Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 December

Talk:Matt Lee(musician deluxe) (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Matt Lee(musician deluxe)|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

• note to admins I would like to know how this all goes. There are things here I don't understand. I thought you folks kept all notes here at wiki.

I would like to see the entire notes on this page that were removed. I would like to know where the rest of the notes here are. There are notes from this and the actual page missing. I'm new to this so please forgive me but, does this constitute some kind of vandalism? I , like I said am new , so please bear with me. But I want to see the pages that were deleted here. They would be from December 23,24,25,26,27,28,29, 2008. I would also like to know why these new pages are here, but all of a sudden the other pages are missing.76.94.31.7 (talk) 20:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• note this page shows the movement of this page, Matt Lee(musician deluxe),by user:Metropolitan90 to Matt Lee because the page was approved after a speedy delete was contested and undone. Why is this information all eradicated? Is someone hiding something ? I don't understand because I'm new to all this. 76.94.31.7 (talk) 21:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requester was yet another block-evading sockpuppet, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Guitaro99, main contributor to this debate in favour of undeletion is the IP which turns out to be the same user. There is no way we can trust anybody on this until we are sure we have got rid of this vanity spammer. Wait some time and then let one of the good-faith users bring a fresh DRV which shows what has changed in the real world since the last of the many deletions. If we ever do have an article on this person, the multiply-blocked sockpuppeteer must be topic-banned (indeed, arguably is already sitebanned due to serial abuse of multiple accounts and block evasion). Guy (Help!) 10:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Lee(guitar player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) (AFD 1 |AFD 2 | DRV 1 | DRV 2 | DRV 3| Userfied version| history)

See also:
Matt Lee
Matt Lee(musician deluxe)
Matt Lee (musician)
Matt Lee (guitarist)
Matt lee(musician)
Matt lee

NOTE: This DRV was added by Bill Blake990 per lifebaka++'s comment to Joeyboyee at DRV 3 which said, in part, that when the article had been userfied and worked on to "bring it back here to open up another DRV (or just in this one if it's still running) and have some people take a look at it. If consensus is that it no longer has the issues laid out in the 2nd AfD above, it'll get moved back into the mainspace." Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please look at the talk notes. Thanks.76.94.31.7 (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oops....talk notes on the Matt Lee(guitar player) page. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.31.7 (talk) 03:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Recommend userfication pending outcome of deletion review. There is no reason for this to be in main-space during the review. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The article was userfied on September 18, 2008 - User:Spartaz/Musician. There is no need to userfy again to another location. Soundvisions1 (talk) 05:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • So userified, at User:Bill Blake990/Matt Lee(guitar player), and user notified. Jclemens (talk) 05:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Re: previous talk pages. The page Matt Lee(musician deluxe) was put up for speedy deletion, and then the admin that nominated it repealed tthe speedy delete and moved it to a page called Matt Lee. Someone then removed it without a notice, even though the prior admin allowed it. The article shows notability, which was the prior complaint. The A&E ref for Connie Francis' biography on the show Biography was scored by Matt Lee's brother Robert Israel.(Same legal last name).Matt Lee has a songwriting credit on this episode and Mike Thompson from the Eagles played this session too.His name's in the credits at the end of the show as guitar player for more than 3/4's of the shows music.It is linked. Matt Lee has an album mix credit for Denny Freeman who played with Stevie Ray Vaughn in The Cobras. That is linked too, along with Denny's bio on the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.31.7 (talk) 05:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oooppssss, I meant that Matt Lee's name is on the show Biography's credits for guitar. Mike thompson played piano on that show.76.94.31.7 (talk) 05:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Question for admins: Do any of the deleted versions contain substantial support for notability that is not found in the 2 userfied versions? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Question for admins: I'd just like to know what happened when the speedy delete was overturned on the Matt Lee(musician deluxe)page just a few days ago, and taken by an admin and moved to the Matt Lee page and then unceremoniously pulled by yet another admin? All the pages are missing and I wonder. Does that constitute vandalism of any kind? I don't get it because I'm new, but, it does'nt make sense to me. Thanks.76.94.31.7 (talk) 08:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the userfied versions are both revised. The old versions had an attrition of notability,according to prior critique, but the new versions are including, what we hope to be enough additional info to pass inspection this time. That's what they admins asked for last time around , from what I've been told.76.94.31.7 (talk) 08:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• here's a link to see a Matt Lee credit for an album mix with Denny Freeman. http://www.dennyfreeman.com/cd.html

You can see the credit there. There is also a bio on Denny Freeman that shows his notability as well. Here's the A&E link for the Connie Francis Biography episode too. http://www.bobbydarin.net/bdcf.html 76.94.31.7 (talk) 08:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Can the nominator (or anyone) please advise:

  • Why the admins who deleted the various pages were not consulted prior to making a listing here
  • Why, rather than abiding by the results of deletion discussions and speedy deletions, the page was recreated at half a dozen different alternative titles
  • What is different from the several previous AFDs or DRVs that supported this article being deleted and not undeleted (by which I mean what is different about Mr. Lee, rather than what is different about the article)

  Many thanks.

  talk) 09:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• comment: In response to Stifle - all of this happened rather fast over the last 24 hours so, as far as I go, there was not time to notify every editor who deleted each slightly different named version of the article, nor every editor who participated in the two AFD's or three prior DRV's. At the point we are at now it is somewhat hard to follow the overall history of this subject because pages have been deleted and recreated and redirected and the redirects deleted so page histories are being deleted as well is some cases. This also goes for associated talk pages and their histories. Now, with two userfied versions, neither of which contain 100% edit history, it is difficult to track any version fully. I think the easiest way for now is to look at the original userfied version on September 18 and compare it to how it was when it was reposted to mainspace on December 25: September 18 and December 25 dif. It may be hard to trace fully the changes made since December 25 because both userfied articles have been edited as were the now deleted Matt Lee, Matt Lee(musician deluxe) and Matt Lee(guitar player) articles.

I do feel that before the article was posted yet again to mainspace there should have been a discussion as had been suggested by lifebaka++ at the September 28 DRV. As the CSD on the (re)created Matt Lee and the Matt Lee(musician deluxe) was denied I had assumed good faith and thought there may had been some such discussion on the issue. I found out after the article was speedied anyway there had been no such discussion but I felt, at that point, it didn't matter one way or the other. It was the recreation of that deleted material into the Matt Lee(guitar player) mainspace that prompted my G4 nom for that and led to this DRV. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this admin took the Matt Lee page down without looking. The Matt Lee(Musician deluxe)was deleted because another admin undid a speedy delete and moved it like this link shows to the site without qualifier or Matt Lee. :http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Talk%3AMatt+Lee(musician+deluxe)> It was deleted after it was approved by another admin.76.94.31.7 (talk) 01:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was notified of this DRV on my talk page (though I'm not really sure why). Let me just say it's a hot mess already and somebody should really try to clean it up. It's too difficult to read at the moment.... --MZMcBride (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: Per Stifle's question above you were notified as being one of the "admins who deleted the various pages". Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• look at User:Spartaz/Musician. This shows the originally deleted article. You can compare it to User:Bill Blake990/Matt Lee(guitar player) and see the difference for yourself. The article has been heavily revised and notability refs are there, as compared to the original article.76.94.31.7 (talk) 19:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I !vote for a
  talk) 20:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Un-delete: Well, based on the conversation so far, I vote to un-delete the article and place it under whatever title in mainspace, be it Matt Lee, or Matt Lee (parenthesis something).76.94.31.7 (talk) 20:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I forgot to say I recommend the User:Bill Blake990/Matt Lee(guitar player) version as it seems to be the most recent version with the most refs.76.94.31.7 (talk) 20:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Matt Lee(musician deluxe) (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Matt Lee(musician deluxe)|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

• • At the logs link above, you'll find User:Metropolitan90 is the admin that changed the page from Matt Lee(musician deluxe) to Matt Lee.

• From one of the many deleting admins this is one that has been nuked so many times for blatant
  single-purpose acounts and, yes, the IPs with no other contributions as well, leads me to the inescapable conclusion that Matt Lee has devoted a lot of effort to getting a Wikipedia article to boost his profile. I reckon this is another "Dr. Steel", where Wikipedia is being abused for viral marketing. User Talk:JzG (Help!) 22:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

Christian Forums is an online discussion forum that had its own page, such as

• You misunderstand the deletion process here. Your first argument is
  WP:NOTCENSORED. It doesn't matter how family-friendly or famous the forum is-- Wikipedia cannot say anything about it unless if a reliable source has already described it. Shii (tock) 06:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Then I would like to formally request that the aforementioned pages be deleted at once; I'll rescind my argument and accept the deletion of this page if that is done. Otherwise, singling out this one page for deletion reeks of censorship, something I have already noted that Christian Forums is notorious for. toll_booth (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One world of advice. Mass nominations are often not successful. While it would take more time it would be better to check all the pages individually and then selectivily nominate. That way we can avoid potentially trying to delete an article that would easily survive an AFD and all the articles can be discussed on their own merits. I would also suggest that someone else nominate as to remove any question of bias. --76.71.215.141 (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm hearing you right, you're suggesting that if I were to go through with this, just pick a couple of the articles and check into whether they be deleted, and then go from there? toll_booth (talk) 02:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted. Shii has said pretty much everything I'd like to say on the matter; if some reliable sources show up then I'd reconsider.
  talk) 09:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse delete. Hastily deleted? You had 3 months to improve the article after it was restored.
  WP:NOTCENSORED. --Smashville^talk 17:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Dude, I was pretty much the only one working on it. I was never given any notification that the sources I brought in would not work until AFTER the deletion occurred. toll_booth (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I can see this would be annoying, the guidelines and policies are all out there for anyone to look at. It would be impossible to proactively notify every contributor of all the policies. However, you were notified soon after you created your account when another editor attached the welcome template to your talk page. It links, amongst other places, to

^TalkQu 00:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse deletion - no procedural errors in the AFD and no new information has been proffered here that indicate anything has changed. Suggest that nominator write a draft in userspace, at for instance
  talk) 20:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn There is sourced information that this is the largest site of its nature. That would amount to notability, . I disregard the unfortunately irrelevant comments of thee editor making the appeal. DGG (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The issue of what consists of "sourced information" is why this article was deleted. The afd determined that it lacked reliable third-party sources, and the latest revision had the same problem. --- RockMFR 21:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, notability really shouldn't be a relevant issue here, because CF has that. Rather, it appears to be all about getting those sources. Do you know of a few? toll_booth (talk) 02:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  That would overturn a speedy deletion, but this was deleted at AFD.

  talk) 09:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Endorse close - The AfD discussion was closed correctly. As for substantial new (?) information, the January 2004 Dallas Morning News mentions the website.[1] In March 2005, The Australian noted that christianforums.com was ranked #2 (behind pramana.org) in the top ten, most popular religious sites and had a market share of 2.74%. (no link) In that same month, Broadcasting and Cable gave the site a mention.[2]. There might be a way to tease some info out of the links at Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. There might be more information in offline, Christian reliable sources. Otto4711's suggestion about writing a draft in user space seems the best advise. -- Suntag ☼ 18:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original article was Speedy'd 7 times. The page was then recreated with "references." These references turned out to be nothing more than myspace, youtube, and blog links. The two Afds failed due to no-consensus as one user would come on and say keep, provide the same links, and other users who would not pay close attention would just agree and take that users word for it. Searching has found no valid sources that can withstand WP:MUSIC or WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HooperBandP (talk • contribs) 23:29, 29 December 2008

