Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 4

Workman Publishing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

This is a legitimate publishing company that is notable because it is known for taking in smaller publishers and bringing their books to a wide audience. They are also notable as the publisher of the 1,000 places to see before you die series. ^[1]

This company has been mentioned in thousands of book reviews, and other articles covering the books they and their imprints publish. It is notable within the publishing industry for entry into use of video to promote it's books. ^[2]

I had barely created the page and was gathering additional information to add when it was speedily deleted apparently by a bot. I would like it restored so that work can continue on it.

Rtphokie 19:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Permit restoration after preparation of a sourced article offline. Frankly, i would have been inclined to speedy; but a quick check of Google finds apparent publication of an actual best-selling travel guide [1]. This may or may not be a vanity publisher, but it does seem notable The only publications Amazon lists, unfortunately, are a line of amusing calendars I obviously didn't look widely enough .DGG 20:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you refer to the original article before it was deleted, this publisher has several imprints which publish a range of fiction and non-fiction works. One of which publishes Where Are They Buried? How Did They Die? a useful book that has been referenced here on Wikipedia (and probably should be more). You are correct that the Workman imprint is best known for cutesy calenders but Workman also counts Authors like Steve Kaplan and Lance Armstrong. It's probably best that these individual imprints be redirected to the Workman page and be listed there to make the article more useful. Rtphokie 20:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Permit restoration, this has been a notable company for 25 years [2]; I found four NYT articles (on the publisher per se, not on its products) in 1981-1982 alone.[3][4][5] Who cares about what they publish? Is that relevant to notability? --Dhartung | Talk 22:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support restoration. By sheer coincidence, I cited a work from this publisher just today. It is sufficiently notable. Wryspy 06:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete. Long-time and well-known American publishing house, which a cursory Google check would turn up copius evidence of. Yeah, they publish a lot of calendars -- those Page-a-Day® calendars? Theirs -- as well a fair number of trade books. One New York Times story on a different subject mentions in passing

Industry consultants estimated that, with sales of more than $100 million a year, Perseus will be smaller than the privately owned Workman Publishing but larger than Disney's Hyperion books division ("Independent Publisher Is Diversifying" by David D. Kirkpatrick, 14 March 2002)

meaning that their sales are somewhere north of $100 million. No question here. --Calton | Talk 10:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete and keep pretty clear case, should have been a speedy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cinesite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Conspicuous by its absence; this is a legitimate visual effects company (see [6]); articles for other visual effects companies exist in Wikipedia. Content was submitted in good faith but might have been seen as POV or advertising (I can't tell as the history is not available). The marketing manager for the company (for which I work) would like the page restored so that it can be edited from its current press release style into a sound, NPOV Wikipedia article. — Paul G 17:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Start over The article was deleted in April 2007 as advertising, and has been deleted seven times previously for various reasons. A Google search shows that it's notable, so I'll take five minutes to write a non-COI stub, and we'll take it from there. Shalom ^Hello 17:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh, the page is salted, so I'll write the draft here with nowiki tags:

'''Cinesite''' is a [[subsidiary of [[Eastman Kodak]], specializing in [[visual effects]]. Founded in 1992, it has offices in [[New York City]] and [[London]]. It has helped to produce many films, such as [[Underdog]], [[Omen 666]], [[X-Men: The Last Stand]], [[V For Vendetta]], [[Harry Potter & The Goblet of Fire]] and [[Charlie & The Chocolate Factory]].

==External links== [http://www.cinesite.com/ Cinesite homepage] [[Category:Kodak]] [[Category:1992 establishments]]

• Restore I think what Shalom did is acceptable as a stub, but a source is needed for its production work on the films. DGG 20:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB.com has a list of films they've worked on here. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 09:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pan_African_School_of_Theology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

copyright Jwroland 10:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the correct page for copyright issues. Osomec 13:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marked with

WP:CSD#G11 and G12. -N 14:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually, hmm, school's principal is listed as "James W. Roland", and on

