:KETTLE, as usual. Once again you appear to be simply following Otto around in order to disagree with him; that is inappropriate behavior. >Radiant< 08:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is a very crude attempt at a smear on me, bordering on a malicious falsehood. I had been discussing this category with Cgingold (talk · contribs) here [15] and in any event I check DRV every day, so your assertion is without foundation. Even if had been true it would not excuse your aggressive and rude attitude. Tim! 17:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse as a Hollywood family. reasonably consistent with other existing categories. DGG (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per precedent and Otto. --Kbdank71 18:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to say overturn as well, as this would be reasonably consistent with other deleted categories, as explained by Otto. >Radiant< 09:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - WP:OCAT#Eponymous_categories_for_people is fairly loose and flexible on this point. This category, unlike some similar ones, is a decent size in my opinion, and a quick browse through the member articles shows that the relevance/closeness among members is high. The Keep arguments in the CfD seem perfectly valid to me, and absent a very clear policy violation I would go with the 5-1 consensus among the participants. — xDanielx T/C 18:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The referenced OCAT guideline is fairly wishy washy here, and clearly leaves the issue up to informed judgement, for which we follow the usual consensus rules. There was not a consensus to delete in the CFD discussion, and that guideline leaves it up to the discussion. So, no argument from overriding policy to delete, and no reason to consider the close contrary to consensus. Endorse closure GRBerry 22:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse retention Useful category of a common type. There is certainly not a consensus not to have family categories as there are hundreds of them and it is hard to believe that more than a tiny minority of users would be in favour of deleting a category as prominent as say Category:House of Bourbon, which has been attached to many prominent articles for and a half years without attracting a nomination for deletion. Entirely proper closure. AshbyJnr 18:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse As User:Wassermann pointed out in the discussion, the deletions are all the work of the same handful of people, and do not represent a consensus. When it was pointed out to Otto4711 that the guideline he was quoting didn't actually back him up, he simply changed it to say what he wanted it to say! RegRCN 19:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, this clear-cut correct decision. I could have guessed exactly who wouldn't want to accept the decision here. These are the three main deletionists on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, one of them make the nominations, another backs him up, and the third does the deletions. They are an effective team, but they don't represent a community consensus, they only represent their own deletionist convictions. Hawkestone 23:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • List of islands by population density – Deletion endorsed. While this DRV closure is supported by "numbers" as well as strength of argument, it is worth noting that truly remarkable arguments would be necessary in order to "ignore" CSD G5's plain language. This provision has traditionally been interpreted very strictly. – Xoloz 02:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of islands by population density (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article was speedy deleted because of the identity of the user who created it, but I believe it had been edited by multiple users. The article was also currently subject of an AFD which had not generated consensus to delete. JulesH 08:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse, the list was indeed written to push Instantnood's well-known POV (for the pushing of which, incidentally, he's banned). No prejudice against creating a new, neutral list. >Radiant< 09:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by deleting admin. Although there were other contributors, the nature, completeness, and sourcing of the list ultimately hadn't fundamentally changed since Qaka's first string of edits to it. (I do notice now that some content was split to List of island countries by population density, and I've posted the relevant edit history to the talk page of that article for GFDL compliance.) Nevertheless, the way that we deal with contributions from banned users is to revert them and, if there is anything redeeming, reinstate any good edits ourselves. In this case, as Radiant said, there's no prejudice against a new list, provided that it's sourced consistently and reliably; there was, at worst, no consensus on the AfD discussion as to whether the list qualified as indiscriminate. — TKD::Talk 09:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist without the early close. WP:CSD#G5 is really meant for hoax articles, other bad faith articles, and the like. This is a factual article, and I think it certainly at least deserves a proper AfD. We have to keep in mind that WP:N and the like aren't really meant for lists or categories, so I think the issues should be discussed in the AfD with an emphasis on WP:IGNORE. Per WP:DP, lack of sources is a reason for deletion only if sources don't exist or cannot reasonably be found -- this clearly isn't the case, and even if it was it doesn't justify a speedy close. — xDanielxTalk 09:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, G5 is meant for "contributions by a banned user (while they were banned)". Your interpretation is baseless. Also, this is not a good faith article, because the list is obviously one-sided POV pushing. Certainly we can have a list here, but this isn't it. >Radiant< 10:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • My interpretation is based on WP:SENSE, WP:IGNORE, WP:BURO, WP:SNOW, WP:WL, and the like. WP:CSD#G5 exists because there is a correlation between the status of an article's creator and the merits of that article. In cases where that correlation does not prove true, WP:CSD#G5 should be ignored. The rule itself has already been inconclusively challenged; see for example here or here. If the list was not WP:NPOV, then fix it, don't delete it. There's really nothing about island density statistics that inherently violates WP:NPOV. I can't view the list in question, but it doesn't sound like anyone has found the list to be counterfactual, so I don't see much point in starting over. — xDanielxTalk 21:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • See WP:BAN#Enforcement by reverting edits. We revert edits, regardless of merit, from banned users because they are neither authorized nor welcome to make them in the first place. I don't think it's wikilawyering to interpret the banning policy that way; the spirit of that policy is that banned users are absolutely unwelcome here. And, yes, a list that gives only a handful of data points and that highlights only a couple of those through partial assignment of ranks, in my opinion, does correlate with POV pushing. Even if it weren't, it's still at best a dead end because you'd need to find a more complete source anyway. Plus, you couldn't interleave that source to fill in gaps in the existing columns because that would constitute novel synthesis of disparate data sources (with potentially different methodologies). — TKD::Talk 22:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fair enough, though I think the policy, read literally or contextually, is loose enough ("may be removed," etc.) to give us discretion in determining whether the article should be deleted, especially given that there were contributions by others. Hence my relist suggestion. — xDanielxTalk 04:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation as this is certainly a non-trivial intersection (one of the key statistics about an island is how populated it is). But the deleted article didn't look all that useful... it listed 6 islands and only gave the rank of 2 of them. --W.marsh 12:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, edits by banned users are deleted on sight. But allow recreation as useful article. Corvus cornix 17:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wait, what? Isn't population density by its very nature a neutral statistic? Evouga 22:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Statistics can be selectively cited to try to prove a point. In this case, a handful of data points were provided and partially ranked. — TKD::Talk 22:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just wanted to clarify that, although I provided a direct answer to your question, neutrality (or lack thereof) wasn't the reason that the article was deleted; the deletion was done in accordance with the banning policy. (The problems with the content are merely symptomatic of why the user was banned in the first place.) My deletion didn't directly have anything to do with the usual content policies, or with the ongoing AfD (I merely closed the AfD as a speedy delete; I didn't formally judge consensus). — TKD::Talk 03:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse banned means banned, seems clear, if someone else wants to create a new article a speedy deletion is without prejudice to doing that. Carlossuarez46 03:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore Judge the article, not the writer. This is basic encyclopedic information. AshbyJnr 18:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Historical persecution by Christians – Keep closure overturned; relisted. On the basis of this -- and several other controversial closures that have crossed DRV -- I have advised the editor not to close any further XfDs unless they are unanimous keeps, after the full five days have elapsed. – Xoloz 02:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Historical persecution by Christians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article's discussion, which still hadn't reached a consensus, was closed by a nonadministrator. This might be acceptable if the result had been unambiguous WP:DPR#NAC, but it clearly was not. In fact, a careful review of the arguments, suggests the article should have been deleted. The articles on Historical persecution by Muslims and Historical persecution by Jews had been deleted and the arguments voiced there applied equally to this article. The closing editor had also participated in the discussion, finding a consensus for keep according to his own wishes. I would propose the closure be overturned and the article be deleted. Mamalujo 06:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and relist delete, I relisted the AFD after deleting the Historical persecution by Muslims/Jews articles in their respective AFDs. Non-administrators are not supposed to close AFDs that are not unambiguous or controversial per WP:DPR#NAC. The AFD nominator cited the other two AFDs as the reason for this one, and arguments on the keep side were fairly weak. Any close had potential to be controversial given the results of the other AFDs. --Coredesat 07:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to overturn and delete. --Coredesat 09:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn since the closing (non)admin voted. We can't say it is an early closure as the AfD was closed 5 days after its creation, which is normally enough. It seems to me that the result should have been either 'keep' or 'no consensus'. I want this to be closed by someone who hasn't voted. The article seems 'legit' to me (not plagued with OR, etc), and the AFD nomination was weak (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), so I have a vote in my head, which is a 'keep'. Mamalujo, I checked the historical persecution by muslims AFD, and that article wasn't deleted b/c it was 'historical persecution by X', but b/c it had big OR and SYN issued according to the comments there. I did not like the relisting idea. DenizTC 07:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Not an early closure. There was clearly no consensus to delete. 13 keep votes with valid arguments, versus 7 delete arguments, many of which were clearly dubious (e.g. impossible to satisfy NPOV because who is a Christian and who isn't is a matter of opinion, intrinisically OR because different people define the words differently... neither of these is a valid argument, due to the fact that both policies can be satisfied by reporting fairly on what has been published; also much confusion present between "not yet sourced" and "original research"). JulesH 08:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by nominator Deniz, thanks for your contribution. I would suggest that you take a closer look at the article. The U.S. section, for example, is almost entirely OR (editors gleaning their own view of persecution directly from various state constitutions and legislative sites) and where the article is not synthesizing primary sources it typically cites to unreliable ones like this" Rob Sherman Advocacy March 3, 2002. The article was a synthesis of the editors. Not a single source cited in the article deals with the overarching theme. The theme or thread connecting these events is a synthesis done by the editors, not by any source. And this is not the classic spurious argument (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). I'm not simply saying the other articles were deleted and this should be too, rather, that the arguments applied in those article do in fact equally apply here. Primarily, that the article is irredeemable OR, a hodgepodge synthesis of historical events concocted by editors and not by any source. Mamalujo 08:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wasn't talking about this review when I said weak nomination. That AFD nomination is certainly weak and just uses an otherstuffexists argument, as far as I can see. Just like Julesh mentioned there, the 'contemporary' section might be somewhat unnecessary. Imo we might keep the section, even if the title contains the word 'historical', especially if they are continuation of 'historical things'. Also, the issue you mentioned is a reliability of sources issue, not an OR issue. Same statement is supported by another source, which might be not so reliable as well. We can just get new sources, and if they are unsourceable we can just erase the sentence. The article is open to improvement. Deleting the 'contemporary' section may or may not be an improvement.DenizTC 09:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete, deletion debates should be closed by a neutral outsider, not by someone who already expressed an opinion therein. Whether the closer is an admin is irrelevant. Aside from this slightly bureaucratic reason, the (biased) closing did not take into account strength of argument and precedent in the related debates. >Radiant< 08:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse without prejudice to relisting. For all practical purposes Ten Pound Hammer might as well be considered an admin; his RfA failed only by a smidgen and his closures tend to be mostly reasonable and non-controversial. I agree that certain parts of the article are OR, but the argument that classifying X is persecution is, at best, extremely shaky, and was rejected by almost all of the AfD participants. Likewise with the WP:NPOV connection. A clear majority favored keeping the article, and there were no clear policy violations to justify doing otherwise. The standard five day duration was followed properly. I think your concern that the arguments from other AfDs apply is valid, but that concern was voiced in this AfD already, and it seems most editors were not convinced that the similarities were strong enough. At most we might pseudo-merge the three AfDs giving more weight to the Christianity one (having the most specificity), in which case it seems like a no consensus would result. The consensus was a definite keep by a margin of 7-8 voters -- perhaps it was close to the borderline of keep and no consensus, but I can't see a case for closing this as delete. — xDanielxTalk 09:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether he's an admin is irrelevant; the point is that his closing is biased, because he expressed an opinion in this debate. You make the common mistake of confusing "consensus" with "vote count". >Radiant< 10:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please consult a dictionary before criticizing my use of language. "Consensus" does not translate to "the argument Mamalujo fancies most." I didn't say that the AfD process was strictly a vote count, but pretending that voting has little relevance to consensus is just ludicrous. — xDanielxTalk 21:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral comment: people who participate in a discussion should not close them, regardless of whether they are admins or not. And I say this as someone who has a great deal of rspect for Ten Pound Hammer. Corvus cornix 17:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ensorse closure as being the correct call, but hand TPH a bucket of trout for doing so - it's highly improper for someone to close a discussion when they've participated, and it's also pretty improper for a non-admin to close a contentious debate at all. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 17:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist, it was a mistake to close it, in retrospect. I really jumped the gun, and I apologize for my actions -- keep in mind that my closure was just based on my misinterpretation, and confusion of consensus with vote count. And my otters say thanks for the trout. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 18:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No big deal, it happens. I don't know any AFD relisted, probably because I am not so active in AFDs, so my opinion might be contradictory to the consensus (if exists), but let me tell you that in my opinion relisting will make this situation worse, we would be discarding votes of those people. I think this AFD should just be reclosed based on the votes on the AFD page (I did not vote there). If the final decision here turns out to be to 'relist', then one of us should contact all the voters and inform them about the situation. DenizTC 20:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Time for a speedy relist I think. Closing editor has retracted and apologized (the latter which s/he is to me commended for), so we can proceed with an AFD now. It is worth noting, though, that the relisting of this AFD is a little dubious. CaveatLector Talk Contrib 00:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist Another damned that you didn't problem. Carlossuarez46 03:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete Feel no need reopen this .Too much of OR. Harlowraman 16:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The outcome wouldn't have changed anyway. Feel free to relist it but then all "Persecution by..." should be listed together. No point in singling out a specific religion. // Liftarn 11:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Although I am quite unhappy that Persecution by Muslims got deleted and Persecution by Christians did not. From my work on the article I can say that there is a notable debate on Religious Persecution from a Christian perspective and I strongly suspect that there is something similar from a Muslim perspective, with different terminology however. Only the Jews did not need to debate this since they were a minority religion for 2000 years. The article Persecution by Jews really needed to be deleted, but I would have preferred to keep the Persecution by Muslim article. If you want something more to be deleted here, start with the religious persecution template. Zara1709 17:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete Same problems as with Historical persecution by Jews, Historical persecution by Muslims.Proabivouac 08:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse There are no valid arguments to delete this article. It needs more work, but so do many other wikipedia aritcles. If this should get relisted, the two deleted Persecution articles should be relisted too, so that they can also be kept. --Voidocore 14:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse retention There was no consensus to delete, and this is an important topic. AshbyJnr 18:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

13 August 2007[edit]

  • Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/RfC – Deletion endorsed. No evidence given to contradict the consensus at WP:AN/I (which has the authority to delete bizarre out-of-process pages, especially in relation to a topic so frequently under ArbCom enforcement, as all dispute regarding Mr. LaRouche are.) – Xoloz 02:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/RfC (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/RfC|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I am filing this DRV because no one has responded to my objections about deletion. This page was a content RfC relating to the LaRouche articles on Wikipedia. Prior to its creation, conduct RfCs on Mr. Chip Berlet and Mr. Dennis King were filed. They were deleted as abuse of process by User:El C. After I added a section to the content RfC, Mr. Berlet saw it and felt that it transformed the page into an attack. In retrospect, the name and tone of the section was a error on my part, that I truly regret. For that, I formally apologize to Mr. Berlet for any anguish he may have suffered as a result of this mistake. I am requesting that the page be recreated without the disputed part to allow discussion on the improvement of the LaRouche articles to continue.

Respectfully Yours;

Dagomar 00:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC) Dagomar 00:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted, I see no procedural error here, especially given this. --Coredesat 04:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was spawned by one section which can and should be stricken. Barring the success of this review in overturning the deletion, would I then be allowed to reinitiate the RfC? Dagomar 07:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, this appears to be an attack page rather than an actual RFC. Also, objections to deletion should be brought here, to DRV, rather than wherever else you had in mind. >Radiant< 08:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was never meant to be an attack page. As per the undelete policy I have tried to bring this up with the deleting admin. Dagomar 07:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, what I mean is that you should bring the LaRouche pages (that you wish undeleted) up for review here. This meta-page isn't useful. >Radiant< 08:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I wouldn't have a problem with the page being undeleted, so long as it were userfied. If it's delisted, it shouldn't be in any namespace other than your own, and only as a sort of notebook. The Evil Spartan 00:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • myDataBus – Deletion overturned in light of new sources; listed at AfD. – Xoloz 02:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
MyDataBus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This page was deleted as advertising, despite the fact that it was modeled after similar Wikipedia entries for a variety of other free file storing / hosting / service websites:

Since the deletion, I have also found two third-party sources to verify my claims: [16] Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. Ollie990 19:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've also found, possibly [17]. Many of the sites online don't appear to be reliable, or sound spammy enough that it appears that there is some sort of conflict of interest. However, I say overturn and list at AFD (without access to the original page) - was probably not insalvageably spammy, and author should have a chance to give more sources. The Evil Spartan 19:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse contained long lists of features and was primarily sourced from the company's own website. On the other hand two independent sources were linked so an AfD wouldn't be unreasonable (though I would still argue for deletion). Eluchil404 20:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak overturn with no prejudice re: listing at AfD. It's not written in an unsalvageably promotional way, and seems to have some claim to notability with the links to third party reviews. --Ginkgo100talk 21:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, without prejudice to letting an AfD test its notability. It did have a somewhat promotional tone, but I wouldn't classify it as "blatant advertising." The claims were, for the most part, factual. An {{ad}} tag would be more appropriate in my opinion. — xDanielxTalk 22:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong endorse, it was blatant advertising. No prejudice against writing an actual article here, but undeletion is not going to help there. >Radiant< 08:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the myDataBus page is going to remain deleted despite my third party sources, then I would respectfully ask that the advertisement-tinged Wikipedia entries I listed above be considered for deletion as well. I am not asking for favoritism here, just an even playing field. Ollie990 13:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do note that I said "without prejudice". The other advertisements are already under consideration for deletion. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. >Radiant< 14:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Radiant, are you sure you read the article? Why delete a thorough, descriptive article when we can just tone down the somewhat promotional language slightly while preserving the factual content that no one would want to reproduce otherwise? — xDanielxTalk 18:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, we're not supposed to be a web directory. There's a plethora of file hosting services and I fail to see what's so significantly different about them that we should have articles on them all, as opposed to a simple list in a main article. >Radiant< 09:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know whether it's notable, but a large number Google hits and a very decent Alexa ranking of around 5,000 I think it's worthy of further investigation. — xDanielx T/C 18:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. G11 says "Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." There was actually legitimate data in this article, and deleting the ad-like sections would have been a more suitable course of action. ugen64 09:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse/Userfy as is often the case, after deletion more information is posited for keeping - restore to author's user space so s/he can get it ready for prime time and then move it to mainspace, it doesn't belong there in its most recent condition. Carlossuarez46 22:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • List of people known as father or mother of something – This is one of those discussions where the actual consensus is quite broad, contrary to what a reading of the "bold-facing" might suggest. Everyone agrees that some form of this article could exist; most folks agree that the deleted draft was non-optimal, and there is wide support for rewriting, splitting, and/or renaming the content. Essentially, the area of dispute is narrow: if the deletion is endorsed, the content will be userfied for folks to reconfigure; if it's overturned, the content will be restored to the mainspace for folks to reconfigure. In the long-term, this is a minor issue, and one fit for numbers to decide. A majority would like to see the content back in the mainspace, so it is restored, with the caveat that the over-riding consensus at this DRV is that the content must be "fixed" in order to remain in the long run. Should the content remain unchanged in a month, another AfD would probably gain wide support. – Xoloz 03:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of people known as father or mother of something (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

14 keeps / 11 deletes; and closed as “delete”? (what math am I missing here?). This page was a very core article in the science articles. This was one of the most ridiculous vfd’s I have seen. I will bring this issue to the science talk pages to get concerned editors involved. Sadi Carnot 16:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. I have no opinion on the article in question, but the closing admin's explanation for his close as he did is quite well reasoned. AfD is not a vote, so 14-11 is meaningless if the keep !votes don't provide adequate reasoning. And note that User:Sadi Carnot is canvassing for votes at WP:AN. Corvus cornix 16:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (to Corvus): I posted to interested parties, namely the various science projects: Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Science, Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry, Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics, Wikipedia:WikiProject Science and two science admins. For those of us who read science books at a great rate, there are full chapters and sections written on who is the father or mother of something, e.g. Hippocrates “father of medicine”, Lavoisier “father of chemistry”, Claude Shannon “father of information theory”. I wasn’t a main editor on this article, but can’t believe it was even considered for deletion (a vote that I didn’t know about). Science editors are going to be the ones who know the importance of these terms and this article. Simply because the article didn't have enough references is no reason to close as delete. --Sadi Carnot 17:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree here, with a point that science editors should have kept the other stuff out, and moved it to a more tightly focused title. This title was always going to get out of control. About the canvassing, you have been saying "please help us restore". If you are going to leave notes like that, it is best to be objective. Carcharoth 17:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree about being objective, and tight focus, etc., but similar to ragesoss, I can’t even believe this is happening. Someone sneaks an historical article vfd through the nets because an article lacks a few references? --Sadi Carnot 17:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I also didn't notice this until it was deleted, and in a moment of weakness and outrage at the interpretation of the discussion, I tried to unilaterally undelete this out of process. Needless to say, process won out. There's a difference between weighing the force of difference arguments and simply choosing the one argument a closing admin thinks is the best; the latter is what happened here, and I don't think any close but "no consensus" would be legitimate. Furthermore, I find Carcharoth's argument (which the closing admin relied on) to be a twisting of policy. This page was not original research.--ragesoss 16:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My distinction, which I should have made clearer, was that you will easily find tightly focused lists of "Father of Topic X", but you will rarely (if ever) find a published, reputable list that attempts to lump all the lists together. My comment, if I'd paid attention, would probably have become a split into more tightly-focused lists. But I lost track of that debate and when I returned, it had been closed. I will gladly help build up a science and technology list. Carcharoth 17:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that refocusing and/or splitting the list would improve it.--ragesoss 21:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Closing admin correctly interpreted the strength of the arguments and not just the number of the arguments. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is a difficult one. While the sheer numbers say keep, the arguments are largely both the same as one another and specious. I recall looking over this at the time and being very unsure. The delete arguments are generally more convincing, and numbers aren't the be-all and end-all of consensus. SamBC(talk) 16:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll endorse this. The AFD is a discussion, and not voting. When I close an AFD, I will sometimes discount, or assign less weight to certain arguments. Navou banter 16:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. A reasonable statement explaining the close was given in the AFD. Friday (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Limited overturn - I commented on the original AfD, and I see my comment may have influenced the close. I've now been reviewing the original AfD, and the arguments pointing at List of premature obituaries and List of HIV-positive people as good examples of featured lists have convinced me that some form of list for science and technology pioneers and inventors is needed. This list would be a good start, though I still think some better criteria than "father of" could be found. Suggest restoring a copy of the article(s) to a subpage at a suitable WikiProject (such as Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Science), to allow a science-based list to be extracted from this. This will make more sense than lumping together things such as baby carrot, grunge, microcarrot, wargaming, the American political cartoon, and the other similar entries. If it would be easier, overturn, restore, edit out the non-science and non-technology ones (putting them on a new list somewhere on a talk page), and move to a better title (eg. List of science and technology pioneers). Would you believe, in the time it took me to write this, six other people got in first? :-) Carcharoth 17:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from deleting admin. Cited sources have to actually be about the claim being made. That has always been the problem with this list--it uses sources to point to a turn of phrase, not an idea. I have no objection to Carcharoth's compromise as long as whatever claim the list makes is actually backed up by the sources. I have said many times that I am happy to provide the content to anyone interested in starting over with a different methodology, and I'm sure any other admin would as well. Chick Bowen 17:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you clarify what you mean here by 'turn of phrase' and 'idea', with an actual example? Carcharoth 17:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • A good example of a bad source in this list would be this article, which does not actually claim that Atanassoff would better be given the title of "father of computer" than any of the various other people, but merely uses the phrase in eulogizing him. One thing that would greatly help is to organize the list by topic, not by name. Chick Bowen 17:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: (about sources and prominence of parentage) note the opening paragraph of chemistry as well as two sections in Talk:Chemistry to see that “parentage” is a major issue in science. This is one of many examples to justify a central page on “fathers” or “mothers” of something. As to sources, I am always willing to add references (10-40 in some cases) to someone who questions the validity of a science article and will gladly add at least 10 to this one. --Sadi Carnot 17:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • AFD is not a vote, so the numbers are of limited significance. They are not irrelevant, because the weight of agreement is relevant to consensus. But there are policy based arguments that would override any contrary consensus (the canonical example is a copyright violation). The closer didn't do a great job of articulating what policy based reason for deletion he was citing. However, one overriding policy is WP:NOR. In the years of this article's existence, and the 221 different footnotes, we see, as far as I can tell, zero secondary sources about being the father/mother of something (rather than primary sources that use the phrase in describing their topic). This is the argument that Carcharoth made and that the closing admin closed on. In other words, the deletion was based on an argument from overriding policy. So we endorse deletion. Absent such secondary sources, any article made from a subset of this list would also violate WP:NOR. So it should not be userfied until and unless such secondary sources are found for a topical area. GRBerry 17:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly, I haven’t seen this article in a few months, so I can’t remember what the references looked like (and I barely edited it, but a few times); but the fact that we’re even have a “references needed” discussion for an obvious topic of historical value clarifies that this entire deletion discussion is a misuse of Wikipedia redtape (i.e. deleting per WP:NOR or no references, or whatever, etc.). --Sadi Carnot 17:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, you won't have to look far to find lots of science and technology "father and mother of" lists. That has been done before. And actually, most good sources will mention why xyz is considered father/mother of in the same breath as stating it. It is the why that needs to be sourced here, not the is. What doesn't need to be sourced is a general discussion of the concept of father/mother - that would be for a different article altogether (something like History of the father/mother trope). Carcharoth 17:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong overturn: O.K. I just looked at the cached-version (which I hadn't seen) of the article and there are 221 references and the closing comment was “list as it stands is essentially original research”? Are you kidding me? These terms are common trivia questions (basic human knowledge); there’s hardly anything original about this. How can an article with over 200 (different) references be deleted as original research? We need to overturn this article deletion. --Sadi Carnot 17:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion. While good arguments for deletion in the debate, it is absolutely clear that there is no consensus for deletion from this discussion. I agree with others that this article does need attention and I like some of the suggestions for renaming it. -MrFizyx 18:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn — did I miss where we started deleting potentially good articles instead of just fixing them? Several solutions were presented and ignored in the original AfD, such as sorting by topic (alphabetizing makes no sense whatsoever for this kind of list) and paring down entries with stronger inclusion criteria (which would presumably include there being more than one random source calling someone the father of something but rather a sourced good reason for the name). It seems like the latter directly addresses the closing admin's concern. — Laura Scudder ☎ 18:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Endorse Deletion - Sweet Jesus on a Pogo Stick, how many times is this oddball article going to keep coming back from the dead? I called for a post-deletion redirect to be deleted, then an admin arbitrarily recreates the page. There is nothing that ties this disparate list of people together other than the broad synthesis of sources that use similar terminology to describe a notable person in a field of study. Not that that's really relevant, as deletion review is not AfD Part II. That the nominator does not like the AfD result is not a reason to overturn an article deletion. The AfD closer judges the weight of the argument and considers the applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines; it is not a vote. Tarc 18:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion. I thank Sadi for pointing me towards this discussion. I find it outrageous that the vote was interpreted as delete. I always was under the assumption that when a few editors were in favor of keep then it was to be keep. A vote of 10 keep and 90 delete in my mind is still keep. This allows 10 enthusiastic science editors to defend a science article against 90 Startrek/Harry Potter/manchester United fans. I find this proceeding very disturbing and I will take action against the administrators in question. I find the list extremely intriguing and an excellent starting point for exploring wikipedia, in that sense lists like this one has a status similar to that of portals (or are we going to mass-delete portals next? portals are not very encyclopedic....) V8rik 20:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your view of Wikipedia consensus is quite out-of-line with standard practice...the numbers are secondary to the arguments presented and admins are given a few degrees of freedom to interpret arguments and weigh policy considerations. The rest of your comment is just a muddled pile of logical fallacies. And how, pray tell, will you "take action" against the closing admin? — Scientizzle 20:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, we have admins arguing among themselves over this and at the same time admins are of course infallable. Wiki is in much more trouble than I thought. V8rik 20:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse Had I voted in the AfD I would have recommended deletion based on a rationale similar to the closing admin's comments (the list is a catalogue of individuals that have nothing in common other than some source that claims that said individual was a founder of anything). I don't like the canvassing, and the out-of-process restoration wasn't good, either...That said, I'm classifying my endorsement as "weak" because "no consensus" would have been an understadable close. Plus, I think there's a tiny chance that some of the suggestions in the AfD & this DRV might address the major concerns raised in the deltion discussion. — Scientizzle 20:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I did some searching, and this Google Scholar search for "father of" and "science", brought up some interesting results. I still think that if this is restricted to science and technology, there is potentially a very good article here. Carcharoth 21:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this should be restored as it should have been closed as "No consensus". I also suggest that it be renamed and focus on science and technology. However I do not agree with the comment "This page was a very core article in the science articles". It is just a list of rather unrelated items. The key use of "father of X" should be on the article on "X" and even there it is overdone in some cases. "Founder" is a much better term. --Bduke 22:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment although WP is not a court of law, process seems to be trumping what's right, so a good wikilawyer would point out that the only reason to overturn cited was the vote outcome and since AFD is not a vote, the review is procedurally flawed. But I'm not a wikilawyer, and it looks like this article will be resurrected despite it being an unmaintainable mess: so many people have been called the father or mother of something by so many people that many things have more mothers and fathers than would be biologically possible for living organisms. It's very little different than a "bests" list - best beaches, best flavors of ice cream, best left-handed tiddlywinks players from Springfield.... As we're counting score here: Process N+1, Results 0. Carlossuarez46 23:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion. The closing admin made a bad call. There was no consensus in the AfD discussion, which is why he had to justify his "delete" decision at such length. I quite agree with the admin who restored, whether it were "in Process" or not—as the discussion was closed on the basis of admin discretion (a concept I heartily agree with), it can also be reopened on that basis. As such, I also support Carcharoth's suggestion that it be restored immediately onto a WikiProject subpage so that it might be edited in line with the suggestions which have been made. Physchim62 (talk) 01:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn While AFD is not a vote, there was no consensus. Both sides presented many arguments, both strong and weak. For this to be a "delete", more than half of the "keep" opinions would have had to be entirely discounted. That should only be done if the comments are by SPAs/sockpuppets/meatpuppets or the comments are totally out of line with policy/guideline. None of that was the case here. However, the article needs lots of work. It needs a better name and stricter inclusion criteria. I would suggest that only people referred to as "father" or "mother" by multiple sources independent of eachother and the person or by a major scientific journal be included. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 04:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - With due respect to Chick Bowen, I think his preferencing of arguments was somewhat arbitrary and out of place. The WP:NOR-based justification for deletion was, at best, very fuzzy and contentious, and so should have been left to the community instead of the closing admin. Editors have to evaluate whether a certain source is sufficient to deem X the father/mother of Y based on the credibility of the source and the strength of the claim. "Drexler is the father of nanotechnology because of his significant contributions" is debatable since figures like Feynman made significant and pertinent advancements before him. "Derrida is the father of deconstruction" is much more agreeable since he coined the term and is obviously most heavily associated with it. There are various criteria to consider - did the person coin the term used to describe the field? how significant were their contributions relative to others? did the person's contributions predate other significant contributions? It inevitably requires some editorial judgment, but that's not so much original research as simple judgment of well-sourced facts, and we can't really get around having to think for ourselves when editing. Editorial discretion can be minimized by establishing clear criteria on the talk page. At the very least, it's a very questionable NOR violation and thus not good grounds for overriding consensus. — xDanielxTalk 08:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, AFD is not a vote count. "People who have been called <something> by anyone at all in the media" is not an encyclopedic topic; WP:SYNTH. >Radiant< 08:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Obviously the criteria would be stricter this time round, with the title changed to focus on scientists and inventors. And not just any old newspaper or website, but a reputable biography, obituary, journal, or (best) a book on the history of science. If such lists are not allowed, then WP:LIST and WP:TRIVIA need to be revised, as both talk about Wikipedia editors using such criteria to keep out trivial stuff, while also using such criteria to produce a focused list (be it a whole article or a subsection of an article). Carcharoth 09:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. There was no consensus to delete, and the problems with the article can be fixed by editing, renaming, or splitting, not deleting. --Itub 09:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - closing admin is completely correct in the reasoning for the close. Policy concerns raised by those in favor of deletion were not adequately addressed by the keepers and the arguments raised on both sides were properly addressed in the closing statement. As has been noted, AFD is not a vote so the fact that keep had a numerical majority is not enough to save the article. Otto4711 12:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consensus can change, and articles can be rewritten and improved. Also, AfD and DRV are not about deletion per se (or about 'saving' articles), but are about whether an article is salvageable, and whether any new information has come to light. Undeletion and userfication, or in this case restoring to a group of users, would precede such rewriting. I belive this addresses all your concerns. Carcharoth 13:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • While consensus certainly can change, I do not believe that it did change in the course of this AFD or in the few weeks between the improper failure to delete this article and this DRV. The article is not salvageable because there is no way that it will ever be restricted to "only times that someone really important calls somebody the father of something" and no new information has come to light. I believe this answers your attempt to address my concerns by illustrating that you did not in fact allay them. Otto4711 14:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I forgot to mention that the article would be renamed. I agree that "father of" is not workable, but I do think that the information carefully placed on this list could be migrated to the various timeline articles. DRV is not just about restoring article de novo, it is also about retrieving information that can be used elsewhere. Carcharoth 15:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Why would a science-related list be any better than one that includes fathers of jazz or traffic systems? Isn't this just creating a more-focused synthesis? The point of a list is to group together things that have a quality in common. The commonality of this list is extremely tenuous, turning on a common phraseology, not to mention that being "first" in a field of study doesn't necessarily mean that that person is more noteworthy than their successors. Deleting this list doesn't lessen the significance of Albert Einstein's or Dmitri Mendeleev's contributions. But seeing their names side-by-side does not increase a reader's understanding of either man's contributions to their respective fields. Again, being "first" is not rally a defining characteristic, and the judgment by the AfD closer that the association amongst them was loose and common is a sound one. Tarc 12:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In science, priority (being the first to discover something) is most definitely a defining characteristic. Have a look at Timeline of scientific experiments and Timeline of scientific discoveries. I now admit that "father of" is probably not workable, but the argument here is that there are a lot of potentially useful sources and references that could be examined and moved to a different location. That is not an unreasonable request. Carcharoth 15:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Carcharoth believes that there are secondary sources for a science focused list. If there are such sources, then an article/list constructed using them would not suffer the WP:NOR/WP:SYN problem that the unbounded list had. The same would be true for any other topic where there are secondary sources. GRBerry 12:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The best I've been able to find is this - called Pioneers in Science Set - "176–208 pages. This unique 8-volume collection profiles the people behind the science. Each volume consists of 10 biographical sketches of pioneers in a particular scientific discipline, including information about their childhood, how they began their scientific career, their research, and enough scientific information for the reader to appreciate their discoveries and contributions....". Finding actual "lists of "father of" people" has been a bit harder, as reputable sources don't really do that sort of list. Maybe we could do something like Pioneers in science and technology in some sort of timeline form? A bit like Timeline of aviation and the more readable subsections, such as Timeline of aviation - 19th century. We do already have Category:Technology timelines, with such timelines as Timeline of invention - plenty of the "father of" people are listed at such timelines. For science, there is Category:Science timelines, which has things like Timeline of scientific experiments, and Timeline of scientific discoveries. These are all more informative than a "father of" list, so I'm now thinking that restoration should only be to retrieve the references and to move them to the relevant timelines. It takes time to work out what needs to be done with some material, which is why I find drive-by AfD and DRV voting so annoying. Discussion really can lead to new ideas and possibly a better way forward. Carcharoth 13:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. There was no consensus to delete the article. The OR/synthesis argument is a weak one, in my view. What original position was advanced in the article? What is the synthesis here? There is none. I think a good argument revolving around WP:NOT#DIR was made, but even that was challenged (perhaps best by Haemo: "the concept of being the 'father/mother of something' is a noteworthy one, and an important attribute of a number of historical figures"). — Black Falcon (Talk) 17:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion major Deja Vu. Keep !votes weren't policy-based or, IMO, convincing. Admin discretion seemed reasonable. Perhaps add a comment for "allow the possiblity of a better article in the future?" Bulldog123 18:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-naming/splitting suggestion The consensus seems to be overturn (11 votes) [vs. endorse (6 votes)]; thus a naming suggestion: if the article were to be split, I might suggest:

In this manner, we could separate undisputed classics (such as Hippocrates “father of medicine”) with unrelated, comparatively trivial names (such as Frank W. Cyr “father of yellow school bus”). Moreover, many subjects in science have more than one un-disputed “father or founder”, see (Google search results for): father of scientific method, which lists: Aristotle, Galileo, Descartes, or the less likely candidate Alhazen (currently listed in the article). To solve this, we could put the subject in the left column, e.g. chemistry, and list the founder/father in the middle column, e.g. Lavoisier, Boyle, Dalton, Jabir Ibn Haiyan. Similarly, as mentioned above modern chemical thermodynamics has three founders. In this manner, the reader can see and compare the people and references side-by-side. The way the current article is, we have two or more listings for “father of chemistry”, “father of scientific method”, etc., but the reader doesn’t know this unless he or she plays the game memory with the list. --Sadi Carnot 22:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Opinion summary: User:ragesoss, <c>User:Carcharoth</c>, User:Bduke, and User:Itub like the splitting idea; User:Chick Bowen and User:Laura Scudder agree that it should be organized by topic; User:MrFizyx likes the renaming suggestion; and User: Physchim62 suggests that it be reopened into a Wikiproject subpage to begin working on some of these proposals. --Sadi Carnot 23:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you mind removing me from the list supporting the split you have proposed? I would support the information being used in a heavily annotated paragraph-style list-article, such as Pioneers in science and technology, but not a table-list under an unwieldy title such as you are proposing. People named as founder, father, or mother of something (science) is far too long a title to be readily comprehensible, and the 'miscellaneous' one is bad as I don't think miscellaneous should be used as a qualifier in Wikipedia article (or list) titles. My favoured solution is still to restore the information somewhere outside of article space, and to work to move the references to a timeline article where the "father of" references would be very useful. See Timeline of invention, Timeline of scientific experiments, and Timeline of scientific discoveries. Maybe a case could be made for Timeline of science disciplines? That could show when each discipline is thought to have emerged, and would be a natural home for "father of" references. Carcharoth 14:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • O.K. user:Carcharoth wants to move all the information to timelines. There’s already plenty of science/technology pioneers timelines. I’ve worked on or completely written several timelines, timeline of chemistry, history of quantum mechanics, history of thermodynamics, timeline of thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, and random processes and merging this “father-mother” list to random timelines isn’t going to help anything. There’s a big difference between being called the “father of something” vs. being a component in a timeline as a pioneer. My consensus, aside from your view, is that most editors want to re-open the article, but have it cleaned of trivial views and such. As for the name, my suggestions may not be perfect (we might just as well keep it the same name) but your suggestions are basically names to merge the list into some kind of history article (but this has already been done). --Sadi Carnot 17:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I think Timeline of science disciplines would accomodate the same material, and would be more informative than a rather pedantic "father of" list. The "father of" list loses the vital context of dates, which a timeline would provide. The basic idea would be to give approximate dates, with sources, for when the different science disciplines began to emerge. The extra context and discussion (from secondary sources) of what "father of" means in different cases, would tell the reader far more than a simple list ever would. Carcharoth 00:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note to register my strong opposition to both the assumption that keep and split is going to be accepted and to the proposed new articles, which would suffer from all of the same problems as the original. Otto4711 19:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can you say that when you haven't seen the new articles? There is a presumption at DRV that useful content can be restored to user space for editors to work on and to improve. There are numerous admins who make quite clear that they will undelete and userfy material if someone requests it in good faith, and that a formal DRV is not required for this. No amount of opposition will change that. I agree with you that the current format is not viable, but where I disagree with you is the idea that "delete at all costs" is the correct solution. There is useful content there (mainly the references) that could enhance other articles. Carcharoth 00:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn view and organise by topic splitting if appropriate. The page is interesting, encyclopedic and mostly sourced. I don't see a clear consensus for deletion. This is an instance where we fix and improve rather than dump. Bridgeplayer 00:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I think Otto put it best. AfD is not a vote, and the issues with synthesis have not been addressed, specifically compiling many dozen passing mentions of a term into a single set of information. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 13:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - AfD is not a vote, and neither is DRV. It seems awfully presumptuous to plan this as if the DRV is going to result in a overturn because of a tally. Tarc 19:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - Consensus was not followed, and the closing administrator's logic was not convincing enough to outweigh consensus. AFD is not a vote, but we say that to avoid meatpuppetry and people with bad policy arguments. But the policy arguments were sound. WP:LIST also allows this to exist. The Evil Spartan 00:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The closing admin did a very poor job of evaluating the arguments, if he was going to use his discretion to judge what arguments were policy based. Essentially every one of them was some version of THISSOUNDSSILLYTOME. I would have thought so too, if I had not looked at the actual contents of the article. We're judging the subject, not the title. the reason for not judging on this basis is of course, that everything on WP sounds silly to some of us, and we build the encyclopedia by accommodating us all. This was not a time to judge in the disregard of consensus. All encyclopedia articles are the collection of selected material, and sometimes it takes a knowledgable person to do the collecting. The majority of those at the Afd understood this. the closer did not. He judged by what arguments appealed to him, and said as much, DGG (talk) 07:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Susan Chesler – Overturned by Ugen64 – Chaser - T 03:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Susan Chesler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Improper speedy deletion. This was deleted in February as a PROD. It was recreated by original creator with substantionally the same content on August 12, which seems to me to be the same as contesting the PROD after closure. It was then tagged as "db-bio". I removed the tag and explained my reasoning to the tagger. The tagger retagged it and it was deleted as an A7. The claim that the subject is a voice actress in a nationally televised animated show is an assertion of notability. This should be kept or go to AfD. Dsmdgold 14:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn if there was, indeed, a claim that the subject is a voice actress in a 'major' TV show (unless it was a one-off), then A7 was not valid. SamBC(talk) 16:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The entire content of the article was "Susan Chesler is an American voice actress. She is most known for her role as Cassidy in W.I.T.C.H.. {{stub}}". Yep, it has an assertion of notability. No, it isn't worth the time to discuss much. Overturn and ignore. GRBerry 17:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and probably send to AfD. There is no point in putting back a speedy after a good faith removal--it should have been sent to afd directly, it there is anything like a reasonable argument. DGG (talk) 20:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the speedy deletion due to claim to notability. --Ginkgo100talk 21:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn send straight to afd, the assertion of notability is on the weak side but that can be hashed out at afd. Carlossuarez46 23:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn This asserted importance. Get it right or get used to getting overturned. --W.marsh 00:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn without prejudice to listing on AfD - I'm convinced by Dsmdgold's summary of events that the speedy deletion was improper. — xDanielxTalk 08:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jocelyne Couture-Nowak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|DRV1|AfD2|DRV2|AfD3|AfD4)

