Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 December

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
< November 2011 Deletion review archives January 2012 >

31 December 2011

  • Gay Nigger Association of America – No consensus, closure endorsed by default. A majority of contributors to this discussion agree that the deletion nomination (the 22nd) was properly speedily closed because it did not offer a new (or substantial) argument for deletion. This means that there are no grounds on which the closure could be overturned. –  Sandstein  20:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Gay Nigger Association of America (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

More than six months have passed since the most recent deletion discussion of this article. The speedy keep close negates the possibility that consensus can change. If six months isn't long enough, then how long until the community can again discuss deletion of an explicitly racist self-referential article about a group of self-admitted trolls? Moreover, the assertion that no policy rationale was presented is incorrect: there was no refutation of the fact that the article does not improve the encyclopedia in any way and no refutation of the fact that the article harms the encyclopedia by bringing the project, editors, and Foundation officials into disrepute, risking funding and credibility. Therefore, the deletion rationale citing the WP:IAR policy was correct. Moreover, WP:DENY is an additional sufficient rationale which the extraordinarily speedy keep did not allow me to raise in reply to the assertion that the initial rationale was insufficient. That is the epitome of an out of process close. Selery (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (22nd nomination) was closed just now as a speedy keep after only 25 minutes. Selery (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator did. They presented no rationale for deletion and I speedy closed it. This DRV is in response to my close a half hour ago. Had the nominator approached me on my talk page, I would've pointed out we are in a fundring drive right now and this article has not been specifically brought up as hurting it by the foundation. Also, it brings Wikipedia more into disrepute to self-censor things we don't like. Nominator brought nothing new to the countless previous WP:AFD and WP:DRVs on the subject.--v/r - TP 16:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, the rationale was clear and correct at AFD. I did not think it would be productive to discuss the close because you cited WP:CCC while preventing the possibility of even learning whether consensus has changed. In fact, you censored the deletion discussion because you did not like it. I have discussed this article with Foundation officials. What do you think they will say if they are asked about it during a wide audience appearance or media interview? Selery (talk) 16:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion has not been censored. It has been discussed.--v/r - TP 16:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My questions stand: (1) How long until the community is allowed to discuss deletion of the article again? (2) What do you think Foundation officials will say about the article if asked in a public forum? Selery (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(1) When a new point is brought up that hasn't been discussed before, (2) They already have and their answer was it better be sourced.--v/r - TP 17:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you limit discussion to only new points, then that means you prevent consensus from ever changing, even though you cited the policy to the contrary. Do you have any objections to my using your name and affiliations in a letter-writing campaign to news, professional, and academic organizations concerning this matter? Selery (talk) 19:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you intend to quote me in context, then feel free. Be sure you've read the disclaimer on my user page as well.--v/r - TP 19:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no way to know what context you feel is sufficient. If you prepare a statement in a day's time explaining why you believe you have not disgraced yourself, the project, and the uniform of the United States Air Force then I will include it with my correspondence. I think it is disgusting that you willingly seek to preclude the very policy you cited when closing the AFD, and I will make a point of explaining why in as wide and specific fora as I believe will be most effective in helping you to see the error of your ways. Selery (talk) 19:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There have not been 22 bona fide deletion nominations. Many of the deletion nominations were created by GNAA trolls and subsequently closed per WP:DENY with some having been deleted. I selected the next number in sequence not shown on {{GNAA History}}. Selery (talk) 16:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Speedy Keep Close WP:DENY does not pertain to articles, a subject which i've brought up on the talk page of that before. In trying to use DENY on an article, you are directly and deliberately violating WP:NPOV. TO be neutral in terms of our coverage, we do not apply things like DENY to anything but editors and only very, very rarely do we apply WP:IAR. In fact, so rarely that I don't remember a single discussion where it was invoked in terms of an article deletion and was upheld. Nothing in this nomination or in the AfD nomination announced anything policy based in terms of deletion. The article has clearly shown its notability through various sources and the community already held it to a far higher standard than we should have otherwise due to the nature of the subject. The subject itself eventually passed even those high standards, so I see absolutely no reason for it to be deleted and you present no coherent deletion-based rationale for doing so. SilverserenC 17:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The nomination was based upon WP:IAR and, per WP:SAUCE, that cuts both ways so one should not complain about procedural niceties when not following them oneself. The topic seems to have been at AFD often enough and WP:DEL states "... It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome...Renominations that lack new arguments or new evidence are likely to be closed quickly." Warden (talk) 23:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • NB yes I have just blocked Selery 48hrs for his last comment to TP. This is unrelated to his views on the deletion of this article - he is entitled to his opinions on that. I would have blocked him for that comment in any context, it is simply an outrageous personal attack. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we should take no action for now but I would ask the closer to make a statement that a policy-citing nomination will be permitted a full discussion. Our policy has always been, to paraphrase Jimmy Wales, that people with a beef should be heard. In accordance with that, we simply must accept that, whether it exists or not, this article is going to be debated every six months or so. There's nothing disruptive about having that debate once again; it may be repetitive, but it is important to the way we do things. Chick Bowen 04:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)][reply]
Unless there is a change in policy to endorse the deletion of content because people find it offensive, following this process would cause the time of experienced contributors to continue to be wasted on rebutting arguments that have been and still are invalid. There is simply no point in a 'debate', which would at best involve someone copy and pasting the valid arguments from previous deletion discussions into the new discussion.
What's next, mediation after this fails? Where does the waste stop? Nevard (talk) 12:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (reopen the speedy close). That was an unacceptable speedy close. The nomination was not unreasonable. Wikipedia:Speedy keep is not for contestable use; this use smacks of admin domination over process. Let the discussion run its course. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the outcome though it may have been dealt with better. The arguments presented at the AFD have well known consensus that we don't delete article for such reasons, as such the best you could do with them is apply the idea that consensus can change. I dislike bare consensus has changed arguments at DRV, where there is no supporting evidence to show it has changed, and I can see no reason why we should entertain the same at AFD. That said the history of this article is obviously long and the latest discussion being an overturn at DRV could perhaps at some point be reevaluated by the community, it'll just need some real arguments rather than indignation and hysteria (which of course does more to feed the trolls than it does to resolve the issue). --62.254.139.60 (talk) 13:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Jeez, enough wit this shit already, it has been discussed so many times it is nauseating to see it come up again and again and again. The group exists, reliable sources discuss its existence, notability confirmed, the article is here for good. Deal with it. Tarc (talk) 15:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - as it reeks of per administator domination over the deletion process. Fluttershy !xmcuvg2MH 01:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:SK #1, the nominator of the AfD (and this DRV) did not advance a policy based reasoning for deletion. WP:IAR in not applicable for deletion of an article (or people would do that for everything). Other than that, everything else in the nominator's argument had to do with emotional based reasoning, none of which is a deletion argument, so the AfD was correctly closed under Speedy Keep guidelines. SilverserenC 01:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say it qualifies under SK#2, sub-part 2 and 5. "Offensive to blacks" is not only an absurd deletion rationale, it isn't even true. The use of "nigger" doesn't make what one is saying automatically offensive, just ask Dr. Dre or Ice Cube, or look at where the group's name came from. It was a dumb nomination all around, and rightly closed IMO as disruptive. Tarc (talk) 05:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • SK#2/2 - That seems an assumption of bad faith on the nominator. You may be right, but I don't see it. SK#2/5 - Arguably, the nominator should have read previous AfDs and hasn't, but I wouldn't criticise anyone for that. I gave up before getting very far. They are many and not well organised or well labelled. In either case, the closer didn't cite specific SK criteria, and "fails to present a rationale for deletion" is not a reasonable criticism to me. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a level of inane nonsense that you consider worthy of a speedy close? Is it simply necessary to open a deletion discussion with the reason 'I like fluffy bunnies and unicorns'? Must one provide a 'reason' at all? Nevard (talk) 11:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Offensive … does nothing to improve the encyclopedia, is a self-reference … it brings Foundation officials, editors, and projects into disrepute…" is not inane nonsense. "I like fluffy bunnies and unicorns" as a nomination fits WP:SK#1 "fails to advance an argument for deletion". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse since the nomination didn't give a reason to delete the article which is in any way based on any policy or guideline. A deletion discussion with a nomination based on some policy or guideline would be acceptable since the article hasn't been through AfD since 2006. While the DRV discussion which restored the article did advise against quickly sending it back to AfD that discussion took place nearly a year ago. Hut 8.5 16:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
Thank you Tim for reverting the procedural close, which was done on the basis of the nominator making personal attacks.
I don’t know if this is going to proceed much further. It is an unusual DRV, essentially reviewing a Speedy Keep, with no actual deletion in question. I think this is important because for a (what I assume) good faith nomination by someone not involved in the previous many discussions to be quickly speedy kept is a chilling thing to happen. If admins are allowed to arbitrarily speedy keep AfDs, then this elevates the administrator to ruler of the process. In the AfD, I don’t think any Speedy Keep criteria were met, and so the discussion should have been allowed to take its course.
The likelihood of any outcome of the AfD if continued is entirely beside the point.
A number of the other participants here have introduced arguments well suited to an AfD, and not well directed to DRV. If this means anything, it may be that there is a need for an AfD, even if the result is a SNOW keep. Note that the last AfD was very long ago.
The question is: Was the close (‘’’Speedy Keep’’’) of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (22nd nomination) proper? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I may quote from a meme that the GNAA is fond of, "not a single fuck was given this day". We don't need to go through an AfD when the outcome is a foregone conclusion. This is one of the infrequent time where WP:IAR is fitting, so please, let's just let it like. The article exists, is supported by acceptable sources, no doubt they are tickled pink that the phrase "Gay Nigger" now appears in the wikipedia. To attempt to be spiteful in return and delete the article (this essentially the gist of Selery's argument) is just lame. Let it go, move on. Tarc (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What exactly is your statement supposed to mean? Yes, it's a policy and one that the community has stated time and again should only be used in the most dire of circumstances, because otherwise it will be abused, like it is here. Trying to use WP:IAR to delete article content flies in the face of the purpose of the encyclopedia and is besmirching the entire point of the IAR policy. If you cannot successfully convince the community using policy other than IAR, then that means that there is no support for the use of IAR in that circumstance the first place, which is why it is so rarely used. Using it in a situation such as this means that there is no real reason based in any other policy for why some action should be undertaken. This right away shows that the action in question is against community standards. SilverserenC 10:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • At DRV our main role is to see that the deletion process is correctly followed, and I think that's what we should do here. I know there are users who think it's reasonable for administrators to control what we can and can't have a deletion discussion about, but I'm afraid FairProcess trumps that. I think that in the absence of any overriding or pressing reason to close the AfD, the least harmful course is to let the discussion continue for its normal length before assessing the result in the normal way and reaching the conclusion. The fact that it's an obvious "no consensus" doesn't make it fair and reasonable to terminate discussion prematurely. Overturn and list at AfD, and we should stipulate a full seven day discussion.—S Marshall T/C 12:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per SmokeyJoe. This isn't a speedy keep case and IAR is rarely a good thing to invoke when cutting off a discussion. The discussion just goes someplace else. Hobit (talk) 14:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send it to AfD: Speedy keep improperly envoked and enough time has passed to justify another discussion Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 06:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse  The evidence from the AfD is that Elen of the Roads stated, "nomination does not cite any wikipedia policy".  It is true that the nomination does not state, "WP:IAR is a policy."  The evidence is that the closing states, "fails to present a rationale for deletion."  It is true that the nomination does not state, "This is the rationale for deletion:".  Rather than debate about whether or not the nomination should have been explicit in these statements, a valid response is to correct these perceived deficiencies in the nomination and resubmit at the nominator's convenience, as a Speedy keep is not by itself a bar to an immediate renomination.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse  first off, just because you think that the page is offensive does not mean it should be deleted that would be censorship. Two, just because you think that the quote article does nothing to improve the encyclopedia un quote doesn't mean that it should be deleted. That isn't a valid reason for deletion, and effectively amounts to I don't like it. We didn't give in to the mohammed cartoon issue, and so too will we not give in to this. 24.2.203.107 (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Leaving aside the question of whether there might be a more policy based reason to delete the page, this nomination did not present one, and was properly closed for failing to state a ground. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 00:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

30 December 2011

29 December 2011

28 December 2011

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
User:Porchcorpter/Ban proposal (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Okay. Let me say the following. The MFD was only about the copy of the ban proposal and rebuttals to the !voters' comments.

The content that got speedily deleted per G4 does not meet G4 for the following reasons:

  1. The MFD was not about that content
  2. The MFD ended as "delete per user request", makes it further and more vague for G4 deletion
  3. The contributors in the MFD had stated to link to the ban proposal via the archive, which the content that got speedily deleted per G4 is. ("If you want to see this problematic ban proposal, click here.")
  4. There are no personal attacks, and no comments on contributors. The main point of Wikipedia rules.
  5. Three of the MFD participants who !voted keep made good points regarding their keep !votes

(Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 03:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re: #2: Consensus was clearly there to delete regardless of your intentions to thwart the process.
re: #3: An editor suggested to Porchcorpter that instead of linking to the subpage in conversation (the alleged reason for the creation of the subpage), which included the successful ban proposal, he could link to the archive thread.
All of this is an attempt by Porchcorpter to game the system and declare his displeasure with a ban that was proposed over nine months ago. As a "troubled Wikipedian" (Porchcorpter's words), my suggestion for him is to drop the stick already and move on to more constructive ventures. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you copy the entire subpage over here, too, while you're at it? Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
re: #4: Right, because calling the !voters at the MfD "troubled Wikipedians" is not a personal attack. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, add WP:SALT and another topic ban This recreation characterizing me, among others, as "troubled", is of course a base personal attack apparently made out of bitterness that his page was found to be something inappropriate for this project. The MFD was only closed the way it was because he saw the writing ont he wall and blanked the page, there is an obvious consensus to delete the page in that discussion. Porch's reasons for making this infantile, piontless yet WP:POINTy recreation of a page that was deleted by consensus are not relevant. I am halfway inclined to propose a full site ban of this user as they have demonstrated again and again that they do not respect consensus when that consensus relates to their actions, and no amount of advice or guidance, including a formal mentorship program, has had the desired effect. Keep the page deleted, salt it if needed, and topic ban him again this time from creating any content whatsoever, broadly construed, related to the previous topic ban. Or kick him out entirely. Don't care which. This user has been nothing but trouble for years. Enough is enough. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    DRV is NOT the place to discuss about another user. And name-calling an individual only is a personal attack. Go ahead and start a community ban on me now. (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 05:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your opening of an ANI thread about your decision to refactor and edit war here have made a very nice case to do just that. I'm tempted to ask where you see name-calling in my remarks, but somehow I doubt you will be able to produce anything resembling a logical response to that query since it is so manifestly wrong, so we'll skip that detail for now. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The original MfD was very likely to end up with "Delete", but Porchcorpter preempted that by agreeing to tag it U1. It appears that was just a ruse, as he then recreated it once the dust had settled. It's just a bit of polemic anyway, and part of his insistence on still trying to refute everyone who supported his topic ban from ages ago, and is just one more example of his trying to whitewash everything negative from his past and blame everyone else -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

27 December 2011

26 December 2011

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Syaffarizal Mursalin Agri (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Now sourced as having played in a fully professional league - see User talk:TerriersFan#Farri Agri. Undelete.TerriersFan (talk) 21:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • undelete he passes WP:ATHLETE as far as I can tell. DRV isn't a place to make policy. I think an RfC on our sports notability guidelines might be a good idea though. Hobit (talk) 17:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
yes it would be a good idea to change this, but what re the odds of a rfc doing so? DGG ( talk ) 23:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not much, I'm afraid. Opinion is divided on this matter, with some favouring the general notability guideline and others (including myself) favouring the pro league approach for determining notability of sportsmen/women. ~~ Bettia ~~ talk 10:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article. The source provided on Terrier's talk page shows that the subject has played in a fully professional league and therefore satisfies WP:NFOOTY. ~~ Bettia ~~ talk 10:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. WP:NFOOTY is not policy and is not absolute. The relevant section says "Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable." "Generally" ≠ "always". If the subject only weakly meets the WP:NFOOTY guideline, and if examination of the subject's notability on more general grounds (see WP:GNG) fails to find notability--as was the consensus in this AfD per the closing admin--isn't that the sort of exception that NFOOTY allows for? If not, then what sort of exception is allowed? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 22:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could do, although there does seem to be a number of Indonesian sources covering him in detail such as this. Although I haven't looked into this fully, I believe there would be enough of these to satisfy the GNG. ~~ Bettia ~~ talk 11:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could nominate it for AfD, but since he passes WP:NFOOTY, it would be highly unlikely to be successful. I had doubts myself, since one professional league appearance does not seem enough, but 6 feels like an adequate number. – Kosm1fent 11:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

25 December 2011

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
María Viramontes (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article was part of a mass nomination of city councilors nominated for deletion by a single user. All the articles were tagged with rescue and all have been kept but this one. It it my strongly held belief that since it took a while to find sources for each article this article was deleted prematurely. Also it was not taken into account that most delete votes were based on the stub state of the article before its massive overhaul. The result of the debate should clearly have been keep per the sources or per the "votes" it should have been no consensus. At the very least it should have been relisted for further comment. Do these reliable independent non-trivial references establish notability?  If not, why not?  Please cite guidelines or policies in your response. Because I believe this article does. And based on the fact that this is the city council of a major city of over 100,000 people in major media market (the San Francisco Bay Area) it would be very foreseeable that even more sources could be found, as they have been for every other member. This particular council routinely gets coverage outside of the area, even in Beaufort, New York, LA, and Havana. It's not your typical city council. I also think there was a strong failure of considering a merge to the article about the council itself as the council itself is considered irrefutably notable.LuciferWildCat (talk) 10:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources
Extended content
  1. Dana Perrigan, Special to The Chronicle (June 29, 2008). "Where we live. Steeped in history, Richmond looks forward.". San Francisco Chronicle. SFGate. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/29/REL311CKGC.DTL&ao=all. Retrieved 2011-12-11. "A fourth-generation Richmond resident, Maria Viramontes...Viramontes' grandfather settled in the city in 1910..."
  2. Grant Will Help Richmond, Calif., Immigrants Get Healthcare., Contra Costa Times, by Rebecca Rosen Lum, July 23, 2003. http://www.accessmylibrary.com/premium/0286/0286-8896344.html retrieved May 24, 2007. "'This is a very, very important issue for Latino groups,' said Richmond Councilwoman Maria Viramontes, who helped Brookside Community Health Center land a $450,000 federal grant to build an out-patient clinic"
  3. "Google translate. Support for the Five in Richmond City Council". CubAhora. Google translate of Center for Media Information Directorate: Planning and General Suarez, Revolution Square, Havana. 12/12/2011, source Cubasi 09/04/09. http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&sl=es&tl=en&u=http://www.cubahora.cu/index.php%3Ftpl%3Dbuscar/ver-not_buscar.tpl.html%26newsid_obj_id%3D1031027 Retrieved 2011-12-12. "...unanimously passed a resolution in support of the Cuban Five political prisoners...the Mayor Gayle McLaughlin presented and Councilwoman Maria Viramontes."
  4. Vicki Haddock, of the Examiner staff (November 21, 1996). "San Leandro places pistol tax on ballot". San Francisco Examiner. SFGate. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/e/a/1996/11/21/METRO9534.dtl Retrieved 2011-12-12. "...predicted Maria Theresa Viramontes, executive director of the East Bay Public Safety Corridor Partnership, a collaboration of cities, school districts and law enforcement agencies uniting to push an array of gun-control measures."
  5. Chip Johnson (February 2, 2004). "Richmond's budget says: 2+2+2=9!?? Financially inept city may cut council seats". San Francisco Chronicle. SFGate. p. B-1. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/02/BAGOA4MSA61.DTL Retrieved 2011-12-11. "Last February, City Councilwoman Maria Viramontes, who chairs the Finance Committee, was directed to slice $5 million..."
  6. Jim Herron Zamora, Chronicle staff writer (June 17, 2005). "Richmond. 4 on council call for a state of emergency. The idea is to raise $2 million to fight violent crime wave". San Francisco Chronicle. SFGate. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/06/17/BAGM0DA7LS1.DTL Retrieved 2011-12-11. "'We're living in extreme times that call for extreme measures,' said Councilwoman Maria Viramontes, who was joined by three other council members at a news conference."
  7. "NIJ Annual Report to Congress 1996.". US Department of Justice. National Criminal Justice Reference Service. 1996. http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/166585.txt Retrieved 2011-12-12. "Appendix A: Awards Made in Fiscal Year 1996...Domestic Violence Intervention Project. East Bay Community Foundation, Berkeley, California. Maria Theresa Viramontes. $100,000."
  8. Jason B. Johnson, San Francisco Chronicle (March 21, 2005). "2 California cities look at profits from slavery. Movement may lead to restitution payments". Salt Lake City: Deseret News. Retrieved 2011-12-18. Richmond Councilwoman Maria Viramontes, who proposed the measure along with fellow Councilwoman Mindell Penn, said the city's new law was inspired by the events in Chicago...
  9. Frances Dinkelspiel (February 11, 2010). "Plan for casino in Richmond raises fears of a bad precedent". The New York Times. Retrieved 2011-12-18. Maria Viramontes, a Richmond councilwoman who originally voted against the casino in 2003, recently said, "It's an opportunity to bring investment to Richmond if it's done properly." LuciferWildCat (talk) 10:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many more sources found here.LuciferWildCat (talk) 03:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My attempt to dialogue directly with the closing editor
Extended content
María Viramontes

Hey there, I think you should review the deletion for several reasons. First of all, the way your phrased it implies to me that you found it to be notable but since most people found it not notable you went with delete. But it's not a vote and that seems to be treating it as such. Secondly it was part of a mass nomination of articles related to the Richmond City Council that editors have been scrambling to rescue, and every other one looks like it will be successfully saved. Now having said that it doesn't necessarily bare weight if other things are kept but the point is that more time was needed. Also most of the delete votes were based on the articles previous state before the sourcing and copyediting was done by rescue. The sources for this woman are numerous and based on them she is generally notable and if anything she it notable for merger into the Richmond City Council or city of Richmond, California article. I would like you to reconsider your approach here and suggest the article be kept.LuciferWildCat (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My comment wasn't that she met Wikipedia's notability requirements, I just assessed the arguments on the AfD page. Jayjg (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure biut my point is that I would like you to review this deletion and to reverse your decision on the matter. I believe the result was actually no consensus. Will you reverse the decision?LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would like some review also.  And please comment about Wikipedia_talk:Articles for deletion/María Viramontes.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't the discussion of a deletion review this article (which IMO, is clearly unwarranted; the article fails POLITICIAN and ANYBIO in spades) be discussed in a public forum so that people other than Lucifer may comment? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my close, but anyone is free to take any deletion to deletion review, if they wish. Jayjg (talk) 06:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I really would rather not bother them with all that, as I think the content could easily be salvaged into the city council article. Is that something your willing to do? And for the record asking the closing admin on his ramtalkpage is a procedural prerequisite for a deletion review as outlined on the deletion review steps, this is nothing but a man to man request and no public comment is warranted here.LuciferWildCat (talk) 08:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, what do you mean by "the closing admin on his rampage"? Are you referring to me? Jayjg (talk) 09:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please accept my apology that was meant to be "talkpage" but I must have had a Freudian slip that was directed at the nominator not at you. I think the mass nominations were a bit of a rampage but I hadn't even noticed I used that here and it seemed like an odd question and I had to reread.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia_talk:Articles for deletion/María Viramontes

Please comment about Wikipedia_talk:Articles for deletion/María Viramontes.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 10:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Splintering of the dialogue;;
Extended content
Do these reliable independent non-trivial references establish notability?

Do these reliable independent non-trivial references establish notability?  If not, why not?  Please cite guidelines or policies in your response.

  1. Dana Perrigan, Special to The Chronicle (June 29, 2008). "Where we live. Steeped in history, Richmond looks forward.". San Francisco Chronicle. SFGate. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/29/REL311CKGC.DTL&ao=all. Retrieved 2011-12-11. "A fourth-generation Richmond resident, Maria Viramontes...Viramontes' grandfather settled in the city in 1910..."
  2. Grant Will Help Richmond, Calif., Immigrants Get Healthcare., Contra Costa Times, by Rebecca Rosen Lum, July 23, 2003. http://www.accessmylibrary.com/premium/0286/0286-8896344.html retrieved May 24, 2007. "'This is a very, very important issue for Latino groups,' said Richmond Councilwoman Maria Viramontes, who helped Brookside Community Health Center land a $450,000 federal grant to build an out-patient clinic"
  3. "Google translate. Support for the Five in Richmond City Council". CubAhora. Google translate of Center for Media Information Directorate: Planning and General Suarez, Revolution Square, Havana. 12/12/2011, source Cubasi 09/04/09. http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&sl=es&tl=en&u=http://www.cubahora.cu/index.php%3Ftpl%3Dbuscar/ver-not_buscar.tpl.html%26newsid_obj_id%3D1031027 Retrieved 2011-12-12. "...unanimously passed a resolution in support of the Cuban Five political prisoners...the Mayor Gayle McLaughlin presented and Councilwoman Maria Viramontes."
  4. Vicki Haddock, of the Examiner staff (November 21, 1996). "San Leandro places pistol tax on ballot". San Francisco Examiner. SFGate. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/e/a/1996/11/21/METRO9534.dtl Retrieved 2011-12-12. "...predicted Maria Theresa Viramontes, executive director of the East Bay Public Safety Corridor Partnership, a collaboration of cities, school districts and law enforcement agencies uniting to push an array of gun-control measures."
  5. Chip Johnson (February 2, 2004). "Richmond's budget says: 2+2+2=9!?? Financially inept city may cut council seats". San Francisco Chronicle. SFGate. p. B-1. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/02/BAGOA4MSA61.DTL Retrieved 2011-12-11. "Last February, City Councilwoman Maria Viramontes, who chairs the Finance Committee, was directed to slice $5 million..."
  6. Jim Herron Zamora, Chronicle staff writer (June 17, 2005). "Richmond. 4 on council call for a state of emergency. The idea is to raise $2 million to fight violent crime wave". San Francisco Chronicle. SFGate. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/06/17/BAGM0DA7LS1.DTL Retrieved 2011-12-11. "'We're living in extreme times that call for extreme measures,' said Councilwoman Maria Viramontes, who was joined by three other council members at a news conference."
  7. "NIJ Annual Report to Congress 1996.". US Department of Justice. National Criminal Justice Reference Service. 1996. http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/166585.txt Retrieved 2011-12-12. "Appendix A: Awards Made in Fiscal Year 1996...Domestic Violence Intervention Project. East Bay Community Foundation, Berkeley, California. Maria Theresa Viramontes. $100,000."
  8. Jason B. Johnson, San Francisco Chronicle (March 21, 2005). "2 California cities look at profits from slavery. Movement may lead to restitution payments". Salt Lake City: Deseret News. Retrieved 2011-12-18. Richmond Councilwoman Maria Viramontes, who proposed the measure along with fellow Councilwoman Mindell Penn, said the city's new law was inspired by the events in Chicago...
  9. Frances Dinkelspiel (February 11, 2010). "Plan for casino in Richmond raises fears of a bad precedent". The New York Times. Retrieved 2011-12-18. Maria Viramontes, a Richmond councilwoman who originally voted against the casino in 2003, recently said, "It's an opportunity to bring investment to Richmond if it's done properly."

