Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 3

File:Image:Jamielloyd.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Was deleted on the claim that it didn't have a fair use rationale when in fact it did. CyberGhostface 22:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did the rationale specifically indicate the article(s) in which fair use was being claimed? Corvus cornix 22:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember off the top of my head, but I pointed out that it was low resolution, of a fictional character (so no free use can be found), a single screenshot from a film so it wouldn't any sales, and that it was used for encyclopedic purposes. It was only used for one article to the best of my knowledge, to describe the character in the picture.--CyberGhostface 22:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the rationale specifically mentions which article the fair use rationale applies to, then it's an invalid rationale, but we're speculating, an admin will need to let us know what the rationale actually said. Corvus cornix 22:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would make it an incomplete rationale, not an invalid one. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is the text from the page.... --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{di-disputed fair use rationale|concern=invalid rationale per [[WP:NFCC#10c]]|date=September 23 2007}}
== Summary ==
#This is of a fictional character. No free alternative can be found.
#It is a screenshot. It will not harm the sales of any film.
#It is low resolution.
#It is used for educational purposes only.
== Licensing ==
{{Non-free film screenshot}}

• • Thanks, After Midnight. As I suspected, the rationale doesn't specifically say which article the image is applicable to. Corvus cornix 23:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could someone restore the image so I can add that its for that article, or least show me the cached version so I could upload it??--CyberGhostface 23:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • What's the deal with BetacommandBot's seemingly countless visits to your talk page? (I'm glad you kept a sense of humor about it, however.[1])-- Jreferee t/c 00:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, some of the times if its I have an orphaned fairuse images, so in certain cases (like when they removed the fair use images from episode guides) it pays me a couple of visits. But it does get pretty annoying; there was one period where it seemed like I was getting hundreds each day. I admit I wasn't aware that you had to actually say how it was fair use for the specific article; I just thought stating that it was unreplaceable by a free image and what its general purpose was enough.--CyberGhostface 03:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment I've had a few run-ins with the bot myself. I have to say that the wording isn't as helpful as it could be, particularly to first time offenders. I think it's gotten better recently but the whole process could use a friendlier tutorial or something on that order. Unless the intent is to make it so frustrating to have fair-use images that people stop .... --Dhartung | Talk 07:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • If an individual user made all those rapid posts to CyberGhostface's talk page, we would call it disruption. A few example posts and a request to fix all deficient images uploaded by CyberGhostface would seem an appropriate first and perhaps second effort. If CyberGhostface ignored the requests, then talk page posts to comply with the deletion requirements would be appropriate. BetacommandBot should not be exempt from civil behavior. -- Jreferee t/c 16:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The image was being used in Jamie Lloyd and the image deleting admin knew that.[2] Perhaps the deleting admin had additional reasons for the deletion. -- Jreferee t/c 00:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn If the deleting admin knew where it was being used, and all that was missing is the name of the article it is being used in, then the correct action was to supply the name of the article. Deletion instead of fixing is putting rules over product, which is wrong; product comes first.
  GRBerry 14:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn-This is hardly the first deletion like this I've seen, but let's be reasonable here. The only fault here was a missing link. Now, a bot generated notice for such a thing is one thing, that's not an unreasonable check for the bot to make. But, a human had to carry out this deletion. Simply reading the page would show to any human user familiar with image policy (which, of course, anyone carrying out these deletions should be) that the only fault was this missing link. All they'd have to do is read the page. Now, I almost guarantee somebody will respond with something along the lines of "well, the uploaded should have put the link there, not fob it off on someone else" and you're right, that would be the ideal way to do it. But really, is deleting the image any easier than adding that link? We're not taking about even writing an entire rationale here; just adding a single link.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Malley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD2

)

• Userfy - Since the deleted article apparently had false information in it per
  WP:USERFY to permit the creation of a draft article seems the best way to go. -- Jreferee t/c 21:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Is it possible to undelete or provide source for the original article so that is may be used in the creation of a draft? Hanzov69 12:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - It would seem no one has taken much of an interest one way or the other, new article seems to be generally acceptable. Suggest closing Deletion Review and letting sleeping dogs lie. Hanzov69 6:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD3)

