Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 January 15

< January 14	Deletion review archives: 2009 January	January 16 >

15 January 2009

Christ Carrying the Cross (Leonardo da Vinci)

Endorse

Explanation I did not know this discussion was taking place until today, which happens to be the 16th of January, in the Land of Oz. Since I was the person who discussed the pic in detail, and added it to the list of Leonardo's works, I am ignoring the fact that the discussion is closed, because my statement on this is of considerable relevance.

(Clarification: the work that was under discussion is not the drawing of a head of Christ. It is a painting, with Jesus in a similar position to that which he has in two of Maineri's paintings, and which also includes tormentors that are not present in the Maineri works.)

I included the work in the list of Leonardo's works, at a time when the list was still part of the Leonardo da Vinci article. I included it reluctantly and under pressure from the editor who created the now-deleted article. My reluctance was due to the fact that I didn't think that any serious art historian could possibly believe it was Leonardo. However, I was under the impression that Pedretti, who is a renowned expert, had in fact said that it was probably by Leonardo. My personal opinion was that poor Pedretti was going ga-ga. This is not the impression that I now have, from reading that Forbes article, which previously, I haven't been able to fully access.

I succeeded in persuading the writer of the wikipedia article to upload a better picture of the painting than those available on the net. Some well-meaning editor blanky-well blanked the picture before I managed to get a really good look at it, because the data about the source was incomplete (or some such). Since then, no decent pic has been available.

Unless there is a positive indication that Pedretti really did say that it was by Leonardo, then it should be deleted, from the list as well. If Pedretti really says it's a Leonardo, then it ought to be included, but if possible, with any conflicting opinion that might be available from any other historian. The personal opinions of wiki-editors don't carry weight here, unless they have been indepently published.

My unpublished opinion is that this is definitely not a Leonardo. Moreover, I don't think it is up to the standard of Maineri either, unless it is a very immature work. Amandajm (talk) 05:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please clarify which page or image this discussion is about? The page referred to above doesn't seem to exist. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 16 January 2009 (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)? Stifle (talk) 14:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm not sure what the common practice is for attribution of paintings when there are different recommendations by different scholars. In the Forbes article (12.22.03, most likely 22 December 2003) Pedretti says the painting is either by Leonardo or one of his assistents, not really a positive attribution, but it cannot be discounted entirely. In 1978 the same painting was attributed to someone else, but that has it's downside too since it was very long ago and then there's this listing. The people in AFD seemed to think that an attribution by one notable scholar wasn't enough and some erronously thought that the uncertainty inherent in attribution makes it non-notable by default. We need to seek out the mainstream opinion of the scholars. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CoolHandNuke

I believe that the wrong Standard for Deletion was applied i.e. Notability was consistently given as the reason in conversation with editors/administrators; However in the delete log CSD#A7 is given as the reason. It is precisely this standard which I believe constitutes the reason why it should be restored. That said I am more than willing to revise the content to ensure that it reflects these requirements and successfully meets these standards. Great pain was taken to ensure that there was no bias, conflict of interest or "marketing" given; however, I do recognize that the work may need revision in order to allay these concerns as well as a comment made about link spamming or something of that nature by one of the moderators. I make no claims for complete understanding of grammar, etiquette or the intricacies of wikipedia posts, so any errors in these areas I apologize for and will take whatever corrective action/revisions necessary. The primary history is found on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TheMadFam It is my belief that if given the opportunity we can revise our article to meet the standard of 'important' or 'significant.' In fact, while not clearly stated as such I believe the basics for this are already in the article in reference to being the first web 2.0 site of this kind, versus the historical sites which have been more along the lines of web 1.0. I can only go so far in that we have patent pending technology & trade secrets that we must protect; but I will certainly go right up to the line on it. As an aside I am formally requesting that information pertaining to the minimum threshold or standard for 'notability' specified and given i.e. the number of links required, sources, and any other qualifying quantifiable measure. Thank you for your time and consideration.

–RE:Smashville pt 1. Respectfully, the site does exist as stated in article Alpha_release going to Beta Release on Monday January 19, 2009. It should be noted that gmail is currently a 'Beta' release. With respect to pt 2 please same reasons apply. It exists and will be seen in move to beta.

–RE:Cameron Scott. I give Mea Culpa for not indicating "why its subject is important or significant." The article as posted clearly has room for improvement in addressing these points as alluded to in my prior post. I would like it noted that the premise for deletion was given by Smashville as lacking in notability and the person before him/her for the same reason chiefly defined as a lack of links when googled. This I do not dispute. There is a lack of information out there, precisely why I felt a entry into wikipedia was warranted.

Now as far as external sources, chiefly defined as some kind of Award, AP story, etc.; not having been presented as reference s/he is correct. However, I cite the following: Internet guides. "Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples."

It is my belief that is a current event, the movement of a field (job boards) from what is essentially a web 1.0 brochure site with a post and pray mantra to a true 2.0 experience where community is incorporated is an event and I suggest the following excerpt & quote from Wikipedia#History stated here "Jimmy Wales has described Wikipedia as "an effort to create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language" and furthermore in footnote 107 [1] that "If anything, we are *extremely* elitist but anti-credentialist."

We may not have clearly met the credentials that you are suggesting we need, but I submit that we do in totality. With regards to Smashville consistent reference to non-existence, I am willing to supply screen shots of the site if requested.