Unscintillating (talk) 00:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely they do. This council is very unique in that it gets itself involved with things like the Gaza Flotilla, Cuban diplomatic affairs, supporting occupy and getting dissed about it on national TV, they are quite the coterie.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DRV is thataway. Tarc (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG states, "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected."  If there is a consensus to delete, then there is a consensus that the above list fails WP:GNG, and if there is a consensus, the consensus should be able to give some sense of how many more sources are needed.  The consensus should also be able to interpret WP:N, "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort," and the listing of "Merging" as part of WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although at this time a ton of amazing exposes that only deal with the subject have not been found there are tons and tons of paragraphs or articles that mostly deal with the subject and many more that deal with her trivially, a s---load actually. And how many councilwomen from your hometown get press coverage in Cuba? Basically she gets a lot of coverage in a lot of places because she was a politician for a major city.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is already deleted; what part of that do you find confusing? Either take it up with Jayjg or head to Deletion Review, as most have likely taken this off their watchlist. I was about to til I wondered "what the hell is going on at the talk page of a closed AfD?" Tarc (talk) 05:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is confused here. But part of deletion review is discussion of the matter to avoid wasting community resources. And I have contacted that closer to no avail but given him enough time to respond. So I can show a sincere and patient attempt at said DRV.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm seeing here is a refusal by Unscintillating to admit that some shmo who served on a City Council in a medium-sized town just might not be deserving of a Wikipedia article. Same with Mindell Penn, another article that's a gots-to-go case...he's taken to dumping a load of irrelevant "references" that mention Penn in passing to claim she's notable. Frankly, Unscintillating's obstinent keepism is boarding on disruption. A DRV would be a waste of community time Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 05:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maria Viramontes was a very powerful politician that ruled the majority opposition (Democratic Party vs Richmond Progressive Alliance) of a major city, and that does not constitute a "shmo". The comments about Penn's notability are not relevant here. Calling people disruptive for voting keep is seems to describe the accusation and is entirely a fallacy.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For those arguing against deletion of these Richmond councillors, the result seems to be quite good, with several articles being kept, rewritten and developed. The debates 'for' and 'against' deletion were some of the most comprehensive I've come across and the final decision was made in each case by someone who hadn't taken part. The words 'horse', 'dead' and 'flogging' spring to mind now, for some reason. I live in a capital city three times the size of Richmond and there are probably less than a dozen articles on local councillors. The Richmond articles all seem to have been created (by an editor who was subsequently banned) a short while before the 2006 council elections, which makes you wonder about the original motives. But hey-ho, we all come here with different passions and motives and we can't agree on everything all of the time. All the best :) Sionk (talk) 13:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Richmond is in the San Francisco Bay Area and politics are just big here, maybe they get more press here. But the councilmembers here even get press in Cuba and Beaufort and in the LA Times and Wall Street Journal. What city do you live in, there might be some members deserving of an article there.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • That was a multiple nomination, not really a mass nomination. Compared to the average admin, Jayjg is definitely drawn to the deletionist side of the force, but I think it's a bit harsh to censure him for closing that debate in that way, considering that there really was a consensus to delete. However, that debate was defective. All of the delete !votes were 100% based on a lack of notability and no other argument for deletion was advanced. However, a lack of notability is no obstacle to a merge. Therefore per WP:ATD the merge option should have been considered and it wasn't.

    The minimum-drama route to a policy-compliant outcome will be to endorse Jayjg's close because it accurately reflected the consensus but userfy the deleted article to Luciferwildcat thereby giving him the opportunity to implement a merge to the council article so that we can comply with policy.—S Marshall T/C 11:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference there? I don't mean to censure him, I just found it odd that every other counselor was considered of note in a "multiple nomination" and this woman was deleted when her notability is stronger than that of the others. My main point is that most of the delete votes were based on the article when it did not have any sources included at all.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true per se. Two of them were closed as no consensus, and all had multiple editors believe they should be deleted, even after "references" were added Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG states, "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected."  Do the nine sources listed above by themselves satisfy the WP:GNG?  If not, how many more sources are needed?  (Or, if you don't want to answer, do you agree that this is an appropriate RfC question?)  Unscintillating (talk) 17:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)  P.S. I am not asking if these sources cause the article to pass WP:N, that is a different question, I am specifically asking about the WP:GNG guideline.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:53, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think it should almost be a law of wikipedia that the more bytes you kill making a point, the less value the argument put forward has. A couple of questions. Firstly, are these new sources or where they in the article during the AFD? Secondly, do any of these actually meet the GNG in terms if independant, detailed reliable secondary sources. One final point to Uncintilating, it doesn't matter how many sources you have if they are crap. Two good ones are enough for it to be kept. Spartaz Humbug! 17:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well there are many sources indeed, how many more would be needed? Also the votes were made way before these sources were incorporated so yes new sources, some were present right before deletion, but after people voted.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you read my comment carefully you will already see that its quality that counts not quantity. Please can you identify from the sources you have found after the AFD, which are the two or three best ones that meet the GNG most closely? That is, reliable, secondary, independent and covering the subject in detail. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 03:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I am disappointed that you would bring a four-letter term for excrement into this discussion; and then use the word "point", my name, and the excrement term in the same sentence.  As per WP:GNG, "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources."  "The number...varies..." does not limit us to two or three, just the opposite, more is more wp:notability.  The closing admin has already listed the first one as having an extra measure of wp:notability, so I suggest that you take the next three and see if they add up to one "good" one.  If those three aren't enough, then add the next one, and so on.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 06:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have an astonishing grasp of policy, You cannot agregate poor source into a good one. Either there are adequate sources or not. Lots of poor sourcing is just that poor sourcing that doesn't count. Since there clearly aren't good sources or you would have brought them further I see no point relisting this discussion so endorse Spartaz Humbug! 08:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion: The article fails ANYBIO and POLITICIAN. Lucifer's reasoning is flawed; this seems to be little more than a request for a re-vote by those who were unhappy with the first outcome Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purplebackpack89 was the AfD nominator.

    Purplebackpack89, do you understand the argument for a merge and the reason why neither ANYBIO nor POLITICIAN are obstacles to the merger?—S Marshall T/C 16:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Of course I do. I still think it should be deleted, not merged. The person who started this DRV thread is asking for all content to be restored/kept in the article it was before, not to be merged, and thus I am saying it shouldn't be restored (Note also that the nominator took swipes at me in his DRV header) Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the wrong call was made and that there was no consensus further I do also believe that at the very least the content should be restored to merge into the city council article so that it may incubate there.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • And now that we've heard what you both believe, could we get back to policy-based outcomes? Would either of you care to address the bit where I said "neither ANYBIO nor POLITICIAN are obstacles to the merger"? What the AFD decided was that the subject is not notable. But none of the delete !votes addressed anything other than notability, and there are more ways of dealing with non-notable things than simple deletion.—S Marshall T/C 01:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There was no consensus to delete. The way the close was phrased indicated a bias towards the deletion argument "...but this was not enough to sway those advocating for deletion". This was contrary to WP:DGFA, "When in doubt, don't delete." as we do not require unanimity to establish reasonable doubt. Warden (talk) 22:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - "I disagree with the closer" is not a valid DRV concern. No wrongdoing noted, no unreasonable finding by the closing admin. Tarc (talk) 22:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't disagree with the closer, I disagree that his rationale sufficiently considered a merger, or the fact that the votes were largely made before the rescue cleaned up the article. I believe it was treated more like a vote than a consensus no consensus finding and there was no consensus. If that clears up my intentions here.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who in the afd suggested a merge? How can an admin claim to close a discussion as a consensus to merge when nobody even brought it up? The requirements we place on admin candidates are pretty stringent, yes, but we don't (yet) demand that they be telepaths. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 01:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • In fact, admins are supposed to be sufficiently knowledgeable about guidelines that an outcome can be mandated even if no one is arguing for it. Administrators are not supposed to ignore policy-based outcomes (e.g., per WP:ATD) just because no one brought up the possibility. Jclemens (talk) 08:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • In fairness to Jayjg, if he had closed that discussion as "merge" despite the absence of any merge votes, and then been taken to DRV, editors would legitimately describe the close as a supervote.—S Marshall T/C 13:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. As Tarc states, this is a matter of simple disagreement. Closing admin did not abuse discretion here. Neutralitytalk 00:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • restore and merge if a good merge topic can be agreed to. Ideally the idea of a merge would have occurred to someone during the discussion. It apparently didn't. As such, the closer really didn't have it as an option (though could have !voted and proposed it instead of closing if they had thought of it). Should DRV overturn a close because the discussion is flawed? Sure, why not. Does anyone actually object to a merge at this point (assuming we can agree on a merge target)? If so, can they give a policy-based reason for why? Hobit (talk) 05:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • well, if the content wasn't sourced it was essentially OR and we don't merge that. Maybe the content is already adequately covered elsewhere. Arguing to restore and merge is rather cart before the horse if we don't know what the target should be and the state of the article at the time of deletion. If noone suggested a merge maybe the AFD participants didn't consider one was appropriate. At the very most I'd consider a relist to consider a merge but right now I'm still inclined to endorse as I can't see the closing admin had an alternative. I'm also seriously considering proposing an interaction ban for Luciferwildcat and Purplebackpack as they clearly cannot work on the same page without getting into a fight so they should both consider themselves warned to be on their best behaviour here. Spartaz Humbug! 16:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd argue that these three sources [2], [3], [4] provide enough material to be able to avoid OR. Heck, they arguably raise to the level of WP:N, though IMO that ship has sailed. [5] is clearly partisan op-ed, but it too could be used carefully. The other sources listed above give us plenty of facts to work with. Hobit (talk) 17:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • A merge, means that some material from the to-be-deleted article will be worked into the target article, i.e. Richmond City Council (Richmond, California), yes? If so, what? We're not going to have short bios of council members there, that'd be ridiculous for a state-level position. How many of these people pass in and out of the board membership every few years? Tarc (talk) 14:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm thinking perhaps take all those other folks who got kept and merge them into a (list?) article on the council over a certain time period. A bit unwieldy, but I think it would work. Hobit (talk) 17:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as I don't think the closing admin could reasonably have closed it any other way. If the articles on council members had been considered in a single AfD then the result of the discussion would likely have been that the articles should be considered separately on their own merits, which is what happened in this case. Separate AfDs can come to different conclusions and there's nothing wrong with that. Regarding the sources there was general agreement at the AfD that the coverage was routine or trivial, a view which is reasonable. WP:ATD does not mandate that AfDs consider the possibility of a merge, and closing a discussion as endorsing a merge when the possibility was not even mentioned is extremely problematic at best. Furthermore there is no obvious merge target. Hut 8.5 17:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, they were originally nominated as one, and the result of the discussion was indeed that they. So I withdrew the mass nomination and nominated them separately. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 14:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are not rebutted by noting that some of them might be poor.  An assertion that the nine sources listed are insufficient would be problematic, since more suitable sources are available from a regional newspaper, the San Francisco Chronicle.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment does not point out that the closer could have relisted the AfD and requested a merge discussion.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would have been a nonstandard action – if consensus is evident, the closer should close in line with it. If the would-be closer disagrees with that consensus, he/she may write a dissenting comment and let the next potential closer decide to close, relist, or also comment. Flatscan (talk) 05:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:BEFORE, the possibility of a merge should have been addressed during the nomination.  At related AfDs, editors have discussed merge targets, including List of councilmembers of the Richmond City Council.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I have written before, I think that failing to mention merging may weaken – but will only rarely invalidate – nominations and delete recommendations. Special:WhatLinksHere/List of councilmembers of the Richmond City Council returns only this DRV. I browsed through the related AfDs (Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Rogers (politician)), finding Irma Anderson, Richard Griffin (Councilmember), and Mindell Penn containing "merg". Excluding one rejection by Purplebackpack89 and one supporting comment by LuciferWildCat, the single user discussing merging is you. Flatscan (talk) 05:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn  Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators states, "If an argument for deletion is that the page lacks sources, but an editor adds the missing references, said argument is no longer relevant."

    Regarding the closing statement:

    • The closing AfD statement incorrectly cites WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as a keep argument, this comment was placed by the nominator.
    • The closing AfD statement incorrectly asserts that one of the delete !votes claimed that the sources were trivial, and this error is repeated during this DRV.
    • None of the other delete arguments listed; "routine", "local", and "outdated"; are relevant to this WP:GNG analysis; possibly to WP:POLITICIAN; but not to WP:GNG.  The final argument, the issue of citations to a different person, would only have been relevant if such had existed.
There was no consensus to delete:
  • The closing admin did not use the word "consensus" in the closing.
  • As analyzed above, the closing admin did not list any relevant delete arguments.
  • The uncivil response at WT:Articles for deletion/María Viramontes to questions about WP:GNG is not the response of a consensus.
  • None of the delete positions made an argument based on content policy as to why the material should be removed, "Notability does not directly affect the content of articles..." (ref WP:N). This point is further covered in WP:FAILN, WP:ATD, and WP:PRESERVE.
Unscintillating (talk) 22:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these considerations are either based on semantics or are irrelevant. It's true that the closing statement didn't use the word "consensus", but this is just irrelevant, and since all AfD closures are based on evaluating consensus there's no need to explicitly use the word. The closing admin did summarise deletion arguments (references to Viramontes were generally routine coverage of local affairs, trivial, outdated, or even to a different person) and the fact that he didn't explicitly quote the arguments in question doesn't say anything about the close's validity. One delete !voter (Yaksar) did say the sourcing was "bordering on trivial", and several others described the sources as trivial without using that word (there needs to be significant coverage...received minimal coverage...lacking in-depth coverage). One keep argument does boil down to OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: LuciferWildCat compared the subject to several rappers with articles. Notability does not affect article content, no, but nobody claimed that it did during the debate and notability does affect whether an article on a certain topic should exist. Likewise nobody claimed that the subject should be deleted because there were no references, and when more references were added the general view was that they did not cover the subject in enough detail to pass the notability guidelines. Hut 8.5 11:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Under WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention...".  Trivial is a well-enough defined concept in notability.  The example is given of the reference to the high-school band The Three Blind Mice in a book about Clinton.  No editor has claimed that any of the sources being discussed are trivial, and no reasonable editor would claim so.  This is not the case of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, there are nine sources listed at the top of this DRV, and more reliable, secondary sources with non-trivial coverage are available from the archives of the San Francisco Chronicle, a regional newspaper.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show the page that defines trivial in the context of assessing notability? My understanding is that to a degree an AFD has a lot of lattitude to determine whether the sourcing is adequate rather then having a fixed metric to assess this. Spartaz Humbug! 14:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Unscintillating, I've gotta take issue with your use of civility. You're essentially equating disagreeing with you with incivility. You've done this with me and now you're doing it with Jay. The talk of the AfD page was clearly the inappropriate place to discuss the closure (and certainly the wrong place to source-dump), so it's not surprising you took flak for source-dumping there. Furthermore, your restoration argument is contingent on two things: a) A GHITS/SOURCESEARCH argument is perfectly valid, and b) an argument based on specific notability guidelines (ANYBIO, POLITICIAN). I just can't buy that. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to non-consensus on the fairly simple basis that is what the results of the AfD actually was. The standards for city council members, are disputed. As a result , the debate usually hinges on the extent of coverage--there is always some coverage, the question is usually, as here, whether the coverage is substantial. "Substantial" is a matter which no admin can decide: it is a natter of evaluation and opinion, and only the community can do so. An admin can & should discard arguments not based on policy, but must follow the community on the question of the interpretation of the policy. The closer here used his own interpretation of the policy, but he had no right to do so. It happens that his opinion agrees totally with mine on the underlying issue--I am quite deletionist on city council members of all but the largest cities, and Redmond is not one of them. If I were closing, te fact that I think the article should be deleted would be irrelevant, and the same for the closer here. I would never ever close an ambiguous discussion on the basis on my own opinion on interpretation of the matter at issue--except possibly to declare the fact that there wasn't any consensus on it. This was a true supervote. The closer used hi own judgement of whether the sources were sufficient.He would have done better to have said so as one of the people in the argument. (btw, I didn't join in this one because I no longer argue in city council AfDs like this--the ambiguity is frustrating, and we need a proper guideline, not reliance on the GNG which, as here, is usually too ambiguous for a clean decision.) DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per what seems like a consensus in the AfD. Too many of the AfD votes seemed to basically boil down to "the sources exist somewhere, go find them".--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

24 December 2011

23 December 2011

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Gillian Andrassy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)George Ho (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)}}[reply]

At good faith in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 October 15, I requested a review on the results of the debate. This page, therefore, was redirected to "List of All My Children miscellaneous characters", which was already deleted due to copyright infringements. This page was deleted as a redirect, as well. It would be nice to have it re-creaeted as a redirect to List of All My Children characters rather than recover; the previous revisions must have violated copyrights. George Ho (talk) 20:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC) I wonder if pages created by users who violate block/ban policy may be recovered. --George Ho (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
International Communist Current (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Posting on behalf of User:The Lion of Lannister who accidentally created this page His rationale...

This page has been deleted because someone said the ICC is a sect which is not notable under wikipedia policy. However today the ICC is the biggest left communist organization internationally and pages of much smaller organizations exist as well as pages of certain sections of the ICC. It is indeed more notable than most similar political organizations, having been covered in a Daily Mail article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1331892/Tuition-fee-militants-picket-school-gates.html. The article should be up again.

Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Two questions. #1 was this closed properly? I really don't think so. I see no consensus for deletion given that the keep !votes were fairly darn reasonable and the delete !votes didn't address anything they said. #2, should we have this article? I really think it should be merged somewhere, but our encyclopedia should certainly cover this. We aren't paper and we are supposed to cover things covered in other specialized encyclopedias. Editorially, given the lack of in-depth coverage, I don't think this should be a stand alone article. But as there are at least two encyclopedias/references that cover this topic (One in the AfD and [6]) I do think we should do at least as solid of a job as our paper counterparts. And this group does see limited news coverage. I think our bar with respect to groups like this is way too high. Hobit (talk) 16:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite and optionally relist The organization might be notable, and I think we should extend especial tolerance in this regard to minor political and religious groups, because of the inevitable bias in judging. But the last version of the article is too much of an exposition of the groups general policies, most of which are extremely similar to similar groups, and too little about this group in particular. I'd pretty muchclassify it as a possible G11 candidate. I'd like to see us cover it, but with a better and clearer article. DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, DGG makes good points, but wikipedia allows for gradual growth, if there is notability then even a bad article is ok, because time will suck in a zealous editor at some point.LuciferWildCat (talk) 11:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete If this is deleted, then there should be a vast swathe of deletions of less notable organizations, from the entire political spectrum. I'm talking about dozens if not hundreds of articles. 64.222.222.9 (talk) 21:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it deleted. The International Communist Current is a sect. It is not notable at all under Wikipedia's policies, not specifically because it is a sect, but because so little has been written about it by reliable sources. There was, I think, a single source in the article independent of the ICC. "Might be notable" is not a reason for undeletion. Sherlock Holmes Fan (talk) 22:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not true that the ICC is mentioned by a single reliable source though. The ICC is cited in a book by Christophe Bourseiller called "Histoire de l'Ultra-Gauche" (http://www.amazon.fr/Histoire-g%C3%A9n%C3%A9rale-lultra-gauche-Christophe-Bourseiller/dp/2207251632/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1324298512&sr=1-2) The ICC and one of its founders, Marc Chirik are both cited in Philippe Bourrinet's book on the Dutch Left (http://libcom.org/files/dutchleft.pdf) and this is a serious doctoral thesis. The ICC is also cited in Authier and Barrot's book on the German Communist Left (on Google Books: http://books.google.fr/books?id=ZUXOJCYPOwQC&q=courant+communiste+international&dq=courant+communiste+international&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=eTHvToHkO4-s8QPUvYiaCg&redir_esc=y) and as a reference in Simon Pirani's book on the Russian Revolution in retreat (http://books.google.fr/books?id=czMWmnYbXFIC&pg=PA195&dq=%22international+communist+current%22+russian&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=yFPvTt3hJ4K2hAfEgsHJCA&sqi=2&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22international%20communist%20current%22%20russian&f=false) The ICC has also published books itself: The British Left, Communism, The Russian Left, which can all be referenced. Marc Chirik himself has a wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Chirik) which is much better referenced compared to the previous page on the ICC itself and it indeed points out to the fact that there is even a famous novel written about Marc Chirik. Whether the ICC is a sect or not is not something which can be decided upon by the comment of a single wikipedia user, especially coming from someone who self-identifies as an anti-communist - acting on this basis is against the principle of neutrality. --The Lion of Lannister 22:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many of those are not independent sources. Philippe Bourrinet's book was originally published by the International Communist Current itself, so it is not surprising that it mentions the ICC (the version The Lion of Lannister links to above is a different version, revised, and independent of the ICC; I'm not sure whether it was even properly published). Pirani's book isn't about the ICC, and any brief reference to it that it may make is hardly relevant. Likewise irrelevant are the facts that Marc Chirik has a Wikipedia article, and that I'm an anti-communist (which no more invalidates my judgments than your judgments would be invalidated if you declared on your user page that you're an ICC supporter - and note that that's purely a 'what if' scenario; I'm not suggesting that you are anything). Sherlock Holmes Fan (talk) 00:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, these actually are independent sources. It is true that Philippe Bourrinet's book was originally published by the ICC itself but the version linked is the new version, which was, again, published as an actual, academic doctoral thesis. Pirani's book obviously isn't about the ICC (because it is about the Russian Revolution) but it also is a very serious academic work and that there is a reference to the ICC in it means that the ICC is not, in any way, unnoticeable. The other sources which you didn't comment on also are sources completely independent from the ICC. Surely the notability of its most significant founder isn't irrelevant to the question of whether the ICC is relevant or not. And, of course, in a number of other wikipedia articles of greatly varying topics, articles by the ICC are used either as references or as external reading links. You being an anti-communist does invalidate your judgment when you make ad hominem comments about communist groups, such as claiming they are sects. --The Lion of Lannister 11:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For something to be notable, it has to have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources - brief, passing mentions in a book like Pirani's just don't count. The notability of Marc Chirik is indeed irrelevant to the notability of the ICC as an organization - if he is notable, he is notable, but that does not magically bestow notability on a group he was involved with. Sherlock Holmes Fan (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you keep insisting. You claimed that there was only a single mention of the ICC in different resources, this was why you initially argued that the ICC was not notable. Then, it was clearly demonstrated that there are, indeed, numerous other sources in the ICC, in numerous languages. Now, ignoring all of the other sources cites and the fact that the ICC website itself is used as a source for numerous wikipedia articles, and the fact that there has been a Daily Mail article about the ICC and so on and so on, you keep repeating that one of the sources (the Pirani book) doesn't count - so the organization is not notable. Claiming that for something to be notable, it has to have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources - what does this mean, does it mean there has to be several books explicitly about a topic if it is to have a page? This means deleting more than half of the articles on wikipedia. It means deleting all the articles on all the sportsmen, authors, musicians, artists etc. who aren't top celebrities, deleting all the historical events and groups unless they were extremely major and so on. --The Lion of Lannister 12:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policy regarding notability. Please see WP:NOTE, which states, among other things, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." Brief mentions in a book like Pirani's obviously aren't "significant coverage", so no, it doesn't count. Sherlock Holmes Fan (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I never said there was only a single source anywhere discussing the ICC - only that there was a single source in the article independent of the ICC itself, which was true. Sherlock Holmes Fan (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the closing administrator's job to read the minds of those involved in the deletion discussion, nor is it the closing admin's job to do another action in which the participants of said AFD had failed to discuss. --MuZemike 00:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • TFD said "I would suggest however that merging the article would be more appropriate.". Sandstein said "...selectively merge into a list of similar groups or other parent article.". Q.E.D. Warden (talk) 21:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does this mean merging the ICC with the Communist Bulletin Group. I am not sure how that will work. Last time the met there were very bitter accusations - inlcuding the theft of typewriters. I suppose if they merely share a wikipedia page, the worst that can happen is that they nick each others typos!Leutha (talk) 13:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it is an absurdity in itself that there is a CBG page while the ICC page has been deleted. The ICC is about fifty times bigger than the CBG ever was, so notability-wise, it doesn't make much sense. --The Lion of Lannister 01:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the CBG has a Wikipedia article doesn't mean that it should have one. If the ICC is not notable, the CBG is even less so, so it should be deleted as well. Sherlock Holmes Fan (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the ICC is not notable, probably the majority of the leftist organizations which have pages on wikipedia are not notable actually. Sherlock Holmes Fan's deletionist policy, however, isn't a rule. --The Lion of Lannister 12:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps there should be a merged page which includes the ICC, CBG and such groups as the Knights of the Negative who merged with the ICC in 1975 I believe?Leutha (talk) 10:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete I strongly disagree with the reason given deletion given originally that the ICC are not notable because they are supposedly a 'sect' - what is that even supposed to mean? I gives the unfortunate impression of political motivated deletionism. The ICC are clearly a notable organisation for an encyclopedia, they are one of the main and longest standing left communist organisations, with distinctive political positions, and are actively involved in ultra-left politics in a number of countries. If the ICC are not notable why would there be entries in 8 non-English versions of Wikipedia, and why would for example the ICC sections in the US and Venezuela be notable? - pir (talk) 18:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand the issue. The article was deleted not because the International Communist Current is a sect (although it is), but because it is not notable. Saying the ICC are "clearly notable" is simply making an irrelevant assertion; notability depends on what reliable sources have written about a subject, not on editors' ideas about how important something is. Moreover, the fact that the two Internationalism groups have Wikipedia articles does not make them notable - editors create articles on non-notable topics all the time, and often they remain in Wikipedia because no one can be bothered nominating them for deletion.Sherlock Holmes Fan (talk) 02:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I understand the issue. My point is that the original VfD should be regarded as invalid, because the initiator of the VfD framed the discussion by stating that the ICC are 'a sect' (btw., I'd be quite interested in what you mean by that, do you believe they are a religious sect? do you call them a sect because they came out of a political split?). This caused the original VfD to be biased, with for example links to reliable sources provided by user:AllyD being ignored. Another user above has already posted further links to reliable independent sources, so no need for me to repeat that. - pir (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If indeed, notability depends on the reliable sources on the subjecting, what is actually irrelevant is a user with a deletionist and anti-communist bias ignoring the existence of these sources. Also, he keeps changing his argument as he goes along. His initial reasoning when he started a page for the deletion of the ICC page was that the ICC was not notable because it was a sect. --The Lion of Lannister 12:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pir claimed that the simple fact that an organization has a Wikipedia article about it means that it is notable. That emphatically is not the case, and does count as misunderstanding the issue. It was never my argument that the ICC's article should be deleted because the ICC is a "sect", although I see now that I could have been misunderstood as making that argument. Complaints about my bias are irrelevant (and I hardly need point out what it shows that you attack me for stating my political views openly while saying nothing about your own politics). Sherlock Holmes Fan (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete Please bear with a neophyte editor for finding this whole procedure very difficult to understand. As far as i can see, the ICC page has been "reinstated" but is empty. I have prepared a short page to replace the original, but I am not sure whether it is appropriate etiquette to load it now, or if there is something else I should wait for. Guidance would be welcome here. I also find it hard to follow Sherlock Holmes Fan's reasoning. First, he keeps on insisting that the ICC is a "sect". Since he's a Christian I suppose he should know about sects, but this is a political argument not a religious one. At all events, even if the ICC were a sect then that is completely irrelevant to the argument (even the Solar Temple gets a page after all). More relevant is the issue of "notability". I confess again to being a novice here, but I would put forward the following arguments in favour of the ICC page being retained:
    • Notability is a very relative issue: one of the very excellent things about Wikipedia is that it offers the opportunity to people to contribute freely their knowledge about things which are not considered "notable" by the "official" world of paper encyclopedias, even things like Frog jumping contests for heavens sakes (not very notable in my view, even if they get a mention in a book by Mark Twain). The ICC is a minority taste, to be sure, but it has existed and published a trilingual quarterly for more than thirty years (as can be seen from its web site, or indeed from a research on eBay where back issues of its Review are sold at ridiculous prices as collectables): this seems to me pretty notable in itself.
    • Sherlock Holmes Fan says that the various books where the ICC is cited are "not enough" to make it notable. Quite the contrary, it seems to me: these citations (from books published as wide apart as Authier and Barrot's classic La Gauche communiste en Allemagne to Simon Pirani's book on the Russian revolution) show that the ICC's publications are considered as serious source material for historical books on these subjects (most recently, the Review has published a document by Gavril Myasnikov previously unavailable in English, rescued from the archives in Moscow. Nor does Sherlock Holmes Fan take into consideration that Marc Chirik was not just "associated" with the ICC, but devoted the last 15 years of his life to it. Chirik was the hero of Planet without visa, Jean Malaquais (one of the major writers of 20th century France IMHO, and a friend of Norman Mailer). Malaquais considered this to be his best work, and the organisation that Chirik devoted so much of his life to is notable if only as a means of understanding one of the best books written in French in the last 100 years (a subjective judgment, it's true)
    • Sherlock Holmes Fan doesn't seem in the least concerned about the overall coherence of Wikipedia. He goes on and on about deleting the ICC web page, but has nothing to say about the pages of other organisations which are considered part of the Communist Left. Now, since the Communist Left includes major figures of 20th century history (Amadeo Bordiga, Sylvia Pankhurst, Anton Pannekoek, Herman Gorter, to name but a few) it is definitely notable, and any editorial decisions on any one Wikipedia page ought IMHO to take this into account. As it is you have the absurd situation where the Left Communism page references Wiki pages for all sorts of much smaller groups, but not the biggest of them. True, the Left Communism page could do with some editing, and I am aware of the rule that pages should stand on their own merit, nonetheless, there should be some concern for overall coherence. In fact, the impression I am left with is that SHF has a particular antipathy for the ICC (God only knows why) which he is pursuing here.
    • Finally, it should be pointed out that the ICC has an entire, not very complimentary, chapter (or even two) devoted to it in Christophe Bourseiller's Histoire générale de l'ultra-gauche. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jens1917 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think Jens1917 makes some good points. What I find weird is that constituent parts of the ICC, such as World Revolution (UK) have a page to themselves, but Revolution Internationale has nothing even though they are the only part of the ICC to have achieved anything much - i.e their role in the Council for Maintaining the Occupations - aside, of course, providing a butt for those who find their solemn self-importance a source of amauement. I would suggest "centralising" (this is a term they really love) information about their various sections into one glorious article, and make sure it is not simply a gloss gleaned from the self-adulating press.Leutha (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid most of Jens1917's comments are beside the point. The only relevant part of Jens1917's remarks is the mention of Christophe Bourseiller's book (to which I do not have access). If it discusses the ICC, then possibly that would show that it is notable, but not (as I say) having access to it, I can't tell. Everything else Jens1917 said is beside the point, and I leave it to him or her to find out why; if you want to participate in Wikipedia, it's your responsibility to familiarize yourself with its policies and procedures. Sherlock Holmes Fan (talk) 07:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have a couple of further observation. As Jens1917 and The Lion of Lannister have both accused me of bringing a political bias into this discussion, they might want to say something about their own political views, specifically whether they are ICC supporters. It is a little curious that they accuse me of political bias - which is in itself a political act - while remaining silent about their own political affiliations. I think it should also be taken into account that Leutha has apparently been raising the issue of the deletion of the ICC article on an external forum, for example here http://libcom.org/forums/general/icc-deleted-wikipedia-16122011 Sherlock Holmes Fan (talk) 07:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the issue of political affiliation, I have not said anything about this because IMHO this is a discussion about Wikipedia and what an online encyclopedia should be, not about the political affiliation of this or that editor. My comment about SHF was not to do with political bias: since his page says he is both a Christian and an anti-Communist, I would normally expect him to be equally biased against anything "communist" (and so if anything more impartial a judge than Leutha who clearly has an axe to grind). His continued persistence on this subject to the exclusion of others (like the CBG page which should surely attract his ire also?) makes me wonder whether he does not have some bias other than political on the subject.
On the guidelines, thanks for the advice, and I have indeed read (and re-read) the guidelines concerning notability. I note that "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail. Three books IMHO satisfy this criterion: Bourseiller's book on the Ultra-Left (as he calls it), Hempel's book on "Marc Laverne", and the collected works of the Internationale Situationniste. All of these are in French, and as far as I am aware only Bourseiller's book is still in print.
As always, guidelines are open to interpretation. I note that the guidelines also say that The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. Now, as I have argued above, the fact that ICC publications are cited as sources by works concerned not with the ICC directly, but with subjects of wider historical interest, is evidence that the ICC has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. Simply to say that "this is irrelevant" is not an argument.
To conclude, I am willing to load a proposed page which answers the previous objections, and will do so in the next few days unless someone tells me that there is another route that one is supposed to follow on this. Thank you--Jens1917 (talk) 16:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have to wait for this discussion to be concluded before restoring the article. You cannot restore it unless agreement is reached here to do that. Sherlock Holmes Fan (talk) 06:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nine days elapsed with no comment, and now Sherlock Holmes Fan acts, without actually taking the discussion furthere. I feel Jens1917 has made a significant improvement to the page, which I have also tinkered with, and we also have proposed page merges with constituent elements of the ICC which still retain their own pages. Also Sherlock Holmes Fan removed the revised content of the page even though the template employed indicated that it should remain so that fellow editors could consider the matter fully. I am concerned that Sherlock Holmes Fan has become emotionally involved and has allowed this to cloud their judgement. If not, then let's please have some reasoned debate on the topic.Leutha (talk) 11:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leutha's suggestion that I am emotionally involved and that my judgement is clouded should be compared against his and Jens1917's actions. Leutha has engaged in behavior on an offsite forum (Libcom.org) that could be considered an attempt to recruit like-minded (eg, sympathetic to left communism) editors to Wikipedia. See the link I posted above, and this link http://libcom.org/forums/general/theye-re-back-icc-might-eb-reprieved-oblivion-28122: as well. Jens1917, meanwhile, has added blatantly biased content to the Interational Communist Current article, such as the following: "More recently, the ICC's participation in the UK students' movement has been (inaccurately) denounced by the Daily Mail." (Which replaced the text, "In November 2010, the ICC joined people advocating the use of "legitimate force" to stop a rise in tuition fees at British universities to mobilise school children. At least one ICC member attended a planning meeting of the Education Activist Network campaign group"). That kind of language is clearly biased in favor of the ICC. It amounts to an attempt to use the Wikipedia article to promote the International Communist Current and its political positions. I make no apology for doing everything in my power to stop that. Sherlock Holmes Fan (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please compare my comment with the link. In fact if you look at posts on Libcom site, far from being what Sherlock Holmes Fan calls "like-minded" there are very differing views as regards the ICC. However, the post there is useful in that attracts the interest of people who are knowledgeable about the topic. If you consider the edits I made to Jens1917 re-edit, you will see that I addressed some of the bias, eg I referenced the Sitiuationist International accussing them of intellectual dishonsety. This is not consistent with "an attempt to use the Wikipedia article to promote the International Communist Current and its political positions" as Sherlock Holmes Fan claims. If Sherlock Holmes Fan genuinely wants to do something in their power to stop that, then making an edit which is more compatible with newspaper quote would be the appropriate way forward. However Sherlock Holmes Fan has not done that. The question of notability has not been addressed, following the production of independent sources. Further Sherlock Holmes Fan made no effort to respond to Jens1917's proposal even after it had been here for over a week. In consequence I have posted the matter Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#International_Communist_Current here.Leutha (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Drmies' justification for closing this AfD with a "delete" result was simply "existence does not equal notability." While that is true, I'm not sure that statement reflected the consensus reached in the discussion, if indeed one existed. However, as far as DRV is concerned, the correctness of the close should probably be water under the bridge at this point. That's because the sources noted by AllyD in the AfD, when combined with the sources found by Jens1917 in this very discussion, should be enough to allow for a Wikipedia article on the ICC. In particular, the existence of an entry for the ICC in the Encyclopedia of British and Irish political organizations and the coverage of the organization in the books by Christophe Bourseiller and Pierre Hempel appear to be good enough for undeletion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Numbers In Action (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closed a few hours after its first relist, with four views, inc. nom, all divergent and all pre-relisting. Article history deleted.
Part of my query to the closer was interpreted as a personal attack and discussion was refused on that basis. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 07:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's surprising to see the article history deleted. You were a bit abrupt with TParis, and I can understand his decision not to engage with you on his talk page, but I do hope that a clearer explanation of his thought processes will be forthcoming now.—S Marshall T/C 08:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • restore history at the very least (unless there's something I'm missing, which is possible). I'm not seeing anything in that afd that would lead one to any sort of delete consensus. Its possible that, by strength of argument, 86. made a good case for outright keeping the article. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't see the relist when I closed the AFD. I don't much care if it's relisted, the refs are good, I just don't appreciate folks coming to my talk page with a dickish attitude. My talk page notice literally says "Please be civil with me, I respond to respect with respect, and I respond to disrespect with reports." Anyway, this DRV is pointless, I've relisted the AFD.--v/r - TP 14:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

