Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 24

24 March 2011

Rosecrance – Allow recreation. I am willing to userfy if Billykulpa believes it to be helpful. – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Rosecrance (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore) Three arguments were made in deleting the article: Relevancy, conflict of interest and unambiguous advertising or promotion. I was told that I have a conflict of interest, but I was the one who disclosed the conflict in the first place. I don't believe this merits automatic deletion of the article - which is what appears to have happened. Because I have a stake in the topic doesn't mean I didn't or can't write an objective, fact-based entry. In fact, I'm arguing that my stake in the company makes me particularly informed and qualified to write about it. No evidence of conflict of interest compromising the integrity of the article was cited. There was no loaded language, and no request to correct an ambiguous or unreferenced fact was made. On the other hand, if the Rosecrance entry was deleted because a lack of relevancy, there are thousands of people affected by the company each week. What makes this company, with a nearly 100 year history and tens of millions of dollars in annual revenues, any less relevant than companies (for example) like About.com or News Chief. Rosecrance is covered by objective, third-party media outlets on a regular basis. It has appeared in the Rockford Register Star five times this month already. The company also has been featured on Oprah (see related sources section) and in Addiction Professional. Billykulpa (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC) Endorse deletion of the original article. However, the subject of the article does appear at first glance to be notable, but the article would need a substantial rewrite in order to become of encyclopaedic value. The original article was certainly rather promotional in tone - in fact, all but two sentences were simply detailing the services it provides - and therefore eligible for speedy deletion. In order to bring this up to standard, we would need more information on the company (its history, structure etc - more than just its services), and it would need to be well referenced with most, if not all, of its references coming from third-party sources. I hope this helps, and good luck. —BETTIA— talk 16:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC) Thank you for the information. I have a lot of history on the company, but thought that felt more gratuitous than simply stating what the company actually does. To rewrite, do I simply undo the deletion and start making the necessary changes? Billykulpa (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC) Please wait for the conclusion of the DRV. I have deleted this for now. I (or any other admin) would also be happy to userfy it (that, to move it to a subpage of your userpage) so you can work on it while the DRV is running. Chick Bowen 01:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC) If the original article was so substantially bad and unsourced, just make a new article from scratch in your user space - use sources. At the conclusion of the DRV, move the article from your user draft into the main project. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Clear_Skies_(machinima) – Recreation Permitted with sources. Listing at AFD can be left to random chance. – Spartaz Humbug! 05:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Clear_Skies_(machinima) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Hastily deleted prior to receiving many accolades and awards from festivals and machinima review sites CraziFuzzy (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC) This article was deleted over 2¾ years ago. If they've become more notable since then, just recreate the article. Stifle (talk) 14:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC) Okay, I wasn't sure about recreating a previously deleted article, regardless of time since it was deleted. The original deleting admin is no longer active, so i came here. CraziFuzzy (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Architects'_Alliance_of_Ireland – Restored and listed at AFD – Spartaz Humbug! 05:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Architects'_Alliance_of_Ireland (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore) The deletion of the article was justified as follow: A7 (No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content): Also WP:COATRACK, WP:CSD#G10, and what-not): I have created the article “Architects’ Alliance of Ireland” that was deleted without warning and without starting any discussion. I guess it is called a speedy deletion. The article was online since September last year. I am trying not to be offended, but I feel that the deletion of the article was inappropriate and not properly justified. I approached the administrator User:Stifle but he refused to give any more details dispited not having any valid reason for deleting the article. First I want to say that Architects’ Alliance of Ireland was created in reaction to an injustice which seen many self-taught architects in trouble within the Republic of Ireland. The Architects’ Alliance of Ireland views are not shared by most registered architects. There is conflict between the Alliance and the RIAI. This conflict is reflected on Wikipedia as it is core with the subject. The same issue is true in any article with a disputed subject. I can give the following example which I am aware of: Church of Scientology - Iraq war - Jacque Fresco to quote only 3 of them. With reference to A7, the subject significance is well detailed in the article. Many press articles about the association were provided as well as links to political debates on the subject. Can the administrator explain explain why this is not significant? With Reference to WP:COATRACK, the subject is well centered to the association and its actions. There is nothing else behind it. If the administrator pretends that the article was created for another purpose than to inform on Architects’ Alliance and its actions, please give details. The administrator is the first and only person to make such a claim. With reference to WP:CSD#G10, the article never threaten anyone. Architects’ Alliance has a critical approach on the registration procedure in Ireland, it is critical of the RIAI, it denunciates wrong doing and injustice, but it does not threaten. Legal procedure were started but the article only states that they were started it does not threaten to start a