It was deleted back in November 2004, when it wasn't notable at all, and only 16 Google results. However, Encyclopedia Dramatica IS now notable, with 179,000 results for "encyclopedia dramatica" on Google, and they have been mentioned in the news quite a few times, particularly due to a Craigslist incident. I also think that here is bias against them because they are a satirical wiki (and many members and even sysops of Encyclopedia Dramatica have vandalized Wikipedia tons of times, see User:Blu Aardvark and his sockpuppets) and they are very anti-Wikipedia. However, if Uncyclopedia has its own article, why not ED? Just semi-protect it first to prevent vandalism. Floaterfluss ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note Prior actions on this topic include:

• Delete (Dec 13, 2004)
  AfD#1
• Keep (June 2, 2005) AfD#1 (redirect)
• No consensus (March 24, 2006) AfD#2
• Delete (July 18, 2006) AfD#3
• Deletion endorsed (July 26, 2006) DRV#1
• Deletion endorsed (September 5, 2006) DRV#2
• Links to Encyclopædia Dramatica may be removed wherever found on Wikipedia as may material imported from it. (October 20, 2006) ArbCom (see also Link ban question)
• Arbcom has ruled (October 27, 2006) DRV#3
• Deletion endorsed (November 16, 2006) DRV#4
• Speedy close (22:01 November 18, 2006) DRV#5
• Speedy close (20:29 November 18, 2006) DRV#6
• No new information (April 23, 2007) DRV#7
• Speedy close (April 29, 2007) DRV#8
• Pending (October 3, 2007) DRV#9

-- Jreferee t/c 02:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Oh no, not again." Could we see a userspace version drafted strictly in accordance with
  GRBerry 16:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Fuck No! was my first reaction to this one. Google hits are no meaningful measure of notability although a lack of google hits can point to a lack of notability. Please come up with some real world reliable sources and references before we even consider looking at this.
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy close - Drudge up some
  RS first and insert 1 credit(s) to continue.--WaltCip 17:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Ain't gonna happen. Wouldn't be prudent. Corvus cornix 20:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• do it in user space first Personally. I think an article on this is fully justified, and the absence of one reflects poorly on our objectivity when it comes to criticism of Wikipedia. "Wouldn't be prudent" is in contradiction to NOT CENSORED. But the only way of convincing people will be to construct a god sourced article to show. DGG (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, my comment was just a joke, but there is no way that ED will be allowed an article until the Arbcom decision in the MONGO case is reversed. Corvus cornix 20:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Read the Arbitration decision in the MONGO case again friend. There is no prohibition of an article, the only mention of such a move was dismissed by Fred Bauder as outside of the case's scope. indeed such a ruling is beyond their power. The committee rules on conduct not content. You misunderstand. 67.42.211.38 22:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You mean that part of the RfAr which says Links to Encyclopædia Dramatica may be removed wherever found on Wikipedia as may material imported from it.? Corvus cornix 22:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • And how would that affect an article written by the policies of Reliable Sources and Neutral Point of View? It wouldn't because you don't need to link and you wouldn't be incorporating material from the site as it is not a reliable source. The committee's ruling is irrelevant to the existence of an article. When a decision in the workshop was made saying "an article about the website should not be recreated on Wikipedia." Arbitrator Fred Bauder responded with "I don't support this. Wikipedia is not censored." Clear enough? 67.42.211.38 23:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Plus, if you take Wikipedia and its mirrors out of the equation and account for duplicates at the same site, you've got less than 700 Ghits. Corvus cornix 20:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Biased, You didn't remove wikipedia.org, you removed all sites mentioning Wikipedia. Since ED is usually described as a parody of Wikipedia, you removed thousands of sites merely describing or mentioning it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.105.178 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It certainly wasn't an attempt at bias, but thanks for assuming good faith. So, if I take out "wikipedia.org", then you get even fewer Ghits. Corvus cornix 21:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Quibbling about whether wikipedia or wikipedia.org is mentioned is irrelevant; for searches returning significantly more than a thousand hits, the number of "unique" hits is meaningless. (Even if you accept that the number of any sort of search results is meaningful, which I don't.) See Wikipedia:Search engine test#Google unique page count issues. —Cryptic 00:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted - I see only four potential sources for material, and they only amount to a sentence or two of info about Encyclopedia Dramatica. This topic does not meet
  WP:A. Here are the cites to the four potential sources for material: (1) Washington Internet Daily. September 12, 2006. Federal Law Saves Craigslist in Sex Posting; Poster Likely Faces Suit. (2) Washington Internet Daily. September 13, 2006. The Craigslist user who posted highly personal material online. (3) San Francisco Chronicle. (September 17, 2006) Sex and the City. and (4) New York Times. July 1, 2007. All the News That's Fit to Print Out. -- Jreferee t/c 21:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Write a draft first You have to meet people halfway. 67.42.211.38 22:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• There's no point unsalting - and certainly not undeleting - this unless enough reliable secondary sources to write a full article are put forward. —Cryptic 00:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep deleted We have 4 mentions, all of which are close to trivial. I'd be willing to consider changing this opinion if sources that actually focused on ED were supplied. JoshuaZ 00:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted no evidence that anything has changed since the last time 'round. Shouldn't there be a waiting period before bringing this to DRV again. Carlossuarez46 01:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - There is a pending Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites. -- Jreferee t/c 02:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Utterly irrelevant. If we had enough information to make an article we would have enough information to write an article without having to link directly to the site in question. JoshuaZ 02:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm just trying to provide links to related matters in one location. Encyclopedia Dramatica was mentioned on 18 September 2007 at the workshop, so I thought I would note it in this DRV (also see my post at the top). -- Jreferee t/c 03:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Net satisfaction index (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