WP:COI and such. -N 14:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

He left a note on my talk page asking me to undelete the article, also stating he'd authored the text. I haven't looked into the issue, but he does appear to be trying to get the article back. I've declined his request for the deleted material so long as this deletion review is on going. - auburnpilot talk 16:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore and take from there. It is perfectly possible that this is a notable institution. Piccadilly 16:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• No restore. As the first deleting administrator, the page was created as a blatant copyright violation from http://www.pacekenya.org/past/index.htm. It was then created a second time, again with material directly from http://www.pacekenya.org/past/index.htm, thus resulting in a second deletion. If it will be created again, it must be from scratch, without copyright material as a starting point. Sancho 17:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If Jwroland is the principle, it is possible that he/she actually wrote the material on the webpage. If this is the case though, there needs to be some assertion of release of that material under the GFDL or into public domain. I'll explain this to the editor and also talk to him/her about conflict of interest. Sancho 17:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article has been recreated with a copyright notice. I am asking for speedy delete on the basis of A7. The organisation is not notable, as is obvious from a Google search for "Pan African School of Theology", which gives only 2 hits, one of which is the wikipedia article.
  DrKiernan 12:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Template:Dated episode notability (edit | [[Talk:Template:Dated episode notability|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|TfD)

Completely inappropriate closure. By "votes" alone, consensus was not established in any way. The vast majority of the deletion support was based on misleading comments by the nom that the template was used to delete articles. Deletion admin also cites

Regardless of how you feel about the situation, there was anything but a consensus to delete. -- Ned Scott 07:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also

WP:EPISODE

• Endorse closure — There was a very clear consensus established at the TfD, that was to delete and redirect. I'm saddened that you feel that consensus was not established, and that you had to resort to canvassing to advance your POV (now, why does that feel odd?). Frankly the reason given to keep are extremely weak.
  Matthew 07:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I have done no canvassing, and POV is not a factor here at all. Matthew here is the user who nominated the template in an attempt to snipe the developing process, and is also the one who presented the misleading claims that the template was for a deletion process. -- Ned Scott 07:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, and Endorse Deletion There was not a consensus, even numbers alone hardly had a majority. Ned Scott's original speedy keep was correct, people just didn't like it since he wrote it. That is irrelevent. Please don't make accusations of canvassing, as you canvassed in the deletion as well. I feel, however, that deleting the template (technically redirect) should be left. It was a lenglthy discussion, and although consensus was not established, people wanted it deleted, and its deletion makes the review less complicated, and an alternative is being discussed. I  ^{(said) (did)} 07:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So it's ok to screw the users who wanted to keep the template, wanting to improve such articles, because some other users wanted it deleted? You said yourself, there was no consensus. -- Ned Scott 07:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. Just incase there is confusion, I am user:Alcemáe, this is a new name. If you would look
      here for the discussion as to what should happen now. I  ^{(said) (did)} 07:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]

• Comment Deleting this template also removed a notice stating that episode articles were under review, as well as the link to said review, and links to our guidelines regarding TV episodes. It is inappropriate to single out the template being used by guidelines and review processes for these very reasons, and says so on
  WP:TFD directly. -- Ned Scott 07:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

"If a template is part of (the functioning of) a Wikipedia policy or guideline, the template cannot be listed for deletion on TfD separately, the template should be discussed where the discussion for that guideline is taking place."

The deletion of the template made it quite clear that the guideline and process carries no weight and has no consensus to support it. Those two issues will be addressed shortly.

Matthew 07:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse deletion and do something else. I see a lot of opposition to some sort of deadline, but no real opposition to having an episode-specific notability template. Why not add a parameter to {{notability}} or make a new cleanup template? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Enhancing {{
    Matthew 07:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • You don't delete a template that is to be merged. -- Ned Scott 08:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of anything that would need to be merged. I'm actually thinking of (when I say enhanced)

"The subject of this article may not satisfy the notability guideline or one of the following guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia: Biographies, Books, Companies, Fiction, Music, Neologisms, Numbers, Web content, or several proposals for new guidelines."

being changed to something like

"The subject of this article may not satisfy the episode notability guideline."

It could be called with something like {{Notability|episode}}.