Note1: I was the admin who closed the latest nomination. Hooper may be a bit unclear here, but he's challenging the closure before mine. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note2: AfD1 was closed as delete on 24 November 2008. SoWhy closed AfD2 as no consensus on 26 December 2008. AfD3 was out of process speedy closed on 29 December 2008. -- Suntag ☼ 19:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse AFD closures -- references to coverage of this band in third-party reliable sources were provided in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BrokeNCYDE (2nd nomination). The question of whether the coverage is significant is to be decided by community consensus, which should not be gainsaid by the closing administrator. Where, as here, there was no consensus as to significance of coverage, an AFD closure to that effect is appropriate. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BrokeNCYDE (3rd nomination) was correctly closed as speedy keep due to the fact that it was initiated a mere three days after the closure of the previous AFD discussion; it is inappropriate to repeatedly nominate articles for deletion until once, by sheer fortuity, the desired result is reached. John254 23:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse 3rd AFD because, well you can't as John says renominate something 3 days after it was kept at a prior AFD. A couple of months is the bare minimum to wait. Endorse 2nd AFD. Several Delete votes were flawed, i.e. arguing thet URB isn't a reliable source, it clearly is as the on-line version of an established magazine, or that the URB source was a blog and therefore ineligible. Blogs can be accepted as RSs in only very limited circumstances but one circumstance is a blog by an established journalist or other subject expert. The URB blog was by Joshua Glazer who appears to be Editor & Content Director at URB Magazine & URB.com [3]. To my mind that does give his entry sufficient weight to be a reliable source for establishing notability but this is only one of the required multiple. On the Keep side the overall quality of the sourcing was totally overstated. In a poor quality discussion where the participants were not fully arguing points against policy/guidelines, "no consensus" is a reasonable outcome although I personally would have preferred to extend the discussion and requested further input into the sourcing. This is probably a case where Chubbles might be able to help research the sourcing but I haven't seen them around recently. I'll drop them a line and ask them to look at this one.
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• What a mess. The third AFD was correctly speedy-closed as renominating an article that soon after it's been on AFD isn't generally done. However, I would have closed the second AFD as delete. When the number of users supporting keeping and deleting is roughly the same, the admin closing the debate is entitled to consider whether certain arguments warrant higher weighting than others, for reasons which may include whether they make reference to Wikipedia policies and guidelines or are just an expressed opinion. In the case of the second AFD, OliverTwisted made a cogent keep argument, but the other three keep arguments were little more than
  talk) 10:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse 3rd Nom (Speedy keep), overturn 2nd AfD unless a more substantial article can be found to reference the band. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 12:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Speedy Keep Here's the deal. Brokencyde are a MySpace breakout band with a massive, very young, grass-roots fanbase. They're playing a blend of
  Alternative Press in the mail, and they mention BrokenCyde at least twice, though not in a feature; AP has also done a news story on their tour with Jeffree Star. [7] The decisions, from this point, are mostly based upon the biases of editors involved; deletionists will claim, "these are blogs, no good as sources. Flash in the pan, not encyclopedic", while inclusionists will claim, "enough reliable sources to demonstrate the group's significance". I doubt it will be possible for the two to see eye to eye; this is as borderline as it gets. What I can state, without any hesitation, is that if this does go "delete", we will be back here in a few months (or a few weeks) to unsalt it. Knowing how these things tend to go...I guess I'll see you back then. But I hope I don't have to. Chubbles (talk) 15:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Who is
  I Set My Friends On Fire? Exactly. We can't just keep stuff on here because of what it might be later on. Hooper (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I Knew someone would say that! However, it should be clear that my opinion does not rest on
  WP:CRYSTAL at all, but is based on present status, along with an outlook towards eventualism. And if you want to know who I Set My Friends On Fire are, you can now read the article! Chubbles (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Looking at the article, that particular band to me at least appears to have just recently been deserving of an article, and I don't label myself a deletionist usually. If this BrokeNCYDE get to that point, then great for them, and I'm sure they'll be plenty more people by then willing to write up an even better article. But as it stands, it shouldn't be here, regardless of the wiki-bureaucracy of how the AfDs work or dont work. Hooper (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse AfD2 and AfD3. Sources, though non-standard, are reasonable. Certainly no consensus to delete can be found in those discussions. Hobit (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse AfD2 no consensus as the present consensus. The article was recreated on 19 December 2008, less than a month after it was deleted on 24 November 2008. Yet, the article was not G4 speedy deleted and AfD2 was left open to completion. It seems reasonable to conclude that the 19 December 2008 recreation was not substantially identical to the deleted version and the changes in the recreated page addressed the reasons for which the material was deleted. Chubbles comment above, "I doubt it will be possible for the two to see eye to eye," seem a good characterization of AfD2, and supports the idea that a no consensus close was within the closer's discretion. Three months is a typical rule of thumb between bringing a new AfD after a keep close. Less than three months is a typical rule of thumb between bringing a new AfD after a no consensus close. Perhaps the question is whether enough time has passed since the no consensus AfD close for there to be changes in circumstances that would benefit from a new deletion discussion. Three days is not enough to cite passage-of-time as a basis for bringing AfD3 and nothing new was cited in the AfD3 listing that wasn't already discussed in AfD2. The AfD3 speedy close was correct. In sum, endorse AfD2 no consensus. -- Suntag ☼ 19:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn or relist - those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Mgm cited process as a reason to close it, but he voted to keep in AFD2. Closing an AFD in the way that you've voted for is against process in itself. The way the discussion was going, it was veering into deletion territory. And by the way, there is no minimum waiting period on nominating an article for deletion; especially one that closed as no consensus. Yes, it should've gone to DRV. But at the same time, nomination #3 was not disruptive, had 4:2 split for deletion, the nominator wasn't banned, it's not a policy/guideline, it's not linked on the mainpage, and it's in the right forum. No reason to speedy close at all. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The initial page looks like blatent advertising, but I did not get the chance to fill it out with much of the additional information I needed to make a good case for it to stay before it was SPEEDILY removed. HomeSeer is unique in many ways in home automation - they are the leaders of their category, just like X-10 is, and there are many other companies listed because of their uniqueness or contributions to the field. Examples include X-10, Z-Wave (Zensys), Insteon (SmartHome) and several others. I tried to present the information in a factual (e.g. non advertising) way but as I was gathering my thoughts and working on it over time, I could not leave the article in perfect condition each time I get done editing it. I request that it be un-deleted and if necessary, put in a non-active state so that I can at least work on it until such time as I would like to make my case to instate the article again. The person who requested that it be speedily removed does not have an active email address so I could not contact that person via email. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RTinker (talk • contribs) 22:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. While I'm aware that some users consider this an optional step, I would appreciate if the nominator could please explain why he omitted it (or, if there was a discussion that I missed, point it out)?
  talk) 10:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I am not familiar with deletion review, and I could not find any references to it here. Speedy deletion was used and so there was no opportunity for a Talk page to be started where there could have been a discussion first. When I went to the admin's page and tried to contact him, I got a message that there was no email address. I would be happy to discuss it further, but I would like to have my content restored so that I will not have to re-type everything should the page be granted life in Wikipedia. Again, the page is providing information on a commercial product, so much of it will appear to be advertising, but it is a product that is over 10 years old and is a first in many areas of its category, so I think it is worth noting some of this information. I can expand on some of the early days information and dampen the information on the features of the software if that is what makes it appear too much like advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RTinker (talk • contribs) 13:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, the "new message" tab at the top sticks out to me (as well User:Chrislk02's instruction not to send him an email), and it's a little hard to understand how you managed to comprehend how to make a listing here but you couldn't perform the much easier task of leaving a talk page message.

    Leaving that aside, I would overturn the deletion. While the article was not the best in terms of

    talk) 19:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

    ]

• I was never contacted about this until right now. I just looked at the article and in my opinion is advertising for a product/service. A timeline of all the advancements in the product, why the product is good etc with no neutrality and cited from its own website. Pretty sure that is advertising. I think speedy deletion was the proper course of action but you alla re welcome to review it for yourself. Thanks. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 19:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Permit recreation , but only if there are third party reviews of the product--I suspect there may be some . The intrinsic importance of technology is not he concern, its the recognition of it that gives rise to notability. DGG (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn or at least userfy. I am not convinved that the version deleted fit the criteria of 'blatant advertising' but instead could have just been edited to prune/remove the features list which was was the worst part imo. I have done a bit of a web search and found 3 reviews which might possibly me of use in establishing notability - [8], [9] (pay article) and [10] so think there is possible potential for an article here therefore we should give the creator a chance to make it into a reasonable article. Davewild (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list at AfD. I can't see the article, but it sounds debatable and sources seem to exist. Hobit (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• What Now? Thank you for the discussion. If it was not already obvious, I am new to the Wikipedia environment - I am familiar with Wiki, but not the whole Wikipedia culture. This is why I did not write on the Talk page for Chrislk02 - I was panicked about losing all of the work and his page said not to email him with stupid questions about pages that should obviously be deleted. I simply did not think to use it in the context of a person's communication page. I am happy to remove the features section - I wrote it as a stream of consciousness as you can tell by the fact that there are no references, but removing it altogether is fine too. So what is the next step? RTinker —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Deletion reviews last approximately five days then an uninvolved admin will make a decision based on the discussion what the appropriate action is. Davewild (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I don't know what the article looked like, but the above DRV request is advertisy. HomeSeer is "unique". But not just unique, "unique in many ways". Plus, "they are the leaders of their category, just like X-10 is". The company cites press releases as news and the rest of their website is dripping with promotion language. They do look like a good group of guys,[11] but if you decide to continue writing the article, you will need to step away from any interest in the company and write the material from a neutral view. You'll save everyone a lot of work if you do. The HomeSeer article has nothing to do with HomeSeer's view of itself or what it has to offer and has everything to do with what third party
  reliable sources are writing about the company. You should avoid using any information from the HomeSeer website or press releases in the article. Use information from books, newspapers, and scholarly articles. To get an idea as to what the article should look like, look at some of the articles listed at FA-Class Companies articles. If you need help with putting the article together, you can try posting a note at WikiProject New Hampshire, WikiProject Companies, or WikiProject Robotics. -- Suntag ☼ 14:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Response - Thank you - that is the intention of the article. I am (obviously) a newbie, and I thought the emphasis was in having a source for citation, and did not realize that citing the HomeSeer website was a bad move. I will try to find media related sources, but it may be difficult in some cases because most of the media where HomeSeer appears is commercial in nature because, quite frankly, home automation is rarely mainstream enough for the typical media. Occasionally you get a public interest article discussing home automation, but it is almost always mentioning the big/expensive players in the market, and usually ignores the low-end (DIY) market. I have not read up on the Sandbox yet, but is that the place where I could develop the page under the scrutiny of some admins before it is published? Is there a way to do that? RTinker —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• Use User:RTinker/HomeSeer to create a draft article. Also, don't write the article and then find sourcing to justify the text. Let the reliable source material tell the story. There's information at books, newspapers, and scholarly articles. Go through each source one at a time, chronologically, and build the article sourced sentence by sourced sentence. -- Suntag ☼ 19:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adult-child sex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This being a very obvious search term, notwithstanding the persistent impasse with regards to whether this subject should be redirected to

• Endorse deletion -- As "Adult-child sex" is a euphemistic neologism coined by
  WP:NPOV. John254 18:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Obviously there's no need to present arguments against the deleted article as I'm not proposing it be undeleted as such. However, having merely taken a glance at previous deletion discussions, I am soundly convinced that your initial assertion is blatantly false, as anthropologists and ethnologists in the past unambiguously have documented that sexual relations between human adults and their offspring (as children in an age-referencing sense) has been prevalent, even accepted, in many cultures completely distinct from today's so-called "child-love" or pedophelia advocacy movement. __
  talk) 09:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• If there are scientific sources documenting historic information of when and where this was accepted (unrelated to the recent pro-pedophelia movement) I think a viable article can be written. Can you point to such sources or perhaps even provide a draft article?- Mgm|^(talk) 10:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification This review hinges on the fact that the redlinked article space is protected from creation. __

• Endorse Deletion - Endorse Salting - Per Meco's comments above. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 20:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion but un-SALT the page, to see if people can bring their proposed content in-line to be acceptable by the community. It has been 11 months since the 2nd AfD took place. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 11:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion - Endorse Salting - The many reasons and repeated consensus to delete and salt this article are listed in the six AfD/MfD/DRV's linked in the info box above. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Create and lock a disambiguation page that is as neutral as possible given
  WP:UNDUE. With 300+ results in a Google Scholar search, including usages that predate the Web, having the term come up red at Wikipedia risks becoming "Wikipedia is censored" POV in and of itself. I recommend that administrators who are active as editors in sexuality, child-abuse, or censorship articles, xfds, and deletion-reviews defer to disinterested, neutral administrators when it comes to what should be on the dab page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Why don't we just create a redirect to child sexual abuse and leave it protected? Protonk (talk) 00:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Unfortunately, a single redirect, just as a salted missing article, will introduce a POV. In a perfect world, we could do a dab page with big honking 72-point bold font to
  WP:NPOV. Actually, I may have those font sizes wrong, but in any case, they should reflect how the word is actually used. Maybe, if it's mostly used by pro-pedophile activists, pro-pedophile activism should be the prominent link. In any case, we can't do multiple-sized fonts, so the best we can do is probably a dab page with a short introductory text explaining why the page is locked, with 2 or 3 links, with the most popular use first. Does anyone actually know the most common usages of the term off-wiki? Whatever it is, that should guide the use here. But definitely lock it down. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Create protected redirect to
  pro-pedophile activism, redirects here", but that is an editorial matter to be resolved by the editors of that article.  Sandstein  09:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment in response to Sandstein and others who favor any redirect: This issue is difficult because Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the off-Wiki world when it comes to POV: Nazis are bad, mom is good, etc. However, based on comments above and Google Scholar searches, I gather the literal words "adult-child sex," when used in print are used by pro-pedophile activists or in criticisms of pro-pedophile activism which quote those activists. This would normally mean it should redirect to
  Pro-pedophile activism if that were the only usage. Likewise, the English-world concept of adult-child sex, i.e. what most people in English-speaking countries would think of if you asked them to define the phrase, is much closer to Child sexual abuse, meaning the term should redirect there. If Wikipedia redirects to one or the other, it is saying "how the term is being used is more important than what people think when they hear it" or vice-versa. Either way, it's a loss for Wikipedia. Unfortunately, leaving the link read says "the term is not encyclopedic" which isn't exactly correct either. Some type of disambiguation is in order. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep deleted. I don't think the encyclopedia's interests is served by having the deleted article restored. I wouldn't be opposed to a protected redirect, as Protonk suggests. And if someone came up with a neutral article on the subject with citations to reliable sources (which I doubt will happen, but anyhow) then that could be used there.
  talk) 23:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment I honestly don't see how redirecting this to Child sexual abuse reflects anything but the mainstream POV. If needed, write a short 1 paragraph summary of pro-pedophilia activism and redirect it to that paragraph in the child sexual abuse article. Contorting ourselves into some position where we feel we need to dab this for NPOV is incorrect. NPOV requires presentation and discussion of views in proportion to their significance and distance from the fringe. It doesn't demand that we not redirect adult-child sex to its mainstream analogue because it would suggest to readers that adult child sex wasn't child sexual abuse. Protonk (talk) 23:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - So far, we're looking at reviewing the AfD2 close (which already was done), determining whether to create a redirect, and looking at creating a dab page. Also, there are a variety of deletion discussions posted with the DRV request, but DRV is at its best when reviewing one deletion action in view of the DRV request. I think we should try to focus this discussion. The page was protected at 06:45, 27 January 2008 by Kylu. The reason given was Per WP:DRV closing admin. The DRV closing admin was Mackensen. The 04:03, 28 January 2008 DRV close did not specify to protect the article. The DRV endorsed AfD2, reasoning that process objections are sufficient to prevent maintaining an adult-child sex POV fork in the article namespace. This 15:04, 29 December 2008 DRV request is for permission to create a disambiguation page. The first question that needs to be answered is what is the reasoning behind the protection. Did Kylu protect the "Adult-child sex" article name space for any and all purposes or was it only in furtherance of enforcing the DRV decision? Kylu and/or Mackensen might be able to answer that. I'll invite them to this discussion, but if you find a diff to answer that question, please post in this thread. The second question is whether a disambiguation page at Adult-child sex would amount to "an adult-child sex POV fork in the article namespace" that violates the process objections brought out in AfD2. It may help to have a user space draft to answer that. -- Suntag ☼ 01:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the question of page protection is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I take no stance on the creation of a different article, a disambiguation page or the status quo; I have not been involved in the discussions on the relevant talk pages and my role at DRV was that of a completely uninvolved administrator closing a contentious debate. Mackensen (talk) 01:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate - So far, the "mainstream" suggestions above seem to be saying that the average Joe on the street's response is to think
  pro-pedophilia movement which use the term, it becomes more complex. I'd say the only way to sort it out (aside from leaving an ugly redlink) is a disambiguation page. We can fight out which order the links are on the new disambig's talk page. ;) — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 03:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep deleted. This DRV requested a disambiguation page, but on thinking about the matter further, I could not approve a disambiguation page without first seeing a draft to compare it against the standard provided in the DRV close. The redlink seems to rub people the wrong way and I think approval for a redirect is a better direction than that initially requested. The DRV close stated "the definite minority position which this term occupies vis-a-vis other terms," which seems like it classifies the "undue weight to the fringe views of such activists" position as a definite minority position. In any event, creating a redirect does not go against the DRV close. Also, creating a redirect does not go against the protection and does not go against any Redirects for discussion. There is present interest in this topic, even though the DRV was closed almost a year ago, Thus, I think it reasonable to allow a protected redirect to be created. It is important to keep in mind that it merely is an allowed action by DRV. It does not mean that it is a keep consensus from DRV. Determining whether there is consensus that a single redirect will introduce a POV or whether consensus would support the DRV allowed action is something that takes place in a RfD deletion discussion, not a deletion review discussion. In sum, I would not object to allowing a protected redirect to child sexual abuse per Protonk, Sandstein, and Stifle. -- Suntag ☼ 04:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  Pro-pedophile activism#Terminology and include a definition there; it could be good as a redirect, but I'm a bit cautious about the redirect to CSA. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Clarification. One or two voters above speculate about scholarly use of this term to indicate classical pederasty. I've run searches in
  Chick Bowen 18:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment in reply to CB: Thanks for looking stuff up in databases that most of us don't have access to. When used in what little literature I did look at, the term is used 3 ways: 1) as a literal term with face value, used by people without an agenda, 2) as a literal term, but used by people with a "there's nothing wrong with it" POV instead of terms they see as baggage-laden such as child sexual abuse, 3) in quotations or discussions of those in group 2, usually by people with the extremely dominant "sex with children is wrong" POV and usually intended to disparage those in group 2. I don't recall any usage relating to Greek or other classical pedastry, other than perhaps by those in group 2. Note that my search was a very small sample of Google Scholar search results, so I'm not saying the term is not used for pedastry, only that I didn't see it used that way. #2 seemed to be the most common, with #3 coming in second. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I think that's right--the term may be used about classical pederasty but not in scholarly sources. To me that means we don't have to cover that usage: i.e., it falls under the category of fringe scholarship, and it's a very minor fringe. I'm not commenting on other usages, but I would not want to see that one included in, for example, a potential disambiguation page. Whether (as Ipatrol says just below), there's enough for a disambig page without any reference to the ancient world, is a separate question.
  Chick Bowen 01:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Pro-pedophile activism, all the same size.--Ipatrol (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Endorse deletion - I feel like I've written that in this same place on this same subject before - oh wait, I have, multiple times. There is no reason to restore this article, in any form. Its a magnet for pedophilia POV warriors, and almost every one of the main proponents of its restoration in the last few go 'rounds is now banned.
  ^T 01:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