22 December 2011

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Newtonmas (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Newtonmas may be a term someone searches for, but rates only a paragraph under Isaac Newton. 84.61.131.15 (talk) 22:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

21 December 2011

20 December 2011

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Intellum,_Inc. (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The entry was no less notable than entries for other companies and products in the learning management system space. The entry had independent 3rd party references, indicating why the company was notable in the market, and contained no "sales speak." Medra42 (talk) 01:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing admin comment This wasn't addressed with me on my talk page, although I likely wouldn't have budged on the close anyhow. Medra42 doesn't addressed how the AFD was closed improperly nor what error the AFD made. DRV is not AFD-redo.--v/r - TP 01:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 02:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC) [reply]
  • Question. I do not see how the discussion could have been concluded otherwise; the only thing that would change the conclusion is some evidence about the importance of the award stated in the article. Can you provide any help here? (There will always be some level of borderline importance where notability will be uncertain, and some articles at that level will be kept and some not. Changing the bar higher or lower will not remove the difficulty, just move it to a different level. The only alternative, in most fields, is having an arbitrary cutoff that may or may not correspond to anything real, and produces the same result. Those cases where we do have an absolute qualification that corresponds to something true in the external world are quite limited: recordings & athletes, for example, and the advisability our our doing this is continually debated. I personally like true rational standards, but I do not see how one could be rationally constructed in this area.) DGG ( talk ) 02:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In reply:(I don't know that I'm doing this right.. still learning) I'm also not sure how a standard could be constructed in this area. This is my major problem with the deletion. I don't understand how it is any less notable than the pages than some other entries that exist, the most salient being Cornerstone OnDemand. The award given to Intellum came from what is considered by many to be one of the industry standard research groups in the field. As one can see, there are many products and companies providing software in this area, and the fact that they were mentioned at all is notable, given the competition. I'm more than willing to admit that, in the grand scheme of things, the quality of research from Brandon Hall and Bersin Associates is probably not up to Forrester and Gartner. However, none of these outlets is much more than a place for companies to buy their way into white papers and other more credible documents, just as most of the wire sources given on the Cornerstone page are nothing more than company news releases distributed via paid distribution channels. With that said, the award given to Intellum was not purchased, the research is as valid as it can be, and the company has been covered by broad-spectrum media (37signals).
In addition, it seems that just before the deletion some comments were made towards the idea that I'm attempting to advertise for the company. This seems like a fairly wild accusation, and a sign that some editors are both understandably a little overly sensitive to companies creating entries, and unaware of the effect a Wikipedia actually has on a company's business (especially SMBs or regional brands). While I do some consulting work with Intellum, and they did ask me to take a look at the Wikipedia entry they created, I made changes to what they were attempting to post, and put my own effort into finding the 3rd party resources because I respect the fact that Wikipedia requires them.
I respect the fact that Intellum, Inc. may not meet the requirements for notability, and that the entry may not survive. What I don't understand is why this entry is being picked at while others continue unquestioned, especially considering the fact that the Intellum entry contained verifiable, 3rd party recognition in 3 different, reliable, verifiable places.. which seems to indicate that the company is indeed notable in the industry.
--Medra42 (talk) 03:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We agree there's no likely natural standard. When so, as with most Wikipedia article topics, we have a standard solution: the WP:GNG General Notability Guideline, which relies entirely on the presence of references providing significant coverage from independent published reliable sources. The difficulty comes with evaluating the meaning of significant, independent, and reliable; most contested AfDs revolve around those three words. (This criterion gives results that are sometimes arbitrary, depending on what happens to be accessible to the people here; there is particular difficulty with some subjects, where often little is formally written in such publicly accesible sources. It will sometimes seem that the only ones that get articles are the ones that have serious problems that attract the reporters.)
I regret the discussion in the AfD did not make this clear but talked in a vague way about notability without actually explaining this is how we judge it, nor did the closer clarify it. Examining then your sources de novo: The first is a directory listing, which is not considered significant coverage; PR newswire is not independent of the company--it just prints press releases; the next entry is a presentation by the company CEO, & thus not independent; the next item is possible--its a cursory independent review based entirely on a presentation by he company--if the reviewer is a respected authority, we've sometimes but not always accepted such sources--that he's a responsible enough journalist to specify the limits of his sources speaks for his integrity; the last entry is the announcement of the award. Unfortunately, looking at it, Intellium did not win the fist prize: in its category,"Best Advance in Learning Management Technology for Small- and Medium-Sized Businesses" there were 2 gold, 4 silver and 3 broze awardsL the company was one of the silver. Since there are 7 categories of awards, it would appear that every possible product would have such an award. Were it a single award for the best product in the entire LMS category, I'd accept it as significant coverage & enough for an article.
I conclude there is not enough evidence of notability; I did not say not enough notability--we can only go by the evidence. We haven't the skill or authority to evaluate the quality of business firms or anything else, only to evaluate the quality of the sources about them. I'd be willing to say the AfD was improper because nobody discussed the actual criteria, and you would be entitled to have another afd--which is really the place for the comments I just made, not here. But I think the result would clearly be the same,so there's nothing to be gained by it. What we advise in such cases is waiting until you have two truly substantial independent full product reviews from known reliable sources--in which case WP will want an article, regardless of what the reviews say about the quality of the product--we only judge the attention that is given it. As for the Cornerstone page, I assure you we will look at it. You could even yourself nominate it for deletion, but it will appear fairer if someone else judges whether to do that. DGG ( talk ) 10:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to explain the thought process here and show a review of each source. I knew that they were not all great (PRNewsWire, etc.) but wasn't sure exactly why the more reliable sources were being, for lack of a better word, ignored. This helps quite a bit.
And no, I won't be poking around asking for Cornerstone or other LMS pages to be deleted, although I'd like to keep an eye on them and attempt to lend any kind of help I can, as I'm intimately familiar with the space. FWIW, Cornerstone and others they do have some strong, notable sources, which I can't find for Intellum.
--Medra42 (talk) 13:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I participated in the AfD and not-voted to delete it. Article was clearly a promotional insertion about a "learning management system", a patently nonsensical phrase (what is a "learning management system", anyways? Something other than a teaching method that's being sold to people who fancy themselves managers?) Calling anything a "management system" is meaningless PR patter. Request for review is essentially WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Let me know about "other companies and products in the learning management system space" (Management system space? LOL) and I will take a look; outraged spammers are often valuable sources of leads. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- for three reasons. Firstly, the administrator clearly judged consensus properly. Secondly, "I don't like the result" is not a DRV rationale. Thirdly, the article was unambiguously advertising. Reyk YO! 04:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Reasonable if not fully fleshed out deletion arguments from nominator and three other editors. Keep arguments from one apparently inexperienced or COI-conflicted editor—inexperienced and COI editor, as it turns out. DGG's detailed explanation here affirms the correctness of the closure and seems to have been accepted as reasonable by the "keep" voter/DRV requester who, to his credit, has disclosed his connection with the subject. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Accurate reading of AFD discussion, no argument that discussion was not policy/guideline based. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk)`
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

19 December 2011

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Austin Mahone (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

This is a significant singer with +300K Twitter followers, 300K subscribers on his YouTube channel and 47MM video views, and sold out concerts in New York. If previous attempts to create an article were not successful, I am willing to scour media sources to find notable sources for this article. I am sorry if this posting is not formatted correctly - It is *very difficult* to post requests like this, why is the process so arcane? Keizers (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: the version I deleted consisted of, in its entirety, "Austin Carter Mahone was born April 4, 1996 in San Antonio, Texas. He started putting videos of him singing on youtube where he started gaining fans." None of the previously deleted versions (there are five of them) are any better. If the subject is now notable, I'd suggest creating a draft in a sandbox in your userspace, where you can gather references documenting the subject's notability. Acroterion (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion w/o prejudice to creation of a suitable article: This article has been deleted five times, probably each time due to lack of sources cited to show notability. Mahone is not the first to run into the problem of being very popular among the younger teen crowd, and thus getting less press coverage at first then, say, some indie band from brooklyn. A quick search found these sources [7] [8] [9] which suggests he could have an article. The prior close as delete was OK, but its possible that an article could be created on this guy.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have created a new article at Austin Mahone (singer). I would appreciate someone moving it to Austin Mahone, as I can't seem to do that. This new article can be subjected to AfD if necessary, and the DrV can be closed since the prior deletes were proper.--Milowent • hasspoken 14:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the article to Austin Mahone per your request. Acroterion (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
M.E. Bell (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The article was recently created by me, temporarily unaware that there was a Mifflin E. Bell article which M.E. Bell refers to. There are in fact a good number of references on the internet to "M.E. Bell" and valid-to-use sources, including at least two I had already added to the article. It was speedy-delete tagged by editor SarekOfVulcan, who has been dogging my edits towards finding any fault to trumpet. It would clearly have been better just to put a note on the article's talk page. Then editor Elen of the Roads deleted it, and has not responded to my request. Elen of the Roads is aware of running contention by SarekOfVulcan against me, and should not have been furthering SarekOfVulcan running up some damn score of works of mine that he has disrupted. And on the facts the article should not have been speedy-deleted; it does not meet the criteria, including that a redirect at a minimum is needed, and that the article content was not entirely duplicated in the Mifflin article. I ask for the article to be restored so that I may proceed with an orderly merge of material. Please restore the article with its edit history.doncram 18:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion – Doncram created an article that duplicated an existing one instead of editing the current article. That's not how things work here. If there is an existing article, then users are supposed edit that one and, if necessary, work with the other editors on said article. Recreating an article from scratch and expecting that it be history-merged into an existing one is underhanded, uncollaborative, and indicative of article ownership.
Moreover, the current Mifflin E. Bell article has more information than the stub Doncram wants restored. It is also not as closely paraphrased from the sources as his version:
Doncram Source
...significant as the first Federal building built in Nevada, and the only one of its architectural style, which is Richardsonian Romanesque. ...significant to Nevada as the first Federal building to be constructed in the state and the only one of its particular style.
If his version is to be forced onto the Mifflin E. Bell article, it would be reverted, as it is clearly lacking on all counts. –MuZemike 18:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WTF. This is about the appropriateness of Speedy Deletion. That was inappropriate by the terms of Speedy Deletion guidelines. --doncram 18:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Edit the current article if you wish, no reason to make a new one, at most, redirect M.E. Bell to the current article. As for what and what not should be changed, it's a matter for the talk page of the article, not DRV. Snowolf How can I help? 18:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - lacking any indication that the ME Bell article was created in bad faith (and being ignorant of any history between Sarek and Doncram), and that "M.E. Bell" is a likely search term for the existing article I have restored the article history and created the redirect. This provides Doncram with any references that they might have lost with the deletion (tho I find that dubious) that can be used to improve the existing article, and gives us a current redirect. Any other issues regarding which content is verifiable and mergeable can be worked out on the talkpage. Syrthiss (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --doncram 18:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Putting my hands up here - should have created a redirect. More haste less speed. However....I wouldn't have done any kind of a merge - doncram's offering did not appear to have any information in it that was not in the article that already existed, and I share the concern about close paraphrasing expressed above. doncram, I recommend that in future you check the full name of an architect before you start an article on them, because the usual way to refer to an individual on Wikipedia is firstname/lastname.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks if that is an apology. This diff shows 2 wikilinks to articles for existing items, 6 additional items added, 2 photos added, a category, and other changes to the article, all from the M.E. Bell version i had drafted (not counting another photo that i also added anew). Far more than "any information". It is silly to chastise me for starting an article that turned out to be duplicative; that happens all the time and causes no problem, leading obviously to a merge when a duplication is established. The problem is only contention fostered by SarekOfVulcan here. You could as well chastise the editors of the other version for not identifying that this is the person commonly known as "M.E. Bell". --doncram 19:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*headdesk* --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WTF. That from Sarek who just exceeded 3RR at yet another article I was working on, trying to leave this one behind. Lay off with the contention. Good grief, get a life other than following me. --doncram 19:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you actually looked up sources instead of doing database dumps, we wouldn't have these issues now, would we? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
yes, that would have been the obvious way to deal with it, since A10 should not be used when the title of the new duplicate article is a plausible redirect, as this one is. If someone made the name error once, someone will again, so such a creation is usually a clear sign a redirect is needed. DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • undelete and redirect (basically endorse the action of Syrthiss) as this is not an A10 ("...and where the title is not a plausible redirect."), I don't think anyone disagrees. The question is if there should be a restore. In theory a pure redirect at this point would be fine (without the restore), but I've a really big fan of a tight speedy criteria and very much prefer to get things back to the state they would have been in had the speedy not been misapplied. Let's do things by the book unless there is a reason to do otherwise. Hobit (talk) 13:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Sierra McCormick (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