Matthew 08:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Considering the template was made directly from {{notability}}, obviously. However, deleting and redirecting the template like this does not preserve the message, links, or categorization, and makes a mess of the pages that were previously using the template. This deletion is not how you merge templates. -- Ned Scott 08:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, but it makes the deletion a technical issue. If all you wanted was to remove the message that said "14 days" that would be one thing, allowing time to plan to merge this (and all the other) templates to one. -- Ned Scott 08:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing how including a category is beneficial, there's no rush to fix the issue (if there is one). Remember that the introduction of these templates is purely based on opinion, that may not be shared, anybody may remove these templates if they disagree -- even if you've created some arbitrary discussion forum. If you still feel that an article should be deleted after the template is removed then AfD it.

Matthew 08:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't think you understood me. I would not oppose removing the deadline and review features of the template, returning it to it's original state (an episode-specific copy of {{

WP:EPISODE for however long it takes to update the protected-{{notability}}. If the opposition is not to the message or link, then why delete it before merging? -- Ned Scott 08:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• • I would be all for that, as long as it could still be date-stamped just like all of our other cleanup tags. The "deadline" was another part of the misconception, as it was just an arbitrary time frame so people could easily remove the tag before a review process started when it wasn't needed. The deletion and redirection does not preserve any categorization or individual message, however. Removing the "deadline" did not require deletion, whatsoever. -- Ned Scott 07:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse strongly a specialized template for one Wikiproject telling the world "this tv show isn't good enough" is just somehow offensive. -N 07:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not one WikiProject, it's the consensus of
    WP:EPISODE. -- Ned Scott 07:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • It's quite apparent that guideline has no consensus, as has been show to you. You need to accept this, Ned.
      Matthew 08:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Cut the bullshit matthew. -- Ned Scott 08:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:EPISODE is not what we're discussing here, Matt, please stop beating that particular dead horse. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
        ]

I don't anything is arguing that tagging unreferenced episode articles as such is a bad idea. The main objections in the old TFD seemed to be over the implication of a deadline and the appearance resembling that of a deletion tag. Thus, I propose, instead of going through all the DRV bureaucracy, we instead make a new template, along the lines of {{unreferenced}}, to fill the same task but in a different way. This template would clearly be a cleanup template (unlike the very prod-like {{notability}} or this template), but would allow for the management and cleanup of episode articles.

I've started work on this template at User:A Man In Black/epref, and I encourage any help from the participants in this DRV.

I haven't bulleted this comment because it's an alternate proposal from undeleting or endorsing. If this sounds good to everyone, we can just say "Let's do AMIB's thing" and forget all about the old template, deleting or merging or restoring or whatever. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is that, like all other cleanup tags, they almost never get worked on. And, technically, they dont need to be cleaned up usually, they violate policy, and need to be removed. That happened, people got mad, so a timeline was set up. Removing the timeline just lets it exist indefinently. I  ^{(said) (did)} 08:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm planning on retaining the 14-day functionality. It just won't be so in-your-face. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I like that solution. It just looks like the original template, but redesigned. The original was misleading and I think that design would make it more misleading.

Matthew 08:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

How is this template misleading? It's {{unreferenced}} with some more-specific guideline and project links and better date handling. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A fine message for episode articles that are unreferenced, but the issue at hand is notability. -- Ned Scott 08:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still working on wording. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who would like to see the template in use can see it in User:A Man In Black/Yeah, which currently shows what the template looks like with a month-old date. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done with the infrastructure, and the template is essentially done. All that's left to do is for people to adjust the wording to taste. I invite anyone interested in doing so to edit

Episode-notability}}, and fix up the category infrastructure. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment: There was significant discussion and debate at the TfD. It seems like the concerns have been addressed and a work around has been established. I think it is time to let this template go and move on with the work of improving the encyclopedia. Ursasapien (talk) 11:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion (of course, this DRV is just going to become a rehash of the original TFD).
  WP:PROD is the policy/process that can be used. Sorry if it takes a lot of time, but if you care so much, you'll be willing to follow it through. The TFD appears to have been closed correctly, given the breach of policy and one of the pillars of the project (it's a free encyclopedia). The JPS^{talk to me} 11:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  This is exactly what went wrong with the old TFD. We ended up with a bunch of scare tactics and misunderstanding that this was some sort of deletion process. It wasn't, it wasn't ever intended to be, and it wasn't anything even close.