Admin showed poor judgment. If one strikes WP:ATA arguments from both sides (especially WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:NOTAGAIN, etc), there are still twice as many opinions advocating either delete or redirect. Further, admin's treatment was superficial; admin asserts admin does "not think a discussion of individual arguments is worth the time," an attitude that resulted in a superficial treatment of the discussion; on numbers, not merits. Process was not followed. Pablosecca 07:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It probably should, for the sake of clarity, be observed that it is the closure of this article's fourth AfD that is at issue here. That AfD, FWIW, provides a decent recaptiulation of the procedural history of the article. Joe 07:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse closure, while the nominator is right about most of the keep arguments having little weight, a "redirect" outcome in an AFD does not result in deletion of the page history, which sort of makes it like a "keep" outcome. If the arguments to delete are just as strong as those to redirect, there is no consensus. If all else fails, propose a merge instead. --Coredesat 08:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I must respectfully say it's ludicrous to suggest that redirect/merge and delete are materially different. I think everyone who advocates delete here would have no problem with her name leading to the VTech victims page; it's the unnecessary article that is opposed. To have this fail on the basis you describe would be falling victim to a hopeless semantics game. Pablosecca 14:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The important difference merge and delete is the if content from one article is merged into another, the GFDL requires that edit history of the merged content be kept. Deleting an article also deletes its edit history. "Merge and delete" cannot be done together. Dsmdgold 15:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as closing admin; I'll refer to my closing rationale and to my discussion with Pablosecca for the reason why. My treatment of the matter was not superficial. My statement that a discussion of individual arguments is not worth the time referred to the fact that entering into a post-AfD dispute about whether each and every one of the several dozen arguments ought to have been dismissed or not would have been a massive waste of time. Sandstein 09:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure - The closing admin didn't just "count" and weighed and valued the arguments thoroughly. --Oakshade 15:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure I don't see an argument for deletion from overriding policy, either myself, made in AFD4, or made in the nomination here. Without such an argument, the issue is whether there is a consensus for deletion or not. To avoid the problem of asking the other parent, recent prior discussions have to be evaluated in determining consensus. Looking at this, plus the history, makes it clear that there is not a consensus for deletion, either in AFD4 on its own or on AFD4+AFD3 or on ... nope, no consensus for deletion exists. GRBerry 17:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse A reasonable close. There simply is no consensus. (And the press coverage continues, so I think there will be less and less reason to try to delete it in the future). DGG (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - 13 keep/14 delete pretty clearly means no consensus. WP:ATA is not a policy, and I think several parts of the essay are poorly reasoned. In any case, I think a neutral reader would disagree with Pablosecca on which arguments fell under arguments to avoid. By the numbers, there was no consensus. By the arguments, Sandstein was the third consecutive closer to conclude that there was no trump card. I would give more weight to the numbers than to the closer's analysis in this case absent a clear policy violation, but either way I think it's a fair no consensus closure. — xDanielxTalk 08:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. As this AfD showed, and as the ones before it showed, there is no consensus on the matter. Monthly/bi-monthly renominations are not likely to change that. — Black Falcon (Talk) 17:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Kenneth Wapnick – Deletion endorsed. This result is without prejudice to a reliably-sourced article, or a mention of the gentleman elsewhere as appropriate, again employing sources. As the deleted article stood, there was little useful sourced content. Opinions of SPAs below discounted, per deletion policy. – Xoloz 02:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Kenneth Wapnick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Original nominator permanently banned for disruptive Afd activities Scott P. 01:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn deletion- Relist article (New information that was not discussed in the original Afd is brought to light below.) This nomination for deletion was first made by one former user Ste4k who was subsequently permanently banned from Wiki for his divisive and disruptive behavior regarding the group of articles related to ACIM. This user made nominations for deletion for nearly every ACIM related article in the summer of 2006, intentionally using only partial and misleading logic in his nominations. He also attempted to have the main ACIM article essentially deleted by creating a rival POV fork article, and by placing numerous derogatory templates on the main ACIM article. By the time that his behavior pattern had become apparent to all, much damage had already been done, one of the casualties of his behavior being the deletion of the Kenneth Wapnick article.
A few points of notability that were not even touched on in the Afd discussion were:
  1. The fact that Dr. Wapnick is the author of over 130 books.
  2. A Google search for "Kenneth Wapnick" brings up 32,900 links. Apparently the rest of the Internet community feels he is notable enough to write extensively about.
  3. The fact that Dr. Wapnick is one of the three primary editors of ACIM (a book that has sold over 1.5 million copies and a book that is considered by many to be a spiritual classic.) While Afd discussion contributor Andrew Parodi noted this, this fact was seen as "non-notable" for some unstated reason by the other Afd contributors.
These three facts alone seem to me to warrant the inclusion in Wikipedia of an article on Dr. Wapnick. It appears to me that user Ste4k may have intentionally omitted these three facts from his nomination, and that subsequent contributors to the Afd discussion may have not been thorough enough in their review of the Afd discussion to have uncovered these very notable and relevant facts. Unfortunately, some of the regular contributors to the ACIM article group were not brought into or made aware of this Afd until it was too late.
While the old article may need some work to bring it up to the newer, stricter standards of documentation for Wikipedia articles that seemed to evolve in the summer of 2006, but I don't feel that the need for improvement in documentation should have been suitable reason to have the article deleted at the request of the now banned Ste4k. I would very much appreciate it if you could please either reinstate this article or at least give a good reason why the author of 130 books, who pulls 32,000 Google hits, and the editor of a significant spiritual classic is viewed as 'unnotable' by Wikipedia standards.
-Scott P. 01:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion- I think it goes without saying that there should be a page about him. On the A Course In Miracles page there is a reference to ACIM being the most obvious choice for a single volume book for the New Age movement. Many people consider Ken Wapnick the most important ACIM teacher. The book Disappearance of the Universe shot to #2 on Amazon.com's sales list, and this book lists Wapnick as ACIM's most important teacher, predicting that he will be an important figure in world history. That has yet to be seen, but what has been seen is that ACIM is an important spiritual movement (hence the encyclopedia article), and Ken is perhaps THE most important teacher in the movement. Additionally, Ken was one of the central figures in the court case that resulted in the overturning of an early manuscript of A Course In Miracles. People of much less note have been given Wikipedia articles. Lastly, I think it should be remembered that the Wapnick article was deleted in a deletion frenzy of all ACIM-related articles. That frenzy was led by an editor who has since been discovered to have had a great anti-ACIM bias. -- Andrew Parodi 19:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC) Copied from original discussion location with consent of original poster. -Scott P. 02:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and speedy close-, proper close, and the indefinite blocking (which is not a ban) of an AFD nominator has no bearing on the validity of any deletion debates they started. --Coredesat 02:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cordesat, could you please address these points of his prolific authorship, his major involvement in what many third parties consider to be a spiritual classic, and the presence of thousands of other articles on the net about him? Why do you feel that these factors are unnotable? -Scott P. 02:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First of all, it should also be noted that Ste4k was not blocked for disrupting AFDs; she was blocked for exhausting community patience, meatpuppetry, and incivility stemming from various topics, not just ACIM. Regarding your question, the closing admin of the AFD found that Ste4k's concerns were valid. If you can prove any of your claims, do so, but this is not AFD Round 2, which this nomination basically amounts to. --Coredesat 02:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Documentation as requested
  1. Wapnick's prolific authorship: See Amazon.com's listing of his books.
  2. Google hits on Kenneth Wapnick: See Google search results.
  3. Wapnicks major involvement with what many third parties consider to be a spiritual classic: Please read the Wikipedia article on ACIM.
Also, as I was the originator of that article, it only seems right that I should have at least been notified that an Afd discussion was going on regarding that article. None of the regular editors of that article were notified of the Afd, or given any chance to participate in that Afd. As none of us were consulted as is normally the Wiki practice, it seems to me that this becomes a proper forum to discuss the opposing views whose proponents were not informed of the Afd, and thereby who were not permitted to be heard in the original Afd.
Thanks,
-Scott P. 03:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any evidence that anything was done properly in the AFD; the article was tagged appropriately. It is good faith to notify the creator of an article of an AFD, but it's not required. I'm still endorsing the original deletion; there's nothing to stop you from just creating a new article from reliable sources. By the way, other Wikipedia articles don't work as sources. --Coredesat 05:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for retracting your position on "speedy close". True, we could just start another article, however without a clear-cut outcome from a review here, would it not tempt anyone who might want to follow Ste4k's footsteps (perhaps one of Ste4k's meat-puppets who might still be around) to use the first Afd nomination discussion as convincing proof that a speedy article deletion was in order in a second Afd nomination? Which takes precedence here? Is it the actual noteworthiness of Dr. Kenneth Wapnick or is it Wikipedia protocols?
Would you have an article on a notable subject squelched or jeopardized simply because you may feel that someone who is now banned, may have been a better manipulator of Wiki protocols than the rest of us for a time, (that is until he was finally stopped) or is it because you actually feel that the facts regarding Wapnick are genuinely unnoteworthy? After reviewing the documentation that you asked for, and that I feel supports the noteworthiness of Wapnick, how noteworthy (or unnoteworthy) do you actually feel the subject of Kenneth Wapnick is now?
I apologize for not fully understanding the difference between Overturn and Relist. I have since changed my vote to Relist as I feel that this is more appropriate in light of the discussion of the previously undiscussed points of information regarding Wapnick.
Thanks,
-Scott P. 10:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Overturn deletion- Scott's arguments are rather persuasive.... if 130 books does not make one notable or worthy of a Wikipedia article, nor being one of the co-editors of the one of the best selling spiritual books of the 20th century... then something is seriously wrong with Wikipedia. Sethie 03:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Those "books" are published by "Foundation for a Course in Miracles", making them all self-published. Corvus cornix 16:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still do not see you providing any comprehensive rationale for censoring out an article on a primary editor of a book which has sold 1.5 million +, and which has been published by Penguin Press and others, or your rationale for censoring out an article on someone who already has over 30,000 sites with information on him (per Google). Why should Wikipedia be silent on this man when there is a clear and obvious thirst for information about him as evidenced by the thousands of Google links to his name? Is it Wikipedia's aim to be a withholder of easily accessed encyclopedic information that is frequently sought on the Internet, or a provider of it? -Scott P. 21:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion discussions on the merits of the article's notability are not about "censorship", and I will kindly ask you to retract that bad faith accusation. And please address the self-publishing of the books. Corvus cornix 22:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The dictionary defines censorship as the removal of information based on "moral, political, military, or other grounds". In my view, I can see no other reason for refusing to include an article in Wikipedia on one of the primary editors of what others have described as one of the "spiritual classics of the 21st century," other than for reasons other than merit. I felt that user Ste4k was banned because he acted in bad faith, attempting to essentially censor out all information about ACIM from Wiki, and I remain uncertain as to where the line between his clearly censorious activities ends and where common sense begins. Regarding the publishing of most of Wapnick's books (except for the most important one, ACIM) exclusively by the FIP, while I will admit that this might in some way detract from the impact of this, it still does nothing to detract from the other two points, each of which seem to me to be capable of standing on their own to justify the inclusion of an article on Wapnick. Could you please address the other two points? -Scott P. 23:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your repeated bad faith attempts at claiming that anybody who disgarees with you is a censor does not convince me that I should continue this discussion. I have said what I have said. The books are self-published. Corvus cornix 23:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, allow new article. If new information is available that touches on the notability of the subject then we should review the decision to delete the article. I see we do have articles on his co-authors, Helen Schucman and William Thetford. Personally, I think the subject may be notable due to the huge success of the book, as Sethie points out, but I'm concerned there may not be sufficient independent sources to actually write a biography. If we can find the sources then we shold probably have the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. it is quite clear that there was no consensus. Undoubtedly some of the many overlapping articles in this walled garden should be deleted or merged, but it is reasonable that a principal author of the principal book would be one of those that should remain. DGG (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Over-turn deletion: Kenneth Wapnick is encyclopedia noteworthy as a consequence of his primary-teacher status for a multi-continent multi-language multi-decade spiritual movement, documented by number of books he's written/sold and number of webpages that include his name ("Internet buzz").Rosiestephenson 00:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have restored the article history behind a tag. If restored, it should be speedily deleted again per WP:CSD#G11 as being a promotional article that would require a complete rewrite to fix. G11 did not exist at the time of the AFD. --Coredesat 04:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure closed validly, none of the books and google link totals provided above account for notability. I myself get close to that many google hits. Ghits != notability. Self published books != notability.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Deletion: I don't understand why there is even any need for a debate about this subject. Wapnick is on the executive board of both the Foundation of Inner Peace and Foundation of A Course In Miracles. He also owns, runs, and teaches at the largest A Course in Miracles learning center in the world. He was not only one of the editors of A Course In Miracles but was also directly related to Helen Shuchman and William Thetford (the scribes). He's a major player who played a major role in editing, publishing, translating and teaching the Course for over 30 years now. If Wikipedia has articles on A Course In Miracles, Helen Shuchman, and William Thetford, which it does, then there's no excuse not to have one on Kenneth Wapnick. George Oliver Darwin 00:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC) — George Oliver Darwin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Note to closing admin The nominator has been canvassing; see [18], [19], [20], [21], among others. --Coredesat 07:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


per cordesaat's above threat to speedy the page if recreated, I have created a page we can work on and discuss to try and adress some of his and others concerns. User:Sethie/wapnick, along with a talk page for discussing how we can improve the article User:Sethie/wapnicktalk Sethie 02:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could I recommend not using that as a starting point? Ken Wapnick finds Jebus! is not a particularly encyclopedic take on the subject. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close, but allow recreation Ghits and self-published books are not indicators of notability. However, substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources is. Patrick Miller's The Complete Story of the Course contains a significant amount of material on Wapnick, in fact enough in and of itself to permit a decent article, and I am convinced that other sources could be found. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Voluntary sleep deprivation – Deletion endorsed of an article that is substantially a recreation of deleted content, with the exception of references taken from a third article. – Chaser - T 02:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Voluntary sleep deprivation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This page was NOT a recreation of the ill-fated All-nighter article, was completely written from scratch and had excellent references, links and was neutrally written. Also had under construction tag, stating it was in progress and requesting NOT to be speedily deleted. Also the activity is well documented (google returns over 6 million hits & see references). If we delete things that people do not approve of, then this great project would be useless. These reasons aside, the csd summary was completely false anyway (was not at all a redirect). Please, undelete! --Bennyboyz3000 03:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn per my comments above --Bennyboyz3000 03:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as deleting admin. The speedy deleted content, originally also posted to "All-nighter" is here, the content subject to AfD is here. They are substantially identical, and the original research about why people supposedly do "voluntary sleep deprivations" remains unsourced. Sandstein 05:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ATTENTION! False information above: If you look, you would actually find that another person took all information in that revision from Voluntary sleep deprivation. This was NOT taken from all-nighter, look at the date stamp. This administrator seems to "dislike" the topic. --Bennyboyz3000 08:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, recreation of original research. >Radiant< 08:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment How is it original research if it is now cited from external sources? --Ginkgo100talk 21:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The part about "sleep deprivation" was sourced, because those sources were copy/pasted from our actual article on that. The rest of it was not encyclopedic. Fork articles aren't useful. >Radiant< 08:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: if the information was taken from another article without attribution, then it's a copyright violation, and should have been speedied. Corvus cornix 16:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It wasn't - and even if it was I was a major contributor. --Bennyboyz3000 04:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, does indeed appear to be a substantial recreation. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment While much of the text is very similar, the concern in the All-nighter AfD regarding OR were addressed in the Voluntary sleep deprivation article.
  • Note redirected to Sleep deprivation#Voluntary. Will (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong overturn The reasons given at the AfD for All-nighter were that it was OR. Voluntary sleep deprivation, while containing some similar content, thoroughly cited that content from outside sources, eliminating this criticism. Therefore the arguments from the All-nighter AfD do not apply here. --Ginkgo100talk 21:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, somebody simply copy/pasted the reference section from sleep deprivation. >Radiant< 14:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The last version by BennyBoyz has inline citations. That's more important than a refs section. --Ginkgo100talk 23:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confused - Could someone temporarily restore the Voluntary sleep deprivation article or move it to user space? I can't find an archive anywhere. Thanks — xDanielx T/C 03:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thankyou! When it is restored, you will notice a couple of non-referenced patches - but mostly well referenced and it did have an in-construction tag --Bennyboyz3000 05:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

12 August 2007[edit]

  • Hawaii Nation, Hawaii nation, Nation of Hawaii, Nation of hawaii – Deletion endorsed. – Xoloz 01:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Hawaii Nation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
PLEASE CHANGE "Hawaii Nation" TO REDIRECT to "Kingdom of Hawaii"
I am the originator of the latest attempt to create a page specifically for Hawaii Nation as a differentiation from both sovereignty and kingdom. However, upon deeper review of the extensive work that was put into the Kingdom of Hawaii area I am VERY impressed with the overall objective approach that was taken to the extent that is possible with existing recognized facts. Especially the notion of prior existing nations. Perhaps the current active editors of that area may want to provide an opinion to the effect that some people think that the Hawaii Nation still exists today and has always existed without interuption or disruption or whatevers. To some this is factually true and other people have information to the contrary so have BOTH opinions with each disclaiming the other if necessary. To this end I hereby request that a redirect be created/approved for Hawaii Nation to point to Kingdom of Hawaii. -- PiPhD 21:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DAY-UMN!! This article was nominated for deletion at 00:43 GMT, and deleted at 04:17; I wish I could have at least looked at it to see if it was truly THAT bad. The only place this was on in primetime was here in America (middle of the night in Europe). In the USA, a forum that goes on for less than 2 and a half hours (on a Saturday night, no less) is not much of a debate. I'm sure nobody in any other time zone was looking at it either. This is a little too quick on the trigger, I think. Mandsford 01:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hawaii Nation. Endorse snow deletion. -Nard 01:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not averse to re-opening this and re-listing; even a snowball can last more than 4 hours, when it's a geographically sensitive snowball. --Haemo 02:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As closer, endorse snow deletion. I restored the history and the nominator of this deletion review is free to look at it. In addition, I think consensus was adequately reached, with unanimous support for deletion (other than the author). Singularity 03:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Because 4 hours is not enough for everyone to respond. Corpx 03:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse snow deletion --JereKrischel 04:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy relist, I understand WP:SNOW can be applied from time to time, but 4 hours isn't long enough. --Coredesat 08:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, reasonable call given the high level of redundancy here. Redirecting is obviously the way to solve this. >Radiant< 08:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy relist Four hours is WAY too short enough for everyone to respond -- in fact I am even unclear what the article was specifically about. Arjuna 10:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was about Hawaii, which incidentally we already have an article on. >Radiant< 12:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is not about that, but rather about giving the creator + contributors a chance to respond Corpx 03:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, and that's not how it works. We don't set arbitrary minimum lengths of time that issues must be discussed, especially not for issues as clear cut as an article fork. >Radiant< 08:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, actually it was about Kingdom of Hawaii (all dates in article from this period) perhaps the Republic of Hawaii and most significantly the History of Hawaii, to the extent it was about anything that actually ever existed. It is pretty obvious that the article didn't belong in Wikipedia on a stand alone basis; the sourcing offered might merit a sentence somewhere. Keep deleted as the right decision was reached, but award the closer a trout for closing so early. GRBerry 13:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse snow 4 hours or not, it clearly didn't have a snowball's chance in hell in surviving the AfD. More time wouldn't have changed the results. --Farix (Talk) 13:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse the closure. It is fairly evident where this was headed, but I have to second GRBerry and say that the closer ought to be trout-slapped for the exceedingly quick closure. A little bit of patience helps to avert situations where these things are brought up on DRV, sent back to AfD and ultimately get deleted anyway. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Although the closure may have been too early, I can't see or imagine any arguments that could have kept this from deletion. --- RockMFR 17:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep deleted. Quoting from Hawaii Nation "The Hawaii Nation (or Nation of Hawaii) is and always has been a sovereign and independent nation defined by a physical land mass in the middle of the Pacific Ocean with agreements, contracts, and treaties with other nations. This particular Wikipedia entry is NOT related to the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement nor is it related to the State of Hawaii." and the massive POV continues from there. JoshuaZ 22:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Nothing would have save this one and it even WP:SNOWs on Hawaii. Carlossuarez46 00:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion in light of the POV problems. This wouldn't have survived the AFD. --Coredesat 18:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Breaking_Laces (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Meets_notability Darbyrob 08:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC) The Wikipedia page for Breaking Laces was deleted by Coredesat after a very short deletion review with only 5 other people. 1 person said keep. Two others gave no valid reason to delete, and not a single one of them mentioned anything about notability requirements. For band notability, this article states that a band must meet "any one" of 12 criteria. In the discussion page of the deletion review for Breaking Laces, I pointed out that the band meets five of those criteria:[reply]
1) Has had a charted hit on any national music chart.
- Because you have a hard time obtaining the CMJ charts from a year ago and three years ago doesn't mean Breaking Laces doesn't fit the criteria. They charted the CMJ Top 200 National charts with two different albums, Sohcahtoa and Lemonade. Its a fact.
2) Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country, reported in reliable sources.
- Breaking Laces toured the UK in October 2005 and are now booking a second UK tour for Newyears/january of 2008. The folks at CMEAS.com organized the tour and can forward you reliable sources that reported the tour.
3) Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such.
- Drummer Seth Masarsky toured as a member of Melissa_Ferrick's band. If she is not notable, then maybe you should remove her wiki as well.
4) Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album, etc...
- Breaking Laces just landed a spot on the soundtrack for a new documentary coming out titled "Waiting For Hockney". It may not be a major release, but will hit the indie film circuit. The song they are using is "This World" off of the album Lemonade.
5) Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.
- Breaking Laces have been in regular rotation on XMU (XM Channel 43) since 2003. Their first live set (of 2), and also songs from all their albums, have been played heavily on XMU since 2003. You can contact Tobi, who runs the station, directly at XMU to get confirmation of this.

Breaking Laces may not be on the tip of the 5 deletion reviewer's tongues, but they do meet at least the required one of the notability criteria. I kindly request reinstatement of their wikipedia page, otherwise I'll accept an explanation as to when and under what criteria they may be able to have a page. Thank you.
Darbyrob 08:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure Seems like consensus was reached for deletion based on the available discussion there. However, no objections to Relisting AFD an an option. Navou banter 19:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse closure; from the looks of things, the article didn't give enough reasoning to be kept, and thus the closure of the properly run AFD looks legit. A rewrite wouldn't be amiss, however, as it does look like there's enough reliable sources to indicate the band has some semblance of notability. Ensure that the sources are available in the article this time, however - verification of the tours, media coverage (not gig lists), etc. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Endorse the closure, but with no prejudice to restoring for some sourcing by the nominator of this deletion review. --Haemo 23:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - DRV is plain wikilawyering. Will (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Allegations of Puerto Rican apartheid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article was merged into Allegations of apartheid, and pointed as a redirect. ChrisO deleted without discussion under this argument "No need for this redirect - nothing in article space links here". However, I think this is an incorrect reasoning for speedy delete, as redirects also serve to populate search engines, and are also search terms. I do not think he acted in bad faith, but I think he acted hastily on a topic he is an involved editor with a deletionist POV for most of the articles, and most of the articles merged into Allegations of apartheid that have not been subjected to AfD redirect to Allegations of apartheid. I am proposing overturn and if anyone wants, lets have an RfD. Thanks! Cerejota 06:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn, while the redirect is implausible and has no incoming links, since the article was merged, the redirect and history have to remain for GFDL attribution purposes. To the nominator: You may want to reconsider your wording about whether ChrisO acted in bad faith, as first you say you don't think he did, then you call him a deletionist with a POV against these articles. --Coredesat 07:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I clearly stated that ChrisO didn't act in bad faith, so I do not understand your admonition: you can act hastly in good faith! My point is clearly that because of his involvement, an RfD or a proc might have been better than a speedy delete, or he might have asked another admin to do it... If you are concerned about recent vitriol (which I described as "witchhunt") towards him by other editors and admins, he can attest that I defended him against uncalled for attacks in the past, and have a general good opinion of him. Thanks!--Cerejota 10:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm happy to undelete it if needed. For the record, it was deleted under CSD R3 ("Redirects from implausible typos or misnomers that were recently created"). I wasn't aware that the content had been merged, so I take Coredesat's point about the GFDL attribution requirements. -- ChrisO 07:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then please do so! Thanks!--Cerejota 10:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. :-) I think we can close this DRV now... -- ChrisO 15:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Deprecated and orphaned templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This is a completely new deletion process, basically a prod for templates, started based on "consensus" of only a few editors. When I brought it up for deletion, the discussion was speedy closed. As noted on WP:DOT's talk page, "Mistakes have been made." Mistakes based on deleting templates outside the normal avenues. This is a non transparent process, known to only a few editors, operating completely outside the deletion policy, run by a few admins. Why is it that I cannot submit an out of policy page to the deletion process, but the page is allowed to operate outside the deletion process? -Nard 04:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WP:TFD has very few editors, period. I don't think this is particularly "out of policy"; it basically just lists deprecated templates for a period, then deletes them. In fact, it would be counterproductive in many respects to list them on WP:TFD, since that would (in general) lead to a much quicker deletion. However, this isn't really a WP:DRV issue here -- it's clear that people on WP:TFD have come to a consensus about how to handle articles of this type; if you object, I would suggest talking to them on the talk page, rather than just trying to delete this. This is, in my opinion, basically the "content dispute" equivalent on a policy-action page. --Haemo 05:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per my comments when I speedy closed this, I neither support or oppose this process, but don't support using WP:MFD as the venue to determine the validity of that process, that is what project talk is for. The discussion area links in the deletion debate deal directly with the editors involved in these decisions, and should be sufficient to determine if this should be accepted or {{rejected}}. — xaosflux Talk 15:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, there is some precedent in using MFD to terminate (generally "esperanzify") undesirable processes. Nevertheless this seems like something better resolved in getting more community feedback. Drop a line on the village pump and admin board and see what people think of it. The new process is not a priori a bad idea. >Radiant< 08:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, reopen, and relist. The closing rationale that "MFD is not the venue to determine the validity of a new deletion (sorting?) process" is unfounded. MFD is precisely that and more. MFD is a venue for judging the appropriateness of pages in the project namespace. I can understand speedy closures when it comes to established policy and process pages like WP:NPOV or WP:AFD, but this is a new process that had seen almost no discussion prior to its establishment (certainly not enough to justify a new deletion process). We should allow that discussion to take place at a central location (like MfD).
I also want to note a contradiction in the fundamental principles of the WP:DOT page. On the one hand, it states that the page is "only for templates that would unquestionably qualify for WP:CSD#G6". On the other, it requires a 2-week waiting period. If a template is an unquestionable G6 candidate, why not just delete/tag it on sight? If a precautionary 2-week period is required, then it's probably not uncontroversial housekeeping and should be sent to TfD. As currently set up, the process seems like instruction creep that is mostly redundant to the speedy deletion policy. Its net effect, I think, is to complicate deletion processes and reduce the transparency of template deletions.
Even if a proposed deletion process for templates gains consensus (by the way, such a proposal failed to gain consensus at WP:PROD a few months ago), there are more efficient ways of doing it than this. — Black Falcon (Talk) 17:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It did not fail to gain consensus; it merely failed to gain interest. One of the major complaints was that it is difficult to define the circumstances under which a template might be considered deprecated, or the circumstances under which an orphaned template might be considered unneeded. In WP:DOT, this is delegated to general speedy deletion criterion 6. You're right that it's mostly redundant to the speedy deletion policy—and it's meant to be. You should be able to tag any of those templates with {{db-g6}} and be done with it, but I don't advise doing so. If you want to go through the unused template list (link, long page advisory warning) to find such templates, feel free! No one's stopping you. Then your page will be noticed in CAT:CSD by one admin, who will either delete it or not. That's a good example of what's not a transparent way to delete templates via housekeeping.
We are trying to improve the transparency of housekeeping, G6 (or of deleting possible nonsense G1, or possible test pages G2) by allowing Wikipedians to review a template's deletion reason. To illustrate this a bit better: the article namespace has content, while the template namespace has function. For a tagger and an admin to be the only people to review that function (and possibly misunderstand it) can be harmful. For other Wikipedians to review deprecation in the context of the template's function can only help reduce mistakes. It's not that we can't trust the judgment of admins—it's supposed to be about increasing transparency, not decreasing it. Two weeks is an arbitrary amount of time. The more people are aware of the page, the better.
A fair amount of processes have been started by practice. (For example, temporary user pages.) While I agree that some recent taggings have been a bit, say, enthusiastic, this method of aggregating deletion candidates is not contrary to policy and can make the TfD crowd happier, the template namespace cleaner, and housekeeping more transparent. In short: let's see what happens. GracenotesT § 17:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My primary concern with this process is the degree to which actual taggings will conform to the requirement that tagged templates qualify for deletion under CSD G6. If all taggings stays true to that requirement, then the page is essentially a pseudo-WikiProject/task force for cleaning up the template namespace ... and that's fine. However, if the process begins to result in deletion of templates based on individual evaluations of usefulness, that reduces transparency. As long as it stays redundant to WP:CSD, I have no problem with it. It's when it starts to become a {{prod}} for templates that issues arise. In essence, I don't think "tagged with {{deprecated}} for 2 weeks" should itself be a reason for deletion. In the absence of broader discussion, actual deletions should only be carried out in accordance with the speedy deletion criteria.
If this is intended to be a {{prod}} for templates, why not just change Wikipedia:Proposed deletion to include pages in the template namespace? Or ... why not make it a separate deletion process (Wikipedia:Deprecated and orphaned templates for deletion), mirroring WP:IFD except without the daily logs? — Black Falcon (Talk) 18:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great: one of my concerns is also that taggings will not conform to the speedy deletion criterion. I included a mention of it on {{deprecated}}, so hopefully no one misconstrues anything—those tagging, or those reviewing tags. As for the two week limit: this system is not exactly based off of prodding, so having admins go through WP:DOT to delete templates that might not require more review is absolutely fine. Well, I do support template prodding (for non-controversial cases, understanding also that the usefulness of a template's function is harder to discern than that of an article's content), but it doesn't have community interest at the moment, and any experimental introduction of it will surely result in invective criticism from all sides :) GracenotesT § 19:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also support extending {{prod}} to templates (and to project pages as well). So, as long as WP:DOT remains essentially a task force to coordinate cleanup of the template namespace via the speedy deletion criteria (i.e. as long as it doesn't become an actual deletion process), I think it is useful and productive. I am striking my suggestion to overturn the closure. I still don't agree with the closing rationale (that MFD was not the appropriate venue for discussion), but see no point in re-starting an MFD for a still-active task force, especially considering that the MFD and my initial recommendation seem to have been based on misunderstandings of the purpose of the page. — Black Falcon (Talk) 20:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When templates are eventually deleted under the scope of WP:DOT, the edit summary should include something about that. Otherwise, my concern is that there could be a perception of a rouge admin going around simply deleting templates they view as unnecessary. Also, this "task force" (such that it is with only me marking templates right now) was designed and implemented to try to clean out the Template namespace due to its obscene amount of nonsense. I don't think every appreciates how much nonsense is inside the Template namespace, which I think is the reason there is a certain level of opposition to this task force. Some treats that have been deleted while searching through the namespace include Template:Brians got some problems =) Alex rocks which was around since May, and Template:I love ponies! (sandbox heading), also around since May. These are just a few of the templates I've discovered while searching through the list of thousands of unused templates. As for moving the page, I certainly wouldn't have an objection. Anyone else care to weigh in? Cheers. --MZMcBride 21:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Finger jousting – Deletion endorsed. There are some fine arguments for undeletion here (from DGG); however, other folks arguing for undeletion appear very confused about Wikipedia's practice (in particular, the DRV nominator, who harbors the mistaken belief that the five pillars are negotiable.) Such ill-informed opinions cannot command the "strength of argument." It may matter to some observers that, even "by the numbers", the outcome is the same. – Xoloz 01:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Finger jousting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

There was an ongoing debate in the AfD discussion [[22]], the concensus appeared to be leaning towards a keep. The closing admin obviously disagreed but rather than contributing to the debate chose close the AfD and to delete the page. I was under the impression that such things were decided by the concensus of the community rather than the opinion of one admin. Surely the reason AfD debates take place is to gauge this concensus not to help one admin make the right decidion. If this is the case the debate should not have be ended by an admin giving a reason why he thinks a particular result is correct but rather by an admin who has seen that a concensus has been reached in the debate and then acts to to uphold it. Guest9999 02:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn not based on vote counting, but based on strength of arguments. The closing admin claims a podcast by the BBC isn't a reliable source. The BBC is run by the British government, it's basically British state media. What does it matter what format the BBC is broadcasting in? -Nard 04:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "BBC podcast" appears to be a BBC blog of sorts which links to an outside site with the podcast. Is podme.org a reliable source? --- RockMFR 17:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The conclusion was in total opposition to the actual consensus, whether judged by counting or by arguments raised. The opinions given at AfD are not merely advisory, after which the closing admin can decide independently based on his personal views. The role of the closing admin is to determine the consensus of the policy based arguments. It requires an admin so there can be confidence that the closer knows what are the applicable arguments, not because the admin is necessarily the best judge of the issue. An admin who disagrees with the developing consensus should present his arguments, and let someone else close. DGG (talk) 05:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Policy beats consensus. There were no reliable sources, and nothing any of the Keep voters could come up with was an effective rebuttal of that. --Hemlock Martinis 19:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per above, and especially per DGG. David Mestel(Talk) 06:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my deletion I checked the sources before deleting, The BBC source is a blog which leads to some independent podcast site which isn't run by the BBC, all the other sources I seen were blogs, youtube, the "official" finger jousting site, associatedcontent which is like a news wiki, etc, there aren't any Reliable sources at all and policy is key. Jaranda wat's sup 18:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That arguement should have been made during an AfD not given as a reason for deletion. Admins have no more say than any other editor in forming the concensus they are just the only ones with the power to act on it and carry out the will of the community. Why even open up the debate to non admins if their opinions can just be ignored. [[Guest9999 23:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
  • AFD is never a vote count, and the sources issue was mentioned in the deletes, and the BBC source is from a blog which links to a independent site. Jaranda wat's sup 19:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • AfD is not a vote, it is an attempt to find consensus - I see no evidence that any consensus had been found during the debate. The basic arguements being made for keep may have gone against a guideline but guidelines are not written in stone and it would have been more appropriate for someone with an oposing position to point out the guideline in question in the debate and to see whether people wanted to change their opinion based on this information or whether they felt this was a situation where the guideline did not apply or could be ignored. [[Guest9999 05:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
      • AFD is attempt to find a consensus by checking if it meets wikipedia guidelines, the keep voters didn't do that while the delete votes had a valid concern, one of the keep votes were an obvious WP:SPA and almost all admins discount that and guidelines = set in stone. Jaranda wat's sup 18:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It says at the top of every guideline page "it is not set in stone". [[Guest9999 12:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
  • Then it's a good thing that WP:RS is not only policy but also one of the fundamental principles of the encyclopedia. That's about as rock-solid as it gets around here. --Hemlock Martinis 19:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Really? because I'd say (and it says at the top of the page) that all of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies were summed up in the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, one of them being "Wikipedia does not have firm rules" - to me this indicates that so called "fundamental principles" do not actually exist in the form of which you speak of them. [[Guest9999 23:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
  • Comment I think you'll find a fundamental principle is "Wikipedia does not have firm rules except for the five general principles elucidated here" found on Wikipedia:Five pillars. WP:RS does not seem to be one of them. [[Guest9999 00:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
  • Overturn per nom and DGG. Well said, DGG. -- Irixman (t) (m) 00:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, doesn't appear to actually be verifiable. The whole concept is rather silly, too. --Cyde Weys 01:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment This is really for AfD, but I didn't want to pass this by: BBC broadcasts and transcripts are RSs. A blog of reader responses is not. However, this particular thread seems to have been posted editorially by BBCX, & I think the podcast would count--though not the subsequent comments. DGG (talk) 01:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • further comment That may be your opinion but other editors interpretted the information differently, the fact that an admin does not agree with the concensus does not make it wrong. The only reason everyone does not have the power to close an AfD debate is that that power would be abused. By closing a debate based anything but the consensus the admin is abusing his power. Even if they think the concensus is wrong, that it is based on people misinterpretting the guidelines or that they just know better than the editors taking part in the debate. The closing decision made by the admin should never be based on the admin's own opinion but the contents of the debate - which every admin - like any other editor - is free to contribute to should they choose. [[Guest9999 02:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
  • Endorse Deletion - Keep votes were based on sources that do not qualify as WP:RS Corpx 03:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this issue - the quality of the mentioned source - was never brought up in the debate and so counts as new information. If new information is presented in the deletion review then I believe relisting under AfD is the prefered course of action. Additonally WP:RS is a guideline, not set in stone and so should be mentioned in the debate not the delete decision. [[Guest9999 04:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
  • Relist. The closing admin's rationale is an argument for deletion, not an evaluation of consensus. The closing admin should have contributed to the AfD instead of closing it, and forcing his own POV. —gorgan_almighty 13:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How I am forcing my PoV, this doesn't make sense, I closed the AFD in the reasonable time period with about 20 other AFDs. All I did was give a reason for the deletion about how it doesn't meet policy, like all admins suppose to do in a AFD like that. Assume Good Faith. Jaranda wat's sup 18:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply All your statement shows is that admins abusing their powers is so commonplace it is accepted. The reason for an admin closing an AdF debate should be based purely on the consensus (with a few exceptions) not on whether they think they page conforms to policy. Unless you think a consensus had been reached to delete the page, it should not have been deleted. If there is a lac k of consensus as was apparent then the article should have been kept. Incidentally WP:RS whihc I believe is the policy you talk of is actually a guideline "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception" if the community or at least part of the community felt that this article should be an expceotion you have no more right than any other editor to overrule this. Incidentally WP:CON is an "official policy". Your reasoning for deletion was not a commentary on the debate and the consensus which had been established, it was your opinion which holds no more weight than any other editors and belonged in the debate not the closing arguement. [[Guest9999 12:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
  • Endorse closure. Jaranda was correct in his assessment of the debate. The lack of reliable sources is what got the article deleted. --Hemlock Martinis 19:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - AfD is not a vote count. No reliable sources, no article. Moreschi Talk 19:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. There were no reliable sources, only a link back to youtube and another to fingerjoust.com. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question? Does this mean it is ok for an admin to ignore the consensus if they feel that the consensus is incorrect? [[Guest9999 20:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
  • An admin's first duty is to obey the superconsensus of nearly all Wikipedians that's in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Moreschi Talk 21:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a loaded question, but I'll bite. Consensus is never wrong, but it isn't always right. Policy always outweighs consensus. Always. --Hemlock Martinis 21:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And policies are established by consensus (and big consensus): hence policy is superconsensus, which overrides local consensus at AfD. Moreschi Talk 21:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I completely agree - policy needs to be kept to - however the "policy" in question was not a policy at all. WP:RS is a guideline - it is not set in stone and there can be exceptions (it says so right at the top of the page). In these cases it could be said that the 'big consensus' was to allow for a differing 'local consensus' in certain circumstances. [[Guest9999 22:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
  • Reply It says right at the top of the page that there can be the "occaisonal exception" and again it's not a policy - it's a guideline. The very fact that it says that there can be exceptions means that it should be brought up as part of the AfD debate not as the rationale for closing the debate. If anything is not explicitly stated in policy - or is a deductive result - as you call it - then it is open to interpretation by the community. If any editor - admin or otherwise - disagrees with this interpretation then it is up to them to put forward their case not just shut down the debate. [[Guest9999 15:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
  • Also... There was ongoing discussion about a possible reliable source during the debate, this shows that there was no consensus within the community as to whether the article violated WP:RS, it was the opinion of the closing administrator that the source was not valid but the feeling of other editors that the source was. In some ways then the issue is not whether there can be exceptions to WP:RS but whether an admins view in interpreting it is more valid than that of any other good-faith editor (which it's not). There was definately a debate to be had about the source and it should not have been cut off because of the opinion of one editor. [[Guest9999 17:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
  • An unofficial blog post is by no means a reliable source. --Hemlock Martinis 19:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply There is scope within WP:V for blogs to be used as reliable sources. An official BBC blog mentioned the topic, it was also mentioned on THE 9 on Yahoo! which whilst a video blog is a notable one - hence the article - and part of the worlds most visited website (Yahoo). There is also evidence of mentions by some sort of health insurance thing, [23], as well as on radio stations in the USA and the UK (BBC Coventry & Warwickshire and WLAC). Surely there is enough evidence of possible notability and enough leeway within Wikipedia policy and guidelines - as shown above - that the debate should have been kept open until a true consensus had been formed and not stopped by one editor in order to push through their own particular opinion. [[Guest9999 00:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

11 August 2007[edit]

  • Doseuro – deletion by PROD automatically overturned – GRBerry 17:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Doseuro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Information on a significant company (Annual Turnover 4 million euro) 88.96.137.6 11:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Category:Denialism – Deletion overturned. Please always tag the article up for an XfD discussion: that is one process-flaw that is universally significant. – Xoloz 16:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Denialism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

The Category was listed by an anon for CFD, but the Category page was never tagged, meaning interested parties were never aware of the CFD. Very sneaky. Reasonings given for deletion in the CFD appear specious and out of step with policy, guideline, convention and reality. FeloniousMonk 23:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn per nom. This is a useful category for articles from Holocaust denial to Living dinosaurs. The CfD was not done properly. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per nom and OM. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn I haven't made up my mind about the above comments, but I do note from looking at the deleted history of the category that there was no note on the category page that this was being discussed. Categories are hard enough to keep track of without having no notice on the category page and no notice given to the author of the category. At minimum, there should be another CFD, and very likely simple overturning with the option to CfD later makes a lot of sense. JoshuaZ 00:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I'm pretty surprised at this nomination, as there was actually a complete consensus to delete this. --Kbdank71 03:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn for lack of notice. No comment on whether or not it should be deleted, but how can an informed discussion be held if interested parties are not present? There should have been a chance for defense. DGG (talk) 05:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The discussion was open for seven days; no more notice is required beyond tagging the category page with an appropriate template. However, since the discussion happened six months ago (which is six years in Wikipedia time), I would support a relisting. --Ginkgo100talk 22:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just looked up the deleted category page, and it was never tagged with a deletion template such as {{csd}}. Therefore, I support overturning the deletion with no prejudice to relisting. --Ginkgo100talk 22:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - I think this is a useful category, and I would have voted to keep it. Still, I don't think that a tag on the category page would have changed the outcome of this CfD. Perhaps we could relist in hopes of exposure to a wider audience (which tends to appear following a DRV)? — xDanielxTalk 06:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse unless people give some new information in this DRV? What are these arguments that weren't considered in the unanimous CFD? Please don't make this an appeal to "process wasn't followed" but bring in a solid reason. >Radiant< 08:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC) Never mind, per the below. >Radiant< 09:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please. The Category was listed by an anon for CFD, and the Category page was never tagged, meaning interested parties were never aware of the CFD. Very sneaky. Also, as an aside about a standing problem in AFD/CFD: Why should anyone even bother making arguments to Keep when valid arguments like "It's useful" are being improperly discounted by those who insist on invoking WP:ATA to not count those comments in the final tally in contravention of the established guideline for discounting comments: WP:DGFA#Rough_consensus. No, we've experienced this one too many times already. Until people stop misusing WP:ATA to improperly discount the comments of others, there's really not much point in doing as you ask. FeloniousMonk 14:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh, this is one of the problems with category deletion reviews - once we empty them, we can't see what they were actually used for. So I can't see any basis to say that the CFD participants got it right, and I do see a clear process problem. Overturn and relist, because there is no way to know whether the correct decision was reached. GRBerry 15:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I agree with GRBerry's argument, and strongly disagree with Radiant's. The problem here was with the process, not the weighing of arguments. Evouga 21:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Seems to be a pretty clear example of someone in the know with an agenda shamelessly abusing the system "anon" and certain admins apparently turning a blind eye. Thanks FM for catching this. Odd nature 22:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per GRBerry, and reminders to everyone that if something is on Xfd, and has no "...being considered for deletion" tag, ADD the darn thing - I'm going to Agf and hope it wasn't an agenda-driven sneak. I have half a mind to violate WP:SPAM to all those who unanimously voted "delete" on the Cfd. Puppy is cranky; puppy has good reason. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think that that would violate WP:SPAM in that they are a small group of interested people. JoshuaZ 23:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and reinstate category. Denialism (or if one prefers, "denial") of significant historical events or significant verifiable facts, is a legitimate category which has in common some motive, or set of motives, that creates bias w.r.t. empirical or objective historical inquiry conducted by separate, independent, objective researchers, and to the reporting of clearly established objective results of such inquiry. What appears to have been missed in the CfD is that each article in the category must pass muster as to WP:Reliable sources, WP:notability, WP:VER, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV#undue_weight, etc. So there ought be little danger of an endless collection of "denialisms"; the cat is self-limiting by the basic WP policies. ... Kenosis 23:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and reinstate per KC/GRBerry. If it isn't tagged, there's a problem in the deletion process. Guettarda 14:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Arden Wohl – Restore article without prejudice against relisting at AfD. Original AfD seems to have been reasonably closed, but new evidence of notability has surfaced. – IronGargoyle 02:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Arden Wohl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Arden Wohl was featured in July 2007 edition of Vogue, fulfilling notability requirments,(see http://parkavenuepeerage.wordpress.com/2007/06/28/the-hills/) she is also mentioned in movie short stub Coven (short film) She is currently working on the Playground Project with George Clooney, I think the article should at least be "unsalted", it was originally "salted", as I am new to all of this and did not know the proper protacol, regarding recreating of an article..I thought if you edited it properly you could remove the deletion tags..sorry this was originally removed because of notability requirments, but Vogue is a highly regarded publication. Tweety21 16:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse: valid AfD per Morgan Wick's analysis of Gsearch results, and the consensus of established editors. David Mestel(Talk) 18:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore the last version before the AfD deletion, as this individual has had significant media coverage in Vogue magazine since the AfD discussion and therefore now apparently meets WP:BIO. No prejudice regarding relisting, but there should at least be another discussion before deleting again. --Ginkgo100talk 22:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore on the basis of Vogue. I suppose even NYC socialites can be notable, though if there ever was a category where WP coverage is a little redundant, this is it. DGG (talk) 05:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Ah, but the whole purpose of Wikipedia is to provide redundant information. --Ginkgo100talk 22:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've unsalted in light of the new evidence of notability, but I'm hesitant to restore the original article. Previous versions were written with a heavily promotional tone. --Coredesat 18:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore without prejudice to relisting. This is really just an issue of how stringently we judge notability. The AfD was already very borderline with 7 Delete votes and 5 Keep votes, four of which were expressed as Strong Keeps. I would have closed it as no consensus, though I wouldn't complain since it was a rather close decision. In light of Tweety's newfound linkage I'm fairly sure the article would pass under another AfD, though if others disagree I'd be happy with relisting. — xDanielxTalk 09:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Casey William Hardison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Active discussion (AfD) speedied with no justification given; article was undergoing improvement. SamBC(talk) 03:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article was a useless mess of unsourced material and in violation of WP:BLP. See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Casey_William_Hardison. You can always re-create it with good quality sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The BLP discussion's last post was that it was being left alone for now as it was being improved. Several sources had been added, POV made more neutral, and edits pending establishing further notability, beyond the arrest and court case. This was noted on the AFD page as well as the edit log of the page itself. I actaully spent several hours on it last night, and would've done more tonight if I hadn't spent the time trying to steer a course through WT:COI that would do some good and reduce the amount of bickering, which seemed more immediately important as the AFD only started a day or so ago. SamBC(talk) 03:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • For that matter, which speedy deletion criterion were you applying? SamBC(talk) 03:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Deleted within the criteria established at WP:BLP. As I said, you are welcome to recreate with proper sourced material. If you need a copy of the deleted text, let me know. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I will not be opposed to an undeletion, if there is a chance that the article can be written in accordance of WP content policies. Let me know. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I've been actively editing and have sources establishing his position as an activist and "amateur researcher" (with publications in about as major a publication as one gets in a fringe field) in the entheogenic movement (people who say that hallucinogens and psychedelics can be beneficial) and as an advocate of the freedom to take entheogens. You want me to list them all here? The crazy thing is, it's not as if I hadn't stated this on the page, in the log, and at the AFD. Plus, BLP isn't a speedy deletion criterion. The WP:CSD page makes it clear that speedy deletion is to be applied narrowly. SamBC(talk) 03:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist at AfD. I was about to !vote delete on this, as I have some doubts about real notability. But I do not see what BLP concerns there were: the man was convicted of drug manufacturing on a rather large scale, and appealed on unlikely but far-reaching grounds regarding the UK drug laws. The facts on what he was convicted of are not disputed--and even if they were, he was convicted and the appeal denied. The fact that he made the legal challenges he made is not disputed, & neither is the disposition of them. An example of BLP gone wrong once more by being used in an arbitrary way--there was no support for it at the BLP noticeboard. Another example of interfering with an ongoing AfD in a way that causes more trouble in the end. DGG (talk) 03:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn: clearly not a BLP issue: in the first place, the article isn't generally derogatory in tone; in the second, there's no suggestion that the stuff is actually untrue, or that he is averse to publicity; and most importantly, there are several sources, like this, this and especially this. The man's notability is something that can legitimately be discussed, but is not in any case a speedy issue. David Mestel(Talk) 15:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • List of people known as father or mother of something – Re-deleted the article per CSD G4. Under no circumstances should the AfD be overturned without an DRV, and under no circumstances should the article be restored unless said DRV has taken place. There is an established process for contesting an AfD. I have no prejudice in regards to reopening this DRV to contest the original AfD. – Kurykh 04:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of people known as father or mother of something (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

AFD was closed as delete on July 12 but instead of being deleted the page was redirected on July 13 to Pater Patriae. An editor unilaterally undid the redirect on August 3. When I noticed the article was back I tagged it for speedy deletion as a repost, but that was denied with the suggestion that it be brought here. I think the original close as delete was correct and the article should be deleted and not preserved as a redirect since no one is ever going to type "List of people known as the father or mother of something" in the Search box. Otto4711 03:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would tend to agree with you; certainly an AfD closing as delete ought to lead to deletion, and the redirect that was made instead seems rather... random. SamBC(talk) 03:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • question I agree it should be deleted, but I don't see why you were directed here--this isn't the AfD enforcement department. It should just have gone back to AfD. DGG (talk) 03:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse original close. Rather than take it back to AfD, I'd recommend just deleting per the already established consensus. Should that be considered a G6 speedy or per WP:SNOW? >:-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eluchil404 (talk • contribs)
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Jonas Jacobi – Deletion endorsed, without prejudice to a recreation that 1) has a clear assertion of notability and 2) is sourced, which the last draft was not. I note that in the AFD some sources (of debatable quality) were used that showed the article as written contained significant errors - but nobody chose to improve the article. The deciding factor, in the end, is that if there had never been an AFD I'd be willing to speedy delete under WP:CSD#A7. There is strong, project wide consensus against having articles, especially bios of living people, that don't assert encyclopedic significance. This individual may merit an article, but he doesn't merit that article, and any article on him really needs to be written afresh from reliable sources. – GRBerry 12:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jonas Jacobi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I think this AfD should have been closed as no consensus, or as withdrawn by nominator. There were three Delete votes, and two regular Keep votes. The nominator then retracted his position, changing it from Delete to Keep, making the vote count 3-3 tie or arguably 3-2 Keep depending on how you look at it. The case for deletion was an attack on notability, and the subject's notability as a published author is at least borderline if not unarguably sufficient (see e.g. this and this, easily found with a very quick search and posted in the AfD), so I think (lack of) consensus should have been followed. — xDanielxTalk 00:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse my deletion. I closed as delete primarily because there is no WP:N: the article lacking sources say he's a product evangelist for a big company - that is not inherently notable: evangelist is a fancy word for marketing guy; First (a) it's not a vote; majority doesn't win or necessarily give a consensus; and even the editor bringing this to DRV (along with the other keep voice) could only muster "weak keeps", again acknowledging the problem of notability, and the other containing a thinly veiled personal attack (b) a nominator may withdraw a nomination, but when contrary voices are heard the withdrawal does not require a close in the nominator's favor; and (c) consensus is demonstrated not only by what is said at the AFD, but by the guidelines including WP:N and policies such as WP:BLP.