procedure. If you have found material that threatens anyone please give detail. Stiffe there are surely some improvement to be made within this article, but I think that your deletion was inappropriate because your reasons for deletions are not founded. I have also noted that you deleted the “critics” section of the RIAI article without any valuable reason. I perceive your act as a censorship and I suspect that your opinion on the subject is partial. Christophe Krief (talk) 13:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC) Endorse own deletion, the AAI is attempting to poison the well and spread negativity about the legally approved official architects' association (the RIAI) through the different media. This is essentially a club of people rejected by the RIAI and has no independent notability. Stifle (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC) AAoI is the association that we are talking about Stiffe, AAI refer to another group. Architects' Alliance of Ireland is a legal association. It includes over one hundred and something members. I used to be a member of the association but resigned when I found myself taking other routes. However, the association has now a reputation within the architectural world in Ireland. It represents and speaks for many non-registered practitioners as well as its members. Through their website you can access videos of a political debate that their action has helped to induce in the Dail. Many important political figures were present, including newly nominated ministers such as Hogan and Quinn. The association was the subjects of many articles, including some in the Law Society of Ireland gazette. Maybe you should read these articles before challenging the significance of AAoI. You seem to be taking the subject lightly. Why didn't you propose the article for deletion and start a discussion? Why have you deleted it without asking for more information when you are obvioulsy not well informed on the subject. You must admit that your way of action is very suspicious. --Christophe Krief (talk) 14:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC) AAoI This article was deleted without any warning or notice. A dozen or more of people have participated to drafting it. Is it normal that it shall be deleted so fast on the decision of only one person who is not well informed about the subject? AAoI is notable in the field of architecture only in Ireland only. I understand that this is a restricted area, but if you compare visits to the RIAI (Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland) wiki article with visits to the AAoI wiki article, you will see that the RIAI does not have more readers than the AAoI. The Article is significant to those based in Ireland and practicing architecture. It is notable and relevant to Irish Architecture. I have cheked all these issues prior to create the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christophe Krief (talk • contribs) 14:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC) Undelete and send to AFD if you must. The article itself makes a reasonable claim of significance, and the independent press coverage makes clear that the claim of significance is credible. The suggestion of a G10 basis for deletion is quite troubling; many political action groups are formed in opposition to government action, either actual or anticipated, and criticism of those favoring the action is both common and frequently legitimate (which is not to say correct; but we don't deem a political viewpoint illegitimate simply because consensus may be against it. Adam Smith said, after all, "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices," and the "attack" component of the deleted page is a far milder version of the same sentiment in a specific context. There are certainly routine editing issues with the deleted text, but nothing justifying speedy deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC) Undelete I think that you deserve your Barnstar of Integrity (Hullaballoo Wolfowitz), I hope that other administrators will read the article and the links. AAoI maybe insignificant worldwide, but in the field of Irish architecture they are volunteers trying to outline all the injustice that many, including myself, are confronted too. They are volunteers who defend the cause of Irish self-taught architects in front of highly paid representatives of the Royal Institute. I hope that the article will be back online and that others will support its retrieval.--Christophe Krief (talk) 16:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC) You've already made your position clear by nominating here; you don't get a second !vote. Stifle (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC) Sorry, I am new to this type of procedure, but can I ask why you are entitled to vote when you have already made your position by deleting the article? Your !vote is no more neutral than mine...--Christophe Krief (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC) It's about expressing an opinion in this venue. The assumption is that as nominator you wish the decision to be changed, no such assumption exists about the person who closed the original debate/speedy deleted or whatever. So you get your "vote" by listing it here, others by listing an opinion here. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC) OK, I understand. How long will the vote last? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christophe Krief (talk • contribs) 20:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC) About seven days, unless something happens to cause an early closure (e.g. you withdraw your request, or some other event happens that makes the outcome quite inevitable). The relatively long discussion is to try to gather as many views and arguments as possible, and to allow people to reply to each other. The theory is that we're reasonable people and will modify our positions based on the arguments we read so as to move towards consensus. It does sometimes work.—S Marshall T/C 22:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC) Thanks for your information. I was hoping to have it back online by tomorrow... Undelete I am taken aback by this. I think the article not only provides an indication of the importance of the organisation but it makes rather a strong claim. By my standards it comes nowhere close to being an attack page although some of the criticisms should be more firmly based in the claims of the organisation and reliable sources and certainly not in Wikipedia's voice. As for the coatrack guideline, the polemic material is explained to be that of the organisation described and it does not obscure that the article is about the organisation itself. These shortcomings would be appropriate for discussion at the article's talk page but are certainly not criteria for speedy deletion. As for "what-not", I know not a whit. Thincat (talk) 18:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC) Thanks for your help referencing the article Thincat. I will not bother your talk page with this, but thank you.