File:Rumble_Roses_Mud_Wrestling.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache)|IfD|article)

I don't see why a screen shot should not be included in the article.It'd be rather useful as a visual equivalent of the text about the mud wrestling.Rumble Roses is one of the few,if not the only game which features mud wrestling, so a screenshot would'nt be too unnecessary. Other articles of video games have screenshots too, and as Rumble_Roses currently has no screenshots, the usage is justified. Roaring Siren (talk) 11:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close. There is no effective difference between a no consensus and a keep closure, and if the nominator wishes to merge, a discussion can be opened on the article talk page (or just invoke
  talk) 10:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Interesting. Endorse closure but note that there are other programs that uses UDP, including eMule. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 12:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tech geek note: UDP is a datagram protocol that is simpler from the usual TCP used in IP communications. This here article is about a protocol tfor BitTorrent via said UDP, very different from what eMule uses. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 02:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UK Chemical Reaction Hazards Forum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Speedy Delete Ronhjones (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC) Can we please undelete? May have looked like a copy of a web site, because it was - and I own the web site - you may check the headers of all the web pages they will have the second meta tag as <meta name="author" content="Dr. Ron Jones">.[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Copying text (even your own) from a third-party website is a copyright violation, unless you place that text explicitly in the public domain or under a suitable free license. See
  WP:COPYVIO. TotientDragooned (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse per TotientDragooned. Requester may like to read
  ^TalkQu 20:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

Page was deleted even though AfD resulted in no true consensus (and KEEPs actually outnumbered DELETEs on the AfD page). The deletion itself was performed carelessly, leaving broken links and references in multiple articles, especially Mondegreen, which ended up referring to "soramimi" without ever really defining what it is, instead linking to the Soramimi article, which was redirected to Mondegreen, creating recursive links. The page should be restored at least temporarily so that necessary information can be copied into Mondegreen. Perhaps the decision should be changed to "Merge into Mondegreen#Examples in languages other than English". NetRolller 3D 15:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing admin If NetRoller had asked me about the close before bringing this to DRV, I would have explained my rationale for deletion.

  One of the AFD comments was KEEP!!! A form of a mondegreen where a phrase in another language is intrepreted as words in ones own language. I could not parse that as an understandable AFD comment and discounted it appropriately.

  Keep Because deletionism is stupid and counterproductive. was also discounted as not addressing the article.

  Keep This is a very popular mode of humor in Japanese culture. Someone who can access Japanese academic articles should check to see if there are actually articles on this comedy style. Has potential for expansion with regard to the origin of the practice and comparing it to other forms of humor and to similar practices in other cultures. AFD is today and this does not address the lack of current sources.

  Keep precisely because this is the English wikipedia, and coverage of other cultures is not just suitable but necessary. Again this addresses the general point of systemic bias and does not address the article content.

• That said the delete comments focusing on the lack of sources for this article and the lack of notability for this topic were more convincing than most of the Keep arguments phrased as ILIKEIT or general philosophical arguments. MBisanz ^talk 20:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you remember what I said about putting the closure rationale in the discussion itself? Here's an example of why that is a good idea. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 00:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Based on the AfD, balance is marginal but can be read as a delete consensus (or a no consensus). No procedural error. Can't see the article 'cos I'm not an admin.
  ^TalkQu 22:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn I cannot see a consensus to delete at the AfD, even discouting inapropriate comments. Deletion is not a remedy for current lack of sourcing (with the possible exception of controversial BLP's), but is rather limited to those cases where sources simply do not exist. Therefore the claim that this is "very popular" is just as relevant as saying "notability not established". Also the point about systematic bias was clearly addressed to a prior "vote" which made the unjustified claim that notability outside the broad field of Japanese popular culture was necessary to justify a keep. Thus, it should not be discounted in isolation since it rebuts an invalid deletion rationale. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that pretty much all of the rationales had zero basis in policy. That's a very hard call for a closing administrator. Whpq and Polaron came closest to rationales with a foundation in policy, but even their arguments were that sources might exist, not that they actually do.

    It's also worth noting that what Oda Mari pointed out is quite right. This is just a transliteration of the general Japanese word for mis-hearing. It's not a specific name for this particular idea. It's (part of) the title of a segment on a television show. Uncle G (talk) 00:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I agree, that this wasn't a particularly well argued AfD, but in such cases "No Consensus" is the correct call rather than weighing the worth of the article by admin discretion. I can't speak to the proper ultimate fate of the content, though even a marginally notable Japanese term is probably worth a redirect, but
      assume that that article is so badly written. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Overturn as no consensus. Arguments on both sides were equally weak. TotientDragooned (talk) 19:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as a valid interpretation of the debate. Of course, had NetRoller 3D consulted with MBisanz before coming here as the procedure suggests, this debate might not have been necessary.
  talk) 21:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Of course, if MBisanz had put the rationale for the closure in the appropiate place of the discussion as the procedure suggests, perhaps NetRoller 3D would have understood. Closers have to follow trough, too. Ya know? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 12:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn there was no consensus. When someone closes against apparent consensus (or lack of consensus) without explaining why, its not helpful. There can after all be reasons for doing so, but if one doesn't explain, the obvious interpretation is that one misunderstood the discussion or else followed one's own predilections. DGG (talk) 07:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn it seems obvious that consensus was not reached. Naufana : talk 02:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn' Why merge an article into another article about a different subject altogether? Ffffffffffff Shii (tock) 06:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as no consensus or relist. Deleting without comment against apparent consensus is asking for a trip here, although discussing with the admin is always good. It may be rearguing the AfD, but it needs rearguing as both sides had equally weak arguments (=> no consensus), as noted above: It is easy to check that there are good sources proving notability at gscholar and gbooks, in particular Interlingual Near Homophonic Words and Phrases in L2 Listening: Evidence from Misheard Song Lyrics.John Z (talk) 07:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Granted, I enjoy the misheard lyrics. That being said, current revision of Mondegreen has a section that refers to Soramimi and states in which music in a different language (often Japanese, although others such as Swedish exist) is "misheard" into English, and illustrated. Engrish mondegreens can also occur when English lyrics are reproduced by singers of Asian languages. However, everything on the deleted version of Soramimi refers to misheard lyrics from a Japanese point of view (and really, the term Soramimi is Japanese). So, either make the term generalized according to the section description, or merge some content into Mondegreen article. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 12:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus as there isn't any there. I can't see the deleted article, so that makes it hard for me to evaluate the arguments. That said, the !vote certainly lacked consensus to delete so it should have defaulted to keep. Finally, the closer really really should provide an explanation when closing against the !vote consensus. Hobit (talk) 16:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a mirrored version.John Z (talk) 21:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, never thought to look at one of the mirrors. I'd say the best thing to do is merge, but that's an editorial/AfD thing. For DRV I'll stick with the overturn. Hobit (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My World, My Way (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Wrongfully deleted per WP:CRYSTAL at AfD, despite the game coming out 6 months ago. The article was a few lines of unsourced plot information. After deletion I recreated the article from scratch using the proper MoS with sources, game-play and reception info and etc but it was deleted shortly thereafter via CSD when I went to bed. Undelete that version. Norse Am Legend (talk) 02:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Temporarily undeleted for DRV. Available here. Protonk (talk) 04:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and keep the newest version. Per
  WP:N), it has been picked up for release by Atlus, a publisher which attracts a lot of attention from gamers due to the niche-market titles they release, a western release has been announced and noticed and it even has a home page in English already. There are several initial sources on DS Fanboy and Siliconera like: [12] [13] [14] [15]. I'm not sure why AFD participants dropped the ball with this particular game, but it's easily reversible and I'd suggest doing so and letting Norse get on with it. Someoneanother 10:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn. This article is sufficiently different from the AFD'd version to not be an G4 speedy and it obviously doesn't fail CRYSTAL either since it is already released (meaning the original AFD was in error). Article needs a ref section so the refs in the text actually show, but otherwise this looks fine. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn on the basis that G4 cannot be applied to an erroneously filed AFD. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 13:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn the speedy. The AfD was closed correctly, but the recreated article was different enough not to be speedied.
  ^TalkQu 22:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse the AFD closure as it could not possibly have been closed any other way, but overturn the G4 as the second article had additional information and as such was not subject to G4.
  talk) 21:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

Undeletion and unprotection for the page Christian Schoyen. Previous entries made the page appear to be spam or advertising related. I have written a new biography with proper citations and references to the person's book and film work, w/ a short objective biography has been written and is in complete accordance w/ all of wikipedia's rules and regulations. It shows him as a notable figure and is befitting a wikipedia page. I have no received any word from the deleted administrator which is why i bring this up to you. Spyglassent (talk) 22:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No undeletion is needed to post a new article, unless you used from the previous version. Did you? Also, please post the article you're talking about to userspace so we can see if it's ready to be posted to mainspace. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It's salted, hence the request. But the user has now created
  ^TalkQu 22:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Allow recreation with this new content. TotientDragooned (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse current state of affairs although a minor dose of
  talk) 21:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • With only eight edits to date, surely a
    ^TalkQu 22:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment: The current state of affairs is that Christian Schoyen is deleted and salted, while the article has been recreated at Christian Schøyen. As far as I can tell, the name was mutated to sidestep the page protection, and not the subject's real name. This state of affairs is inconsistent and highly undesirable, IMO. I'd be much happier with any of the following:
    1. Speedy Delete Christian Schøyen as recreation of deleted content
    2. Unprotect Christian Schoyen, move Christian Schøyen to it, and send it to AfD.
    3. Unprotect Christian Schoyen and move Christian Schøyen to it (my preference.) TotientDragooned (talk) 02:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

       I can go for #3. #1 is inconsistent with the CSD.

       talk) 11:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

       ]

Christopher. Nudds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

A decent article on a notable person. Unfortunately, several inferior creations of said article at Christopher Nudds, which were previously and rightly deleted, have prompted administrators to prohibit recreation of the page. Thus my article, which is valid and deserving of a place on this site, was deleted as a prohibited recreation. I would like to request that this decision be overturned, that my article be recreated and allowed to be moved to an appropriate title Nuddsy (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. While I'm aware that some users consider this an optional step, I would appreciate if the nominator could please explain why he omitted it (or, if there was a discussion that I missed, point it out)?
  talk) 17:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • See below. Uncle G (talk) 07:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, can you explain why you did not request the title to be unprotected at
  talk) 17:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • See below. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 07:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• No thanks. Wikipedia is not a place for original research or to advocate on behalf of convicted murderers. You clearly have a conflict of interest. Are you prepared to disclose it?
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment This editor is an aggressive and abusive SPA (see his contributions) who has attempted to re-create this article and Fred Moss by mis-spelling the names rather than discussing the issue. In what way is this different from the earlier situation with the two salted, vandalistic articles? andy (talk) 00:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's more extensive than that. See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Hamish Ross, this edit, Special:DeletedContributions/Bobo the clown and a whole lot more under other accounts whose user pages have been deleted. This has been ongoing since at least 2006, and it's all clearly one person. Uncle G (talk) 07:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I concur. I felt the case was blatant enough that I blocked the user for sockpuppetry. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This article was deleted over nine months ago. Can you please clarify why this deletion review is only being raised now?
  talk) 17:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Nope. You need to offer us some sources or otherwise demonstrate sufficient notabuility to meet the inclusion criteria.
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I can answer that. I was trying to re-create this page last month and it was deleted over and over again. If you go to the Swedish Wikipedia you have basically the same information as on the English one, yet apparently this is not enough to keep the article here. If it's enough there, why cann't it be enough in here? Not to mention just for the fact that Puma Swede is Sweden's best porn export at this time, should be enough to keep her Wikipage active. I could add more info as well. Norum (talk) 23:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • … where "over and over again" translates to "exactly once", according to the log. ☺

    And who says it is enough for the Swedish Wikipedia? Perhaps the editors there haven't noticed it yet. (Most of the edits in its history appear to be 'bots and others doing simple maintenance.) Your re-creation didn't address the issue of notability raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johanna Jussinniemi. In fact, it contained less than the prior article did, and the same number of independent reliable source citations : zero. Uncle G (talk) 06:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Look at this one Cherie, it's got less information, yet that seemed to be enough. It was listed for speedy deletion, but the result was to keep. I think when I tried to recreate the article about Puma, it was deleted twice last month I think. Not like it matters right now. Besides the point, I believe I can actually add more verified info than before. Norum (talk) 06:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • … but you haven't. The deletion log still says only the one deletion occurred. It's linked-to above. You can follow the hyperlink and see for yourself. And no, you didn't create an article at the alternative title. You created a redirect here. Although that does bring up the issue of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puma Swede. So this subject has already been through AFD and deleted twice, it transpires, and you haven't addressed with sources any of the points made in either discussion. Uncle G (talk) 07:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • What people created under "Puma Swede" is not really my concern. This was over 1.5 years ago. We are talking about my recreation of "Johanna Jussinniemi" last month. I believe that I can contribute more to her Wikipage, considering it would not be deleted right away. Norum (talk) 07:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Spartaz above. Uncle G (talk) 13:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
            ]
          • No, it is not. The only thing I did in
            Johanna Jussinniemi. How about this, just give me some time and I will re-work it too the way it is supposed to be? Norum (talk) 18:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
            ]
            • Sources?
              Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
              ]
              • http://pumaswede.com/MCE/ps/0/aboutme, http://wilforbis.com/acidlogic/puma_swede.htm, http://www.qlimax.com/puma-swede.php, http://www.sleazegrinder.com/int_PumaSwede.htm, http://blog.freeones.com/2008/05/26/exclusive-interview-with-puma-swede/