If we were purely counting noses there were 3 deletes, 1 neutral, the nominator who wanted to withdraw the nomination, and 2 weak keeps, one claiming that the nominator was biased. The delete voices - including the nominator - while focusing on the spamminess of the article, also noted there was no Notability, in fact arguably there is no assertion of notability (see WP:CSD#A7). The neutral expressed concern with the notability issue. The keep voice had more procedural than substantive objections, but this is really not a court of law, and if the subject fails WP:N and the nominator fails to waive his hands in the proper order, it doesn't invalidate the argument and position of those who follow. The keeper also provided two websites that mention Jacobi in small articles as evidence of his notability. Those are not reliable sources (WP:RS) we expect to demonstrate notability; moreover, a brief blurb about somebody does not show notability. So in a nose count one could say 3 deletes + 1 neutral questioning notability = 4 vs. 0.5 (a weak keep), letting the nominator and keeper claiming bias thereof cancelling each other out. But we're not counting noses, we're evaluating the arguments, of which the deleters had by far the stronger position.

I wouldn't mind a relisting or a recreation, if those who !voted keep can demonstrate meeting WP:N with independent reliable sources - not the business or trade press that if we took 2 blurbs = notability would give notability to virtally every professor, band, high school athlete, patentee, or businessperson. A position inherently rejected here given that we have notability guidelines for some of these none of which suggest that 2 blurbs is sufficient to show notability - in fact the hurdles are significantly higher. Given their inability to do so during the week this was on afd, I cannot expect that they can do so now. I would like to see someone cite these reliable sources in this DRV since no one bothered to add them to the article nor cite any during the Afd, rather than take it on trust that they'll magically appear. Carlossuarez46 01:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your summary of the AfD is many things, but it certainly isn't neutral. "[L]etting the nominator and keeper claiming bias thereof cancelling each other out" is peculiar logic, since (A) they both supported keeping the article and (B) the claim of possible bias seems to have been made without noticing that the nominator had retracted his position, so we can ignore the claim for the purpose of evaluating consensus. Counting a weak keep as only half of an opinion is rather unfair since the motivation for a Week Keep is generally not "I don't want my vote to have as much weight as anyone else" but rather "I support a Keep but for the sake of courtesy I'll acknowledge that this is a close call." Counting a neutral vote as a Keep vote is bizarre, for lack of a better term. The editor said "I'd like to see a more thorough and cited discussion regarding this person's notability", not "this person is not notable". He then proceeded to point out why the subject appeared to be notable. I think his comment suggests that he was leaning Keep, but for the sake of impartiality let's consider it a neutral vote, since that's what he said it was. The vote was very clearly a 3-3, with 1 neutral--and there was no nominator support for the deletion, so if we're comparing this to AfD standards where the nominator contributes a sort of "ghost vote" for delete it's effectively the same as a 3-2 for Keep.
Granted, the AfD forum is not a vote. But with exceptions for extreme cases (sockpuppetry, clear copyright violation, etc.), it's up to the community to judge whether a subject meets standards of notability and the like. Your own assessment of notability does not trump the community's. The subject of the AfD is a published and well-read author, well-known essayist, a CEO, and an overall influential figure in his industry. These attributes have been recognized by reasonably reliable sources which were brought up in the AfD, such as this one. It may not unquestionably pass WP:RS with flying colors, but there is no obvious reason why it wouldn't, and no such argument was brought up in the AfD. The traditional requirement is that deleting an article requires a two-thirds vote. The two-thirds rule is now essentially deprecated to encourage constructive discussion rather than bureaucratic vote-shooting, but it's still a fair guideline to follow as long as the votes express reasonable judgments and no illicit tactics were involved or what not. In this case there was either a 3-3-1 tie (no consensus) or a 3-2-1 keep, depending on how you look at it. You gave yourself a super-vote by closing the AfD as Delete given a clear lack of consensus. This is very much against WP:DGFA, especially when your (unstated) reasons for supporting deletion were no different from the reasoning that was already presented, considered, and rejected by a good half of those involved. — xDanielxTalk 09:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The other keep voice claimed the nominator was biased against the subject, do you credit that? Seems not, but can't be sure given your comments and nose-count. If so, then the nominator's voice is discountable as being acknowledgedly biased. If you don't credit that claim, and it seems that you might not given that you now claim that it was made in ignorance of manifest facts, do you want to grant validity to someone who casts such aspersions you acknowledge are ill-founded and only then can come up with a "weak" keep apparently based on the aspersions you no longer endorse. And the nominator's withdrawal is not a "keep", a nominator's withdrawal is a withdrawal - it may be neutral, it may be that he just didn't want to be maligned by false accusations, you read more between the lines than are there, I'm afraid. We should read the comments and arguments not just the "votes" - the neutral which I didn't count as keep despite what you say (you did that, really) - wanted to see something that no one could or did provide. Again, you ackowledge that the sources as to his notability do not pass WP:RS. Not surprising because he is not notable and borderline speedy because nothing in the article asserts his notability. The 2/3 rule is you cite: Where is that noted? Where can I find that? And if that's the stated protocol, then to hell with comments, why doesn't everyone just vote (as apposed to !vote) because under such a rule, it's purely a head count. I belive that there is no 2/3 rule and that the community has spoken in consensus by adopting the WP:RS and WP:N and WP:BLP - is it troubling no one that this is an unsourced article about a living person? So if 1/3 of the people, plus one, who show up and comment during the week to say "keep" despite these guidelines then the article is kept - that's neither been the rule nor the outcome here. If you'd like to propose adoption of that rule, you should discuss it at the talk page of WP:DELETE. Carlossuarez46 17:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the first place, the final "keep" commentator relied mostly on the opinion of xDanielx, adding the suggestion of bias merely as an afterthought. In the second, I don't know how you read his comment as acknowledging that the sources don't pass WP:RS - all he's saying is that they could be better. With regard to the neutral commentator, I think he mis-typed, and what he meant to do was take issue with your claim that it was effectively a "delete", which is patently false. With respect to the nominator, suggesting that he withdrew his nomination because of a throwaway suggestion of bias (understandable given the somewhat aggressive tone of his nomination) is absurd. Regarding the more substantive point, while AfD is not of course a vote, the balance of commentators often helps to gauge community consensus on an issue. In this case, sources were produced which purported to demonstrate the subject's notability. It was claimed that they did not pass WP:RS (which is arguable); several editors considered this claim and rejected it, and no consensus was formed. It's as simple as that. David Mestel(Talk) 18:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm still trying to fathom your statement that the allegation of bias was "understandable" in light of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Carlossuarez46 23:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Read that again, Carlos. That isn't what David is saying at all. Xoloz 03:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Xoloz or David: What does the parenthetical here mean: "With respect to the nominator, suggesting that he withdrew his nomination because of a throwaway suggestion of bias (understandable given the somewhat aggressive tone of his nomination) is absurd." Carlossuarez46 19:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Mathmo, I think, made his comment without noticing that Rursus had retracted his nomination. It was understandable since the original nomination was, as David said, rather aggressive, and Rursus's retraction wasn't highlighted with big bold letters. Also, let's not exaggerate what Mathmo said -- "also smells of potential personal bias" is not as strong as "this nomination was biased and made in bad faith." It was a minor communication error and doesn't change the fact that both Rursus and Mathmo supported keeping the article in the end. — xDanielxTalk 06:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Carlos, if you're only interested in attacking straw men then there's not much point in arguing. I did not say that we should count the neutral vote as a keep vote; I said "for the sake of impartiality let's consider it a neutral vote, since that's what he said it was." I did not "ackowledge that the sources as to his notability do not pass WP:RS". I quote: "It may not unquestionably pass WP:RS with flying colors, but there is no obvious reason why it wouldn't, and no such argument was brought up in the AfD." I did not say that the 2/3 guideline is a part of current policy. I said: "The two-thirds rule is now essentially deprecated to encourage constructive discussion rather than bureaucratic vote-shooting, but it's still a fair guideline to follow as long as the votes express reasonable judgments and no illicit tactics were involved or what not." If you'd like to see the deprecated (not to be confused with "current") policy, you can go through the page history or view an archived version such as this one. I did not say that we ought to follow the 2/3 rule strictly as was done back in 2004. Please read my comments more closely before criticizing them. — xDanielxTalk 10:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist but someone else will have to sponsor the deletion rather than the original nominator, for he withdrew the nomination in the course of the debate. I have no opinion on the merits, which seem equivocal, but a delete in the face of that seems a little excessive. (I agree it was not an automatic speedy keep, because someone else had spoken for deletion.) I'd have closed no-consensus if I had thought that his withdrawal was wrong. DGG (talk) 03:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as no consensus. While the subject's notability may be rather dubious, it's certainly arguable on both sides, and I don't see anything remotely resembling a consensus in the AfD, especially since two of the deletes were submitted before some of the sources came to light, and the final delete cites as its sole rationale the nominator, who had withdrawn his somewhat curiously-argued nomination. David Mestel(Talk) 15:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as no consensus, with no prejudice to re-listing. When the nominator flip-flops, it seems the consensus of other participants should be extremely clear to justify deletion. --Ginkgo100talk 22:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, AFD is not decided by vote counting, and that misunderstanding appears to be the sole reason Daniel brought it here. >Radiant< 08:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I may ask, which argument was it that you found so overwhelmingly compelling so as to justify overriding (lack of) consensus? Was it the "'...for Dummies' books aren't notable enough" argument? If so, it may be worth noting that he never wrote any such book; Pro JSF and AJAX doesn't present itself as one, anyway. Was it the "seems to be only marginally notable" statement? Or "[d]elete per nom, down with spam"? Was it one of the four retracted nominational arguments? The first is not really a deletion argument; the second is unevidenced, contradicted by links which were listed in the AfD discussion, and not a reason for deletion anyway; the third was again unsupported and not a reason for deletion; and the fourth was a complaint/warning about sneaky websites. If I may quote Descartes, there doesn't seem to be any "argument so strong that it can never be shaken by a stronger argument [or by community consensus]." — xDanielxTalk 11:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You'd have to ask the closing admin for his reasoning, but your statement again begins with a fallacy. If there is an "overwhelmingly compelling" argument, that does not "justify overriding consensus", but instead it means that consensus lies with the argument. Consensus does not consist of the ten-twenty people that participated in any particular AFD, but of the Wiki at large. >Radiant< 12:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Since when has the "consensus" position been taken to mean the closing admin's idea of the stronger position? The role of the closer is not to determine which side s/he fancies, it is to gauge consensus based on the opinions expressed in the AfD. There can be exceptions in light of clear, uncontentious policy violations (see, e.g. WP:DGFA), but borderline notability generally isn't one of them, least of all when the argument was already considered by each of the AfD participants and rejected by exactly half. — xDanielxTalk 22:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • And that is a false dichotomy, not to mention a straw man. >Radiant< 08:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • A dichotomy of what? Where is the straw man? — xDanielxTalk 09:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as no consensus; neither the weight or numbers nor weight of arguments for deletion is compelling. Evouga 22:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Simply put, I cannot claim that the deletion of this article -- which lacked WP:RS completely, and contained assertions of notability that were very thin -- an abuse of administrative discretion. I could imagine some folks using CSD G11 to delete this; although I wouldn't support that, it also wouldn't be absurd. As it stands, the draft is quite weak. Xoloz 15:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The deletion debate was side-tracked by secondary issues of COI and AGF but the fact remains that this is a bioagraphy article with no assertion of encyclopedic notability. Thus deletion is so clearly the correct outcome that a relist is unnecessary. Eluchil404 03:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

10 August 2007[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Brian Jordan.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|IfD)

It is the source image for Image:Brian Jordancrop.JPG which is definetly useful. Geni 22:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why is it useful? The only other person in the original image is Kenny Farmer, a local radio DJ who might never have an article. --W.marsh 01:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without considering the utility of the uncropped image, it should be undeleted, because it is licensed under the GNU FDL license, and the distribution of the modified image is subject to the terms of section 4.J, which states, "Preserve the network location, if any, given in the Document for public access to a Transparent copy of the Document, and likewise the network locations given in the Document for previous versions it was based on." --Iamunknown 03:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a way we can confirm the original image was indeed licensed under the GFDL? While I do know the uploader has the same name as Kenny Farmer in their screen name, but we do not know if they are the same person. Maybe Geni could email and see if this can be confirmed and if the GFDL license was correct. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and move to Commons. We shouldn't delete the non-cropped version of stuff, we lose information that way. -Nard 04:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious overturn since the license forbids doing otherwise. Evouga 08:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Feed Me Bubbe – Undelete and relist on AfD. There seems to be new information and at least one new reference that can be cited (maybe more). – IronGargoyle 05:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Feed Me Bubbe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Before when this went to a deletion review there was still not enough for it being considered notable but now with the Wall Street Journal and ABC World News with Charles Gibson how much more notable do you need to get? If more is needed to be notable please specify how much more press is needed? Chalutz 14:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you specify what these refs are for this cooking podcast? DGG (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is from ABC News. Corvus cornix 22:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete The ABC News story is something, and there were some sources in the deleted article anyway. --W.marsh 01:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and relist The new sources at least justify an AfD. Xoloz 02:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Slovio – Deletion endorsed. Closing admin cited fundamental policy in deleting; this is within his discretion where reasonable, as "AfD is not a vote," subject to the oversight of DRV for clearly erroneous judgments. The consensus below supports the closure as within discretion. – Xoloz 02:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Slovio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|AfD2)

One week ago, the article about the constructed language Slovio was deleted after this discussion. The closing admin, Coresedat, argued his decision as follows: "There are strong arguments for deletion that don't seem to be addressed by those arguing to keep." There are several reasons why I think this decision is wrong. First of all, when the article was deleted, there were five "votes" for keeping and five for deleting; this is hardly what one would call "consensus". Of these five votes for deleting, only one of them actually used any argument at all. In other words, I have a strong impression that the closing admin, instead of participating in the discussion, simply pushed his own view. The second issue is that the discussion was still going on at the time; somebody promised to present more evidence for notability within a day, but didn't even get the chance. Let's face it: whether you like the language or not (personally I don't very much, but that's not the issue here), Slovio is probably the best-known and most successful artificial language ever created since 1980. At the moment, it produces 156,000 google hits. Delving for evidence of the language's notability is something that takes time, and I believe we should be given the occasion for it. Therefore, I move that the article be undeleted and the AfD reopened. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 08:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse my deletion with no prejudice against recreation with reliable sources. The problem was that the arguments for keeping were not based in policy or guidelines for the most part, and the arguments for deletion were strong. No references were presented and the AFD ran its course properly. Also, this is not AFD Part 2. --Coredesat 08:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know this is not AFD part 2, and I'm definetely not trying to reopen the discussion here. My point is that the discussion was still going on when you closed it with nothing even close to a consensus. References were presented, namely by myself. In the meantime, I've been looking around a bit and found several more references. Somebody else promised references as well. I'm not accusing anybody of bad faith here, I'm just stating that the deletion was done prematurely. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 09:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as no consensus. I agree that the discussion was hasty and that there was no consensus. I had no opinion on whether the article should have been deleted (compare that with my vehement opposition to deleting Toki Pona before, of which I was proven to be correct as it appeared in Canada's largest newspaper a few weeks later), but yes, I think it would be a bad idea to set a precedent where an article can be deleted without consensus. Mithridates 10:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist I think there was clearly no consensus. DGG (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak endorse. I happen to agree with the closer's reasoning here that the delete !votes were more substantial and feel that in close-call situations like this it's generally within the closing admin's discretion how to let the chips fall. However, relisting to generate more thorough consensus might have been a better idea given the close and contentious nature of the debate. I'm practically neutral here but willing to give the closer the benefit of the doubt and call it an endorsement. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse per logic of Coredesat and Arkyan. If this is going to be recreated we need reliable sources. JoshuaZ 19:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion; AfD is not a vote, admin behaved appropriately, et cetera. User:IJzeren Jan states that, Of these five votes for deleting, only one of them actually used any argument at all. One look at the recent AfD demonstrates that this is not the case, however--I see five clear arguments to delete (counting the nom) and not one WP:JUSTAVOTE. Aside from the nom, we've got (1) There are no real references that demonstrate its notability. (User:Fragglet), (2) Google turns up only 13 results for "slavio constructed language"(with out inverted commas), to distinguish from "slavio" which yields 300,000+. Though, I do question what has changed since the lastm nomination, and the principle of "stare decisis" implies that a decision that has already been made should be let to stand. (User:Martianlostinspace), (3) undistinguished personal project, no evidence of notability. (User:Wile E. Heresiarch), and (4) Let Hucko do his self-promotion on his own website. (User:Friday) All of those would seem to make use of argument, and are perfectly reasonable arguments for an AfD, at that. Heather 22:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, Heather, AfD is not a vote. I'm perfectly aware of that. To the best of my knowledge, a decision for deletion should be based on consensus, however, and the discussion shows clearly that this was not the case yet. All four arguments you list above are moot:
  • (1) because there ARE references; I gave no less than three and could contintue;
  • (2) first of all, because the name of the language is Slovio, not Slavio, secondly because this search would turn up only results in English (as if sources in other languages would count, which in my non-Anglosaxon opinion is pretty anglocentric);
  • (3) because it is merely a slogan repeating (1);
  • (4) because it implies that Hucko wrote the article himself, which AFAIK is not the case.
Look, this is not the place for discussing the validity of the arguments used in the discussions. Let's just say that both sides used a few strong arguments. My real objection against the closure is not that the arguments are invalid, but that it took place in the very middle of a discussion when where was not a trace of consensus yet. It shouldn't be interrupted by a closing admin who steps out like a deus ex machina, imposing his own personal view on the matter.
NB1 How can I recreate the article and add references when it has been deleted?
NB2 The result of the first AfD, four months earlier, was keep. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 08:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as no consensus. Although they weren't part of the AfD or even en.wikipedia, the sheer number of interwikis suggests that there is consensus outside en.wikipedia that it is notable, which I think confounds any finding of consensus to delete. If it is not overturned, it should be relisted to allow the "strong arguments for deletion" to be addressed. --Ginkgo100talk 23:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The number of interwikis doesn't necessarily suggest notability. It suggests that there are people who were eager to make all links to Slavic languages blue in the Wikipedia in their language and used an old version of {{Slavic languages}} as their reference. I can read Slavic languages well enough to understand them, and i can also read Esperanto and Interlingua. I read all those articles and none of them adds any significant sources that prove notability. But now this "many interwikis" argument is used against deletion. The problem is that "many interwikis" is not a part of the Deletion policy, while notability is. --Amir E. Aharoni 09:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion. Interwki argument of Ginkgo100 is valid. This would be a very rare example of a voice missing from the English Wikipedia and present in so many others (more than 20!). One of the arguments for deletion cites Google search for Slavio, i.e. a search for misprints. I have found in the minute Slovenian cyber space 7-10 references to Slovio, including reports of linguistics seminars. Whether Slovio will catch on is a great question, considering the notorious "Slavic unity", but it is at least a serious effort of the author. It deserves mention as much as tons of literary, pop-art and other trivia present on the Wikipedia. As for current effort see also Slovopedia - Meta-Wiki. MGTom 00:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extend DR and temporarily undelete article for purposes of discussion. I haven't seen the article and can't see it now, which means that I (unlike the administrators who deleted it) am thus prevented from fully participating in this discussion. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 23:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • History restored behind tag Done, although this doesn't necessarily mean the DRV will be extended. That's up to whoever closes it. --Coredesat 08:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse because AFD is emphatically not a vote count. Any DRV nomination that starts with "there were X votes to foo and Y votes to bar therefore it is no consensus" is essentially misguided. >Radiant< 08:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I am the nominator of the AfD. The number of Google hits proves nothing. First of all, "Slovio" is a word in the Serbo-Croatian language, which has nothing to do with this artificial language, but it does beef up the Google hit count. I really did my best to find significant sources that will prove its notability and couldn't find anything. If someone does find any convincing sources for notability, i will support re-creation. --Amir E. Aharoni 08:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn because ignoring the lack of consensus is essentially misguided. The closer chose to participate on one side rather than acting as a neutral referee. Abberley2 15:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did? Consensus is partially based on strength of arguments. No one addressed the issue of sourcing, so the concerns of the nominator had not been addressed. --Coredesat 21:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Exactly. First the notability should be proved, then the article should be re-created. The only thing that is anywhere near a proof that this language really is "the best-known and most successful artificial language ever created since 1980" was a German paper cited by IJzeren Jan, which mentioned Slovio as the best known Slavic-based artificial language. However, i couldn't find in that paper an explanation of why is it the best known one. Maybe it's because i don't know German so well. If someone can point me to the paragraph in the paper that actually proves this point, i'll withdraw my deletion proposal immediately. (I really try not to be anglocentric - English is my third language.) --Amir E. Aharoni 07:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Template:Wider attention – TfD closure endorsed. Technically, what happened here is called "supercession by events" -- circumstances changed during the debate, making a compromise clear to all parties (those who noticed it, anyway) thereafter. This is reason why admins are empowered to evaluate "changes in the course of the discussion" when closing XfDs; it is perfectly in process to ignore older comments made before the compromise was offered. Radiant closed this because he discovered a better idea (partially nullifying his own nomination), implemented it, and most thoughtful commenters are very happy about this: this is an outcome everyone can admire. – Xoloz 03:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Wider attention (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|TfD)

The person who closed this was the nominator, and depreceated the template and {{Wider attention list}}. There was a clear consensus to keep, yet the nom closed it as a split. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 02:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse closure. Betacommand and Radiant overhauled the whole of RfC, making RfC as simple as this template was. The original creator of the template, MessedRocker, agreed at the TfD that it should be merged. The page now serves as a pointer to the revamped RfC process. This all helps avoid process forking/duplication. (It might have been simpler to ask someone, before jumping into the deletion review process ;) --Quiddity 04:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, leaning towards overturn or perhaps relist. Interesting case - I would have voted Delete myself, but the consensus is overwhelmingly Keep. It seems that the current state of WP:RFC does reflect the concerns of those arguing to keep "Wider attention" as a more casual alternative, with qualifiers like "Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours." Though I would have given more weight to Radiant's point, I think the Keep votes are logically sound (albeit perhaps not compelling), so the closure does seem somewhat shaky considering overwhelming 11-4 vote. — xDanielxTalk 04:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That 2user/48hr stipulation is only for User Conduct RfCs, not article content RfCs (which is what Wider Attention was concerned with). [See also this new thread at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Amending the certification requirement, where an arbcom member suggests that particular stipulation be reconsidered or removed]
    The keep votes were primarily of the ILIKEIT variety, which is fine, because the essence is still there in the new simplified RfC template system. See Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep and Wikipedia:Practical process for the philosophical intent behind the merge. --Quiddity 04:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And the 11-4 vote is simply indicative that Nobody Read the Preceding Comments, as Betacommand had already explained at 18:32, 6 August 2007 that he was happy and ready to Merge the processes. This is why closing admins don't votecount: often half the participants aren't paying attention! --Quiddity 03:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as it is a fine merge between RFC and Watt which should make discussion much more centralized and much easier. MessedRocker (talk) 05:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. What actually happened (and this could have been made clearer) is that Radiant withdrew the deletion nomination when the discussion was rendered moot. The template's replacement with pointers to the new ones is not a TfD decision; it's what occurred instead of continuing a pointless debate. Such a change doesn't require a TfD listing and probably should have been proposed in the first place. —David Levy 09:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously overturn, and what the hell?! The list wasn't even about RFCs, and Radiant should not have closed it (especially as his/her reasons for closing were completely irrelevant to the template). Kamryn · Talk 21:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact if anything this was a better method than using RFCs. RFCs require creating a new page and going through endless bureaucracy. This meant you could just add a tag to the talk page. The discussion should have been allowed to continue, at least. Kamryn · Talk 21:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (on just a technical note, you're allowed (and encouraged) to expand your own comments right after making them. The above comments would be a bit clearer as a single entry, ie without the 2nd bullet/indent/sig/timestamp, plus it's a good habit to keep :)
    On topic: Your concerns are all answered in the comments given immediately above, by two admins, one of whom is the original creator of {{wider attention}}. He originally made it because RfC was too complicated. But RfC has now been drastically simplified (It doesn't require any bureaucracy or page creation. It's as simple as tagging! Almost exactly how wider-attention worked!)
    So if you clearly explain what the actual problem is, then we can actually help :) Like are you missing having the results all in one spot? Try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Articles -- that's all the articles that actually wanted "more attention" from the community (in contrast to the tiny subset that had discovered the new {{wider attention}} template). We could add that to the Community Portal maybe? Lots of options. Options are better than rants ;)
    The topics even have summaries, so it's no longer quite as complicated trying and figure out what a topic or argument is about! However, the instructions for using and adding summaries to the templates needs to be made clearer (well, added at all). I have no time now, but will tomorrow if nobody beats me to it (hint!). --Quiddity 03:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't be patronising. Anyway, on topic: In case you weren't aware, WP:DRV is for discussing if deletions were done properly. And in this case, no, it really was not. This practice of allowing nominators to withdraw their noms regardless is beyond ridiculous. After a few days of discussion - "Oh I'm sorry, it's been satisfied to my satisfaction now, you can all go home". The consensus was overwhelmingly keep, as an admin mentioned above (which you neglect to mention, I note), ILIKEIT concerns are valid when it comes to meta-material and this template still functions much differently to the new RFC templates, so Radiant's point is "moot". I love how the deprecated template says "Since the list of "issues for wider attention" is very long, please use one of the following templates instead..". Each individual topic now is much longer than the wider attention list was before it was deprecated: [24]. What you can do to help is not allow admins to delete things that I and many others found useful when they have personally judged the matter to be resolved. Kamryn · Talk 07:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. Nothing was deleted. In accordance with consensus, the template was kept. As I explained above, the decision to fork it into multiple new templates was not part of the TfD result. It was made independently and required no formal debate. The same change could have been made if the debate had run its course and ended with an obvious keep outcome (a bureaucratic exercise) or if the debate had never even occurred.
    2. The fact that the individual lists are longer than the former combined list is a major argument in favor of the new setup. Just imagine how long the combined list would have become upon reaching this level of use (which I assume the wording in question refers to). —David Levy 08:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1.You stated that "RFCs require creating a new page..." which is false; article and style RfCs never did that. Only user conduct RfCs do.
    2. You stated "The consensus was overwhelmingly keep, as an admin mentioned above (which you neglect to mention, I note)" which is false. Neither xdanielx or groovedog (or I) are admins, and I did point out that votecounting does not equal consensus.
    3. You stated "I love how the deprecated template says..." for which, see WP:SARCASM.
    4. You stated "This meant you could just add a tag to the talk page." Well, now you can add 1 of the 11 templates to a talkpage, plus a neutral summary. This means you are more likely to get topically-knowledgeable editors at any particular discussion.
    5. You stated "Each individual topic now is much longer than the wider attention list was..." Yes, this is because wider attention was new, and only a handful of editors had discovered it so far. It was a process fork, a redundant split, a duplicate effort.
    The aim of the merge was to Fix RfC. All of RfC is requesting "wider attention". Do you have any suggestions on how to further improve/simplify RfC? Or specific examples that you feel were only appropriate for {{Wider attention}}, and are fundamentally unsuitable for RfC? --Quiddity 18:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I've read WP:SARCASM, thanks. And re: point 2. I was referring to your comment above ("Your concerns are all answered in the comments given immediately above, by two admins"). Anyhow, I'll strike my vote as I really don't have the time to defend my views to people I fundamentally disagree with. It is a wasted effort for both sides, I think .Kamryn · Talk 19:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, When I re-did RFC I thought that the {{Wider attention}} would still be used tandem with the new RFC methods. {{wider attention}} is kinda the catch all version of RFC, those that dont fit into an specific are and could serve as a place holder in case a user is unsure of where it would go in RFC. βcommand 03:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist Editors shouldn't close their own TfD or AfD submissions, see WP:COI. -- 146.115.58.152 04:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, obviously. Since nobody wants the template deleted, TFD is not relevant here. Anything else can be dealt with through regular editing. The reason the template was split was because the actual list of things that people want wider attention on is this long. Other than that there have been a numbr of people who mistakenly thought that RFC was a formal, official and bureaucratic process, which by design it's not. >Radiant< 08:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Kinda directors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I tried to put informations about KINDA but it was deleted. the page is kindadirectors. I don't understand why because wikipedia have lot of information about film directors. I saw you have information about others directors who are exactly the same kind of directors as Kinda. Kinda have also links with other informations in wikipedia as bonnie pink, inoue yosui, olympus, bandai.... So maybe, this page has been deleted in error. best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laetitiaetlouise (talk • contribs)

  • Endorse speedy deletion... the article contained one sentence (which really didn't say much of anything coherent), so it looks like a worthy A7/A1. As an aside, this article looks pretty much the same as one or more versions deleted last month. I don't want to bite and/or turn this into something that it isn't, but perhaps someone should take a look at this (closed as no consensus, but does not appear unjustified given the timing of the account creations and the text of the latest creation/deletion of this article). --Kinu t/c 04:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - appears to have been a correct speedy. Recreate if you can write an article about them which is acceptable. --Haemo 04:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The deleted article didn't assert importance, or list any sources that have written about these filmmakers, or explain what they've done, etc. --W.marsh 13:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse' 4 separate eds. thought it was an A7 in turn, and I think they were all of them correct. DGG (talk) 03:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse a valid A7 speedy deletion (times three). The fact that none of the three versions made a claim to notability weakens the nominator's argument that they "tried" to add more information. --Ginkgo100talk 23:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

9 August 2007[edit]

  • List of cultural references to A Clockwork Orange – Deletion overturned; relisted at AfD. AfD closer failed -- at both the AfD and the DRV -- to offer substantial rationales for his decision. The irritation he exhibits at the mere fact of appeal is suggestive, indicating the claims of a prior vested interest in this species of article may not be without merit. In any case, it is a good idea for all XfD closers to offer expanded rationales when closing a difficult XfD. Failure to do so can be grounds for overturning, when supported by community consensus. Such is the result below. – Xoloz 04:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of cultural references to A Clockwork Orange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|AFD2)

This article was deleted with a borderline Delete consensus here after 8 editors unanimously agreed it should be kept in this previous AfD. I think this meets speedy keep condition 2-iv: "making nominations of the same article with the same arguments after they were strongly rejected." Technically the 2nd nominator did add an additional other stuff exists point, but I think that was more of a contextualization than a deletion argument. I'm not saying we should ignore the new AfD (keeping in mind that consensus can change), but since the first AfD had a more clear outcome than the second and there were no substantial changes in between (other than the voters involved), I think we should at least give the article a chance at being relisted. An old version of the article can be viewed here. — xDanielxTalk 23:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse closure as the closing admin. Consensus can change, and it seems that it did. --Eyrian 00:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - since nothing changed between the two AfDs, I think it makes a lot more sense to evaluate all the input from both AfDs and not only one. WP:CCC doesn't really say that we must go with the most recent consensus -- just that in some cases it is appropriate to do so. If we're going to be following policy strictly, I would argue that the second AfD was invalid because of the speedy keep guidelines. Again, I don't really think we should ignore the opinions in the second AfD because of a technicality (keeping in mind WP:IGNORE), but I don't think we should ignore those of the first AfD either. Whatever policy says, I really see no compelling reason to ignore any of the opinions that have been expressed, as they all related to the same issue. — xDanielxTalk 00:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Eyrian, a very new admin, should not have closed the discussion, as he has a definite position on such articles, as shown by having nominated a few dozen such in the last month. I support many such articles, but you won;t find me going in and closing even the more obvious ones. Most such Afds were in fact closed by neutral admins. DGG (talk) 01:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excuse me? When did newness have anything to do with it? I've spent plenty of time here on Wikipedia, and I know the policies well. --Eyrian 01:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
      • (newness in not realising you shouldn't have closed on this, as you presumably held a strong opinion at the time)DGG (talk) 15:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Presumably? I see, so this really is just a witch hunt. For the record, it was looking at AfDs like this that formed my opinions. --Eyrian 15:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Overturn Eyrian should not close any "X in popular culture" AFDs. He is too biased on the topic. In this case, the proper close was no consensus. GRBerry 01:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • All I'm seeing is a bunch of personal comments, stirred up by more recent actions, going against a clear majority of 7-4. --Eyrian 01:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. Eyrian should not have closed this, and I will respectfully ask that he not close any more popular culture articles as delete. That said, this is actually more clear-cut than many of the deletes. Many of the same invalid arguments to keep here, but more numerical support for deletion here than others that have closed. Cool Hand Luke 01:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing wrong with Eyrian closing it, but I think it would be helpful not to in the future. Cool Hand Luke 02:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The Speedy Keep criterion mentioned by the nominator did not apply in this case, as it is used as a possible example of a nomination that is "unquestionably vandalism or disruption and nobody unrelated recommends deleting it". The nomination was not "unquestionably vandalism or disruption" and there were others recommending that it be deleted. WarpstarRider 02:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Point taken. I think to some extent it's an issue with the organization and/or wording of the project page, as it seems like a borderline inconsistency. Semantics aside, I believe the reasoning of WP:SD#G4 applies for speedy keeps as well -- unless circumstances change substantially, the original decision should stand or be brought to DRV where appropriate. Perhaps we shouldn't ignore the second AfD since by chance it produced unusually different results, but I think we should at least consider the merits of both AfDs. — xDanielxTalk 03:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - closing admin correctly interpreted th AFD discussion and deleted the article. Consensus can change and can change rapidly and there were no arguments presented in this AFD that offset the deletion concerns raised in the nomination. Otto4711 04:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "giant trivia/'in pop culture' fork" -- do you mean that concern? I don't think it's really a concern; it's more of a casual notice saying "if you are against pop culture articles, drop a delete vote here; if you support pop culture articles, please only vote once." I don't think evaluating the second AfD on argumentative merit is really plausible, considering the lack of depth and decisiveness in the discussion. — xDanielxTalk 08:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean all of the concerns raised by all of the people voicing the opinion to delete, not just the ones made by the nominator. Last I heard, all of the arguments made in the course of an AFD are supposed to be weighed, and even if the nomination itself is seen as weak (which I'm not saying this one was) other comments bringing up other concerns might not be. Closing admin correctly weighed the arguments on both sides and came to an appropriate conclusion. Otto4711 21:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Remembering that "merge" is a form of "keep", not a form of "delete" I count this as 7:6 for deletion, which is clearly not a numerical consensus. I do not find the delete arguments overwhelmingly stronger than than the delete arguments -- whether a list is a "loosely associated collection of information" is a judgment call, and that was really the only point at issue here. On those grounds alone, this should have been closed as "no consensus". When you add in the relatively recent prior AfD (explicitly appealed to by at least one participant in the second AfD, it is at least arguably sensible to consider the two together. If that is done, there is far more clearly no consensus to delete. To tip this off, the closer had previously expressed strong views on this type of article, and he closed, in accord with those views, an AfD that was to put it mildly far from clear-cut. That alone would be a reason to overturn the close. Putting all these together makes this a very clear overturn indeed. I would add, I urge people not to relist either at once or within the next month or two. DES (talk) 04:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • AfDs are not votes. The ratio is irrelevant. I evaluated the strength of the arguments, and made my choice. And before people jump in and scream that I'm biased and can't possibly evaluate that fairly, please note that this is before I started nominating many articles myself. Since then, I have recused myself from closing such discussions. --Eyrian 14:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
      • AfDs are not pure votes. But AfDs are not just a matter of people giving advice to an admin or other closer, who then decides, either. AfDs are, in general, about determining consensus. (the exception is when a non-negotiable policy is clearly involved.) While the strengths of the arguments must be taken into account, and people expressing trivial arguments or ones that contravene policy may be discounted, when the matter is essentially a judgment call , the numbers do matter -- indeed they often should dominate the decision, IMO. I am uncomfortable deleting unless there is a significant super-majority for deletion or the arguments for deletion are much stronger than those for retention, and i think all closers should have that attitude. Closers should not "make a choice", they should evaluate what the collective choice of those who commented in the discussion is, insofar as that can be determined. When it can't the close should be "no consensus" unless there is an overriding non-negotiable policy being broken by the article, that can only be cured by deletion. DES (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I respectfully disagree with "all closers should have that attitude". I think what you're doing constitutes sophistry, and I do not see it anywhere in the deletion policy. I looked at the arguments for keep, and determined they were not valid. The first had no explanation, the second admitted that importance was not justified, the third made reference to an AfD comprised entirely of "I like it", and the fourth said that it should be kept on the basis of original research. That simply doesn't fly. --Eyrian 16:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
          • I don't see where I am being sophistical, although i do see that you disagree with me. Note that Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators says "Administrators necessarily must use their best judgment, attempting to be as impartial as is possible for a fallible human, to determine when rough consensus has been reached" That page indicates that arguments made in apparent bad faith may be disregarded, and that some arguments override all others (citing as examples detection of a copyvio and rewrites or addition of previously missing sources). It also indicates that clear violations of WP:NOR, WP:V, or WP:NPOV require deletion "where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching these three policies. Wikipedia:Guide to deletion says: "The purpose of the discussion is to achieve consensus upon a course of action." It also says that: "Merge is a recommendation to keep the article's content but to move it into some more appropriate article." I note that in your discussion of those who favored keeping the article, you do not address the views of those who opted for a merge -- please remember that these are in fact a subset of the keep views. WP:DP says "The discussion lasts at least five days; afterwards, pages are deleted if there is consensus to do so. If there is no consensus, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing" Thus emphasizing there there must (normally) be a consensus to delete, and that in the absence of a consensus, the page should not be deleted. All that said, if all or most of those favoring delete gave invalid reasons, that is grounds to discount their views. One person referred to 'notable info" implicitly stating that at least some of it was notable. A second favored merging "sourced info" only, implying that such info as is sources should be retained. A third gave no particular reason. A forth opined that this was "Significantly more important in popular culture than the other Kubrick films" which is a judgment on its notability and thus encyclopicity. A fifth included by reference all the arguments in the prior AfD. A sixth said that it should be kept because "the list tells us how influential and significant the film/book are by showing its widespread impact" which is a reason why content is a proper part of an encyclopedia. That is not OR, as I see it. (Reasons in the first afd included ""A Clockwork Orange" (both the Kubrick film and Burgess novel) have been considered highly controversial and influential and cannot be fairly compared to "random films" as the nominator has." and "Clockwork Orange has had significant influences on various types of popular culture, and this article demonstrates that" and "I think it is worth documenting the extent of influence of the film," none of which are simple "ILIKEIT" nor are they endorsements of OR, as all said that entries must be sourced.) DES (talk) 17:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as no consensus There doesn't appear to be any consensus on what to do with the article (keep, delete, or merge). --Farix (Talk) 14:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion USERFY if anyone wants to work on the merge Corpx 19:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion for the reasons stated in the debate, without prejudice to userfication for someone who wants to work on it for merger or resubmission if it can overcome the shortcomings that led to its deletion in the first place. I must say that attacking the integrity or alleged bias of the closing admin is becoming too frequent here and frankly taints any otherwise useful parts of the arguments raised by editors making those accusations. See WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, and the notion of "crying wolf" comes to mind. That said, there are literally dozens of "in popular culture" or "cultural references to" articles that are going through Afd and we cannot expect that each be closed by a different admin, because after each admin's first closure either as keep, delete, or even no consensus, someone may imagine bias imparted toward the second closure. I personally won't close them - even the obvious ones, which I just skipped over in trying to get the 100 or so old unclosed afds closed - but that's my thin skin at not wanting to have said of me what some have said of the closing admin here. In these pop culture debates, the various "sides" are generally identifiable with a few "swing !votes" that may go one way or another, but again it's not necessarily weight of numbers, but weight of arguments. That emotions have run high and civility has been lost by several editors, seems to have spilled over to here. That's unfortunate, but it does not mean that the process or result was wrong. Carlossuarez46 02:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. With all due respect to the closing admin and Carlossuarez46, closure by administrators who are emotionally invested for or against an article is a serious problem of conflict of interest and should absolutely not be ignored by deletion review, especially in cases like this one where consensus is not at all clear. Evouga 07:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that this AFD was nothing more than a judgment call - it could have been classified as no consensus or delete - and Eyrian just made the decision to delete it. You're all acting like this is some huge deal because he's a new administrator, but there's two things everyone seems to be ignoring: 1.) Yes, he's new, but he seems to have a strong understanding of Wikipedia policies and a good idea of how AFDs work. Were this any other administrator no one would be concerned with the decision; people are just criticizing Eyrian because he's new and it gives them a supposed "reason". And that's not right. 2.) Why is this such a big deal? Even if his decision wasn't what you yourself would have agreed with, we can simply undelete it if we really, really need to. That's what this discussion is for. So if you want the article to exist that badly, make comments on why it should exist, not why you disagree with Eyrian's decision. And so what if he was directly involved in the AFD? It was a pretty clear NC/delete, and he has the option to close it, regardless of his involvement. --ParakeetSong 21:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because DRV is about reviewing process, not whether or not the article should exist, which is the purpose of AfD. Administrative bias is exactly the kind of thing that should be considered here. Evouga 22:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then explain to me why it is that the DRVs that are currently on this page and every one that I've ever seen (not to mention participated in) are about the article and not the deletion process? --ParakeetSong 01:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Simple - process often (usually?) requires also evaluating the article content - in fact, for speedy deletions it always does. WP:CSD#A7 requires that the article be in certain topical areas and not have an assertion of notability - test via content. Similarly for any other speedy deletion criteria. When evaluating an XfD close, the question is whether the closing admin correctly judged consensus. Consensus is a function of weight of numbers (visible in XfDs) and weight of arguments - argument weights require testing article content, because false arguments get made sometimes and sometimes articles are improved (or made worse) after arguments are made. GRBerry 02:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And it seems to me that the closing admin was left with a judgment call because the AFD was in between NC and delete. It was his choice. Was it a bad idea to do so while being directly involved in the debate? Sure, but there's not rule that explicitly says not to, and even if there was, it wouldn't matter. Think about it like this: yes, he was involved, but I'm sure there are plenty of other administrators who would have also read the AFD as "delete" and done exactly what he did. The fact that he was part of the debate is irrelevant; he deleted the article objectively, if you ask me. There's no reason to berate him for doing so when one can clearly see that the AFD could have been swung as NC or delete. --ParakeetSong 03:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why it is paramount that the closing admin who makes this judgment call have no emotional stake in the debate. Evouga 20:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you have to remember that people interpret "merge" differently. Does it count as a "delete" vote or a "keep" vote? If it counts as keep, the AFD went (6/1/6)(K/R/D); however, if it counts as delete, the article was (4/1/8) (K/R/D). So what is it, NC or delete? Both. It's really up to the closing administrator to decide. --ParakeetSong 03:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Let's not forget that there were two AfDs, not only one. In terms of keep:delete votes, the most recent AfD was 6:6, 4:6, or 4:8 depending on how you count. The older one was 7:0 or 8:0 depending on how you count. Regardless, merging the two AfDs results in an overwhelming consensus for keep. As I said, both AfDs evaluated the very same issues under the same light. There was no new evidence, no new news, just a different group of editors which happened to stumble across the second AfD. I see no distinguishing factors between the two AfDs that might be reasons to disregard the old AfD. This isn't a case of consensus changing, unless you count a different random pool of editors with different agendas as a "consensus change." Approximately 20 editors have expressed opinions on the very same issues, none of them voiced notable concerns which hadn't already been considered (in all likelihood) by all the other editors. Unless someone can show that the eight editors involved in the first AfD were sockpuppets, or that they were editing under the influence, or that they had all incidentally posted in the wrong AfD, or something similar, I suggest that we consider both of the AfDs and not ignore the first. I realize that AfD is not a vote, but reviewing the two AfDs together shows that a very clear majority supported keeping the article. It takes a very blatant policy violation to support deletion in light of a ~70% overall consensus for keep. The policy-based deletion arguments were premised on applications of WP:NOT#DIR and the like, which are highly controversial (the applications, that is) and anything but blatant. — xDanielxTalk 11:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merging two separate AFDs? What? That's completely ridiculous - yes, you can look back on previous nominations for an idea of what the consensus was back then, but how is this not a case of WP:CCC? Whether or not there was a change in the article or standards between the time of the first and second AFD doesn't matter. There were clearly different thoughts on the article in the second AFD. And maybe it was just a different group of editors who had very different views. So? The AFD was still borderline delete; no one is required to base the decision off any other AFD than the present unless there is a clear pattern of consensus or a long string of controversy (i.e., the GNAA). A single AFD that was a strong keep hardly fits that description. --ParakeetSong 11:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've still offered no reason at all for why we should give more weight to the more recent AfD in this case. The community's consensus does not "change" when a different handful of editors happens to stumble across an AfD. WP:CCC makes this very clear:

It is very easy to create the appearance of a changing consensus simply by asking again and hoping that a different and more sympathetic group of people will discuss the issue. This, however, is a poor example of changing consensus, and is antithetical to the way that Wikipedia works. Wikipedia's decisions are not based on the number of people who showed up and voted a particular way on a particular day. It is based on a system of good reasons. Attempts to change consensus must be based on a clear engagement with the reasons behind the current consensus — so in the new discussion section, provide a summary and links to any previous discussions about the issue on the articles talk page, or talk page archives, to help editors new to the issue read the reasons behind the consensus so that they can make an informed decision about changing the consensus. A good sign that you have not demonstrated a change in consensus, so much as a change in the people showing up, is if few or none of the people involved in the previous discussion show up for the new one.