--Christophe Krief (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC) List at AfD. I won't go so far as to say "overturn" because I'm not at all convinced that Stifle is wrong, but part of DRV's role is to provide FairProcess when a good faith user asks for it, so it's not unreasonable to let the community decide at a full discussion. I'd advise those wishing to keep the article to get their reliable sources ready for that debate, though.—S Marshall T/C 20:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC) I think that there are many reliable sources in the article, but more can be added. There are additional press release that are missing from the deleted article, there is also an official video published by the association on youtube about the Dail meeting. I may be able to gather more sources, but I think that those already published with the deleted article are already proving the notability of the subject. I think that the issue here is more related to censorship, but I admit also that some of the phrasing can be improved and I hope that I will be given this opportunity and that other editors will participate to higher the quality of the article. --Christophe Krief (talk) 20:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) Well, I don't think the cached version of the article contains the right sources. On Wikipedia, reliable sources means sources that are independent of the subject. You need at least two sources which are (a) not published by AAoI, its agents, representatives or officers, (b) subject to fact-checking and editorial control and (c) actually about the AAoI; if you don't have two such sources then the chances are high that the article would be deleted at AfD. Personally, I think your best bet would be to find a couple of newspaper or magazine articles about them. As far as I can see, the sources in the cached version of the article all fail at least one of these criteria, which is why I advised you to prepare your sources for the debate. You're certainly not being censored, but you've said that several times now and I wonder if you might not be a bit confused about the subject. You have freedom of speech. But your freedom of speech doesn't let you write on someone else's wall. Wikipedia is someone else's wall—it belongs to the Wikimedia foundation—and they only let you write on it if you comply with their rules. There is an onus on you to show that sources meeting Wikipedia's criteria can be found and used as the basis for an article, and if such sources aren't forthcoming then our rules say that we shouldn't have an article at all.—S Marshall T/C 22:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC) I am talking about censorship because this article should not have been the subject of a speedy deletion. Its deletion should have been discussed while the article was online. In this sense there is surely censorship issues here, the article should be online as wiki rules for speedy deletion do not apply. I noticed that some pages were deleted (as the wikipedia article by the way). I have requested explanations from a website named archiseek where many conversations about the issue were raised. The conversations were removed without any good reason it seems. I just realised that the parliamentary debate was also removed. However, there are 2 articles for the Irish Times and one from the Irish Independent which are still accessible. Would you know if a video of the Dail meeting officially filmed by the Government would be a reliable source if uploaded on Youtube by AAoI?--Christophe Krief (talk) 22:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC) Well, Wikipedia doesn't generally rate Youtube very highly as a source, but there have been exceptions (I can think of times when a BBC programme was accepted as a reliable source after American editors watched it on Youtube). It's vital not to violate copyright, though (I don't know the copyright status of a video of proceedings of the Dail). The good news is that sources don't have to be online, they just have to be checkable by someone willing to put in a bit of effort—so, for example, if you can cite a printed source by ISBN or ISSN, then that's perfectly okay. On this specific subject I think proceedings in the Dail are probably written down somewhere that a competent librarian could read them? By analogy, I know that Hansard is a highly reliable source and I'm sure there'll be an Irish equivalent that will be just as good. Be careful with this, though—a debate in the Dail that's specifically about the AAoI would, I think, strengthen your case enormously. But if the AAoI isn't mentioned, then editors might well view this as a red herring. What exactly was said?—S Marshall T/C 23:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC) The meeting was called by Mr. Hogan TD, now minister of the Environment. There was a presentation by the spokesperson and 2 officers of AAoI and a presentation from the director of the RIAI with two of his assistants. Each part defended its views and questions from TDs were partially answered. At the end it was decided to organise a second meeting. The Building Control (amendment) Bill 2010 was drafted, but changes within the government put everything on hold. I was still a member of AAoI at the time and I was in one of the public seats. The video was published on the government's website but it is now removed. AAoI bought a copy of the video and published it on Youtube. They have also published official minutes of the meeting on their website. Honestly this article should not have been deleted, it is pure censorship. There is a newspaper, the Sunday Business Post, which was involved in repeated blanking of the AAoI article as well as the critics section on the RIAI article. I found out that the IP involved in the blanking belonged to the Sunday Business Post and I wrote to this newspaper last week asking them to stop it. I suspect, but I may be wrong, that the administrator who deleted the AAoI article is working with them.