Eustacius de Yerburgh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

This page was speedy deleted without much discussion on the advice of

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

This article was not eligible for A7 deletion. The subject of the article is the captain of the American U19 cricket team, which is a claim for notability if ever I've heard of one. In addition to this, there are numerous sources for this person, including the BBC, Rediff, and others that were cited in the article. The nominator made a note to consult

I note that I have not yet attempted to discuss with the deleting admin, as they have a notice on their talkpage that they are on Wikibreak, and they have not edited for several days. I will however leave a note on their talk page directing them to this talk page in case they return. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Clear claim of importance so not a candidate for speedy deletion. Article was also well sourced. Article may, or may not, fail the notability guidelines but that is a decision for AFD not speedy deletion. Davewild (talk) 10:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - Definitely not a speedy candidate as the article clearly asserts notability - Peripitus (Talk) 11:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as A7 did not apply.
  talk) 14:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Well, procedurally, I can see some merit in overturning, but the recreated article should go straight to AfD, where I would argue strongly for deletion. --Dweller (talk) 14:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list at AFD as a declined A7. HeureusementIci (talk) 05:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn not speedy candidate. I find it odd that sometimes people delete something for not meeting GNG, and other times for not meeting,
  WP:ENTERTAINER, etc. It is as if people are choosing whatever the subject isn't meeting, even though either would qualify the subject for inclusion. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

File:Roubini1.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache)

The first image,

The replacement image (Roubini1) was tagged deletion per

Reason cited by admin Skier Dude for first image used (emphasis added):

The image in question File:Roubini_photo.jpg still failed the basic criteria of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #1 that states:

"Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion.)"

The salient point here is that a free equivalent could be created by someone at his school or at one of the many places he frequents just taking his picture. An alternative to this is to get the school to "release" this via the WP:OTRS examples here system, as they do clearly state they hold the copyright for all images on their website [1]. IMHO the OTRS may be the easier road to go with at this time, until a free image can be obtained. Skier Dude (talk) 03:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The first image was therefore deleted because it was possible to get someone to find out where he frequents and take a photo. The alternative was to get him to sign an OTRS. This is setting an unreasonable standard, if not practical "impossibility" which seems to be unproductive.

• Endorse Deletion - of
  Wikipedia:NFC#Unacceptable_use point 12) that, unless there is a compelling reason as to why not, a free photo of a living person is creatable. As I understand it one of the rationale's behind this is to encourage the creation of free images...a laudable goal. I don't see that anyone has tried extensively to get a free image either from the subject, a student where he teaches or any of the photographer's who've captured him to date. By Wikipedia standards the image is replaceable by a free alternate, though it may present some difficulty, so the photo fails NFCC#1 - Peripitus (Talk) 05:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• 'Allow - As clearly stated in the
  talk) 06:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Unfortunately
    WP:NFCC Point 1 "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.". There is an expectation that volunteer editors are here to futher wikipedia's goal of being a free encyclopedia (why would they be here if not). As to it being an unreasonable expectation that they are here to further the goals rather than take a simple option, well... But you miss an option As well as the option of finding a free image, using a fair use image (when within the project policy), option 3 is to use no image, those editors whose commitment to creating a free encyclopedia don't extend to actually finding free content can take option 3. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 07:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • As Xe said
    Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use isn't policy, and doesn't reflect policy, either. It is exceedingly outdated. It was written in 2005, and its goals and rationales have remained largely static since then. 2005 was a time when we really didn't take our mandate of generating free content seriously when it came to images, and any rationale given today that is based upon a 2005 view of image policy is deeply and fundamentally flawed. Uncle G (talk) 15:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Comment (and endorse deletion of second image) - please see the lengthy discussion on
  OTRS granted is difficult but not a "practical "impossibility" which seems to be unproductive.", in fact, if it requested 8 days ago this entire discussion would not have taken place. Skier Dude (talk) 06:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • There were multiple statements about the rationale depending on the photo being for publicity. Here's just one example: "His company, RGE Monitor, of which he is Chairman, issues Press Releases and his photo accompanies his articles and bio. His web site and content are clearly for "publicity" purposes and seem to meet the basic criteria for promotional fair use. Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)"
  • It is likewise "disingenuous" to expect a wiki editor to make an "effort to find out where he frequents and take a photo" of a world renowned economist:
    talk) 07:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • That assumes that is the only way to get a free image, you are of course free to ask those with images if they'll release one under a free license etc. Again as above it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to expect those contributing to a free encyclopedia, to do so using free material. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 07:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no "fair use doctrine" here at Wikipedia. Our doctrine is free content. Fair use is an exception, that applies to very limited circumstances only. It is not the rule, nor the goal, nor the purpose. Uncle G (talk) 15:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Whether it's hard, easy, disingenuous, impractical, or otherwise, Wikipedia's fair use policy is significantly stricter than US fair use law. This is because Wikipedia aims to be the free encyclopedia.
  talk) 09:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

File:Lumet PR Dartmouth.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache)

My earlier image, LumetPortrait1.jpg, was deleted on 12/21/08 with the reasons stated in quoteblock below. There were more back-and-forth discussions about this on the page below with another admin. After it was deleted, instead of putting to a "Review", I tried to find another image that would again fit all fair use criteria, I uploaded and placed the new image (in heading) on the bio's infobox. This too was immediately removed by the same admin, Peripitus, by pointing to his previous reasons (below). It has as of this time not been deleted but he removed it from the article and I assume it will also be deleted soon.

The first image was from a web page used for clear publicity. I believe it even stated on the image information that it was from their posted Press Release. Yet the only reasons continually given for disallowing both images' fair use was that it was "replaceable" by a free image, even though nothing equivalent is available. Admin Peripitus suggests finding a Wikipedian to just go to a film shoot and snap a photo, and therefore it is indeed replaceable, especially since he is a "public" person. This is an 84-year old movie director, not a "public person." In the alternative, he questions the usefullness of an image of the person for his bio, demanding I explain how the "image significantly increase reader's understanding." This is/was, the only portrait of this person and was for his infobox, and it was expected that I explain why his picture is "useful." I assumed it was the job of admins to assist editors, not the opposite.

The most recent image removed was from a clearly marked "Press Release" page. The demands made by the removing admin are essentially impossible to meet by any reasonable standard and strike me as an abuse of discretion. I am trying to improve a number of Wiki bios by finding useable and allowable images, especially when availabe as "Non-free promotional". But it is becoming impossible. Any feedback would be welcome.

The result of the discussion was: - Delete - as failing NFCC#1 (and possibly NFCC#8). There is no argument below, nor on the image page that says this image meets NFCC#1. He is still alive and a free image is clearly possible to take given he is a public person - also there is the image mentioned below. NFCC#8 requires that the image significantly increase reader's understanding and not only is this not addressed below but the image page has the scant mention that it will be used in the lead...not what having the image acheives. NFCC#1 is overriding here...after all he's still directing. Just need a wikipedian to front to a film set and we're there - Peripitus (Talk) 09:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

My undertanding from Wikipedia:Administrators: "Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, and unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools."

• Comment - the issue is that any copyrighted image of a living person falls into the same area. It is possible to create a free image of the person and the non-free content criteria are framed such that we do not allow images that can be replaced by free ones, whether or not a free image appears to exist currently. - Peripitus (Talk) 05:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - As clearly stated in the
    Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use
    - Goals, #5, (italics added):

    "It should be noted (if not on the tags, then somewhere else) that it is best to use a free alternative if one is available. This is not strictly a requirement of 'fair use'..." Your comment goes way beyond the stated intent of Wiki by setting a standard whereby if "It is possible to create a free image of the person," then no fair use image can be used. The obvious problem is that there can be no objective definition of what's "possible" under a "reasonable standard." Your definition would effectively eliminate any Fair Use images for a living person because anyone could simply say it is possible to get a free one. That would open up all Wiki's Fair Use images to immense risk of abuse and defensible vandalism.

  • My understanding is a Fair Use image should be looked at like a valid cited quotation by a living person: no one would demand that they require a Wikipedian to find the person and have them repeat their words. I realize that this sounds like a ridiculous stretch, but your analogous demand for photos, such as going to a movie production set to take your own free photo of a director, is also a bit of a stretch.
    talk) 06:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Your understanding is based, as noted above, on a WikiProject page giving a view of image policy from a time when we didn't take our mandate to free content images seriously, and not even on image policy itself, let alone on current image policy. Any such rationale for undeletion is deeply and fundamentally flawed. Uncle G (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion; see my comment on the DRV immediately above this one.
  talk) 09:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion, clearly fails
  wp:nfcc#1. Which btw is policy, the quote you copied from wikiproject fair use is outdated and wrong. Instead of this time consuming deletion review, have you ever tried contacting a copyright holder? Like I said in the IFD debate, there are about 5 images of Sidney Lumet on flickr with a chance of a creative commons release. Garion96 (talk) 15:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

STIR Future (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

No joy at all from the deleting administrator after 5 days, even though xe has been active in that time. I asked, but there was only silence. An article whose first sentence gave a reasonably coherent explanation of the subject was in no way patent nonsense. Uncle G (talk) 02:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn deletion and list at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. I agree that this article was not patent nonsense, but I think it should have a full discussion at AfD to determine its future. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn The article is extremely confusing in points and badly written, so I can see how the closing admin could have made the said determination. IMHO if the majority of the ISP User:81.149.250.228 contributions are removed it could be turned into a legit $$ stub. So let it go to AfD & give someone a chance to clean it up. Skier Dude (talk) 06:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - Article is a long way from nonsense...was just badly written, but the lead is understandable. Nothing for Afd here - it is a real subject that is exactly what an encyclopaedia should cover. Has good reliable sources that I can see. - Peripitus (Talk) 08:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, no AFD This clearly wasn't a G1 speedy candidate and it can be stubbified to the point that even an AFD is not needed. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and trim back. Not patent nonsense, although not an especially good article.
  talk) 09:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn and give the deleting admin a gentle chiding. "Poorly written" is not the same thing as "patent nonsense", and the article is comprehensible enough that a G1 was unwarranted. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

has won an

WP:MUSICBIO and are about to be signed to record deal with Simon Cowell [19]. They are also the only X Factor 2nd-place finalists not to have their own page. I ask that the redirect is removed. Pyrrhus16 (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

UNREMOVE REDIRECT Can i add other second placed finalists were signed and as it was announced they had been signed, there articles were created not releasing a single yet so why should JLS be treated any differently? I say its because Eoghan fans want to have something to look at to see whats going on with his career, and JLS fans will want to see the same. I say unremove this redirect. I'm also going to add that two members of the band were famous before being on the show (TV) Marvin was in a band that created one album and 4 singles and was a regular actor on Holby City. And Ortise was on fun song factory as a regular.86.168.5.166 (talk) 22:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn redirect because JLS are just as notable as
  chat) 23:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy Close as the article has not been deleted. The article was merely turned into a redirect, and DRV is not for content disputes. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 00:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close, no deletion to review. Anyone can take the normal editorial action of unredirecting the page.
  talk) 09:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Comment, I was told here [20] it had to go to DRV due to it being redirected per AFD discussion. Pyrrhus16 (talk) 09:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment The page may be a redirect, but this was done as a result of the AfD. Anyone undoing the revert will be going against the concensus reached at the AfD, just as they would if they recreated the page following deletion. If not here, where is one supposed to force a review of an AfD?

  talk) 12:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  The closure was a bold/speedy redirect by a non-admin on the same day as the article was listed at AFD, therefore it carries no more or less weight than any other redirecting.

  talk) 14:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  In that case, re-nomination may be the best option.

  talk) 19:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Comment The redirection of this article is protected so that only admins may edit or move the page, hence the request here. This was done due to the consensus of the AFD which mandated redirection, was ignored by the requestor and the article restored. The AFD was quite recent, so any interest in overturning the redirect does require consensus through DRV process, unless the admin who closed the AFD discussion reverts their close. Having said that, the arguments for unprotecting and unredirecting this article are all weithin the purview of
  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and have no merit, with respect to overruling a properly determined consensus rom AFD. I recommend that the interested editors create a userspace draft and request a review if and when they feel it is ready for scrutiny to determine if it is proper to move to mainspace. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 12:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I'm with you up to the "properly determined consensus". A non-admin boldly redirecting after 14 hours of an AFD isn't one of those.

  talk) 14:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Overturn redirect As I see it, bottom line here is that Eoghan Quigg's article was kept solely on the grounds of him having placed in a music competition, nothing to do with releases or percieved level of fame. When this is taken into consideration, the fact that JLS placed higher in the competition than Quigg, should be enough on its own to have the article reinstated. Sky83 (talk) 13:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read

WP:WAX. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 16:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I get where you're coming from but that's not exactly the point I was making, I was drawing attention to the reasons Quigg's article was kept, and those reasons are valid reasons for the reinstatement of this one. I apologise if you thought I was simply saying that because Quigg has an article, JLS should, perhaps I should've extended my comment, it was kinda a hit and run thing as I was on my way out the door at the time! Moreover, I was just saying that because JLS placed in a music competition, this makes an article on them valid and that if this point wasn't accepted for JLS, it probably shouldn't have been accepted for Quigg. That was where my comparison came in. Sky83 (talk) 16:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just pointing out that

WP:WAX does not say never compare with other AFDs it actually says "If you reference such a past debate, and it is clearly a very similar case to the current debate, this can be a strong argument that should not be discounted because of a misconception that this section is blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates." It does also say use this with caution. Davewild (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