Our scenario is exactly what WP:CCC cautions is not a genuine consensus change. Among those who supported the deletion of the article in question, none of them mentioned the previous AfD. The second AfD didn't bring any "new information" to light (still quoting WP:CCC); there was and is no reason why the original AfD was "badly founded"; there were no "good reasons to believe a consensual decision was outdated"; and there were no "insights we did not have previously." The only difference was that a different group of editors with different individual views happened to stumble across the second AfD. If Democrats voted on a Monday, and Republicans on a Tuesday, ought we to conclude that "consensus changed" and ignore one of the two parties? I don't see any reasoning in the position, and I think WP:CCC clearly supports my view. — xDanielxTalk 02:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How can you honestly say that the policy on these types of articles or the article itself didn't change? Did you carefully go through RC every waking moment of every day between the first and second AFD to make sure? And how do you know that these kinds of articles aren't simply being deleted now because the mindset on them has changed? Can you tell what other people are thinking? No? Didn't think so. The thing is that you cannot say for certain that nothing changed between the first and second AFD. I can see very clearly what you're trying to insinuate here, and I can understand why you'd think it, but you have no way to prove it. Unless you somehow come up with a way to read the mind of every Wikipedian while simultaneously proving that the group of editors who voted on the second AFD were simply of a different bias than the first, we can only judge the merit of the article based on the current AFD discussion. The first AFD carries no weight because consensus can change, and we must look at the current consensus to determine what to do. Two thousand years ago it was believed that the Earth is flat; today it is believed that it is round. Should we look back two thousand years and use the ideals of science back then to determine that the Earth is flat? No, because the ideas changed and they are now accepted as correct. Had the Earth changed dramatically between the time of the two opposing views? No, it was basically the same. But the views had changed, and that it what is important. Have you considered that perhaps, between the time of the first and second AFD, the views on articles that list cultural references had changed? Because that's the only way that properly explains the difference in the first and second AFD And unless you can supply proof that the entire group of editors who voted on it were biased or that some sort of trickery was involved, you have no way of showing that views regarding lists of cultural references have not changed and that the second AFD was wrong. So why focus on the one from two thousand years ago that is outdated and has views that have likely changed? --ParakeetSong 06:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't prove beyond any possible doubt that none of the events which occured in the universe between the two AfDs could have had some diminutive effect on the will of the community. That does not imply that the opposite is true. Thankfully I don't have to reach an impossible degree of certainty to challenge a suggested consensus change, just as editors don't have to search every document that was ever written in order to challenge a subject's notability. We're not dealing with a time gap of 2,000 years; in this case the time gap is four months and one day. Yes, views on IPC have changed, though very little in the past four months compared to the time span ranging back 2-3 years (massive escalation of user base). But judging by comments, it seems that the reason why 8 editors unanimously voted Keep the previous time wasn't because they were IPC enthusiasts (well, perhaps one), but because the specific content of this article caused it to stand out as worth of inclusion. The nomination started with "Another 'in popular culture' section . . ." and "There is nothing encyclopaedic about "references to <randomly chosen film> in popular culture", so a list of same is defintely not encyclopaedic." The first commentator voted "Delete with the rest of popular culture", then followed it up with "Comment, should have read the ting ... was slightly prejudisced by the rest of popular culture". Then there was "seems better written and more verified than most 'in culture' articles," and "'A Clockwork Orange' . . . have been considered highly controversial and influential and cannot be fairly compared to 'random films' as the nominator has." The majority of editors in the first AfD evaluated the article based on its contents and not the word "culture" in the title, so their arguments still hold despite any (probably negligible) communal changes in the past few months. If there have been changes to the articles itself, all the better -- overturning the second AfD would allow the community to pick which of the versions it liked best, or to incorporate bits from each. — xDanielxTalk 12:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems pretty clear to me that the community is moving very strongly against popular culture articles. While they were largely untouched a few months ago, about 40% of Category: In popular culture has now been deleted. That says to me that there is strong community consensus against these articles. And I only closed one of the AfDs. --Eyrian 12:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
And heck, if it's kept the first time we can always renominate in a few months time...please drop the generalizations Eyrian and synonymising you views with "Wikipedia" or "The Community". Many people are unaware of AfD debates until well after the fact.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm sure it's intellectually convenient to think of the recent deletions as the work of a dedicated cabal of editors working in concert, that's simply not the case. I've seen a wide variety of individuals participate in the discussions, for a variety of reasons. And I have not made any attempt to coordinate efforts with another editor, nor have I seen any such efforts happening, except on the side of those that want to keep such articles. I've provided some solid evidence that the community perception about these articles is changing, i.e. the fact that a lot of them are being deleted by a variety of admins looking at the discussions of a variety of users. And in return, you have complained about the general deletion process, and difficulty of notification. I simply don't think the two are comparable. --Eyrian 14:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
The fact that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Popular_culture exists serves as a lot easier way for folk who are interested in deleting the articles in question can be kept in the loop than those who may be interested in keeping them. OK, there are a variety of admins but it is a small number taking a very active role at nominating a large number. Even that's ok as you're entitled to your opinion but its when there are group nominations, which at times which generally serve to obfuscate the issue and close debates as delete with only marginal majority in cases where deleters cite incorrect reasons such as article quality and ignore (1) articles with reliable sources and (2) notability - that is what I object to.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why would Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Popular_culture be any more useful to those that want to remove such articles than those that want to keep them? Group nominations don't generally make the article "easier" to delete. I've seen AfDs speedy closed because people think it in bad form to link so many. --Eyrian 14:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
They did in the dino articles - resulting in the time-consuming argument we're having below this one...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) Or maybe the process worked just fine, and a lot of people thought those articles should be axed. Reading the dinosaur AfD, it seems that most people really only cared about the main article. Again, I'm listing community discussions that strongly indicate that consensus has changed, and you're simply upset that a few of those instances (out of a great many) might be flawed, even though I think there's evidence against even that. Sometimes consensus changes in ways we might not like, and that looks to me to be the main objection of the people trying to overturn this. --Eyrian 14:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Eyrian you read it how you want; as I said above, its the means that I object to.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as no consensus, because there seems to be a larger active debate on the popular culture/cultural reference articles at hand here and I think that issue is more of what is being debated rather than the individual merits of these articles. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn due to lack of consensus. It is arbitrary for admins to act in this way. Another admin could have acted differently. The outcome of discussions should be predictable - that is what "no consensus" is for, providing a predictable outcome in uncertain cases. Abberley2 16:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Due to the AFD being borderline NC/delete. No, I have not voted yet. My reasoning is seen in the paragraphs above. --ParakeetSong 22:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC) (Note: thanks to my low edit count and lack of participation in the community, this account may seem a tad suspicious. I am aware of that. If you would like to know the editor I was formerly - before I retired and created this account for emergency use only - please contact me via my talk page. I will be more than happy to confirm who I am. )[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Sharday – Speedy deletion as G4 overturned; the clarification of WP:PORNBIO guideline does represent a change in circumstance here. – Xoloz 04:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Sharday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article passes WP:PORNBIO. She won the 2002 Score Magazine Model of the Year [25] and therefore passes WP:PORNBIO criteria 1; she passes criteria 3 as she has been prolific or innovative within the big-bust genre. Epbr123 21:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment According to the deleted content, she is a model, not a porn actress. I really hope I do not regret bringing this up, but why should WP:PORNBIO apply rather than the stricter guidelines at WP:BIO? --Ginkgo100talk 03:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:PORNBIO applies to pornographic models as well. I don't believe WP:PORNBIO is any less strict than WP:BIO. Most pornstars recieve coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources such as biographies on porn dvd websites and on pornstar databases; the role of WP:PORNBIO is to determine which of this coverage is "trivial". WP:BIO states that someone is generally notable if "the person has received significant recognized awards or honors"; WP:PORNBIO clarifies which awards are significant in terms of pornography. Epbr123 10:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse clear consensus to delete exists. Eluchil404 04:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn or relist per Epbr123 and WP:PORNBIO. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia:How to use the GIMP (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:How to use the GIMP|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Various users have disputed my deletion of this page as it has been speedy deleted incorrectly. I see it as a recreation of transwikied content as well as irrelevant to the project. However, due to the fact that it is a project page and not an article, the transwiki CSD does not count, as well as how there is no MFD. Please look over this. wL<speak·check> 21:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel at somewhat of a disadvantage in evaluating whether or not the page belongs in Wikipedia namespace because, of course, its having been deleted, I can't actually read it.
Given that the admin who deleted the page has acknowledged that it was incorrectly CSD'd, it seems to be that the right thing is to undelete it and immediately post it at MFD. Then for example, there can be discussion whether Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia applies to more than mainspace (I was under the impression that virtually all content-related polices, such as WP:NPOV, apply only to articles).
I'm not arguing, by the way, for keeping the page; I'm arguing for following process. For example, one could argue that information on using the GIMP should be in a paragraph or so at Wikipedia:How to improve image quality, with pointers to pages such as this.
Finally, it would be really, really nice if someone would provide the URL where this content now lives, maybe even on the talk page related to the deleted project page? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick close and Relist at MfD. DGG (talk) 01:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and Relist This isn't an article, so A5's logic doesn't really apply, besides, it mentions only dictionary definitions and AFD discussions. While Wikipedia isn't a howto site, that doesn't mean howto's are not appropriate on Wikipedia, as long as they're in the appropriate space. Since this was a CSD and is being protested, restore it and take it to MFD, especially since the move discussion didn't get much participation. Note, btw, I'm not making this claim solely under process grounds, but rather consensus. I don't see that short of a discussion being demonstrative of consensus. FrozenPurpleCube 03:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Tay Zonday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was deleted several times as an A7, and once as a G4, although it has never been on AfD (as far as I can tell). It was then salted. Given the recent review here of Chocolate Rain, I think this is no longer A7 country, and I have undeleted it. I have also added a major news source citation. Given that this was only an A7 speedy, I wouldn't have bothered to bring this here, except for the salting. I think that I own the community notice of unsalting in this way, and a chance for others to indicate if my actions seem unjustified, although i am confident that they are not. DES (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Uh, it's been restored by you... what's really to review here? If someone thinks this should be deleted they should nominate it for AFD. --W.marsh 19:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps i was unclear. Since I not only restored it, but unsalted it, i was brigning the matter here so that if anyone though my actions improper, they could say so. Perhaps that was excssively meticulous of me -- i thought of it as rather like posting on AN to ask for a block review. DES (talk) 21:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest speedy close. If anyone wants to bring it to AfD, that's what it's there for. IronGargoyle 22:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - An article for Zonday and Chocolate Rain? Seriously? This is screaming for a merge. - hahnchen 22:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, it's been redirected and unredirected at least twice since being listed here. Circeus 22:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Only once, I think. More sources have now been added. DES (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Christianity Explored (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I don't know or care what the article said, there's no apparent dispute that this was an an inappropriate application of CSD G4. Random832 11:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • speedy overturn - take it to AFD if you want it deleted, G4 is only for recreations of deleted MATERIAL, not just any article with the same title as one that was deleted. --Random832 11:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The G4 was not appropriate as the article is significantly different from that deleted previously. It might not survive AfD but we won't know until its taken there. --JodyB yak, yak, yak 12:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. My only involvement in this was deleting the restored version as it was reported as an out-of-process deletion. I have no real opinion either way on the article itself. ^demon[omg plz] 12:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - this is disturbing. ^demon, did you even bother to check if it was a recreation? You do realise you're suppose to take care with the delete button, right? Neil ╦ 13:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Not a valid G4. --W.marsh 12:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Tyrannosaurus in popular culture – Deletion overturned; relisted at AfD. The relisters' arguments -- that the mass AfD caused a distorted result, and that a merge was not fully considered -- went unrebutted in the discussion. – Xoloz 04:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Tyrannosaurus in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

most popualr dinosaur - no consensus reached. Presumable deleted (and Stegosaurus in popular culture kept (?!) because of article quality, which is not a reason for deleting. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • For the record - keep/retrieve whatever. No-one at WP dinosaurs was notified until late in the day and this article deleted when ther was no consensus to do so. Its the most famous dino....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also for the record, this article appears to have been moved to User:AndyJones/Tyrannosaurus in popular_culture as part of the result of this AfD. Zetawoof(ζ) 03:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, validly deleted through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Popular dinosaurs. I have fixed the above AFD link that Casliber did not provide. There's no special rule that says people at special interest projects need to be notified of anything. Neil ╦ 13:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, with the caveat that I will personally restore speedy deletions of a well-written recreation. The fact that the article in the state it was did not establish notability, nor was it properly sourced, however, were reason to delete. Circeus 15:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This was not a speedy deletion. Corvus cornix 20:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the point is that, if the article is rewritten, Circeus will support its recreation. Zetawoof(ζ) 20:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion The only encyclopedic and appropriate part of the article was the intro, all of which could be fit into Tyrannosaurus#Appearances in popular culture. GRBerry 17:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, no new arguments except the attempt at ownership by the Project. Corvus cornix 20:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please. The only complain is that they weren't given a fair chance at saving the article while it was there (thought they admittedly wouldn't have had, most likely, the time to write something that passed AFD). Circeus 21:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete Since when was a lack of sources a reason to delete an article? I thought the subject just had to be notable. Epbr123 21:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since the AfD decided that the entire thing was OR. If someone wants to write up something that comes up to the level of Stegosaurus in popular culture, which is sourced and not a list of trivia, let them do it in their User spage. WP:NOR is binding. Corvus cornix 22:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I haven't seen the original article, but I assume it was mostly a list of films and TV programmes. How could it have all been OR when the films and TV programmes themselves would have been the references? Stegosaurus in popular culture seems to be a "list of trivia" made into prose. How does turning an article into prose make it more notable? Epbr123 22:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • See User:AndyJones/Tyrannosaurus in popular culture, which contains the content. There's hardly anything sourced there, and what is is sub-trivial. Read WP:TRIVIA. Corvus cornix 22:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • If the introduction was worth saving, the principled thing would have been to reduce the list to that introduction and give the article another chance. You did consider that, right? Carcharoth 23:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Me? I didn't do the deleting. Corvus cornix 23:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I never said you did. I'm responding to your claims that the entire article was OR, and specifically your point about "hardly anything". See below for what I consider "hardly anything" to mean here. My opinion is that there is enough material for an existing (re)start on the article, and that it should be restored, reduced to that level, and then allowed to grow organically once more in the hope that the repotted article will grow correctly this time, becoming like the Stegosaurus article, rather than the list it was. Carcharoth 00:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the introduction at least is worth saving. The lists need trimming, sourcing and turning into proper prose explaining (with independent sources) how they show the topic of the article. Carcharoth 22:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Objection - Corvus cornix said above "Since the AfD decided that the entire thing was OR" - it is patently obvious that the introduction was not OR, and was in fact a well-written piece of prose with three references:

    Tyrannosaurus rex is unique among dinosaurs in its place in modern culture. From the beginning, it was embraced by the public. Henry Fairfield Osborn, the President of the American Museum of Natural History, intentionally billed it as the greatest hunter to have ever walked the earth. He stated in 1905:[1]

    “I propose to make this animal the type of the new genus, Tyrannosaurus, in reference to its size, which far exceeds than of any carnivorous land animal hitherto described... This animals is in fact the ne plus ultra of the evolution of the large carnivorous dinosaurs: in brief it is entitled to the royal and high sounding group name which I have applied to it.”

    As for the public, it too was electrified and on December 30, 1905, the New York Times hailed T. rex as "the most formidable fighting animal of which there is any record whatever," the "king of all kings in the domain of animal life," "the absolute warlord of the earth," and a "royal man-eater of the jungle." [2] In 1906, when the skeleton was erected, Tyrannosaurus was dubbed the "prize fighter of antiquity" and the "Last of the Great Reptiles and the King of Them All." [3].

    At the time of its discovery it was the largest known land predator in history and although it has now been displaced in this respect first by the marginally larger Giganotosaurus and then Spinosaurus, it is still popularly perceived as the most fearsome of all prehistoric creatures. Tyrannosaurus has come to represent the quintessential large, meat eating dinosaur in popular culture and is embraced by people the world over as "King of the Dinosaurs" as its name suggests.

    1. ^ John "Jack" Horner and Don "Dino" Lessem, The Complete T. Rex (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1993), pages 58-62

    2. ^ “Mining for Mammoths in the Badlands: How Tyrannosaurus Rex Was Dug Out of His 8,000,000 Year old Tomb,” The New York Times, December 3rd, 1905, page SM1

    3. ^ "The Prize Fighter of Antiquity Discovered and Restored," The New York Times December 30th, 1906, page 21.

    I repeat, the introduction is worth saving, so the question is how to separate the introduction from the list of trivia? The answer is to edit the article and reduce it to just the above. Then possibly merge back into a main article. Carcharoth 23:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • More sourced material - this time from the Tyrannosaurus rex article:

    Since it was first described in 1905, Tyrannosaurus rex, or "tyrant lizard king" has become the most widely-recognized dinosaur in popular culture. It is the only dinosaur which is routinely referred to by its scientific name (Tyrannosaurus rex) among the general public, and the scientific abbreviation T. rex has also come into wide usage (commonly misspelled "T-Rex").[2] Robert T. Bakker notes this in The Dinosaur Heresies and explains that a name like "Tyrannosaurus rex is just irresistable to the tongue."[86]

    Museum exhibits featuring T. rex are very popular; an estimated 10,000 visitors flocked to Chicago's Field Museum on the opening day of its "Sue" exhibit in 2003.[87] T. rex has appeared numerous times on television and in films, notably The Lost World, King Kong, The Land Before Time, Jurassic Park, and Night at the Museum. A number of books and comic strips, including Calvin and Hobbes, have also featured Tyrannosaurus, which is typically portrayed as the biggest and most terrifying carnivore of all. At least one musical group, the band T. Rex, is named after the species. Tyrannosaurus-related toys, including numerous video games and other merchandise, remain popular. Various businesses have capitalized on the popularity of Tyrannosaurus rex by using it in advertisements.

    This quote and the above quote adequately shows that there are enough sources and enough existing material for an article. No need to userfy, no need to delete. Solution is to reduce the article to the above, and keep in article space. People may later try to add their "sightings" of T. rex in various popular culture settings, but that is a job for the editors of the article to restrain, not for AfD to delete. Carcharoth 23:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth, any attempt at undeleting the article is so far only distracting from the need to rewrite it entirely. I agree the delete was hasty, but it's simpler to just rewrite the article entirely, using the userspaced copy for reference to assist in that work, than to try to do anything with what was present at the time. It's quite obvious that if we did recreate the article with only the lead, it would survive a few days before being merged into Tyrannosaurus... Circeus 00:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my response had two purposes: (1) to debunk some of the stuff being said that was plainly wrong; (2) to argue that writing in article space is usually preferable to forcing articles to be written in userspace until they reach a certain standard.
That second point is a slippery slope we might regret going down. Not only does it slow things down to do things that way, but people might start to see nominating for userfication via AfD as an alternative to editing an article and cutting out the bits that are not needed, and pruning to a stub in the hope that the article can grow 'correctly' this time round. My approach is to generally excise excessive triva and lists from such articles, place the trivia and lists on the talk page, add references to what remains, find at least one source giving the topic some respectability, and then to step back and let the wiki-process start again. It really is like gardening - pruning and grafting. AfD, to continue the analogy, is more like applying herbicides and pesticides. Carcharoth 01:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist As I read the Afd, there was no consensus to delete this particular one. Simple as that. Let's not get into more general matters when not necessary.DGG (talk) 01:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, a valid consensus was reached about article content. Even the relisting argument opens with WP:ILIKEIT. --Eyrian 01:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
As opposed to you who obviously doesn't like it. 12/8 is a valid consensus??cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The deletion discussion appears to reach no consensus, so it seems the appropriate action is to keep by default. I do not believe there is clear consensus to delete. --Ginkgo100talk 03:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion (as nominator) - it certainly was not my intention to make for a complicated AFD, as I felt that all of the nominated articles were of similar quality. No arguments were offered at AFD to support the notion that this particular article should be preserved. Closing admin correctly interpreted a complex discussion to determine that this article should be deleted. Otto4711 04:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quality?? What about the subject matter?? As at least part of the contested article is (a)notable and (b) referenced it does not fit any deletion criteria. Article quality as such is not a basis for deletion.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - simple vote-counting here gives me an 8-12 split for deletion, with several keep votes expressing grave concerns and only two or three explaining their reasoning for this particular article. I think the closure was reasonable, given the latitude admins have to decide what the discussion has concluded. --Haemo 05:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally ,everyone aware of this?cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article. There was no consensus to delete (or even move) this article, and there certainly was not a consensus that the "AfD decided that the entire thing was OR". It was a sloppy AFD closure (but not surprising, given the mass nomination in the first place). These mass deletion nominations trouble me (because there is obviously no finesse or research in mass-nominating similarly-named articles at the same time), and it troubles me even more that a closing administrator would mass delete articles like this. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • RelistUpon further consideration, Endorse deletion Although the closure was defensible, this is a damned if you do damned if you don't scenario: list them all together and you may get ambiguity of results (or at least a credible posit of such), list them apart and you get inconsistent results. Here the former, so relist to see if it stands or falls on its own. Carlossuarez46 02:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC) why compound the process with a needless second go-around. Carlossuarez46 02:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Erm...and inconsistent is a problem? Shouldn't each be taken on its own merits? Also you mention "needless second go-around" is if deletion is a foregone conclusion when it wasn't the first time around?cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Inconsistent results are problematic, we adhere to WP:NPOV and recognize our own WP:BIAS, and even the over-cited essay WP#WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS discusses the problem; all the drama about "allegations of apartheid" articles and various ethnic, religious, sexual orientation categories stem in large measure from seemingly inconsistent results. Regardless, I don't think that the passions here will run quite so hot. ;-) It looks like the overturns will end up winning this debate and we'll see whether the repeat of process is or isn't needless. :-) Cheers, Carlossuarez46 00:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - to allow editing to take place in the main article space. Then editors can strip the list (moving it to the talk page for future reference), and expand from the introduction. There is no harm in having a stub there while the editing process takes place. We shouldn't be over-reliant on userfication when adequate material already exists for an article. Carcharoth 09:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - If we keep one dinosaur in pop culture it should definitely be this one! AFDs aren't a punishment for badly written articles, but a way to clean out the unnotable ones. This article is definitely notable, but the only reason it was deleted was becasue of concerns of it being to "bullet-pointy". So although it needs work, it shouldn't be punished for being badly written. Cheers, Spawn Man 04:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Wikipedia articles are not alive. They do not have feelings and they are incapable of suffering. Deleting them is not "punishment." The notion that the article should be restored because the "punishment" of deletion is unfair is bizarre. Otto4711 13:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Otto's comment - You don't have to critisize my comment to make your own Otto. I trust then you've never read WP:RUBBISH? I was merely putting the ideals of RUBBISH into less wordy version which is basically, if the article is notable don't delete it just because its poorly written. I was not trying to sound as though articles had feelings though - you seem to believe this though Otto... Do the articles talk to you or something? ;) Spawn Man 02:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Merge the sourced info in Tyrannosaurus, do not merge the rest of the info as it destroys the prose of an FA, Endorse my deletion on the rest, unless a decent article can be written about them pop culture. Remember there was a very high concensus for deletion of both Brontosaurus in popular culture and Dromaeosaurids in popular culture in the AFD, with the other two borderline. Jaranda wat's sup 18:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to agree with this - Bronto & the Dromaeosaurid pop culture articles were pointless and NN to begin with, but T rex is really THE dino of pop culture. Spawn Man 02:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Deleting the entire article, instead of improving it by removing the OR portions of it, was a disruptive misuse of AfD. Evouga 20:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as no consensus for the same overall reason that I wrote on another one of these a moment ago, i.e. because there seems to be a larger active debate on the popular culture/cultural reference articles at hand here and I think that issue is more of what is being debated rather than the individual merits of these articles. Also, am influenced by the following essay: User:Fresheneesz/Don't Destroy. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Ehsan Jami – Deletion overturned. Consensus looks pretty clear -- sorry, y'all. NawlinWiki 11:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Ehsan Jami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This is an important article : the situation Ehsan Jami is becoming an important subject in Europe, judging by its media coverage (in France for instance, in the reference newspaper Le Monde [26]). If that is not enough, it is also an important matter concerning principles, as it deals with freedom of religion, and follows other cases (assassination of Theo Van Gogh and threatening of Ayaan Hirsi Ali). There are articles in both the German and Dutch Wikipedias : de:Ehsan Jami and nl:Ehsan Jami. Last, the deletion was preceded by no discussion, it seems. Baronnet 23:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore - 68 hits for "Ehsan Jami" in news.google.com. Corvus cornix 23:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Would have been a peripheral notability case if not for the aggression, that create notability without apparent BLP issues. The article, however, needs significant cleanup asap after restoration. Circeus 23:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative overturn for evident notability - Google news has plenty of decent sources which establish notability, and it also is linked to in other Wikipedia articles. I just don't understand, why was this article deleted? The AfD link is red -- was it speedy deleted? — xDanielxTalk 00:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Clearly notable if references support the claims. "Ehsan Jami is a 22-year-old member of the socialist Labor Party (PvdA) in the Dutch town of Leidschendam. ...In 2007, Mr. Jami announced his intention to establish a Committee for Ex-Muslims, which he will launch officially in September at an international press conference. " When the AfD link is red, it generally means it was speedily deleted. Certainly this wasn't a valid speedy, as notability is very emphatically claimed. Deleted by an experienced admin, single-handed, without a previous tagging by another editor. He was asked to restore, but seems not to have replied. In the circumstances, I think any other admin could restore. DGG (talk) 02:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The deleteion log reads "a7 nonnotable, no sources content was: 'Ehsan Jami is a 22-year-old member of the socialist Labor Party (PvdA) in the Dutch town of Leidschendam. Thirteen years ago, Mr. Jami's family mov..."
  • Overturn The articel as it was when deleted had some serious PoV problems, adn needed sources. But it clearly asserted the significance of the subject, so an A7 was improper. DES (talk) 06:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

8 August 2007[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Chocolate Rain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article for a massively popular song/video/meme on YouTube. It was first deleted at AfD due to a lack of reliable sources. That was perfectly fine, because there were none. It was then recreated many times and speedy-deleted by Starblind and other administrators. These speedy deletions were mostly of the exact same content and rightly deleted as CSD G4 (repost). A newer version was posted, and again speedily deleted, a decision that was upheld on DRV (which I closed), once again citing a lack of reliable sources. In the two weeks following the DRV, quite a number of reliable sources have come out on the topic of the song. I decided to write an entirely new and well referenced draft in my userspace that I felt met the criteria for WP:MUSIC and/or WP:WEB. I inquired on WP:AN if anyone obejected to my unprotection of the article and creation of a new version of the article. I waited 7 hours and there were no objections, so I was bold and moved the article into the mainspace. This was deleted within minutes by Starblind as CSD G4 and re-salted by Deskana. This is despite the fact that CSD G4 applies only to instances where "the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes to it do not address the reasons for which it was deleted". I also feel as though my draft passes notability criteria with multiple, non-trivial, and reliable sources as well as covers by notable musicians. Most of the references I cited in the new draft were not available during the last DRV. Consensus and notability may change, and new reliable sources may emerge. I am asking for an overturn and allow recreation of this article (per the draft that myself and Wikidemo have worked on). IronGargoyle 22:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted. I endorse the original deletion. I do not think Chocolate Rain is notable at all, either. --Deskana (banana) 22:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • With all due respect, this has absolutely nothing to do with the original deletion. Can you elaborate on how the most recent draft does not pass WP:MUSIC or how the speedy deletion per CSD G4 is defensible? IronGargoyle 22:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Deskana, this isn't AFD. The user is asking for permission for a substantially different and sourced version of the deleted article to be created. That's fine. If you subsequently think that should be deleted, then you can submit that article for AFD. Neil ╦ 12:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation The userspace draft is sourced. Vadder 22:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation Not being able to look at deleted articles, I cannot confirm whether or not they are substantially the same, as far as the G4 deletion goes. However, secondary reliable sources about the subject have come available since the AfD. I see no reason why the draft article should be disallowed. -Chunky Rice 22:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation, obviously. Not making any judgment on any of the deletions, nor do we need to. Friday (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn G4 of 8 August 2007 (and only that one). Experienced admins should remember that G4 only applies to substantially identical content. This always requires actually comparing both versions. The new version includes multiple traditional media reliable sources, the AFD deleted article contained (debatably) one. This is a significant difference, even if the wording were identical. G4 clearly does not apply. GRBerry 22:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn G4, allow recreation. Deletion under CSD G4 only applies if the new article could be deleted for the same reason that the old one was. As the primary concern in the AfD here was that this wasn't a notable video; given that it's now been written about by a number of reputable news sources which are cited in the article, this is no longer the case. Zetawoof(ζ) 23:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn G4 surprising that this particular admin made this call... misuse of G4 to just perpetually deny any article ever be created, no matter how much sourcing has improved, is problematic. --W.marsh 23:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn G4. Textbook example of what G4 is not intended for. Restore article and take through other deletion channels if anyone still wants to delete the new article.-Andrew c [talk] 01:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn G4 Versions differed significantly, old deletion reasons do not apply. Until(1 == 2) 01:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • **I move away from the mic to overturn the G4 - good work ;) Will (talk) 01:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation Chocolate rain has become insanely popular with millions of views, and has much mainstream media exposure such as a performance on Jimmy Kimmel. The singer also won VH1's Best Week ever. With all this notability now, there is no excuse for the page to be protected from being created. Edward4321 05:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn G4 of 8 August 2007 (and only that one). G4 did not apply - new article seems sourced enaugh to establish notability. Agathoclea 06:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What a kerfuffle! Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Unsalt and allow the new article to be posted already. Catchpole 09:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Better bureaucracy than wheelwaring Agathoclea 10:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreationWallakTalk 10:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation. I happened to see the original; this copy is nothing like it and is backed up by multiple sources... Of course even more sources will emerge because this topic has garnered so much press attention. Seraphim Whipp 10:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Chocolate rain, references let it exist again." Allow recreation. Deleting this under G4 was completely wrong - article is substantially different. Suggest we do this premptorially,few seem to disagree. Neil ╦ 12:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn most recent G4 speedy The version most recently deleted (and also the currently live version) is significantly longer, contains significantly different content, and is significantly better sourced than the version deleted by AfD, which must be the benchmark for any G$ deletion. It might be argued whether this now passes WP:MUSIC or WP:N (although i think it does, as long as we include extensive coverage on popular music as notable) but that would be a matter for a new AfD. This would also not qualify for speedy delete under WP:CSD#A7, nor under any other CSD that I can see. This ism in effect, a different article about the same topic, and G4 is only for a recreation of essentially the same article (although trivial changes won't make not "the same" for G4 purposes). I think some admins simply see previous deletions of an article at the same title, and assume that the article is a recreation. Admins should remember that they must check against the actual version deleted by the AfD. They should also remember that unless the tagger is also an admin, the tagger cannot have done that check, so the tagger's judgment can be relied on even less than in the case of other speedy criteria. There seems to be pretty wide agreement that this wasn't a proper G4 on the latest occasion, and I see that the article has already been restored. Perhaps this reveiw will be closed early. DES (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Barry Bonds home run watch – Deletion endorsed. Information has been userfied in any event, so no baseball fan should be made very unhappy by this result. – Xoloz 01:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Barry Bonds home run watch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I believe most voters underestimated the hysterical interest in detailed charts and lists related to Barry Bonds' home run accomplishment. Two detailed charts have been added in the Accomplishments section since he tied and broke the record. I have userfied the list at User:TonyTheTiger/Barry Bonds home run watch. I could use some eyes to clean up my list, but will probably miss the mania even if this DRV is successful. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I deleted this article twice, once a bit preemptively per WP:SNOW, then immediately restoring it to allow the AfD time to conclude, and then the second time after the AfD ran its course. Consensus was clearly in favor of deletion. In my opinion, the article strays too far into WP:NOT#INFO (both as a compliation of stats & as news) to keep. Caknuck 14:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per properly closed AfD discussion. Also, a comment -- hysterical interest in a subject does not automatically make it an appropriate article for Wikipedia. --Ginkgo100talk 15:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse decision appears sound. I would suggest to TonyTheTiger that I believe that you might want to contribute this to http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Baseball and link to it from Wikipedia. --After Midnight 0001 19:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, AFD was closed properly, and per Ginkgo100's reasoning. Wikipedia is not Wikinews, either. --Coredesat 21:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I see no evidence that the AfD voters were unaware of Bonds' popularity. Zetawoof(ζ) 23:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Ginko100. The AfD consensus was clearly delete, so I see no reason for it to be recreated, as it will probably end up in AfD again. Arky¡Hablar! 00:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The closure was fine. Is there any significant new information that has come to light? The nomination seems to suggest that there is immediate temporal importance related to this article. However, I believe that an encyclopedia should withstand the test of time, and something so grounded in current events seems less encyclopedic (also, hysterical interest is not part of our inclusion criteria). The suggestion to consider wikinews instead seems pertinent.-Andrew c [talk] 01:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, DRV isn't AFD take two. – Chacor 03:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Caknuck; Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate or trivial information. Also, the list wasn't encyclopedic, to begin with. Ksy92003(talk) 19:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Darren Jones – Undeleted, no objections and deleting admin happy for this to take place – Neil ╦ 12:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Darren Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Has made 16 appearances in the Football League [27], therefore passes WP:BIO. ArtVandelay13 12:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ArtVandelay13 12:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore without AfD prejudice. I think the speedy deletion was appropriate based on the article content, but it seems the author plans to make a claim to notability. --Ginkgo100talk 15:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore per Ginkgo100. — xDanielxTalk 18:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment As the admin who deleted this article, I have no problem with its restoration. It is fair to say, I think, that the article did not mention football league appearances, and my decision was made on the basis that he was represented as a non-notable footballer playing in a minor league. If the article can be expanded to show notability, then that's fine. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 19:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore per Ginkgo100. Mathmo Talk 20:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore per nom. A little work on the article to assert notability and it will be fine. --Malcolmxl5 21:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Feel free to create a new article that is sourced, and that clearly explains notability from the get go. I'm wary of recreating the stub in its former condition. If you have intentions of using that text and improving it by bringing it up to standards, all the better, but it may be just as good to start from scratch with a new article. Not much useful information in the deleted article.-Andrew c [talk] 01:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Riley Mason (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This pornstar was nominated for three 2007 AVN Awards [28] and therefore passes WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 10:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just ask the deleting admin to undelete for you, and cite that you did there. It did fail A7, but if you add that info then it doesn't ViridaeTalk 11:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good; I've restored the article. I'll insert your factoid right now so that it doesn't get deleted again. --Masamage ♫ 18:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Filzip – Speedy deletion overturned; AfD is at editorial option. – Xoloz 01:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Filzip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was prodded for no claim of notability and having no sources, and deleted as "blatant advertising". I'm not so sure the artilce was advertising, and it certainly wasn't blatant. Even if it was, an {{advert}} tag would've been more appropriate. This gives the chance of improving the article about this notable and popular software. Having no references is not a reason to delete an article (how I wish it was!); for improving these problems, {{unreferenced}} or {{primarysources}} should've been used. Mikeblas 01:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that this article was deleted after being prodded for a couple minutes longer than four hours. The reason for deletopn was CSD G11, which says "an article that is blatant advertising should have inappropriate content as well", and I don't see anything inappropriate in the deleted content. -- Mikeblas 01:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The deleted article wasn't blatant advertising... it had a few POV phrases but it also had encyclopedic information. I'd be inclined to undelete and let Mikeblas or others try to source this, but at a glance the deleted article didn't look like anything that would survive an AFD if not improved. --W.marsh 01:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to say Overturn based on Mikeblas's summary, but where did the AfD go? — xDanielxTalk 04:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There wasn't an AfD. It was prodded and four hours later it was deleted; the deleting admin cited CSD G11 as the reason for deletion. -- Mikeblas 04:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I don't think it was an indefensible speedy, but it's a pretty broad application of G11. It gets some solid Spanish news results for notability, and Mikeblas seems willing to work on improving it.--Chaser - T 05:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn on the basis of the summaries of those who can see what it was. Mathmo Talk 07:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and optionally relist on AfD if the closer so desires. Without being able to see the article, I can't express my personal judgment on the G11 issue, but Mikeblas's comments suggest that it was at the very least a questionable violation, so it sounds like an AfD submission would have been more appropriate. WP:SD#G11 emphases blatant for a good reason - articles that aren't blatant advertising should be improved instead of deleted (unless they violate another policy, of course). — xDanielxTalk 09:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn --Wallak 10:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn without prejudice regarding listing at AfD. There is no blatantly promotional language; the article does not "need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." Therefore it does not meet criterion G11. --Ginkgo100talk 15:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. As a non-admin, I can't see the original article so I can't comment on the content, but the deletion of the article now leaves FilZip as the only red link on the template {{Compression Software Implementations}} appearing on dozens of pages. If the article contains advertising, WP:SOFIXIT. -- DS1953 talk 18:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do non-admin users not see the cache link, above? Meanwhile, the reason that the {{Compression Software Implementations}} template has redlinks is that it links to the FilZip instead of Filzip. FilZip was a redirect to Filzip, which was also speedily deleted shortly after the Filzip article was dropped. Is another Deletion Review necessary to fix the FilZip redirect? -- Mikeblas 13:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about you, but the google cache has nothing for me. FrozenPurpleCube 03:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, the Google cache was not showing anything for me. -- DS1953 talk 15:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How odd! Google Cache had a useful copy back when I made my above comment. -- Mikeblas 03:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restored for non-admin viewing. Version prior to deletion is in page history.--Chaser - T 05:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn while the article was slightly promotional in tone, IMO it was not blatently so, and most of the contet appared to be strictly factual. Better sources would be needed at an AfD I should think, and a clearer establishment of notability, but that does not warrent a speedy deletion. DES (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

7 August 2007[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Austin Kincaid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This pornstar was nominated for four 2007 AVN Awards [29] and therefore passes WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 22:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note Being an award nominee wasn't one of the WP:PORNBIO criteria at the time of the AfD. Epbr123 08:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist as the AfD was very poorly attended, and none of the contributors seemed familiar with WP:PORNBIO. --Ginkgo100talk 02:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist, and please notify me when you do so. The past AfD had very little debate (only two delete votes!). Mathmo Talk 03:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. This is yet another case of confusing "verifiable" with "verified." I wish more people would read WP:DP, which I think does a good job outlining proper procedure (delete if "Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources," or if "All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed"). — xDanielxTalk 04:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Isabel Ice – Deletion overturned in light of new information; relisting at editorial option. – Xoloz 02:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Isabel Ice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This pornstar has won an AVN Award [30] and been nominated for another AVN Award [31] since the article's AfD. The article now passes the WP:PORNBIO criteria. Epbr123 22:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If the subject now passes a notability guideline that it failed at the time of its AfD, then the article can be recreated. This AfD was six months ago. Is there a particular reason why you want to original version restored rather than just re-creating it? --Ginkgo100talk 02:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe to use what had been written before? Might save on a bit of extra work.
      • I wrote a new article on her, including her new award nominations, but it was speedied for recreation. The deleting admin then advised a DRV. Epbr123 09:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse recreation. Mathmo Talk 03:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete per Epbr123. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete per Epbr123. — xDanielxTalk 04:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy deletion. Recreating article after 6 months and two awards appears to not meet G4 which applies only if the new article "is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes to it do not address the reasons for which it was deleted." (I cannot see the content of either deleted version of the article and am basing my comment on Epbr123's statements about the article). -- DS1953 talk 18:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. CSD G4 applies only if "the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version". The two versions are not substantially identical, considering the fact that the recreated version cited three sources, whereas the version deleted at AfD was (though slightly longer) completely unsourced. — Black Falcon (Talk) 20:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Saige Thompson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article is about a non-notable actress, with no coverage in independent reliable sources. AfD received much attention from uncritical editors voting WP:ILIKEIT, and should have resulted in deletion for failing to satisfy WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:RS, WP:V etc. etc... Valrith 22:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse - The comments were sparse because the notability of the subject is evident (link from the article itself). You repeatedly list WP:V and WP:RS as reasons for deletion without any justification--the claims in the article seem perfectly verifiable to me (in fact they have already been verified, which is more than what's required as per WP:DP). — xDanielxTalk 22:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Having an entry in imdb is not a valid claim of notability. The upcoming movie and the 13-episode series might meet the notability criterion, but showing up here and there for a one-off series guest appearance isn't notability in and of itself. Corvus cornix 21:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, but this person has played relatively significant roles in high-profile films. This was discussed on the AfD. This DRV really doesn't raise any unique points that weren't covered on the AfD, and there was a reasonable consensus, with no evident misinformation, sockpuppetry, etc. -- hence I vote endorse. — xDanielxTalk 04:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep I'm inclined to say anyone with a starring role on a prime-time big-4 network TV show is guaranteed to be kept unless our notability standards change wildly (which they won't, and shouldn't). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep I'm not even sure why this is at DRV; consensus to keep was clear and the discussion was properly closed. --Ginkgo100talk 02:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Keep, nothing wrong with the way it was closed. Was a clear cut closure for keep. Overwhelming consensus for keeping. Mathmo Talk 03:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. The result of the AfD was clear. -- DS1953 talk 18:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep - consensus to keep was clear in the AfD. --Evb-wiki 22:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Wikipedia:Template the regulars – Deletion endorsed. This DRV is really of little consequence; as has been said below, editors are welcome to rewrite the essay, at which point a history undeletion would be routine upon request. The clear consensus below is that the essay, as it existed, was poor, and its deletion proper; however, its resurrection is easy to achieve through other means. – Xoloz 02:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia:Template the regulars (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Template the regulars|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|MfD)