  The old template was based on {{

  prod}}. Despite this similarity, its intent was almost identical to that of {{notability}}. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Exactly. Especially when fueled by TTN's over-usage of the template, and Matthew's disruptively misleading deletion comments, this template was being prosecuted for something it was not. -- Ned Scott 23:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - though I saw more of a consensus to keep, it was a correct decision to keep both sides from warring. Will ^(talk) 13:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If editors were warring about this then deal with those editors. With this same logic we could say that we shouldn't be tagging non-free images via bots and scripts, because then less people will be mad. None the less, the template was originally a notability template, with the review features added on. Deleting was completely unnecessary. -- Ned Scott 23:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure' the closure followed general policy--one does not change WP policy by means of a template introduced by a single workgroup even for their own material. Proposals to establish a 14 day period for deleting unreferenced articles have been repeatedly defeated. I remember that I supported one of them before arguments convinced me they were impractical. DGG 20:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A consenous building discussion on
    WP:EPISODE is not allowed to create templates to help in article cleanup? What on earth are you thinking? And again, this has not, nor has it ever been, a deletion template. -- Ned Scott 23:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • And there was absolutely no conflict with policy. -- Ned Scott 23:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The original template should not have been deleted.

1. TfD, according to its own regulations, is not the place to discuss templates that are "part of the functioning of a Wikipedia policy or guideline". The TfD should have been suspended and discussion about the wording and use of the guideline should have occurred at
   WP:TV-REVIEW
   .
2. There was no clear consensus for deletion; opinions and rationales varied.
3. Some of the votes for deletion were on the basis that the template advocated deletion of articles (ie. replicating prod or AfD templates). It cannot be stated clearly enough that the template was advocating review not deletion, but since concerns were expressed, the template was reworded to make the purpose more clear.
4. Some of the deletion votes called for a modified notability template. THIS was the modified notability template. Modification was required so it provided links to appropriate
   guidelines
   and categorised it to make review easier.
5. Much of the concern centered around the 'fourteen days'. This was NEVER intended as a deadline, but as a courtesy to editors. Normal tags can be actioned immediately; this gave two weeks grace before it was looked at. HOWEVER, if consensus suggests the 14 days is unnecessary, or leads to confusion, then the template could have been MODIFIED, to a standard date format.

Thus the template should not have been deleted, but suggestions presented for modification. That said suggestions have been made above to modify another template for the purpose, which might provide a compromise. NOTE. The 'purpose' is simply to a) identify articles relating to television which do not meet Wikipedia's own guidelines for inclusion, b) provide links and encouragement to editors to help them improve or merge the articles c) provide a format for review (not deletion) of said articles. We have never proposed deletion, since we believe Wikipedia is enriched by GOOD articles about television, but most shows create GOOD articles by merging episodes together (ie. one good season article rather than two dozen near-empty episode articles or, more commonly, two dozen episode articles which breach copyright by overlong plots and which fail

• • Ah, good point about the deletes that were calling for modification. I should have mentioned that when I listed this on DRV. -- Ned Scott 21:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion AND closure I just feel shaken up from the whole "episodes" ordeal. I don't want it to happen again. Angie Y. 12:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to say, the template doesn't change the "episode ordeal". Deletion of it did nothing but slow the process of keeping track of articles, which has since been corrected.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I guess there really isn't a point to this DRV. We're still going to use something, template wise, that more people won't object to, or get the wrong impression of. Which kind of makes deleting the template in the first place pointless, since such a discussion should have lead to modification, as Gwinva pointed out. What we have now is a technical deletion. We don't need the deleted data to continue, and we don't even need the name of a template like "Dated episode notability" (I do find it funny that {{
  episode-notability}}, the date stamper part of the template, didn't get deleted or mentioned). I strongly believe that we would have evolved to something easier and better regardless of the TfD, and that the TfD (regardless of how it was closed) really didn't do much other than make the situation more frustrating and difficult. -- Ned Scott 21:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • For an update, {{notability}} now has an episode trigger. {{notability|episode}} will now generate a similar message, but holds no review functions (the 14 days, etc). I also plan on suggesting categorization to be done for {{notability}}, so that episode-specific notability concerns can be tracked individually, as well as for any of the other notability sub messages. -- Ned Scott 06:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VíaVienté (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