On November 3, 2007,

Comment it's odd that John254 highlights the red herring of my subsequent resignation while failing to mention the security concern I submitted as evidence to the ongoing arbitration case. Suggest closing this procedurally; the arbitrators and Jimbo Wales have appropriate information in their hands. Durova^Charge! 20:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology/Workshop#Motion_to_openly_discuss_Cirt.27s_past_identity, Cirt stated that "The security matter has been resolved. My previous account was Smee, renamed from Smeelgova. Discuss them if you like." [24], rendering the "security concern" to which Durova refers moot. The question here is not whether the deletions were correct at the time they were effectuated, but rather whether the talk pages should remain deleted. John254 20:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I mentioned Durova's resignation only for the limited purpose of explaining why I did not request that she reverse her own deletions before raising the matter here. John254 20:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow John has been confused by the wrong thread. The relevant thread is Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology/Workshop#Motion_to_undelete_Cirt.27s_past_accounts.27_talk_pages, submitted by Jossi (who announced his retirement after my evidence) and already commented upon by three arbitrators, none of whom saw merit to the proposal. Durova^Charge! 20:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These user talk pages were not deleted by order of the Arbitration Committee. The community may want to restore them, even in the absence of the Committee directing such action. John254 20:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So essentially you are attempting to do an end run around the ArbCom regarding the most sensitive part of an ongoing arbitration case, and using an out of context quote from an editor as your pretext for this very cavalier treatment of his privacy. Considering the aggressive and unprovoked statements you have been making about him in relation to this case, this approaches

WP:POINT. Please withdraw the nomination; I wouldn't want a formal complaint to result. Durova^Charge! 20:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

If these talk pages needed to remain deleted due to privacy concerns, you would presumably be willing to state as much explicitly, and take full responsibility for the statement if it proved to be false. Of course, that's not what's going on here. These are the community's user talk pages; as the Arbitration Committee has not ordered that they remain deleted, the community may decide to restore them for the purpose of preserving a record of communications. Your threat which states: "Please withdraw the nomination; I wouldn't want a formal complaint to result." does not alter this situation. John254 20:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you ask him whether he supports your idea? Durova^Charge! 20:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified Cirt of this deletion review. In general, however, editors do not have an absolute privilege to remove significant portions of their talk page history without a compelling reason: if, for instance, I were to ask for the deletion of all revisions of my talk page from 2006 and 2007, the request would almost certainly be denied. John254 20:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth noting that the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology/Workshop#Motion_to_undelete_Cirt.27s_past_accounts.27_talk_pages occurred before you submitted evidence concerning Jossi's interactions with Cirt going back to 2006, and that the arbitrators declined to order the talk pages undeleted on the basis of their perceived irrelevance to "the present matter". In light of your recent evidence, do you seriously claim that Cirt's talk pages from a period of time which it expressly discusses are still irrelevant? John254 20:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

remain deleted - those involved in the Rfar who need to can see the deleted pages, and they don't seem relevant to the remainder of us developing appropriate responses to the recent allegations of poor behavior by the user. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• question As I understand it the security concerns were edits that have now been oversighted? Is this accurate? JoshuaZ (talk) 21:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep deleted - I suggest you make your case to the Arbitration Committee if you demand these be widely available. They have not demanded they be undeleted; I suggest this is for a reason. Your own unrelated curiosity is not a reason - David Gerard (talk) 21:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep deleted and John254 this is POINTy disruption, see comments by three arbs: [25], [26], [27]. Not to mention there is an ongoing arbcase about this. Suggest next available admin close this right away. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those comments about the perceived irrelevance of matters occurring in 2006 and 2007 would only still be applicable to the extent that the arbitrators intend to ignore a significant portion of User:Durova/Scientology_arbitration/Jossi_evidence. Durova, then, in defending her deletion on the basis of such comments, appears to be suggesting that much of her own evidence is irrelevant, and should be discounted. Of course, no actual basis for these talk pages remaining deleted has been articulated -- where there is no reason to remove talk page histories, we preserve them by default. John254 23:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Accidental killers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache))

I believe the nominator read consensus when there wasn't. The

• I was the one that closed this CFD, and
  King Juan Carlos I). -- Samir 05:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment I'm going to have to investigate the BLP concern closer, but 3 votes for deletion and 2 votes that support some form of keeping is just one vote difference in a pile of 5. If a single vote can change the outcome drastically, from majority delete, to even split, there's not yet sufficient concensus, just a temporary majority. =- Mgm|^(talk) 08:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  As a reminder, categories can not be moved. Renaming and merging in a CFD discussion are therefore delete variants, because to achieve either the delete tool is needed.

  GRBerry 18:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Actually, renaming is a keep variant in a deletion discussion because the person suggesting the rename is stating that they believe the grouping created by the category is valid and should be kept, just under a different name.
  talk) 19:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment: I would prefer a list to a category for this because a list can have a citation.
  talk) 10:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion - CfD lasted six days; so it went full term. There were not three people advocating deletion: there were four (including nom, who reasserted his/her recommendation in a comment after someone else recommended deletion). I have seen many AfDs closed as "delete" after two-thirds of the editors participating in the discussion urging deletion. There was a consensus in light of this. B.Wind (talk) 15:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, but there were only three for deletion. Gilliam made the nomination and then immediately !voted, so that's one. Lord Sesshomaru is two and Bjones is three. I !voted keep and Cgingold commented that he was "inclined to favor Keeping" which were I an admin and based on the remainder of his comment I would construe as being equivalent to "weak keep". Note that Lord S's comment was based on factually incorrect information as the category did not "label" anyone a "murderer" as the word "murderer" was not in the name of the category. Further, his comment and Bjones's comment are incorrectly premised on the notion that calling someone who kills another accidentally an "accidental killer" is defamation. This is not true, because truth is an absolute defense against charges of defamation. Do you really think that all of the reputable news outlets that reported on the cases of Laura Bush, Ted Kennedy, etc. would have done so if they thought they could get sued for it? In the light of a 3-2 with two of the three in favor of deletion basing their comments on fundamental errors of both fact and law, also given the existence and retention at two different AFDs of
  talk) 18:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • You have clearly overlooked the fact that a fourth person, namely nom, has also recommended deletion. B.Wind (talk) 04:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • You have clearly failed to realize that the first delete !vote is from the nominator and the second delete !vote is also from the nominator.
    talk) 12:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Endorse As I see it, the admin should judge consensus of reasonable arguments. If he disagrees with the apparent consensus, he should contribute, instead of closing according to his own view. The only places for discretion is judgment of what arguments are irrelevant. and in judging where the balance lies, and whether or not it is too close. (If the admin can not judge where consensus clearly lies, he should continue the XfD or close as non-consensus, not cast a deciding !vote.) In this case, all the arguments were relevant, and the consensus was delete, though I would not have said to overturn a non consensus close. Whether I agree with that consensus is not pertinent here. But as several people commented on a problem with the name, it would be reasonable for someone to try to write a very careful criterion & a different name--or to try a list. As a suggestion. it seems in each of the disputed cases there was some degree of culpability: LB ran a stop sign; the King was probably playing with a gun. DGG (talk) 16:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per the cogent summaries of DGG and B.Wind.
  talk) 09:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  So..what is it that makes B. Wind's summary so "cogent", that he counted wrong? His endorsement is based on his incorrect reading of the CFD as being 4-2. Since when is a basic math error a cogent argument for anything? As for DGG's comments, they are so muddled that they can be read as being more in favor of retaining the category than not, as he is basically arguing for a rename (which is a variant of keep and a recognition of the validity of the category grouping). This discussion is yet one more shining and frustrating example of how the consensus model does not work. Facts mean nothing. Arguments from ignorance are given full weight.

  talk) 11:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• See above - once again, I did not count "wrong": you forgot to count nom. Look past your emotion and you will see that. B.Wind (talk) 04:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I did count the nom. I counted the nom once. You counted it twice. Look past your math error and you will see that.
  talk) 12:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Endorse Per DGG. Plus it really is a bad idea for a category. Garion96 (talk) 10:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per all of Otto's remarks. There was no delete consensus by any of the usual standards and the weight of argument is with Otto as he has rebutted each argument for delete.
  talk) 15:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse. What the hell, I take a break from CFD for a month and we resort to vote counting? Okedoke. 3 delete, 1 keep, 1 rename. And if we're not counting, then I endorse the explanation given by the closer above. I accept the BLP concerns he and others had. And no, the rename doesn't count as a keep. "Keep" means keep the name as is. "Rename" means change the name. Those are not the same. If it were, I could take a discussion with 50 keeps and 50 renames and close it as a unanimous keep. --Kbdank71 18:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Um...what? Rename means delete? In what universe? Rename means that the reason for the category is valid but the name doesn't properly express the grouping. You need to step back a level in the categorization scheme. And once again, the BLP concerns are entirely overcome by
  talk) 02:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Well, to rename a category does require deletion (no "move" button), so it is a fine line. BLP policy requires conservative editing - the word "killer", whilst having a more neutral dictionary definition, is widely used and interpreted to mean something much more deliberate - even if preceded by "Accidental". For an example, see how other editors have chosen to illustrate Killer by mentioning assassins and serial killers. In that sense, therefore, the word is used sensationally in this titling (against policy) and should be deleted pending migration to a differently titled category. That is the BLP concern. Renaming is probably appropriate, but in light of the BLP issue, the category should not be restored, but a new category should be created with a less inflammatory title if desired. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, the category does not serve useful reason. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 13:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Program for the future (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

article is NOT advertising Rstephe (talk) 19:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Program For the Future (http://programforthefuture.org was/is not a commercial activity. It is an annual conference and competition to develop collective intelligence tools. All entries are licensed under Creative Commons (CC:BY), the project was organized over the past six months by 8 core planning volunteers (non-paid), the conference realized no profit, and it was supported by additional non-paid volunteers during the event. (Core volunteers: Mei Lin Fung, Eileen Clegg, Valerie Landau, Joel Orr, Rob Stephenson, Sam Hahn, Darla Hewett, and Bob Ketner)

The motivation of the organizers is to keep Doug Engelbart's vision, philosophy, and roadmap alive to inspire a new generation of innovators and collaborators. Assertions of "blatant advertising" are conclusions not supported by attempts to contact the organizers or attendees. Please re-instate the page and allow it to evolve.

We have requested reinstatement by section administrator Dayewalker, who replied: "This is actually a matter to take to WP:DRV, a post here won't get the deletion overturned. Good luck! Dayewalker (talk) 00:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)" Thank you - Sam Hahn and Rob Stephenson (two of the eight organizers)

• Endorse deletion. The article as written was indeed advertising. It is irrelevant whether the project is a profit-making or commercial activity or not; Wikipedia is not free ad space.
  talk) 20:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. I provided advice to the IP on the (now-deleted) talk page, however, I am not an admin. I was only offering the advice to go to DRV, and am unable to comment on the actual article itself. Dayewalker (talk) 20:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. A page doesn't have to be about a commercial organization to be advertising. or promotional in nature. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and thus only includes material that has already been reported on by others unrelated to the subject. How do "attempts to contact the organizers or attendees" prove it's not advertising? If you need to share the information of where and when it takes place with people who have questions, the best thing is to set up your own website.- Mgm|^(talk) 08:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - article was deleted at three different times by three different admins within a 24-hour period. I would recommend to the people involved with the subject of the deleted article to first read
  WP:N); and then, after the proposed article is written, ask an admin (I'd strongly recommend that one of the admins who deleted an earlier version) if it is appropriate for Wikipedia and could be moved to articlespace. B.Wind (talk) 15:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion for the same reasons given by B.Wind - the article simply did not go beyond an advertising level for the conference. Skier Dude (talk) 08:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

It is very unwise to close a

• Relist This should have run a full time, for everyone to be able to have access to the debate, most especially since this is a BLP, and a fringe article. It most certainly did not qualify for a snowballs chance in hell. I would have had a few things to say at the AFD in favor of deletion. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse On third read and checking the sources. Recommendation include shying away from the SNOW clause in the future on these types of articles. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing admin's note: Sceptre did not contact me prior to filing this DRV request. If people here think this was indeed not a
  WP:SNOW case - which would surprise me, since the subject is evidently notable and the AfD discussion bore witness to this - I've no objection to reopening the discussion.  Sandstein  17:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I should maybe also note that almost all "keep" opinions were not by people wanting to keep "their pet theory". Instead, they said that, yes, this is a nutcase conspiracy theory, but it is a notable one. I can't imagine a five-day discussion coming to any other conclusion.  Sandstein  17:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Notable only because of the flurry of Palinites flooding SCOTUS to stay the election. After Inauguration Day, no-one will care. Yes, this is more-or-less notable, but that doesn't mean it should be two-thirds the length of
  United States presidential election, 2008. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep or Relist Endorse (sorry, still learning what all the buttons do). It should be noticed that the vast majority of the "keeps" felt the citizenship controversy itself had little or no merit, but that a Wikipedia article on the issue was right, good and proper. That seems to flatten Sceptre's "pet theory" assertion. Rather than an effort to simply dispose of a controversial article, why not an effort to take this difficult and muddled issue and give it a solid and evenhanded treatment. Of course, that's not always easy, but surely we are up to the task? Jbarta (talk) 17:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Cannot see that it will ever be deleted as the overwhelming force of comments in the AFD showed, relisting would be for process only. Personally I would not have closed it that early but think reopening/relisting is pointless. If it is relisted I shall strongly argue for keeping the article as a very clearly notable theory regardless of how valid the theory is. Any theory that gets this level of coverage easily should get a seperate article for it. We should also not be comparing the length of different articles - if we can write an article in an NPOV fashion (showing how few thought/feel it is valid) of this length then I think that it is great regardless of the length of other articles. Otherwise are we telling people to stop expanding articles because a related article is shorter? Davewild (talk) 17:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure- Give me a break. The snow was at least a foot deep in that AFD. There was no chance consensus would have changed. And for the record, even though I didn't vote, i would have vote keep. I think the theories are crap, but they're notable enough to have an article on them. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Although I would generally want the full 5-day discussion (this one was less than 12 hoours) and reject a snowball closure where !votes were not unanimous, this article is created from several discussions concerning the subject matter. See, e.g.,
  Wikipedia:FTN#Obama_born_in_Kenya and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Donofrio_v._Wells. --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse, valid application of SNOW. However, to avoid unnecessary drama, I would recommend against its invocation in future similar cases (and I would strongly recommend leaving this DRV open for the full time).
  talk) 18:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse It was going to be kept. 5 days of debate was pointless. Whatever we like or don't like about the application of
  WP:UNDUE to declare that a subject which had received coverage in multiple sources should be relegated to a section of an already overflowing main article. I don't see a procedural problem w/ the close despite the kookiness of the subject. Protonk (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse the original closing. Once all the dust has settled, the info could probably be condensed and merged into the Obama article or the campaign article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the closure decision. This is a clear case of
  WP:SNOWBALL, with no evidence at all that the vote was stacked by supporters of the theories discussed in the article. -- The Anome (talk) 04:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Endorse Closing admin was correct, not a snowballs chance of a different outcome.
  Landon1980 (talk) 06:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Endorse - use of
  WP:UNDUE can revisit the deletion issue after sufficient time for the heat to subside (say, in about a year, unless the partisans wish to belabor the points). B.Wind (talk) 15:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse I am not favorably inclined to snow closes in general, but this one was clearly the right thing to do. The overwhelming keeps seemed none of them to come from people who supported these fringe theories or SPAs--if it was looking like that was the case, it would indeed have been another matter. DGG (talk) 16:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse there was no way that this debate would have closed as Delete. Almost all the people commenting were established contributors who had plenty of edits elsewhere, and many people said that they thought the theories were crazy even when arguing to keep the article, so concerns about "people wanting their pet theory on Wikipedia" are unfounded. Hut 8.5 10:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The original AFD had a variety of editors nominated it to keep/merge which had been done into this article. There was no suspected SSP, SPA's, or people pushing pet theories within that AFD and most seemed to agree that all the theories were craziness that needed to be documented somewhere. This mainly seems like a
  WP:SNOWBALL attempt to me. Brothejr (talk) 15:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse There was no chance the article would have been deleted considering the overwhelming RS coverage and the reasoned keep votes. Yes, the article is conspiracy theories by the usual suspects, but the subject a highly notable one due to coverage. A centralized article for these conspiracy theories is a great idea. Also no evidence of pet theory stacking or drive by votes in the AfD. Relisting would be a waste of time. — Becksguy (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Old Ex-lax box.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache)|PUI)