first, there is no valid speedy reason, the article was worked on by other people than the author, it had already been undeleted on that basis, the author did not repeat the request, and yet other editors added to it 2) a valid MfD was started and there was a Keep opinion 3) the close and delete was done by the nominator. This essay is a valid opinion and we just don't delete opinion essays except by community consensus. IPSOS (talk) 13:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • All of that is false. All edits to the page other than by the author were (1) typo fixes, (2) adding a merge template, or (3) reverted. Other than typos and that template, the initial revision of this page was exactly identical to the one the author requested deletion on. Hence, CSD #G7. Also, the page was not just any "opinion piece", but rather a toxic endorsement of incivility and an encouragement of behavior that is known to aggravate rather than resolve the situation. Other than that, it is pretty obvious from the rationale above that the requester doesn't understand how our deletion process works. So endorse, and let's go do something productive. >Radiant< 13:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse initial deletion Yes, the versions were effectively identical at the time {{db-author}} was requested. All other significant changes had been reverted by other editors. That others agree with the logic is adequate basis for them to write a new essay at this title - or to put an opposition section in the other essay. GRBerry 14:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Endorse deletion I was a little concerned looking at the edit history, but it is true that those edits has no significant effect and amount to non-content typo fixing and tagging. Valid WP:CSD#G7, though. Apparently there was at least one significant edit by another contributor[32]. I don't think any prohibition on recreation should exist unless an AfD goes through. Until(1 == 2) 14:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Unless someone can show that there were significant differences between the initial version and the deleted version, I consider this to be a valid G7 speedy delete. The essay was simply terrible and would be of no value to anyone writing a replacement. Chaz Beckett 14:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Seems to be a valid claim that there was no difference between the revisions provided by the original author and the the time of requested deletion. And FYI, this page was clearly against the spirit of what are considered norms on Wikipedia. — Moe ε 15:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per all of above. This DRV serves no useful purpose. Newyorkbrad 15:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Valid G7. While the MfD was short-circuited in favor of an established case for speedy deletion, there were no compelling arguments put forth for keeping this essay. Its raison d'etre was an editor's exercise in playing the Devil's advocate, so it did not share the pressing basis behind WP:DTTR. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 15:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Radiant's comments above are disingenuous and misleading. He ignores this edit. I find it hard to believe he thought this edit was irrelevant. It is true that that edit occurred after the page was deleted as an author request and restored by me. It may be that I was in error in not determining that the various edits by other editors had canceled out. In any case, even when an author is the only contributor to a page, particularly a page not in userspace, and author request is just that, a request. If another editor or editors finds the page of value it is normally either retained or sent to s deletion discussion (MfD in this case). But even if the earlier restoration was a mistake, the speedy deletion now has deleted significant content added by another editor, namely myself. (If Radiant really thought my restoration was a mistake, why didn't he discuss the matter with me, or bring that restoration here for review?) I have undeleted the page and moved it to my userspace. If this deletion review endorses deletion, i will comply by deleting that version, but in that case I plan to create an essay of my own, based on the current version and very similar to it. Therefore, this speedy deletion serves no point. If anyone thinks the page should be deleted, start a new MfD and we will see what the consensus is. I also note that in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars) there was a clear consensus that both essays should be retained. Yes consensus can change, but I think that also indicates that a speedy was inappropriate. Besides, starting an MfD by nominating a page for deletion, and then closing that MfD by speedy deleting that same page very soon thereafter, and after other editors had favored a keep, strikes me a poor procedure, as flying in the face of consensus, and as most unwise. If Radiant really felt this page should go, why didn't he allow the MfD to proceed and obtain an actual consensus on the issue? Overturn the inappropriate speedy deletion. DES (talk) 15:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • One I don't appriciate canvassing my talk page, and two, your edit was already after the deletion request [33], thus it wasn't an inapporpriate deletion. — Moe ε 15:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know, correcting factual errors used as a basis of a decision is not really canvasing in my opinion. I also think that G7 does not prevent recreation. GFDL is not retractable, and if another author wished to build on a G7 document the history should be recovered, so this all seems a bit moot to me. Until(1 == 2) 15:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • He shows he has a bias towards keeping the page. Saying "please reconsider [my] comments" is canvassing, plain and simple. It doesn't prevent recreation, but it also doesn't stop it from reppearing at WP:MFD again. — Moe ε 16:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflisct)I do not feel that notifying previous commentators that I had made a later comment, which includes what I think is significant information, constitutes canvassing. if anything, it only serves to draw more attention from those who had previously favored endorsing the deletion, and may continue to do so. It is true, as I said in my comment, that my edit was made after the initial speedy deletion request by the author, and indeed after a deletion on that ground and a restoration by me. But it was made several days before Radient's deletion that is here at issue. Speedy criteria must apply at the time of deletion. If an article is tagged for deletion under A7 say, and indeed at that time has no assertion of notability, and another editor later adds an assertion, and a source, is it appropriate at that time for an admin to delete on the grounds that the earlier speedy tag was valid when it was placed? At the time Radiant deleted this, there was content in place that had been contributed by an editor who had not requested deletion. Therefore, i maintain, the "author request" speedy was invalid. Anyway, as others have said, there would be no bar to recreation, and if I recreated, using the former version as a basis, the GFDL] would require history to be restored. Could we take it that that is what happened at the time of my earlier restoration? DES (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course I am arguing for retention of the page. But my substantial edit to the page is a fact, and one not mentioned in the discussion above, and one that some editors were apparently not aware of. if you think it is not a significant or relevant fact, that is your judgment to make. But drawing attention to it is not, IMO canvassing. DES (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) WP:CANVASS now says "Canvassing may be deemed a misuse of Wikipedia resources if: 1) the content of the messages entails bias intended to unfairly skew the outcome of a matter under dispute; 2) the audience is targeted on the basis of partisanship, or other factors favoring a given "side" in a dispute; 3) the scale of the distribution is unreasonably wide or indiscriminate; or 4) the canvassing is otherwise disruptive to the operation of Wikipedia, its users, or contributors." I do not think I was anywhere near the line implied there. DES (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still see it as canvassing, but whatever.. Why don't you delete everything prior to the deletion request, place it in the Wikipedia namespace and place this back on MFD again then? Surely this can resolve the matter. — Moe ε 16:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And yes, you were tinkering on the edge of CANVASS, namely "content of the messages entails bias intended to unfairly skew the outcome of a matter under dispute". IMHO. — Moe ε 16:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) If by "delete everything prior to the deletion request" you mean to seletivly deelte all versions prior to that, but retain versions subsequent, that would be a GFDL violation. Of course, if the speedy is overturtned, this can be put back on MfD if peopel think it should be -- I am not arguing for an immunity to MfD for this or any other essay. I will say that IMO either both this and WP:DTTR should be deleted, or neither. DES (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I meant that if your edit was so significant, why not restore that alone and we can place that on MFD for a final outcome. Yes, it would be a GFDL vio to keep the revisions past deleted like your mentioning, thats why those would stay deleted. I meant everything you added in that one edit alone. Not sure if that's possible since the old versions are still accessable through that edit, but recreating what you added and sending that to MFD would have been more sensible than undeleting that past revisions. But personally undeleting all of it and sending back to MFD seems less of a hassle now than anything. — Moe ε 16:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because that section didn't stand by itself. it filled what I thought was a significant hole in the essay, increasing its word count by a third or more, but it didn't attempt to cover the parts already covered. DES (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what I thought, nix that MFD idea then. — Moe ε 17:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per ChazBeckett. ElinorD (talk) 15:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send back to MfD, simple. Until(1 == 2) 16:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems quite obvious that the essay as it existed when it was deleted shouldn't exist. Anyone is free to write a new essay at that location, if they wish. After seeing the Google cache of the deleted essay, starting fresh would be far easier than attempting to salvage the useful bits. Undeletion wouldn't serve any useful purpose at this point other than to satisfy bureaucracy. Chaz Beckett 16:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • ChazBeckett has gotten to the heart of the matter. Newyorkbrad 16:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is of coutrse a matter of opnion as to whether this essay, or indeed any essay, "shouldn't exist" (personally i am reluctant to advocate deletion even for essays with which i throughly disagree, that I won't say i would never reccomend it). If this deletion is endorsed, i plan to create a new essay at the same title. I expect that it will not be identiacal, but will make many of the same points in at least some of the same words. Assuming that happens, if anyone thinks that essay should be deleted, MfD is available. I will, of course, argue for the retention of such an essay in that event. DES (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So are you saying that no matter what, you will see to it that there is an essay at that location, until such time as an MFD runs to full term? Is there any condition under which you would not create such an essay? --After Midnight 0001 17:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let me put it this way. At the moment I think that such an essay is a good idea, an based on previous discussions on its talk page, WT:DTTR, and the closed MfD page for DTTR, some other editors think so too. If someone convinces me otherwise, then i will act otherwise. I haven't yet seen any arguments that I find at all convincing, but I am more than open to listening to any such that people care to present, either here or (since it is at least arguably off-topic for this DRV, deletion review being about process rather than content) on my talk page. I am not inflexibly committed to preserving this essay, but i currently see no good reasons not to do so. DES (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse totally valid deletion. Majorly (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Why are we "deleting" this essay whilst allowing others to exist? Wikipedia:Don't worry about writing essays says take it easy, they're only essays. Yet we have shit like Wikipedia:Cluocracy in there, and here's some slightly contradictory essays, Wikipedia:Credentials matter and Wikipedia:Credentials are irrelevant. Are we going to delete the ones we don't like? I mean, what is the point in Wikipedia:Charitableness, it just states the bleeding obvious. Why is there an essay page telling us to be reasonable? I'm in favour of clearing out all this shit with a fire storm. - hahnchen 17:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't your average essay. This one blatantly encourages to cause a disruption and/or to be patronizing in some users eyes. I don't think 'Credentials are irrelevant' or 'be reasonable' has been labled as such before. — Moe ε 18:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anyone who thinks they're too good to receive a template obviously needs taking down a notch. There's not that much malice in giving someone a warning template. If you're doing RC patrol, why should you have to worry about who is "regular"? Of course, I'd prefer a friendly note over generic-warning, but if I make a genuine mistake, then I'll take either. I'm not that vain about my talk page, although have removed some bullshit templates before. - hahnchen 18:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not much malice, just annoying in some cases. And in most cases the template is misused when given to an experienced editor because it's either given by someone they are in a dispute with or some kind of bot. If it's a genuine mistake, template messages aren't appropriate for most situations anyways. I don't think everytime you make a mistake, you would want {{test1}} to appear. — Moe ε 19:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - one way or another the end result will be delete for this. I see no reason for it to go back to MFD just to get the same result. --After Midnight 0001 18:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong relist - I don't particularly agree with the merits of the essay in question, but both IPSOS's and DES's points leave me convinced that the speedy closure was inappropriate. Closing one's own MfD after four hours, with two "I agree"s and one very strong dissenting opinion is a rather extreme exercise in administrative discretion, in my opinion. And I won't bother restating the points DES made, but I find those compelling as well. --xDanielxTalk 19:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - please do not throw around baseless accusations. As an admin, Radiant! can speedy delete pages in lieu of taking them to XFD. If he does XFD something and sees later that it could have been speedied, it is not an abuse to end the XFD and just delete it. We will determine here is it may have been an error, but it was certainly not an abuse. --After Midnight 0001 03:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I expressed my believe that Radiant's action was inappropriate; I did not say that Radiant himself is ill-intentioned, malicious, or anything of the sort. DRV seems like an appropriate place to question the correctness of a closing admin's action. I did not say anything about Radiant's intentions - perhaps the incident was accidental, perhaps it was deliberate, or perhaps somewhere in the middle. I don't know and it doesn't concern me. I articulated my view on what happened and what I think should be done, and I don't see how anything I said was "baseless." — xDanielxTalk 03:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You said that Radiant!'s action "is a rather severe abuse of administrator privileges". People rarely refer to things as "abuse" when they are not challenging someone's intentions. Your statement seems rather clear to me, and I would expect that others also read it as such. If I am wrong, I'll ask those other editors to let me know that they think I am interpreting this incorrectly. --After Midnight 0001 14:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion...enough process wonkery.--MONGO 19:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't process wonkery -- this is at least some editors who sincerly belive that this essay ought to exist. Not just that it was deleted by an improper route (although it was), but that the essay is desireable on its merits. I strongly disagree with the idea that it is in any way uncivil to place tempalte messages on the talk pages of "expereinced" users, in proper cases. Some people may misuse such messages. Some people may misuse anything -- the abuse of soemthing is not a proper arguemat against the valid use of that thing. I dont think that deletion is usually the proper way to deal with essays that one disagrees with -- I would want to think twice about deleting the hypothetical essay Wikipedia:Vandalism is good for the project . But in this case, I think the essay is a needed correction to the excessive misreading and misuse of WP:DTTR. At least some other editors appaer to agree with this position. DES (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. If other editors wish to write something similar that is their choice, though I believe its premise is fundamentally flawed. This was a totally valid G7 deletion - the version deleted was virtually identical to that when its creator finished writing it. WjBscribe 21:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh really? Here is a comparison between the last substantive edit by the creator, and the version deleted. Do these look "virtually identical" to you? DES (talk) 23:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, valid G7. --Coredesat 22:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse all deletions - As the original author, original G7 requester, etc., I really don't see why this should be kept. As Chaz says, it's a totally pointless piece of crap that we really don't need. This DRV is invalid because it was deleted before being userfied, etc. as noted above. Giggy Talk | Review 23:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - some points to raise here. (1) Not everyone may be aware of the history of the essay (indeed, the editor who nominated it at MfD wasn't aware of this history, as shown in the ANI thread). The initial (and mostly irrelevant) part of the story is that the essay was created by a user who was asked about it on their (unsuccessful) RfA, and who then requested speedy deletion during the RfA, which was followed by restoration to allow people to understand the ongoing RfA. The more relevant part of the story is that at around the same time, discussion was ongoing about how this essay should relate to the related essay Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. This led to a merge proposal here, and the MfD here. (2) There was much relevant discussion at the talk page. See User talk:DESiegel/Template the regulars. One particularly thought-provoking post was here. It is highly destructive to delete discussion like that, and much better to archive it somewhere, such as a subpage of Wikipedia talk:Don't template the regulars. (3) In general, if an admin starts an XfD and then, in light of new evidence, decides it should be a speedy, it would be best for that admin not to close the XfD and speedy it, but to request a second opinion from another admin, or let the XfD run its course. If the reason for speedy deletion was unclear enough at the time of opening the XfD, then there should be no harm in letting the XfD run its course. (4) I am very surprised that people are saying that something can be deleted under CSD G7 because its current state is identical to the state the author left it in. That seems to imply that the author of anything can revert back to the last version they edited and then request speedy deletion under G7. Utter nonsense, of course. G7 requires the author to be the only substantial contributor, which was not the case here (for the second G7 deletion) as DESiegel has consistently been saying. (5) Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars is not perfect. The main problem is the use of the term "regular". Some recent proposals for a better name have included Wikipedia:Use template messages with caution and Wikipedia:Template message etiquette. See my conclusions below. Carcharoth 23:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My overall conclusion is that the problems with this essay (which I agree had major problems) had been previously discussed, and that Radiant! could have contributed to and moved that discussion forward, instead of opening an MfD and then speedy deleting not only the essay but also the associated discussion. The current option being undertaken of rewriting the essay in user space is productive and may produce something that (with the right name) may ultimately be more useful than Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars (the main points of which I agree with). Finally, all this could have been achieved with much less drama, and all those involved should (and I'm trying to be helpful, not wagging a finger here) stop and think about how they could have avoided this drama. Oh, and as the userfication has already occurred, and that is the most logical conclusion to all this, close this DRV now. Feel free to refer to any of the above I wrote. Carcharoth 23:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite' The history is confusing; let's be practical--as it's agreed the original needed improvement, let DES simply rewrite an essay, and then reintroduce a new template. DGG (talk) 00:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment - in case anyone thinks that deletion of the talk page of that essay, and the drama surrounding the AfD, speedy deletion and DRV, are not actively causing harm, then look at the following: Ariel's comment on the talk page, including things like: "seeing how much controversy this article caused, I am a little hesitant about putting up such a page". Later, Ariel, in this edit announced she intended to "go ahead with writing the Etiquette guide". Now fortunately, Ariel is a long-time lurker and contributer, and hasn't been put off by this, but consider the effect that all the drama ("uh oh, I'd better not get involved") might have had on a new editor, especially when they suddenly find that the talk page has been deleted? (Really new editors might never even realise what has happened, as it would disappear from their contributions list and watchlist). I've had the rug pulled out from under me on talk pages before, and it is not nice. Please, please consider archiving or closing talk page discussions properly before deleting them. Carcharoth 00:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion but won't object to someone's who subscribe to these ideas keeping it in their userspace. Oh, support salting the Earth in case anyone wants to recreate it or move it from userspace. --Irpen 03:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ok, I could say a lot of things, but let's say we all agree, this document was released under the GFDL. Is anyone disputing that? A history of the edits is available. Fine. Therefore, under the GFDL it is completely relevant for somebody else to post a version in the same namespace. Or anywhere else they feel it belongs. If I wanted to, I could spend the money and buy a page in the New York Times to print it on. (Well, I can't, since I don't have the thousands of dollars to do it, but you get my point). Does anybody here dispute that right is guaranteed under the GFDL? Ok, well, since Desiegel put it in his user-space, I put a version of the introduction I considered appropriate on its talk page. I am completely willing to put either just that, or with portions of the original essay back in the space it was. This would not violate the prohibition against recreated material since the removal was done only at the author's request. Thus any deletion of the new essay would have to be done under standard MFD procedure. I would prefer that anybody who has objections to the essay merely inform me of their concerns and give me an opportunity to address them, whether it be with regards to tone, title, or something else, but I think it can make it through MFD on its own. Is this an acceptable course of events to everybody or is there something I'm missing? FrozenPurpleCube 04:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have received a message from the original author of this essay, backed by Newyorkbrad. He says that he now disapproves of the content of the essay, and would prefer not to have his name linked with it. I still maintain that the speedy deletion was incorrect. Of course, as User:FrozenPurpleCube, the content having been released under the GFDL, anyone can use it anywhere, subject to attribution and the other requirements of the GFDL. However, it is no part of my desire to embarrass or harass the original user, who apparently has gone through some significant negative interactions because of this essay (although IMO that rather begs the question of the essay inciting incivility). Therefore, it is my current intent, if the deletion is overturned, to rewrite the essay sufficiently that it won't include the specific wording of the original author, while still making many of the same points. If the deletion is endorsed, it is now my intention to create a new essay, based on this one, but not directly copying the text of it. In either case it is my intention to move the essay, once I am satisfied with a draft, into Wikipedia space, wither at the old title or perhaps at a different title. I will not start on either project, however, until this DRV is decided, one way or another. If at a later time anyone thinks that the new or modified essay should be deleted, MfD is open. Whether the earlier history of the article can be deleted can be decided later, but I think perhaps it might be, as a courtesy to that editor. i do intend to preserve the old talk page, perhaps in an archive of the talk of the revised essay, as suggested above. DES (talk) 05:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The original author is allowed to surrender their right to attribution, but not the right for others to use it. Until(1 == 2) 13:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Since the author doesn't want it, and almost every undelete comment has been "relist because it needs more discussion, not because I disagree with deletion", what is the point in having another discussion? -Amarkov moo! 00:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, I consider this DRV to be needless. I do feel the essay is reasonable. The deletion at author request is a courtesy, not a requirement. That said, doing so would seem confrontational, so I'd need a compelling reason to do so. I don't see a particular need to use the original author's version, I can just as easily write my own, but if somebody does feel it should be used, the GFDL still applies, and it could be re-used if desired. But like I said, I just don't see the need. FrozenPurpleCube 03:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The real reason this DRV is pointless is because the essay has already been userfied at User:DESiegel/Template the regulars. This should be obvious if people took the time to carefully read through the preceding comments. Putting that to one side, some of the ensuing discussion has been about how this could have been handled. My view is that a simple reading of the talk page (plus following a few links), could have led to Radiant asking DESiegel to userfy an essay that had been disowned by its original creator. That would have avoided all this drama. Carcharoth 13:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite right, there was a better way to handle this, and I hope maybe some of the people reading this discussion realize that there's other options. FrozenPurpleCube 16:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Edina Lekovic – Unanimous consensus (excepting only the original speedy deleter) to overturn CSD G4 speedy-deletion. Only the revisions since the last AfD will be restored; BLP problems -- should they arise -- may be addressed by editing the article, as consensus has determined that outright deletion is a disproportionate and inappropriate remedy in this case. – Xoloz 02:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Edina Lekovic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article was deleted a month ago by an admin who gave the reason "deleted until independent notability is established". I recreated the article this time establishing notability very solidly. Also on the AfD some people complained of BLP issues because the article was only a couple of lines and almost solely focused on the Lekovic's association with Bin Laden. This time the article was much more well rounded and balanced and SlimVirgin has deleted it without any reason or discussion. The Google cache linked above is active for those who want to see what the article looked like. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn. SlimVirgin did actually state a reason, (recreation of an article recently deleted after an AfD). However, the version deleted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edina Lekovic was either two or five sentences long (edit war). This version is ten times that size. It's not substantially the same article as was deleted in the AFD. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - per the comment by the closing admin in the AfD. Addhoc 17:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Endorse deletion. The AfD established that she was not notable in her own right outside of her duties at MPAC. I don't believe anything has changed in the 4 weeks since the AfD and she is still just as non-notable as she was before. WP:BLP and WP:COAT were side issues and although the new version may not suffer from those concerns currently, nothing has changed to meet WP:N. I believe the admin took the correct decision per WP:CSD#G4 as although the content may be different (and more substantial compared to the version at AfD), the concerns on notability have not changed. → AA (talk) — 18:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She's notable in her own right. She's a very visible in the person (Communications Director). The screenshot I used was from CNN. You dont believe anything has changed since the last afD? Please see the article. Its full of references now. She's all over the media, basically. The references confirm her notability. Here's the multiple non-trivial coverage by 3rd parties [34],[35],[36],[37] and there are others. I'll try to fix the issue with her image as it may not be fair use as pointed out by AnonymouseE, but the article is definitely valid. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 18:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe her notability status could have changed in a month (not disagreeing that the article is substantially different). She is the "newscaster" for MPAC so will undoubtedly be in the news. What we need to look for in references are BIO articles on her. However, this discussion is probably more appropriate for AfD rather than DRV. → AA (talk) — 08:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn G4 deletion (I don't consider the AFD close under consideration.) The old article was a couple sentences long, and used as sources her employer's website and a blog. The new article is several times longer, and somewhat better sourced. It has some poor sourcing, but it also has sourcing like Voice of America and evidencing significant activities. It probably needs further editing, and may face another AfD, but speedy deletion under G4 is clearly and obviously incorrect. GRBerry 18:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - subject is clearly notable as per Matt57's comment in the AfD. The WP:DP guidelines made it very clear that deficiencies in the present state of the article (particularly lack of sources establishing notability) do not justify deletion unless such issues cannot reasonably be remedied. This case is the opposite. --xDanielxTalk 19:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn newly deleted article is not even close to "substantially similar" to the one deleted by AfD, so WP:CSD#G4 does not apply. It may well be that SV believed in good faith that it did, but if so she failed to check closely, or else has badly miss-read the CSD, I presume the former. The main reason for deletion at the AfD was notability, as summed up by the closing comment, quoited above. The text "Lekovic has made many appearances in the media including FoxNews, CNN, MSNBC, BBC, and the History Channel.<footnote> She has also written for several leading newspapers such as the Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, Associated Press, Chicago Tribune , and Los Angeles Times.<footnote>" which was in the version recently deleted, and was not in the version deleted by AfD, strongly implies notability, if it doesn't actually establish such notability. So the reason for the AfD deletion has been addressed, if not resolved. A new AfD is accordingly warranted, if anyone actually thinks this should now be deleted. DES (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. I feel this should be deleted because the subject is borderline notable, and the article was created as a coatrack to hang an allegation of Islamist extremism on, an allegation she strongly denies. Notability: Her appearances on television and in newspapers are part of her job as a spokesperson: she's not being interviewed in her own right. The sources are an announcement by Wellsley College that Lekovic will speak there; the website of the Western Knight Center, where she offers herself as a speaker; two profiles on the websites of Muslim organizations; and some quotes from her in a Voice of America article. Criticism: Then there is the Steven Emerson criticism — that a student newspaper that had her name on it as managing editor once contained an article praising Osama bin Laden (pre-9/11). The sources for this are three self-published articles by Steven Emerson [38] [39] [40] (not allowed under BLP); and a self-published article by Daniel Pipes [41] (not allowed under BLP). The only reliable source for the allegation is an exchange between her and Emerson on CNBC's "Kudlow & Company," which for some reason isn't being used. All in all, this is the exactly the kind of BLP we should exercise great caution with. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 20:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we have sources for the article, but not for the criticism, we keep the article and delete the criticism. Right? Surely we don't speedy delete articles for fear someone might add something to them, outright vandalism gets added to articles ten times a minute here. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1) If there's a BLP issue, you can deal with it separately. One doesnt delete George Bush if there's a BLP problem. 2) For notability, you need multiple non-trivial reliable sources: DailyTexanOnline, VoiceOfAmerica, Jewish Journal and thats it- this fulfils the notability requirement. As for the claim that her notability is part of her job requirement and therefore cannot be used to assert notability for Wikipedia, this is a false requirement. That case can apply to everyone including George Bush or Jerry Springer. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Endorse deletion. Aside the chance of using this as an excuse by Daniel Pipes, Jared Israel and similar cadre to cry wolf, I cannot see how Leković can be considered a notable enough person. Keep deleted in the meantime. --Asteriontalk 21:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn sufficient national RSs. Then deal with the editing problems. DGG (talk) 00:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, doesn't fit G4, Slim Virgin's point that the coverage is just a byproduct of her spokesperson role can be made at AfD. --Groggy Dice T | C 02:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Personally, G4 to me has a 1 month time limit, and should not apply after substantial changes had been made to the article even if it is recreated (in short, don't G4 unless it's almost exactly the same). Kwsn(Ni!) 03:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn --WallakTalk 10:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the speedy deletion only because the delete comments at the AfD on the original article were all over the board. If the delete comments were based only on notability, I do not necessarily think that the addition of sources has overcome those objections on the AfD sufficiently to allow this recreation of the article to stand. She is still only a spokesperson. However, enough of the comments on the original AfD seem to be based on lack of sources to establish notability that I believe that a speedy deletion is not appropriate (barely). If she is not notable, the new article can undergo its own AfD. -- DS1953 talk 17:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. G4 applies only if "the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version", which is not the case with this article. SlimVirgin's argument for deletion stated above is a contestable one that should be made in an AfD discussion; it doesn't justify speedy deletion. — Black Falcon (Talk) 20:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - not a clear G4 candidate; deletion rationale offered appears to differ from that which would be required for G4 deletion. --Haemo 05:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • YATE – Deletion(s) endorsed. – Xoloz 02:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
YATE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Entirely new article submitted about the subject but was deleted without review. Mellentm 11:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the cache currently does NOT reflect my article! Mellentm 12:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "YOUR" article. See WP:OWN. – Chacor 13:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, "Please note the cache currently does NOT reflect the article I wrote and submitted. Mellentm 13:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. This is an article removed through a speedy deletion request because the previous article about this same project was just removed 2 days prior after a lengthy AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YATE. Calltech 12:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article was only deleted because question was raised about the nature of the people endorsing keeping it. This is a major open source PBX project which has been documented by third parties (reviews, O'Reily books, etc). Just because somebody in the Yate team interfered on wikipedia doesn't mean it isn't a notable project. I would like to point out after going carefully through Calltech's history that this is a person passionate about Asterix, and who has effected a deletion of every article about Asterix' Open Source competitors on wikipedia. With such bias nothing he says carries any weight. Carewolf 12:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Carewolf's comment here that I am passionate about Asterisk is a false accusation that is totally unsubstantiated and has no place here in this discussion. Calltech 12:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DRV is not AFD take two. Endorse - deletion was appropriate. "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome but instead if you think the debate itself was interpreted incorrectly by the closer or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate. This page is about process, not about content, although in some cases it may involve reviewing content." – Chacor 12:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Spartaz suggested deletion review on my talk page. Mellentm 13:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is this DRV for the deletion debate AFD, or for today's speedy deletion as G4? – Chacor 13:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Today's speedy deletion, to which I can't see how G4 could be applicable. Mellentm 13:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fair enough. !vote struck. – Chacor 13:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn A Wikipedia admin on #Wikipedia stated the G4 speedy deletion was wrong. Mellentm 15:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Closing admin please note that this is the nom so this is an extraneous vote. Spartaz Humbug! 15:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my deletion The article was deleted after an AFD only a couple of days ago. The reason for the deletion was non-notability and failing to meet WP:CORP. You don't get a free pass to overrule an AFD simply by recreating the article and ignoring the finding that the subject was failing core policies. The place to thrash that question out is either at DRV or at another AFD. So, the real question that needs to be asked is - does the subject of this article meet WP:CORP and is it notable? Spartaz Humbug! 15:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I believe the article I wrote does meet WP:CORP and is indeed notable. I don't care about what was previously written. I wrote an entirely new article on the subject actually written much like similar articles in the same category as far as I can see. I'm really having a hard time seeing any valid arguments on why it can be deleted like that without review. Deleting it using G4 as the reason was wrong and that's a fact. Mellentm 19:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn for procedural reasons - AfD is not a vote, but favoring 3 delete votes over 8 keep votes is really ridiculous unless there is an extremely good reason to ignore the consensus (e.g., sockpuppetry). The closing statement presents zero reasoning; pointing out that lots of people want the article kept is hardly a sufficient reason for deleting an article. Coredesat shouldn't have 10-15 times the influence of any other editor, and one can hardly claim that his statement had any unique merit. --xDanielxTalk 19:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Important comment - This DRV does not challenge the AFD. It is challenging the speedy deletion from 7 August under G4. Please adjust your !vote accordingly, thanks. Alternatively closing admin please note that this !vote does not address what this DRV is asking. – Chacor 01:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The G4 point was never brought up in the AfD. Regardless though, without being able to compare the two articles, it seems clear from Mellentm's commentary (see Talk:YATE, as well as his comments here) that the G4 argument is very shaky at best. No one has sighted any concerns from any previous AfD and explained how they were not met. Since the article passed with an overwhelming consensus for keep, only a very, very blatant violation of G4 would convince me to say "endorse." 8 to 3 for keep is quite significant. — xDanielxTalk 03:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion While the recreated article is different from the deleted one, it is still about the same subject, contains mostly the same content (actually less content), and it adds nothing in terms of notability. Overturning and sending to AfD without any new evidence of notability would result in the article being deleted again and would be a waste of many editors' time simply in the name of bureaucracy. While it may not have met part of the letter of G4, it did meet "changes to it do not address the reasons for which it was deleted" and it does meet the spirit of G4. There's no point in doing process just for the sake of process. I assure all who may question me here. If that recreated article looked to me like it had any better chance of surviving an AfD as the old one, I would have suggested overturning. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Earlier today I've rephrased parts of the article to show notability more clearly (in my opinion anyway). I have had no chance of updating the initial version of the article I submitted yet though for obvious reasons. Mellentm 21:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The new article was not even close to "substantially identical" to the previous one, and it did provides some additional external sources, in particular the O'Reilly link, which at least address the notability concerns (the only reason given for deletion in the AfD). As this appears to be an independent, good faith recreation, it deserved a new AfD, in which people could point to the old afd if that seemed persuasive. But had there been no recreation and redeletion, had the AfD been brought here for review, i would favor overturning the AfD. The closer speaks of a "campaign to get the article kept" but does not indicate which, if any, of the views favoring keep he is discounting. Notability is to a significant extent a matter of judgment, so numbers are significant in an AfD where the notability of the subject is at issue. Thus i also say that the AfD close should be overturned. DES (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The O'Reilly link is not an additional source. Several editors have referenced here the O'Reilly link as if this is a new citation and thus grounds for overturning the original AfD. It was, however, included in the original article and mentioned in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YATE discussion, so it is NOT new sourcing and was presented when arguments were made if this article met WP:CORP. The author of this particular source (Maciek Kaminski) also is a member of the YATE user community[42], whose comments are featured on the YATE website as such. Not exactly a neutral WP:NPOV citation or evaluation. Calltech 20:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and if necessary relist, since the article seems to have been improved since last consideration.DGG (talk) 00:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong endorse my AFD deletion. The AFD was plagued with sockpuppets and SPAs arguing more about how convenient the service is and not from any policy or guideline standpoint. The AFD was advertised on YATE's website, and there were no valid reasons for keeping the article. I also endorse the G4 deletion, as the new article did not address any of the original concerns presented in the AFD. --Coredesat 01:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Evidence, please? Those do sound like some compelling claims, but I'm curious as to why you're not willing to back them up. Please post links. — xDanielxTalk 02:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • XDanielx, please review the AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YATE. Note the postings on the YATE page (referenced in the AfD) here [43], specifically the August posting by "Diana Cionoiu Re: yate wikipedia Aug 3 2007, 1:43 pm ". Diana admits in the AFD that her job at YATE is to promote the project. She asks for help from the YATE community and posts the Wikipedia link and says specifically "Help YATE become known". Note also the reply by G.Jacobsen: "Diana, I dont think that wikipedia will bring yate famedom." to her request. Following these postings, note the number of spas on the AfD around August 3rd. Calltech 03:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks, I missed the comment on the AfD. Still, based on contribution history I count four to five single-purpose accounts (this guy was tagged as a single-purpose user but has a perfectly reasonable edit history; this guy is kind of borderline) and no evidence of sockpuppetry. Also, the only message I could find that really talks about Wikipedia doesn't ask users to participate; in fact the author seems to really respect Wikipedia policies which typically aren't observed. I think it's fair to discount the 4-5 single purpose accounts, or give them very little weight, but that leaves us with no consensus - if anything leaning towards keep. If I'm still missing anything please let me know. — xDanielxTalk 04:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • XDanielx, your this guy (above) is Diana Cionoiu, the self proclaimed promoter of YATE whose only contributions have been to this article or adding links to this article. Your second this guy (above) is a heavy contributor to the YATE project (check the archives in the link above) both on the website and its wiki. G.Jacobsen's comment was the only objection to the attempts to organize the YATE users by Diana Cionoiu, who was the author of the thread and its chief contributor. Calltech 12:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Calltech, actually Dheeman is Balwinder S Dheeman which is trying to promote YATE all the time, but is not affiliated to YATE project in any way. Him did similar "wrong" promotion for YATE in other cases and i don't think him should be considered the tipical YATE user. Diana cionoiu 23:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • XDanielx, if you ignore the 2 promoters above and the other SPAs that were solicited by Diana, the actual number of keep votes on the original AfD was just 2. That makes User:Coredesat's removal decision reasonable. Calltech 19:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Now there appears to be an entirely new version of YATE built by an SPA user, written entirely like an advertisement. Looks like the YATE community is becoming fully engaged. Calltech 11:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • To repeat your own words for that last sentence: This "is a false accusation that is totally unsubstantiated and has no place here in this discussion". Mellentm 14:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are correct and I removed my opinion. Calltech 10:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just deleted that as spam, after another editor tagged it. DES (talk) 12:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Image:Sitel_logo.gif – speedy close, no administrative action needed. Just upload the image with a fair-use rationale. – Wafulz 14:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Image:Sitel_logo.gif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Completed fair use rationale for inclusion in Sitel article. Updated information in my sandbox Sigma 7 02:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • And I made a few spelling mistakes. :p --Sigma 7 02:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You'd probably do well to use a template, but you can just go ahead and re-create this, if the only reason it was deleted was because it was missing a rationale. --Haemo 04:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

6 August 2007[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List_of_common_phrases_in_various_languages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The page was deleted after discussion but this discussion did not in fact genuinely reveal any reason for deletion and its conclusion to delete was therefore wrong. The below analysis is based on the article Deletion Policy. 1. If it was thought that the page was in fact a dictionary article (which it was not) it should have been moved to Wiktionary rather than deleted: moving to such a source is the alternative - in this context, it has to be chosen if available, and is not optional. 2. The page did not fall in any of the categories of reasons for deletion anyway. The two main categories that were raised were a) Content not suitable for an encyclopedia and b) Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources/All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed. Arguments which asserted A) applied failed to see that the page did not necessarily function as a usage guide or a collection of dictionary entries. As a list of common phrases it was contributing to knowledge on what such common phrases are in various languages. This is more a socio-linguistic than a lexicographical endeavour and should be appreciated as such. B) Secondly, it is neither true that the information cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources nor that all attempts to find verifiable sources have failed. In fact no such attempts are cited by those voting in favour of deletion. Generally, it is I believe the correct understanding that an article (particularly one that conforms to style, categorisation, presentation and other criteria) and is quite useful should not be deleted unless the reasons for deletion can be made out. Kps22 11:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion, AFD was closed correctly. Wiktionary already has this content, in a far better and more navigable manner, at wikt:Category:Phrasebook. Neil ╦ 14:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was deleted and endorsed on DRV a month ago. [44] WarpstarRider 14:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - admins are given broad latitude to interpret deletion debates. I do not find the interpretation unreasonable, though I do not agree with it. Furthermore, WP:DRV is not a "second chance"; and in this case, it's not a "third chance" either. This is months old, and has already been endorsed. --Haemo 17:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Admins should simply implement the will of the community. They should have no freedom to act on their personal preferences. Golfcam 18:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The will of the community is presented in the strength of the arguments, not the strength of numbers. Numbers provide a statistic. Arguments provide a result. —Kurykh 19:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Admins have no special ability to assess arguments. They are no better than other users. This admin made a very bad call, admitting that many good arguments were made for the article, and then deleting on a single weak ground. The argument was moving towards retention, with those in favour of deletion apparently having little to say in reply to the rising number of arguments put forward for retention. The result provided by the argument was "no consensus - keep". People endorsing deletion here, are not assessing the argument, they are saying, "I don't like it, so good riddance, regardles s of the discussion". This makes me wonder if there is any point in participating in discussions at all, as it is purely arbitrary whether discussions will be treated with respect or not. Those who argued for retention here have been treated with undeserved contempt. Mowsbury 22:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm afraid on that one you're incorrect. If the only job of admins was to count votes, we could have a bot closing deletion discussions and quit wasting time for a real person to do it. The reason we don't do that is because part of the job of the closing admin is to read the unbolded words, not just tally the bolded ones. In this case, the arguments that this material is appropriate for other projects and is not appropriate here, and that the article would require a significant amount of original research, were persuasive. And if you think someone's screwed up in their assessment, we've always got here to bring it. But no, the job of admins is not to mechanically count heads and close AfD discussions, it's to actually evaluate them. The old deletion discussion area used to be called "Votes for deletion", it was changed to "Articles for deletion" in order to emphasize that very point. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion again. Better for Wiktionary than Wikipedia, and WP:NOT is a policy based reason for deletion. GRBerry 17:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There was no consensus, so the endorsements are nothing but "I agree with it". That is not what this page is for. Accepting such comments creates a systemic bias towards deletion, and devalues the contributions of those who tend to favor inclusionism. Golfcam 18:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse correctly decided. A useful article no doubt, but not within the guidelines here. DGG (talk) 20:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I believe consensus was reflected in the deletion Corpx 21:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (my) deletion, didn't we already do this once? Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, well-reasoned close. --Coredesat 06:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. How many times is this going to show up on DRV? --Kbdank71 18:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Consensus was very plainly not reflected in this decision. Mowsbury 22:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Deaths in Harry Potter – Deletion endorsed. Having said that, several AfD commenters suggested merging; if a viable merge scheme is offered, history undeletion would be appropriate. – Xoloz 02:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Deaths in Harry Potter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
  • This AfD was closed with delete prematurely (after 4 days 6 hours) and without clear consensus. I know that AfD is not a vote; but the AfD discussion shows 14 Delete lines and 16 Keep lines, which does not look like a consensus for deletion. Anthony Appleyard 05:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my deletion AFD is not a vote, I closed it within a reasonable amount of time (almost all the AFDs that day were closed a few hours earlier by different admins), and I didn't see much merit in the keep votes, and a few I discounted as WP:ILIKEIT, or WP:INTERESTING and there was one user who voted keep three times (with unconvicing arguements for keeping), and another user who's first edit was the AFD, (with a it's useful summarry, which I discount as well) so it's 14-12 (I also discounted Spectre delete reasoning, which was listcruft and the cruft reasonings), but most of the delete votes show how this doesn't meet policy, unlike most of the keeps. I support a merge though. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 05:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Spell it right... :) Will (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er, Anthony, you say "I know AFD is not a vote but" and then continue to say that this AFD should have been decided by vote count. Sounds like an oxymoron to me. I suggest the closing admin could have been a bit more verbose in the closing summary, but I endorse the close as reasonable on grounds of strength of argument. >Radiant< 08:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "keep" lines do not look like "I like it" to me. Some of them seem to say things like "It is information in a convenient form, that many are likely to want to refer to.", but that is not the same. As regards cruftyness: yet again, often one man's cruft is another man's useful information: for example, to me most football info is footballcruft (and my newspaper's sport section tends to go straight in my recycling bin), but I do not go around AfD'ing football articles, as I know that some people consider football information to be important. Anthony Appleyard 08:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Harry Potter seems to have a large enough inside universe to be able to warrant its own Wiki. Rather than start up another bout of Wiki-Simpson-Mania, you could give that a shot.--WaltCip 15:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - Admins are given broad latitude to determine the consensus of an argument, beyond vote-counting. I do not find anything unreasonable about the duration of the AfD, or the opinion reached by the closing admin. Everything appears to have been done properly. --Haemo 17:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Admins should simply implement the will of the community. They should have no freedom to act on their personal preferences. Golfcam 18:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • When you made this same comment above, another user answered you. I don't know what in my statement implied what you seem to think it says, but if you read what I said that Admins are given broad latitude to determine the consensus of an argument; i.e. to figure out what said will is. --Haemo 02:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore If we give admins this much latitude, they are free to do what the hell they like. They are supposed to be servants of the community, not overlords. The closer didn't even attempt to justify closure without consensus, which suggest a lack of respect for other users. Golfcam 18:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*overturn Golfcam makes a good point. In a nutshell, if you are going to go against consensus or close something that would be no-consensus as something other than no-consensus you better well justify it. No such justification has occurred here nor can I think of one. JoshuaZ 19:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC) Changing to endorse per Jaranda's remarks. JoshuaZ 00:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I didn't ignore consensus, I justified it above, just forgot to put it in the AFD, i justified the list of deaths in the last book AFD though. Jaranda wat's sup 21:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per justification above. One question, though: Anthony, why you vote counted the 16 keeps, did you take into account your double voting? --Kbdank71 19:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, reluctantly. I voted keep, and I think it should have been kept, but the close was not unreasonable. I urge instead an effort to revise the guidelines to clarify that such articles are acceptable, if that should in fact be the consensus generally at WP. DGG (talk) 20:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I think the decision reflected consensus Corpx 21:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, reasonable close, AFD is not a vote. --Coredesat 11:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong overturn - Clearly no consensus, and no clear policy-mandated decision. WP:ILIKEIT and WP:INTERESTING are not policy, and the policy-based arguments for delete made use of contentious interpretations, to say the least. I see no clear (and interpretation-neutral) discrepancies in the policy standing of either side of the debate. --xDanielxTalk 00:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion AFD is not a place where you get 5 full days of free webhosting of non-encyclopedic material while the niceties of process are machinated. It was not encyclopedic when created and no argument to keep it demonstrated the encyclopedic nature of it: if we don't like WP:FICT, with specific examples drawn on the Harry Potterverse, then change it as perhaps suggested by DGG, but as it stands now this doesn't fit into an encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 00:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per xDanielx. When there's no clear policy ruling (and WP:NOT was misapplied in the AFD nom, so if you're going to discount "votes" those should have been thrown out too), anyway it's best for the closer to go along with consensus (or lack thereof). Closers shouldn't just get supervotes. --W.marsh 01:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - AFD != vote, and saying an AFD was closed early after 4 days is just being pedantic (that applies to the infinite monkey theorem IPC DRV too) . No secondary sources (WP:FICT; WP:WAF), and not a single edit to that page included them (it's fine to say you will include them or they are there, but you need to actually use them - Josiah Rowe actually did present a source in the AFD). Also, I'm a bit skeptical at the lister of this DRV voting twice in the AFD. Will (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did not intend to "vote twice", I mentioned another point which had arisen in answer to someone's statement. Anthony Appleyard 21:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, no secondary sources presented, so not an appropriate article topic. WP:NOT a fansite (and for this particular subject, there are plenty of them out there to put such lists on instead). Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, no irregularities in closing. Wikipedia is not a vote, but I note that, of the 16 Keep lines, several were from users "voting" twice or more. Ohconfucius 04:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Nearly all of the keep comments were because the commenter liked the list or thought that because it was Harry Potter article, it should get an exception from such policies and guidelines as WP:TRIVIA. These are very week reasons to keep an article in the first place and arguments about serious problems with guidelines which where never countered. Arguments based on policy and guidelines will alway trump arguments based on one's personal interests. --Farix (Talk) 11:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. It is impossible for me to read all the comments in the AfD and find a consensus to delete. The closer is supposed to try to determine consensus. Most of the delete comments were along the lines of "delete per WP:NOT" or "listcruft". Very few gave any specific explanation of their delete !votes. For Jaranda to simply say that he didn't "see much merit in the keep votes" in light of the detailed explanation of some of the keep !votes and the almost total lack of explanatory detail in the delete !votes leads me to conclude that the closing was not based on his determination of consensus but on his own assessment of the merits of the article. For that reason, I think that the closing was procedurally defective and should be overturned. -- DS1953 talk 19:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist Put simply, there was no consensus. If there was no consensus, it should just be relisted to see if there will be one now. DGG (talk) 03:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - nominator correctly interpreted the AFD. Otto4711 04:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

These redirects were deleted as a result of this debate. That was a nomination of many old unused redirects that were a result of mergers, duplicates, etc. However, {{spoil}} and {{spoilers}} actually look like very logical redirects to me (from the verb, and from the plural). I believe that these were overlooked, because it is only normal that "Template:Spoiler bottom" and "Template:Character Spoiler" get deleted to avoid confusion, but {{spoil}} and {{spoilers}} are pretty useful and common redirects. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 12:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse close as RfD closer. The consensus to delete these redirects was overwhelming. The original nom addressed specific issues brought up by some of the redirects in the RfD but those who expressed an opinion as to their desired outcome wanted all the redirects deleted. {{spoilers}} is a more plausible redirect that {{spoil}} as the verb isn't usually used to describe content. Nevertheless I see little need for either given that there appears to be a strong community consensus against extensive use of the target template. Seems for the few cases where that template is still going to be used, it could be given its actual name (which isn't exactly lenghthy...) WjBscribe 12:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, the consensus was overwhelming, which is why I only nominated spoil and spoilers for DRV. I believe that the arguments for deleting these redirects were that they were mere leftovers from old mergers and duplicates, and spoil/spoilers are legitimate and logical redirects, something that was not addressed in the RfD. Also, the fact that this template is not going to be used regularly is not a reason to have no logical redirects to it. Redirects are cheap. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 13:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and recreate - those two redirects did not belong in this mass RFD. The rest of the redirects deleted were from different types of spoilers (character spoiler, minor spoiler, etc). These two are unrelated to the rest of the RFD and make sense as alternate names for the template and will help someone looking for the actual template to find it. (Personally, I think having spoiler warnings is silly - but that's a completely different issue.) --B 17:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's what I was trying to say. :-) Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 18:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn per B. JoshuaZ 19:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

5 August 2007[edit]

  • New Utopia – Deletion overturned unanimously; history restored; no need for an AfD. – Xoloz 01:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
New Utopia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article has survived three deletion discussions:

The third nomination produced a consensus that the article should focus primarily on allegations that New Utopia is a fraudulent micronation investment scheme rather than on (self-published) details of history, "population", geography, and so on.

The article was deleted on June 15, 2007 by administrator User:JzG, with the following deletion summary:

OTRS ticket 2007060110014307 - sole claim to notability is the SEC case, but that has only passing mentions and is largely smoke & mirrors, no fines, no convictions, no evidence a single bod was ever sold.

The reason for deletion seems to be the claim that the SEC case is a weak one and that the allegations of fraud are therefore unfounded. For context, please view the pre-deletion version of the article, read the discussion at Talk:New Utopia#Start again, please, and/or note the following excerpt from an SEC press release about New Utopia reproduced in this source:

Today Judge Michael Burrage, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Oklahoma, Tulsa Division, granted the Commission's request for an emergency restraining order to halt a fraudulent nationwide Internet scheme involving the offer and sale of a bogus $350 million bond offering. (emphasis added)

I bring this matter to deletion review so that it can be put to rest. I believe we have two options:

  1. The scam allegations have a weak basis and the article should make little or no mention of them. If so, it should be deleted, since such an article could not be neutral or prove the subject's notability.
  2. The article should reflect the evaluations of reliable sources which discuss the subject and should thus discuss the scam allegations, without giving them undue weight. If so, the deletion should be undone, so that the article can be modified.
  • Overturn as nominator. Black Falcon (Talk) 20:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, and, obviously,, option 2. A sufficiently widespread asserted fraud to be notable, and the article should reflect it. An OTRS complain that the material about the asserted fraud is included would seem totally unjustified, depending of course on how it is worded and sourced. To put it bluntly, asserted fraudsters should not be able to removes RSs about their schemes from WP, and the preliminary injunction is sufficient if cited as such. DGG (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except that it is not and never was a fraud, as far as I can tell. SEC called it one but no evidence has ever been produced that any meaningful number of US citizens actually bought these bonds, and as far as I can tell the site specifically said not for sale to US citizens. Guy (Help!) 22:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK then, widely thought to be a fraud--editing needed for POV, with 3rd party RSs used. DGG (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - I've checked the article on Answers.com and it's a hell of a lot better than this. Send it back to AFD if you don't like it. - hahnchen 23:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as per the reasoning of the nominator. — xDanielxTalk 23:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as per the reasoning of the nominator. Mathmo Talk 03:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Solution is to make the article NPOV, not to sweep the allegations under the rug. -- DS1953 talk 05:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia:The Club of Useless but True Info (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:The Club of Useless but True Info|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Deleted purely because of Page's title Not an anon anymore!!!! Yeah!!!! 16:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • ...And this is DRVed because you didn't like the obvious delete conclusion. Endorse deletion. —Kurykh 16:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, It was deleted because you wanted it to be a Wikiproject. Instead, restore the page and move it so it will be a DoF game instead. Marlith T/C 17:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Good Idea Marlith, I think I'll do that if it gets recreated. Not an anon anymore!!!! Yeah!!!! 17:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion, valid MFD, project promoted the creation of nonsense pages and pretty much amounts to trolling. --Coredesat 20:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The outcome of the MfD was unambiguous. In response to this comment by the nominator, wherein s/he states that "all I want is to be the founder of some Wikipedia Community", I ask that s/he review the "Wikipedia is not a social networking site" and "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy" provisions of the What Wikipedia is not policy. — Black Falcon (Talk) 20:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion and Speedily Close this DRV. Nominator's actions should be viewed as disruptive after these recent shenanigans. Tarc 22:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Redeletion After much thinking, I've decided you are right. Nonsense is unacceptable, and Wikipedia is not Myspace. I will from this point on follow all the rules. I am closing this review. Not an anon anymore!!!! Yeah!!!! 00:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Endorse - The nominator's rationale is unfounded and inconsistent with the overall consensus of the MFD.--WaltCip 04:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Wikipedians by generation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|UCFD)
This was a group nom. There were several well-though-out comments in the discussion. Half the commenters suggested that though some of the categories should be deleted, other categories of this group nom should not be. This should probably have been relisted as two or more separate nominations (at least ages and generations) for clarity in determining consensus. - jc37 11:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note, this nom includes:
  • Overturn and relist as at least 2 separate nominations. - as nominator. - jc37 11:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse self - This was one grouping of age based categories. More than half of the users chose to delete all of them, so for those persons there is no lack of clarity. Of the 4 users who users chose to comment on them in 2 separate subgroups, only 1 was in favor of keeping the "Generational" categories. So either way that you look at it, this subgroup of categories was delete. For the "Wikipedians in..." categories, there were some arguments in support of keeping these, but I found Black Falcon's and Haemo's arguments to be more convincing. For that subgroup, if you "count votes" it was 6-3 delete, so between both the numbers and the strength of the arguments, I think that deletion of these is also appropriate. --After Midnight 0001 12:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I'm missing something, but I only count 8 commenters in the discussion? (4 general deletes, and 4 conditional, with Xaoflux's being the reverse of the others) Besides that, I agree wholly with your assessment above of the generational cats, it's the "Wikipedians in their..." cats that seem "no consensus" to me. The strength of a group nom is to minimise duplication of discussion. The weakness is "throwing the baby out with the bathwater". And we should do whatever we can to retain "the baby", of course. And if these should so obviously be deleted, as you mention, then a relisting should "do no harm" in the meantime. - jc37 18:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I count 9 participants, of which 1 recommended deleting the "in their xx's" categories only (Xaosflux), 3 suggested deleting the generation categories only (Espirit15d, Bduke, DGG), and 5 suggested deleting them all (^demon, me, Octane, Haemo, Bushcarrot). However, vote-counts aside (since XfD is not a vote), the keep argument mainly consisted of a hypothetical connection between age and access to particular sources (the question I raised about the efficiency of actually attempting to utilise that connection went answered) and an unexplained reference to correcting systemic bias. — Black Falcon (Talk) 19:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I missed counting the nominator : ) - Though, as we seem to agree, it's not a "vote". However, I still see this as "no consensus", as I noted above. - jc37 20:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Attempting to establish a connection between age and interest would involve blatant and inaccurate stereotyping. Attempting to establish a connection between age and access to sources involves dealing with the inefficient "hit-and-miss" approach of contacting users in a specific age group to see if they have access to a particular source (You were born in 50s ... have any sources from back then?). Neither one of these issue was addressed by those arguing to keep the categories. In addition, although there were references to correcting systemic bias, it was never made clear what relation these categories have to systemic bias. — Black Falcon (Talk) 19:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, relist, and bring to wider attention. The small number of people active at UCfD should not be able to dictate the interface. The interface should be discussed by the people interested, who should be notified. Generation is relevant to collaboration on articles. the discussion of these wide ranging heavily populated categories should require adequate notice, though obviously most of the regulars at UCfD do not like that idea. I'll just note I do not use such categories myself, but I see no reason why others shouldn't--except for categories indicating one is a child. DGG (talk) 22:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, we've had plenty of discussion on this, several times, repeating every argument at least thrice. Can we put it to rest? This really isn't worth all the fuss. >Radiant< 08:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Endorse, this has been gone over many times before. Neil ╦ 14:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I'm interested to know why people think generation is relevant to collaboration. --Kbdank71 14:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - WP:DRV is not a second chance, and though it would be nice to notify more people of it, it is not required for a proper close. Given the latitude admins have to interpret discussions, this appears to have been interpreted properly. --Haemo 17:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Admins should simply implement the will of the community. They should have no freedom to act on their personal preferences. Golfcam 18:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • And how should that be done? xFD isn't about vote counting. --Kbdank71 19:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Even if we operated solely on the basis of vote counting, the result was 6-3 against the "in their xx's" categories and 8-1 against the generation categories. — Black Falcon (Talk) 19:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • (In most cases) admins should discern the consensus of the discussion (rather than "implement the will of the community", whatever that is meant to mean), and AFAIK, they attempt to do so on a regular basis. Could you (Golfcam) further explain your concern? - jc37 21:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There was clearly no consensus for this. Golfcam 18:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • On what do you base that claim? You made a broad statement above regarding (essentially) abuse of administrative tools, but have said nothing as to how or whether that applies to this particular situation. — Black Falcon (Talk) 20:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • icebox.com – Deletion overturned in light of new information. After allowing a day or two for the article's updating, it will be listed at AfD. – Xoloz 01:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Icebox.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

credible sourced material to justify notabilty Dwanyewest 02:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[45][46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] evidence provided Dwanyewest 02:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • List at AFD - Has enough to deserve a run through. But this website has essentially petered out, it's by no means a success. - hahnchen 10:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn protection, clearly a notable startup in 2000 although Alexa shows it never even had significant traffic. Notability does not expire. If the original was not sourced recreating a new sourced article should be acceptable. --Dhartung | Talk 13:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unprotect, list at AfD if desired (following recreation--I'm not sure that any of the old versions merit being restored). This was also covered in Newsweek a few years back, FWIW. Heather 21:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unprotect. Mathmo Talk 03:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I created many months ago the user-space page User:Selfworm/VandalizeMe and transcluded it into my main page with a show/hide option that was hidden by default for the purposes of

  1. Preventing vandalism to my main page by giving users their own page to "vandalize".
  2. Lightening the mood of Wikipedia editors that view and "vandalize" my main page for fun.