After an

• Permit creation and list at AfD "marginal" is the word, and I cannot predict what the consensus will be at AfD. Their sole current product is a purported tonic made from mineralized water and fruit extracts. The refs given are marginal to--the Townsend Letter is the sort of "medical" journal that will endorse anything, & some other refs are peripheral. But the Dallas Morning News article is an acceptable source. DGG 20:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment These are probably all of the refs I can find, a Google search is bombarded with promotion.
  13 21:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

CfD

)

This was closed as keep. However, none of the arguments to keep were really much of an argument at all, just that the existence of users in it means that it should exist, which

• Endorse your argument presents a false dilemma. Nowhere does it say we can't have both the category and the Wikiproject. Plus every "delete" was "per nom" with one "pointless". Yes, all user categories are pointless from a certain point of view. Only the "keep"s had rationale arguments. -N 07:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which were mostly refuted. None of them addressed the fact that
    desat 19:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Endorse This is a user category, and user categories are necessarily defined by the interests of users. Osomec 13:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse no real arguments were presented for any of this very large group of deletions, except idontlikeit. At least a few of them, such as this, were adequately defended. DGG 20:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Multiple people (including myself) refuted the "go to the Wikiproject category" argument. DRV is not Xfd round two. --- RockMFR 20:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete. There was indeed a stronger argument for deletion. --Kbdank71 20:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse close I would have preferred that this get deleted, however, DRV is not AfD 2. The close seems valid. JoshuaZ 16:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse close
  ☑ SamuelWantman 06:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Image:Brunokirby2.jpg (edit | [[Talk:Image:Brunokirby2.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Complete misinterpretation of Wikipedia standards, policies Jenolen ^{speak it!} 04:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At

The result was delete. I don't think there is any doubt that the image was provided by CBS to the media outlets referenced, however, we do not know the circumstances surrounding the conditions on which the image was provided. It could be part of a press kit or could be an exclusive image these media outlets pay to get rights to. Also, there is no claim the uploader got the image from a press kit, which means the image was possibly copied from another website with possible violation of that website's terms and conditions of use.

I certainly disagree that the consensus opinion was to delete. I certainly take issue with the idea that CBS provides press kit photos to only a few media outlets, not to all legitimate media outlets. I cannot image a situation which requires me to physically be in possesion of a photograph from a "press kit," which these days, is usually electronic and/or on-line, in order for an image to be useable on Wikipedia. It makes no difference if the uploader "claims" the image comes from a press kit; the image DOES come from press material, and therefore, its deletion on grounds that "it doesn't come from a press kit" is not valid. And if an image comes from another website, so what? We know who the copyright holder OF THE IMAGE is! It doesn't make a difference whether or not it was downloaded from CBS.com, NPR.org, SeattleTimes.com, photos.ap.com, whatever -- that's a delivery method. The image itself, it should be noted, is clearly and unambiguosly the copyrighted property of CBS. Its resolution was reduced, and it was being used in full compliance with all ten points of

I never said that there was a consensus to delete. However, if you review the discussion

talk 04:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

However, if you review the discussion Jenolen ^{speak it!} was the only voice in support of keeping the image...

Then how come no other editor bothered to put a "DELETE" in front of their comments? There's only a "SPEEDY KEEP" from me...Yes, yes, I know this is not a vote, but NO ONE, other than the original nominator, made a cogent argument for deleting the image, they only replied to my initial evidence as to why it should be kept.

Also: A consensus isn't required to delete an image? Just to keep it? If an editor nominates something for deletion, and one other editor thinks it should be kept, isn't this usually considered a "no consensus" situation? Since when does "no consensus" default to "delete"?