notion_commonly_admitted_in_marketing Ludovic 11:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted. This is about the article
  Fram 13:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep deleted. As the original nominator for AfD. I don't see how this or could ever be anything more than a content fork from
  iridescent (talk to me!) 13:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• The only differences between the two articles were some formatting differences and the addition of the sentence "This terminology has first been created by IBM in the 60'ies but is now commonplace in marketing across many industries." Neither version had any sourcing. This is a straight up recreation without any attempt at overcoming the AFD identified issues, so
  GRBerry 14:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion -
  WP:A, it should remain deleted. In the mean time, Net promoter score, Customer satisfaction, and Happy Planet Index seem to have some related material to the topic. -- Jreferee t/c 15:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy close - Nomination's only claim to a valid DRV is invalid:
  WP:DICDEF at best.--WaltCip 17:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Lists of fictional things (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Merge with

• Keep deleted There was a solid consensus to delete in the AFD. Plus, there's more than adequate coverage of "fictional things" in
  Lists of topics#Art and culture. szyslak 06:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion - The Lists of fictional topics appears headed to being deleted itself. See Lists of fictional topics AfD. -- Jreferee t/c 00:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There also is
  List of science fiction topics seems to be similar to List of science fiction themes. -- Jreferee t/c 00:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Proper deletion where
  consensus was overwhelming. /Blaxthos 00:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion. COnsensus was to delete, and Category:Lists of fictional things already contains these lists. Crazysuit 04:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Clear, policy-based consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of fictional things. -- Satori Son 06:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion is not to undelete but to merge such lists in the

List of topics page. List of topics is well organized in history, science and other articles, so why not fictional topics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.28.164.114 (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry, but neither the

consensus nor justification for deletion are overturned by shuffling the information into a subsection of a broader article. /Blaxthos 07:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The afd consensus is based on strong emotions using "I don't like it" as the rationale. [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.8.93.38 (talk) 19:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore A perfectly valid organizational article DollyD 16:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted That list was the very definition of
  96 21:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]