This user page was deleted without warning by the administrator Ryulong and the explanation that was given was "Seriously, vandalism only page". When asked about the reason for deleting the user page he responded that "It doesn't really do much for the encyclopedia." When asked to show that deleting user pages that don't "really do much for the encyclopedia" was Wikipedia policy, he ignored this request and changed his defense to the new claim that the page fell under the category of patent nonsense. I rebutted that "Vandalism is not necessarily the same thing as patent nonsense and not all patent nonsense is vandalism" and that this page was one of the exceptions; he did not respond to this rebuttal. The conversation between myself and Ryulong can be viewed here. Another conversation on this matter between myself and the administrator Pax:Vobiscum can be viewed here and here (under the heading of Speedy deletion).
I believe that this page did not violate any policy of Wikipedia and that it should be restored.

Please note that some user recreated this page after Ryulong deleted the original page and filled it with nonsense. Ryulong then deleted this page again. I am arguing in favor of restoring the original user-page that I created and not the second userpage that was created by some other user. selfwormTalk) 08:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn. Wikipedia is not MySpace, but it seems clear from Selfworm's long-term contributions that contributing to the encyclopedia is still his primary goal here. Wide latitude is generally offered to established contributors in userspace for harmless diversions, as long as the project remains their primary focus; many other established users have boxes like these as well. --Krimpet 08:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy overturn, if that's an option. Zocky | picture popups 08:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

4 August 2007[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Bell's prime number theorem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Firstly, this AfD was closed quite quickly, giving me no time to make a further response. Secondly, I believe that the closing admin misunderstood the issues. Nobody denies that the theorem is correct. Dhaluza has found references to the theorem, so it is clearly not original research, still less a hoax as Ten Pound Hammer alleges. PrimeHunter alleges that the result is trivial, yet he did not know it until he saw the article. Anyway, what is trivial to a specialist on prime numbers is not trivial to most people. Surely Wikipedia should cover all information about prime numbers, not just what PrimeHunter knew already. As Dhaluza says, "Also deleting every math topic not interesting to a mathematician is ridiculous--WP is for everybody." The key dispute is whether Bell discovered the theorem. If he didn't, then the article should be renamed, not deleted. Bedivere 23:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the closure was reasonable in view of the material presented. -- I think the decision was wrong, but that's another matter. I'd simply try to write a stronger article with more references from nontechnical books & presentations.DGG (talk) 23:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fully endorse There are quite a few things to point out here: first the AfD was unambiguously in favor of deletion and the closure itself is completely appropriate. Secondly, there are a number of excellent scientific reasons for deleting this
  • There was never any evidence submitted that this "theorem" is in any way connected to Eric Temple Bell.
  • The result is trivial. Whether or not Bedivere finds it trivial is a moot point: from a mathematical standpoint it's a completely uninteresting random factoid, the kind of random factoid that never has any name attached to it because no serious mathematician would ever have the chutzpah to give it a name, much less its own. Not having an article about it is not, as Bedivere seems to suggest, some sort of elitist math conspiracy. In many ways, this is the mathematical equivalent of keeping an article about the cornerstore from which you buy your milk carton. It is verifiably true that this cornerstone exists but it is of no interest whatsoever to have an article about it.
  • The theorem itself has nothing to do with prime numbers as was pointed out during the AfD since it is true of any odd integer greater than 3. So there's not a snowball chance in hell that anyone has ever referred to it as Bell's prime number theorem, especially since the prime number theorem is a central result of number theory. If this is not a hoax, I don't know what is and Bedivere has not provided, despite repeated requests, any sort of scholarly reference mentioning the result and given his recent clashes with WikiProject Mathematics, I am very tempted to throw WP:AGF out the window and assume that the article, the removal of the prod and this DRV come dangerously close to trolling. Pascal.Tesson 01:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Consensus was obvious, and WP:NOR is a very important policy even if consensus had been ambiguous. GRBerry 01:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that I cannot find any evidence that this is due to Bell - I have said so repeatedly. However, this is grounds for renaming, not deletion. I did not say it is an "elitist math conspiracy"; I merely quoted Dhaluza. And Dhaluza has found links referring to this result explicitly in terms of prime numbers. The fact that it is also true of other numbers is irrelevant. Surely PrimeHunter knows about pseudoprimes, which are non-primes to which certain results true for primes are also true. What are my recent clashes with WikiProject Mathematics?--Bedivere 08:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Yes, I know about pseudoprimes and have written an upcoming paper about them with Harvey Dubner [52]. This trivial observation (which I refuse to call a "theorem" when no source has done it) holds for all numbers not divisible by 2 or 3. No mathematician would call such numbers "pseudoprimes". It is 1/3 of all numbers while primes have density 0. PrimeHunter 17:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - legit AfD, what little information there was in the article can surely be sent elsewhere. Moreschi Talk 11:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. While the result is not quite as "trivial" as Pascal.Tesson makes it out to be (note deep connections between the divisor 24 and Ramanujan's tau function), it does not deserve its own article. Work it into the article about divisibility or something, Bedivere, if you really think it's an idea that belongs in an article somewhere. DavidCBryant 12:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse & redirect to Prime number theorem, unless the WikiProject on Math speaks up in favor of the article. >Radiant< 08:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I would not redirect; the prime number theorem is quite different, and I see no evidence that Bell did any work on it. WikiProject Mathematics provided several of the delete votes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak overturn, just because I have a vague feeling I've came across this before..... but I'm no prime number theory expect, but I am a graduate in mathematics and have taught it at Uni for several years. Not really too surprising when you consider what I have as my username...... Mathmo Talk 06:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and do not redirect, per WP:V. The statement "this theorem is due to Bell" could not be verified. The theorem itself appears to be an easy property. So, the closure of the debate was correct. Tizio 14:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Out Now Consulting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

New information has come to light. Three of the people participating in the AfD have been shown to have been acting in concert on various occasions and the nominator of the AfD also has a close personal relationship and they each voted strenuously to delete in this AfD, making it very difficult for the closing admin to be able to decide consensus correctly. Also, the closing admin has conceded being somewhat close to one of the people involved so as to reduce his neutrality. That bothers me quite a bit, for as well as the above instance of admitted meatpuppet behaviour amongst individuals - who each in this AfD voted delete and heavily supported each others' arguments - the geographical proximity -Western Australia - of all of these same particular delete voters was specifically raised during the AfD, but this was then discounted in the AfD decision from being a sufficient cause for concern by the closer, who is himself also from this region. (Note though that I am not claiming lack of good faith on the part of the closer, just that the closing admin, having a close personal relationship with some of those in the AfD, might have better considered referring the AfD decision to someone else.) In addition, new WP:RS have become available, and have been added into a newer version to verify the article subject's notability under WP:CORP. As the AfD was very long, I have created two pages that show first what the page looked like last I had kept a copy of its code (may not be final version relied on by closing admin.) The issues required to overturn have been more than met I think in a revised version of the old article and I would be grateful for people to consider this new version, with its additional reliable sources as the closing admin of the AfD advised me it would need to clear DRV so I made a new version with the additional notable sources. I believe that the International Herald Tribune article here should have been considered as establishing clear notability but was discounted by those involving themselves with the AfD and now also the newly added Adformatie article here and Sydney Morning Herald articles here and here and The Australian article here, as well as several other new additions in the new version all establish more than sufficient notability. I submit that all up, given the recent problems with some of the delete voters, and in light of the new WP:RS material establishing notability, the article meets the requirements needed WP:DRV to overturn the delete decision, and request that the new version of this article be created as a new WP article in its stead. JeffStryker 18:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Allow re-creation on the basis of the new material. DGG (talk) 23:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow re-creation. The AFD appears to have been difficult to close, even discounting the tainted !votes. But Google and the material above indicate there should be enough for a sourced and NPOV article. --Dhartung | Talk 13:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow re-creation on the basis of material not considered at AFD. That said, the closure was reasonable based on the debate's contents however. Carlossuarez46 01:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow re-creation on the basis of the new material. Got confused for a second when I looked at the initially linked AfD... the article is deleted, but was no consensus. Oops, was looking at the first AfD. The most recent was the 2nd. Mathmo Talk 06:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Lenta.ru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The major Russian language online news website. Check mentionings in Wikipedia or in Google for notability. The user who deleted it seems to be mass-deleting many articles (judging by usertalk). Please stop him by administrative means. ssr 16:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Notified Tregoweth of DVR. Whispering 18:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that I've seen the number of other articles referencing Lenta.ru, I see I was too hasty in deleting it. I've restored the article, and moved it to Lenta.Ru, which appears to be how it is generally spelled. I apologize for my mistake. —tregoweth (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Jp01.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

As discussed heavily on the image talk page. The image, nominated for deletion out of vindictiveness, was deleted in an absence of consensus. It seems clear from the discussion that the image is allowable if it serves a function within the article other than just showing what the person looks like. The reasons why it serves another function are laid out extensively on the talk page and the deleting admin just blew all of that off. In attempting to explain the deletion, admin stated that if it weren't deleted no one would feel motivated to go out and find another image. It strikes me that it is not the role of an administrator to selectively "motivate" editors in this fashion. The admin failed to assume good faith on my part as the uploader of the image, accusing me of trying to get around the image policy. It was explained exhaustively that the image was not simply about his appearance on a magazine cover but was instead about the very significant event of the subject's coming out as gay. Closing admin does not appear to have any understanding of the significance of this and faultily bought into the claim that the image was only illustrating his appearance. Admin was wrong on every count and the image should be restored. Otto4711 15:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion Looks like a classic replaceable fair use, WP:FUC#1. Policy based deletion. Until(1 == 2) 15:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Describe specifically another image that illustrates his coming out on the cover of the magazine. What specific image other than the magazine cover fulfills that function? More importantly, where's the consensus in the deletion discussion that it's replaceable? There is no consensus. Otto4711 17:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You fail to understand WP:FUC#1. By "replaceable", the policy doesn't mean only replaceable by another image. If it can be replaced by free text with the same encyclopedic value, than it's still replaceable. (And no, this does not means that every image can be replaced by text). As this image is only being used to illustrate a point that is perfectly done with text only, it's unnecessary. --Abu badali (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"As little non-free content as possible is used in an article"..."Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.", you don't need a non-free image to show that he came out, the magazine cover does not even convey any information that the text does not. This is about a fundamental misunderstanding of fair use on Wikipedia, it is not to be used decoratively. Until(1 == 2) 02:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I'll restate here what I find to be the crux of the argument: WP:NONFREE lists as acceptable use "Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item." The phrase appears to have been recently changed after some discussion, the details and history of which I'm only briefly familiar with, but the discussion seems to indicate that it is indeed the item, not the cover, that must be the subject of "critical commentary" for the image to be acceptable. The deletion rationale given does not seem to assert a lack of critical commentary in the article, and Otto4711 has explained the notability of the image above. --Maxamegalon2000 17:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - we don't need to see the magazine cover to understand the point being made about the "very significant event of the subject's coming out as gay". Please understand WP:NFCC#8. --Abu badali (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is obvious from the discussion that there is no consensus for your viewpoint. Otto4711 19:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not obvious, sir. That's just your opinion. --Abu badali (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I was the deleting admin, I won't "endorse" deletion, but I do stand over it. For those who don't know the background, the image was in the article J. P. Calderon — a living person. It is the cover of a magazine, which covers the story of Calderon "coming out" as gay. If it had been a photo of him without being a magazine cover, it would not have passed the fair use criteria, since it is possible to get a free image of a living person. The image was tagged as {{non-free use disputed}} by a bot on 5 June, and was tagged as replaceable fair use by Scorpion0422 on 19 June. There was some discussion on the image page and the image talk page, saying that it was not just a picture of the man, showing what he looked like, but it illustrated an event mentioned in the article — that he had come out as gay, and that the magazine had covered the story in a particular issue. An admin decided to keep. Abu badali then disputed the fair use on new grounds, on 20 June, asking if the "iconic moment", justifying the use of the image, had been discussed outside of Wikipedia, or was it original research. By tagging the image, he automatically placed it in Category:Disputed non-free images as of 20 June 2007. There was a huge, huge backlog of images waiting to be deleted, and eventually that category had just that image left in it, and admins were all ignoring it and moving on to other categories to delete images. I had noticed it days before, and had realised that it might be a complicated decision, so had postponed it until such time as I would have enough time to examine the case in detail. When I finally did examine this image, which I suspect other admins had been shying away from, I decided that Abu badali and Scorpion0422 were right. So I deleted. And could I gently suggest that speculating on the motives of the person who originally nominated the image for deletion is not helpful. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 00:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Normally I would not speculate on anyone's motives in nominating anythign for deletion, however, Scorpion has a long history, literally pre-dating the creation of Calderon's article, of hostility toward Calderon's having an article. Otto4711 12:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How could I be hostile to an article before an article exists? I was originally going to stay out of this, but only if Otto could avoid insulting me, and he didn't, so here I am. -- Scorpion0422 16:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You repeatedly deleted links to his name from his Survivor season article. You continued to de-link it after the article was written. You unilaterally redirected the article multiple times. You repeatedly deleted a link to it from the Survivor contestants template. You nominated it for deletion less than an hour after the first AFD on it closed. You deleted the image from the article several times even after you were asked to stop. And then you finally got the image deleted on a lack of consensus. Your hostility to this article is clearly in evidence from the edit histories of several different articles so please, don't insult everyone by pretending otherwise. Otto4711 17:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)\[reply]
  • Here we go, I knew this was coming. What does my history have to do with the relevance of this article? -- Scorpion0422 17:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your history has to do with your acting in bad faith regarding both the article and the image. I don;t believe your nominating the image had anything to do with your good faith belief that the image violated Wikipedia policy and had everything to do with your bad faith desire to remove both the image and the article, which bad faith you have expressed repeatedly through your continued campaign against the article. It is certainly relevant to take the actions of the original nominator into account; it's just too bad that your bad faith history was ignored. Otto4711 22:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing, nothing at all. I don't think you are "insulting everyone", or even anyone. Until(1 == 2) 17:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, and I suggest again that we should try to focus on the arguments of whether the omission of the image "would be detrimental to [the readers'] understanding" of the topic, in accordance with Criterion Number 8 of our policy, rather than focusing on the motives of the people who tagged the image for deletion or who deleted it. ElinorD (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine, and we still come back to the simple fact that regardless of the bad faith of one of the participants the discussion did not establish a consensus against the image. Otto4711 22:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, fair use on the basis of commentary seems to be asserted. It was in fact the magazine appearance which constituted the individual's (public persona) coming out. Had it just been an illustration of someone already known to be gay in other contexts this would not apply -- it would just be an illustration. If the article had an additional independent source confirming the importance of the appearance that might help, though. --Dhartung | Talk 13:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion You can say "It illustrates an iconic moment" all you like, but that still doesn't change the fact that it is mostly being used to show what he looks like. Being on a magazine cover could be an iconic moment for anyone, but you don't see an image of their first magazine cover on the page for every single famous person that has ever been on a magazine cover. -- Scorpion0422 16:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point remains that you did not establish a consensus to that effect in the discussion. Otto4711 17:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And "no consensus" closures should default to keep. Otto4711 17:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. Deletion discussions follow policy, not consensus. --Abu badali (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus dictates policy, policy doesn't dictate consensus. There was no consensus for your position and closing admin ignored the lack of consensus to impose a faulty solution. Otto4711 22:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A lack of consensus should not override the preexisting consensus of policy. Until(1 == 2) 00:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The deleting admin is to be commended for tackling this one, it was obviously tough. But I just don't see how the point illustrated by the cover can't be stated equally well in words, per WP:NFCC#8. Videmus Omnia Talk 16:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion The work in question is the magazine cover, and we're not discussing that, we're discussing the subject of the work. If you need to reference the magazine article, do it through a link, not an image. Jkelly 21:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Textbook case of WP:NONFREE#Examples of unacceptable use #7. The cover itself is not notable. howcheng {chat} 20:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak overturn - listing an image under discussion for IFD is not the correct way to end a dispute. Will (talk) 18:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Wikipedians who use Sinclair computers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|UCFD)

I am requesting deletion review on this Category and all others which were deleted from the Category:Wikipedians by Personal Computer on the grounds that I believe the deletion "vote" was misinterpreted by the closer. It was 6 delete, 5 keep and the closer went for a full delete when I believe it should have been interpreted as no consensus, since the "vote" was so close. Plus, the categories were not originally "former" categories, but were listed for current and previous owners of the machines listed. Thor Malmjursson 09:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. I "used" to own lots of stuff, none of which is useful in any sense of the word, including collaboration. Closer made the correct decision. Reminder, consensus does not equal vote counting. --Kbdank71 01:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse self - For now I'm just going to re-copy my closing text here, as I think it well represents my rationale. The result of the debate was delete all 5 subcats. Collaborative potential could be valid if these PCs were used by editors and people needed to address concerns to allow them to edit or display pages, but these categories do not meet the standard set at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/July 2007#Category:Wikipedians who use Macintosh computers. --After Midnight 0001 01:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Keep votes were rather vapid "ilikeit"s IMO, and were rightly given less weight. Tarc 03:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I kinda disagree with Kbdank71 here. I think previous ownership of such things gives the Wikipedian a quicker "in road" for research, and should be able to instantly see irrgularities, or other problems in such topic-related articles. I think the commenters above, are stuck on "used to own", when the category descriptions could have easily been those whow own or used to own. And while shying clear of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I have to suggest that this is little to no different than any other experience-related category, whether it be location-based, alma-mater-based, sport player-based, or whatever. My sincere question to the group is why do you think that such experience/knowledge is not helpful for collaboration? - jc37 10:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with "such experience/knowledge" is that it constitutes original research. It doesn't matter how familiar one is with a topic ... their additions must still be attributed to reliable sources. As for the location-based categories, I think that their primary usefulness is related to editors' ability to take and upload pictures people and objects near their place of residence. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not OR to have knowledge that helps in research. WP:OR deals with drawing conclusions based on that knowledge, but not the knowledge itself. Knowing the names of all the works of Shakespeare isn't WP:OR, though it means that if doing a search for information about the works of Shakespeare, you're a "step ahead", because you know what to look for. This is, afaik, the whole purpose of user categories: a collection of those whose knowledge base/experiences may be useful to us in bulding this encyclopedia. And this is actually covered on the WP:OR page. WP:COS, for example covers this directly. We encourage users to add information from watching a television programme, or a motion picture film, or listening to a song, or a radio programme, or reading a book, newpaper, graphic novella, or whatever. How is the using of a computer and/or its software any different? This really sounds like a subjective demarcation to me. - jc37 18:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Tarc. XfD is not a vote (so the 6-5 tally doesn't mean much) and the keep arguments did not have a strong enough basis in policy or merely asserted usefulness without demonstrating it. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I was the original nominator for these cats, so it's natural that I endorse, but I stand by my original nomination; four of the cats SPECIFICALLY stated that they were "former" categories, and the fifth was for the ZX Spectrum, which should have been a subcat of this (Sinclair) cat. Since Iceflow recreated this category instead of running it through deletion review first, it's impossible for non-admins to retrieve the original category text, which I believe will support my original claim. Horologium t-c 20:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I own a Sinclair - actually, nearly all of them - but I can't imagine what possible use this category would be to anyone. Deletion was the only reasonable outcome in this AfD. -- ChrisO 00:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Grand Hyatt Hong Kong – AfD deletion endorsed; subsequent G4 speedy-deletions overturned. (Several "endorse deletion" commenters appeared to address primarily the AfD, and so were given less weight in the latter determination. AfD for new revisions is at editorial discretion. – Xoloz 03:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Grand Hyatt Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Actually, I believe the deletion was entirely appropriate. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Hyatt Hong Kong concluded to a lack of notability of the hotel (closed by Coredesat (talk · contribs)). The sole editor favoring keeping the article was Kappa (talk · contribs). He recreated 30 minutes following deletion and three times in the past 24 hours although I asked him to come here first and I think it's best if I do it for him. All three recreations were deleted, once by Anthony.bradbury (talk · contribs) and twice by myself. I should note that Android79 (talk · contribs) declined the last speedy on grounds that the article was significantly different than the deleted versions. I believe that this is only superficially true: Kappa did add a few references but they are from travel guides or travel sections of newspapers and magazines. I should note once again that newspaper reviews of hotels do not constitute reliable sources in our sense as they are generally written from a voluntarily subjective point of view and more often than not are glowing reviews produced after the writer is invited to the hotel. In Kappa's new version, notability is argued for through notable guests although that argument was contested during the AfD and thus does not address the concerns raised in the AfD. Pascal.Tesson 04:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse all deletions, appropriate G4s since they did not address any concerns raised in the AFD (hotel reviews from travel guides are not reliable sources, and guests who are notable do not confer their notability to wherever they happen to be staying). --Coredesat 05:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OK you bastards won't even let me see the article and you think this is a fair trial. Kappa 05:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A simple "could you undelete" would have also worked. In any case, done. Pascal.Tesson 06:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse No notability established in article or references. -Nv8200p talk 13:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, relist. "During the worst weeks of the outbreak last spring, average occupancy rates at hotels, including world-famous prestige properties like the Peninsula and the Grand Hyatt Hong Kong, dropped to the point where on some nights, some prominent hotels were said to be empty of guests". This is not evidence of notability, because we are supposed to assume travel writers for the New York Times are just writing for the perks. Right. Bullshit like this should be judged by the community as a whole not a single editor with an agenda. Kappa 15:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"single editor with an agenda". Is that me? I did initiate a cleanup of the hotel articles about a year ago. A few were deleted through AfD in the summer of 2006. Some that I'd tagged for notability were nominated and deleted later on although I rarely participated in these debates because I was not following AfD as regularly. Still, it's not like the only articles I've submitted for deletion are hotels and they constitute a tiny fraction of my involvment in the deletion process. Pascal.Tesson 16:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry Pascal, it is not the first time Kappa has taken a deletion personally and played the blame game. Until(1 == 2) 03:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion. I have no doubt that this hotel is one that carries an international reputation and can see where Kappa is coming from in that regard, but I have seen nothing provided that makes this particular hotel stand out from the crowd. Every major city is going to have a luxury hotel or two or five. These hotels will naturally house celebrities. These hotels will naturally be reviewed or noted in newspaper or magazine articles. If this hotel were not Grand Hyatt Hong Kong, it could just as easily be another hotel, another city and everything provided so far would be virtually interchangeable. For me, something more historic or unique is required. Was it a pioneer in some area of hotel management or facilities? Did it radically change the luxury hotel business in Hong Kong or the world? Why THIS hotel? What makes it different? If something like that were provided then it would be worth keeping, but housing a head of state and having a better view than its competitors does not strike me as sufficient, and "world prestige property" is just a term some New York Times writer or editor made up that has no context and therefore no use in evaluating the property. Indrian 18:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment incidentally, in my early Wikidays I started writing a notability guideline for hotels. It was received as being generally sound but probably unnecessary, which in retrospect is probably true. It fell in the black hole of aborted policy attempts and I deleted it recently. Pascal.Tesson 20:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as unreasonable close "I have no doubt that this hotel is one that carries an international reputation ...but I have seen nothing provided that makes this particular hotel stand out from the crowd." I consider that self contradictory. the "2 or 5 super-luxury hotels in each city" which do frequently serve as the locale for heads of state and the like are self-evidently notable, and arguments to the contrary seem a little as if determined to delete the article notable or not. If such hotels arent notable, none are. The NYT is not the sort of paper to use "world-famous prestige properties" (the actual wording) loosely, nor to write articles based on travel writers perks. It's a RS, even if it says something notable that you privately think otherwise. It's certainly more reliable than the individual opinion of a WP editor.DGG (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How many hotels have an international reputation? Fifty? One hundred? Five hundred? One thousand? I really do not know, but I know it is not small. So no self-contradiction. In this case, I measure notability by those articles that have something unique to say. We do not need five hundred articles saying that X hotel is a five-star hotel in Y city and provides Z serivices while these famous people stayed here. There should certainly be a section in the Hong Kong article or as a sub-article describing accomadations in the city of which this hotel should be a part. There is a difference between notable information to place in an article and subject notable enough to have its own article. Furthermore, how was the close unreasonable? There was consensus established. It was a small group and deletion review is certainly proper here to get a wider opinion if possible, but I see nothing wrong with how the AfD was closed; it followed all procedures. Indrian 01:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note that I'm the one who started the DRV and I think most will agree that the AfD itself was closed appropriately. There is, however, a disagreement on whether or not Kappa's recreation of the article addresses the concerns raised in the AfD. I'm less concerned with reviewing the AfD deletion than I am with reviewing the ensuing speedy deletion of the recreated article. Pascal.Tesson 02:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I realize the distinction between the debates here (I was not even part of the original AfD and got involved in the recreation stage), but speedy deletes are not "closed", they are deleted or not. By stating that the article was "unreasonably closed" and going on about notability, DDG appeares to be attacking the AfD and not the multiple speedies. Indrian 03:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • By saying that the hotel passes WP:N but should be deleted anyway, you appear to be endorsing abuse of process. Kappa 23:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I see no one saying the hotel "passes" WP:N. WP:N is a guideline anyway not an offcial policy. It provides guidance and can be one useful measure in evaluating notability, but it is not the exclusive measure. Second, WP:N creates a rebuttable presumption not a hard truth. Articles satisfying WP:N are presumed to be notable. Satisfying WP:N does not, in fact, create notability all by itself and is, at best, a minimum threshold. Take your process debates elsewhere. Indrian 23:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Right, so despite a presumption of notability, it can be speedied at will without the communiy getting to express their opinion. Kappa 02:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • The article had its chance, the community did express its opinion, and consensus was reached (as stated before a consensus of a very small group making this review quite appropriate). I know that the version you recreated is different in several respects and attempts to satisfy concerns raised initially, but the way you went about it is odd. You joined the AfD debate on July 31 and the article was not deleted until August 3rd. You had several days to add material that the rest of the community would consider enough to pass the notability threshold, but instead decided to recreate the article just a half hour after it was deleted. I know this was with a true belief that the article belongs, but even if done with all the best intentions this is highly irregular. I think both the admins who speedied the article and the one who did not were acting appropriately under the policies in place, but I personally would defer to deletion. That being said, I reiterate that this hotel should be mentioned somewhere such as a hotel section in the Hong Kong article or in a sub-article about accomadation in the city. Indrian 03:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The article did not have its chance, the nominator was, and probably still is, flooding AFD with copy/pasted unresearched nominations about hotels. I just saw it, like you thought "this hotel is one that carries an international reputation ... These hotels will naturally be reviewed or noted in newspaper or magazine articles." so it should be an easy keep if anyone can be bothered to fix it. Verifying Hu Jin Tao staying there is a start, I thought there might be some other good guys around who would find some more verifiable notability and fix it. OK that didn't happen and it got deleted - fair enough, it wasn't fixed. That doesn't give anyone the excuse to delete a new fixed article would would have survived AFD. Even you don't object to discussing the hotel. Kappa 23:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorsed A hotel needs to demonstrate notability with reliable sources, not travel guides, to be included, valid deletion. Until(1 == 2) 03:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Not sure if this establishes notability, but Five Star Alliance says that the hotel is a Conde Nast Award winner[53] (I assume the Conde Nast Award is given by Condé Nast Publications), and Hyatt's website says that this hotel is Hyatt International's flagship property[54]. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 08:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can anybody comment on this? Or is everybody too wrapped up with holding up their ends of the dispute? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Conde Nast Award is a step in the right direction, though I would need more information on the significance of the award itself. The Hyatt website is biased and the context of the statement smacks of advertisement, so I would not personally accept that one. Indrian 06:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Firstly let me say I am still undecided on the notability of this hotel. Having said that, however, I would think there is not a more reliable source than the Hyatt website itself to back up the statement that Hong Kong's Grand Hyatt hotel is it's international flagship property. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Look at the context. The page is trying to sell the viewer on staying at that hotel. If Hyatt wants to push a particular hotel, it is going to use language like "flagship property." Maybe the hotel is doing poorly and Hyatt thinks it could do better. In that case, they are going to want to create an image of success in the customer's mind. I of course have no idea what has led the company to label the hotel as a "flagship property" in this context, but the company will always be biased in describing its own property. If this were an internal corporate document or financial report or something that would be one thing, but this is a website attempting to entice viewers to use the company's hotels. Indrian 19:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I would agree with you if somebody is trying to use Hyatt's website as fair assessment of how good the hotel is, but for the mere fact about it is labeled as the international "flagship property", well Hyatt really has the highest authority on giving one of its hotels that label. Any other source labeling the hotel as the international "flagship property" of Hyatt would really just be using Hyatt as a source itself. You're right, there could be a number of reasons why Hyatt chose to give it that label - but the fact still remains that it is giving the hotel that label. I'm not trying to argue that this "flagship" label automatically means something positive about the hotel, or that we should insert some text about how great the hotel is. The reader is free to interpret for himself or herself what that label could mean - the fact remains that Hyatt labels it as the international "flagship property". Does that make the hotel notable? I don't know. But is there any inconsistency on Hyatt's website about this label? Meaning, is it giving every other hotel it owns the "flagship" label? Not that I noticed at least. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Major hotel in a major city. Golfcam 18:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not AfD round 2. DRV is for discussions regarding AfD procedure (or violation thereof), not content debates. —Kurykh 20:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorsed I believe that the hotel may be notable due to its size, class and location (if anyone can access this article), I would fault the AfD for having been closed before the expiry of the 5 day window for debate. Having said that, however, there does not seem to have been much interest in the article during the time it was up for deletion, so debate was not cut short in actual fact. Kappa had the opportunity of bringing the article to DRV BEFORE reposting, but it appears he chose not to. Not only has Kappa failed to address any of AfD's concerns, his aggressive action - reposting 3 times in one day - in the face of consensus, may constitute edit-warring and may even warrant a ban. Ohconfucius 05:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You do realize that the AfD began at 12:59 on July 29 and was closed at 2:23 on August 3 right? That is five days as far as I can see. Indrian 06:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What was the point of bringing the initial article to DRV, when it had no evidence of notability? Kappa 16:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The AFD close was, as almost nobody disputes, quite reasonable on the facts then present. The article at that time was spammy (though not quite to the speedy deletion level), and didn't clearly describe any notability. The revised versions by Kappa are significantly improved, and are at least good enough to merit reconsideration afresh, avoiding G4 deletion. So, endorse the close and overturn the G4 deletions. Remember, the best outcome of an AFD is an improved article, and if deletion is a temporary step on that path, so be it. See also WP:HEY. GRBerry 17:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with GRBerry on all counts. Overturn the G4 deletions of Kappa's new article which is not merely a reposting of the narrowly deleted original article but is a new article which shows the notability of the hotel and contains independent reliable sources. -- DS1953 talk 05:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion, as per kappa and DGG. Mathmo Talk 06:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Image:Alan johnston button.png – Deletion overturned. From his comment at his own talk page, it appears the deleting admin likely did not see the talk page discussion; at the least, he didn't bother to rebut that suggestion. This leaves nominator's point that important information was missed as an unanswered substantial complaint. The request succeeds on strength of argument. Listing at IfD is by editorial option in this case. – Xoloz 03:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Alan johnston button.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Image was speedy deleted as invalid fair use rationale using Twinkle. Associated talk page similarly deleted using Twinkle. However, there was discussion on the now-deleted talk page and a general agreement between those who discussed that the fair use rationale was valid as the tagger had thought the usage of the image was for something different. Fair-use rationale was not to identify Johnston, which is what it was tagged invalid rationale for. The fair-use rationale, and actual usage of the image, was to show the BBC's efforts to keep Johnston's case in the spotlight.

I did bring this up to the deleting admin, who replied rather uncivilly to it. The talk page which contained this discussion was also inappropriately deleted under CSD G8 but G8 does not apply if the talk page "contains deletion discussion that is not logged elsewhere", as is the case here. The talk page should be undeleted so people can see the discussion for themselves, and then decide on the image ([55]).

Undelete both. – Chacor 04:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete permanently - Johnston is free, everything has been sorted with regards to his release, no need for it to be here. Thor Malmjursson 12:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you understand - this isn't a deletion vote for the article. The button was used in the article to show how the BBC kept his case in the media spotlight. Thus it is encyclopedic and was used properly. The question here is about the deletion, whether or not it was proper. I urge the closing admin to ignore this blatant "vote" (quoted from the user himself in the edit summary) that misses the point. – Chacor 12:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, Chacor - I did miss the point. I will say that I call it a vote cause I don't know what else to call it however, since it looks like a vote, behaves like a vote and acts like a vote (even if it isn't one!). For what its worth however -

Undelete both - people need to be able to see the deleted discussion before they can make an informed decision. However, I do believe, having read SchuminWeb's comments, they were not uncivil; blunt, yes. Out of order, no. Thor Malmjursson 13:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed - Undelete Image - Have read the discussion, and in my opinion, it does meet fair use criteria, as it illustrates the subject, and meets resolution criteria as low res. Needs to be categorised as non-free media and have the relevant Fair Use Rationale with it per the guidelines. Thor Malmjursson 12:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is slightly misguided. Again I stress the purpose of the image was NOT to illustrate the subject, which is what it was tagged replaceable fair use for, but rather to show what the subject's employers, the BBC, did. – Chacor 14:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thor's language may be slightly unclear. It illustrates the subject of the article, which is not exactly the same thing as being a picture of Alan Johnston. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Septentrionalis...I know what I mean, even if its not quite clear to everyone else! My first language isn't English and sometimes I still get muddled when I try to explain something. What you described is exactly what I meant. Thor Malmjursson 10:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have restored the image talk page so participants can see the discussion that was taking place prior to the image being deleted. The image page's history can be found at User:Coredesat/Johnston history. --Coredesat 05:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

3 August 2007[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:2003 Iraq conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

Unfortunately, there was scant commenting on this proposal, and it was a very good proposal to rename the category to Category:Iraq War. This decision should be reconsidered for the simple reason that Wikipedia should remain consistent, and this angle was not even mentioned. One call to rename, Iraq War to something else failed quite dismisally: Talk:Iraq_War/Archive_8#Requested_move (nominator withdrew it early); thus consensus is clearly that the English title is Iraq war, not the obfuscated nonsense about 2003 conflict, which is an ambiguous title anyway. Thus, consensus and precedent were ignored for this category discussion (of course, there is the fact that this discussion receieved preciously little, um, discussion, which is very important to determining consensus). The Evil Spartan 19:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Um, the point was that Iraq had many wars. Why should I assume that "Iraq war" refers to the recent one? What happens when Iraq gets in another war? Will "Iraq war" then refer to "the not-so-recent one"? --Kbdank71 19:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Precedent is not always an indicator of consensus. It is quite possible that the current name of the Iraq War article might not be the title which is most preferred by the community. Regardless, it is not the place of DRV to take the place of CfD when too few people show up at the original CfD discussion. I'd suggest waiting a few weeks and bringing it back to CfD. --- RockMFR 19:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Umm... could you please read Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Purpose. There was nothing wrong with the closure, and no attempt was made to reconcile this with me (the closing admin) before this listing. Note This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome. You are more than welcome to relist your proposed renaming with CfD, but deletion review simply cannot overturn a "keep" where the only two people besides the anon that commented said "oppose".-Andrew c [talk] 20:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right. I'm having trouble thinking you're assuming good faith. I have read it. And I did provide something that was entirely unmentioned in the disagreements: that the precedent for Iraq war is to name it as this. In any case, I am withdrawing. The Evil Spartan 20:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I don't think it would make sense for you to restart discussions with editors involved in editing the relevant articles. If you come to some sort of agreement, you can always restart the CfD: given the very low participation in the first one, I don't think there would be much complaining if you resubmit it in the not too distant future. Pascal.Tesson 05:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Amyphoto.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|IfD)

The copyright to school photos are owned by the parents, not the photo companies. Amy's surviving parent has repeatedly granted use of this image related to his daughter's tragic story. It is historically significant and specifically relevent to the article. Also, it has been reprinted numerous times in the Plain Dealer, the Cleveland Free Times, Cleveland Magazine, the Milwaukee Journal, the Beacon Journal, the Record Courier, the Lorain Morning Journal, the Elyria Chronicle Telegram, Sun Newspapers, and several other publications. Thank you. JamesRenner 18:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC) JamesRenner[reply]

Added after closing of debate, email from Mr. Renner
Good job. I'm sorry I had to sound snippy in that response. But there's a long history between the powers that be in Bay Village and me, over this book. It took me by surprise. But I'm very happy to see everything seems to have worked out. Can you post this message here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:DRV#Image:Amyphoto.jpg - Thanks, James

*COPYRIGHT OWNER FOUND. Copyright ownership was the crucial missing information needed by Wikipedia in order to retain this image per [[56]] and [[57]]. Details on copyright confirmation and other relevant articles pertaining to photos of prominent cases of missing or murdered children below. see my input below.BlueSapphires 18:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment Last I checked when my kid had her school pic taken, the photo company owns the copyright...that's also why you can't just go to Walmart and make your own copies. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 18:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Correction: The photo in question was actually at Image:Amyphoto.jpg. - TexasAndroid 18:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment IMHO this is a Fair Use issue. The parents have not released the photo under a free license, so it really is irrelevant whether they or the photgrapher owns the rights. In either case, the photo can only be used here under Fair Use rules. So the issue IMHO should be, can the photo be used under FU, or not, rather than who owns the rights. - TexasAndroid 18:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually mention of the copyright holder is crucial in allowing the photo for free use, per [[58]] and [[59]]. It should be deleted in 7 days if no copyright holder is identified, per rules. This should have been found a long time ago, but there was resistance, due to a lack of understanding of copyright law. I added some references to the Jonbenet to help educate people on the issue. BlueSapphires 19:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(From deleting admin) Most school photos are done "on spec," by a professional photographer who makes their living selling these photographs in hopes that the student will purchase the photos. As far as I can tell, unless an agreement was made otherwise, then copyright is automatically vested with the photographer and does not revert to the parents. If someone can provide legislation or case law that shows otherwise then my decision would be in error. Barring that, then WP:NFCC #10a applies and image should not be used on Wikipedia per policy. Wikipedia NFCC policy trumps fair use consideration. -Nv8200p talk 18:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you telling me any photo company can reprint images of my kids if they want? Doubtful. Show me the law that says photo companies own those copyrights. Why was it never an issue when it was reprinted in books and newspapers before? Beyond the issue of copyright ownership, there is a strong argument for fair use. This is historical and relevent. And this image has been used repeatedly in the past in reference to this case, including those articles referenced on the Amy Mihaljevic page. JamesRenner
Yes, the photo company that took the image can reprint it if they want (or they can grant rights to someone else). The person depicted still has publicity rights that could be upheld if the image was used for certain purposes. What other media outlets do with the image is of no issue to Wikipedia and Wikipedia's overly restrictive non-free content policy trumps fair use reasoning. Read this about the law that says who owns the copyright. -Nv8200p talk 18:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So it sounds like who owns the photo is indeed an important issue. If the parents own it, then FU is likely OK, given the parents regular grants of usage permission. If the photographer owns it, then NFCC applies and it cannot be used. Is that a fair assessment? If so, then on the issue of who does own it, we have a complicated series of contradictory signs. It appears likely that the photographer owned it at least initially. But the parents have apparently been acting for a while as if they owned it, and widely granting permission for others to use it. I see several possibilities: 1) The law did give the rights to the parents, and they have had them all along. 2) The photographer owned the rights, but at some point sold or gave the rights to the parents. 3) The photographer still owns the rights, and the parents have technically been violating those rights all along, with the photographer not making a big deal of the situation for whatever reason. It should be possible to establish who had the rights initially by somehow finding the applicable law, but I have no idea how we could/would establish what happened to the rights after that. - TexasAndroid 19:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would bet on number 3. -Nv8200p talk 19:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Regardless of the copyright issue, this is well within the boundaries of Fair Use. JamesRenner
I have posted a request on the Fair Use talk page asking for additional input on the issue from people much more familiar than I with the project's Fair Use policies. - TexasAndroid 19:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair Use is kind of irrelevant on Wikipedia currently. The driving factor is the Non-free content criteria. If you can meet NFCC, then you easily meet the fair use factors. -Nv8200p talk 21:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it was deleted under the premise that the copyright holder could not be attributed. Yet it seems pretty obvious to me that we know it was the studio who took the photo - thus, this clearly passes our fair use criteria. The Evil Spartan 19:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps it is obvious, but the copyright holder never was verified or attributed on the image description page, despite repeated requests during the deletion discussion. Instead, the assertion is still being made that the parent holds the copyright, with no verification. Videmus Omnia Talk 20:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't think anyone denies the photo could be used under fair use, in the right circumstances. But, if it is, the copyright holder has to be attributed per WP:NFCC#10a. The copyright holder has not been attributed, hence the deletion. Videmus Omnia Talk 20:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, overturn and mark as fair use, attributing the author properly. We shouldn't delete valid images if we can attribute the source. It clearly passes WP:FU - she's been dead for 18 years, and no free is equivalent. The Evil Spartan 20:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not arguing with you, but still nobody has supplied the name of the copyright holder - that is what is disputed and undetermined. Videmus Omnia Talk 20:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, let me get this straight. Your argument for copyright is: it's the photo company and not the parents that own the picture. But the argument for fair use is: no one has been established as the copyright holder. Are you trying to protect an image or just being needlessly contrary because I disagreed with your initial edit a week ago? JamesRenner
Please don't assume bad faith. All we need is the name of the copyright holder, per our non-free content criteria. This is a clear requirement and not difficult to understand. Videmus Omnia Talk 20:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn But if you follow WP:NFCC#10a a little further to Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Images it states, "It is important that you list the author of the image if known" (emphasis added). The idea, I think, behind this is that if the image is ever challenged we, the editors, have provided, to the best of our ability, a place to start for the investigator. We need a copyright holder and/or a source. Doctor Sunshine talk 20:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The important word there is author of the image, which is not necessarily the copyright holder (although usually is). The copyright holder is a requirement. If we don't know the copyright holder, we cannot use the image per #10. -Nv8200p talk 19:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you're making this argument as all potential copyright holders are known in this case. However, nowhere does it say that the naming of the copyright holder is an absolute. Check any number of FA article image rationales and you'll see that the source and/or copyright holder is the practice. Doctor Sunshine talk 20:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh edit conflict