A second-billed star in a now-renewed Disney show that had not aired when the AfD was started, is now clearly notable. Ridiculous that the inline links in the A.N.T. Farm article are direct to IMDb. I edited a recreation of the article and then discussed moving it to the correct title with one of the four deleting admins (from the 10 times it's been recreated), but then another admin ignored our discussion and G4'd it. Like I mentioned on his page - maybe if we weren't so gung ho in deleting articles on items that young females are interested in, we might have a chance in addressing the gender bias gap that exists here. The-Pope (talk) 16:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse original close as delete, although I'm not beyond someone drafting a properly-sourced article that shows clear meeting of the relevant notability guidelines. However, this was deleted 6 months ago validly - a new article should be started from scratch. Pretty inappropriate to link "gender bias" to the non-existence of a validly-deleted article (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The AFD close is sound, though only due to the relative weakness of the keep arguments. That said, if someone wants to put together a draft article (with proper sourcing) that highlights the notable roles this subject has had, it might be worth revisiting this article. But the sheer number of times this article has been recreated (including by User:The-Pope) means that it will remain SALTed until a properly sourced draft article can be reviewed. Come back when you have a draft that shows notability. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me try to explain this a little bit better. I'm not here to challenge that original decision, - I'm here because I want admins to stop G4ing it, because things have changed. When the AFD was done, A.N.T. Farm hadn't even be aired. Now it's been renewed for a second season. It's a show on the Disney Channel. It's huge. For a child actor, this is equivalent to getting a top 10 single, playing in the premier league - this isn't a bit part, this isn't a pilot episode, this isn't a guest star role, it's a major role.
Did anyone actually read the most recently deleted version - which I did NOT create (can you please strike that from your statement, it is false), I only edited it, referenced it and requested that it be moved to the correct name. I only found the article on an Unreferenced BLP list as Sierra Nicole McCormick, referenced it, then found the AfDs on the actual name, discussed it with Wizardman, who then moved it to Sierra McCormick (he left a message on my talk page of "Went ahead and moved it. It's being recreated so frequently by obsessed fans that I'm tired of making sure it's G4'd, and the show at least makes her notability borderline so no reason to keep deleting it.") before Fastily did G4 it. When I queried why he did that Fastily told me to come here - "please do consider listing it at WP:DRV if the original AfD no longer applies so the page isn't deleted again". The guidelines here state "Deletion Review may also be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article." Now, the first part of that matches - and I think that the latest version (that was moved from Sierra Nicole to Sierra and deleted by Fastily at 09:06, 30 November 2011) is usable (and Wizardman agreed). If it is recreated, can a note be placed on it saying that things have changed so that no one else does a G4 on it? If this is the wrong place for a G4 overruling, then fine, tell me where else to, but as I've already talked to two admins about this, can't someone just do it? If you really want to be sure, send it straight back to AFD and see what the community thinks. All I know is that ANT Farm was barely mentioned in the first AFD, and it's her main claim to notability now. The-Pope (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • And that's precisely my point. The original deletion was fine, and that's part of what this DRV evaluates. OK. Now the subject's notability has changed, and that's fine too - so show me a draft article that properly documents that notability (with more than just a single source about the show and not the actress) and I'll happily endorse its move to Sierra McCormick. But first things first. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The updated, referenced stub was approved by an admin - Wizardman, but deleted by another, Fastily. I can't retrieve it, I don't have a mop. I am only at this page because Fastily told me to raise it here. Where else are you meant to go to complain about incorrect use of G4? The 2nd paragraph on the DRV page states Deletion review (DRV) considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions and speedy deletions Without ever seeing the original AFD'd version, I doubt the version deleted in November was "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy" as per the WP:CSD#G4 rules. So, all of the discussion about the original AfD is invalid, wrong, offtopic and not why I'm here. I'm disputing a speedy. Glad I sorted that out. The-Pope (talk) 16:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right, this is where you question a G4 deletion. Unfortunately, the November version (both of them, 12 November and 28/29 November) were close enough to the AFD version to qualify for G4 deletion. They also did not provide sources that document the subject's notability - they mention the new show, and there was a link to the announcement of that new show, but there was nothing about the subject herself except for the inclusion of her name in a list of cast members of the new show. So, in order to recreate this article (and to prevent it from being deleted again), you would need to provide a draft version that includes sources that show the subject to be notable. I don't dispute that she is probably notable, but - given the sheer number of times this article has been deleted - we need to document that notability using appropriate sources. Once that's done, I doubt anyone would argue that G4 applies. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • and who makes the call on the claimed notability of the draft version? Wizardman? Fastily? You? This board? AFC? Random other admin? If eveyone agrees that this is the best/only option then userfy please. The-Pope (talk) 00:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this case, Fastily made that call - a call with which I and several others here agree. The most recently deleted version did not adequately document the subject's notability using reliable sources. I add that we might short-circuit the whole process by finding such sources now - if we can do that, then we could restore the article with proper sources and have done. It should be that simple, yes? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article seems to have been undeleted for this review - userfy away. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I guess this is the perfect example of the good and bad things about sources, notability and google. I am guessing that there are in depth articles about her, but they aren't online, they are in paper only copies of "Disney Weekly" (yes I know that it wouldn't be independent) or "Kids Stuff" magazines. Is 'justjaredjr . buzznet.com' a reliable source? (probably not, trigged the blacklist spamfilter!) WP:ENTERTAINER comes close - "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows." Now she definitely has had one notable role... not sure about the others. So she is a perfectly borderline notable person. Which I guess is why a) she's been re-created so many times, and b) whilst at least 3 or 4 of us think that she just scrapes through, but many others stick by the previous ruling. I know that she isn't going to be a GA article anytime soon, but as the result of this G4 stubbornness is "direct links to IMDB" (which I think is awful), or single redlinks in lists of blue linked actors I think that the line is blurred enough. The AFC page, Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Sierra_McCormick is also interesting - there is a definite "good faith" desire for this article to exist - I bet another AfD would come up with a lot of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments for similar child actors- but the suitable refs just aren't on google yet. The-Pope (talk) 14:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You sold me - if the consensus here is that she is notable, I have no further objection to recreating the article. But I can't promise to vote keep if it comes up for another AFD for lack of sources, so do keep working on that. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, yeah speaking on the young-female bias, I just dealt with Austin Mahone (singer) which is on DrV above. The original deletion here was incorrect because there was no consensus to delete, its very simple. But its been a few months, no need to prejudice a recreation if more sources now exist.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suppose the point here is that no additional sources have been found. Consensus in the original discussion was based on an assessment of concerns presented and addressed, using reasons and rationale based in policy, sources, and common sense. Accordingly, the article was deleted. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 10:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and send to AfD The nom in this case did got an admin to agree that the article was okay. That should in general clear it from being a speedy target as speedies are for clear cases. So either Wizardman made a boneheaded call or it's not a clear case. Hobit (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wizardman did not allow restoration of the article based on established policies or guidelines. He indicates in edit summaries that he restored the article because he was tired of continued recreation of the article, essentially throwing his hands up in surrender. I am tired of the article being created when the initials issues have not yet been resolved, but there is a process to follow to ensure that as a community, we follow the established policies and guidelines. Bypassing the deletion policy was not an appropriate response with this article. The G4 is very clear that this article was previously deleted in accordance with the deletion policy and community consensus. And when recreated, it was clear that the article failed to address the issues that resulted in the original deletion. Note that I have personally looked for sources online and in printed newspapers, magazines, and journals to hopefully establish notability of this subject so that we don't have to continually be faced with numerous recreations of this article. I have come up empty; nothing in print and nothing online outside of a bunch of fansites. That said, if sources could be found, I would be more than happy to add them to the article. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 10:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn G4, AfD if desired. Diffs show that the most recently deleted article was not an unimproved copy of the deleted article, but contained substantial added content. Jclemens (talk) 08:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added content has failed to establish notability in accordance with the WP:GNG or WP:ENT. The issues that resulted in the original AFD continue to remain. Accordingly, the article was G4 deleted in compliance with the deletion policy. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 10:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close as delete. The AFD recommended deletion based on a lack of notability in accordance with WP:ENT or WP:GNG. These issues have not been resolved in any subsequent recreation. In my opinion, the restoration of the article by Wizardman was ill advised and contrary to the deletion policy. We don't keep or restore inappropriate articles simply because some editors continue to violate notability guidelines or create salted articles under another name. Or whether or not we are tired of addressing editors that continue to create and recreate inappropriate articles. Articles require notability. The notability of this subject has been previously presented for discussion, resulting in community consensus to delete. There is nothing new to establish that the subject meets either the topical or general notability guidelines. If significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources can be found, or the subject can be shown to meet the WP:ENT guidelines (verified through reliable and independent sources), I would wholeheartedly support retaining the article. However, this information has not been forthcoming. It has not been shown that the notability threshold has been met. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 09:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The WP:ENT guidelines require "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." The subject doesn't meet this criteria, nor is the subject's body of work reflected in accordance with the WP:GNG. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 10:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is exactly what I said. She has 1 definitely significant role. I haven't looked closely enough at her other roles to determine if anything else is significant. Any all of those words are subjective and change with time, so being so rigid with the decision made 6 months ago isn't helpful. The-Pope (talk) 14:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You asked if the combination of other roles are enough. In reply, I simply presented an answer as stated in the guidelines. The combination of minor roles is not enough to establish notability. The WP:ENT guidelines require significant roles in multiple productions. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 18:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, there is nothing presented to confirm your opinion that the role in the film was a significant one. Can you provide any reliable, independent sources to support the claim? Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 18:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • She played one of the children in the family that the movie is about, that much is obvious enough just by looking at the cast list. She was more than an extra and had more than a cameo.[10] She also won a Family Television Award for her work on Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader?[11] For An Angel (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, she did not have a significant role in The Dog Who Saved Christmas, and she most certainly did not win an award for her work on the 5th Grader. This is a prime reason why we don't use IMDb to establish notability. The show was honored. McCormick was not a nominee or winner of any kind. Again, can you provide any reliable, independent sources to support your claims or assumptions? Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 12:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That depends on how you define "significant". She wasn't the only actor in the movie but she had more than a cameo. "she most certainly did not win an award for her work on the 5th Grader. This is a prime reason why we don't use IMDb to establish notability." As if IMDB was the only website that mentions this? How many more do you want? one, two, three, four? For An Angel (talk) 15:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Although this article has been deleted numerous times, it has gone through AfD only once and the only person who voted for delete in that discussion was the nominator. It was speedily deleted 5 or 6 times after that (requested by the same person every time) only because it was a "recreation of a previously deleted article". I think we should stop using that original AfD as a reason to keep deleting this article. The subject and article has grown a lot since it's first deletion. Just compare the two versions. At the very least, it doesn't make sense to "salt" this article because that assumes we know she will never become notable enough in the future. If she is still doesn't not meet notability requirements then just leave it as a redirect to A.N.T. Farm for now. For An Angel (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issues that were in the original version of the article which resulted in deletion, remain in the current version of the article. We don't open up more AFDs when the issues leading to deletion through community consensus have not been resolved. That would be a waste of time. The article continues to fail the threshold of notability in accordance with WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Salting an article simply protects continual recreations of an article that do not meet the criteria for inclusion. If someone wants to re-create a salted title, believing that the issues leading to the earlier deletion have been resolved, the appropriate response is to contact an administrator or use the deletion review process. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 10:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This might not mean much but she is currently ranked #6 on IMDB's "Most Popular People Born In 1997" and many of the actors less popular than her have articles here on Wikipedia. For An Angel (talk) 15:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think anyone is doubting her popularity, for some reason she fails the ghit test, which is what we probably all use as the first test for notability. She exists on the German wikipedia too. The-Pope (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that a lack of Google hits is not the reason for deletion. The issue is a lack of notability through established community guidelines. Note also that we are not restricted to merely using an online search engine. What we need is significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. None of the sources in the en.wiki or de.wiki meet the criteria for independence. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 10:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What non-google sources have you checked? It's a lovely circular argument... ghits aren't the reason for deletion, lack of significant coverage is, and for most people, this means a google web/news/books search and nothing else. I know the "trust me, I'm sure there are sources out there" argument is often misused, all I'm asking is that the 6 month old decision is allowed to be checked again.The-Pope (talk) 14:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Books, magazines, and journals. As far as reviewing the six-month-old decision? That's why we're here. I've personally searched again and came up empty. What did your search find? Anything significant? Reliable? Independent? If so, please share them with us. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 18:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close as delete - still no evidence that WP:ENT or WP:GNG have been met. Popularity does not equal notability. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 00:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've no problem with deleting an article as a G4 after an admin indicated that restoring the article to mainspace was okay? I'd think that indicates at least enough debate on the matter than an AfD is called for. Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I took part in the first DRV for this subject (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 23) and my decision still stands. First of all the original AFD should have been No consensus and NOT deletion. Wizardman, the closing administrator, deleted it with his own discretion. The fact that he moved the content in "Sierra Nicole McCormick" to "Sierra McCormick", basically surrendering to the frequent re-creations, proves that he wasn't the right administrator for the aforementioned AFD in the first place. There are currently 3 different userspace drafts for the subject, that's right 3: here, here and here. As well as interest in Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sierra McCormick. The actor has a regular role in popular television series (A.N.T. Farm) that was just renewed for a second season and appeared in a notable film (Ramona and Beezus), how is WP:ENTERTAINER not met. Also even if the article is not restored, It WILL be re-created, if it is not salted anyway or we will have yet another deletion review a few months from now. QuasyBoy 22:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the four drafts improve upon or establish notability of the subject. What we need is significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Seriously, independent sources are vital here. Additionally, Ramona and Beezus was not a significant role at all. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 12:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - Not only should the AfD have been closed as "no consensus", but strong evidence of notability has been shown since closure. For those concerned that it wasn't "properly sourced," that is not a reason for deletion or even AfD but for editing and improvement. In fact WP:AFD states: "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination."--Oakshade (talk) 06:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Oakshade.LuciferWildCat (talk) 11:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn In addition to her current major role in a TV series A.N.T. Farm she also had a major recurring role as the main antagonist, Lilith, in a two episode arch of Supernatural (TV series). This is more than sufficient for notability. Original AfD should have been closed as no consensus and the article not deleted. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:Mentyvamenvocal.ogg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Accidentally deleted without moving to Wikimedia Commons. The file isn't copyrighted under the Russian copyright law. It was nominated by an anonymous visitor with the reason: "Target for moving the free file to Commons." Chtak Yuno (talk) 03:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Looks like an oopsiex2, IP editor tagged it ffd instead of move to commons and Fastily deleted it without appearing to look at the tag. I shall have to point Wile E. Coyote in his direction again. File wants moving to Commons if someone has a moment. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

18 December 2011

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Killarney (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Dear Administrator: I added two sections to the KILLARNEY article under the subheadings History of the Land and History of Tourism in Killarney. The first, I believe, is a very readable human story and concerns the lands which later became the Muckross National Park. The second gives the history of tourism, with a fleeting overview of the history of all tourism, but naming how things were in Killarney in 1846 and 1854. This would be of interest to anyone. It is noted by some editor that the Tourism section is outdated and someone else has said it seems (in Wikipedia) to be a town without a history. I agree that the entire article is parochial in layout and content. People opening up a page on Killarney want to be told substantial history and not of people and events of a purely local nature. I first uploaded just a little on the hotels in Killarney and the single one on the Ring of Kerry. DMOL deleted it and said the hotels on the ring had no relevance. This time in carefully researched sections I showed the relevance, so DMOL deleted both sections. My research is referenced in no less than seven books, four of which predate 1900. If you can spare the time to read those sections in the entry of early December 18th I guarantee you will not be bored or disappointed. I shall be very grateful if you can revert DMOL's deletions permanently if you consider the case justified. Many thanks and Kindest regards.

yours faithfully

Kemiah12:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kemiah (talk • contribs)

DRV concerns itself with deletion discussion concerning the complete content of an article, not the individual pieces of content within an article which is considered an editorial decision (What you've got is termed a "content dispute"). You aren't the first and won't be the last to not be aware of the difference, so it's not a big problem listing here, but we aren't going to be able to solve the dispute for you. The normal way that such problems are dealt with however is by editors discussing the issue amoungst themselves on the articles talk page - in this case that's Talk:Killarney. If you go there you'll see that User:Dmol has already attempted to open that discussion, by listing the content removed and the reason behind it. Note Dmol hasn't said that all you've added is invalid, and in that discussion specifically entertains that some of what you've added may indeed be usable - "I've copied so that we can reach consensus regarding what should stay and how it should be presented". So I suggest you start by discussing there with those interested. If you still aren't happy with the outcome there are various other forms of dispute resolution (follow this link), such as asking for neutral third party input. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 13:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As discussion is now proceeding at the articles talk page, I guess this can probably be closed. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 09:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

17 December 2011

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Gearheaddeals (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Follows all wikipedia guidelines and the modertor is using his subjective opinion to not post the page. The article is proven notable by a reliable news source "autoblog.com" although "blog" is used in their domain name, autoblog is an independent news source owned bu huffington post. It receives 2 million unique views per month and is compiled by many editors and writers and from many sources. The closer noted that the source in the autoblog article is gearheaddeals.com website. this is not the rtue source as there is none of that content posted anywhere on gearheaddeals.com. The article was solely created by one of autoblog's writers. They were just linking to the gearheaddeals site for reference. There are other independent news sources I listed as well. The draft can be seen in my drafts area. I am new to writing WP articles so I am not sure how to link you there. Thank you.Bmwm3guy (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I can't see the speedy'd version, but looking at the version on your user sub-page, here's my summary: 6-month old web start-up wants to be the Groupon for the gearhead niche, referenced by a couple of sources regurgitating their press releases. So, how is this notable? I get the impression from the talk page here that there may be something more to the site, but I don't see that in the article, and it seems that the closer didn't, either. If the article can't be much improved, then it doesn't really matter whether the DRV is successful, as it will fail AfD, deservedly. And if it can be significantly improved and shows that it is the Groupon of the gearhead set, or notably well on its way there, then that's the version of the article I think we all should be looking at. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Circball (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closer disregarded GNG policies on notability for new article creation (WP:NNC), instead applied the different policy on notability for content(NPOV) on this new article. Closer acknowledge that a subject could be notable on a single source for article creation purposes. But disregarded that policy anyway perhaps due to closer's own bias of game itself or its article creator. Closer also disregarded consensus analysis below that didn't include substantial policy explanation. Instead, closer only counted votes! The analysis of the votes during this deletion discussion was sent to his attention, but disregarded that too. The issue on the article is subject notability. Per WP:GNG guidelines a notable subject must have at least one notable, reliable and verifiable source for it to be CREATED in WP. WP:NNC Notability guidelines for content WP:WHYN does not apply for article creation as that criteria applies only to CONTENT NPOV on an already existing articles.

Because the subject has at least one notable source, WP:NNC requires it to be created and included in WP. Please restore deleted article and replace that old article with a newly modified article that is now in User:GalingPinas/Circball. Article also has been modified from its original content and the Closer acknowledge that current modified version is much "improved" and much "clearer". Here is the analysis of the votes during the deletion discussion:

  1. 1 Delete by Hobbes Goodyear - No substantial arguments here as this user only stated that sources couldn't be found. It was indeed found. This vote shouldn't be counted as part of consensus.
  1. 2 Delete by Jimfbleak - No substantial arguments either. Statements of personal opinions should not be counted as part of consensus. Comment not related to notability issue of subject.
  1. 3 Delete by JamesBWatson - User charged that article is being promoted. This is outside the discussions of notability discussions. User thinks it's not "prominent" yet. Again, notability doesn't mean it's popular or famous. This vote should not be counted as part of consensus.
  1. 4 Delete by η-θ - A comment of ":p duh.". Does that count?? No substantial explanation of why is non-notable.
  1. 5 Delete by Tarc - a charge of advertising again or that it was "made up" sport that the user didn't like. This shouldn't be counted as consensus as no substantial explanation of why it is non-notable. Tarc acknowledged however that the source for GMA is notable.
  1. 6 Keep by GalingPinas. Notability was argued here by providing three reliable sources and by providing a detail analysis of these sources as to the 5 requirements of WP:GNG general guidelines.

Even though the number of Deletes outweight the number of Keeps, policy on consensus requires substantive explanation which was lacking on the delete votes and was disregarded by Closer.

Again, the issue here is the subject's notability -- has the subject been notable outside of WP? Does the source follow the guidelines of WP:GNG specifically WP:NNC? IF A NOTABLE SOURCE EXIST, SUBJECT IS NOTABLE, EVEN AS A MERE STUB OR A SUB-ARTICLE OF A MAIN ARTICLE GalingPinas (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Because the subject has at least one notable source, WP:NNC requires it to be created and included in WP" - nope, WP:NNC does not *require* anything to be created or included. I'm not sure I can make head nor tail of the rest of your argument. NNC is about the individual items of content within an article not needing to meet the notability standard, it is the overall topic of the article which needs to. WP:GNG states the presumption that a topic is suitable for a standalone article, if it has been covered by multiple independant reliable sources. The precise detail of what multiple means is open to interpretation, it means at least two, how many is a matter for consensus to determine in each case, generally the higher quality the sources the less will be required. One source however, no matter how many capitals you use, does not make a topic suitable for a standalone article. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria applied to article content are not the same as those applied to article creation. The notability guidelines do not apply to article ... content .... Content coverage within a given article or list is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies.
Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists,even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. (emphasis added) GalingPinas (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well this is where I'm having severe difficulty understanding your argument, you seem to be quoting something which is the exact opposite of what you seem to be claiming. The title of that section, the part you wish to underline on article creation, and indeed the rest of the quote is indicating that the individual content of articles doesn't need to meet the notability standard, it's inclusion is based on things like WP:V and WP:NPOV. The topic itself however does still need to meet the notability standard, and that's what articles are created about. It needs to meet the WP:GNG as a topic to be presumed suitable for a standalone article. This still leaves is without sufficient sourcing to meet that standard. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes of course, once the article is included in WP, it requires WP:V, WPNPOV, WP:GNG, WPs,etc, etc.. and all those good stuff. Content guidelines however are a separate issue that deserves a different forum. This forum only talks about article creation. The article hasn't been created yet. The question for the new article per GNG is does it have a source outside of WP, and is the source reliable, verifiable, etc etc. When you ask those questions to the sources provided in this articles, it passes at least the minimum requirement of article creation--that is it has a notable source outside of WP. OK. so we have notable source, where can we put it in WP, is it appropriate as a stand-alone, is it appropriate as sub-article of a main article? is appropriate as a stub? But the underlying point is that the subject itself is notable having passed WP:NNC. We're not saying to disregard other notability guidelines, all we're saying here is should this article be created here in WP if it has a notable source? GalingPinas (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, you seem to want to rope WP:GNG in with the content standards it isn't. The wording "The criteria applied to article content are not the same as those applied to article creation" isn't saying that GNG applies to article content but not creation, it's the opposite way around. Topics (as represented by Articles) need to meet WP:GNG --82.19.4.7 (talk)
  • No. WP:GNG is still the underlying guidelines for notability whether it's content or article creation. But maybe i'm not explaining it clearly. We don't have an article called Circball yet in WP. Ok. So say someone wants to create an article called Circball in WP. The first question is--Is there a source outside WP (meaning has it been covered outside of WP?(WP:NNC). If the answer is no, then no article is allowed (coz of no original research), but if the answer is yes, create the article. Now, once the article is created, the next guidelines to be applied would be Content guidelines such the ones you mentioned above. But we're not there yet on the Content discussion (2nd base). We're still in 1st base (ie, article creation) which is the subject of this DelRev. GalingPinas (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse. There is no misunderstanding of WP:NNC. It is very clear. Notability criteria for content is not the same as notability criteria for article creation. WP:NNC is very specific, "if the source material exists (outside of WP), then there is subject notability suitable for article creation in WP. That article could be a stand alone, subject to guidelines, it could be a sub-article, again subject to guidelines on sub-articles, or a stub which also has guidelines itself.
Here's another GNG guideline that supports article creation. "Notability requires only that appropriate sources have been published about the subject. It does not require that any editor has already named these sources, followed the neutral, encyclopedic style, or otherwise written a good article." WP:NRVE. Therefore reverse the deletion based on at least these two guidelines because the new article in question has reliable sources. GalingPinas (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am going to try to be as nice as I can here. The NNC applies to articles that have already passed the GNG and have been created. It tells the community that the substance of an article does not need to pass the GNG independently of the topic. Your pet topic does not pass the threshold of notability yet, please drop the stick and move on. Misusing policy against common sense, like you are above, is disruptive. --Guerillero | My Talk 22:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guerillero my "pet topic" is not the issue here. It's the issue of whether this so called pet topic has a source. It does. Therefore it passes WP:NNC requirement of source notability.
Simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable. This behavior straddles both "Just unencyclopedic" and "Just pointing at a policy or guideline".WP:JNN — Preceding unsigned comment added by GalingPinas (talk • contribs) 00:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously don't understand WP:NNC. I would continue this discussion, but I have come to the conclusion that it will only end with me cursing at you. Your ability to not see the point and to misconstrue policy has killed all of the good faith I have for you. You are disrupting the project now. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Everyone here has the right to provide opinion about this very topic without any ad hominem attack tone on their comments which will not be considered as consensus if one continues.GalingPinas (talk) 00:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • I haven't read the whole AfD, so I'm not going to stick something in bold next to this comment, but WP:NNC is completely irrelevant here. WP:NNC says that notability only affects the question of whether Wikipedia can have an article on some topic, not what that article should or should not say. The issue for debate in the AfD is whether the subject passes the general notability guideline, nothing else. Hut 8.5 21:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Hut. I would suggest to everyone to first read the Afd. Because the issue in Afd is very specific. Here's the original issue that was raised:
"Non-notable, "new" sport, with no coverage found at reliable, independent sources. Contested PROD PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)"
As you read down the discussions, it turns out that sources were actually found and analyzed which meet WP:NNC for article creation. So the real issue is are there sources notable for article creation per WP:NNC. GalingPinas (talk) 22:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, you've completely missed the point. If sources were found then your argument is that the article meets the GNG, not WP:NNC. NNC is not an inclusion criterion. Hut 8.5 23:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The article creator is mounting quite a forum-shopping crusade to salvage this thing, but the consensus of the Wikipedia community in the AfD was clear that the reliable sourcing was insufficient. Note that the AfD was closed by DGG, one of the most...passionate inclusion-minded editors (he can attest that that's the nicest way I have ever described him) around here. his deleted article is also the subject of a current MfD, as the creator has insisted on keeping a copy on his user page. Tarc (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but your train jumped the tracks quite a long time ago regarding this subject. I quite clearly addressed the matter, we are here at DRV to review the closing admin's actions, and I noted that the closer's take of the consensus at the AfD was proper. DRV isn't for simple "I disagree with the decision" complaining, it is to review if the admin did something wrong. Tarc (talk) 23:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're quite right, the closing admin did something wrong by misapplying improper WP guidelines. Counted votes and used that as a basis for closing, disregarded the proper WP:NNC guideline on article creation, instead replaced his own notability bias (just like you did) on the discussions, as shown on DGG's own usertalk pages about Circball. [#195].GalingPinas (talk) 23:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my own deletion. After I had deleted the article, I made a serious effort to work with the contributor to try to see if a satisfactory articles was there. I concluded in the end that it was not yet possible, because there was insufficient material to show even the most basic notability --the sport is recorded as having been played in a single season, with a single tournament involving teams from 10 schools, and local TV coverage. (I think it has a insufficiently documented but likely earlier history, as a sport played for several decades at more more of these schools.). I advised the contributor to wait untill there was a second season, with some more coverage. But even when that is the case, I think the contributor, who has an obvious COI from his first username, would be well advised to stay away from the articles. He insisted on retaining multiple photographs and videos, explaining the minutia of the rules, and including an extensive undocumented explanation of the philosophical significance; he reacted to my editing attempts on the userpage draft to make a copy of his preferred version on his user page.(which is now at MfD). This is not the behavior of someone trying in good faith to add information--a reasonable fan would have simply waiting a year and done a modest article appropriate to the extent of the sport. (If it is, it shows the influence of excessive involvement to the extent of greater irrationality than what is customary even at Wikipedia.) My conclusion at this point is that the article was intended to be promotional, that the contributor is dedicated to accomplishing this promotion here despite all obstacles, At this point, I think all versions of the article would be subject to speedy deletion under criterion G11 for such articles. DGG ( talk ) 22:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be noted that actions made after the deletions of the article are irrelevant to this discussion. This discussion is about whether DGG applied the correct GNG guidelines. As note above in the summary reasons: GNG guidelines specifically WP:NNC was not applied appropriately in this case, in due respect to his long experience in editing. Even DGG acknowledge that article'ssource do exist per WP:NNC that merits article creation. Yet despite that only vote were counted on the delete discussion for number purposes without regard to the substantive consensus issues or to the WP guideliness, specifically WP:NNC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GalingPinas (talk • contribs)


  • Endorse deletion. The nominator of this DRV, under his/her previous username of Circball, is the creator of the article and provided the only "keep" vote in the AfD. I voted "delete" for lack of substantial sourcing in the article and from my own web searches, and said as much. I also responded twice more as additional sourcing was presented, which I found lacking. Nominator disagrees with my assessment—fair enough. But to say, after I spent time and effort to consider the matter and nominator's further efforts, that my "vote shouldn't be counted as part of consensus"? This I do not accept. The issue here is not about what policies apply, it's about whose assessment of the quality of the sourcing should apply—the nominator's, or everyone else's. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 22:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hobbes, I appreciate your vote at the Afd, but you stated that no source can be found, when it fact I presented you with the sources. Then you further commented that you're not satisfied with these sources. But not's the point. WP:NNC only states that a notable source must exists for article creation. period. whether you like the source or not is another issue that is beyond the scope of the deletion discussion. Thus you vote is not consensus.GalingPinas (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • COMMENT. I want to remind the closer of this DRV, (despite the unrelenting Endorse votes) on the following facts as per WP:NNC guidelines. Was there a source that merits article creation in WP for Circball? And the answer is YES. Is the source notable? The answer is yes (see below on the analysis of the sources per WP:GNG):

"Source#1=GMANews "Saksi":

  1. 1. "Significant Coverage" = Saksi addressed the Circball game in detail. It talked about the rules of the game of Circball. It talked about the unique Ring and the circular court. It also talked about the moral principles that the game teaches. "Saksi" also mentioned who the founders are of the Circball. Where it originated and what the organizations that are currently using the game. All of these are covered in this article.
  2. 2. "Reliable" - Saksi new coverage is reliable because it came from a major new media company recognized and noted even by Wikipedia itself, GMA.
  3. 3. "Sources"- Saksi news coverage is a secondary source media publication that was gathered by a professional Journalist by the name of Mark Zambrano and published by his employer-company, GMA Network Inc.
  4. 4. "Independence" = Saksi is independent of Circball and its parent company nor its journalists and reporters have no conflict of interest with either the subject or the article.
  5. 5. "Presumption" = Saksi's detail coverage of Circball on April 2011 established the presumption for inclusion in WP.

Source#2=Q-TV & GMA's Children Show "Tropang Potchi":

  1. 1. "Significant Coverage" = Tropang Potchi addressed the Circball game in detail. It talked about what the game is all about. It talked about the unique Ring and the circular court and how the game is played, particulary Morality Play. It also talked about how children can learn moral principles that the game teaches. The Children hosts shown on the video interviewed one of the founders of Circball Philippines Club Inc--the organizing entity utilizing Circball games. All of these are covered in the article as well.
  2. 2. "Reliable" - Tropang Potchi coverage is reliable because it came from two major new media companies recognized and noted even by Wikipedia itself, Q-TV and GMA.
  3. 3. "Sources"- Tropang Potchi's coverage is a secondary source media publication that was gathered by a professional Director by the name of Louie Ignacio and his staff.
  4. 4. "Independence" = Tropang Potchi is independent of Circball. Its parent companies nor its directors and staffs have no conflict of interest with either the subject or the article. The show was also confirmed by a newspaper article published on September 10, 2011 by Abante-Tonite. The article mentioned that the show will highlight some current innovations in sports in the Philippines that include in-line hockey, flag football and Circball.
  5. 5. "Presumption" = Tropang Potchi's detail coverage of Circball on August 2011 (shown on TV September 2011) established the presumption for inclusion in WP.

Source#3=UNTV Sports37's Letter of Intent:

  1. 1. "Significant Coverage" = Sports37 (see its own website) covers sports in the Philippines in detail by interviewing sports athletes. It talks about the rules of the sports, where it originated and how the sports are played and what organizations are involved using the game. All of these patterns of coverage of a sport are discussed in the article.
  2. 2. "Reliable" - Sports37 intended coverage is reliable because it comes from a major media company recognized and noted even by Wikipedia itself, UNTV.
  3. 3. "Sources"- Sport37's coverage is a secondary source media publication gathered by a professional Director by the name of Rene Leanda and writer/researcher Bernard Mones, per list of staff provided in the letter of intent.
  4. 4. "Independence" = Sports37's parent company UNTV is independent of Circball. Its parent company nor its directors and writers have no conflict of interest with either the subject or the article.
  5. 5. "Presumption" = Sports37 sports coverage of Circball through its letter of intent establishes the presumption for inclusion in WP.