TheMadFam (talk) 01:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as deleting admin. For one thing, a page would have to actually exist for any sort of claim to notability to be made towards it. Even according to your article, the page doesn't even exist yet. --Smashville^talk 01:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Em.. CSD#A7 is about notability - An article about a real person, an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. Please correct me if I am wrong, but the only source in the article was a facebook page? That cannot be used to establish notability and a CSD#A7 would be a perfectly valid reason to delete the article (with no prejudice again recreation if better sources could be presented). --Cameron Scott (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also considering it is nonexistent web content...--Smashville^talk 02:06, 16 January 2009 (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)? Stifle (talk) 09:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can maybe answer that on behalf of the user, extensive discussions have taken place on my user talk page and on the article creator's talk page. -- role^player 10:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Roleplayer is correct. If you check those pages you will see that there was prior discussion where I was directed here. Specifically you will see "If you have a problem with it, take it to Deletion Review. I have deleted it and will not undelete it. And call me by my correct username, please." This per Smashville. In their defense I misread their username and had posted to Smallville rather than Smashville. That said I do not believe this to be a courteous, "do not bite" response; but do not know that this is the proper forum to handle that portion of the conversation.TheMadFam (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, but it was Smashville who deleted the page, not you. Stifle (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I nominated the page for speedy deletion in the first place, and I still stand by my decision. The page was about a website that hasn't gone live yet, and the only reference the user could offer to verify notability was facebook. -- role^player 10:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jaafar Aksikas

AfD closed as no consensus (default keep), but opinion counts may have been compromised by socks and SPAs, and I believe that the unaddressed challenges to arguments in "keep" !votes were not properly taken into account by the closing admin. Said admin concurs in listing the case at DRV. Proposing overturn. Hqb (talk) 21:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

overturn to delete This is a good example where SPAs should be ignored/reduced in worth. Arguments for keeping were weak (at best). Ignoring the SPAs, delete is the clear outcome. Hobit (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
endorse no consensus There were reasonable grounds for keeping the article. I myself had very substantial doubts about the notability of the work, but I do not think COI was the only basis for keeping the article. Thee is rarely reason to overturn a "no-consuensus" close. Rather, in a month or so, this should be relisted. DGG (talk) 04:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Two of the people who voted to keep linked to a page of Google results that only listed trivial mentions (which do not establish WP:GNG. Without those, the overwhelming majority is in favor of deletion. Also, the claim he is the editor of a journal was discounted because a journal with just two issues and no impact factor is not major and well-established as the guideline requires. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. All but one of the keep "votes" were from SPAs, which are usually discounted, and I do not see any reason why this should be any different. Stifle (talk) 09:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete Bleugh, I can smell the socks from here! The closing admin made the wrong decision as the discussion from established editors was clearly balanced to delete the article, and the arguments from the single-purpose accounts were weak to non-existant. Only one voter argued to keep the article by successfully citing policy, while there were four arguments to delete per policy and one argument to delete (DGG's) that, while not citing policy, showed a clear understanding of it as well as a good attempt to refute the argument to keep. Themfromspace (talk) 10:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Window Sticker Jetta.JPG

There was some misinterpretation of copyright laws regarding this image. This image was originally contained in the article Monroney sticker. First of all, it was deleted under Wikipedia:CSD#I9 which should not have been used given that it was a self made photo. But that's not the real issue here. This document is not subject to copyright as it is simply a collection of information. See Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service for a legal opinion. There is minimal prose contained within and what is in there is required per the Monroney law. Thus it is essentially in the public domain. If people do think that there is something problematic, please be specific in pointing it out. Analogue Kid (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restore While giving the image a free license was obviously a misinterpretation, I still think this should have been fixed instead of deleted. (@ nom: making a photograph of copyrighted material doesn't transfer any permissions or right to give it your own copyright tag. It should have either been a fair use claim or if these are official government documents tagged as PD-gov or whatever that template is called. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was actually deleted after a PUI discussion here; it would seem that Garion96 chose the wrong reason from the deletion dropdown. I endorse the deletion, as the text and drawings go beyond the "collection of information" standard, but remain to be persuaded about the merits of a fair use claim on the image. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Without knowing where it was used it's impossible to judge whether a valid fair use rationale could be written. I'd endorse a delete if such a thing can't be offered. WilyD 13:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jock Sanders

No real discusson took place from college football project members. If so, we would have quickly pointed out that the subject in question has over 17,600 google hits which is at least an indicator of notability, and has some impressive statistics for only being a sophomore. There's a lot of press on this guy. Further, the deleting admin shows an unawareness of the topic that calls for a specialist to review. I'd like the AfD re-opened and asked for that here but the admin refused. Paul McDonald (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion Clear consensus to delete in the AFD, google hits are not an indicator of notability, statistics are not an indicator of notability, presence or absence of the project members is not significant, and nothing in the nomination makes me believe that the answer should be anything other than delete. Nominator is advised to take the deleting admin's advice and try writing in their userspace an article written solely from the reliable sources that they believe exist. GRBerry 17:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Nothing has been adduced to suggest that the deletion process has not been followed. Please note that the deletion process does not include a requirement to notify WP:CFB of any deletion discussion that might concern it. Stifle (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment I agree !vote conscious would be to delete, but I think the closer ignored the wrong arguments. Being "all conference" is a reason to claim notability, whereas the claim that "not a pro" clearly isn't a reason to delete per WP:ATHLETE. Further, folks claimed that WP:N wasn't met, but [2] would seem to indicate there are plenty of news sources about him. Most may be "in passing" but that's a LOT of news sources and some spend a paragraph or so on him/his contributions to various games. While this isn't AFD2, the fact that WP:N can be met means that the arguments that "doesn't meet WP:N" should be somewhat discounted. All that said, delete wasn't an outrageous result by any means given that !votes that existed. Ah well, rant over. Hobit (talk) 23:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I don't see anything wrong with the way the debate closed, but I'm not opposed to userfication of the article if you think he passes the general notability guidelines. Themfromspace (talk) 10:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

უმაღლესი ლიგა (closed)