  • Comment: In regard to school photos; the photographer owns the negatives/proofs (they do not go to the expense and time until the parent chooses to purchase them) If the parents choose to purchase them, they are then processed into actual photos, so then the subject and the parents are the owners after paying for the processed photos. (I haven't seen the image, so do not know the case) - Jeeny Talk 20:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the owner is Amy's father, Mark Mihaljevic. JamesRenner
No, they own copies of the processed photos for their personal use, but do not own the copyright to the images and have no rights to release the image for non-personal use. -Nv8200p talk 21:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. Once they purchase them, they own them to do whatever they want with them. That's how school photogs make their money. Now if the photographs were taken in a studio, then that is different. School photos are a different criteria. They are taken at the school, in an area set up for all students. The photographer gets paid to release the images to whomever pays for them. - Jeeny Talk 21:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there is a agreement specifically stating the buyer of the prints gets the copyright, the default is that the photographer owns the copyright. Being at the school or at the studio makes no difference. See here. Please provide references to legislation, case law or anything else to support your claim. -Nv8200p talk 21:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. This is splitting hairs of the finest kind. We should make a best effort attempt to find the image owner and photographer; fine. But the image is being used under fair use regardless. Whoever the owner is, parent, photo company, school, or the Sultan of Brunei, we're still using the image under Fair Use. Our rationale is exactly the same in any case. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn clearly fair use, and the exact wording of the attribution statement can be worked out--if the ownership is unclear, this can even be said, and both listed. We do not have to decide the matter between them to use it in WP. If it turns out the parent do have the rights, then they can release them if they choose and it will be free use, which of course is preferable. . DGG (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There is clear information on the source. Now to commit a cardinal wikisin: the copyright holder in this case is largely irrelevant. Even if the school photographer makes a claim of ownership, our policy still allows use of the image. The uploader is a journalist who previously published the photograph and received permission from the subject's parents, this is enough to verify the authenticity of the photograph. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no argument the image is authentic and there is enough fair use justification to use the image for journalism. Wikipedia's non-free content criteria goes way beyond fair use and requires more in order to use the image and what is needed to satisfy NFCC is not here. -Nv8200p talk 19:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. And when policies prevent you from maintaining or improving Wikipedia, it is sometimes best to ignore them. While precise attribution is at this point impossible, we know that the copyright is held by the parents, the school, or the photographer. Each possibility could be acknowledged in the rationale. We are also aware of why this image was created, when and where it was first published, its usage in journalism, and its inclusion in public and FBI records. In short, there's enough attribution data to satisfy all but the most demanding readings of NFCC#10. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 20:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - The next of kin of (parents) have released the photo for such use, as described above. Badagnani 02:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the image is kept, it will have to be properly sourced. I don't have a strong opinion on this one, as long as we get a source, but deleted images should not be constantly reuploaded. If there's doubt about who the copyright holder is, and if JamesRenner knows Amy's father, perhaps he could get another photo, and have it released under a free licence, although, I'm doubtful if a father of a murdered child would want to release photos under a licence that allows others to make derivative works for any purpose whatsoever. ElinorD (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per above, and agree that this is splitting hairs. Wikipedia:Citing sources#Images mentions that citing the precise copyright holder is only needed for certain licenses, and that it is important to list it if it is known. We know the source of where the image was obtained and who the possible copyright holders might be. If the sources where this was obtained were reliable (which it seems they were, newspapers tend to be careful with photograph attribution), then we should assume good faith that this was not a license that demanded specific copyright holder attribution. IronGargoyle 18:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OVerturn, deleter should know better. Meets fair use criteria, comfortably. Neil ╦ 14:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyright ownership was the crucial missing information needed by Wikipedia in order to retain this image per [[60]] and [[61]].
  • Sourcing and Tagging. All media uploaded to Wikipedia require a source and a "copyright tag". Images that lack either of these will be deleted after a week. Note that the source is supposed to tell who holds the copyright to the picture—a URL to where you found the picture is good, but it is useless if the page you link to does not say who the copyright holder is or what kind of license it is available under. Simply linking to an image on Photobucket, or a GeoCities fan site is no good. Search a bit harder and try to find an official site for the person or company who hold the copyright instead, or otherwise include enough info to let people know who the copyright holder is.
BlueSapphires 19:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • == INFORMATION, COMMENTS & REFERENCES ==
  • School picture (photograph) copyright law'. OSP is copyright owner unless there was a very-unusal case where the school obtained copyrights (rare) or unless the parents bought the copyrights (very, very rare, and highly unlikely) or unless OSP gave them the copyrights (unlikely and would require proof). See reference below to legal journal discussing this.
  • To answer Mr. Renner’s question, your kid’s school photographer DOES own photo copyrights unless you have already paid him for them. It would have been ‘much’, so presuambly you’d know it if you’d purchased it.BlueSapphires 19:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair usage of missing/murdered children photos is discussed extensively for Jonbenet Ramsey pictures (see 1 and 2 below). In short, such photos are routinely used by the media and others, under the premise of fair use until such a point that copyright owners asserts ownership rights, which apparently has never happened in the case of Amy Mihaljevic. In the case of the Jonbenet “pink sweater photo”, the photo was released by police (on an unoffical basis) and subsequently published under the principle of fair use by AP, AFP, UPI, NBC, ABC, etc until the legal owner, an anonymous businessman, sought representation by ZUMA, and commenced with pursuit of licencing agreements from all media outlets. NBC was one of the few agencies to purchase a licence, AP, to take one example, viewed ZUMA as a competitor, and chose to instead issue a “kill order” on all future usage (which many journalists and editors chose to ignore, and were later asked to respect or pay).
  • The I/They published it under fair use, therefore Wikipedia can too justification. Whereas prior publication on the book is a one of the criteria for fair use on Wikipedia, Mr. Milhaljevic does not appear to be the copyright holder (which is the issue in question), and therefore he didn't have the right to grant such permission, legally speaking. Morally, it was good that he approved of the use of the image on Mr. Renner's book, of course, but that is not the issue at hand. Per other media usage of missing/killed children, I refer again to the Jonbenet case in references below.
  • Better things to do. I had assumed that Mr. Renner would be only happy to help in this effort, and therefore I copied him on an email I sent (under alias) to the principal of Amy's school, asking for the name of the photograper, and if the school had been accorded copyright for school pictures (which apparently happens in some cases, though it isn't common). This was responded to, by Renner, with a schoolmarmish, scolding email to me, informing me that my approach was inappropriate, and that the principal had better things to do than provide the name of the school photographer or to respond to my questions. Renner also complained that I had no right to refer to his name (I'd copied him on the email, and mentioned his discussions online here). Whereas I accede that I should have asked Renner before mentioning him, I hasten to add that this entire discussion is on public display (Googlable), and add that I was surprised that he wasn't supportive of this research. In my point of view, he's being dismissive of what is being discussed here, which is essentially legal due diligence on behalf of the Foundation (one doesn't need to be a lawyer to undertake due diligence). I found his response to be incredibly pejorative, this being goading given my efforts to help him. I happen to earn more than a principal, and probably have more years of education than most principals. Not that that matters, but given his attitude, it bears note. I also spent hours last week finding references for his bio and Amy-article, to defend what I felt was an unfair attack against him. For this, my thanks. :/ Bottom line is that this entire protracted discussion (IMD, DR) could have been avoided if Mr. Renner had not been loudly proclaiming he knew more about image copyrights than he actually apparently does, including about this photo. He could have, should have, just found the name of the photographer, and that would have been that.
  • Other optionsThere are other pictures of Amy online, probable copyright holder would be Mark Mihaljevic. They are not as clear, and in them she looks a bit younger. The school photo is much better and clearer, and so it is up to consensus vote if the ownership atttribution of the school photo is sufficient to satisfy Fair use criteria per Wikipedia Rules. My personal vote is to go with the school picture, as it has the added social benefit of forwarding information which has a possibility of sparking the memory of a witness who could help catch the murderer. The case is still open, and reportedly suspects are still being monitored.
  • References
1. Discussion of Photographers Rights with Children School Photos Copying of school photos leaves industry shuddering Summary: Parents don’t own picture copyrights, this is a legal article about a principal who published an article on AOL suggesting that parents save money by scanning school pictures, which caused a furore among photographers and lawyer; the AOL article was pulled down.
2.Story Behind the Picture: Who Owns JonBenet Photos? (highlights)
  • The fact that the picture was made available to media at the time of the murder did not give anybody the right to distribute it. What allowed AP and other media to use the image at that time was that the copyright owner did not take any immediate action to forbid it. But that does not mean he could not assert his rights later on.
Q: Are the still photographs of JonBenet Ramsey in the public domain-free for publication?
A: No and they never have been! There are no images in the public domain of JonBenet from ZUMA photographers or anyone, it does not apply. All the images were made between 1993 and end of 1996.
Q: Who owns the rights to these pictures? How did the rights-holders get these rights?
A:The creators of these images hold the rights. Per the copyright act and reinforced in the latest version of March 1, 1989. The creator automatically own rights from moment of inception, unless
Q: Weren't some of the photographs released by police?
A: NO! Never. And even if they had it is a moot point.
Q: What would/could happen if Web sites/newspapers/TV stations continue using the still pictures without paying for them?
A:I recommend always trying to work it out. Most of the time it is a lack of understanding of the law and not intentional. We always try to work with other media first.
3.Usage of JonBenet Images: No Substitute for Permission (highlights)
  • Even had the police disseminated photos or video of JonBenet it is still incumbent upon those news organizations wishing to publish or broadcast such material to make a reasonable inquiry into who, if anyone, owned the rights to the photo. An example of this would be if someone offered to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge it would be foolish to pay for it until you knew that person had the right to sell it.
  • In order to avoid unnecessary litigation and the possible payment of monetary damages it would be best that for anyone wishing to publish or broadcast this (or any) material to contact the copyright holder or someone representing the copyright holder and seek permission for use before they do anything.
  • Author: Attorney Mickey H. Osterreicher, Esq., has been a member of the NPPA since 1972. He is the chair of the NPPA Media Government Relations Committee and is also a member of the New York State Bar Association Media Law Committee. He has been a photojournalist for over thirty years in Buffalo, NY, where he now practices law.
4.Supreme Court's Refusal To Hear National Geographic CD-ROM Case Leaves Conflicting Copyright Rulings (Digital Journalist)
  • An article for image specialists who are concerned about Wikipedia liability for CD-ROM versions of the encyclopedia. Current legal opinion stands in favor of a digital publisher, given the fact that the publication is on a new media material.BlueSapphires 19:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. In the excellent research by BlueSapphires, I turned up the following quote from David Tomlin, Associate General Counsel of The Associated Press [62] (scroll about halfway down the page): "Fair use can allow an otherwise infringing use of a photo where it is the photo itself -- not what is depicted in the photo -- that is news." Now he was talking about JonBenet Ramsey's school photo, but this is exactly the same case. It would be best to contact the family and get a different photo. howcheng {chat} 20:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overly strict.
  • Amazing cherry picking of that guys statement. The same guy said, What allowed AP and other media to use the image at that time was that the copyright owner did not take any immediate action to forbid it.. This is the essence of fair usage.
  • AP used the image until copyright holder demanded licencing rents. Which was his main point. Besides the fact that you are cherry picking an out of context sentence, the man is only the General Counsel of AP, not Chief Justice Robertson. Opinions of a company counsel are not sources of law, nor are the legally binding, and therefore can't be used as grounds for removing the picture. I hasten to add that all the profit-making entities, such as newspapers or books, were not back-charged for use of the picture, nor were they sued. They were asked to stop using it anymore. So fair use is fair use until the copyright holder invokes rights. That's the case here, and we should respect it.
  • Application of your arguement would remove all fair use from Wikipedia. I just had a non-free diamond image removed from my user page. It is the diamond that is the point of the picture, not the picture itself. It is here under fair use. Your logic would remove all fair use photos from Wikipedia.
  • Please stop trying to GFDL a dead little girl. Stop, just stop please. Contacting her parents, NO. This is opening an old wound, it is cruel and NO. Just NO. His wife died of grief afterwards. Please try to focus on what it would be like if your sister or daughter were killed. Don't bother the man. To do such a thing to obtain a licence is pecuniary. And colder than cold. Besides the inappropriateness of bothering the family, this is NOT the picture to put in GFDL. For this kind of a picture, fair use is perfect. We don't want her on some user page. Or on the Chinese Wikipedia in an article about teenaged girls. NO. Don't do that. Guys, this is NOT a case for getting another GFDL image, please.
  • Get the Copyright owner and it stay's. Oops, now it can't stay. I did my best to cooperate with the requests of you guys, and I'm sorry, but this response make me feel that you are all impossible. Just impossible. All over Wikipedia, it says, "find copyright holder". Then, your next response (evidently) is "we have to get GFDL from the copyright holder or it is out". Well, BS. - yes, that's my name :) If this was a huge breaking story, and the girl's pic was likely to get licenced (as was the case with Jonbenet) then that would make sense. This one is not a likely candidate for future licence. We can use it. It has been used over and over again, with no problem.
  • Other pictures There are links to other pictures up there. I put them there. You can use them, and attribute them to her father as copyright holder, under fair use (yes, FAIR USE, just put his name as copyright holder) if you want to. If you write the father and ask for GFDL, so help me, ...(bangs head on desk)....(bangs head on desk again)....(regains composure).... Murdered little girls are not good GFDL candidates. And she is not likely to be licenced in the near future. She's a fair use candidate if there ever was one.
  • Because it bears repeating. There is no reason for people to bother to find copyright holders, if your only arguement once that is found is "whoops, then we can't use it". Please start being constructive and working with people who have tried to observe the law, and Wikipedia policy. Thanks in advance. BlueSapphires 20:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Associated Press must account for added considerations when publishing photographs in commercial works. Wikipedia is a non-profit entity and does not license photographs for commercial publication. Further, the copyright to this photo is not owned by a press agency, but by a local school photographer who as far as we know doesn't even license images for press use. Either the Tomlin quote requires us to reformulate fair use policy with respect to all photographs taken by professionals, or this whole dispute amounts to copyright paranoia. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To respond...
  • The same guy said, "What allowed AP and other media to use the image at that time was that the copyright owner did not take any immediate action to forbid it." This is the essence of fair usage. No, that is the equivalent of a takedown notice. Fair use is legal regardless of what the copyright owner wishes.
  • A General Counsel of AP is just like any other lawyer, or person, who gets to voice his opinion. Yes, but his opinion is worth far more than mine or yours when it comes to the application of fair use.
  • Your logic would remove all fair use photos from Wikipedia. Not even close. We have a number of non-free images that are included because they themselves are the subject of discussion: Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, The Falling Man, Guernica (painting), the O.J. Simpson magazine covers in Photo editing, etc etc etc.
  • Get the Copyright owner and it stay's. Oops, now it can't stay. Yes, I did !vote to keep the image pending resolution of the copyright holder, but discovering who that is only clarifies the position. This was not a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. If the copyright holder had turned out to be her parents, then this would not have been an issue, but Ohio School Pictures is a commercial entity that makes money from sales of its photos. That they haven't exercised their prerogative in this case is no excuse for us to continue to violate their copyright.
  • Either the Tomlin quote requires us to reformulate fair use policy with respect to all photographs taken by professionals, or this whole dispute amounts to copyright paranoia. No, because the Tomlin quote is about transformative uses. Our use here is clearly not transformative.
--howcheng {chat} 21:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply
  • If the copyright holder had turned out to be her parents, then this would not have been an issue, but Ohio School Pictures is a commercial entity that makes money from sales of its photos.. The Jonbenet photo was owned by a private person who chooses to remain anonymous. For all we know, that anonymous businessman, owner of the pink sweater picture, is John Ramsey, her father. The anonymous person sought legal representation, after almost 10 years, by hiring ZUMA, which began to ask media for money to print the picture. More specifically, nowhere is it stated that a copyright holder must be a private individual, and not a company, for the fair use to be allowed on Wikipedia Nowhere. I understand you are trying to be careful here, but frankly, the ownership rights are no different for individual vs. business. Furthermore, what you've suggested, that Amy's father would be ok, but a photo company would not doesn't hold logic. If it were Amy's father, he could also decide to exert licence rights, someday, just the same as the anonymous businessman did in the case of Jonbenet. Again, your arguement calls for the destruction of all fair use on Wikipedia. Because theoretically, anyone, at anytime, could change their mind. Hence copyright paranoia.
  • No, that is the equivalent of a takedown notice. That is your interpretation, or rather, an interpolation of what he said. He said that they were allowed to use the picture for free, until told otherwise (which is what fair use is all about). That's all he said. You are interpolating it to say 'we never should have used it', when he never said that. They aren't sorry they used it. They are going to do the same thing again. They aren't being penalized for using it. He also never mentioned the difference between private and business ownership of the picture. Because it was irrelevant.
  • Fair use is legal regardless of what the copyright owner wishes. ??? Fair use stops being fair use when the copyright owners asks for licence rents. That's his/her/its wish. It is to be respected, legally. This is what Tomlin said, and again, buttresses free usage, even on Wikipedia.
  • Ohio School Pictures is a commercial entity that makes money from sales of its photos. So do human beings. Human beings are legally not much different than companies (which are called 'persons' in legal jargon). What
  • That they haven't exercised their prerogative in this case is no excuse for us to continue to violate their copyright. This is the essence of fair use. Has not exercised prerogative. Doesn't know to, or doesn't care to. Violation of the copyright is when they've informed you, and you've broken it. Even then, the approach is to ask to pay, and then to ask to take down if the person doesn't want to buy a licence. Good faith is assumed, as most people don't know copyright law, even in the media.
  • No, because the Tomlin quote is about transformative uses. Our use here is clearly not transformative. Tomlin was talkign about Jonbenet's picture. The transformative use article was about National Geographic. I don't understand who you are arguing here, actually. But Tomlin was talking about the change in AP position after the exercise of copyright, and prior to that Tomlin was apparently fine with AP use of the picture. BlueSapphires 22:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but his opinion is worth far more than mine or yours when it comes to the application of fair use. As someone who works with lawyers, and who has corrected mistakes in points or conclusions made in legal drafting, and in analyses made by lawyers on various materials, I beg to differ. Having a law degree is honorable, but it doesn't mean you know everything about everything. Even about the law. And there are so any different facets and aspects and contexts of law, as well as different jurisdictions and modes of application that you simply can't take one guy's opinion - unless his writings have come to be considered as a 'source of law'. And then they are usually only a source in one area of law, and even then sometimes a special context of an area of law (trademark intellectual property specialists might not know jack about printed circuit IP law, which, yes, is an actual field, and probably has 2000 different areas where you can specialize). Not many people are able to have their writings become a source of legal opinion, and the opinion of a company counsel is far to biased, by definition. It is their job to look out for the interest of their employer (too COI, not enough NPOV). I wouldn't ever base a Wikipedia decision on the words of just any company counsel. Unless it was the Wikimedia Foundation Counsel, who's job it is to look out for Wikimedia interest. That would be relevant. Back to the point: Tomlin never said that AP's use of the picture was improper. They simply decided to stop using it when they were being charged. BlueSapphires 22:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair use stops being fair use when the copyright owners asks for licence rents. No, I meant what I said earlier. Fair use is fair use regardless of what the copyright holder says. See Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., Bill Graham Archives vs. DK Publishing and so on.
  • The transformative use article was about National Geographic. Sorry? I think we have our wires crossed here. A transformative use is when the entity claiming fair use is using the copyrighted item in a way that is different from the item's original intent, so when Tomlin says that fair use can apply when using an item because that item is the subject the news itself, that's transformative. JonBenet's photo is used to show what she looks like, and in articles about JonBenet, that's not transformative. But in articles that discuss the licensing issue about the photo itself and about how ZUMA exercised its rights ten years later, then that becomes transformative because the articles would be using the JonBenet photo to discuss the photo itself, and not the person. Hope that makes sense.
--howcheng {chat} 22:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good news, huh? I am thrilled. It has been fun debating with you, Howcheung, but I have things I have to get back to things left undone - my real work, for example. I still think it would have been ok without permission, but we have it now, so all is well. Try not to knock the house down while making repairs with your logic hammer. Keep your eye on the big picture. All the best, BlueSapphires 23:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • When can it be uploaded? BlueSapphires 23:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It *really* should wait for a neutral admin to close this debate. And since the debate has only been open 4 days, that would have to be an early close, which is not all that likely in this complex of a case. And no re-upload is needed. The photo is still stored, it just cannot be accessed by non-admins. So whoever the neutral admin is who closes this will be perfectly able to restore the picture as well without a re-upload, assuming they close it as overturn. At this point that looks to *me* to be the obvious outcome, but I'm not a neutral admin, so my opinion does not rule. Anyway, is it that much of a hurry that it cannot wait a couple more days for a proper closing of the debate? - TexasAndroid 00:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just thought of one other option. If you used your new information to persuade one, or preferably both, of the deleting admins to reverse themselves, either of them could bring it back at any time. They are User:Nv8200p and User:ElinorD. - TexasAndroid 00:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the tip. I already informed Elinor, now I will also inform Nv8200. Again, I'm quite pleased. Looking forward to it being up again. BlueSapphires 00:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore image. I have no more objections. howcheng {chat} 00:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore - my concerns have been satisfied. Videmus Omnia Talk 01:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm satisfied as well, and agree with BlueSapphires that contacting GFDL images of murdered children are not the best idea, and that contacting the child's father would be inappropriate. ElinorD (talk) 07:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Wikipedians who use LiveJournal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

lack of consulation]] I can't find anywhere else to say this, so i'll say it here: as a member of the above deleted category I am annoyed about not being notified of the deletion debate - I only found out when a bot removed it from my userpage. And please don't say "you should have had it on your watchlist" - what sane person watches categories? In future I think members of user categories like this one should be notified of CfDs. A second point (relevant solely to this category) is that Livejournal hosts a community of Wikipedians, who would have found the category useful. Totnesmartin 09:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as a valid CFD. I have categories on my watchlist. Maybe you should have also? --Kbdank71 10:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll watch something that never gets meaningfully changed. Thanks for pointing at that it's my fault. The original nomination probably is valid; all I wanted was to have been informed of a CfD affecting my userpage.
Hundreds of categories, articles, templates, etc. are put up for deletion every day - we can't really tell every affected user (the editors, people who have categories/templates on their userpage, etc.) about the debate. It's not practical... ugen64 12:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exceedingly impractical, and definitely a job for a bot. Is there one, and if not, could you point me towards a user who could make one? Totnesmartin 16:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BOTREQ. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 17:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! Cheers mate! Totnesmartin 17:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, we could tell everybody. It is well within the capability of a bot. I think very strongly that we should--otherwise it is the actions of a few at CfD imposing their private views on the community. This is a policy change that would be widely supported. There are several ways to do it, starting at the VP, and the talk page for CSD. Making the bot would be easy. Getting agreement from those who now hang out at CfD is another matter, but of course anyone is welcome there and all WPedians have an equal voice. Be glad to see you there and join the discussion. DGG (talk) 23:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • DGG, I don't think "a few at CfD imposing their private views on the community" is an entirely fair characterisation. Yes, it's relatively few people, but most of the nominations have a grounding in policy, whether it is WP:NOT#SOCIALNET, WP:NOT#SOAPBOX (in relatively few cases), or Wikipedia:Overcategorization. As for the idea of mass notifications, I do not think it is productive. First, it would be a relatively unimportant task for a bot, considering that user categories are probably among the least important of pages on Wikipedia. In addition, mass notification implies a degree of ownership over userpages that I do not believe is afforded by WP:UP. It's not as if removing a category (often by editing a template, with no edit to the userpage itself) changes the layout or content of a userpage ... it's a minor, technical thing. Do we notify contributors to articles in a category that is nominated for deletion? No, even though articles are infinitely more important than userpages and user categories. We don't even have required notification of article creators when their articles are nominated (I proposed the idea a few months ago and it was solidly rejected). Note: Much of the above comment is copied from Wikipedia:Bot requests. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 00:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - nominator does not appear to have any reason to oppose deletion; rather, is expressing annoyance that they were not notified. I sympathize, and would urge nominators at WP:CFD to notify all users in their categories in the future, but do not think this has any real bearing on the deletion. --Haemo 02:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse self - consensus was clear. --After Midnight 0001 23:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Fan Wars (2008 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I want to create an article about a future open source film with no blatant advertising or any forms of spamming. Bryan Seecrets 09:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion - wait until the film comes out and becomes notable, then write an encyclopedia article about it. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 13:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as the userfied version doesn't look like anything that would survive an AFD just yet. Add some sources, then move it back to the article namespace. --W.marsh 13:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - non-notable film by an unknown, based on a little known fanfilm trailer. Bryan Seecrets is also the film's "creator", so the original article would still qualify for deletion as a vanity page. TheRealFennShysa 15:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Films aren't, strictly speaking, covered by A7 (although an "open-source film" would probably fall under web content I guess). Definitely would NOT pass an AfD at this time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Category:Wikipedians by physiological condition – The deletion of category "Deceased Wikipedians" is endorsed. All other categories hereunder are undeleted. In this DRV, strength of argument weighs in favor of the suggestion that the collaborative potential of the other categories was not properly assessed, since they were unfortunately grouped with "Deceased Wikipedians", a category fundamentally different in character. While the endorsers focus their (somewhat brief) remarks on "admin discretion", that point is irrelevant where -- as here -- a flaw in logic of the nomination fundamentally skews the nature of the discussion. Physiological conditions of living users are clearly distinct, and more open to collaborative potential, than those of the dead. As such, they deserve independent discussion of their merits. – Xoloz 15:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Wikipedians by physiological condition (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

AfD with a general Keep consensus prematurely closed and article deleted. Request review. Thank you. Mikebar 05:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: My late reply here is not because I did not care to participate, but rather because I was not notified of this discussion. --After Midnight 0001 22:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - At best this should have been a non-consensus close. There are good arguments on both sides, and a deletion without consensus seems a bit inappropriate. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 05:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Closing admin correctly determined the strength of the arguments. --Kbdank71 10:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, nothing out of line here. ^demon[omg plz] 13:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • information Note: ^demon is the person who nominated the categories for deletion. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 03:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Um, yeah, that is true. Are you implying that his opinion should be less valued here? Many of the people commenting here already also participated in the original discussion, would you like to flag all of them as well? By the way, the use of that icon is depreciated here. --After Midnight 0001 22:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, of course not. The strength of the arguments is to be considered. And what's wrong with that icon? :) Melsaran 15:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There was no consensus, and if anything the strongest argument is DGG's keep some opinion. I note that one was kept just the prior month. The reason for user categories is collaboration on building the encyclopedia, and for building an encyclopedia that the deaf/blind/colorblind, etc... can use, the best collaboration is getting input from those editors that have the condition. Looking at the discussion, deceased obviously needs its own discussion, as there were multiple opiners that said keep it delete the rest or delete it keep the rest. GRBerry 21:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I feel that this was well within admin discretion. If the categories are restored, then at least keep deleted Category:Deceased Wikipedians. The "collaborative potential" argument, used by DGG and Legis, does not apply to that. Anomie suggested retaining because it could be "useful as a subcategory of another category", but that's not a valid reason to keep, since the suggested parent cat may be useless in and of itself. Espirit15d recommend keeping the deceased category for record-keeping; as I noted later in the discussion, another page already exists for that purpose and the category cannot hope to be a complete record in any case. SqueakBox suggested keeping that one on the basis that "dead means notable". I think this was a misunderstanding, since there is no reason to expect that the editors in that category meet WP:BIO. Wikihermit suggested keeping that one, but provided no reason. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 23:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I think the same way now as I did at the CfD--this is imposing the will of a minority. I made specific arguments there for keeping Deaf Wikipedians and astigmatic and color blind and carpel tunnel, for they affect the design of the interface, including such things a user boxes and warnings. If I were to rework a warning template, I'd surely want to ask someone colour blind to examine my work. Good arguments were raised by others about working on disease related articles. A close in face of good arguments was not reasonable. If I hadn't been arguing, and had no particular view on the matter, I'd have closed either keep or no consensus. This nomination was a poor one in addition, for the factors involved in the category of deceased WPedians are very different from the others. Probably inadvertently, it was a straw man approach--include a very weak one and and affect the deliberation on them all. DGG (talk) 00:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, the result should have been keep. Of the delete "voters", only ^demon (the nominator) provided a real argument (little or no collaborative potential, encourages original research). The others were endorsements of the nom and/or an invalid argument ("why keep it", "is just silly"). Anomie made a pretty strong counter-argument against the "little or no collaborative potential", which hasn't been refuted. Horologium pointed out that "people who fall into these categories are more likely to have knowledge of, and access to, reliable sources for their particular conditions", a valid argument to keep. Finally, DGG cites the common "does no harm" argument, which is usually not very strong, but this time there was no compelling reason to delete.
    Also, I think that we should relist these categories for further debate, because these categories are actually widely used, so a more thorough discussion wouldn't hurt. Category:Deceased Wikipedians was an entirely different debate, of which the delete argument was stronger imo, but I think we can restore it and relist it separately, as this is of critical importance to Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 03:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse self - #1) UCFD is not a simple numerical vote, but, if it was, the vote count was not swayed to keep as they were pretty evenly split. #2) The result of the debate was delete all per strength of augments. The delete votes cited concerns regarding WP:OR and a lack of legitimate collaborative potential. The keeps cited being able to collaborate easier. For this issue, WP:OR and WP:NOT#SOCIALNET tips the balance. Also, Black Falcon's comment on Deceased Wikipedians was particularly strong. The deletes also did a better job of refuting the arguments of the keeps. In my opinion, this equated to delete all. --After Midnight 0001 22:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • OR can only apply to deceased wikipedians. Anyone else is putting themselves in the category, and they know their physical condition. Plus we usualyl don't worry about OR on user pages. GRBerry 01:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The OR issue affects whether a category carries any encyclopedic collaborative merit. It is not related to the user categorisation itself, but to whether a specific affiliation enables editors to contribute content beyond just their personal experiences or interpretations (i.e., original research). -- Black Falcon (Talk) 01:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist - While I agree such a closure may fall within admin discretion, I think in this case the result should probably have been no consensus, or at least a relisting for more information in order to determine consensus. - jc37 10:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, reasonable closure. Sheesh, perhaps we need a WP:DRVU next? >Radiant< 08:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • List of sportspeople by nickname – Deletion overturned. The result here was nearly unanimous; however, since BLP violations are alleged, the article will be relisted at AfD with protection and blanking, exercising the strictest caution. The consensus below also wishes to express a reminder to all admins to very careful in applying speedy deletions under BLP. – Xoloz 15:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of sportspeople by nickname (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

AfD with unclear consensus prematurely closed and article deleted by an admin who cited "WP:BLP concerns" that seem to me ill-founded. When I queried the admin about these concerns (see under "Closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sportspeople by nickname"), the response was a citation of three nicknames that simple Google searches [63] [64] [65] could have shown to have been used in such reliable sources as the ESPN Web site, Sports Illustrated, USA Today, and the New York Times. Recommend that the article be restored and relisted at AfD and that the debate be allowed to run its full course before a decision is made. (I was planning to wait a while and think this over; but now I see that the closing of this AfD is being used as the justification for another AfD, and I think this needs to be cleared up.) Deor 01:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn Another BLP disaster... fix it, don't nuke it as a punishment because some items were incorrect. Pretty blatant bias too, which is not surprising with BLP deletions. The nom made a weak argument... we don't delete articles because they don't cite sources yet, we delete them because no sources could ever be cited with any validity. Certainly many published articles and books will confirm popular nicknames and can be cited. And as for WP:NOT, people should actually read the 5 items under "indiscriminate collection of information" before saying it applies... none of those 5 describe this article. Just deleting it and walking away is anti-content... there were much better ways to have closed this. --W.marsh 02:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion - "Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no neutral version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion" - From WP:BLP Corpx 03:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was not a biography, not negative in tone, nor was it unsourced. BLP is not just a magic wand to remove any article remotely related to a living person. Or at least, it isn't yet... --W.marsh 03:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm pretty sure this was unsourced as I dont remember many citations at all. If these nicknames are mentioned in the articles about the subject, without references, then they should be removed. Same should apply here. Corpx 03:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • But the unreferenced ones weren't removed in good faith, the article was deleted wholesale with no effort made to fix the fixable problem. Anyway, some references were to the Wikipedia articles, but many were to external sources (there were 40 total references). A literal application of BLP falls flat here. --W.marsh 03:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • If that's the case, then we should be USERFY this somewhere till every entry is cited from a reliable source. On another note, wikipedia itself should NOT be used as a source, as it is a tertiary source. Corpx 03:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • There's no basis in policy for requiring an inline citation for every item, although such a thing can be agreed upon by article editors in some cases. And I'm not saying Wikipedia articles should be used as sources, the point is just that deleting this as "BLP" is invalid, there were better ways to handle this. --W.marsh 03:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • For a "List of ____", I think every entry should be in line cited, since they're a bunch of related items. Anything written about a living person should be cited thoroughly. Corpx 03:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Then start citing, and removing dubious ones... that can't be done with the article deleted though. But again, requiring every single claim related to a person to have an inline citation does not (yet) have any basis in policy, nor does deleting an article due to a lack of inline citation density. Deletions like this are not even backed up by BLP. --W.marsh 03:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Citations should be added when anything related to WP:BLP is added to an article. Anything not cited should not be allowed to stay while sources are being looked for. WP:BLP again says "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced". Since the whole article was unsourced, it should've been taken down. Again, if somebody wants to WP:USERFY it, while every nickname is cited, I'm fine with that. Corpx 03:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh, the whole article wasn't unsourced, and there's nothing in BLP that says the article has to be userfied until every claim is sourced. We've been over this. And only dubious items should be removed while sources are being looked for... if you think something is true yet remove it just because it doesn't have a source, that borders on vandalism at times. I'm all for trying to source this, but not if some guy is just going to waltz by and delete it for "BLP" regardless of the sourcing then walk away. Waste of time. --W.marsh 03:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, note that Corpx's supposed solution about Userfying doesn't actually work. If this were a BLP problem that mandated deletion then we couldn't have it in userspace either. JoshuaZ 04:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This list is older than WP:BLP, and the majority of its content was present before the first edit to WP:BLP. So, no, citations certainly did not have to be added at the time most of the content was added. GRBerry 21:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn per W.Marsh. Yes, such lists should in general have in-line citations. No, unsourced nicknames are not serious enough to merity immediate BLP deletion. We should only engage in such deletion when there is (1) a likelyhood that we are violating the privacy of non-private individuals or (2) the information is likely to be contentious or potentially negative/defamatory. A list of nicknames such as this simply does not meet either of these (it isn't like we nicknames listed here like "Has-Sex-With-Underage-Girls". JoshuaZ 03:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Abuse of BLP. No harm would be done by leaving the article undeleted while sources are found. Evouga 06:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Return to AfD - misreading of BLP to speedy delete this. I agree with Jaranda's nomination, but this a procedurally flawed close and should be sent back for full discussion. Eusebeus 08:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist - Either the BLP guidelines need some serious overhaul or admins need a refresher course, as these sorts of things are being consistently and routinely mishandled. If someone's trying to list something e.g. "Barry (BALCO) Bonds" there, then delete the offending entry, not the whole list because of it. Having said that, I probably would've voted to delete on the basis of it being a trivial intersection of nickname + athlete, but I'd like to see it argued out by others first. Tarc 13:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, massively trim, list for AFD 90%+ of the items were not sourced. BLP requires the highest standards of sourcing - so 90%+ of the items need to be cut. However, deletion of the entire article when 40 items are sourced is contradictory to BLP, so we overturn and massively trim. Whether we even should have this article is an AFD question, and I'd like to opine on that there. GRBerry 17:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. BLP:"Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced". I didn't see anything that was contentious, but even if I missed some, remove or cite that. No need to remove the whole list. --Kbdank71 19:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. WP:BLP justifies the removal of all unsourced entries, but it does not justify deletion (especially speedy deletion) of the entire article. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 23:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and return to AfD per Kbdank71, Black Falcon and others. -- DS1953 talk 00:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. BLP deletions of articles wholesale should be used when the article is unsalvageably a BLP violation, not if there is some material which may, or may not, be a BLP violation in an otherwise acceptable article. WP:BLP clearly states that unsourced material should be removed; not the entire article deleted. --Haemo 02:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist wrong reason to delete the article, even though it was in the five day closing limit. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 19:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, and remind ^demon to actually read WP:BLP, which some admins are now using as a hamfisted excuse to nuke anything they don't personally like - BLP says remove uncited statements if derogatory, don't just delete the whole thing. And technically, I'm not sure how this list could ever have been considered a biography. They don't even need to be inline cited if the citation for the nickname already exists in the article. Neil ╦ 14:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Campion Higher Secondary School, Tiruchi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article should have been deleted because WP:NOTE was completely overlooked int his case. Corpx 01:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't overturn. The closer correctly interpreted that there was no consensus, leaning towards a keep, and that a majority of respondents had not argued to delete. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to overturn a perfectly valid close. Rebecca 04:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the closing admin, I'm not going to comment either way, but it strikes me as interesting that time and again secondary schools in the UK and US that show up in AfD invariably are kept with the comment that secondary or high schools are generally considered inherently notable. This has been discussed so many times that I'd venture to say that you could call that a consensus decision. So why is this school not notable...just because it's in a different country? C'mon, folks, let's be consistent and not U.S./UK-centric. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 05:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, but... Close as keep was in order, but please, User:Akradecki, let's not enshrine the ridiculous view that secondary or high schools are generally considered inherently notable... Ugh! That is in no way a consensus view! Many of us feel this schoolcruft should be expunged, little matter the flag that flies out front. Eusebeus 08:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First of all, I am the nominator. I think at the very least, the discussion should have been closed as "no consensus". One "Keep"'s argument was high schools are notable, which, as Eusebeus points out, isn't part of the notability guidelines yet. Another "Keep"'s argument was has source which in fact it didn't. That said, now that I found the copyvio, and got rid of the poorly written, almost nonsense sections, I believe the article is better. The article still has sourcing issues. It has not been established that the school has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, independent publications. Both of the main notability statements in the article has created many achievers in various fields. It has attracted students from all over the nation are currently unsourced as well. As I said in my nomination, if this can encourage users to bring the article up to standards, great, but it still isn't there and I still think deleting an article that doesn't currently meet policy is better than assuming someone someday will hopefully do it.- Andrew c [talk] 13:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure There is no consensus project wide as to which schools are notable. The specific discussion certainly did not have a delete consensus. The copyvio sections have been removed, so there is no argument for deletion from overriding policy. GRBerry 17:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse for the following reasons:
  • First, WP:NOTE is a guideline, not a policy, and should not be used to trump consensus.
  • Second, the guideline only seeks to established what is necessary to establish a presumption of notability. Failure to meet the guidelines simply means that no presumption in favor of notability exists; it does not mean that the subject is conclusively, or even presumptively, not notable.
  • Third, the introduction to the guideline states "The topic of an article should be notable, or 'worthy of notice'. This concept is distinct from 'fame', 'importance', or 'popularity'." Notability is very subjective. Many editors strongly believe that every secondary school is "worthy of notice"; others disagree with that position and apply their own standards, some very high and some (to the thinking of other editors) very low. If, after extensive discussion, the consensus of the community is that an article should be kept, the clear implication is that the community believes that the subject is "worthy of notice" and an assertion that "WP:NOTE was completely overlooked" is not correct. -- DS1953 talk 20:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Endorse, permitting re-creation when a better article gets written. DGG (talk) 00:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC) oopsDGG (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that the result of the AfD was keep? There is nothing to be recreated. Evouga 00:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just wanted to mention that although the argument that all high schools are notable is in fact raised at each afd, it is always challenged, it is not the consensus position, and those schools whose articles are kept are kept because there is reason to consider them actually notable. Quite a few are rejected, and the decisions are in general reasonable--as in this case. DGG (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Sorry I missed the chance to vote Delete in the AfD, but I think this AfD had no consensus, and I have not heard of any specific defects in the way the deletion debate was conducted. Though the closure would better have been marked as No Consensus than Keep, the practical result is the same. The AfD discussion seemed to show a reasonable knowledge of policy among the participants. It should be noted that there is no consensus in WP for the belief that all high schools are notable. I hope that the article improves, because in its current state it looks like another AfD might be successful, due to lack of sources to document notability. EdJohnston 02:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse There was a consensus to keep this school, as there has been for many other high schools. There is certainly not community support for those who wish to delete high school articles. Golfcam 18:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Image:Nirvana band four members.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Was deleted as being a replaceable fair use image, but I don't see how. The band's been broken up for years, so they won't be together anytime soon, especially since there's also the small matter that Kurt Cobain is no longer with us. Any attempts to replace the image would likely only result in the use of another fair use image, unless someone out there has a free version. The problem, of course, is that we can't guarantee that they do, and until we can, the image isn't truly replaceable as I understand it. fuzzy510 01:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any idea how I missed this. This was an embarrassing mistake. Fuzzy510 is right, of course, this image is obviously non-replaceable, and I have restored it. (I'm usually extremely careful not to make this sort of error, since there are many who hold grudges against me for images I deleted in the past, who enthusiastically bring up my mistakes. But this one's a real boner. My apologies.) – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • List of people with epilepsy – speedy endorse a DRV of a speedy keep decision (per WP:SNOW, 11 endorse/0 overturn). Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and there is nothing wrong with a non-admin closure of a debate with 13 keeps / 2 deletes about a fully sourced featured article, especially not when it was a "procedural nomination" (the nominator didn't even want it deleted). – Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 03:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of people with epilepsy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Inappropriate use of WP:Speedy Keep. I come back to comment on it and I find it closed when it fits none of the criteria set in WP:Speedy Keep Corpx 01:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse keep - I closed the debate as keep. At the time, I wasn't aware there was a specific criteria for Speedy Keep; I interpreted it as a request that the debate be closed per WP:SNOW. Thus, I closed it per this criteria. My reasons for closing the debate as keep were:
  1. The article was nominated as a process nom, and the nom abstained, so there were only 2 delete voters (Corpx and Harlowraman).
  2. Corpx's delete argument; WP:NOT#DIR - was shut down by the two responses to it.
  3. The other delete vote was per Corpx, thus it had very little merit when the argument it was declaring had already been shut down.
  4. The list had been around a long time; it had reached featured status, etc. Surely if it was deletion-worthy, someone would have raised it by then.
Those are my reasons for closing the debate as keep. If consensus is against me, so be it, I'll learn from my mistake. Giggy Talk | Review 01:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep - seems an obvious result for a featured article. Also per the explanations given by Colin in the AfD. --Quiddity 01:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep, given that this is a featured list. If for some reason you want to AFD it, find a valid reason to get it de-featured, then nominate it on AFD. --Coredesat 04:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep - There's plenty of garbage that should be deleted before going after featured content. This seems, to me to either be a bad-faith nom for deletion or what happens when someone has a complete lack of understanding of how much scrutiny an article has to go through to get to featured status. I'd like to see Corpx do all the work necessary to take an article to FA...then let's see how he feels about deleting such articles. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 05:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Endorse Keep. Nominating featured content for deletion is always questionable and usually merely disruptive, as by being featured it already has the overwhelming support of the Wikipedia editors. For a nomination to be taken seriously I would expect major problems, such as copyright or BLP violations, and not a vague dislike of lists. Evouga 07:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy keep. Nomination of featured articles/lists for deletion is utterly frivolous. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Keep I agree with Corpx that Speedy Keep is inappropriate. Giggy's edit summary on the list's page ("AfD speedy closed") may reasonably have been interpreted as "Speedy keep", though it now appears he was unaware of that guideline. I'm sure Giggy will be more careful with his words next time. I'm not familiar with the use of WP:SNOW, but the presence of this DRV suggests it was borderline. The debate was slowing but still ongoing: ikkyu2 had asked Corpx a question, to which he is now unable to respond. There were actually three "delete voters". David Fuchs (the original nominator of the AfD whose split created this one) turned up to argue for deletion. His unfortunate bolding of the words "To all Keep" may have led to his opinion being overlooked. Whether Corpx's argument was "shut down" or merely disagreed with is a matter of opinion. Colin°Talk 08:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think some of the criticism here of Corpx is fair. He didn't create this AfD and it may have been my comments on his talk page that encouraged him to go for DRV. His comments on the AfD were well reasoned and in a good tone. I, and most others, may have disagreed with him, but it was fair for those issues to be raised. I agree that "voting" Delete on featured material should not be done at all lightly, but I don't think any content should be exempt from AfD. Colin°Talk 08:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse This list was clearly going to be retained so there is no point in its being relisted, and perhaps a premature closing of the debate per WP:SNOW was applicable, but bringing this up for review at AfD was not inappropriate and decidedly not frivolous simply because it was featured (although I have great respect for Sjakkalle and other editors who ground their views on this basis). The grounds for the encyclopedic value for this list are based on the assertion (from the article) of a possible link between epilepsy and greatness. That, however, is a controversial claim and bringing up the topic for discussion is entirely reasonable. Eusebeus 09:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe I should've clarified my position earlier. I didnt want to delete it, but think it should be re-listed because it was closed early on faulty grounds. Corpx 15:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you suggesting that it doesn't need to be deleted, but it should be relisted for deletion anyway? Whilst process is important, I would suggest that it was incorrectly listed in the first place – Listing a featured article for deletion, without even trying to discuss any concerns at its talkpage first, is in gross violation of something-or-other (etiquette/guideline/etc)... ;) --Quiddity 17:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as an obvious keep, although protest the use of "snowball" clause. It's pretty evident that another 25 hours was not likely to alter the outcome of this AfD and thus I endorse the closure, but I am wary of the use of WP:SNOW by non-administrators - particularly since there were some delete !votes. It's better to play it safe and prevent the need for DRV's like this one. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 17:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure and award a trout. The closure was correct for the discussion, but it should not have been done by a non-admin that early. So the closer needs a trout. GRBerry 17:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - there were at least 3 days for discussion, which is enough. The Evil Spartan 19:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Compete, Inc – Deletion endorsed - allow recreation (see details below) – —— Eagle101Need help? 15:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Recreation of deleted articles is ok, if and only if the article is substantially different then the version that has been deleted. A suggestion to anyone that would like to recreate this would be to talk to the deleting admin, or admins and ask them why it was deleted. I would also review the Articles for deletion debate as well. —— Eagle101Need help? 15:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compete, Inc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article did meet Wikipedia's minimal criteria I said a bit more that "its notable" on the talk page. I gave two specific reasons why it was notable, neither of which were addressed. This is why I question the thuroughness of moderation here. I fully understand that you need to watch for vandalism and nonsense, but people who do such things typically don't engage in discourse as I did.

1) The firm has been cited by several independent sources, one of which was in the second sentence of my article. If you need more articles refering to the firm, have a look at these:
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/news-desk/2007/7/18/study-gauges-state-by-state-online-activism.html http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/google-earnings-jump-second-quarter/story.aspx?guid=%7B2252586E-8640-4076-8A9F-9E798C332FF2%7D http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/07/ubuntu_vs_red_h.html http://thebrowser.blogs.fortune.com/2007/07/11/zillow-goes-crowdsourcing/

2) Other apparently notable companies specifically refer to the company I was attempting to write about. It suggests that Wikipedia, as a source, is neither reliable, independent or serious enough to automatically establish notability.

3) Prior attempts to start articles on this subject are irrelevent. If someone wrote an article on Brazil that was nonsense, it would be unreasonable to continue blocking any and all content on articles called "Brazil." The same principle applies here.