These sources and others establish the notability of Circball per WP:GNG and must be included in WP either as a standalone article or merge with similar articles that discusses basketball related topics, in particular, variations of basketball.GalingPinas (talk) 08:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)"

Please apply the WP:NNC as the proper guideline to article creation for Circball. Once Circball is created, any Editor can flag for any issues they want to flag, Be it V, NPOV, etc. But for purposes of this discussions, the analysed sources above merits article creation per WP:NNC.GalingPinas (talk) 23:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
StarWind Software (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Disputing the decision to keep and appeal for an Overturn to delete and salt. I believe the closing admin judged consensus and policy inappropriately in this debate. The rationael given for keeping was "spam issues are important but not by themselves a reason for deletion". However, asside from having "6" previous spam/COI deletions (a clear need to "Salt"), Consensus for "deletion" was quite clear in this case, as was the consensus in the articles first AFD, based on the subjects lack of Notability.

While many links exist, a closer look at each these links, reveals they fail as reliable sources (as was consensus agreed) seem to be nothing more than a collection of press releases, blogs, partner sites, self published material and mere trivial installation coverage and incidental mentions. One example; ZDNet Blogger (Dan Kusnetzky) explains explicitly in his BLOG that a "representative of StarWind Software reached out to me... "[12] as a "marketing message "[13], Pure marketing, not independent of the subject nor it is it a review. Sites like it-bezpeka.org.ua, techrepublic.com, links are simply inclusions in various blogged lists of related products and is considered "trivial coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH. As are anandtech.com (only mention is in the blogs "comments"), windowsservercatalog.com and citrix.com (written by Starwind Software). The books cited were converted to ISBN numbers to hide the fact they were origionaly Amazon.com links to mere incidental installation notes failing to support inclusion. venturedeal.com is simply a routine announcement and the Intel link (on page 8) is literaly a footnote. Hu12 (talk) 15:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Hu12, please point at 1) press release 2) blogs 3) partner sites 4) self-published material in the current list of current URLs. Thank you!

Microsoft and Intel used StarWind software to build a test system push 1 million IOPS thru it. So it was StarWind running inside to make it happen. In such a case small footnote "yes, we've used THAT product" costs quite a lot. Do you understand what I mean? I'll be adding StarWind + Mellanox test so please provide feedback here as it's another performance benchmark.

Please bother to read ALL pages of anandtech.com - it's three iSCSI products put face-to-face it was not "comments" which brought attention. If you provide samples please bother to at least view ALL the pages and not stop at the first one. Thank you!

Yes, I've used originally amazon links as I did not know I need to put ISBNs. Is this a crime or what? Yworo fixed everything and I'll be adding another books with citations quite soon (working on it hard).

Not sure about venturedeal.com but I can remove it just to make you happy.

NINTENDUDE64 did brilliant work to describe ZDnet issue once again. I appreciate his work!

APS (Full Auto) (talk) 21:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sustain keep. At least the ZDNet piece is not a blog. It's a major column in a major magazine, and the article is a 3rd party review, which merely includes the portion marked as being from the company. But that's on the second screen of my monitor, so perhaps the nom. didn't see it. The proof it's 3rd party is that it's a strongly negative review. Read it for yourself. DGG ( talk ) 16:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dan kusnetzky (Kusnetzky Group LLC)[14][15] is a blogger[16][17], independent of znet, and not a staff writer or apart of their editorial oversight [18]. Funny how in the "Snapshot analysis" section he retracts the critisisms after the company, again, reaches out to him...he's a marketer (kusnetzky.net). Would think blogs by any marketing company/person, paid or unpaid would be discounted due to lack of reliability and their inherantly biased nature (wether they are for or against a competing product[19]). --Hu12 (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - That's not an uncommon occurrence at all for a company to reach out to a writer who criticizes their product and for the writer to retract some or all of their statements. Read any editorial section of any trade or even consumer magazine. Writers miss things all the time; it'd be unreliable and biased of them to not review their statements when presented with new information or when their mistakes are highlighted. --NINTENDUDE64 21:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I was pleasantly surprised that this AfD was closed as keep and not surprised that the result is being contested. There were indeed a lot of delete !votes and even though a closing admin is supposed to consider the arguments, not just the number of !votes on each side, my experience is that not all admins take time to read the arguments to consider carefully which ones are policy-based. But it was the right decision. Content issues, spam and COI, past AfD outcomes, the bad behavior of other editors and the number of times an article has been previously deleted are all completely irrelevant. The only thing that matters at AfD is whether notability can be established, which turns entirely on whether sources exist, even if they haven't yet been cited in the article. The simple fact is that the sources do exist. When I searched the Google books search results, it was obvious anyone could find as many sources as they wanted. I cited 3 in my !vote, each of them several pages in length in published books. To me they looked reliable, independent and secondary, easily clearing the bar for notability. Hu12 insisted the sources were primary or trivial (he couldn't seem to make up his mind) but beyond simply making that claim, was unable to provide any reason why he believed the sources I'd found were defective. I suspect this was a case of becoming too emotionally invested in the outcome and this DRV is more of the same. Msnicki (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Since when are industry blogs not considered reliable sources? These aren't some random postings on some anonymous person's WordPress account, they're from reliable industry publications. StarWind Software serves a niche market, but they're clearly notable in that market and therefore the content of the article is encyclopedic. I was happy to see that the closing admin considered the quality of the arguments rather than the quantity of !votes. --NINTENDUDE64 21:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This... novel... afd close rationale would be a lot more palatable if those endorsing it would at least attempt to make this an acceptable article. I don't see anything in the current revision that belongs in a Wikipedia article except the lede sentence, the statement of location the History section, and the infobox; but every paywalled review, every cover-CD shovelware inclusion, every "Works with Windows Server 2008 R2" certification is furiously defended by the same horde of spas that derailed the afd and will no doubt be here in due course. (Assuming there's in fact more than one of him, which is by no means clear.) If we must have an article here instead of a five-word passing mention in Storage area network or a similar article as would normally be the case, then let's have an article, even a two-sentence stub, not this unapologetic puffpiece. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 22:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've did enormous work (thanks to Yworo for couraging and building book templates) to include virtually everything I've been able to Google about this company. Could take next step and Google about Rocket Division Software (as they seems to exist under this name since 2003 and before 2008 or 2009 - quite a time for software company BTW as they come and go - 8 years). You're welcomed to add what you think I've missed and remove what you think is a junk. I do agree with Msnicki however product itself still seems to be more remarkable then the company. But most of the companies are one-product only ;) Thanks to everybody, hope to turn back to gun articles finally :) APS (Full Auto) (talk) 02:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn to delete and salt. A mediocre review from a site like ZDnet is enough to prove that the business and product exist. It does not establish that the business or its product represents the sort of achievement that ought to be remembered in an encyclopedia, and in fact suggests the opposite. Trade and niche coverage needs to establish more than that a business or product exists; they need to show that the business or product has some kind of significance outside of IT departments. Simply collecting sites that mention this software does not establish any such significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. But did you actually bother yourself to read product section of the article? Did you read about first AoE initiator? First FCoE initiator? World currently fastest software iSCSI target (record being broken TWICE)? Storage hypervisor thing (there's only one company I've mentioned before DataCore doing storage hypervisor Windows thing). Everything with the links. Breaking records is what exactly you think making something "encyclopedic" (BTW, I don't share your point of view here). APS (Full Auto) (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment But you've basically deleted 70% or 80% of my work without adding anything. If you'd follow the whole discussion you'd see editors insisted on 1) notability and 2) non-primary sources. As you've just deleted achievements (with product section) and books sections you've reverted whole content to the state we had before AfD story started... I'll try to re-write products section using template you did but I'm afraid I'll have to revert at least some of your applied changes. Thank you! APS (Full Auto) (talk) 08:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are allowed to revert another editor's changes if you disagree. Take care never to cross the three revert rule, however, or you'll quickly get blocked for edit warring. But when there's clear disagreement on content, it's best to take the discussion to the article talk page, first, and seek WP:CONSENSUS. Msnicki (talk) 17:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He's basically right (and other guy from Talk page too...) so I'm checking other companies pages to have everything re-worked in the proper way. DataCore and FalconStor pages did not help much BTW :) So taking somebody from outside the industry... APS (Full Auto) (talk) 21:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether the review is mediocre or positive is irrelevant. We do not judge the quality of software, we judge the quality of coverage. a truly awful product like WindowsMe that got multiple extensive deserved negative reviews in responsible sources is just as notable for our purposes as if the reviews had been positive. Notable does not necessarily mean notable for high quality. We are not qualified to determine "level of achievement" in this or any other category, except where there is some commonly accepted criterion such as a record charting on a major chart, or an athlete competing at the international level. (To give the most widely accepted special criteria of this nature.). In most fields, we cannot do this. Even when we have experts here to judge, we're not Consumer Reports. The whole point of WP:GNG is that in many fields, we can only go by the existence of substantial sources. (Some people want to use that in all fields even when there's a rational criterion; I do not, but this is a field where there is no such straightforward accepted criterion and we can do nothing else. .
on the other hand, Smerdis is completely right about mentions, especially in sources that do not discriminate. Such are not suitable sources for showing notability in an encyclopedia , just existence for listing in a directory , which we most emphatically are not. The ZD review is somewhere in the middle: it's an review extensive enough to consider the quality and nature of the product, not determine its existence, but it's somewhat less than a true full review. DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. first Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Secondly FalconStor is a publicly traded company on the NASDAQ and has significant coverage by secondary sources.--Hu12 (talk) 14:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Critical It's politically incorrest to make any kind of assumptions or even try finding any relationship between mental level of any human being and his skin color, financial status, nationality, religion etc. In the same way you cannot say "company A is public so it's noticable and company B is not public so it's not noticable". BTW, being public does not mean 1) company A has more money then company B (and that's what you've tried to say) 2) company A is somehow remarkable and 3) company A should be part of encyclopedia. WP:NOT. Back to your coverage... Se we can judge on the page content entirely. If people would be able to read each mind we would not need any quotations, citations or whole Wiki project. So significant coverage is set of URLs on company page and not a bunch of dead neurons burried somewhere in somebody's head. APS (Full Auto) (talk) 21:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant weak endorse. I read the second AFD and I have to endorse the closer's decision because there were arguments by editors independent of the subject that at least some of the sources presented were supersources. However, I completely sympathize with the delete/salt !voters here and I believe that this article was created to promote this company and the tone of it shows. In my view, one of the first indications that a subject may be notable is if a neutral editor with no connection to a subject takes note of the subject and elects to write an article about it and one cannot take note of ones self. If those associated with this company had waited for this to happen, the result would have been a better article that we wouldn't have to keep despamming. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

16 December 2011

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Disciples Football (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

On November 19th, the Disciples Football page was deleted under the grounds of being a G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement violator. This article cited its sources, utilized paraphrase, NOT direct quotation, and provided valuable information. If using other websites as sources and paraphrasing is a G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement violation, than nearly every page on Wikipedia should be deleted to conform to its policies. Although the Disciples page did at one point contain some copyright infringement content, this content was afterwards properly cited, paraphrased, or entirely removed. Yet the page was still deleted. Republic of Unclaimed Land (talk) 14:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I contest any assertion that I performed a copyright violation of the material on that webpage. That page contains factual information that I paraphrased. Facts cannot be copyrighted. Honestly, I don't understand. The article WAS corrected to remove copyright violation. If you look at the text of the last version of the article, you will find that it DOES NOT plagiarize. Republic of Unclaimed Land (talk) 00:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Republic of Unclaimed Land (talk • contribs) 00:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse This is a tough one. It's pretty obvious that the first couple of paragraphs were directly copied from the website than padded out with a few words here and there. Even though it's not a carbon copy, it certainly couldn't be classed as original work and it's a poor attempt to circumvent Wikipedia's copyright policy. Having said that, the rest of the article is original work - however, this amounts to two paragraphs (one containing stats, the other a brief note about the current season), and WP:CSD#G12 includes the clause "where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving" so I think this criteria does apply here. Even if it wasn't, the article fails to assert the team's notablity and I can't see any way this article would survive an AfD discussion. Bottom line, it's either G12 or A7. ~~ Bettia ~~ talk 13:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I be provided with a copy of the article? I don't understand how someone can write a brief description drawing from a brief description as the source of facts, without the two paragraphs sounding similar. By ruling this copyright infringement, it means that the article is plagiarism merely because it states facts stated on another website. Everything but the actual statement of each fact was reworded. Nothing more could be done - which does not make the content unimportant or unworthy of an article.

The only way I can see to make the facts be presented in a more "original" manner would be to bury them in unnecessary fluff, or to place all of the information in quotes. And if such action in required, than have it performed instead of tossing the information aside entirely.

I think that this article should be reinstated, and then a new deletion discussion started to discuss whether the article is of sufficient importance. Republic of Unclaimed Land (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to state that If memory serves correctly, TWO websites were cited. The assertion that the page was simply a copy of the maxpreps page would then be false.

Also, the fact that the Disciples were the tenth ranked homeschool team in the nation makes them notable, as does the fact that there quarterback finished the season first in the nation for total yardage for homeschool teams, a fact which was never put in the article because the page was deleted too soon.Republic of Unclaimed Land (talk) 22:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. Nothing except their own stubbornness is preventing the nominator here from creating an article without copyright issues. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse There should be no difficulty in start a non-paraphrased article. Paraphrase consists of using either the words, the sentence structure, and (to a more limited extent) the sequence of ideas. You can, however, use the same ideas. The first step is to use a different sequence of ideas: The article & web p. talk first about how the team was founded (in a way that I consider characteristically non-encyclopedic: In year, so-and-so had the idea of founding...) This style is too personal. . The more encyclopedic way is to say: X is a team .... It was started in year by so and so at place whatever. that's very dull writing to be sure, but such is characteristic of any encyclopedia. You can then go on to describe the purpose and the history, There's some missing information that should be added: where are the students from--how wide is the geographic area they draw from? what ages are they? What teams does it play against?--other homeschoolers, or private schools, or ? The ranking needs a source. The only part that is almost impossible to paraphrase is the statistics, and that's true for all articles, but they can still be presented in a different order.
Myself, I do not think there is a sharp distinction between close paraphrase and acceptable paraphrase -- the practical way when something is complained of as too close, is to rewrite it to a greater extent. We therefore should not speedy delete such articles, because the contributor needs and deserves a chance to rewrite them. But since this has been deleted, just do it over. DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

15 December 2011

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Copyright Alliance (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deletion in May 2011 was for lack of general notability, or even (improperly) WP:ONEEVENT. However, I'm now redlinking the organization from Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act, which uses references to it from the past few days in the New York Times and CNet.[20][21] SOPA, a matter of considerable interest to Wikipedia, should also link to it. I contacted User:Cirt, who closed the deletion, but is not currently an administrator, hoping he might have a delegate for such matters, but he didn't recommend anyone specifically, so I've posted this here. I understand that I may need to add a few of these references to the undeleted article to establish its notability against future deletion attempts. Wnt (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC) Wnt (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to do that, it'll be appreciated. ;) But a proper undeletion where I can look through the full history and where proper credit is given to the original authors would be preferable if you'll allow it. I don't want to infringe any of the editors' copyrights there, after all. ;) Wnt (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The userfication will undelete the material including all its contribution history. It will appear in your userspace. You can then add appropriate references before moving the whole page back to mainspace (with its history intact).—S Marshall T/C 17:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh... never realized that, sorry! Wnt (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:A549 bridges -- 7-28-at1616.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Was never placed on IFD, but admins refuse to undelete it at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. It is a free, encyclopedic image of my own work that I uploaded that contrary to the deleting admin (who didn't look at the image closely enough), it was not a duplicate of a Commons image. John Riemann Soong (talk) 03:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • As I said on the WP:REFUND thread, the images are bit for bit identical. Any admin can look at the full size picture for both the commons version and the deleted wikipedia version and see they both hash to 6be87eaea86c8ce92c51d46ea4b0e144 (w/ MD5). Protonk (talk) 04:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the local copy was rudely deleted without my knowledge. Could I please have it back? John Riemann Soong (talk) 06:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know how else to say this. That's the same photo. Nothing stops you from uploading it to wikipedia again under the old name or a new name. Protonk (talk) 07:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps for clarity migrating free images to commons, is normal practice and not indicative of any rudeness/whatever. I'm not sure why you particularly think a local copy is either required or desirable, when exactly the same image was copied to commmons and is freely available there. From the projects perspective the advantages of it being local are somewhat small (and really only related to if commons decides to delete it for some reason, which would normally be a duplicative or copyright concern). --82.19.4.7 (talk) 06:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've got a question for each of you. John Riemann Soong, your images are available on Commons, so I don't yet understand why it's necessary to have extremely similar ones on Wikipedia as well: could you explain? And Protonk, please could you explain why it's necessary to be obstructive and unhelpful in response to this good faith user's request? You have said, and I quote: I will not restore those images. You may download them from commons and reupload them to wikipedia under a different name if you wish. I find this response, made to a sporadic but rather productive editor, quite unsatisfactory.—S Marshall T/C 12:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Magog the ogre restored the image, so this thread can be closed. Yoenit (talk) 13:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since Protonk does not deny that he was being needlessly obstructive and bureaucratic, I'll go with restore as has already been done.—S Marshall T/C 08:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

14 December 2011

13 December 2011

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:Zlatko Tomcic.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

I would like to request a review of my deletion of the above file under WP:NFCC#1. The subject of the photo is still alive, but actively avoids public appearances, raising questions as to whether a freely licensed photo of him could be created. FASTILY (TALK) 21:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted so non-admins can view the photo -FASTILY (TALK) 21:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am the uploader. Here are the two sources on Tomčić staying outside the public eye, both in Croatian.
One, [22], google trans [23], my own trans below. There is a photo of the subject in the article, but it is quite clear (IMO) that it was taken without his consent.

... away from politics and the public, he is building his business empire. He does not give statements to anyone.

He also refused to talk to Globus about his business success.

"He is not ready to give any statements," the secretary of Capital ing said, refusing us. "Ever since he left politics, he makes no statements to any medium or any journalist," she recited importantly.

Two, [24], google trans [25]. There's an entire paragraph about him, here's my own trans of the relevant bit:

Ever since he left politics Tomčić seems to have evaporated. He does not want to be in the media, does not want to publicly comment on political events, although journalists call him. "It's hard to switch off from everything. Sometimes it itches me to say something, but for now I am resisting," admits Tomčić.

In addition:
  • I have contacted Mr. Tomčić directly and asked for a free photo, no reply yet. I'll report if anything happens.
  • A relatively minor point, since it hasn't been that long: the subject has served in his most visible role (President of Croatian Parliament) 2000-2003, so a photo from this period, such as this one or the one from his parliament page (see below), may be a better illustration of articles about his political life.
  • For the record, here's the home page of Mr. Tomčić's architecture company: [26]. It's a small outfit (14 listed employees) that seems to do business primarily with construction investors, and keeps a low public profile.
– Miranche T C 05:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update: An alternative source for the image may be the web pages of the Croatian Parliament: [27]. While unfortunately the Croatian state institutions do not have the policy of releasing everything into the public domain and seem to shy away from explicit licenses, the "Legal Notices" page of the Parliament [28], google trans [29], informally authorizes something close to CC-BY:

All rights reserved. The content of these pages can be used without special permission with source attribution.

– Miranche T C 07:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Miranche hinted that he would like me to comment. I consider this the clear equivalent of CC-BY, and sufficient. That they do not express it in CC terminology does not mean that it is not a free license. DGG ( talk ) 09:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that that appears to be a CC-BY licence. Accordingly, there's no need to review the deletion. We can simply re-upload the file from the CC-BY source and retain it.—S Marshall T/C 12:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • They allow reuse with attribution, but reserve the rights to derivative works, so it isn't free enough. The tag to compare it to isn't {{CC-BY}}, but {{Attribution}}. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 12:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is that so? Does "use" not include derivative works? I am looking here. Has something got lost in translation? Thincat (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The original word is "prenositi", which google translated in context of this sentence as "use", but the literal meaning is closer to "transfer". It's ambiguous – I agree it allows for a conservative interpretation as CC-BY-ND, but also a bold one as CC-BY. It'd be good to have a second opinion from someone who speaks Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian – Miranche T C 15:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the original were in English, and said (as Google's translation does) "All rights reserved. Content from these pages can be used without special permission provided the source.", it absolutely would not be enough; reproduction on one hand and creation of derivative works on the other are two separate rights, and it's clear that this is a grant of reproduction. If the statement in the original is closer to "transfer" than to "use", then it's even less ambiguous. Being bold is something you do when adding your own content to Wikipedia pages, not when interpreting licence terms; if you're not granted a right, you don't have it. Otherwise, we could just go around claiming half the images on the internet are public domain because they don't specifically say we can't do whatever we like with them. We need explicit statements granting rights for both derivative and commercial usage anyway, per Wikipedia:Image use policy#Free licenses.

        That said, permission for use makes for a much stronger fair use claim than we have for the image on monitor.hr. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 16:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the clarification, 74.74.150.139. To focus the discussion, I uploaded the image from the parliament instead. The question now becomes on the merits of a fair use claim of this image, released under the terms as stated ([30], [31]). I will remain neutral on whether these terms amount to CC-BY or CC-BY-ND. As you said, this boils down to whether certain rights are granted by default or withheld by default, and I have neither the legal expertise to judge this nor the inclination to get into a tangential discussion on it. Cheers – Miranche T C 17:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 74.74.150.139, just to point out that the {{Attribution}} tag, to which you compare the Cro Parliament statement, allows derivative works. – Miranche T C 22:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite aware, and that's part of why I brought it up. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Joy, thank you! I don't know how I missed this, I probably looked at it and interpreted it as applying only to texts. So the question becomes whether the photo qualifies as one of "official works ... disclosed for the purpose of officially informing the public". It seems to me that it does. – Miranche T C 22:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse in principle with no opinion as to the related licensing issues. The subject was a highly visible political figure/officeholder for more than a decade. The fact that he is said to have more recently become reclusive therefore is not terribly relevant in determining whether a free alternative may be available. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I endorse the original deletion because a free use image is available (the image now uploaded). However the current licensing information is wrongly claiming fair use. Based on the discussion User:Joy has linked to, it seems there is no copyright on this new image (or, at the least, there is a good case for CC-BY). So, I think the newly uploaded image should be kept with the licensing and other tags sorted out properly. Thincat (talk) 22:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thincat, thank you for the reply. I noted that the copyright of the new photo is uncertain under "Other information" on the image description page, as I wasn't clear if the information Joy posted was unequivocal regarding the terms under which Croatian government is releasing the photo. If one of {{PD-Croatia-exempt}}, {{Attribution}} or {{CC-BY}} is indeed appropriate, then I agree this discussion is moot – and I may as well upload the image to Commons. – Miranche T C 03:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Anton_Singov (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This professional videogame player is extremely notable. Has been mentioned by the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6275868.stm and many other mainstream sources multiple times, has had games broadcast on satellite international tv, has won over $140,000 in prize money and has been at the highest level in the game for almost a decade. The fact that he's professional OR that he's at the very highest level by themselves would be enough according to Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Generally acceptable standards and Wikipedia:Notability alone would be enough to qualify for notability. If you do a search for "Cooller" on youtube you will find countless videos of him. Intel and id software both hosted events he's won many thousands at. Many other professional videogame players have pages. Here is what an outdated version of the page looked like: http://www.enotes.com/topic/Anton_Singov. All other highly successful professional players such as Shane Hendrixson get Wikipedia pages. Please restore.

I was unable or advised not to contact the admin to discuss this when I tried to because he himself is under administrator review! He has apparently been deleting tons of notable pages for little or no reason. Wikipedia:Administrator review/King of Hearts#2011 And if you look at his talk page you see he is under administrator review: User talk:King of Hearts , and look at all the complaints, it's ridiculous. Anonywiki (talk) 04:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I suspect you should refactor your nomination somewhat. The article was deleted by a different admin following the XFD where the only opinion expressed was for deletion, this couldn't have ended any other way. King Of Hearts closed the following DRV where the discussion was thin, but basically a request for additional sourcing of a suitable standard, none was forthcoming. So again I can't see that the DRV would have been closed any other way. Finally coming to DRV and attempting to "poison the well" with regards the deleting admin is not appropriate, the question is about this deletion and no other deletion or what you may perceive as "bad behaviour". Not to mention you seem to have not looked up what administrator review is - it's a voluntary review the admin asks for to gain insight into how they perform, it isn't some sort of black mark against them. The fact that some opine there and are unhappy about deletions performed isn't unexpected, merely going there and complaining isn't a sign that there is any merit to the complaint. If there were a serious problem with the deletions I'd expect to have seen a large number of deletions challenged here and overturned, that isn't actually the case. I also have no idea of the connection between an admin review and being able to contact and discuss the deletion with the admin. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 08:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Close - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#Statement_to_exclude_Esports_from_this_guideline -- There is no consensus to use the notability standards for sports towards e-sport, FYI. So that's part of the argument to bring back the article is not valid either. Sergecross73 msg me 14:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
* Comment - Hobit, no new evidence needs to be presented. Above on this page's article: Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly, or if the speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria established for such deletions. Because of the fact that you have given a demonstrably false reason for your vote, I submit that your vote should be discounted.
82.19.4.7, thank you for your input. I made a call on what it seemed to me like at the time. I still consider there to be some questions over someone who is under admin review and that many people are unhappy with. If it turns out that this doesn't stick I can find new sources.
Sergecross73, well really! After everything we discussed on my user talk page. You really need to stop making calls and giving your opinion on things you know nothing about. Just because something does not seem significant enough to you to be notable does not mean it's not. You do not have to fall under the sports page to be on Wikipedia, and it did not say esport players were excluded from it, just that there is no consensus. I suggest you don't edit on Wikipedia again as you don't seem able to just be logical about something, after seeing all of the ways that he is notable and you still come back with that is just daft. The fact that you would even suggest that after all of what I showed you leads me to question your contribution to Wikipedia. There are multiple mainstream sources for this and he fulfills all sorts of notability criteria. Anton_Singov is coming back one way or another. Anonywiki (talk) 16:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The initial AFD was a unanimous delete, and it failed the deletion first review. How can you think new evidence isn't necessary? Secondly, this isn't the place to air your grievences with me; keep to the topic at hand. Third, my argument isn't "I don't like e-sports"; it's that there was a discussion on whether or not it should be included in sport notability criteria, and they decided "no consensus", which means it doesn't help your argument. (I didn't even take part in that discussion, so it's not just "my opinion".) Sergecross73 msg me 16:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Observation - For someone who continues to claim lack of involvement in these processes and discussions you are pretty fast to cast your "speedy deletion" votes aren't you? Anonywiki (talk) 16:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I claimed no involvement in the conversation in the link. Do you see my name in the link I provided? I openly admit I took part in the AFD for this page. Even if I was involved...there'd be nothing wrong with it, so I'm not sure what you're getting at... Sergecross73 msg me 16:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
>_> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.62.146 (talk) 18:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I request you remove the bold from one of your words. It looks like there are two votes, not one. This is contrary to the expectations and instructions given by Wikipedia for commenting on these pages. It's hardly a passing mention by the BBC, it is a main part of their article. Most of the BBC articles are like that. The mainstream news don't cover small sports very much either.
I dispute that I casted aspersions. I let it known that aspersions were cast against the closer of the DVR by others which I thought I had no choice but to do. When I made an attempt to contact him, I saw it said this at the top of his user page: "You may comment on his or her administrative actions at Wikipedia:Administrator review/King of Hearts.", this seemed to me like I could not talk to them. And yet it was recommended that I mention that I tried to work it through with the admin who closed it, so I had to mention this admin in some way. I was just promoting the flow of information.
I did not cast aspersions over the other users here, I just commented on the openly available information that was under discussion. Casting aspersions would mean going through their history and picking out things or something like that. If you think that the vote is legitimate, then you are free to count it.
I dispute also that it's a valid reason to vote for a "speedy close" because of these alleged casting of aspersions. All Wikipedia processes have to be carried out without prejudice, you can't "punish" people or adopt your own unofficial "standard practice". If it were endorsed by Wikipedia it would be part of Wikipedia Policy. (Edited at...) Anonywiki (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

12 December 2011

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Bloody_Knuckles (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

Page was useful to sort out the different versions of drinking, card, and fisticuffs games people play called 'Bloody Knuckles.' I believe it was a useful page with a diversity of contributors and I suspect speedy deleting was erroneous. Thinker jones (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review--the ed. above tried to do it, but wasn't able to show the history behind the notice. I've fixed it. DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Endorse The article was unsourced. If sources can be found, a new article can be written. --Dweller (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Permit re-creation. The A4 was not valid. The article AfD'd was talking about one form of the game, the present article about others. It would need a new AfD to get it deleted--that said, deleted it will in fact be unless you do have good references. DGG ( talk ) 20:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. Please could you provide a diff of the version of the article you're referring to as "the present article" and I'll review my opinion. --Dweller (talk) 21:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. And I agree. --Dweller (talk) 21:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought till I checked the edit history at DGG's prompt. This recent version of the article has two sources. The AfDd article did not contain them, so the AfD was not good grounds for deletion. DRV is not the proper place for us to examine whether they're good enough. The deletion should be overturned and if anyone feels the two sources are insufficient, the article should be AfDd. --Dweller (talk) 14:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy, and list at AfD if someone wants to. The two different versions of the article seem to have been about at least superficially different topics and the newest version certainly contained additional sources so G4 (or G6, which seems to have been used by mistake) doesn't apply. I doubt this has a long-term future, but it deserves a debate at least. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy, DRV is a check on process, so easily enough done here.--Milowent • hasspoken 05:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:CNGS layout.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

This file was deleted with the ill-founded cause "non-free content criterion #1".