Image was deleted as a result of this

• Maybe I'm missing something, but if you think it counts as free within the definition suitable for commons, why not upload it on commons? --82.7.39.174 (talk) 18:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a courtesy to the deleting admin. I did what you suggest with an earlier image, but he took offense at my action. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ugh, wish they hadn't taken offence. There are circumstances when people try and sidestep local issue by uploading to commons, but cases like this clearly aren't amoung them. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Just a note that PUI does not require a consensus to delete; it's a forum for investigating the copyright status or source of an image. Most images there receive no discussion and are duly deleted after two weeks. This particular one, however, received a reasonable objection. I find that it is not a PD-textlogo as there is more than that to the box design, but {{
  talk) 18:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Fundamentally I agree with you. PUI acts a bit like a WP:PROD for images. Reasonable justifications for the image being free should be considered though. I'm not sure how else you would do that but through further discussion. I'm not saying that PUI is broken, but there are times (like this) when further discussion is warranted because PUI is dreadfully low-traffic. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment by deleting admin. I was not convinced by IronGargoyle's comment at the PUI listing. Per Stifle I don't think {{
  PD-Pre1978}} applies the image should be undeleted. Garion96 (talk) 23:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• restore with {{
  PD-Pre1978}} a quick google image search showed [28] & a couple others, that this colour schema was late 50's early 60's. Skier Dude (talk) 08:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The only reason I could find for this article's recent deletion was that I had recreated a previously deleted article. Now, while I can certainly understand the rationale of CSD:G4, I don't think it really applies here. As I see it, the main reason for having G4 is to prevent the same user from recreating the same page many times and having to wait through the whole AfD process multiple times, not to delete an article written by a user who wasn't even onWiki during the inital deletion debate.
Note: I have a page in my userspace that I consider an improved version of the article. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 15:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note there was a previous Deletion Review for this article here. Davewild (talk) 17:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This article was deleted nearly three months ago. Can you clarify why there was such a delay in requesting this review, and if there was any particular reason you did not attempt to raise the issue with the admin who deleted the page before opening this DRV?
  talk) 16:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • And also why the last deletion review should be changed?
    talk) 18:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Mainly, in order to allow the creation of the article on in user space, which, in my opinion, certainly does meet Wikipedia's standards. Also, an article (albeit a short one) on CNET almost certainly confirms notability. Many other articles on Wikipedia assert notability much more weakly (or not at all) and are not challenged. Finally, the main delay in the second DRV is that I've been insanely busy and not willing to commit to anything that would require a time commitment. Just a note, but perhaps Wikipedia's policy on the recreation of deleted material should be changed to provide more leeway where the article isn't recreated multiple times repeatedly. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 03:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It was deleted in April via AfD due to failure to prove notability. It was deleted in June via AfD due to failure to prove notability. The DRV was closed in October due to failure to explain how it was any more notable in October than it was in April and June. You have yet to provide any references which prove that it is now more notable and has references which prove the case, than it was in April, June and October. I do see, however, several SPA accounts who have a lot of emotional need to keep this article. I'd like an explanation of that. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The first DRV (which was properly closed as in process) concluded that the AfD was properly conducted and closed as "delete". Nothing has been presented so far showing anything to the contrary, and it is often pointed out here that DRV is not "son of AfD" (a.k.a. "AfD part two") in which the AfD discussion continues, but DRV is simply a review of the process itself. B.Wind (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is stated on this page that "Wikipedia:Deletion review considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions and speedy deletions. This includes appeals to restore deleted pages and appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion." That, in my opinion, invalidates your Endorse. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 03:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately the so-called "invalidation" will not rest with you but with the admin who closes this review, and his/she/it will be much closer to objective than the "analysis" immediately above this. I have just stated a fact about the process; you still have shown nothing to the contrary. B.Wind (talk) 04:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Permit re-creation The version on the user page has a perfectly good 3rd party RS (CNET) and there's a good one also in French from EWeek Europe [29] and one on Information Week & Eweek& note or considerable sections in an article on Infoworld, also inforworld [also Infoworld]]. There ar other European sites on Google News Archive [30], but I am not familiar enough with them to evaluate to what exten tthey are independent and not PR. Not all of this was published at the time of the AfD. Of course, the author should have found them himself & added them to his proposed article before coming here. DGG (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  That was my main intention going into this. Sorry if I did not make that clear in the inital DRV. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 03:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Permit recreation per DGG.
  talk) 09:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Permit recreation per DGG. John254 01:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I feel that this article was deleted rather too speedily based on the grounds of negativity. I spent a considerable amount of time on it, ensuring that the comments made on Doe Run's operations in Peru and the USA were correctly sourced. I would like this article to be reviewed, and, if endorsed, I will merge it with the article on Doe Run Company. I have politely requested the copy from the editor but as yet this has been unforthcoming. Ivankinsman (talk) 11:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The article was a complete attack page and I endorse the deletion. However, it would seem reasonable to userfy the content for a limited period in order to allow those sections which are strongly cited to be merged.
  talk) 12:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  And as always, speedy deletion is not a permanent bar on an article ever existing at that title, and anyone who wishes to create a sourced, NPOV one should go ahead.

  talk) 09:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Endorse deletion, this was clearly intended only to attack the organisation and hence meets G10.
  Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia. Hut 8.5 13:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion as deleter. It is my personal policy, indeed that of many administrators, that I do not provide copies of articles deleted as attack pages or copyvios. I encouraged the user to ask another administrator, indeed I offered to provide him with a list of administrators who might be likely to be willing to help him out. No response.
  ✡| talk 18:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I have emailed the author the copy--I see no harm in sending him what he wrote himself. I remind him not to post it here . DGG (talk) 17:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Permit proper recreation Looking at the deleted article, it might possibly be read as an attack page. Myself, I would have stubbified. But the basic material is well sourced, including BBC, tho it does come via Youtube [[BBC News 24: La Oroya - The most polluted city in Peru . There is also a reference from MotherJones. if that is considered reliable. Also a Peruvian environmental group [31] with fairly good credentials [32]. Given this, there are probably other good news sources in Spanish & English and a short factual article can be written, leaving the advocacy to the linked references, which should be referred to, not extensively quoted. DGG (talk) 17:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article was tagged for speedy deletion and promptly deleted without discussion or review. I believe was wrongly placed for speedy deletion and promptly deleted. BlueOregon is an often cited political news blog, used in numerous articles on Oregon politics and elected officials. This is the reason I created the pages, so that it can be the initial page used in numerous citation tags on Oregon elected official and candidate articles. Lestatdelc (talk) 07:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For example, The Oregonian, Oregon's largest newspaper, often mentions BlueOregon in articles about local and Oregon politics such as here, here and here. It is also, as noted above, often a reliable and cited source for numerous Oregon centric political elected officials and candidates. Lestatdelc (talk) 07:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion as the article did not assert any notability. However, as always, a speedy deletion is not a permanent death sentence to the article, and you can recreate it as soon as you are able to show notability, ideally by way of
  talk) 10:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• FYI, I have re-created the article in question with some citations of high-profile contributors to BlueOregon, including Former Gov. John Kitzhaber, newly elected Attorney General John Kroger, and others, as well as citations to The Oregonian mentioning and quoting form BlueOregon in several recent articles. Any opinion on if the line "BlueOregon is a high-profile progressive blog covering politics and issues in in Oregon. A group blog, it is often mentioned in articles on Oregon politics by The Oregonian, the states largest newspaper.", and the aforementioned citations suffice to denote notability or if more is needed. Again, the reason I initially created this article is that there are dozens upon dozens of citations and references scattered through numerous WP articles on Oregon politics and political/elected officials, etc. which cite BlueOregon articles. It is an oft cited political news site in Oregon politics, hence the rationale for an article on it since it is an oft used reliable source within that niche.Lestatdelc (talk) 13:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• That article doesn't qualify for speedy deletion and I think we can close this. You may wish to diversify the sources, but that's a matter for the future.
  talk) 16:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

IfD

)

I think the IFD closer disregarded policy. Other images that were in the IFD and being included in this request are:

• File:My cat stoker 2.JPG
• File:Shelley observating.jpg
• File:Shelley icon.jpg

I have discussed this with the closing admin. Rockfang (talk) 01:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is well settled that an editor in good standing may, the general guidance of
  G7 request I don't know, but I am confident that none of us wishes to engage in an extended inquiry for such a trivial issue, one a discussion of which is of little use to our enterprise. So, keep, per the IfD, for now, without prejudice to renomination should HexaChord be gone for some extended term (even then I'd !vote "keep" at IfD, but I don't know that the community feel similarly, although I suspect that the community don't care at all, which is to their credit). Joe 04:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment - quote from above: "...upload images for his or her personal use, toward the fostering of a successful collaborative environment...". How do those images help anything?--Rockfang (talk) 04:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure (keep that is). The rules are guides not prescriptive legal documents for good reasons. Common sense should prevail here - we have many userpage photos and extend both leeway and courtesy to users in the construction of their userpages for obvious reasons. Good common sense closure - Peripitus (Talk) 04:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Common sense tells me the images should be deleted. They are a useless, waste of space. They do nothing to help the encyclopedia.--Rockfang (talk) 04:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • How does your war against me help anything? It is just a waste of time and nerves! ----Say Headcheese!-hexaChord² 23:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan doesn't edit articles or add to the encyclopedic presentation of anything. We don't delete that. If hexa wants to have pictures of his cat or himself, that's fine. He clearly contributes positively to the encyclopedia and isn't focused on his userpace. We aren't myspace but we don't need to be a bunch of buzzkills. These are humans behind the keyboard. Protonk (talk) 06:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - quoting: "Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan doesn't edit articles or add to the encyclopedic presentation of anything. We don't delete that." I presume you are talking about the first image on that page. If this is indeed the case, then the above quoted comment you made is incorrect. That is image is used in articles. Secondly, the image is on Commons, so there is nothing to delete. If you are referring to the actual page you linked to, of course we don't delete it. The page is useful. It shows certain images that are available to Wikiprojects in a Wikipedia theme. I don't see how this relates to the IFD or this DRV.--Rockfang (talk) 06:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am referring to all of the images in the gallery below. And if your beef is the images being on Wikipedia rather than commons we can close this debate right now because it is pure
      bureaucracy to suggest that hexa delete these images and re-upload them on commons. What I meant to say was that we give a lot of latitude to long time users in good standing on their userspace. If I want to put a picture of my dog on wikipedia because it makes me happy and stops me from burning out I should be able to. If I want to make an nth version of Wikipe-tan (look, I did just that) because it makes me able to add more to the encyclopedia, I should be able to. If it appears like I'm spending all my time on my userspace then someone can come by and give me a gentle nudge to go write an article or work in project space. Since User:HexaChord has "retired", let's give him a few months and if he comes back, fine. If he doesn't, nominate them again. There is nothing like having all your pictures deleted after you leave in a huff to show that you might not want to come back. Besides, we aren't running out of space. Protonk (talk) 06:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Endorse closure. Sorry to have to say this, but there could not possibly be two reasonable differing opinions about this closure; I do not think a single admin would have closed this as delete. Transwiki them to the Commons if you're that worried about them, by the way.
  talk) 10:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I have to admit it's because of users like User:Rockfang that I stopped being a Wikipedia contributor. He is nominating about all files and articles I created the past months. This is blind hate, nothing else. But as I stated elsewhere, if he can't sleep unless all this is terminated from Wikipedia, just do it. I'm away. ---hexaChord² 14:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I won't let people like User:Rockfang control Wikipedia. It's time to fight back! ----Say Headcheese!-hexaChord² 16:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Me nominating these images and an article you created is nothing personal. I do not hate you. I don't even know you. If you check my contributions in the File namespace you will see I deal with a ton of different images by a ton of different users.--Rockfang (talk) 23:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I only created this article. It was poor User:Pachon if I remember right. He hasn't been seen ever since. ----Say Headcheese!-hexaChord² 23:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's inline with policy to have a limited number of personal pictures in your userspace. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Just a reminder, folks, this is deletion review, not IFD. As such, !votes should be expressed as "overturn closure and delete", "endorse closure", etc.
  talk) 18:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse closure. The picture may fall under
  WP:EM#Policy is not a trump card. --Cyfal (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment - FYI, there is actually more than one image involved in this DRV. And there is more than just one image on his page.--Rockfang (talk) 23:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. It does no harm. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse by closing admin. This was just common sense. Garion96 (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

article

)