--Christophe Krief (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC) I think you mean this video, don't you? It'll take me a while to watch it and let it sink in, and I do hope we can find a transcript for editors' convenience during the discussion. I wonder whether you wouldn't be able to find one via the Wayback Machine; it's hard for someone to erase all trace of anything from the web. What's clear to me from the first few minutes of the video is that there's a committee on the Dail that takes the AAoI rather seriously. I'm 100% confident that Stifle is not working with "them" and I do urge you to withdraw all accusations of bad faith against him. From past dealings I can assure you categorically that Stifle's a reasonable man who happens to disagree with you, not a black hat agent of Them intent on persecuting you. Deletion Review is supposed to be drama-free and to concentrate on the facts.—S Marshall T/C 23:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC) Yes I mean this video... Regarding User:Stifle I never dealt with him and his intervention was sychornised with repeated blanking of the article. I am just wondering why he did not propose the article for deletion before deleting it.--Christophe Krief (talk) 00:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC) Well, it would have been possible to ask Stifle that question without accusing him of anything. Let's leave the deleting administrator alone. He may have erred—we've yet to decide that—but I'm sure he doesn't deserve the nasty things being said about him in this thread. DGG's right below when he talks about a "promotional tone" (though I profoundly disagree with his remarks about "arbitrary bias"). Wikipedia has a policy called WP:NPOV which means that articles have to have a neutral point of view. In other words, you can't just write a hatchet-job about the evil people who're trying to oppress the innocent architects, you have to write material that both sides would agree is true. A redraft wouldn't hurt. You don't need to do that now, though: right now, finding sources that would form the basis of a rewrite is the key.—S Marshall T/C 00:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC) What about part of the article related to a press release in the Sunday Business Post that has been removed by an IP belonging to this same newspaper. (see last edits IP 194.106.155.218). I think that I have undone this edit prior to the article deletion but this was not restored. Is there an issue about the section quoting the Sunday Business Post?--Christophe Krief (talk) 01:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC) A press release? If it's by someone involved, then no. We're looking for something written by a journalist.—S Marshall T/C 08:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC) It is an article written by a journalist of the Sunday Business Time which is completely biased. Someone has published the reference demonstrating how the journalist was fully misled by the RIAI. SInce then an IP from this same newspapaer is blanking the section and I have been working to restore it 2 or 3 times already. In the newly restored revision by DGG the section about this article is not appearing. I am wondering if DGG thinks that it is not appropriate content. Here is the content (it is fully referenced) you may also access it from the RIAI page: " The RIAI is accused of misleading the public about legislative issues concerning the provision of architectural services and about registration cost.[2] One of the most representative example is an article written by John Burke and published in the Sunday Business Post, where the author appears to have been fully misinformed when declaring: “The RIAI is to write to each of the 300 people trading illegally, advising them that it is a criminal offence to practise as an architect without completing the registration process, which was introduced in 2009 under the Building Control Act 2007.”[3] The RIAI frequently omits to inform the press and members of the public that it is not an offence and that it is legal to propose architectural services without being registered with the RIAI. Many of the so-called “Non-registered architects” have denunciated the regulator’s attitude consisting of undermining and criticising architectural services provided by professionals such as engineers, surveyors, technologists or self-trained professionals. The author of the article published on the 30th January 2011 was also misled on the registration cost. On this subject John Burke wrote: “Sources working in the profession said that the cost of registration, which may be as much as €1,200, and the major decline in contracted work, may have led to many architects opting to remain unregistered. “ Despite his contact with the RIAI and despite his apparent conversation with the Registrar, it seems that John Burke was never informed about the real cost of registration, which can sometimes reach a total of €14,700.[4]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christophe Krief (talk • contribs) 09:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC) Undelete, I am a member of AAoi, Chris told me about the deletion of the article. I have undone few blanking vandalism of the page before as I did on the RIAI critics section. Stifle who deleted the article says that AAoI is trying to use all media to advertise its campaign. Unfortunatly this administrator does not say that RIAI was caught doing unethical advertising on RTE. AAoI is not supported by the majority but it exists legitimaly and significantly. I would also like to say that Stifle has recently blanked the critics section of RIAI article despite many requests to discuss the issues instead of blanking. It seems that some do not want to talk about our problem, they just want to shut us down. This is the main reason for deleting this article. -- Michael Dunphy -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.130.77 (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC) Thanks for your support Michael. I don't know if your vote will count as you are a member of AAoI. Most AAoI members do not edit wikipedia, many are over 50 years old, some over 60. I think that Michael is the only AAoI member to have participated to the article.