"No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available,"

There's no free version available.


"or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose."

1. It cannot be created without official data.

2. It cannot be easily created with official data.

3. Even if a similar free version has been created, it might then infringe the copyrights the paper's authors own.


"Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense,"

There's no free material transformed.


"or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose."

There's no such material.


"(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?"" No, it cannot be replaced with any image as of this time.


"and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced 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.)"

No, it also provides some additional information . Thanks, visuall 06:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The images such as File:CNGS layout.jpg, File:CNGS_layout_(OPERA_experiment).jpg, File:OPERA experiment.png, File:Cern-light-mes.jpg and File:OperaCNGSTiming.jpg on commons wiki don't have a valid license, but on enwiki, some of them are still deleted with this ill-founded cause. Thanks, visuall 06:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • NFCC#1 is not that a free image exists now, or could be easily created. The use of official data isn't a bar to creating a free image, the difficulty doesn't prevent a free image being created. As to if one could be created without infringing the papers authors copyrights, of course it could, you can't copyright facts or a class of image, you copyright the specific instance. I'm not sure what your statement about commons has to do with anything, commons has images with an invalid license - then they'll be deleted in due course - regardless that doesn't mean that en wikipedia should then ignore the licensing criteria. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 07:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the official data is not open to anyone, so it's not possible to recreate the image with such data, unless to plagiarize the original copyrighted image. Thanks, visuall 08:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • If by official data you mean the measurements present, then that is not copyrightable and you can easily copy that off the image with absolutely no concern, as before such facts aren't copyrightable. I doubt the precision level in the scale of the given images is that great, nor is it that relevant to understanding, no one is going to be taking undescribed measurements from the image, scaling them out to size and be assuming they are accurate. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review ~
Hi, if someone just creates an invert-colored copy, is there a copyright issue? If no, then please close this review. Thanks, visuall 12:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a copyright issue. The creative elements of the original would still be in place. If this were text the normal practice is to read through the text, make notes and then start from scratch based on the notes without referencing the original text at all (preferably with a suitable gap between the taking notes and doing the rewrite). Trying to take the text and merely jumble the words up a bit, changing a few here and there, usually ends up with it being pretty obvious what's happened and so still a copyright problem. The same effect would be true of images, trying to mutate the original image will likely still be a problem. Take notes about the image, the significant elements, and layout, then get someone to draw the image from scratch. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, but very halfheartedly. For speedy deletion to have been permitted, the closing admin must have decided that “no justification is given for the claim of irreplaceability”[36] and that seems marginally the case, just about within administrative discretion. I do not agree with the closing admin that deletion was imperative imediately.[37] The arguments about “map” and “official data”[38] were not pertinent. The dispute rationale “it's difficult to reproduce” is correct but inadequate. However, given the attempted release by the author of the paper and the unlikelihood of objection by or damage to CERN, a WP:FFD discussion would have been more helpful to explore these areas. The copyright issue relates to the artistic creativity in producing the diagram and it is legitimate to take measurements from the existing diagram and draw a new one using none of the original artistry. The new diagram can reference the fact it is based on information extracted from the (referenced) original. Is it sensible do have to do this? Not at all, but in these matters Wikipedia policy makes as little appeal to common sense as do the laws of particle physics. It would be better to obtain proper permission from CERN. A fair use claim does seem necessary. The ArXiv licence[39] and standard CERN terms of use seem inadequate[40] (CERN has a similar diagram here). Thincat (talk) 12:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's annoying that we need to delete that image and replace it with a very similar one that's been drawn by a Wikipedian and released under a free content licence. But annoying though it is, that is in fact our policy and it's based on a careful reading of the law. With certain exceptions, none of which apply to a diagram, we are not normally permitted to reuse copyrighted images without permission. We are allowed to draw our own images based on data published by other people. The fact that CERN own the copyright in the publication does not mean that they own the copyright in the data. Copyright applies to the expression of the data, not the underlying data itself. Thincat is right when he says that the "map" and "official data" rationales are spurious and the "hard to reproduce" rationale is insufficient. I don't agree that a FFD is a particularly good idea.

    Having said all that, I do think it behoves us not to be completely unhelpful at DRV. It's best if we do some work as well as airing our opinions! Accordingly I'm willing to help with re-drawing the image, and please advise me on my talk page if that's what you'd like.—S Marshall T/C 12:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in fact the chief author of the paper v1 has authorized to use such images, but the OTRS doesn't accept ... - "20:25, 21 October 2011 Adrignola (talk | contribs) deleted "File:CNGS layout.jpg" ‎ (OTRS: Unaccepted or insufficient permission for use on Commons: 2011100210007217)"


The following text is the email I sent to OTRS.

"Hi Túrelio,

I’ve forwarded the author's reply.


Thanks,

visuall


From: Antonio Ereditato

Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2011 4:37

To: visuall

Subject: Re: Copyright question about paper "Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam"


No problem...this is public material.

Thanks,

Antonio


______________________


Prof. Dr. Antonio Ereditato


Albert Einstein Center for

Fundamental Physics

Laboratory for High Energy Physics

University of Bern

Sidlerstrasse, 5

CH-3012 Bern


Tel: +41 31 6318566

FAX: +41 31 6314487

Secretariat: +41 31 6314064


antonio.ereditato@cern.ch


On 30/set/2011, at 21:12, visuall wrote:


Hi Antonio,


Some images included in paper Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam were uploaded onto Wikipedia, but I don’t know whether such images are copyrighted or not. The question I would ask is, what’s the license the paper uses ? Could such images be distributed on Wikipedia ?

Paper id: 1109.4897 (PDF)

URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897 (Summary page)


Thanks,

visuall"


The following text is the email I sent to the paper's author - the second time I bother him - received no reply.

"Hi Antonio,


I'm very very sorry to bother you twice with such trivia. Just because the Wikipedia requires me to request an explicit license for the images included in paper Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam, otherwise such images will be deleted within a week.


Could you please select an explicit license from the following options ?

1. GNU Free Documentation License - Written by the Free Software Foundation. People are required to attribute the work to you, and if they make changes or incorporate your work in their work, they are required to share their changes or work under the same license.

2. Creative Commons: Attribution-ShareAlike - This license permits free use, including commercial use; requires that you be attributed as the creator; and requires that any derivative creator or redistributor of your work use the same license. The desired attribution text should be included as a parameter in the template.

3. Attribution - The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed.

4. Public domain - The creator permanently relinquishes all rights to the work, anyone could use it for any purpose, or modify and redistribute it as a part of their own work with any license.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#For_image_creators

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_tags


Thank you,

visuall


Original Message-----

From: Permissions - Wikimedia Commons

Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 23:42

To: visuall

Subject: Re: [Ticket#2011100210007217] Copyright question about paper "Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the [...]


Dear visuall,


For images to be hosted on Wikimedia Commons, they require the copyright holder to provide a specific release under a suitably free license, which allows anyone to use them for any purpose, including commercial usage and derivative works (subject to applicable laws). If this can be supplied, then the content may be hosted on Wikimedia Commons and then used on Wikipedia. It's not quite clear if the response means the material is available for public consumption or whether it's actually supposed to mean "public domain" release with no copyright on the material.


This is my second response to you. If I do not hear back in a week, the images will be deleted.


http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CNGS_layout.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:OPERA_experiment.png


Yours sincerely,

Aaron Adrignola


-- Wikimedia Commons - http://commons.wikimedia.org --- Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by volunteers, and responses are not to be considered an official statement of the Wikimedia Foundation. For official correspondence, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation by certified mail at the address listed on http://www.wikimediafoundation.org"

Thanks, visuall 08:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:CNGS.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

This file was deleted with the ill-founded cause "Recreation of deleted material. - non-free content criterion #1" (Please see File:CNGS layout.jpg).


"No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available," There's no free version available.


"or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose."

1. It cannot be created without official data.

2. It cannot be easily created with official data.

3. Even if a similar free version has been created, it might then infringe the copyrights the paper's authors own.


"Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense,"

There's no free material transformed.


"or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose."

There's no such material.


"(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?""

No, it cannot be replaced with any image as of this time.


"and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced 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.)"

No, it also provides some additional information . Thanks, visuall 06:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The images such as File:CNGS layout.jpg, File:CNGS_layout_(OPERA_experiment).jpg, File:OPERA experiment.png, File:Cern-light-mes.jpg and File:OperaCNGSTiming.jpg on commons wiki don't have a valid license, but on enwiki, some of them are still deleted with this ill-founded cause. Thanks, visuall 06:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • NFCC#1 is not that a free image exists now, or could be easily created. The use of official data isn't a bar to creating a free image, the difficulty doesn't prevent a free image being created. As to if one could be created without infringing the papers authors copyrights, of course it could, you can't copyright facts or a class of image, you copyright the specific instance. I'm not sure what your statement about commons has to do with anything, commons has images with an invalid license - then they'll be deleted in due course - regardless that doesn't mean that en wikipedia should then ignore the licensing criteria. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 07:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the official data is not open to anyone, so it's not possible to recreate the image with such data, unless to plagiarize the original copyrighted image. Thanks, visuall 08:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • If by official data you mean the measurements present, then that is not copyrightable and you can easily copy that off the image with absolutely no concern, as before such facts aren't copyrightable. I doubt the precision level in the scale of the given images is that great, nor is it that relevant to understanding, no one is going to be taking undescribed measurements from the image, scaling them out to size and be assuming they are accurate. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review
Hi, if someone just creates an invert-colored copy, is there a copyright issue? If no, then please close this review. Thanks, visuall 12:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As above, no that is still a copyright problem. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

11 December 2011

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:Chavezcoup.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

After a lengthy and fairly involved debate (with two delete !votes, and three keeps including a strong keep), the discussion was closed without any commentary or rationale at all, just "The result of the discussion was: Delete." I think that in closing any contentious discussion, especially when the final decision goes against the majority of what was said, some rationale is in order. So I dropped a note on the closing editor's talk page, asking them to provide such a rationale. The answer I received was that "the keep !votes [...] largely consisted of WP:ILIKEIT." I suspect that the editor concerned hasn't read WP:ILIKEIT recently, as (whatever the merits or otherwise of the image) it's clear that none of the keep !votes were even close to being premised on liking either Chávez or the image. As such, this decision should be overturned. jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • If this looks familiar, it's because DRV just restored it on precisely the basis that Fastily so facilely dismissed. This wasn't rough consensus after discarding invalid WP:ILIKEIT arguments, it was a WP:NFCC#8 deletion—whose applicability requires consensus, in every case—on the basis of the nominator's and deleting administrator's WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments. (And do please click on those links and reread them. They don't say what everyone seems to think they say.) Speedy overturn. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 10:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yup. Speedy overturn to no consensus because, exactly as we found last time, there was no consensus reached.—S Marshall T/C 11:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn and a trout to both the closer (for providing no closing statement and, when pressed, giving a rather bogus one) and more so to the nom (that wasn't overturned due to a lack of participation, which is what he claimed). Hobit (talk) 17:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it just me, or do we have a small number of admins, Fastily included, who have decided that their restrictive interpretations of NFCC trump consensus? We're seeing this again and again at DRV, and it's beginning to look like a systemic problem: admins who don't believe an NFCC criterion (usually 8) is met, and so unilaterally decide to delete the image under discussion. That's not how consensus is supposed to work, and it's erroneous to presume that NFCC are as black and white as some seem to make them. Jclemens (talk) 21:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong endorse. First of all, the burden of proof in this discussion, reflecting Foundation policy (which can't be weakened or evaded by en-wiki consensus), rests with those who wish to retain the image. If there is no consensus that the rationale is adequate, the image must be removed. There is no other reasonable way to interpret the "balance of proof" standard in our EDP. Second, the keep !votes were clearly weaker than the delete !votes, some bordering on the completely invalid. Slowking4's argument that "the image certainly adds to my understanding of what the coup plotters looked like in that historical moment" certainly deserves minimal or no weight, since "what the coup plotters looked like" is quite plainly not a significant aspect of the article subject, or even discussed in the article. Tryptofish argued that "the event is a significant focus of the text on the page, so that the image illustrates something that most of the text is about," so that while "someone can 'understand' that these two men met without seeing a photo of them meeting, but I think that readers can understand it better by seeing the image." This is a substantially weaker standard than NFCC#8, and in effect concedes that omission of the image would not "be detrimental" to a reader's understanding of the article, because the essential point the nonfree image illustrates can be adequately understood without it. jbmurray's argument comes much closer to meeting NFCC requirements, but ultimately fails because rather than being important in understanding the article text, he argues that it is important to understanding the historical analysis he presents, which is not part of the article. A more detailed rationale, of course, should have been provided. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn an improperly closed discussion. Shii (tock) 06:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The actual interpretation of the WMF NFCC policy is the responsibility of enWP, and administrators have the responsibility of administering the interpretation of the community, not their own more permissive or restrictive interpretations. I, for example, prefer a somewhat less restrictive policy interpretation, but I would be absolutely wrong to close FFD debates in accordance with my view of what the consensus interpretation ought to be. What people look like is a substantial aid to understanding events in which they are involved. It needn't be discussed in the article, because the picture does it better. An event one cannot visualize is not adequately understood. DGG ( talk ) 11:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It strikes me that this analysis is based on a false premise. The WMF page in question, setting forth Foundation licensing policy, states quite clearly that "This policy may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored on local Wikimedia projects." Saying that interpretation of the EDP should be judged by "the interpretation of the community" alone, without regarding to the consistency of that interpretation with WMF policy, is simply wrong. Note that enwiki's WP:CONSENSUS policy declares that "An extremely narrow group of actions and polices are beyond consensus and must be respected [including] Declarations from Jimbo Wales, the Wikimedia Foundation Board, or the Developers, particularly for copyright, legal issues, or server load [which] must be respected by editors." The foundation requires, for example, that EDPs be "minimal"; an enwiki consensus like the one expressed here, resting on arguments like "the picture does it better" and "the image illustrates something that most of the text is about," is quite plainly not "minimal" and erodes the effectiveness of Foundation policy. It should therefore be rejected as inconsistent with WMF policy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I was interested by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's contribution but I was also puzzled by it. I think "EDP" refers to Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria and "balance of proof" refers to "Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created—see burden of proof." So, if there is no rationale at all the file should be deleted – no-one seeking deletion needs to argue a valid FUR cannot be created. If there is a fair use rationale the question arises as to whether it is a valid one. The validity question is to be decided by consensus. The file is in Google's cache where I see a FUR that is arguably valid. The FFD discusion reached no consensus and so the file should not have been deleted. Thincat (talk) 13:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This argument is incompatible with the text of enwiki's NFC policy, which states that "To avoid deletion, the uploading editor or another Wikipedian will need to provide a convincing non-free-use defense that satisfies all 10 criteria." (my emphasis) A rationale which does not receive consensus support can hardly be said to be "convincing". Coupled with the policy language on "burden of proof," the outcome should be clear. To convert "no consensus" results on NFC enforcement into "keep" outcomes would be to place the burden of proof on those seeking to remove images rather than those seeking to retain them, exactly the reverse of what the NFC policy declares. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for your rebuttal and I find myself agreeing with everything you say. The trouble is, when I re-read my own comment, I can find nothing wrong there either. Maybe my personal answer to this paradox is that Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, constrained by the Wikimedia Foundation licensing policy, could reasonably have either interpretation. All the same, I'll stick with my view that deletion requires policy-based consensus. Thincat (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd like to _think_ that because the bar is higher we tend to !vote with higher expectations. Were it not for this high bar, I'd generally argue to keep most non-free images and I don't think I'd be alone. Our default is to keep things and at present there is no variation in that expectation for NFCC things. In this case, I think there is a strong argument that the image is historically important. Hobit (talk) 01:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn essentially per DGG. Unlike DGG, my own preference in this area, pictures of historical events, would be for a narrow interpretation of the NFCC criteria similar to that advanced by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. However, that is a personal preference and is not codified in en-WP policy or WMF directives which are sufficiently vague that admins should defer to consensus. Eluchil404 (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The !vote was 3-3 if you count the nominator. In this statement on his talk page giving his rationale, the closer did not only refer to WP:ILIKEIT but also gave more information about the delete voters having stronger rationales than the keep voters. That, combined with HW's convincing explanation of the burden being on those seeking to retain a non-free image, means that the close was reasonable and fell within the administrator's discretion. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

10 December 2011

9 December 2011

8 December 2011

7 December 2011

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Evolutionary biology (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The field of Evolutionary Biology and the concept of Evolution are rather different concepts. The page was deleted after a brief discussion on the talk page, without AFD, and made into a redirect to evolution. I think a more in dept discussion of the deletion is in place. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC) changed capitalization to the correct article.Hobit (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think this is a matter for DRV as nothing was deleted. To overcome the merge consensus you should probably formally propose the unmerging at Evolution. Further, I think that the discussion certainly had consensus to merge so even if DRV was the right venue, I don't think you have a case that the task was done out-of-process in some way. The result might well be wrong or bad for our coverage, but it isn't out-of-process. Hobit (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, lot of information was deleted during this "merge". The Evolution article does not discuss things discussed in the Evolutionary biology article. --Kyknos (talk) 00:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no distinction between Evolutionary biology v. Evolution - it is an imagined semantic distinction that cannot be backed up by WP:V. There are textbooks with either one of these titles that discuss the same kinds of material. There are two journals, one is called the Journal of Evolutionary Biology[41] another is called Evolution[42] - they both address the same kinds of issues contrary to Kim van der Linde's claims above. There is no evidence that these titles mean anything different. Historically there was another article called evolutionary biology that was merged with evolution, because it duplicated the same material. This has been debated and a consensus was already reached to merge the article. Contrary to Kyknos statement that there were unique things in that article, I nor any of the other evolutionary biologists that contribute to these articles could find the argument convincing. This deletion review is not productive - there are far more important issues to discuss that could be more helpful.Thompsma (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close – This is purely a content dispute that is regarding where information should be placed and how they should be organized as opposed to whether or not said information warrants inclusion. This is not within the remit of deletion review. –MuZemike 02:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Duff (d.967) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

An incorrect use of WP:CSD#R3, in my opinion. The redirect had been in place for two months, so it is not "recently created" and (more importantly), it is not implausible – it redirected to Dub, King of Scotland, whose DNB article is titled "Duff (d.967)" (see wikisource) (struck, see below – I still believe the redirect is plausible, though). Perhaps this would be deleted at RfD (I'm honestly not sure), but I don't think it should have been CSD'd because it's definitely plausible and redirects are cheap. My understanding of the history is (and forgive me if this incorrect, as a non-admin I cannot see the deleted history), this was deleted as R3, undeleted by the redirect's creator and then deleted as R3 by the original deleting admin. When the deleting admin was contacted about this (see User talk:Fram#Duff (d.967)), he declined to undo his deletion and recommended DRV, so here we are. Jenks24 (talk) 11:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note by deleting admin: Actually, the DNB article is called DUFF, and the first line of it starts with "DUFF (Dubh, the Black) (d. 967)"[43]. The Wikisource page is called Duff (d.967). Please don't mix those two, like you did here. Wikisource is not a reliable source, and we don't created redirects from every misspelling from unreliable sources. It is very implausible that people will look for Duff using this disambiguation with an error in it (the missing space between d. and 967) to boot. As for "recently created", two months is pretty recent, certianly for a page that had been moved from the user space and so never appeared in the new pages queue (and by an autopatrolled editor as well). So, keep deleted. Fram (talk) 11:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the correction, Fram. I've struck the incorrect part of my nom, but I still feel that it is not implausible and that someone who (for whatever reason) reads the DNB article or sees it referenced somewhere could search for it under this title. Again, redirects are cheap. One question for you (or any other admin): was the page in main space for two months, or in Rich's user space for two months and only in main space for, say, a few days? If the former, then I still think the page was not "recently created", despite it not going through Special:NewPages (new redirects don't go through Special:NewPages, anyway). Jenks24 (talk) 12:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jenks24, do you expect someone to type "Duff (d.967)" into a search box, or [[Duff (d.967)]] in an article? Could you please try to explain why you feel it's a plausible typo? Because at first glance I'm not seeing it.—S Marshall T/C 12:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't really see it as a "typo" at all. As is mentioned in the article, Dub is often anglicised to Duff, but people will know that they will probably have to add something in brackets afterwards to find the article they want (I find that Wikipedia's disambiguation practices are actually quite well-known by the general public) and that "(d.967)" is as plausible as anything they might type to try and reach the Dub article. It's worth noting that when the redirect existed, it had 107 page views in October and, although it only averages a couple of page views a day, that is a couple of readers that are benefiting from this redirect. To use the oft-quoted line, "redirects are cheap" – why should we not restore this redirect which helps a few readers each day? Hope this helps, Jenks24 (talk) 13:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The 107 pageviews are mostly causd by me drawing attention to the problematic DNB creations. In September, the page ony got 31 pageviews, which is what most pages get from bots and AWB and the like, without anyone actually looking at the page. In general low pageviews <> readers. Fram (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course it is not unusual to not understand redirect criteria. And also not to understand why deleting redirects is a bad thing. Specifically deleting this redirect is bad because:
    1. It is an established page title which may be (and in fact is) linked to from elsewhere.
    2. It is a likely search term, being the name used at a major bibliographic source.
    3. It costs more to delete than to keep.