--MD277711 19:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse speedy deletion but conditionally allow recreation: I endorse the net result of the last speedy, since the last version of the article was in the gray area between WP:CSD A7, G11, and A1. I feel like the subject could merit an article, but the article simply stated Compete, Inc. is a Boston-based online marketing research firm ("is" really isn't an assertion of notability... mere existence is not notability), followed by a spammish style quote directly copied from one of the sources. Hardly a stub worth salvaging, but no objection to recreation if and only if WP:RS can be found on the subject (preferrably the web sources won't have "blog" in the URLs)... AfD can sort out any notability issues if an assertion is made. Maybe the userspace would be a good place to start? --Kinu t/c 04:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion with caveat - The entire article consisted of one sentence, "Compete, Inc. is a Boston-based online marketing research firm" plus a quote from a publication. There is no assertion of notability. There are zillions of marketing firms...so what makes this one so encyclopedic? The article was AfD deleted once, then subsequently speedied twice. The caveat is that I'm endorsing without prejudice to recreation if and only if the writer produced a draft of the article in his user space where notability of this firm is clearly established, and then had one or more of the deleting admins review it for him. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 05:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • permit re-creation on the basis of the new material. The only source when deleted was the one from business wire, which is PR and not evidence for notability, but with the added material it seems it would pass AfD. Even though I am reluctant to speedy delete articles of this sort, I think the speedy as the article stood at the time was not unreasonableDGG (talk) 00:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the deletion, but allow re-creation. This isn't really even a deletion review issue; an article speedily deleted in the past can be recreated if the recreating is a valid article without passing through this process. --Haemo 02:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. This is not just a question of allowing a speedy-deleted article to come back for a full debate. The article was deleted in an AfD back in March, 2007 and has been re-created against policy twice more since then. Since there is no evidence of any great eagerness to learn our system or improve the article, I suggest that the article doesn't deserve a second AfD at this time. From what was said above, the just-deleted article must be practically unchanged from the one first deleted four months ago. EdJohnston 03:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

2 August 2007[edit]

  • Image:Xmenstud`cio009zi3.jpg – Deletions overturned. There is substantial dispute over whether these images qualify as promotional, but the supporters of the images have produced evidence suggesting that this is the case. Procedurally, the deletions (taken from IfDs that were never closed?) are flawed; substantively, the consensus below is that they are likely inappropriate. This topic is ripe for further discussion at a proper IfD. – Xoloz 00:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Image:Xmenstud`cio009zi3.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|IfD)
File:Image:HarryPotterOotP.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|IfD)

Two archetypal cases of appropriate fair use of movie studio publicity images. Deleted in both cases silently without closing the discussion, or reviewing the consensus. Jheald 18:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Further Information. When challenged, the deleting admin has given the explanation:
I believe both images readily failed WP:NFCC #8 and their sources were from other web sites and not necessarily press kits as required for publicity images. Please request a deletion review if you think there is an error. -Regards Nv8200p talk 00:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But NFCC #8 (significance) was not raised in either discussion. We generally agree that it is significant to show a major movie depiction for a fictional character. It is therefore hard to see how a image of Harry Potter for that article's main infobox would fail significance, nor illustrating the movie version of Storm in Storm (comics).
The images (Harry Potter, Storm) can be found at IMDB in their section "On the Set Off the Set Publicity Stills from our Studio Friends" [66] [67]) (as noted in the IfDs). They can also be seen at other sites which recycle the content of official press kits, eg MovieWeb [68] [69], or Comics Continuum [70] ("20th Century Fox has provided The Continuum with large versions of the character shots from X3"). A close derivative of the Storm image is also available from the official X3 site.
The question to be decided here was WP:NFCC #2:
Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media.
It is clear that these were not limited-release single site exclusive images. They are the very paradigm of broad release standard publicity images. WP's use of them will in no way commercially impact that role.
Therefore, as I put it above, these two images represented archetypal cases of appropriate fair use of movie studio publicity images. The closing admin's silent decision to delete them was perverse. The decision on the Harry Potter image was particularly perverse, in view of the strong balance to keep. But the deletion of the Storm image was also perverse. Both deletions should be annulled, and a clear precedent established. Jheald 18:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(From closing admin) These are images that cannot verifiably be traced to a press kit and are typical of images that have been deleted in the past and upheld on deletion review. See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_July_4#Image:Brunokirby2.jpg for a similar example. -Nv8200p talk 19:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: (i) we don't have to show the image was from a press kit; what matters is whether it is likely to supplant the original market role of the original copyrighted media. (ii) Brunokirby2.jpg looks mis-decided, particularly in view of this image of an AP screen saying "Special Instructions: (...) ** NO SALES**". But, as per (i), that's not the test anyway. Jheald 20:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Brunokirby2.jpg wasn't mis-decided. It was deleted on ifd and endorsed on drv because no one could prove the image really came from a press kit. The flickr web-shot you show as evidence was produced afterwards (and it's unclear if it would had prevented the image from being deleted). --Abu badali (talk) 01:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "No Sales" would mean that it is not available for Wikipedia, since Wikipedia can be reused by commercial ventures. Corvus cornix 20:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. "No sales" meant the users didn't have to pay AP for the shots. Jheald 21:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the whole idea of labelling images as "non-free", is that the non-free stuff can be stripped out before being passed to commercial ventures? Carcharoth 21:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And who would do that stripping? There is no "passing" process, a commercial venture just takes what they want. Corvus cornix 17:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was imprecise. Because we carefully label non-free stuff as 'non-free', it is theoretically possible for an ethical commercial venture to do such stripping. If they don't, it is on their heads, not ours. The "reused by commercial ventures" bit applies to people releasing things for "non-commercial uses" - we can't accept that. Free or fair use only. Carcharoth 19:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - can't they be replaced by screenshots, which would be a much smaller percentage of a copyrighted work? Videmus Omnia Talk 20:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't a screenshot analogous to taking an interior frame from a comic, rather than an intentionally pre-released cover? Our comics guidelines recommend the latter. Jheald 22:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Agree with VO. Plus, I would like proof of press kit sourcing. howcheng {chat} 21:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How much more evidence do you reasonably expect to see, beyond what I've already set out above from IMDB, MovieNet and Comics Continuum? Besides, what matters here is not press kits, it's NFCC #2. Jheald 22:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Being on many websites is evidence of nothing. Show just one website, from the copyright holder, where it's made clear that this image is intended to be reused by the media. --Abu badali (talk) 01:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn If ind the argument convincing. DGG (talk) 23:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Like many many other cases of images believed to be promotional just because they can be found all around the net. --Abu badali (talk) 01:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - Those advocating for deletion continue to indicate they have no real problem with the material, just its distribution -- as though a "free" picture of Storm, or Harry Potter, could exist. They can't, and as there is ample evidence that these photos were provided for publicity -- for example, their being listed on a movie promotional website under the heading "On the Set Off the Set Publicity Stills from our Studio Friends" -- they should remain. Again, to be clear: there can be NO free image of Storm, no free image of Harry Potter, so I'm not really sure what those who want these pictures deleted would like them replaced with. No matter where the pictures come from, no matter what website they're found on, there is NO DEBATE on who the copyright holder is of the PICTURES THEMSELVES. And that should be the only concern when it comes to whether or not we're fairly using that copyrighted material; it doesn't matter one whit, no matter what Abu says, whether or not the company distributed the material for reuse similar to ours. At the end of the day, we know who the copyright holder is, and that's what our policies are most concerned with, not what the distribution method of that material is. Also - it is HILARIOUS that the Bruno Kirby case is being cited as precedent; I highly advise those interested to check out the full story behind that image, and its improper deletion for lack of "proof" that it was, in fact, promotional. It's truly amazing, the blinders some people are willing to put on... Jenolen speak it! 03:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - Free images of modern fictional characters do not exist, and demanding studio tracing proof is just trying to be difficult. Alientraveller 09:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I've spent a lot of time thinking about these situations recently, and the editors !voting Overturn here seem to share the conclusion that I came to--that the copyright holders (studios, publishers, labels) really aren't going to produce free-and-clear versions of these images no matter how much pressure we try to apply to them to do so, or how many images we delete in vain attempts to twist their giant arms. Although I certainly wouldn't have expected to, now that it's begun to happen, I now feel like the mass deletions of PD and Fair Use images recently have resulted in damage to the project, resulting in a less interesting and useful encyclopaedia. Even in a print encyclopaedia, I like being able to see images of the subjects of articles, and believe (after some reflection) that such images do, in fact, help me to better understand the subject than words alone could have. I don't think that we're going to get a GFDL image of Harry Potter any time soon, and I think that we're tilting at windmills if we believe otherwise. These images were clearly intended by their copyright holders to be reproduced as widely as possible (which is, in fact, their reason for existing), and I see no reason not to keep these. We aren't exploiting anyone's copyrights; we're using the images exactly as they were intended. Heather 12:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Comment - The Overturn votes above, from Heather, Jenolen and Alientraveller, seem to misunderstand the reason for deleting this image. Nobody here is claiming that we could produce a free alternative for this image. Indeed, nobody here would oppose the use of a non-free movie screenshot to illustrate this fictional character.
The real reason for deleting this image (that have been repeatedly misinterpreted in the overturn arguments) is that the whole fair use rationale for this non-free image is based on the assumption that this image was released by the copyright holder to be used by the media (promo material), but still, no proof have been provided for that. Being on many websites is no such proof (this is, indeed, the most common misconception on images uploaded to Wikipedia).
Dozen of images like these are deleted on IFD. We had a recent clean up on Startrek "promotional" images, then Dawnson's Creek' images... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abu badali (talk • contribs) 10:58, 3 August 2007
Two things - "On the Set Off the Set Publicity Stills from our Studio Friends" isn't proof enough for you that these are released by the studios for publicity purposes? And secondly, you're simply making up a new policy here - the fair use rationale in NO WAY requires that only media that is "released for media use" can be faily used! This fundamental misunderstanding of how fair use works - and the misprioritzation on the distribution methods of modern "press kit" images at the expense of the rock-solid knowledge of who the actual copyright holder is - continues to taint these deletions. The Star Trek and Dawson's Creek ones were wrong... and several hundred wrongs don't make these deletions right. Nowhere in Wikipedia policy or in fair use law (two very different things) is there expressed a "preference" of some kind for screenshots over staged publicity photos. What's happened is that two or three editors, working with two or three admins, have decided to enforce their own set of standards. Turns out, I'm not the only one who's getting a little tired of it. Jenolen speak it! 18:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many ifds and deletions reviews make the startrek and Dawson's Creek images to be deleted, by you still think they were wrongly deleted. I don't think I'm be able to convince you of anything you don't previously agree with. No point in discussing. --Abu badali (talk) 18:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for my ambiguity; I had just assumed that it was understood that the current trend of deleting PD and Fair Use images was rooted in the assumption that doing so would cause the copyright holders to produce free versions for us (an assumption which I've concluded to be erroneous, as others seem to agree). That's how it's been explained, for whatever it's worth. At any rate, I don't think that the promotional status of these images is at all questionable--and even if it were, as Doctor Sunshine noted, the appropriate response would have been retagging, not deletion. Heather 22:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn If an editor is unconvinced that these two images are publicity photos—though it seems like wikilawyering in this case—then it should have been switched to the {{Template:Non-free fair use in}} tag and the copyright holders contacted for clarification. The promotional materials tags seem legitimate to me but perhaps I'm putting too much faith the press. Doctor Sunshine talk 20:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And what would be the obligatory fair use rationale accompanying the {{Non-free fair use in}}?
    1. "This image is copyrighted by DC Comics and we don't know for sure what was it's intended use."
    2. "Maybe it's to be reused by the media, maybe it's to be reused by DC's partners, maybe it's only intended improve DC's official website with exclusive material, or maybe it's something else. We don't know."
    3. "Anyway, we believe that our use does not compete with the use intended by the copyright holder, whatever it may be."
    4. "And, although we won't go into details let alone provide evidence, this is a historically significant image of a famous individual".
    The point is, without verifiable information on what the copyright holder intended for this image, we can never say it passes WP:NFCC#2. --Abu badali (talk) 22:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • When you finally have a good explanation as to how "intent of the copyright holder" has anything at all to do with the fair use of copyrighted material for which no free equivalent exists or could be created, I'm sure we'd all be happy to hear it. As it is, since there are types of material for which free versions can never be created, you're now asking for us to deleting things under the somewhat paradoxical standard, "we don't know what the intent of the copyright holder is," when, in reality, at some point, there's going to be a use of copyrighted material. You apparently think fair use should only apply to material that copyright holders want to be used; this is incorrect, and this has been pointed out to you several times. When it comes to this part of copyright law, you simply have it wrong, and your continual refusal to acknowledge as such should be addressed as part of your Arbcom mandated counselling. Jenolen speak it! 00:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How about a similar rational to any other article on a fictional character? Where else could the IMDb and Yahoo Movies be getting these images?[71][72] Surely the purpose of these images falls under the obvious/common knowledge? If you have reason to doubt their legitimacy please contact the studios, these movies sites or the FBI. Doctor Sunshine talk 00:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    According to Yahoo itself, these images — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abu badali (talk • contribs)
    ...Yes... continue... If you were trying to imply that they were uploaded by someone other than Yahoo!, who do you think that was? Again, if you don't understand what these photos are for, email the studios. They'll tell you exactly what everyone here has been telling you. Doctor Sunshine talk 01:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, somehow I posted an incomplete comment. I believe I was going to say that according to yahoo, those images come from their partners, and the media is not welcome to reuse it for promotional (or any other) purposes. --Abu badali (talk) 15:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, according to section 9b of the link you posted, that's not the case at all. To quote, "With respect to photos, graphics, audio or video you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Service other than Yahoo! Groups, the license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such Content on the Service solely for the purpose for which such Content was submitted or made available..." Anyway, to steer this back on point, and to repeat myself yet again: contact the studios or substitute a general fair use tag. I'd do it myself if I thought you were taking this seriously. Doctor Sunshine talk 17:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is related to photos "you submit", i.e., content posted on yahoo by its users (like material in Yahoo Groups, etc.). --Abu badali (talk) 18:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me see if I have this right. The link you provided says the exact opposite of what you said their policy is and I'm supposed to take your word that you have it right and the policy page you linked to has it wrong? In other words, you're allowed to ignore all the evidence provided in this review while I'm expected to take your word for it? (By the way, since these images weren't submitted by "you" the users, can I assume that you do believe the were submitted by the studios? To, perhaps, promote their films?) Do you have a link that supports your claim? And I don't know why you're fixating on Yahoo! I named them to add to the examples at the head of this review. You've really lost me here. Are you not paying attention or are you just having a laugh? Doctor Sunshine talk 05:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What do they policy says that's "exact opposite" of what I said? The 9.b passage you cite is part of "9. CONTENT SUBMITTED OR MADE AVAILABLE FOR INCLUSION ON THE SERVICE", that refers to "Content you submit or make available for inclusion on the Service". I don't know what does it have to do with this image. --Abu badali (talk) 13:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't know what the policy has to do with thesse images... why did you post the link? Now, please, address any of my points at all and you'll have made me a happy man. Doctor Sunshine talk 21:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - why can't these images be replaced by screenshots, which would be a tiny percentage of a copyrighted work per WP:NFCC#3a, as opposed to 100% of a copyrighed photo? They would serve the encyclopedic purpose just as well. Videmus Omnia Talk 00:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, the odd thing about that - you're actually advocating using a part of the copyrighted material that studios are actively trying to sell - a part of their movie (albeit a very small part) - as opposed to using the copyrighted material that they are literally giving away and saying, "please, use this." It seems to me that if we're so concerned with NFCC#2, and the "respect for commercial opportunities," we should, by practice if not by policy, favor keeping the type of material that is widely distributed for media use, such as these promotional photos, and not encourage users to make their own frame-grabs from what is, at the end of the day, the actual product being sold. Or - and here's a thought - is the difference between the two so small as to make no difference? Jenolen speak it! 08:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're begging the question. All we're asking for is some concrete evidence that this image is really "material that they are literally giving away and saying, "please, use this"". No one has provided any such evidence. Being in many websites is not an evidence that the copyright holder is giving it away and saying, "please, use this". --Abu badali (talk) 23:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You literally have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Which part do you dispute? A) That these are promotional photos. B) That promotional photos are distributed for wide reuse. C) That movies, from which screenshots come, are "sold," both in theatres and on a variety of home video formats. Or perhaps, D) Given that studios vigorously enforce a variety of copyright related concerns, you believe that for some reason, they haven't gotten around to asking the IMBD, one of the most popular film websites in the world, to remove the photos currently found in the section entitled "On the Set Off the Set Publicity Stills from our Studio Friends." I mean, seriously, I hope this addressed in your Arbcom-mandated counselling, because it's ridiculous, the arguments you're making here. It appears that you believe "D" to be true. If so, all I can say is that if the think the IMBD is wrong, or lying, when they post photos labelled "Publicity Stills from our Studio Friends", you're just being contrary for the sake of being contrary. In which case, you should knock it off. There's no question about the source of the photos, nor of who the copyright holder is. Your concerns are, as usual, completely unfounded, and, in fact, contradicted by the evidence at hand. Jenolen speak it! 00:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I dispute "A)" (and I'm completely astonished that you haven't understood that yet). --Abu badali (talk) 15:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Jenolen, I'm asking you politely to stop making the inflammatory references to so-called "Arbcom-mandated counseling". Abu's actions and techniques were overwhelmingly upheld by the Arbcom. And you know that the burden of proof is on the uploader, not on the challenger. Videmus Omnia Talk 01:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Uh, Abu did have an Arbcom case, and yes, the result of that case was the he was supposed to seek counseling about image-related issues. What's controversial or inflammatory about that? It's obvious, from what he/she is posting here, he/she has a poor grasp of either reality, fair use law, or some combination of the two. Also - forget abstract concepts like "The burden of proof is on the uploader"; please address the specifics of this case. And in this case, are you unconvinced by the proof that has been offered, namely that these photos are featured on one of the most popular movie websites, IMDB.com, under the heading "Publicity Stills from our Studio Friends"... I want to make it clear -- do you believe that these photos are not, in fact, publicity stills? That seems to fail the "laugh" test. Jenolen speak it! 04:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Wrong. The outcome of my Arb case was that the clerks counseled me to be more patient with users who question my tagging of images, like you. Considering the amount of times I have to repeat the same arguments to you, I believe I'm already doing some progress. Anyway, I don't know why are we discussion about me here. --Abu badali (talk) 15:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Well, at least we're making some progress. Odd as this may seem, and believe me, I'm as baffled as you are, you chose "A" above. Now, please explain why you believe that photos found many places on the 'net, INCLUDING IMDB.com under the heading "Publicity Stills from our Studio Friends" are not promotional photos, as defined by Wikipedia policy. And would you support redefining Wikipedia policies, where unclear, to indicate that the IMDB's "Publicity Stills from our Studio Friends", both specifically and generally, are fundamentally identical to "promotional photos." If not, why not? Jenolen speak it! 20:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • It's really incredible how you're still "baffled" about that after taking part in so many idf and drv discussions where such images where deleted for the same reason. Responding to your question, I refer you to my very first endorse comment above, made 3 days ago. Just because an image can be found all around the net, it doesn't mean it's promotional material. Instead of one hundred links to sites using the image, provide just one link to an official presskit from the copyright holder, where it welcomes the reuse of this image by the media. --Abu badali (talk) 13:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer the question at all, and instead, repeated your "made up" criteria that we must somehow consider whether or not reuse of this copyrighted material is "welcomed" by the copyright holder. Nobody cares whether or not it's "welcomed." So I'll try again. Please answer these questions: Now, please explain why you believe that photos found many places on the 'net, INCLUDING IMDB.com under the heading "Publicity Stills from our Studio Friends" are not promotional photos, as defined by Wikipedia policy. And would you support redefining Wikipedia policies, where unclear, to indicate that the IMDB's "Publicity Stills from our Studio Friends", both specifically and generally, are fundamentally identical to "promotional photos." If not, why not? Jenolen speak it! 18:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To undestand the ""welcomed" by the copyright holder" thing, I point you to another comment I made on this thread 3 days ago (please, make sure you read and understad every comment on a thread before posing questions. It's tiresome to walk in circles). About the imdb thing, imdb is not a press kit nor a similar source. It doesn't hold the copyright for the images it hosts. I'm aware of any Wikipedia policy we would need to change to establish that (unless you volunteer to write a pointy essay). --Abu badali (talk) 20:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement, in US Law or Wikipedia policy, that a copyright holder must "welcome" the use of their copyrighted material, in order for a fair use claim to be made. You have NEVER provided a link to a piece of law, a Wikipedia policy, anything -- you just believe this to be true. You are, sadly, wrong about this -- but refuse to change your view in the face of the facts. Which is fine... that's you're right, too. But saying the world is flat long enough and loud enough don't make it so... and you would be well advised to immediately reconsider any part of your "Deletion Logic Routine" which involves the copyright holder "welcoming" the reuse of their material. It simply has nothing to do with anything. As for your view that, the whole fair use rationale for this non-free image is based on the assumption that this image was released by the copyright holder to be used by the media (promo material), but still, no proof have been provided for that. Being on many websites is no such proof ... I know and you know there's a difference between "Bob'z Moovie Blog" and IMDB.com. Of course, anyone can post anything on any random website... but IMDB is not some random copyright-violating website, and you know that. And, if IMBD wants to post photos under the heading "Publicity Stills from our Studio Friends," then you need to understand that those are actual promotional photos... Every time you argue otherwise, you hurt your own cause, because you continue to show that you're unable to handle this very simple concept - there is a big difference between copyrighted material, and the distribution methods of copyrighted material. The whole "Yahoo!" detour above has no bearing on this deletion debate... but it's the kind of thing you keep returning to, apparently unable to separate content from its digital distribution methods. Jenolen speak it! 23:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Image:Max-Planck-und-Albert-Einstein.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|IfD)

The images for deletion discussion was cut short in an unclear state when the deleting admin found the picture on the Corbis website (see Corbis). Further discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#The Corbis/Getty argument indicated that the presence of an image on the website of a major image library is not in and of itself sufficient for deletion. Our featured article Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima uses Image:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg, which can be found on the Corbis website. The previously linked discussion contains other examples. I therefore ask that the deletion be overturned and the discussion restarted to allow a fuller discussion of these issues for this particular image. Carcharoth 16:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(From deleting admin) More then adequate time was allowed for discussion before the image was deleted. WP:NFCC #2 requires a respect for commercial opportunities and this has been interpreted in the past to pretty much delete any Corbis/Getty image and most news agency images. After looking at the way the image was used in any of the articles, I did not think the use of the image added siginificantly to the article either.. This is my interpretation of Wikipedia's overly restrictive non-free content policy. -Nv8200p talk 17:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are still missing the point. You found it on the Corbis website and appeared to conclude from this that it "a Corbis image and so we must delete it". It is patently clear that this logic is false. If all the other admins participating in image reviews have this idea of image rights, then we are in trouble. There are many old images for which copyright status is highly unclear. Merely being sold today through commercial companies (who often buy up old archives of photos) does not mean that they know any more about the copyright status of these old images than we do. They are taking the position that until someone turns up to claim rights on an image, they will go ahead and sell it anyway. Conversely, we should take the position that until someone turns up and claims it, we can use it under fair-use if it will contribute to an article (I accept that it may not in this case, but that is a discussion we should be having at IfD). What we should not do (and what you did in this case, through no fault of your own), is assume that because an old photo is being sold by Corbis and Getty and other photo libraries, that those photo libraries have exclusive rights over the photo. Do you understand the point I am making here? I am saying that you (and others) should not be saying "since Corbis makes their business selling images, using this image on Wikipedia violates WP:NFCC #2" - exactly the same argument can be used to delete hundreds of photos - did you know that Corbis (and many other photo libraries) sell free pictures? They add value to them, but ultimately they charge for being the middleman for people who don't have the time to go and get the free images themselves. I'm not saying this is a free picture, but I am saying that an image being on the Corbis website (or any other website) doesn't automatically mean WP:NFCC #2 is being violated. Every admin dealing with image deletion needs to understand this. It is not easy, but then no-one ever said image rights were an easy thing to understand. Carcharoth 20:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you show that this image is not copyrighted to Corbis, you'll still have to show what's the copyright status for this image. --Abu badali (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but should that discussion take place here, or in a new IfD? Carcharoth 17:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We might begin a preliminary analysis of the Planck-Einstein image by noting that copyrighted works originating in Germany expire after 70 years, as noted at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Public_domain#Example_cases . The photograph was taken in Germany in 1930, and the previously displayed image of the photograph did not appear to come through Bettman/Corbis, but rather from a German-language website if I recall correctly. In any case, this photograph exists in forms other than the one displayed at Corbis. ... Kenosis 17:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's 70 years pma, not 70 years after moment of creation of the work. Jkelly 17:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's 70 years after the death of the author. -Nv8200p talk 17:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, thank you. So we have some research to do. Appreciate it. ... Kenosis 17:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, back to square one on this issue. The reference to 70 years p.m.a. requires a public claim of authorship. Lacking such a claim of authorship, any copyright lapses 70 years after the date of creation. See article 1, §§1-4 of the 1993 EU copyright directive. On the evidence we have thus far, this photograph is very much in the public domain. ... Kenosis 15:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Well, here's an initial lead to a German-based website that attributes the photo to Einstein, A Centenary Volume, ed. A.P. French, Heinemann Educational Books, 1979, p58, which in turn attributes it to "AIP, Niels Bohr Library, Fritz Reiche Collection". Plainly this photograph is quite well traveled and there is no single copyright holder that's clearly disclosed. I'll look for more info and report back later. ... Kenosis 18:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC) ... And Here the photograph is for sale, but is said to have been scanned at the American Institute of Physics. So thus far we have two sellers of different manifestations of the photograph, neither of which has disclosed how they obtained rights to it or what the rights are claimed to be. Credit in this case is given to "AIP [American Institute of Physics] Emilio Segre Visual Archives, Fritz Reiche Collection" The price for obtaining a print is said to be a "service fee", presumably meaning that the buyer is merely paying the requested price of producing the print. ... Kenosis 18:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC) ... OK, I called the librarian at the AIP, based on the information at this page. The archivist is away until next Monday. He may be able to provide more specific information about the particular copy of the image they hold in their archive. Even at this stage, it is my initial impression that a low-resolution reproduction of the image, depending on where it was obtained, is likely meet all four fair-use criteria as well as the 10 WP criteria. But a clearer response from the AIP will need to wait until next week. Perhaps others will be able to provide further info about all the copies of this photograph that were initially circulated in 1930 and later, and if anyone has ever asserted a claim of sole copyright on it. I also haven't been able to confirm who the second Mrs. Einstein, who died in the 1980s, might have given rights to their copy of the image. Perhaps it will suffice to say, at the moment, that copies of this photograph have traveled far and wide through multiple routes with no indication thus far that anyone has ever claimed exclusive rights to the image. ... Kenosis 18:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic research, Kenosis! I wish we had 100 of you. – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if we can do the investigation here, let's do it. If DRV regulars would rather us not hijack the page for a licensing investigation, then overturn and relist because NFCC #2 was clearly the wrong reason. (Note that I argued for deletion of the image in the first place.) howcheng {chat} 21:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be in favor of putting it back up as a still-active IfD and just letting the consensus take its course at this point. Nv8200p gave a reasonable justification for closing based upon Criteria for Speedy Deletion #12 and evidence of display and rights claimed by Corbis per NFCC #2. But it seems fairly obvious at this point that the image is quite likely in the public domain and that no one of the routes it has taken (the Einstein, Planck and Bohr families/friends/colleagues at an absolute minimum) has visibly claimed any kind of exclusive copyright on the image. It's virtually impossible to conclusively prove a negative here, but the evidence thus far appears to indicate multiple routes of dissemination and no visible exclusive copyright holder. So, if Nv8200p is agreeable at this stage, it seems to me it can (a) be closed as a "keep", (b) re-opened to continue discussion, or (c) relisted from scratch. Or it can be left here for presentation of any further evidence and "voting"-- personally I have no strong preference except for a reasonable outcome consistent with the evidence we find. ... Kenosis 21:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sadly, it's not that easy. The work was still in copyright in Germany in 1996, so the copyright term in the USA is 95 years. See the various "published outside the USA" categories in this table. [73] -- Jheald 16:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not clear where you get the 1996 date from. Could you clarify and explain this, please? Also, do you have to be able to indicate authorship of the photograph? That is what Kenosis is saying above - the authorship was not given, so it lapsed 70 years after creation. And finally, can you re-confirm that none of this uncertainty about copyright status affects the possibility of using the image under fair-use. (ie. this is two separate arguments going on here). Carcharoth 17:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that a proposal to revise the speedy deletion criteria G12, a criteria that under the arguments put forward by the deleting admin could equally have been used to delete this image, is being discussed here. Carcharoth 21:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn this is almost certainly public domain. And it's a highly iconic picture.DGG (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn based upon evidence presented thus far. This image doesn't appear to violate either CFSD #12 or WP:NFCC #2, nor any other WP:NFCC criterion such as #8 in at least several of the articles in which it was previously used. . ... Kenosis 03:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Dispute - How doesn't if fails #8? --Abu badali (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Dispute what? The image appears to be in the public domain under German law, EU copyright law, and US copyright law. Importantly, no author has been clearly disclosed in conjunction with display of the image as is required by EU copyright convention, thus any claims of copyright would have expired after 70 years, which would be June, 2000. At an absolute, absolute minimum, a low-resolution version is quite within fair-use criteria and there's no exclusive holder of copyright. And, it is plain that #8 is a subjective "catch-all" phrase, one which most certainly does not apply here. This picture is worth the proverbial thousand words, and cannot be replaced by text of any kind or any length. ... Kenosis 16:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If the image can be really proven to be PD, then we don't have to worry about NFCC and you can use it wherever you want. But if it's not PD, NFCC applies. And "a picture is worth a 1000 words" is a very weak argument against NFCC#8. --Abu badali (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You're certainly entitled to the opinion on #8; and I already gave a hint of mine--it's essentially a weasel clause, a balancing test that no one admin or other user should ever be able to assert singlehandedly without a discussion and consensus about its merits or lack thereof to an article. Why is this discussion still going on at this stage? I noted above the actual text of the 1993 EU copyright rules, today's standard, and they require the author's name to be publicly disclosed in conjunction with circulating the image. Is the argument here now to be that we must conclusively prove all these negatives? It's ridiculous at this point. Please undo the deletion and replace this image in the articles which last chose to include it. ... Kenosis 17:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Responding to Abu: did you know that Einstein and Planck were close friends (at least until they fell out)? Have a look at these sources: [74]: "They respected one another not only as physicists but also, for their inspired creation of world pictures, as artists. Planck helped to establish Einstein in a sinecure at the center of German physics, Berlin. Despite their differences in scientific style, social life, politics, and religion, they became fast friends."; and - a very nice look at the man behind the science: "Einstein described his friend as a man eaten by grief, yet one who still stood, “fully courageous and erect.” Rather than grow bitter and caustic towards life, Planck marshaled his spirits through work and the loving relationship with his only living son, Erwin." (my emphasis). There is more out there on Einstein's friendship with Planck. Now, say I wrote a section on that at Plank's article and at Einstein's article, and used this image of uncertain copyright status under fair-use to illustrate their friendship, would that satisfy you? I would also be interested in seeing your response to what Mr Isaacson said here: "someone who interprets criteria #8 strictly could eliminate almost every non-free picture in Wikipedia, while someone else who interprets the criteria more liberally could defend almost every such picture." - this will be a perpetual problem if NFCC#8 remains so subjective. Carcharoth 17:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    <sarcasm>I'm sorry but I could make no sense from all these Einsteins-friendship-plank thing you talk about. Don't you have picture of of Albert Einstein and Max Planck sitting together to illustrate your point? Without that, this topic is really difficult to be understood.</sarcasm> --Abu badali (talk) 18:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So from the tone of your sarcasm, I take it that you are "someone who interprets criteria #8 strictly [and] could eliminate almost every non-free picture in Wikipedia"? I recently pointed out to you a picture where you had provided a non-free use rationale, where you had written "never to illustrate the event it depicts" - and pointed out to you that the image is being used to illustrate the event it depicts. Which of these two images do you think is more likely to be problematic? My point here is that at the end of the day NFCC#8 is subjective. In cases that are subjective, specific arguments about the topic should carry more weight than general hand waving. Carcharoth 19:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. WP:SOFIXIT. If that image is not being used according to the rationale, it should be removed, or worked out to be used in accordance to the rationale. I see this as only a distraction for your tentative above to explain how the EinteinPlank image passes WP:NFCC#8 --Abu badali (talk) 22:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But I'm trying to work out whether you concentrate on areas that you know about, or whether you are indiscriminate in your image interests. Do you know enough about historical images to be comfortable in participating in image deletion debates for historical pictures? And I would genuinely like an answer to the point raised in that now-closed deletion discussion: are you "someone who interprets criteria #8 strictly [and] could eliminate almost every non-free picture in Wikipedia"? At some point, a line has to be drawn. We are obviously drawing it in different places, but let me ask you how much difference it really makes. What is the worst-case scenario if you adopt a more liberal interpretation of WP:NFCC#8? Will Wikipedia collapse overnight? You could ask the same question of me, but I will stand by my stance that a Wikipedia that errs on the side of caution in cases of historic images like this will be a lesser encyclopedia than it could be. Carcharoth 23:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the deletion review, if the licencing issue should be sorted once and for all here, I can only suggest that we wait until the American Institute of Physics librarian gets back to Kenosis with more information. If the deletion review should be closed before then, then I suggest overturn as WP:NFCC#2 was not valid, and relist at IfD to discuss the WP:NFCC#8 issues there. Carcharoth 23:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no valid NFCC#8 debate-- see my comment immediately below. ... Kenosis 01:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. At this stage it's clear the image is in the public domain. As I noted here, farther up on this page, there is not any author's copyright because 70 years p.m.a. requires an explicit public claim of authorship appended to the image when it's published. Lacking such a claim of authorship disseminated in conjunction with the publishing of the photograph, any claim of copyright (e.g., "hey people, I'm the author of that photograph") lapses 70 years after the date of creation, which in this case is June, 2000. See article 1, §§1-4 of the 1993 EU copyright directive. In the US, for works published in other countries without publicly claiming authorship, any image published prior to 1978 is in the public domain. The only exception to this is a widely criticized 1996 decision in the 9th Circuit (West Coast U.S.) which extends the possibility of copyright protection for works originating in other countries, but which would require someone to actually step forward and assert authorship, such as the direct descendants/heirs of the photographer who took the 1930 photo of Einstein and Planck (see footnote 11 in this synopsis ). Do participants here begin to see how ridiculous this becomes here? that lacking a scenario wherein a descendant of the photographer emails or has a lawyer write Wikipedia saying "Hey Wikipedia, I'm the grandson of the photographer, and (ahem!!) the particular low-resolution image is not in the public domain, but is merely 'fair use'!!!"
    ........ And even if it's not in the public domain, it is on extremely solid ground as fair-use, and the issue of #8 has already been decided by consensus in the IfD that the image added explanatory power to at least two of the articles in which it was used. NFCC#8, being a highly subjective measure, must be decided by consensus and never by administrative decree. The consensus in the IfD was to keep the image, thus overriding Abu badali's assertion that #8 applied. And among the participants in the IfD who are not already known specifically for being intensively-focused-image-deletion advocates that regularly operate in this area, the consensus was unanimous to "keep" the image for at least one or two of the articles in which the image was previously placed. Even the closing admin did not raise the issue of #8 with respect to the Albert Einstein article, but only with some of the seven articles in which the image was used as a "fair-use" image. So close this please, and restore the image to the articles in which it was placed. Please make arguments for removal of the image based upon #8 individually for any articles to which it is asserted to apply. When I hear back from the librarian at AIP, I'll let everyone know what I find. ... Kenosis 01:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kenosis, I wish what you were saying was right. But it's not. The crucial fly in the U.S. Copyright ointment is the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (1994). Very roughly, that says that anything still in copyright in its original country on 1st January 1996 should be granted the U.S. copyright it would have been entitled to in the USA if all the formalities had been observed, all the renewals made, etc., such that it would have been in copyright in the USA on 1 Jan 1996. The effects can be seen in the table from Cornell here [75] (see "Works published outside the USA"). Because this image was still in copyright in Germany in 1996, it gets a copyright term of 95 years in the USA. So, whether or not it is now out of copyright in Germany, it is still subject to copyright in the USA, and will be until 2025. Jheald 19:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm no expert, but I think the fly in the ointment here is really that there has been no claim of authorship made in Germany. In other words, we don't know who took the photo, and it is not clear this was ever recorded. In other words, "if all the formalities had been observed" there would still be no chance of the photo being copyrighted in 1996. It really is possible to have "ownership of historical photo unknown" cases, and it is misleading to pretend that these cases should be treated like any other case of "ownership of modern photo unknown". Carcharoth 20:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course there are flies in the ointment, as is quite typical of intellectual property law since the advent of the internet. But none of them affect this situation on the evidence we have. A claim of authorship requires an author to step forward and say "hey, I took that photograph". The EU convention is explicit about this in Article 1. You can't just publish a photograph without attribution, then let 70 years elapse and have someone step forward and claim sole author's rights to something like an old photograph-- show me one case where this type of claim has been successfully made for a photograph in excess of 70 years after the fact-- just one. And, even in Germany, despite the major quirks involving newly granted copyrights on material that previously was in the public domain, it still requires, in keeping with EU copyright convention, public notice of authorship to be disclosed in conjunction with the publication of the photo in order to engage the "70 years p.m.a." clause. In other words, this photograph is not unpublished, but published without copyright, without an identified author. Incidentally, this also has nothing to do with the issue in the Copyright Act of 1976 regarding display of the "©" or the word "copyright", but rather has to do with notice that someone has actually claimed authorship of the already published "work", the original photograph. ... Kenosis 21:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If anyone else is still reading, I'd also like to note the following: Have a look at this copyright notice (which I found linked from Template:Otto Perry image) which sums up 'historical uncertain copyright' issues nicely. "The Denver Public Library is unaware of any copyright in the images in the collection. We encourage use of these materials under the fair use clause of the 1976 copyright act. [...] The nature of historical archival photograph collections means that copyright or other information about restrictions may be difficult or even impossible to determine." It would seem logical to me that fair use be allowed in cases like this, but some people say that WP:NFCC#10a vetos that. Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Uncertain copyright for historical images. Carcharoth 23:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think that library knows what they are doing (or maybe I just don't know what I'm doing). They are saying they don't own the copyright or know you does, yet seem to claim copyright on the digital images in their collection, which would seems to go against Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. Then they say use under the fair use clause, which is not necessary if they have no copyright. And again, fair use is secondary here to NFCC #10. -Nv8200p talk 18:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That library are doing exactly what we did with Template:Non-free unsure. I don't believe that NFCC #10 was ever intended to apply to historical pictures where the copyright and authorship of a photograph was never recorded or asserted, or where the records have been lost. I suspect that NFCC #10 was intended to stop people from just saying "I don't know who took this picture", when with a bit of effort they could find out. If efforts have been made to find out the copyright holder of a picture, and those efforts prove fruitless because it becomes clear that the records no longer exist, then NFCC #10 becomes meaningless. I'd also like to point out that even if the Bettmann Archives have a record of who they purchased the photo from, that in itself would not be sufficient, as that may just have been one of many copies made from the original negative (or whatever they used back then). Carcharoth 20:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a point of order, the date of the photo is June 28 1929, not 1930 as some have been saying. We also have the article Max Planck medal. I suspect a very strong case could be made for fair-use of the image in that article. Carcharoth 20:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A very strong case for fair use is unnecessary unless someone can show us a claim of authorship. The evidence we have indicates no claim of authorship. After someone shows us a claim of authorship, we can, of course, discuss fair-use criteria upon such a showing of authorship. ... Kenosis 00:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I'm not clear what the difficulty is in comprehending Kenosis' points. I've seen that picture, with no clear copyright, in several of the books I own on physics. This entire dispute appears to be based on an inability to comprehend copyright laws. Also, NFCC#8 is so subjective and nebulous that its value is practicall nil. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Note that people generally were not so copyright-greedy back then, and the photo probably was taken by some member of the physics community with no thought of ownership. I too have seen it reproduced in various textbooks, and had the impression that it was considered to be in the public domain. Anyway, the argument that just because it exists on the Corbis/Getty website it must not be used in the Wikipedia is wrong, as noted previously. As to whether the photo adds anything of value to the article, it seems to me that very few Wikipedia photos have that property. — DAGwyn 13:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can't establish PD status based on such speculation. And please, notice that there's a great difference between asking "whether the photo adds anything of value to the article" and whether "the photo would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". --Abu badali (talk) 14:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I refer you to Max Planck medal - a picture of the inaugural award of the medal, to two of the pre-eminent physicists of the 20th century, is extremely relevant and informative for that article. If I uploaded the picture again and gave it a fair-use rationale for that article, would you need to open a new IfD to contest that? And I ask you again, do you see the difference between historical images and modern images? (for a longer version of this, see my unanswered question above #carcharoth1. Carcharoth 16:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        A picture of Einstein and Planck together is completely unnecessary for the understanding of the content of Max Planck medal. There's no way you could write a valid fair use rationale for that article without ignoring NFCC#8.
        About your "unanswered question", you'll have to specify what are you calling "historical images". If by an historical image you mean an image illustrating an historical event, get to know that not all images of Elvis are notable (although Elvis himself is). And in the cases where the image itself is notable, fair use does not allow us to use the image indiscriminately, but only in the context of discussion the image itself and its notability and influence. --Abu badali (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is very rare for an image itself to be notable. Have a look at Streamline Cars Ltd. The images there are not notable, but they are vital for understanding the article. That is why NFCC #8 is a useless and subjective criterion. When an image obviously should be kept under fair use, a strict interpretation of NFCC #8 would say it can't be used. This is why cases should be discussed on an individual basis. To return to an earlier example, since when was Image:inselian.jpg notable as an image? Are all Pulitzer Prize winning photographs notable enough that we can put them all in the article about the award? It is the event that is notable, not the image, hence that image should be deleted by your standards. But you wrote a fair use rationale for it. Can you see how that looks like double standards? Carcharoth 17:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          1. If the images at Streamline Cars Ltd are "vital for understanding the article", then they pass NFCC#8.
          2. Yes, Image:inselian.jpg is notable because it won a Pulitzer Prize. We could use Pulitzer Prize winning images in articles discussing those images. But a gallery on Pulitzer Prize won't be ok.
          3. What do you mean by "...obviously should be kept under fair use"? Do you mean the legal concept of "fair use"? Please, understand that WP:NFCC is far more restrictive than that.
          4. If you believe NFCC #8 is "useless and subjective", you should take your concerns to the policy discussion page, instead of refusing to follow it. --Abu badali (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            1. I believe they are. Do you? What is the objective way of deciding such matters? What happens when people disagree over NFCC #8?
            2. Is Image:inselian.jpg currently used in an article discussing that image? The only article I can see that discusses the image as an image is Pulitzer Prize. If each photo was accompanied by text about the impact that image has had, then Pulitzer Prize would be an article, not a gallery. I'm serious here - don't mistake a well-illustrated article for a gallery. If each image has extensive commentary and sourced analysis of their impact, there is no reason why we could not have all the photographs there with non-free use rationales. Of course, if the commentary expanded enough, you could have separate articles for each picture, but that would be no less a gallery than a merged list of those articles.
            3. I should have said "non free" - apologies, I sometimes slip back into the old language. I am well aware that NFCC is far more restrictive than fair use - please don't be condescending.
            4. I think I will start a discussion about NFCC #8, and probably about NFCC #2 at the same time. Do you have a link to the archived discussions, or a rough date for when the discussions took place?
          • In general, though, I agree that any further discussion should be at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free content criteria, as we are going in circles now. Thanks for an interesting discussion. Carcharoth 17:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A note here: reproduction in textbooks doesn't imply public domain. There should be a list of picture credits in the back of those textbooks. If anyone could find a text book with this picture in it, and tell us the credit given, that would be immensely useful. Even if it is credited, it doesn't mean that the credited organisation own the rights to the picture. It could just mean that the person searching for a suitable picture to put in the book, came across this picture on the image library's website, and paid them for a copy of it to use in the book. It is perfectly legal to sell free pictures. A picture being sold by a commercial library doesn't make it copyrighted. That bring us back to what started this deletion review, and again, I say overturn. Carcharoth 16:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, and I'll have to go through my books. Nonetheless, it seems odd that no one has been able to prove that a copyright exists. I'd think that would be pretty easy to prove.
    • As to this "rule", "the photo would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding", one could easily argue that we should get rid of 95% of our images. Hmmm, maybe I should just go around removing images from articles using that rationale. Oh, no, that would be a WP:POINT vio, wouldn't it? Good thing Wikipedia doesn't have a Though Police squad, I'd be hanged for even having such a thought. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 16:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Free images can be used without having to "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" - free images can be used to decorate articles (note that I'm not using the word 'illustrate', as that, to me implies an informative aspect to the image). It's non-free images that have to pass NFCC #8 - a subjective criterion that is causing problems. A revision to NFCC #8 may have to be proposed soon. Carcharoth 17:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • See [76], and note: einst_pl.jpg A.E. und Max Planck (1929), p. 58, [AIP, Niels Bohr Library, Fritz Reiche Collection], no copyright (note that other items do have copyrights clearly stated). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Microsoft-Staff-1978.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)
Photograph depicting the scraggly looking Microsoft founders and staff from Dec. 1978, sourced to Bill Gates' biography at Microsoft.com. Originally uploaded in Oct. 2005 under {{promotional}}. A canned historic photograph rationale was added by Quadell (talk · contribs) in Oct. 2006. On June 27 of this year, Quadell updated the rationale to state, in part:

If this image is used merely to show what an individual in the lineup looks like, it can be replaced by a contemporary free image of the person. If this image is used to show staffing at Microsoft without regard to era, it can be replaced by a current staffing photograph (or combined photos of individuals). But if this iconic image is used to discuss the image itself, no new alternative can replace it. In addition, if this image is clearly being used only to discuss this pivotal event (as discussed in the article) of a person's life, it cannot be replaced.

On July 16 of this year howcheng (talk · contribs) added a template which challenged this rationale, stating "As a non-free image, this requires a rationale for every article that it appears in, not just one blanket statement." By this time the photograph was used in a large number of articles, including Microsoft, History of Microsoft, and the personal biographies of all eleven people pictured therein. While howcheng's dispute tag was removed several times, no significant change to the rationale occurred and the image was deleted on Aug. 1st by ^demon (talk · contribs). Since no one challenged any aspect of Quadell's rationale, and since it was detailed and in accordance with fair use policy, I would like to request that this image be undeleted for use in History of Microsoft. All other uses should be discussed and backed up by individual rationales. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 07:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn for use in History of Microsoft, other places need additional rationales. ^demon[omg plz] 12:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - valid rationale applied for use in the History of Microsoft article. If the rationale wasn't valid for use in other articles, then remove it from those articles rather than delete the image. Neil ╦ 13:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Anetode doesn't seem to have tried to resolve this matter with the deleting administrator (^demon) first. Additionally, ^demon is in favor of undeleting the image (although he does suggest some article edits). Given these two facts, is it necessary for this DRV to continue? — The Storm Surfer 13:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

1 August 2007[edit]

  • Autism Initiatives – keep deleted because it's a copyvio, without prejudice against creating a new article that is not a copyvio. – >Radiant< 13:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Autism Initiatives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This should not have been deleted, as it clearly meets WP:CORP. They are clearly notable enough for encyclopedic inclusion here, and are not a CSD G11 blatant advert case, but are a notable British charity. This article should be undeleted and tagged with {{drv}} to allow discussion. I can't see any reason to keep this deleted, it's not like Doosan (which has been the subject of deletion/undeletion wars!). Undelete, and allow a second discussion to take place. Kelswitch 18:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted as a copyvio of [78]. Entire chunks of sentences are the same in the deleted article. Copyvio deletions are almost always without prejudice against a non-copyvio article being written, and that seems to be the case here. --W.marsh 18:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as closing admin (thanks W.marsh for notifying me) per my AfD closing statement. It was deleted per CSD G12 (a mandatory procedure if evidence indicates so), which is not addressed in your DRV nom. —Kurykh 18:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, definitely a copyvio, and we can't restore copyvios. --Coredesat 19:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
NanoGaming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I work for the company who makes NanoGaming. There are several customer sites that reference NanoGaming (NASCAR & Global TV's Big Brother 8, with more coming soon!) I think a quick definition of what NanoGaming is would be appropriate considering thousands of people are already currently using it on the NASCAR site alone. I've pared it down to the bare essential information (below). No more marketing language or copyright infringement. You can verify my authenticity by emailing LiveHive systems, www.livehivesystems.com tammy.gaudun@livehivesystems.com. Please reinstate the definition below for NanoGaming — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whambamtam (talk • contribs)

[paste of deleted article redacted by W.marsh]
  • Allow recreation A lot of what was deleted was blatant advertising, but this company does seem to officially develop software for NASCAR and other major entertainment ventures. [79], [80]. I think if this was recreated as an encyclopedia article, not a press release, it probably could meet our notability standards. --W.marsh 17:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation if and only if the text is not blatant advertising or a copyright violation. You may write an article about the subject, post it on the talk page, and when it is a valid article you may create it. Please try to avoid a possible conflict of interest, though. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 17:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Brandon Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Can it be redirected to Brandon Davis (heir) Looks like thats a legit article...? Freedomeagle 06:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment What you're asking for should be "Can Brandon Davis (heir) be moved to Brandon Davis?" This is nothing but a move request, we don't need the community to rule on it. There may be a question of recreated content, however; I can't tell how different your new article is from the old. --Dhartung | Talk 06:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its not mine, I just found it, never even heard of the guy before. The regular non-heir one is locked up so I can't do it and I saw it was a deleted a zillion times.[81] Freedomeagle 06:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if this was the wrong section, where should I go?Freedomeagle 06:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The entry that was deleted was about a professional wrestler called Brandon Davis. this one is the guy who has dated PAris Hilton. It's referenced well enough, asserts notability and so on, so I have moved it to Brandon Davis. I have moved this article to the new location, this can be closed (won't close it myself as I am now "involved"). In future, Freedomeagle, you need to go to Wikipedia:Requested moves. Neil ╦ 12:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_August_1-15&oldid=1108884740"