What happened to actually taking a look at the evidence, and making a rational decision? I think it takes more than just the allegation of misuse -- the image nominator offered NO support to his claim that the image was, somehow, maybe exclusive content. And I offered several pieces of evidence that the image was NOT some kind of heretofore unheard of "paid promotional material". Again, there was zero evidence offered by the nominator -- just a nomination that talks about how this "might" be something we can't use. Well, I'd like to think our standards are a little higher than that.

And, I hate to bring this up, but what if the editor is nominating images uploaded by a particular user out of spite? That certainly could be what's happening here. I should point out that I'm no flagrant abuser of our image policy -- every single image I've every uploaded has been completely legal and within policy at the time I uploaded it. Sure, I know policies change, requiring subsequent deletion of previously acceptable material, but c'mon... This is way, way out of whack. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 06:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't have brought that last point up as it is a personal attack and irrelevant, but since you did let me assure everyone that

talk 14:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse deletion, copyright is copyright. Get a release. And please
  WP:CIVIL. Corvus cornix 06:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Overturn deletion. Image was verifiably promotional in nature and thus its use does not pose any problems. There was, equally verifiably, no consensus to delete. This continued behavior on the part of closing admins seriously undermines the faith and trust we should be able to have in individuals holding such positions. Badagnani 07:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse and speedy close. Obviously valid deletion. No evidence of "promotional" nature; obviously invalid fair use rationale (basically, any fair use rationale that just copies that infamous bogus template "...how the event depicted was very historically significant to the general public." is invalid and shows the uploader didn't do their homework.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No evidence of promotional nature? That, combined with your mistaken assertation that Mr. Kirby is alive (he's not) makes me think you either didn't read the previous deletion argument, didn't read it very carefully, or don't care about the "facts." Well, this image is promotional -"In this undated photo provided by CBS, Bruno Kirby appears in character as attorney Barry Scheck...., Mr. Kirby, sadly, is dead, and your arguments for endorsing deletion seem, well, based on a misunderstanding of the situation. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 18:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • These links were already provided in the IFD discussion and nobody but you considered them enough evidence that CBS welcomes everyone to distribute this image without prior notice. Deletion review is not a place to repeat the IFD discussion. --Abu badali ^(talk) 19:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, promotional material or not, it's a perfectly valid fair use claim, since you can't take a free image of a fictional character. This pointless squibbling over official circumstances of release has no relevance to our policy or copyright law. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  No. The image wasn't being used to illustrate a fictional character. It was being used to illustrate a biography. Anyway, this is irrelevant, since replaceability wasn't really questioned in the IFD discussion (remember we have