Rich Farmbrough, 15:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

1. From where? Wikisource? Yes, you added it there, but it now no longer links to a deleted redirect but to the actual article. Anywhere else?
2. Wikisource is not a major bibliographic source.
3. It costs more to undelete than to keep deleted as well then? Fram (talk) 15:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you are futzing with my work on another project? Why does that not surprise me? But you miss the point. One of the reasons for retaining old redirects is that they may be used externally. Whether I can or cannot point to specific example does not affect the validity of the reasoning. "Only delete redirects that are new or harmful." Rich Farmbrough, 17:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]
You claimed that it "in fact is linked to from elsewhere". So, apart from that one redirect you created yourself (kind of a self fulfilling prophecy that one), any evidence for this claim? Fram (talk) 19:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A self destroying prophecy, because I knew you would toddle off to Wikisource and unlink it, if you hadn't already. And remember this is where there was an article, not a random redirect out of nowhere. Rich Farmbrough, 00:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Overturn, and also list at RFD. Though I can't see the deleted content, my understanding from reading User_talk:Fram#Duff_.28d.967.29 is that this was a former userspace article that contained content before being made into a redirect. Even though the content was apparently not merged, my reading of R3 is that it does not apply to pages with a non-redirect history. For that reason I think the speedy deletion was invalid and should be overturned. Fram also cited A10 on his talk page, but I don't think that criterion applies to an article that someone has already turned into a redirect. While I think the speedy deletion should be overturned, that doesn't address whether this is a reasonable redirect, so I think that issue should be resolved by listing the redirect at RFD. I also want to say that I think Fram was wrong in re-deleting the redirect after Rich Farmbrough undeleted it. The mere fact that another user in good standing felt the redirect was plausable is reason enough for it to not be speedy deleted, and instead to list it at RFD. Calathan (talk) 18:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per A10 rather than R3. R3 doesn't apply because that criterion isn't meant to be used on articles that have been turned into redirects, with the obvious reasoning that otherwise anyone could get any page deleted by turning it into a nonsensical redirect and invoking R3. However the article did duplicate an existing article on the same topic and the title won't make a plausible redirect, so A10 does apply. Hut 8.5 19:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes it would be a good A10, except that is was some 2 months old and had page history. Rich Farmbrough, 00:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]
      • A10 requires that the article was recently created. This term is a bit subjective but I don't think two months is unreasonable. Furthermore the reason we require the page to be recently created is that older pages have a higher chance of containing material that would be useful for a merge, but here the content was essentially the same as that found in the DNB. The page history is only relevant if the content was merged or otherwise used elsewhere, but it wasn't. FWIW the only significant edit in the page history was you creating the article as a text dump from the DNB, everything else was either minor wikification or automated changes to templates. Hut 8.5 11:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, that's certainly so, and I had intended to put a merge tag on it (maybe I even did) - and it's not really a text dump, it is very heavily wikified from inception, which may or may not be useful to those doing merges. Rich Farmbrough, 15:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]
          • No merge tag. It was redirected 13 days after your last edit to it, and deleted five days later, nearly two months after you created it. I doubt there will be much interest in merging info from 1900 into the current article, which is already linked to the Wikisource copy of the DNB article anyway. Fram (talk) 15:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you did want to merge it (I don't think there's much point since almost all of the content is in the target article already) then the edit history isn't necessary because the DNB is in the public domain and no content was added to the article. Edits which add wikilinks aren't copyrightable. Hut 8.5 15:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at RfD I rarely understand why someone won't overturn a contested redirect speedy--leaving it there for an extra week will do no harm (unlike certain articles and images). Plus, it isn't newly created and is a redirect from a previous article, so it doesn't technically qualify as an R3. I'm loath to use an A10 to delete a redirect (after all, we generally do redirect a dup article). Hobit (talk) 20:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • But we generally don't create redirects with disambiguators in them (apart from (disambiguation) where needed). Fram (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've actually seen quite a few kept at RfD, but I agree they generally aren't useful redirects. It may well be this should be deleted, but A) it doesn't quite fit a speedy criteria and B) there is no harm in keeping it around for a week. So I'd think RfD would be the best way forward, especially if the deletion has been contested. I'll use S Marshall's "fair process" notion here. By the letter of the rules this should go to RfD and not letting it go there causes more harm (the sense of an abused process and perhaps an unhappy editor) than good (where I honestly see no upside other than reducing RfD traffic). Hobit (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • No real problem with your reasoning, the main reason I speedy deleted this was because it belonged with a group of other, very similar articles, all with the same error in the non-standard disambiguation: I moved the other ones without keeping a redirect (a standard move option), bit this one could not be moved because it was a duplicate of another article. The other ones were Alfonso Ferrabosco (d.1661), John Barret (d.1563), John Barrett (d.1810), William Drury (d.1589), James Dundas (d.1679), and John Fitzedmund Fitzgerald (d.1589). No idea whether this changes anything, but it provides some context. Fram (talk) 07:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Just further context, this discussion suggests that this deletion and DRV are spin-offs from the ongoing war between Fram and Rich Farmbrough. I must confess I was initially mystified about this suddenly appearing as redirects are the rarest of DRV issues as they are so cheap and generally so uncontroversial. I intensely dislike DRV being used as a proxy for external fighting in this way and were it not for the fact that this is clearly leaning towards an overturn I would have closed this on the basis of a plague on both your houses. Isn't it high time the two of them were banned from interacting or commenting on each other? Oh and if there is history behind the deleted redirect [44] then it was absolutely wrong to delete the link as it severs a connection with the full picture of article history which has attributation consequences, so Speedy restore. Spartaz Humbug! 07:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Spartaz, there is no attribution history, the page was not merged at all, but deleted because an older and better article already existed on the same subject. There is nothing to attribute, so no reason to keep the history, so no reason to "speedy" restore. It is just one in a long line of efforts to clean up the errors created by this editor, and in this case I may have used the wrong method to get the right result. Fram (talk) 08:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at RfD essentially per Hobit, especially with the proviso that A10 does not apply to redirects, which are not articles, and hence not eligible for deletion under any "A" criterion, but only under G and R criteria. Jclemens (talk) 05:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am I right in thinking that Fram deleted this material after Rich Farmborough had restored it? If so, then we're dealing with a wheel war and we're far outside DRV's jurisdiction. Per WP:WW the only appropriate venue for this is ArbCom, even for a first offence. We should close without result.—S Marshall T/C 09:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • An arbcom case after a month and a half? Be my guest. They have rejected an ArbCom case with me and Rich Farmbrough inbetween already (case started here), where everyone had time and place to comment and present their initial evidence, so bringing this up now seems strange. Note also the section directly in front of the WP:WW section, describing what Rich Farmbrough was expected to do before using his admin powers to undo an admin action. I don't think it would help anyone or anything to start down this lane now, over a month later, but you are free to take it to ArbCom anyway of course. Fram (talk) 09:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I certainly wouldn't take it to ArbCom, Fram—I have no axe to grind or reason to get involved. My position is that DRV has no mandate to deal with a wheel war.—S Marshall T/C 12:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks. I guess that if you read the situation as an incorrect restore (no contact with the deletin admin, and using admin tools in an involved situation), and an incorrect redelete, we would end up with the original delete as the starting position for this DRV, so I do think that a DRV can continue and be useful. Fram (talk) 12:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes it's a WW, but I don't think that affects the DRV terribly. And certainly it's too trivial for ARB or even ANI. Rich Farmbrough, 15:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Note: more a general comment, but I no longer intend to use any administrative tools wrt Rich Farmbrough, to avoid these distractions. I'll tag things for deletion if needed, note errors at his talk page, and raise things at the appropriate discussion boards if needed. I only may occasionally reverse edits he makes on fully protected templates if these result in causing errors on a serious number of pages, like I did yesterday here. I hope this will guve people some rest about this situation, and makes sure that there is at least a second pair of eyes on my deletion suggestions in this regard. Fram (talk) 09:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

6 December 2011

5 December 2011

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Maisie Williams (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The "redirect" closure is procedurally incorrect because it is not based on a consensus. The reason for this is that only three people contributed to the discussion. They each held different opinions: "delete" (the nominator, implicitly); "keep"; or "merge and redirect", all based on prima facie reasonable arguments. But nobody supported a redirect without merging, which is the solution implemented by the closer. I recommend that the discussion is either relisted or closed as "no consensus".  Sandstein  00:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • This seems a bit complicated to me and it raises issues that I find interesting. I can see two technical ways to understand that close. The "weak" interpretation is:- in his capacity as an administrator, MOP found no consensus in the debate and defaulted to keep. However, in his capacity as an editor he then decided that the appropriate action was to create a redirect and acted accordingly. He could thus be overturned by any editor on the basis of talk page discussion.

    The "strong" interpretation rests on the outcome of this RFC, which appears to give MOP a mandate to enforce a redirect as an administrative decision, on the basis of his assessment of the strength of the arguments.

    I would have absolutely no issue at all with the weak interpretation in which the redirect is an editorial decision. However, the wording of the close, the wording of this DRV, and MOP's comments on his talk page, all seem to suggest that what should be understood is the strong interpretation in which the redirect is an administrative decision. I have various technical and procedural concerns and objections about that. It's a bit complicated so I'll point to my theoretical level discussion with Flatscan here for the details. Subject to subsequent discussion, my interim position is that what I've called the weak interpretation of the debate is correct but I also have no objection to Sandstein reverting the redirect per WP:BRD.—S Marshall T/C 01:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and relist While the closing admin's action was probably within the realm of discretionary outcome, the debate was extremely poor, being based mostly on one interpretation of BLP1E that deviates from my perception of consensus (as expressed in WP:WI1E and WP:WIALPI), and no apparent searching for new sources that have been published since the initial stub was written. Ultimately, neither trying to "protect" child actors by suppressing their articles, and/or demanding inordinate amount of life details to make a "biography" stick are good options for the encyclopedia, the readership, or the subject. What we need is what we had: a career summary based on multiple, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Jclemens (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closer's comment I was in a meeting when I posted my original response to Sandstein, so apologies if it seems a bit hazy. S. Marshall, your first interpretation is correct - I am not an inclusionist, but I felt that, given that the actress has some degree of notability and her name could forseeably be searched, a redirect would be the best compromise based on my weighing of the deletion arguments. It's apparent that there are others who would prefer a relist to draw further debate; I'm perfectly OK with that. I would have expressed this opinion on my talk page, but I wasn't expecting Sandstein to open a DRV so quickly. m.o.p 04:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:JesseDirkhising.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Well, the XfD had no Delete votes (not even the nominator, as it was a procedural listing). This was following an earlier DRV here with unanimous support for relisting, following an earlier XfD here also with no Delete votes. The XfD was closed as Delete anyway; it's not 100% clear, but I think this was due to the image being orphaned. (Closing admin is on wikibreak and not available to respond.)

Well, it's only orphaned because it was deleted, and consequently removed from the article. If I can get these restored, I'll put them back in the article. (There is a general issue with this, in that, if they're restored they can be be re-deleted as orphaned one minute after that; I can't edit 24 hours a day. I suppose this is a common problem and I don't know if there's a solution to that or not. But if I'm lucky and fast maybe I can get them them back in before they're deleted again. If not, I guess we can go round again, as many times as it takes.) Also applies to File:Elyse.JPG, File:Newmaker.jpg, File:KelseySmith.jpg, File:StephanieKuhen.png. (Later addtion: also File:MarthaMoxley.jpg, File:SylviaLikens.jpg) Herostratus (talk) 09:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Snow overturn, because, damn. I presume SchuminWeb was having an off day.—S Marshall T/C 11:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Huh. I just noticed that the admin who closed the "all-keep" FfD as "delete" is the one who nominated the image for deletion in the first place. That's... not ideal. 28bytes (talk) 12:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy restore and add to the articles in question. Deleting an image as orphaned when the consensus in the discussion is that it is appropriate for use in a specific article, it just hasn't been re-added pending discussion, is manifestly unreasonable. I sympathize with the concerns about these non-free images, but deleting them in defiance of consensus is not a reasonable use of administrative discretion. As for 28bytes' litotes, I'll refrain from restating it in the positive, but it is the reason for the "speedy" at the front of my comment. Eluchil404 (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep and consider discussing sanctions against the closer for the abuse of administrative tools and the deletion process. I do not understand how an administrator can, in good faith, first request the deletion of a file, and the close the deletion review of the same file as "delete", with an obviously inapplicable rationale, in the face of a consensus to the contrary.  Sandstein  00:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy overturn as an WP:INVOLVED violation, in addition to ignoring consensus. The file was orphaned because it had been previously deleted (at the closer's nomination!), and it is obvious that de-orphaning it would have been trivial. I've left SchuminWeb a note to this effect on his talk page. I would undelete it myself, but I opined in the previous DRV on these images, and there is no deadline, so a completely uninvolved admin should probably do the honors. Jclemens (talk) 04:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The F5 / orphaned and WP:NFCC#7 are absurd to apply to a recently deleted file relisted by DRV. The close did not reflect the discussion. Slap the closer per User:28bytes. Presumably, the closer forgot his prior involvement, and he should take more care. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - IMO FfD/DRV is ill-equipped to handle this situation, as this falls under "Copyright with legal considerations". I believe we once had an RfC to determine once and for all if album art usage in an article about the album specifically satisfies NFCC (it passed, obviously). Has there ever been a centralized discussion on whether non-free images of a person, living or dead, may be used in an article about that person satisfy NFCC #8 ? Tarc (talk) 22:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

4 December 2011

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Dragon Court (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The previous article was deleted because the information was regarding an online game that was generally agreed upon to be less significant than "Court of the Dragon Emperor." The result was that the previous page was deleted and instead made into a redirect for The History of China. I was one who contributed a great deal of time and effort onto this wiki page (the Dragon Court regarding the online game), but I do understand and agree why the page is used as a redirect instead. The admin who deleted the page and made it a redirect instead is on a "wikibreak" and his page says to contact another admin, instead. I would like for the page history be e-mailed to me so that I can repost the content that I worked on for that page on a more appropriate wiki page (specifically, http://dragoncourt.wikispaces.com/). I appreciate an admin taking the time to review this, and I would greatly appreciate it if the former content of this page could be provided to me so that it can be reused. Thanks! Divine Auror (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Kennedy Middle School (Cupertino, California) – The closer agrees the confirmation of blue-ribbon status changes the outcome so this has been Restored. I'm not entirely convinced that there is a clear meta-consensus that blue-ribbon status allows US primary schools to become notable but like so many school related cases we end up with a but of a fudge. I suppose that anyone who actually cares strongly about this could open an RFC or relist this but my personal view is that would needless kill millions of bytes without any conclusive outcome – Spartaz Humbug! 06:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Kennedy Middle School (Cupertino, California) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Result was redirect because no proof had been found that this was a Blue Ribbon school. However, it was honored in 1992-93 (as Kennedy Junior High School). I'd like to bring this back to review because this proof has been found. Raymie (t • c) 01:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding that! I note that it's actually listed as "John F. Kennedy Junior High School," (p. 12) for those like me who were looking for it in the "K"s. As the closer, I'd say un-redirection of the article would be consistent with my close, provided the source is included in the restored article. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally don't think that being a Blue Ribbon school makes a middle school notable--sources do. But if the closer is happy, I suggest we close the DRV as overturning the deletion is within the preview of the closer in any case. Hobit (talk) 03:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which sources do? All that that pdf presents is a directory entry. The assertions in the afd that being a blue ribbon school somehow overrides WP:GNG should have been discounted entirely; winning an award is somehow still enough to squeak past some secondary notability guidelines like WP:WEB, but it isn't part of WP:ORG, and I don't think it ever has been. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 13:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore The GNG is not the only way to show notability--there are other exceptional ways, and the community can use it a given case whatever written or unwritten guideline it pleases and make whatever exceptions it wants to. Indeed, both WP:N and WP:GNG go far beyond the usual implied flexibility to say specifically that there can be exceptions This award has consistently been considered sufficient for US schools, although as it happens I was one of the few people not really comfortable with it. But the consensus has been to accept it, and I don't see the merit in trying to change this particular established convention, especially when it's part of a long standing compromise. We have enough stuff in WP that's actually harmful to get rid of without worrying about such borderline cases. DGG ( talk ) 01:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since people have brought it up, the reason I phrased the close the way I did is because I felt there wasn't a consensus on what to do if the school was a Blue Ribbon school and that such a consensus wasn't going to develop because the issue wasn't ripe for discussion until we knew whether or not it was such a school. (There were delete/redirect comments along the lines of "because there is no evidence of it being a Blue Ribbon school".) So if someone wants to AfD it again, I have no problem with it, but it should be restored pending that AfD. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • File:OccupyUCD3.jpg – Overturn to delete. A substantial contingent feels that, being so soon after the event, the image infringes on the commercial opportunities of the copyright holder (WP:NFCC#2). Moreover, a user is in the process of contacting the photographer of a possibly free image. If we can get a release, that would be great. Otherwise, if multiple such requests fail, contact me on my talk page and I'll be happy to restore this image for review. – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:OccupyUCD3.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

I'd like to request a formal review of my closure of Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_November_24#File:OccupyUCD3.jpg. I'm not certain if I judged consensus and policy appropriately in this debate. Thanks, FASTILY (TALK) 01:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks like the right call to me. That's an image of a particular event in media res, so there's no possibility of a free replacement ever being available. In the particular article in question it's a very suitable image to use, it enhances the reader's understanding of the subject, and no free image could do the same job. It's appropriate for us, as educators, to use that picture in that context.—S Marshall T/C 02:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That hasn't been the standard by which we've judged the use of non-free images (particularly images from news agencies) in the past. It sounds like what you're saying is that we have a free hand to use copyrighted commercial photos if they serve an educational purpose, despite WP:NFCC#2. In the past, we've only used them if the photo itself was the subject of critical commentary, like the Iwo Jima flag raising photo. Kelly hi! 02:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was careful not to generalise and to confine my comments purely to this particular image of this particular event used in this particular article. In context NFCC#2 seems like a reason to use a low-res version of the image, but it doesn't seem to justify actually deleting it. I haven't said anything about a "free hand to use copyrighted commercial photos" and that is not my position.—S Marshall T/C 03:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Later) Since there apparently is a free image this should obviously be preferred! Doesn't make Fastily's close wrong since it's predicated on a debate that took place when nobody knew that.—S Marshall T/C 04:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the close was reasonable. Arguments were made that the image, at a reduced resolution, wouldn't cause a financial impact. I don't believe those were effectively countered. So NFCC#2 would seem to be met. Hobit (talk) 08:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - I am not seeing as this is a correct usage for a Deletion review. User:Fastily appears to be saying that after talkpage discussion he is not sure if he closed the discussion correctly. No one has asked User:Fastily for a deletion review only that he clarifies his reasons within policy for his close. So, this is not a deletion review it is the closer no longer says he supports his own close and as such he should imo clarify that, and revert his close to allow discussion to continue on the non free discussion. Youreallycan (talk) 12:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. While Fastily accurately reads the expressed consensus in the FFD discussion, his unease with the policy problems involved is well-taken. The image rather clearly fails to satisfy NFCC#1; as some comments noted, the event was widely photographed, including an apparently freely circulated video, and there is certainly nothing establishing that no freely licensed substitute can be obtained. NFCC#2 generally prevents us from using copyrighted news media images, especially for very recent events, and especially when substitutes are available. The fact that a copyrighted image may be the "best" image available is not a justification for escaping NFCC limits; that argument is always balanced, if not outweighed, by the fact that the same argument also indicates greater commercial value. Finally, the image fails NFCC#8: it adds nothing that cannot be gleaned from its textual description. An image like this clearly carries more emotional resonance than text alone, but that is true of images generally; emotional impact is not the same as contextual significance. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "freely" circulated cell phone video is copyrighted by the author, Thomas Fowler. There are no free alternatives in the public domain. Viriditas (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • This article [45] indicates that multiple videos have been circulated, and that the owners' contact information is public. There is no indication that anyone has requested that a free-licensed single frame be allowed; even absent such a license, such a capture is more suitable under NFCC#2 than a commercial news media image. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is not correct at all. The article refers to Chris Wong's live USTREAM video at the time of the event. However, it is not at all clear what his video captured or if it is even available. There are currently three famous images of this event distributed by the mainstream media—journalist Wayne Tilcock's official news photo for The Davis Enterprise, an amateur photograph taken by Louise Macabitas which was used for the popular memes which arose after the event, and Thomas Fowler's cell phone video. All three of these images are copyrighted. Viriditas (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree with you on 1, 2 and 8, but 8 is especially jarring. I think emotional impact is important, but even so there is meaning added. I didn't know what pepper spray looked like, how much was being sprayed, etc. This image cleared it up nicely and makes the overbearing nature of the police in this context crystal clear. I don't think any set of words would have been able to get that same idea across. And as it was an event, either there are free images or there are not--new ones cannot be made. I've not gone hunting for one, but others apparently have and have come up with nothing. Hobit (talk) 21:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's policy comments and as per the closers doubts. IMO the rapid inclusion of this non free picture after the articles creation is a strong contributor factor to the reason that a commons compatible picture has not been found. Youreallycan (talk) 20:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn without a bit of prejudice to Fastily, while I see why he closed the way he did, this image is replaceable by free images and as such is by definition unacceptable. Replaceable means only replaceable by a free image of adequate quality, not "the best" or "the best known". Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are no free images, so how could it be replaceable? Viriditas (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It sounds like, from above, quite a few people have photographed or videotaped the event. Have they all been contacted to see if they'd be willing to release a photo and/or video of theirs under CC-BY-SA? Given the nature of this event, it is almost inconceivable to me that at least one would not be willing to do so. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've already looked into this several times. Is there a single good reason anyone here would oppose a free image? No, of course not. However, there aren't any, and because these students and journalists are receiving thousands of e-mails per day, it is virtually impossible to contact them or expect a reply. Viriditas (talk) 00:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • That doesn't answer the question "Has anyone contacted them?". I've had great success with "I'd like to use your image on Wikipedia" as far as getting copyright release. Until someone has actually tried and gotten a no, rather than speculating it won't work, we can't say irreplaceable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's impossible to contact them—there's your answer. And to address your claim that it is "inconceivable" that there aren't free images of this event, I would like to point you to the "widely circulated video" of the University of Florida Taser incident and the famous image taken by Andrew Stanfill of the Independent Florida Alligator. That is the version of the incident that Wikipedia uses, even though several copyrighted images and videos were widely circulated. To date, there are still no free images of the "Don't tase me, bro!" incident. If we were to listen to you and others, Wikipedia would not have an image taken by a journalist in our article and the article would be entirely deficient. The use of an image of the UC Davis pepper spray incident captured by Wayne Tilcock of The Davis Enterprise is entirely supported by past precedent and represents best practice. Viriditas (talk) 00:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • If we knew there were independent videos or photos of those, the use of those images would be inappropriate as well, until and unless we'd ruled out getting a free image. And if we need to wait to contact them, we'll wait, and make the determination after such becomes possible. "Irreplaceable" doesn't mean "It can't be replaced by a free image right this minute". If it is demonstrated, by denied requests for release in the future, that the image is indeed irreplaceable by a free image, I'd happily change my mind. But that hasn't happened yet, and we don't need any image right this second. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Let's be clear: there is no free equivalent to this image. We don't have a crystal-ball to predict whether there will be a free equivalent. We know that there isn't one right now at this moment. You can't place a current limit on inclusion based on what might happen in the future. It's the other way around. Either you can prove, with evidence, that a free equivalent exists, or you can't. It is best practice on Wikipedia to use non-free images taken by accredited journalists of historic images when no free image exists. I've illustrated this practice with a reference to File:Meyersarrest.jpg. Regardless of which pepper spray image we use, the current image by journalist Wayne Tilcock was recognized by the mainstream media as one of the defining images of the event. It is used appropriately in the relevant article to give a visual representation of the pepper spray incident and cannot be replaced by any free image at this time. You say that we don't need any image right now, but there is no rush to delete it since it is used appropriately with respect to non-free content criteria and is supported by precedent. To delete this image, you must show that it is not used appropriately and there is a good reason to delete it. Nobody has been able to demonstrate this case. Viriditas (talk) 01:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • We often place limits on what may be done now on what may happen in the future—that's what "replaceable" means. We do not, for example, use an image of a living person on grounds that it may be replaced in the future, even though there may be no free image right this moment. If there exists a reasonable possibility of a free image, no nonfree is permissible. If that chance is ruled out in the future, that'd change, but that hasn't happened yet. We always work on the basis that nonfree images are excluded until proven needed, not that they're acceptable until proven unneeded. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • A reasonable limit is acceptable only if you can predict the future based on current or past performance. I've shown that such limits, based on related images already in wide use, aren't predictive of future results. This image has already been proven "needed"—that's what the Xfd was about. This deletion review is supposed to address the closing rationale, not rehash the Xfd. Viriditas (talk) 01:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Very well then—the IfD was closed improperly based upon a nose count rather than an evaluation of the image's appropriateness, if you'd prefer that. No amount of "Keep, this one's DIFFERENT!" supercedes NFCC. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Who is arguing that in order to support the inclusion of this image, one has to violate NFCC? How is this image any different than the use of File:Meyersarrest.jpg in University of Florida Taser incident? They are exactly the same, all the way down to the source. Viriditas (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Depends, really. If there are others who have photos or video of the Meyers incident, and they have not yet been contacted for potential copyright release, that one's inappropriate as well and just hasn't been caught. If not (or if the others involved have been contacted and declined to release), it's legitimately irreplaceable. I don't know enough about the situation to say more than that. Regardless, "Something else is here like it!" is never a valid inclusion criterion. You must demonstrate that this particular case is appropriate, not something else. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                            • It's already been demonstrated on the original Xfd, and all the arguments against using this image have fallen flat. You and others have said free replacements exist. That's been shown to be false. This is a historically important image from a journalist in the same way that File:Meyersarrest.jpg is, and Wikipedia has a long history of including historical images from journalists, with File:Tank Man (Tiananmen Square protester).jpg, File:Kent State massacre.jpg, File:Nguyen.jpg, and File:TrangBang.jpg as only a very small sample of this practice. This is not an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, this is best practice. There is no difference between this image and the other images listed above. Previous deletion debates, such as Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_April_12#File:Tank Man (Tiananmen Square protester).jpg have determined that the notability of historical images merits inclusion under a fair use rationale. We do not have to reinvent the wheel here. Viriditas (talk) 04:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                              • Is there any evidence that this particular, specific, photograph is "historic"? Kelly hi! 04:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                                • Yes, an enormous amount supported by reliable sources, some of which was offered in the original Xfd. Would you like me to provide highlights? Viriditas (talk) 04:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                                  • I went back through that, and none referred to this particular photograph. Kelly hi! 05:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                                    • Then you made an error and must have visited the wrong Xfd. Here, let me help you: the correct Xfd you are looking for is named Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_November_24#File:OccupyUCD3.jpg. A small sample of reliable sources indicating historical importance appear in comments dated 20:17, 26 November 2011 and 23:34, 26 November 2011 and 01:25, 27 November 2011. Many more can be provided, and I may have to compose a specific subpage to highlight them all. Viriditas (talk) 05:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                                      • No need to get snarky. Those references seem to refer to the video(s) taken at the scene, or some other image by another photographer that was used as the basis for parodies, not this particular photo by the Davis newspaper. Kelly hi! 05:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                                        • I wasn't being snarky. The photo in question, Wayne Tilcock's, was awarded TIME's Best Pictures of the Week.[46] The caption of the image on the award page refers to the event in the image as "a now infamous act", which is exactly what the majority of critical commentary refers to as well. Based on wire distribution stats, I would say that Tilcock's image appears on more mainstream media news sites than any other image and has become one of the defining images associated with this story. Most of the critical commentary on the images associated with this event, such as the commentary that appears in The New York Times, The San Jose Mercury News, The San Francisco Chronicle, and The Washington Post—is about the iconic, historic nature of the images of the officer pepper spraying the students in general. But the fact remains, Tilcock's image won an award from Time magazine and has been featured in more news stories than any other image. Viriditas (talk) 05:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                                          • Respectfully, being #20 of 32 "pictures of the week" on a news blog doesn't exactly hit the "historic" threshold - and the photo that is shown on the website is actually not this photo, but a different one. Another of the "pictures of the week" is a dude in an Elmo suit.Kelly hi! 05:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                                            • Respectfully right back at you, Time used another frame from Tilcock's set for their webpage, however, the image that appears widely in almost every mainstream publication is the image currently on Wikipedia. Time used a different frame from the same set, but the iconic image that Tilcock published widely is the one we currently have and that can be proven. In any case, if Time has chosen to use a different frame from this set, I would be happy to upload a new reduced version that matches it. Viriditas (talk) 06:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kudos to Fastily for bringing this here - like others here, I think he did a good job of reading the consensus, but unfortunately consensus can't trump policy - especially WP:NFCC, which is one of the few policies passed to us by the Foundation. I do think this image is about as clear a violation of WP:NFCC#2 and fair use law as there can be - its usage directly contravenes the terms of use of the news agency website from which it was taken, and nobody has shown that this particular photo has been the subject of widespread commentary (though the event it depicts has been). I'm also pretty sure a determined effort could turn up a free image per WP:NFCC#1 - the photo itself shows scads of photographers/videographers at the scene, both amateur and professional. But as long as this image remains in the article, there's little motivation for anyone to seek out a free image, or for a photographer to freely license one. As a result, I'm going to have to say overturn with no prejudice against Fastily. Kelly hi! 03:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I was wrong. Most of the sources refer to the video, not this image. I will therefore be uploading a frame from the video instead. Viriditas (talk) 06:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I don't see any difference between uploading a video clip instead of a frame, based on the critical commentary available. Viriditas (talk) 06:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:NFCC#3b. Kelly hi! 06:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • For the record, Thomas Fowler has asserted his claim of copyright and YouTube has begun removing unauthorized use of his images/video.[47] Viriditas (talk) 07:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Update: I'm now in possession of a free video of the incident. Viriditas (talk) 07:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • And...it doesn't include the pepper spray. I see why there are no free images or free videos of the incident. In the video that I'm watching, most of the people with cameras in the periphery of the event didn't start filming until after the officer was finished. When they rushed forward to get a pic, they were blocked by other people in the chaos. Viriditas (talk) 07:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • OK, RT America has uploaded this as CC BY 3.0 on the Internet Archive and on YouTube. However, in some footage, they give "credit" (courtesy) to a YouTube user for some of the video. Can I use this? Viriditas (talk)
                • Does the licensor hold the copyright? Kelly hi! 07:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • That's not at all clear based on the YouTube terms of service and their "Standard YouTube License" agreement.[48] According to that document, the YouTube user who provided the content "retains ownership rights", but the wording of the RT video implies that RT received permission (courtesy) from the owner to attribute and re-license as cc3.0. I should also note that in another instance, RT used similar footage from another user (terrydatiger), but that footage was never released as cc3.0,[49] presumably because the user wouldn't allow it. The two relevant videos released as cc3.0 by RTAmerica can be found here:[50], [51]. They are identical to the same videos on YouTube which have the same cc license. Viriditas (talk) 08:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to compliment Fastily for asking for feedback here. Asking for advice about whether or not one got something right is never a bad thing. In the original discussion, I argued for "delete", and I'm still pretty sure that I was right on policy grounds. Although there is genuine disagreement about whether or not another, free, image is available, no one in the discussion was able to convincingly refute the fact that the image is copyrighted by an entity with a commercial interest, and that the commercial interest in the image is very much current. It's hard to see how our use does not interfere with the commercial rights of the copyright owner. The arguments about low-resolution, cropping, etc., are rather weak, because in this case the image in a useful (for Wikipedia) form will probably still infringe on commercial interest. The discussion was dominated by a very large number of contributors who seem not to really understand NFCC, who made weak "keep" arguments based on that misunderstanding. But there were also a few experienced editors who argued for keeping in ways that were certainly reasonable, and my personal opinion that that they failed to refute the delete arguments are just that: my personal opinion. So the closer had a difficult task of determining to what extent the keep arguments should have been discounted. Many of them should have been, but probably not all. Perhaps, at the end, it was really "no consensus". Given that DR should address only whether the closure was incorrect, as opposed to whether the result "should have" gone the other way, I'd be inclined to weakly uphold the closure, with the caveats that NFCC#2 probably is failed and that another nomination would be reasonable. Better yet, someone ought to start a page about the photograph itself, making this discussion moot. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S.: Given that the discussion was divided, it would have been better to provide a few sentences of explanation of the reasoning behind the closure. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree with you about the NFCC#2 argument at all. It's true that using non-free content will always infringe on commercial interest, but DRV is not here to uphold the profit potential of enterprises that are unrelated to Wikipedia, and NFCC#2 doesn't say we shouldn't infringe on commercial interest. NFCC#2 is specifically about not replacing the image's original market role. A low-res version wouldn't.—S Marshall T/C 02:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a good illustration of why I concluded that my personal opinion that #2 was indeed failed does not constitute a sufficient reason to overturn. You and I disagree, as we often have before, and as we probably will again. Actually, I agree with you that I was imprecise in my choice of words when I talked about infringing; as you correctly point out, the standard is replacement of the original market role. I still think that our use of the image would do that, at the resolution that we would be talking about. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn WP:NFCC is a policy that must be met, and in a case where the close fails to meet that standard it should be overturned. We should never take advantage of free use, and as subjective as the guidelines we have are, I think its clear that using this image so soon after then event does "impinge of the respect of economic opportunities for the owner". It is not reasonable to suggest historical importance so soon after the event, this is not the Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima or Father Edward Daly on Bloody Sunday. As stated, until good faith efforts are exhausted, which barely a month after the event is not reasonable, this image does not meet fair use criteria. If nothing else, the quality of the image is "too good". Massive respect to Fastily for asking for further community input in such an important decision. LoveUxoxo (talk) 06:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse. It's a defensible weak keep, "weak" noting many "keep" !votes don't speak directly to the policy, and an easy "no consensus defaults to keep", but not "delete" because that is definitely not the reading of the discussion - many keep !votes were not well rebutted. The applicability of WP:NFCC to the image is a matter for the discussion to decide, not for the closer to supervote. Noting that the photograph was only a week old, I think a no consensus close followed by a renomination in a few weaks is a good way to go. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a freely licensed photograph available for use. It's also the most used photograph of the event and can be found on the DavisWiki here (here exactly). We contacted the photographer, Louise Macabitas, and she said she is fine with any usage as long as it's attributed to her. --Philip Neustrom, philip@localwiki.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.83.220.39 (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I used to live in Davis and the Davis Wiki is cool. Thanks for contacting the photographer Philip. LoveUxoxo (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • - comment - that file being mentioned is not as yet released under a commons compatible license. - currently the situation with that picture appears to be that it is non free and the photographer holds the copyright but Philip Neustrom asserts he has permission to use it as long as he attributes the photographer, in a non free way. Replaceable does not mean that we have not found a commons compatible picture so we can use any one we find under non free - the foundation focus is on commons licensed pictures. The number of people at the event makes it easy to claim that there are so many hundreds of pictures from the Occupy event that the answer to replaceable is clearly YES - the inclusion and desire to add immediately on creation of the article a non free professional press photo and its continued inclusion in the article is a major contributory factor to the reason we have not yet found a commons licensed picture. Youreallycan (talk) 22:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Philip is saying he has received permission from Louise Macabitas to upload the photo as cc-by-sa. What is the problem here? Viriditas (talk) 03:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Go on then - upload it under cc-by-sa if you assert and have evidence that the picture is released under that license. I will note that however that Phillip is not the copyright owner and that he also never mentioned cc-by-sa. Philip said, she she said she is fine with any usage as long as it's attributed to her. That is different from her releasing her copyrights under a specific license such as cc-by-sa. Youreallycan (talk) 09:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • (EC) how about we do this properly and ask Philip to facilitation registration of the release via OTRS? See Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials#Granting_us_permission_to_copy_material_already_online. If someone can nudge me once the permission has come in, I'll find it and sort out the paperwork? Cheers 10:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC) adding belated sig Spartaz Humbug! 11:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why is that even necessary? The photo was already uploaded on to the Davis Wiki as cc-by-sa. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Viriditas (talk) 10:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Responding generally not casting aspersions at Daviswiki. Because it keeps all the paperwork tidy and not everyone is as scrupulous as we are about proper attributation. Being a free project suggests that we should respect rights holders and we don't (or shouldn't) upload free images unless its absolutely clear that they have the correct license and proper attributation. In this case, this will be the key free image that everyone will be using in future so we owe it to the rights holder to make sure its properly released. Since I already offered to push this through on the OTRS side I find your suggestion of bureaucracy mildly offensive. Spartaz Humbug! 10:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC) withdrawn[reply]
          • Since I was responding to Youreallycan and not you, and since I was not aware of any comments you've made on this issue, I find your response highly presumptive and somewhat arrogant. Viriditas (talk) 10:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • O RLY?? Perhaps you should take more care with your threading since you comment appeared immediately below mine and appeared to address the issue I had suggested. Next time, I suggest you put your bullet under the comment you are responding to and other users who lack the facility to read your mind will understand your intent better. Spartaz Humbug! 11:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Removed as actually my fault Spartaz Humbug! 11:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Take more care? You mean like the care you took when you forgot to sign your comment at 10:02, 7 Dec, making the last signed comment on the page appear to be Youreallycan? My bullet was in the right place and it now appears I was responding to you not Rob. As for reading minds, that's rich coming from somebody who expects me to know who they are when they forget to sign. Viriditas (talk) 11:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC) It's not your fault. Viriditas (talk) 11:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The picture has not been released on that wiki under the cc license, at least - if it was they would not need to say - "Photo by Louise Macabitas, used with permission." - permission to use is not a clear release under any specific licence. Youreallycan (talk) 14:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I love you guys (seriously). Sent an email to Philip asking him for contact info for the photographer. Hopefully we'll get her clear release and problem solved. The photograph she took is quite excellent I think. Update: Philip is in contact with the photographer asking for CC release. I count 13 different people in her shot (just one angle) who are also filming or photographing the event, most of whom appear to be students and not professionals, so surely a free-alternative exists. LoveUxoxo (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