Please advise how to undelete BaldwinBros.jpg and my accompanying notes. I thought that I had indicated that this was Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License like my other recent image contributions, but if not, please let me know how to fix this. The Admin who deleted this image (East718) says on his talk page: I am inactive due to health reasons; if you have an urgent inquiry, it's best that you contact another administrator. George Church (talk) 12:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• At least one of the images used in the collage has no copyright information (Stephen Baldwin), so you cannot use it. Also, the one on flickr is licensed with Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 License (rather than 3). I'm afraid that unless you can clear those issues up, it's unlikely this will be undeleted. Note: you did not include a copyright tag according to the history of the image page. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The image description page said it was merged from individual Wikipedia photos. Can you point out which ones?
  talk) 13:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• The photo of Stephen seems to have copyright info i.e. Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.5. Or perhaps I'm missing something about this and/or the 2.0 license for William? My image description page was explicit about crediting the 4 images -- all of which are still (undeleted) in wikimedia. Furthermore, the merged image should be acceptable since each of the individual images was from a thumbnail. Is it possible to edit my original page text, so that I can try to bring it up to wikimedia standards? I'm willing to classify it under whichever license is acceptable. Thanks, George Church (talk) 12:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not the question; can you please specify the exact name of the original images that you created this one from?
    talk) 16:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• The four images from left to right (& chronological) order are:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alec_Baldwin_by_David_Shankbone.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Beaufelton.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:William_Baldwin_at_the_60th_Academy_Awards_cropped.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stephen_Baldwin_LF.jpg George Church (talk) 17:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If those are correct It seems to me to be a problem. The first image no problem assuming you correctly attribute where it came from. The second image is non-free used under the fair use doctrine, you have no rights to use this image and issue it under any license (It would be a nice end run around anybodies copyright if you could just include it in a montage, and claim your own licensing on it). The third is under CC2 Attribution - which states "For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work", without seeing the way your image was tagged I can't tell but this is a horrible mix of licensing terms you couldn't just put your own license on it. The final image as the first, provided it has correct attribution probably not an issue. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not trying to put my "own license on it", I'm just trying to illustrate a wiki article using wiki images. If the four images are adjacent on a wiki page with their own frames, is that OK? If the frames are not evident is that OK? Can they all be used as thumbnails under fair use? Thanks, George Church (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know it's possible to put multiple images together closely, although I'm not sure exactly how it's done. However, while the third image can be used with any other image as long as the creator is attributed, the first and fourth are incompatible with each other, and the second is non-free. Therefore I endorse the deletion as the licenses are not compatible.
    talk) 10:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • {{
      double image}} and related templates. --NE2 19:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • As the image has been restored, I can now see it. Regardless of the intent at the moment the copyright status as represented on the page is misleading to say the least, it says in a nice banner for permissions "This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.", however people aren't free to use it under that license. There is doesn't seem to be any creative element in pasting the four image together, so you probably have no copyright interest in it at all, not even in the collective work. For the other images the original licensing isn't particularly obvious nor is which images relate to which link you give, given the links can break I would have thought relying on that rather than detail of which is which and under what terms seems risky to me. Although in theory there is nothing wrong with putting images together in this way rather than through markup it makes the correct licensing difficult to document properly when the licenses aren't compatible, and in terms of the fairuse image it is likely probablematic under the NFCC criteria 1 of "No free equivelant", it may succeed for use showing the TV show itself but for illustrating the individual likely fails. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a relevant conversation on my talkpage about this: user talk:east718#BaldwinBros.jpg. — east718 | talk | 12:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The AfD for this article was pretty divided, without any clear consensus, but it was nevertheless closed as delete. I think the subject is quite notable based on extensive press coverage: Google News currently gives me 3,627 results. (The deleted version of the article can be seen here in my userspace.) Everyking (talk) 07:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• While AFD is not a direct vote, there were 16 in favour of deletion and 12 in favour of retention of the article, and four of the keeps would customarily be discounted as coming from IPs. In these circumstances, the closing administrator should consider the strength of the arguments, whether they were motivated by policy or contrary to it, and close based on this. Mr. Z-man did exactly that — he observed correctly in his closure that Wikipedia is not a memorial, and as such it's correct to give less weight to !votes which mention only that the article should be kept as a memorial, or just say "keep per above". As such, I endorse deletion.
  talk) 09:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• The article was userfied Everyking's userspace. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I wouldn't have discounted only anons. Schuym1's comment was not helpful either. I think we should follow the common procedure here and work towards merging the article about the person with the event. Frankly, I'm shocked that so many people chose to express an extreme opinion when the middle road could have satisfied both parties at least to some extent. (Only the last commenter commented how they thought a redirect to be unsuitable, most delete voters didn't even seem to have considered it) With the material already userfied, I think the appropriate thing is to ask the closer for a merge outcome. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the Black Friday article is too broad in scope to incorporate much of this content; however, perhaps an article could be written specifically about the stampede, or about the 2008 Black Friday, and that way it would be less vulnerable to "memorial" complaints. Everyking (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I could go for one about Black Friday 2008, even though you run the risk of running a coach and four through
      talk) 18:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]

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

No clear keep for this AfD. At best, no consensus, and likely could/should have been relisted. Attempt to discuss with closing admin resulted in him telling me his views of

• Comment as closing admin. A discussion with me prior to DRV was held, and is appreciated. The requester here seems to want a keep close reverted to no consensus. No consensus is a keep close, so there is really nothing to do, is there? If it would somehow generate holiday cheer, I'd gladly reclassify the closing as no consensus, in which case we'd have to immediately go to the article and do nothing, in order to implement that really important change. But lets discuss it here for 5 days first, just to really make sure such a drastic change is what we really want. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between no consensus and keep, particularly in how the article is treated after. No consensus leaves it eligible for quick renomination, particularly if no work is done to improve or establish real notability, while keep means it shouldn't be renominated for at least 6 months. I asked you to consider no-consensus, but you indicated that you felt it was clearly keep because you felt the deletion votes were ignorable (which they were not). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it is illogical to nominate articles for deletion under the premise that their subjects are not notable, and then to argue that notability is not a policy. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 05:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Notability has never been a policy. That doesn't stop it from being a core reason for deletion. As an admin closing deletion debates, I'd hope you would be familiar with

WP:CORP and so forth)".-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

It is illogical to use

WP:N is not a policy. It is speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Yes, I am familiar with the guidelines you listed; I hope that was never in question... keep the discussion about articles/processes and not about editors/admins, please. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 17:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Can you please point specifically where I said that because

WP:N isn't a policy it isn't a valid keep reason? The only note I said about N being policy was in response to YOUR statement saying it was. Apparently you added additional context where there was none.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment I haven't looked at the AfD or the article yet but I would like to note here that I am a big fan of people bringing deletion discussions here to discuss a possible process issue that doesn't impact the discussion outcome. The spirit and letter of the DRV 'policy' tells us that process review is the most important part of DRV and that changing the outcome should be secondary. For what should be obvious reasons, most of the decisions reviewed here are primarily concerned with outcome, not process (though an alleged mishandling of the process resulted in the outcome contested). That's my speech. :) </soapbox> Protonk (talk) 05:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment probably just a side note, but the article creator himself noted that he wanted it deleted and was surprised the AfD closed as a keep.[33] -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The closer's statement and reasoning was adequate. While we are reviewing process though, we may note that the nominator started attempting to delete the article within 21 minutes of its creation and failed to follow the helpful process laid out at
  the mote and the beam seems applicable. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

As usual, you presume to know what I did or did not do, and presume to know anything about the history behind things. I did not find any of those "sources" to be anything more than trivial mentions of him as the spokesperson for the company he works for, rather than significant coverage about him as a person, and I discussed with the creator that creating this article had been considered months ago. As for what you added...uh huh...a minor note on his Pulse's editorial policy (which has nothing to do with him as a person) and a minor note that he wrote something somewhere about smoking dope. Uh huh...-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure. No consensus would turn into a keep anyway, so it's dysfunctional to overturn on that basis. If someone raises an issue at a later nomination that it was closed as keep previously, then feel free to point them at this DRV.
  talk) 09:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Endorse. I think the close is correctly founded.
  ^TalkQu 22:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Hello, I created the article

Hi Outdepth. Take a look at

reliable sources about the band. --Aude (talk) 22:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

It's in point 1 of the link you give. Allmusic.com and Pitchfork Media (3 million visitors monthly) are reliable and relevant neutral sources? I thought they were good enough as a ref to specify if a band is relevant enough or aren't those not good enough? Outdepth (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the page. Pitchfork Media seems to be acceptable for establishing notability, though you should also see if the band has coverage in other sources, for example, the

Village Voice or such that covers music in NYC. --Aude (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Ben Alekzsander Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

I strongly feel that this page should be kept! It was nominated for deletion early on when there wasn't many references etc so the page looked abit blank and users were saying Delete. But after it was cleaned up and made to look professional and had very detailed references, a few users demanded it was kept. Ben has his own page on IMDB and was a character on a television programme so I feel, as well as the other users who wanted it kept, it should stay.

From looking at other articles that are nominated for deletion, this page is miles more notable from the others. Some just look boring and have no references whatsoever and yet are still being 'kept'. I strongly recommened this page is looked at again and then un-deleted.

Thankyou x CrackersTeam (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted - looking at the deleted revisions, I do see some claims of notability, but they're tenuous at best, and there were no irregularities in the AFD that I could see. I'd have closed as delete as well - the subject may be on his way to being notable, but isn't there yet IMO. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Deletion review is a venue for indicating how the deletion process has been followed. It is not a chance for a second bite at the cherry to explain why the article should be kept.
  talk) 22:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion; inadequate assertion of notability; proper determination was made based on available information. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 06:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - AFD closure looks fine and DRV is not AFD round 2. No prejudice against re-creating if and when multiple reliable sources satisfying
  WP:RS can be found that assert the subject's notability. Wiw8 (talk) 22:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julian Tempest (talk • contribs) 15:29, 19 December 2008

• This page wasn't deleted, only redirected. The content's in the
  talk) 16:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

IfD

)

There is a lengthy discussion at the nomination, centring on

The same issues are raised at

In fact the Katherine Nash article was slightly edited in the course of the discussion, such that the nominator User:PhilKnight came back to say "the article now at least mentions the artwork in the main body of text, which largely overcomes the deletion reasoning". Nonetheless, he did not withdraw it, and the close was as delete regardless. See below for subsequent discussion between the closer and User:Ty. Johnbod (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed with the above, the deletion seems uncalled for because the consensus at the long discussion seemed to basically favor keeping the image pending certain information being added to the article. That was done, and acknowledged by User:PhilKnight the nominator; and logic, goodwill and an understanding of the FU need and use of recent (20th century) and (21st century) works of Visual Arts would have mandated a keep in this case....Modernist (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn as Keep Reading through the debate, it is clear that the closer simply decided which "side" he agreed with more, as opposed to looking at the consensus of the discussion. The majority of editors were clearly in favor of keeping it, especially considering the nominators near-withdrawal at the end of the discussion. However, XFDs are not votes, but based on the strength of the arguments. If I had closed this, I would have discounted the first keep vote as pretty irrelevant. However, the other keep votes, as seen through the lengthy back-and-forth that resulted from the first delete vote, are all well-thought-out interpretations of policy. The modifications of the article clearly address the concerns raised by those advocating deletion, meaning that this should have resulted in a clear Keep decision. I'd be interested to see a more in-depth rationale from the closing admin.--
  the Orphanage 01:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • For others who might be interested, that rationale is
    the Orphanage 01:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Overturn as keep on the basis that this was the consensus based on policy argument, or at the least there was no consensus. I append a post I made to
  Wikipedia:Nfc#Images#7. Ty 02:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The image was in an article about Katherine Nash, an artist, and the only reason for the existence of the article is because of the art she has done. The removal of the image means there is no example of her work in the article. Surely an image of an artist's work by definition will increase the reader's understanding and not having one will again by definition be detrimental to that understanding. Without an image, the reader has to imagine what her art looks like, and this is bound to be inaccurate.

The article says she is best known for computer art. This will bring to the normal reader's mind the kind of art which nowadays comes under that classification, which is highly sophisticated image manipulation as can be seen in a google image search for computer art. Nash's work comes from an earlier period and is of a primitive nature that bears very little resemblance to what people nowadays think of as computer art. Not showing an example of it will be greatly misleading for anyone who reads the article.

You made a comment: "There is no supported critical commentary on the image that makes it significant to the article." This is not related to the deletion link given of

Wikipedia:Nfc#Images

:

7. Paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school.

There is a referenced statement in the article, which specifically cites the image:

ART 1 output, like Rain Pattern, No. 3 from 1969, was an early example of not writing algorithms to produce art but of instead creating art with software.

Surely this image passes the NFC criterion of illustrating a particular technique. I note that after this text was added to the article, the nom User:PhilKnight said:

the article now at least mentions the artwork in the main body of text, which largely overcomes the deletion reasoning.

This is effectively a withdrawal of the nom.

In the light of the above, I feel that deletion was not the right outcome of the debate, and lessens rather than improves worth of the encyclopedia.

I wonder whether you would be prepared to take another look at this.

Ty 13:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no guideline or policy I am aware of that states an example of an artists work should appear in an article about the artist or that by definition having an image of the art will increase the reader's understanding and not having one will again by definition be detrimental to that understanding. The general requirement that a non-free image have referenced critical commentary to support use of the image. If this image is as important a work as claimed then there should be ample references to take from and create a good sized paragraph about the image itself that would make the image significant to the article or create an article about the image like

talk 23:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. While I'm aware that some users consider this an optional step, I would appreciate if the nominator could please explain why he omitted it (or, if there was a discussion that I missed, point it out)?
  talk) 09:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Um, you will find it immediately above your post on this very page. Ty 10:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I should have mentioned this in the nom & have now added it. It is copied in full by Ty above. Johnbod (talk) 13:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I guess I missed that one. Overturn to keep, because that's what the consensus was for.

    talk) 16:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

    ]

• Overturn and keep per Ty. His citing policy and explicitly giving reasoning why the image enhances understanding of this particular artist are convincing. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Keep per Ty. His reasoning was sound, and the decision to close as delete in the face of a clear consensus to keep and good policy arguments supporting that consensus seems baffling. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
• Endorse deletion (from deleting admin) Although
  talk 04:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Does this mean that you don't think the image was "illustrative of a particular technique or school"? If a "group of editors", who include several of the most experienced editors in the visual arts field, say that it was, don't you think that your dissenting view deserves a rather fuller rationale? You seem to miss the sense of the word "illustrative". You are no doubt correct in falling back on "past opinions from admins at deletion review", but I note with interest that you don't make any attempt to reconcile these decisions with the actual policy and guidelines, as quoted in the debate and above. Johnbod (talk) 04:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the article that leads me believe that this image is "illustrative of a particular technique or school." It looks like it was more of an interesting output of a computer program. If several of the most experienced editors in the visual arts field can only substantiate one line of text about the image, why would I believe it is significant? The sentence is not even critical commentary, but a simple factual statement. It does not matter what Wikipedia editors say because that is original research. It matters what is verifiable from reliable resources. If the bar is to be set this low for allowing non-free images, so be it, but right now, I do not believe it is. -

talk 16:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• As has already been pointed out above, the relevant passage, which is referenced, reads (fuller version):

In 1970, Nash then of the University of Minnesota and Richard H. Williams then of the University of New Mexico and later the University of Minnesota published Computer Program for Artists: ART 1. The authors described three approaches an artist might take to use computers in art:

• The artist can become a
  software engineer
• Artists and software engineers can cooperate, or
• The artist can use existing software. At that time, ART 1 existed and she chose this path.^[1]

ART 1 output, like Rain Pattern, No. 3 from 1969, was an early example of not writing algorithms to produce art but of instead creating art with software.^[2]

You appear to be using your own judgement, over-riding the references to decide it is not art but "more of an interesting output of a computer program". This is not appropriate behaviour. "The sentence is not even critical commentary, but a simple factual statement" sets up a dichotomy which is not sustainable. Most critical commentary will consist of "simple factual statements" - if not, what? On the other hand several of the statements might be disputed by some as not purely factual. Johnbod (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) ::::Your statement validates that it is "illustrative of a particular technique", since you say it is "an interesting output of a computer program" and the technique used is a computer program. It is significant because the one line of text makes a significant statement, namely that the method used was "an early example" of a particular approach. You say editors "can only substantiate one line of text about the image". What is your evidence for that? There are actually several lines dealing with the artist's approach, but, disregarding that, the fact that more information has not been added to date does not mean that it cannot be added. Articles evolve and there is more information available in the references. What you call "a simple factual statement" is, as I have pointed out below, critical commentary. To define this computer output as art is the most significant value judgement about it that can be made. It is not a "factual statement" that this is art: it is a factual statement that it is computer output of marks in a certain arrangement. It is the critical commentary that defines it as something other than a doodle. Moreover the definition of "critical commentary" is "including images illustrative of a particular technique" (my emphasis), i.e. if an image illustrates a particular technique, then it is considered to be a form of critical commentary. This is presumably because there is an implicit critical judgement involved in using it this way. If you think that editors saying an image is "illustrative of a particular technique or school" is original research, then saying an image is not "illustrative of a particular technique or school" is equally original research. The editors who say it is illustrative have the verification to back up their opinion, namely the source from which the image was taken in the first place, as stated on the image page.[35] Ty 18:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are several lines dealing with the computer program ART 1, but only one line commenting on the non-free image itself. When the article evolves and more information about the image itself is added then use of the image should be reconsidered. If half the energy expended in defending use of this image had been put toward researching and writing real commentary on the image, we might not be having this discussion in the first place. -

talk 04:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

You have not acknowledged that images are valid if they are illustrative of a technique: there does not have to be comment on the specific image, which in this case is not important as a unique case, but as representative of a genre. We might not be having this discussion if IfD were not an automatic recourse, and instead refs were checked or there was communication with the editor who wrote the article. Ty 09:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and keep. What the article says about this work now is perhaps the largest distinction and statement that can be made about computer art. I find that deletion didn't follow from the earlier discussion, thus this one. -SusanLesch (talk) 06:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you are refering to as above

Wikipedia:Nfc#Images point 7, the list of examples of things which are typically ok (it's not the policy itself) which says "Paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school.". It doesn't say merely being illustrative is OK, it still requires critical commentary which is covered in the comment the deleter made above. The examples are just examples, they don't supercede the requirement to meet the policy itself, which still requires "Significance. 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." --82.7.39.174 (talk) 09:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

NFC#7 defines "images illustrative of a particular technique or school" as a form of critical commentary, which it is. It is common practice in art writing to define the artist's work as being in a specific genre and then to provide an image to show they way they interpret that genre. The definition of somone as an artist, as a particular kind of artist (sculptor, painter etc) and as practising in a particular genre of art (e.g. computer art) is all critical commentary. It is a value definition which has to be made by critics, as opposed, for example, to saying that Katherine Nash's computer output is just doodling and has no artistic merit. I have pointed out at some length above how seeing an example of an artist's work cannot fail to significantly increase the reader's understanding of the artist. Ty 10:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a matter of interpretation, I don't interpret it that way. Specifying if as NFC#7 is to my mind totally misleading, it's #7 of examples which generally meet the criteria, not a criteria itself. Regardless of the way you or I interpret it, or as to if it meets NFCC#8 (quite honestly I'm undecided), the deleter clearly lays out his reasoning based on the policy itself and the application of that in line with community norms. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 11:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In any case the policy requirement has been met here, as has been repeatedly explained. Are you really claiming that the image does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic"? That the text as it stands, or even if it were greatly expanded, would adequately convey what the art was like without at least one image? Johnbod (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And as has also been repeatedly explained others disagree that the policy requirement has been met, otherwise we wouldn't be here. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 18:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asserted certainly - there have been no explanations. Johnbod (talk) 19:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'd just like to remind contributors that Deletion Review is not intended to be a rehash of the Ifd. It is intended to be a study of whether the process of the original deletion was made in error or not. As I have stated above, I think the closing admin merely decided which side he agreed with, instead of determining consensus. None of his comments so far, in this DRV or elsewhere, have convinced me otherwise.--
  the Orphanage 13:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Since the

talk 13:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Numerous Images all deleted by bjweeks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

I came back to Wikipedia after years away to get 3 images deleted[36][37] that I said were my own but were actually not. The 3 copyvios were pictures of pictures and were all fuzzy and low resolution. All of my other images are obviously taken in real life, and you can can tell by the EXIF data. These pictures were all high quality and used in multiple articles. I was trying to make things right now by telling everyone exactly which pictures needed to be deleted. In his rage against me for my insulting of the admin community here [38], Bjweeks got carryed away and deleted every single image I ever uploaded[39]. 98.213.141.241 (talk) 07:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. 23:36, 12 December 2008 Bjweeks (Talk | contribs) changed block settings for Ewok Slayer (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked) ‎ (Disruptive editing)
2. 23:35, 12 December 2008 Bjweeks (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Giants Causeway Cliffs 03.JPG" ‎ (I9: Blatant copyright violation)
3. 23:35, 12 December 2008 Bjweeks (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Liberty Science Center.jpg" ‎ (I9: Blatant copyright violation)
4. 23:34, 12 December 2008 Bjweeks (Talk | contribs) deleted "File talk:Kilauea LightHouse Hawaii.jpg" ‎ (G8: Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page)
5. 23:34, 12 December 2008 Bjweeks (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Kilauea LightHouse Hawaii.jpg" ‎ (I9: Blatant copyright violation)
6. 23:33, 12 December 2008 Bjweeks (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:ClearLake.jpg" ‎ (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup)
7. 23:33, 12 December 2008 Bjweeks (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Ugly Brute Brazil Woodcarving.jpg" ‎ (I9: Blatant copyright violation)
8. 23:33, 12 December 2008 Bjweeks (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:800px-Niagara falls in dark 2.jpg" ‎ (I9: Blatant copyright violation)
9. 23:32, 12 December 2008 Bjweeks (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Grand Falls NB.JPG" ‎ (I9: Blatant copyright violation)
10. 23:32, 12 December 2008 Bjweeks (Talk | contribs) deleted "File talk:Giants Causeway Organ.jpg" ‎ (G8: Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page)
11. 23:32, 12 December 2008 Bjweeks (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Giants Causeway Organ.jpg" ‎ (I9: Blatant copyright violation)
12. 23:32, 12 December 2008 Bjweeks (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Happy Sheep.jpg" ‎ (I9: Blatant copyright violation)
13. 23:21, 12 December 2008 Bjweeks (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Hopewell Rocks Main.jpg" ‎ (I9: Blatant copyright violation)
14. 23:21, 12 December 2008 Bjweeks (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Hopewell Rocks Flowerpot.jpg" ‎ (I9: Blatant copyright violation)
15. 23:20, 12 December 2008 Bjweeks (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Aralship2 copy.jpg" ‎ (I9: Blatant copyright violation)

If needed for verification, I have the originals (I have uploaded three here [40] ) and other pictures in the series.

Side Note: In the process of trying to get these images deleted, I got into arguments with other editors[41]. In their rage against me, admins have blocked another user[42] with whom I have never had any contact because he spoke up in support of me.[43] I have never used sockpuppets, and found this new attack almost funny for its shear absurdity.

• Speedy close, more trolling by banned user
  talk) 09:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn User was blocked, not banned as far as I can remember, but that is totally irrelevant. Their block was for using an image in a signature. Unless the deleting admin can show where these supposed violations were taken from, there's no evidence these images were actually a blatant copyright violation (the underlined part is important). Unless it is absolutely clear (with a link that shows it's an unequivocal copyvio), it should be discussed properly rather than speedied. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with that much; I'd have been more likely to PUI them myself (and I have on occasion PUI-ed a user's entire Image namespace contribution list).
    talk) 09:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Overturn per comments by MacGyverMagic. Whilst I appreciate that finding a few copyright violations in a user's uploads requires close inspection of their other uploads, I'm not able to see why these are "blatantly" copy vios. The images which the uploader highlighted as copyright violations are clearly of a very different style to the others. Trolling or not, I assume these images were used in article so ultimately our readers might be being disadvantaged by these deletions so it is right to take the time to consider these more carefully. Adambro (talk) 12:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion of all. There is no meaningful way to seperate out the "good" images from the "bad" given the uploaders poor track record of incorrectly claiming as his own images that were already copyright. Given that the uploader has proven, beyond all reasonable bounds of good faith, that his statements about whether or not he owned the copyright on the images he uploaded, I don't see how we can accept any of his images. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  There are three ways to tell the images apart:

  1. The copyvios where all fuzzy, low resolution and had EXIF data that indicated they were inside close up shots (pictures of pictures), not outside long distance shots.
  2. I have the originals of all images available on request as well as other images from the same series.
  3. I am telling you exactly which ones are and which ones are not copyvios. I could have just said nothing and avoided all this drama, but I didn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.141.241 (talk) 01:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - all should remain deleted given risk of copyright violation. While I accept that some may not be copyright violations, I think it is correct to leave these deleted given the problems already caused around this editor's images. Once the editor's block has expired he can then reupload those which are suitable for WP, with correct copyright statements. As he still has the originals, this wouldn't be a large or difficult piece of work.
  ^TalkQu 14:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Comment What's the point in requiring him to reupload these images? He's already said which images are copyright violations and which aren't and until if and when he does decide to reupload his images our readers suffer because these images are missing. Bjweeks' position seems to be that because he incorrectly uploaded some copyright violations then all his images are "blatant copyright violations" despite them being clearly of a different style to those the uploader asked to be deleted. The deletion of these images is clearly not valid under CSD I9, "Images that are claimed by the uploader to be images with free licenses when this is obviously not the case." This simply isn't an accurate claim to make. It is not uncommon for users to misunderstand copyright issues and mistakenly upload images which they shouldn't. We should be thanking this user for bringing those images to our attention, not deleting every single upload under CSD I9 when that speedy deletion criteria is clearly inappropriate. It seems some of those who have commented here are endorsing the deletion to keep the images deleted rather than because the deletion was valid. The primary concern here should be whether the deletion was carried out properly in accordance with our policies, not whether the images should be deleted, that is a different issue. They should be undeleted and, if their deletion is considered appropriate it should go through the proper channels,

  Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images or similar. Adambro (talk) 14:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Endorse: A few bad apples can ruin an entire bushel. seicer | talk | contribs 14:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Before anyone very inappropriately considers closing this as a scorched earth, can his repeated claim of the handful of images having the "low quality" vs "good quality" thing be confirmed? Just hate to lose valid content, just in case.
  T) 14:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  The uploader mentions three images which are copy vios, I can only find two of these, not sure what the third one is called. Of the two File:Hopewell Rocks Low Tide.jpg is 486×365 and File:Hopewell Rocks High Tide.jpg is 524×365, both aren't very sharp and generally are of low quality. Looking at the others:

  1. File:Giants Causeway Cliffs 03.JPG 1,600×1,200 sharp, higher quality
  2. File:Liberty Science Center.jpg 1,563×578 higher quality
  3. File:Kilauea LightHouse Hawaii.jpg 1,312×2,024 sharp, higher quality
  4. File:ClearLake.jpg said to be from usbr.gov, deleted as "G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup", it isn't immediately obviously why
  5. File:Ugly Brute Brazil Woodcarving.jpg 1,590×1,500 higher quality
  6. File:800px-Niagara falls in dark 2.jpg 787×348, crop of File:Niagara falls in dark.jpg (PD)
  7. File:Grand Falls NB.JPG 1,200×1,600, higher quality
  8. File:Giants Causeway Organ.jpg 1,200×1,600 higher quality
  9. File:Happy Sheep.jpg 1,291×1,072 higher quality
  10. File:Hopewell Rocks Main.jpg 1,600×1,200 higher quality
  11. File:Hopewell Rocks Flowerpot.jpg 1,191×1,173 higher quality
  12. File:Aralship2 copy.jpg 709×1,039 higher quality

  From this quick comparison, my suggestion is that the other images which were deleted are quite distinguishably different from those which the uploader highlighted as copyright violations. In the case of File:800px-Niagara falls in dark 2.jpg, this turns out to be a crop of another public domain image although this wasn't mentioned on the page so it isn't immediately obvious. If all of these images were very similar to the copyright violations then I might accept the use of CSD I9. It is unfortunate that the current situation means we can't have a more comprehensive discussion about this issue since the images are only available to admins. Adambro (talk) 15:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I've found the third image. It was originally uploaded here but deleted when it was moved to Commons. This has now been deleted per the uploaders comments that it is a copyright violation. The discussion is at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Confederation Bridge whole length from air.jpg. That image is, although a higher resolution than the other two copy vios at 1,310×692 can be seen to not be particularly sharp, and of course with it being taken from the air it distinguishes itself as not your everday photograph. Adambro (talk) 15:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore File:800px-Niagara falls in dark 2.jpg as a crop of a PD image, which is allowable as far as I know, per User:Adambro above. No Opinion on other images. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

  The license given for that image was gfdl-self.

  Talk 12:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Yes, so? Adambro (talk) 14:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Then the image was mistagged and didn't give an original source. Should be reuploaded to commons regardless.

  Talk 08:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  For an image released as public domain, GFDL seems a perfectly valid license for a crop and it isn't required to cite the original source. Adambro (talk) 09:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I note that the images are variously from a canon powershot A20, A520 and A40. I can't find any copies on the web that show the normal webscraping type of copyvio but this often means little. The user could solve the issue, and remove doubt, by uploading the original resolution, unphotoshopped version of a couple of them - if they are self made this would answer the question. Nothing else I think can answer if these are truly not copyvios - Peripitus (Talk) 04:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay Here goes: Download Link [44] include three original images

  1. Liberty Science Center img_1638
  2. Hopewell Flowerpot Rocks img_1969
  3. Happy Sheep img_1104

  Please note that this is a lot of trouble for me to do, because I have to try and remember what each image looked like and then search for it in my multi-gigabyte archives. My images are not named at all, simply numbered sequentially, hence the img_1969.jpg and so forth.--98.213.141.241 (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]