  10 criteria for using non-free content. Being irreplaceable is just the first of them.)--Abu badali ^(talk) 15:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Huh? "Perfectly valid fair use claim"? This is a non-free image used for the biography of a living person, ('only showing what they look like'), and the fair use claim said that: "(1) it is a historically significant photo of a famous individual; (2) it is of much lower resolution than the original; (3) the photo is only being used for informational purposes. (4) Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because it shows the subject of this article and how the event depicted was very historically significant to the general public." Of these four statements, number one is plainly false, and number 4 is linguistically meaningless. ("event?" - "depicted?" - "show ... how"? - "historically significant"? - "general public"? - "was"? - not a single word of this phrase makes any sense at all.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The subject of the biography isn't living anymore, but that doesn't weakens the rest of your argument. "historically significant photo of a famous individual" is surely the most misused copy&paste phrase in rationales. I have seen it's being used for anything from headshots (historically significant?) to images with no individuals at all. --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Several people here are debating whether the image is "fair use" or not. But the only relevant question here is "Did the closing admin follow policy correctly?", not "Do I agree with his decision?". This case wasn't clear-cut, and I can see how people could (and did) argue both sides in good faith. But the closing admin clearly followed policy, whether I agree with his decision or not. Endorse deletion. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the deleting admin thinks that policy calls for us to delete images if they could be part of a press kit or could be an exclusive image these media outlets pay to get rights to. I've provided at least four links as "evidence" that this image was distributed as a standard hand-out photo; so far, I've seen no evidence that CBS has a second tier of "paid promotional material," that CBS demands payments for the reuse of its promotional photos (in reality, they're distributed as far and wide as possible, with the encouragement given to media members to use them), no evidence that NPR pays people for content, no evidence that the Seattle Times pays entertainment companies for this type of promotional content... In short, if this image was deleted because "Maybe it could be a problem," that's not good enough. Delete an image because there is a problem - like, "we don't know who the copyright holder is" (of course in this case, we do know who the copyright holder is, but that has somehow, bizarrely, become of secondary importance of late) -- not because we can think of one type of unlikely eventuality that could be a problem. I mean really - do we want to delete every promotional photo from Wikipedia, on the basis that they could be exclusively sold to someone, somewhere? Jenolen ^{speak it!} 18:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The burden of proof was in you (the uploader), to show that CBS welcomes anyone to distribute this image without the necessity of a case-by-case approval. Showing that the images is used by some parties isn't enough for determining that. I see you criteria for calling an image "promotional" is weaker than the one used in Wikipedia. You can you this image (for instance) in your blog at your own discernment, but please accept that we may choose to be a little bit more strict on our content than the average blogger. --Abu badali ^(talk) 19:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the fair use claim is valid, that is not a requirement. There's no requirement for an explicit release from CBS to meet our fair use criteria or the law. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The whole fair use claim was based on the assumption that this image was released by CBS for anyone to use (this whole thing has been discussed in the IFD already!) --Abu badali ^(talk) 15:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The tag was. The tag may or may not be correct but the claim can be applied independently. Even images incorrectly tagged GFDL may be retainable under fair use. The fair use rationale on the deleted page didn't even mention promotional status. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion until such time as a satisfactory justification is provided. This process must never be abused in order to subvert our non-free images policy. --Tony Sidaway 01:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• What was the source of the image (I ask this after examining the Answers.com Answers.com mirror)? Also, have you tried getting this image released as free content? I bet you could. --Iamunknown 20:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source of the image - the copyright holder - is CBS. (This, of course, makes it extremely unlikely to be released as free content.) More specifically, the image itself was distributed to thousands of worldwide media outlets via a variety of methods, not limited to but possibly including the AP photo service, CBS.com and CBSPressExpress.com, physical electronic distribution via promotional CD-ROM and DVD, and printed photos mailed as part of the standard promotional service to CBS television stations, promotion departments, non-affiliated newspapers, general interest entertainment magazines, etc. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 08:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • All we're asking for is some proof of this detailed description of CBS's distribution methods and and this image was really distributed according to this description. Simply showing some webpages that use this image is no such proof. You know that we can't just trust some user's words and expertise on some matter here. We ignore all credentials. --Abu badali ^(talk) 12:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Joint (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Page was changed to eliminate bias and simply served to be informative in regards to a new invention but was still deleted. I have nothing to do with the product but feel that it is useful knowledge for anyone, especially amputees. I only wrote it for the public benefit -- including several acquaintences of mine who are interested in the invention. Bronco allan 03:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion but allow for recreation if reliable sources are provided about the product's notability. But note that Wikipedia is not here to provide free publicity for any product. Corvus cornix 06:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion but permit re-creation if sourced per Corvus cornix. The article deleted was a mere catalog description and a valid speedy. DGG 20:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murakumo: Renegade Mech Pursuit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I don't understand this. This was speedy closed, having been open for less than a day, by a user who has no indication on his user page that he is an admin with the reason given

• Endorse keep Extremely
  unlikely that this Ubi Soft game would be closed as delete. Apparently it sucked, but that isn't a deletion criterion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• "Notable" doesn't necessarily mean "good". This is a game developed by a noteworthy developer, published by a noteworthy publisher, and covered in major game publications. I can understand the AFD, since the article wasn't anything but an incomplete infobox when it was put on AFD, but I don't understand why there's this DRV. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Closer's notes My closing rationale was "speedy keep because the article has been fundamentally improved." I have made this decision on several past AFDs without incident. If anyone feels there are still concerns about notability (i.e. the game was unpopular), by all means I'm okay with a relist. Shalom ^Hello 13:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]