--Christophe Krief (talk) 22:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC) article history temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC) Restor, and rewrite to remove remove the promotional tone. The article is supposed to state the situation , not argue the case, and I would myself have been tempted to delete it via G11 as promotional, except that this is fixable. Optionally list at AfD--depending on what the rewrite loos like. But it is clear from the argument above that the deleting admin had a direct personal view of the merits of the argument, ("the AAI is attempting to poison the well and spread negativity about the legally approved official architects' association") and he should not have done the deletion. This is a interesting example of why admins should generally avoid deleting of the own accord, rather than acting on articles that another person has nominated. any one person has a certain propensity to misjudgment on topics they know about, and requiring two to agree makes it less likely. I see no reason to go the full sever days on this one--I think it's a snow undelete. This is the sort of arbitrary bias that makes Wikipedia disreputable; perhaps we need to protect our reputation by removing the possibility of individual admins to delete under A7--or, if it less general, removing the ability of particular admins to do so. DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC) Hi DGG, Thanks for restoring the article. I will try to improve it during the weekend. I have 2 questions, if you or someone else have time, I would appreciate your help. First, which part of the article sounds like advertising? It was criticised this way by Orangemike few months ago, but I thought to have solved this issue. I admit that I share some interests with the association subject of this article but I tried to present the subject impartially. I was hoping for decent critics to be included but only blanking or indecent remarks were proposed. Second, there is a part of the article related to a press release in the Sunday Business Post that has been removed by an IP belonging to this same newspaper. (see last edits IP 194.106.155.218). I think that I have undone this edit prior to the article deletion but my edition was not restored. Is there an issue about the section quoting the Sunday Business Post? Thanks for your help --Christophe Krief (talk) 01:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC) It's not that it's advertising so much as polemic, not a description of the AAoI so much as a campaign piece, making its case in a dispute. "The so-called Technical assessment..." "The RIAI frequently omits to inform the press..." Careful phrases like "is claimed to have" and "is accused of" fail to disguise the fact that the author has a strong point of view - the AAoI is good and right, and the RIAI is bad and wrong. This is the problem with COI editing, and the reason why it is strongly discouraged: it so hard for a combatant to step back from the battle. JohnCD (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC) I got your point but we all have our opinions. Can you be expert in a subject without having an opinion? Who would write an article on AAoI, surely not members of the RIAI and surely not those who aren't interested in Irish architecture. I wrote it because I am not anymore a member of AAoI and because I am aware of the subject. If you watch the videos of the Joint Committe on the Environament, you will find that most politicians were supporting the cause of AAoI. Is being neutral a natural attitude when an injustice is happenning before your eyes? I was hopping that members from the royal institute would express their view in the article but instead it was subject to blanking and insertions of non encyclopedic nature. Regarding "The RIAI frequently omits to inform the press...", I think that this claim is referenced with an article published in the SDP. I was aware of correspondance between the AAoI spokesperson and the SDP. I have wrote to SDP due to their repeated deletion of this insertion. This part was inserted by a non named user, maybe a member of the AAoI, I don't know. On my standards it is referenced and it is in the subject. However I have asked for more points of views on this part, thanks for giving yours. The "so-called Technical Assessment" can be replaced by "the Technical assessment" but I am afraid that the term "technical assessment" does not really reflect the nature of the examination, this is the reason for me to have added "So-called" because it is a full architectural assessment, not only a technical assessment. I would prefer to keep "so-called" if this is possible.--Christophe Krief (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC) Given the direction the discussion is taking, I will consent to speedy closing of this DRV with a listing at AFD. Stifle (talk) 09:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC) Would it be appropriate to copy and continue this deletion review in the discussion page of the article which was deleted and not restored?--Christophe Krief (talk) 09:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC) No, I shouldn't think so. Stifle's comment probably means that this deletion review will be closed, and the page will be restored, but then it will be listed as an Article for Deletion ("AfD"). The AfD discussion will be linked back to this one. If this happens it will reverse the current situation. Instead of the article being gone but you arguing for its reinstatement, the article will be there but with others arguing for its removal. AfD debates last seven days, like deletion reviews.—S Marshall T/C 12:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC) I guess that a tag will be fitted on the page to keep everyone concerned aware of the deletion proposal. I would be interested to change what some have called the advertising style of the article... But I do not see it... I will be waiting for more info on this... Thanks for all your assistance Marshall--Christophe Krief (talk) 12:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC) Undelete - Speedies and prods should be applied only for "uncontroversial deletions" and in "the most obvious cases", otherwise it should be taken to AFD for a community discussion. That we are here shows, prima facie, that this deletion was not uncontroversial or obvious. There are sufficient references to show at least an assertion of notability. Therefore as a matter of due process, the article should be fully restored. I agree with much of what DGG says, including the need to remove the promotional tone. After restoration, there are several actions that might be taken. (1) It can be left to the author to improve, an action he seems more than willing to do, (2) It could be sent to WP:INCUBATE, (3) It could be userfied, or (4) As a very last resort, sent to AfD. However, as has been said at least a million times, AfD is not for cleanup. I suggest a snow close of this DRV with undeletion. — Becksguy (talk) 10:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC) Undelete with the expectation that it will be taken to AfD very soon unless rewritten in a NPOV style, which may take someone uninvolved. Accusations of WP:COATRACK might be met by retitling it "Irish architects' registration dispute", which is its real subject. JohnCD (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC) I desagree with your new title and the WP:COATRACK. You may call the article "Irish architects' registration dispute" and in fact create a WP:COATRACK for the association's wrok. AAoI is the only group in this level of dispute with the Regsitration body. Plus the association was created because individualy members would be easy targets while using the title architect. You may also not be aware that the association includes a minority of non Irish architects. I am sorry if you find the article engaged, and I would be interested to have more details on the parts of the article that would need to be rectified. Maybe you mean that information against their position should be added. I would agree with that, and I will try to do so, but I thought that someone would add the material to balance the article rather than deleting it. Isn't wikipedia about working together? Thanks again to Thincat for all the reference work.--Christophe Krief (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC) Yes, we work together. When and if this goes to AfD I will personally help to rewrite it. The people posting here are giving their opinions at the moment, but you can rest assured that when the time comes, there are some who'll be prepared to help with the heavy lifting as well.  :) The present wording begins all right, with basic facts about the organisation, but by the end of the first paragraph it needs to say why the AAoI matters. This is sometimes called an "assertion of notability". For example, you might briefly list the AAoI's achievements so far, and say how many members it has and how many businesses it represents. The stuff about the founders is superfluous, we don't really need that. (If they're notable they should have their own articles, if not there should be less said about them). Then, however, the article goes off on a bizarre tangent because it stops talking about the AAoI at all and spends the more than half the article on an (admittedly persuasive) case statement railing against impositions made by the RIAI. That case statement belongs in Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland, and indeed I see that it's already there; it should not be duplicated here.—S Marshall T/C 19:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC) I am happy to hear that there will be some help even if I would have prefered more of you to participate right now, like Thincat. I have added a section "Critics and opposition". I was hopping that someonelse would do it for me as it is difficult to be at both ends of the subject. Now it is done, it may need additional materials. I think that it will be difficult to claim that the article is not well referenced now. I may have someothing from the AAoI website that could make a nice conclusion.--Christophe Krief (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christophe Krief (talk • contribs) 19:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC) I have added a kind of conclusion to the article, but I guess that some of you will find that it is drafted like an advertising. I hope that the "Critics and opposition" section and other insertions will satisfy those who though that only one point of view was expressed in the earlier version. I trust that it will also remove all assumptions of WP:COATRACK. Who will decide if I have done enough to prevent AFD? --Christophe Krief (talk) 20:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC) Undelete refer to neutrality improvements —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.130.35 (talk) 01:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

File:Roy Clarke.jpg – Deletion endorsed. No need for an FfD. – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:Roy Clarke.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Image speedy deleted as replaceable despite dispute as to whether it was actually replaceable. Subject rarely makes public appearances and, as such, any replacement image of subject would be a screenshot, which is also nonfree. At least deserves a WP:IfD discussion. 81.23.57.177 (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC) The rule is that no replacement image could be found or could reasonably be created. It is a very high bar, and I am not satisfied it was cleared. Endorse. Stifle (talk) 08:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC) All I'm asking is that a proper deletion discussion be undertaken to determine whether that high bar was cleared or not. I don't think that's unreasonable. 81.23.57.177 (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC) Endorse - Just because its hard doesn't mean it can't be done. Valid speedy. Spartaz Humbug! 11:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC) It doesn't mean it can be as well. 81.23.57.177 (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC) Prove that it can't with evidence other then assertions. You are the one claiming it can't be done so the onus is on you to demonstrate that. Spartaz Humbug! 09:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC) But that completely goes against all logic. How does one prove a negative? It's impossible and against all reason. There's a reason the saying is "innocent until proven guilty" and not "guilty until proven innocent": it's impossible to prove someone 100% innocent, just as it is impossible to prove [i]any[/i] image as 100% irreplaceable. 81.23.57.177 (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC) Logic? See ONUS. Its down to you to show that a free replaceable image cannot be produced. That you agree that its impossible to prove this shows that the image cannot possibly meet our NFCC. Case closed then... Spartaz Humbug! 05:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC) Who has the burden is irrelevant here anyway. We say it's replaceable because it's a living person who is not inaccessible and sometimes even makes public appearances. In rebuttal, you say...what, exactly? Nothing relevant so far. "He's dead" would help, or "he's being held in a Turkish prison," or "he's dead and being held in a Turkish prison." postdlf (talk) 05:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC) Overturn, maybe, and NFCR, maybe. As a non-admin I can't see the deleted talk page so I have no idea to what extent the replacability issue was discussed prior to deletion. However, if there was any credible argument at all made that the image meets WP:NFCC, then it deserves a full discussion at WP:NFCR. This would be in everyone's interests because at present any editor is free to re-upload this image, and a new F7 process, complete with waiting times, would be required before it could be deleted. The present deletion review should not be concerned with the merits of the arguments used for and against deletion (which in this case means it should not be directly considering whether the image is replaceable) - it should be concerned with whether or not those arguments were given proper expression and consideration. I will trust and rely on the closer of this discussion to weight my comments here based on the extent to which pre-deletion discussion indicated a credible argument for retention. Thparkth (talk) 12:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC) For full disclosure,there wasn't much time for discussion as I was notified by a bot, not by the person who tagged the image, only a couple days before deletion. I added my rationale, but no one discussed it any further and the image was deleted two days after I added my rationale. 81.23.57.177 (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC) Last time I checked, policy says nothing about notifying people other than the uploader. Moreover, images tagged as replaceable have only a two-day wait time, unlike images tagged for problems such as no source or no license. Nyttend (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC) I am the uploader. I just don't use my account anymore, except to receive any messages. 81.23.57.177 (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC) Endorse. I'm more tolerant than many regarding NFC usage, but I don't see that there was anything even to discuss here. The image was objectively and indisputably replaceable based on current consensus-supported interpretation of guidelines and policy. It was an image of a living person used only to show what he looked like, and not even in an article that was about him. That he "rarely makes public appearances" (emphasis added) isn't sufficient; we're not talking about a J.D. Salinger recluse or someone held in a Turkish prison. So I don't believe there is a credible argument at all that it passes NFCC. Regardless of whether it "should have" been listed at FFD, it would absolutely be deleted if it had been listed there, so let's not undelete it just for the sake of bureaucracy. postdlf (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC) Thank you for your argument, even if I disagree with it. I would note the image was used in the infobox for Roy Clarke as well as the Last of the Summer Wine article if that makes any difference. Also, I think it's still quite a feat of faulty logic to say that just because he isn't a recluse like Salinger or in a Turkish prisoner, the image is replaceable. Seems to be the burden of that should be on the person who claims the image is replaceable. 81.23.57.177 (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC) The non free criteria are in place to deliberatly limit the use of non-free material. The burden of demonstrating that the NFCC are met lies with the person wishing to upload/use the image. That is the burden on showing it to be irreplacable is yours, not the other way around. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC) But that completely goes against all logic. How does one prove a negative? It's impossible and against all reason. There's a reason the saying is "innocent until proven guilty" and not "guilty until proven innocent": it's impossible to prove someone 100% innocent, just as it is impossible to prove [i]any[/i] image as 100% irreplaceable. 81.23.57.177 (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC) I think you mean it goes against your idea of logic, sorry you don't like it but it's quite well established. Your idea of the other side proving it to be replaceable is presumably that they do so by replacing it, i.e. someone else has to do the leg work. That's unacceptable if you beleive the picture is so significant it's for you to do that work. As already mentioned the purpose of the non-free criteria is to restrict the amount of non-free content, because the project is about free-content. It isn't supposed to be easy for you to introduce a non-free image. The simple logical arguement on the "it's replacable side" is that the person is alive, not locked away from the world, therefore someone taking a picture and releasing it freely is going to be possible, it may not be easy, but the policy is not "easily replaceable". The onus is on you to convince people that it won't be possible, that is a completely different bar from some sort of irrefutable proof. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC) Endorse. The claim that a particular individual is reclusive has been determined, over and over, not to be a sufficient justification for allowing use of a nonfree image, aand no reason for making an excception to the general principle has been advanced here. The case against use of a nonfree image is particularly strong when the individual's appearance is wholly unrelated to notability, and the individual has never been a particularly recognizable public figure, since neither of the encyclopedic functions of identification nor critical commentary is served. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC) Thank you for your argument but I'm not sure I completely understand it. No one has argued notability of the subject, although, as I noted above, it's simply false to imply that Last of the Summer Wine was the only article the image was used in; it was also used in Roy Clarke. I can see your argument as an argument against using it in Last of the Summer Wine but not against inclusion in general. If I have misinterpreted you, please correct me. 81.23.57.177 (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC) Re: notability, he meant that because his appearance is not tied to the career for which he is notable (he is not a model, actor, etc.), his physical appearance is much less important to his article. postdlf (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC) Restore for use in the bio article. People have faces, and though the degree it helps to understand them is not exactly direct or scientific, it provides an anchor for thinking about them. I know I am arguing for an extension of the NFCC criteria, to say that we should always have a photograph if one exists for an article about a person. DGG ( talk ) 00:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC) Question How does that vote relate to the NFCC? Also, been looking at the source, I'd be very very dubious that they actually own the image. So its likely a copy vio too. Spartaz Humbug! 03:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC) It's a publicity photo so they do not own it either. Please do not bring red herrings into the argument. 81.23.57.177 (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC) Ah, in that case the image was also incorrectly attributed as we need to reflect the original source so that the rights holder is correctly listed. So, that's another reason to delete this image. Spartaz Humbug! 05:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC) You've admitted your !vote is inconsistent with policy; with the greatest of respect, I therefore request the closing admin to not consider it. You are of course welcome to campaign and gather consensus for a policy change in the correct locations. Stifle (talk) 09:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC) ... which, indeed, could only be at Foundation level, because the "no non-free images of living persons" rule comes right out of the Foundation image policy resolution [1]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC) Comment I'm the deleting admin. First off, the deleted image was found at this webpage. Moreover, there's no more reason to use this image than there is to use nonfree images of any other living person: our criteria are clear that nonfree images are unsuitable for illustrating living people, and this is not the place to argue for extending those criteria. Nyttend (talk) 00:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC) My vote is not inconsistent with policy. It is admittedly inconsistent with the present interpretation of policy. The extent to which we avoid using NFCC goes way beyond what any rational interpretation of the policy would allow. When the present interpretation of policy leads to harm for the encyclopedia by preventing articles for being as helpful as they might be, its time to change our interpretation. I unfortunately doubt that we will do so right here, but we certainly could. I give my opinion that we ought to, and its as valid as an opinion otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 23:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC) I can't make much sense of that. On that basis I can declare almost anything to be "not inconsistent with policy", provided we change out interpretation of the relevant policy to something else. Policy is descriptive rather than prescriptive, so how we currently apply policy is the policy. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 23:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC) There isn't much room for reinterpretation in the wording of "An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals.". Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC) precisely. The first clause of that sentence makes sense, the second does not. I don't think we can reasonably expect it in most cases in an relevant time frame to our users. NFCC is a balance, and will harm the encyclopedia at either extreme. DGG ( talk ) 16:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC) That is a quote from the foundation resolution, i.e. something we are bound by --82.7.40.7 (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC) We are firmly constrained to operate within the WMF's resolutions, and whether you feel a condition makes sense or not does not mean you, or anyone here, can ignore it. If you think the resolution ought to be clarified, then it is for you to contact the board and lobby for same. Good luck, you'll need it. Stifle (talk) 12:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC) Regarding "... policy leads to harm for the encyclopedia", your reinterpretation of the policy of course also leads to harm to the free content encyclopedia by allowing more non-free content, the limit on that is precisely the purpose of the non-free content policy and corresponding foundation resolution. Reinterpreting the non-free content policy to be more permissive of non-free content is the irrationality, not the other way around. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 11:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC) Endorse as replaceable by our current definition, and I want to strongly disagree with what DGG says above. If NFCC is going to be reinterpreted, it should not be done on this page but on the relevant policy talk pages, which DGG certainly knows. Chick Bowen 01:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC) Endorse (1) Are images like this normally deleted under enwiki policy? Yes. (2) Does the policy statement WP:NFCC mandate such a deletion? I am not sure but this is not crucial because such documents are merely descriptive of policy-based behaviour and may not be worded appropriately. (3) Does the guideline WP:NFC mandate such a deletion? Yes but this is not crucial because such documents only guide policy-based behaviour. (4) Does the Foundation requirement wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy (which is utterly crucial) require such a deletion? I'm not immediately sure because the most relevant statement "material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals" seems not to reflect actuality and is therefore obscure. However, from reading the whole document my subjective view is that non-free images used in the current sort of circumstances should be deleted (but I have the greatest respect for the view that this is not, in fact, the meaning of the document). (5) Should the image have been speedily deleted? This discussion evidences that the deletion was controversial. However, it was reasonable for the parties to the deletion to believe that the case was obvious according to normal enwiki behaviour. ... but I am open to correction on any of this. Thincat (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC) Endorse – Clearly and unambiguously fails WP:NFCC#1. I fail to see what needs to be argued here. –MuZemike 23:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC) Endorse - WP:NFCC is what it is, and this image unquestionably fails it. DRV is for overturning deletions if it can be shown that the closing administrator made a mistake in applying policy, not for overturning deletions because someone doesn't like the policy and wishes it said something different to what it actually says. Reyk YO! 20:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.