3 December 2011

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:Centpacrr.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

This is a user page image which was uploaded by Centpacrr (talk · contribs) in 2010. This image depicts the user, but like many pictures of users was taken by a third party holding the user's camera. The image was listed at WP:PUF by Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs), who was concerned by the presence of a watermark. Centpacrr provided an explanation for the watermark and uploaded a clean version without it. There was no further discussion, and the image was then deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

  • (NOTE: The June, 2010 image replaced a different, older image using the same name that had been uploaded in January, 2007. - Centpacrr)

Centpacrr asked Fastily to undelete the image, and he declined to do so. When pressed for an explanation, he delivered what I think is a remarkable justification for a closing administrator:

Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ#What_is_copyright.3F. From the first sentence - "you get [a copyright] automatically every time you produce creative work.". In other words, the party who pushed the button on the camera owns the copyright to the work, not the owner of the camera. As for File:Centpacrr.jpg, please do not re-upload it. I do not feel you have been completely honest with us about the origins and purpose of this photo. You neither took the photo yourself (you therefore have no legal right to publish this file under a free license), nor did you explain the occurrence of a watermark on one of the deleted versions. Don't bother trying to come up with an excuse for that; given your track record, there is no way for me to know whether you're lying or telling the truth. -FASTILY (TALK) 06:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

If Fastily is correct, then we should probably have a fire sale of Wikipedia user pictures. I'm unfamiliar with our policies having been applied in this way previously, and it feels punitive. Fastily apparently has an antagonistic relationship with Centpacrr and so certainly should not have involved himself. Witness this exchange with Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) at User_talk:Fastily/Archive_5#Copyrights, etc:

I find the photo rules here mystifying, which is why nowadays I only upload photos that I've taken and don't bother with fair use anymore. In regard to the Centpacrr complaint, I'm lost. Can you point me to where you explained why the Schumin picture is allowed but the Centpacrr picture is not? I'm not trying to rile you, I just don't understand. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I never did, actually. I have an issue solely with Centpacrr's behavior and uploads, not SchuminWeb's. I evaluate files based on their own merit, and not in comparison to others. Nonetheless, if there is a concern with SchuminWeb's photos, this should be brought up with him, not me; I do not speak for him. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Centpacrr had brought up the very real point that SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), another administrator he has clashed with, has numerous pictures of himself on commons which were clearly taken by a different user. SchuminWeb states on one that it's "Own work (my camera, taken for me, so close enough)." I welcome everyone to draw their own conclusions, but SchuminWeb is very active in images and I must assume he knows what he's talking about. This exchange makes it quite clear to me that Centpacrr was being singled out and punished for getting under the skin of an administrator. We have to be better than that.

There are long discussions at User_talk:Fastily/Archive_5#Four improperly deleted free image files and User_talk:Fastily/Archive_5#Question re licensing of pictures of myself for those who want more context. I'm not concerned about the other three images under discussion, and I'm not about to defend Centpacrr's overheated rhetoric. I think, however, that it's wrong to use bureaucracy as a weapon, and punishment isn't a rationale for deletion. I don't think an objective administrator would have deleted this image, and whatever Centpacrr's track record on railroad-related images I think it very doubtful that he's lying about an image depicting himself, and no one has produced any evidence that this image is anything other than what Centpacrr says it is. Mackensen (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • As I explained earlier, the questioned digital photograph of me was taken in the NHL International TV broadcast booth at the Wells Fargo (then Wachovia) Center in Philadelphia in which I was working on the telecast of Game 6 of the 2010 Stanley Cup final between the Philadelphia Flyers and Chicago Blackhawks played on June 9, 2010. A few minutes prior to the start of the telecast, our stage manager (a friend and co-worker of mine for more then 30 years) asked me to snap a picture of him with his camera and offered to do the same for me with my camera. This we both did and then returned the cameras to each other. The whole process took about thirty seconds which was all the time we had for this after which we both went back to work preparing for the worldwide telecast (our feed went to 160 countries) of the game which was to begin a few minutes later.
  • Since that time the camera, flash card storage media, and original digital file of this image have all been in my sole custody and control. I subsequently added the "watermark" for another non-web use but failed to remove it when I decided to upload the image to WP on June 20, 2010, for use on my userpage replacing a older (2002), different TV booth image of myself that had been uploaded three-and-a-half years earlier in January, 2007. As soon as it was pointed out to me that the watermark raised confusion about its origin, I removed the mark, reuploaded the "clean" file on November 10, 2011, and added a brief account to the summary section of the image host page as to how it had been created. (Photograph made using uploader's camera at his request. Used only on User:centpacrr userpage.) The image has never been used on any other website or printed publication. Centpacrr (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is a technical correctness about who owns the copyright, though I suspect most reasonable views of the situation as described is that there is an implicit assignment of the rights. It's also true however that when someone merely strips a watermark off an image and makes a vague statement about ownership that usually attracts a fair amount of suspicion and so more scrutiny. If I couple that up with what some of the background I can see with brief look through some surrounding discussions, I can see how we are where we are. I'm not sure the attitude on either side of the debate is particularly a constructive one for the collegial building a free-content encyclopedia. If the image is the one Cetpacrr links, the general utility value of the image is low (it's not going into an article), and if the primary outstanding concern is that of if the friend owns the copyright or not, then I can't see why a restore would be an unreasonable outcome - unless we really want to open the whole can of worms of formal copyright assignments/releases for similar images. Of course if someone else comes along with a credible claim of ownership of the copyright we should probably delete it again. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - When you hand over your camera to a complete stranger like this, what are they going to assume about the resulting image? Are they going to imagine that you'll subsequently make no copies of it? (eg by getting the film printed or by downloading the image from camera to computer?) No - their most reasonable assumption is that you'll use the photo as if it were your own, copying, printing, uploading at will without asking permission to do so. If they had an objection to you doing this then why would they agree to take the photo in the first place? What would be the point in investing "artistic effort" to take the picture and own the copyright if there is zero expectation of ever seeing the image again - let alone getting some kind of value from it. IMHO, when you ask someone "Would you mind taking a picture for me?", the implication of your request is very clearly "Would you mind taking a picture for me and assigning your copyright to me?"...even if not specifically stated, it's absolutely obvious. Furthermore, in almost every case, the person being photographed does all the artistic work - deciding what people should be in the picture, where they will be standing, what will be in the background and (perhaps) even where the photographer will be standing. The person being photographed will also make all of the camera settings and simply say "Push that button" to the photographer. Truly the person taking the picture is performing an almost identical role to the self-timer function that so many cameras have. At most all they are doing is framing the image - which is something that we've long decided has no artistic value (National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute). That being the case, the photographer has virtually no artistic input and no reasonable expectation that such artistic input that they do provide has any likelyhood of being honored as a copyright. Even if there were some legal case for the photographer owning the copyright, how could they possibly prove that they own that copyright? There is zero practical possibility of them ever proving that they own the copyright - so Wikipedia isn't going to get sued in the first place. This case is one of SchuminWeb finding any flimsy excuse to delete images uploaded by Centpacrr - that is WikiStalking and a flagrant abuse of admin powers. SteveBaker (talk) 13:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it's helpful to start attributing motivation to an individual in the DRV setting, if there is a problem that's one for RFC etc. This is especially true when you seem to be jumping to a false conclusion as to who actually did the deletion - it's not SchuminWeb. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Note: While SchuminWeb did not personally delete the images, he was one of the two editors who had virtually simultaneously opened the PUF discussions and commented on in favor of deletion; when I asked Fastily to undelete said he would not decide until SchuminWeb commented again which he did again in favor of deletion. Centpacrr (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC) [reply]
  • Overturn deletion - I don't see any issues with this picture. It's not like we're talking about a cribbed glamour photo of Jennifer Lopez here. It's just a snapshot of the editor in a broadcast booth. I know from past interaction that the editor has a close association with Philadelphia sports teams, and having also seen his previous picture (which no one had any issues with), I don't see any reason to doubt that the picture is genuine - nor should the deleting admin. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I think that in terms of a straight application of policy, Fastily is correct. The photographer is the copyright owner. Deciding to imply a copyright assignment is a risky thing to do, and if we do it, it needs a community discussion. As noted, this is likely an issue with broad implications, and perhaps a common sense exception should be established. I don't think we should invoke WP:IAR to overrule the close, but would suggest an RFC may be in order to consider whether an exception can, and then should be made for this image, and those with the same problem. Monty845 07:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Was there any "community discussion" about the photo of Schumin and Wales, which Schumin openly states was taken by someone else? Or does that blatant "IAR" apply only to certain users' photos? In fact, when you use the word "exception", in reality an "exception" was already made - by the deleting admin, who is essentially calling the user an impostor - as gross an assumption of bad faith as I've seen. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • What I'm suggesting is that the policy would require those pictures, and all others with the same issue be deleted as well. However, before going on a deleting spree, I'm suggesting an RFC occur to see if the community wants to overrule the policy as applied to this circumstance. If not, then those photos must be deleted, and if the community does create an exception, then this image can be undeleted. Monty845 16:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per WP:COMMON. When you take a picture of someone with their camera, in the situation described, no reasonable person would believe that copyright hadn't been turned over to the owner of the camera. When you, on vacation, get someone to take a picture of you and your family, there is an obvious agreement that the photo will belong solely to you. I've taken a large number of similar pictures, and I can't imagine anyone would agree that I owned them. Hobit (talk) 08:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re above comments: The real issue under consideration here is actually "is the retention of such self images as mine really an "exception" to WP's established common practice, or is it actually the opposite, i.e., that the deletion of such images is what constitutes such an exception to common practice?" If the former is the case, then why would such long standing files as those posted by an admin expert in this area found here, here, here, here, here, as well as the several hundred other similar "self" images posted in the "Wikipedia:Facebook Directory" located here, have not been deleted as well for violating Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ#What_is_copyright.3F? As both historically and currently practiced on WP, and under WP:COMMON as noted above by Hobit, the consensus of the community clearly seems to indicate that the accepted standard is that the copyright of such "self images" should be assumed to have been transferred to and vest in the owner of the camera (who thus has sole custody and control of the image file) unless some affirmative evidence to the contrary exists. The specific issue and principle under consideration in the instant case here is not "copyright" per se, however, but the application of accepted common practice within the community being made uniformly and fairly as opposed to selectively and punitively. Centpacrr (talk) 09:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the extent that there is an implied assignment of copyright, what evidence is there that the implied assignment would authorize releasing the photo under a Wikipedia compatible license, rather then something more restrictive? Its at best a legal grey area, and at worst a clear copyright violation. Regardless of what common practice has been, I don't think its appropriate to head into such a grey area without a broad based community consensus to do so, not just on the basis of no one has objected before consensus. Monty845 16:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is all well and good, but administrators aren't free to depart from common practice whenever it suits them, particularly if they're motivated by personal animus (which seems possible). The broad community consensus, as evidenced by the links Centpacrr has posted, is that such images are okay. A single deletion at WP:PUF doesn't seem like a good way to proceed. If Fastily thinks the community, and his fellow administrators, are getting copyright wrong, then he should open an RFC. He shouldn't blow away someone's user image, refuse explanations, and then force us to do all the heavy lifting. That's manifestly unfair. Mackensen (talk) 16:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There appear to be two issues here: (1) in general, who owns the copyright in a picture taken of an individual on their own camera by someone else by informal request; (2) was this picture, and this contributor, treated fairly and reasonably by comparison with numerous other contributions apparently in an identical situation.
(1) I Am Not A Lawyer, but it seems likely that in the UK at least, and probably in other EU countries, the copyright belongs to the camera operator while the owner has an implied licence to use the picture at their own discretion [54]. This may or may not help.
(2) It's really rather clear that the answer to this question is "no" and that the deletion was handled poorly. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Deletion here would be copyright paranoia. I think we can realistically assume consent in situations like this, or treat it as an implied gift between the parties. or as Cusop suggests just above. In social situations, I think that's what everyone assumes,and not just between Wikipedians. . The only restriction in the community is a very different one: that if an editor here does not want his photograph shown, we honor that request just as we honor his preference to have his name be anonymous. Fastily has been engaged in some very questionable deletions, has been called to account for them at ANB, and I see this as another facet of the same. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per this comment. Tools were used because an admin had "an issue solely with Centpacrr's behavior..." Deletion should be weighed by the facts on the image. Nothing has been produced to counter the reasonable presumption that it's his photo of himself, an assertion commonly found and uncommonly challanged on Wikipedia. 12Minutes to 10pm 01:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - while the details of the copyright law in this case are fuzzy to say the least, I can't imagine any court in any country taking the view that it is a copyright violation to own a "holiday snaps" taken by a third party using your own camera. That's ludicrous. Unless there is some specific case-law on this matter, Wikipedia should take the view that this is an OK thing to do in order to avoid the need for immediate deletion of thousands of hard-to-find photos that are (arguably, strictly) incorrectly labelled. I would strongly recommend going to ArbCom for a decision on this - but in the meantime, let's not set a precedent and start a mass deletionist orgy through images of this sort. I'm concerned at SchuminWeb's actions as an admin have repeatedly and consistently over-stepped the mark over the last few months - I believe a review of his status as an admin should be undertaken. This is as clear a case of WikiStalking as I have ever seen. SteveBaker (talk) 13:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As per my comment above, without trying to establish if your concerns have merit or not, DRV isn't the place to implement them, as you haven't got the name of the person doing the deleting correct, it doesn't speak well of objectivity. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Note: While SchuminWeb did not personally delete the images, he was one of the two editors who had virtually simultaneously opened the PUF discussions and commented on in favor of deletion; when I asked Fastily to undelete said he would not decide until SchuminWeb commented again which he did again in favor of deletion. Centpacrr (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC) [reply]
  • Original Raw Image Files: To dispel any further issues or confusion about the origin of this file, I have posted a screen capture of the original raw image (DSCN5499.jpg) with its data panel on my server here, a second of file (DSCN5498.jpg) with data panel of the image taken immediately before that one here, and a thumbnail index of all the images (DSCN5498-5506) taken that day here. The two data panels show that I transferred all these image files (which had been created between 6:40pm and 10:30 pm on June 9, 2010) from my camera's (NIKON COOLPIX P2 2.4DS/OF4 s/n 30179586) memory card to my computer's hard drive at 12:45:56 AM, June 10, 2010 where they have resided exclusively ever since. When, how, and why I subsequently cropped, adjusted, and/or digitally added/removed anything to or from any of these images would therefore be an irrelevant factor as to their custody, control, ownership and rights status. Centpacrr (talk) 07:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn First, I've not read all the above rambling back and forth, just given it a cursory overview, and I'm somewhat familiar with this situation. Personally I think is is a ridiculous example of immaturity and over-reach. Certainly all involved have better things to do than harrass this editor over an image that is more than reasonably his. Give him his image back and go find something more useful and constructive to do with your time. JBarta (talk) 11:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Rhys Morgan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

It is with the most absolute urgency that I request this decision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rhys_Morgan) is overturned.

It is very obvious from the KEEP votes (all capitalised in the early stages, you noticed) have been encouraged by way of advertising or herding. There are many obvious "one topic" editors who are there for the sake of registering a vote, even though !votes are not counted in this way. I notice that editors use language which is clearly non-Wikipedia discourse, an obvious sign of people compelled to register for reasons counter to policy. It is very obvious that the article Rhys Morgan breaks rules on RECENTISM, on NOTNEWS, on BLOGS, in addition to basic notability guidelines. This character, if he exists at all, is notable for one news event, and Wikipedia clearly states that one event does not equal notability. I would request an urgent and thorough review of this deletion process as a matter of urgency.

doktorb wordsdeeds 01:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • At deletion review, our role is to see that the deletion process is correctly followed. Accordingly, I have summarily reverted the SNOW closure and re-opened the debate, which should now run for 168 hours.—S Marshall T/C 01:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the closer, I'd like to object on a couple grounds. Yes, I cited SNOW among my reasons for an early close. I did that, rather than relying on the speedy keep criteria that I believe also apply because speedy keep criterion #2 requires an assumption of bad faith in addition to (in 2.5) an obvious failure to read the article. Frankly, I don't like doing that. I'd like to think that people make innocent mistakes. But from the nominator's post here at DRV, I don't think this is an innocent mistake. Quoting the nominator from directly above, "This character, if he exists at all...". From the AFD, "Very sophisticated hoax, or highly contrived non notable joke. ... Not notable, potential hoax, potential 'what we made up in school' jape. The edit summaries suggest this is a joke article or the result of some kind of 'dare'." Of course, there's absolutely no reasonable way to believe that this subject is fictional (and there's nothing particularly out of the ordinary in the edit summaries either, for that matter). Not only has he been profiled by the BBC and by The Guardian, he was invited by that paper to write a guest column! Yes, there are sources in that article that do not meet WP:RS and probably should be culled in the interests of our policy on living persons; but that same policy would suggest that an effort to delete his article on the grounds that his existence is a hoax would also be unacceptable. Yes, there are a ton of conveniently new accounts posting; as a closing admin would do, I ignored them. Longstanding editors also expressed concerns about this nomination. Ignoring the rules may, by definition, be out of process, but speedy keeps with cause are expressly an aspect of the deletion process, and I feel that there are few times that such things are more applicable than claims that a public, documented, and currently controversial figure is fictional. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 01:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let it run for the moment, please. You may be right, but the factors I considered were: (1) This is a BLP; (2) of a child; and (3) it had been snow closed; (4) after only a few hours of debate; and (5) a good faith editor objected to the snow closure. What I don't see is any urgent or pressing need to close the AfD. The consensus may be against me, of course: we'll see.  :)—S Marshall T/C 02:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • My understanding was that some of the "keep" comments were adding little to the consensus and keeping it open would possibly result in a flame war. We'll see. --Ritchie333 (talk) 10:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd agree with that; there was some needless hostility. I disagree with the nomination but I don't think it was malicious or biased in any way. However, if I attempted a second snow keep at this point it would just provoke more drama. So, we have to remain in our seats on the rollercoaster and hope we can keep our lunch down until we reach the end. bobrayner (talk) 13:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reclosed, and endorse previous close: I'm sorry, but there's no way that doktorbuk even read the article before nominating it, as the nomination summary is completely at odds with the actual content of the article. I think a speedy keep under SK#2.5 is appropriate in such a case without even bringing up questions of SNOW (which also applies). Process for process's sake, such as reopening a AfD such as this is harmful, and I would argue that the AfD shouldn't be reopened if there's an actual consensus at DRV that it should be. On the subject of BLP and coverage of minors: a cursory look at the article indicates that it conforms to BLP, and given that Morgan, from his blog-post that has garnered so much attention, appears capable of defending his public image (and will be of age next year), I don't think there are any ethical concerns. Sceptre (talk) 14:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response I am obviously very disappointed by this decision. The assertion that I did not read the article is highly misleading, not to mention offensive. I have been a Wikipedia editor for many, many years, and have followed the rules and regulations throughout these years. To suggest that I did not follow the regulations is complete bunkum. Using the evidence present in the article, I made a choice based on what I thought was a fairly obvious case - it STILL breaks our rules on blogs, recentism, notability, and bias. The "keep" votes are from people who have an immense level of conflict of interest, and therefore skew the vote something rotten. I am very disappointed that this entire episode has been carried out at my expense, rather than at the article itself. This response will be copied to as many concerned editors in this matter. doktorb wordsdeeds 18:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There are at least a dozen good faith editors who disagreed with you at AfD. The consensus is that Morgan is notable, partially because of his involvement in rational skepticism at his age, and partially because of his role in exposing quack medicine. The article being created two days ago, to me, indicates that the creator was mindful of WP:BLP1E. I can not see any actual bias in the article, and regardless, unless a BLP is horrifically non-neutral and improperly sourced, it's still not a reason for technical deletion, and the sources mostly appear to be reliable sources, from the BMJ to the BBC and Guardian to authorities in the field such as Myers and Plait. Finally, your nomination was totally wrong; it's laughable to claim that an article properly cited to the BBC and the Guardian at the time of its nomination is a hoax article, and if it was, it'd be notable for being a successful hoax! (For disclosure, I am interested in the field and am active in a freethinking student society, but have no actual affiliation to Morgan. I don't COI-edit anyway, as I know better having been on the project for six years.) Sceptre (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not AfD round 2, the article is well-sourced and Rhys Morgan is very well known in skeptic circles, not least for nailing the guy who was importing industrial bleach - sorry Miracle Mineral Solution - in defiance of the law. There is a lot out there both by him and about him. Guy (Help!) 19:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse original and reclose - sourcing in the article makes it quite clear this is no kind of hoax. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. The rationale for deletion was that the subject was non-notable: so much so, indeed, as to be a probable hoax. Several experienced editors pointed out ample evidence of notability in numerous reliable sources in the article as nominated: in short, the original rationale was entirely misguided. Early closure was entirely appropriate, on either of the grounds cited. Whether or not other !votes were from SPAs is irrelevant as decision is clearly based on the policy arguments as discussed. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the second closure strongly but not really the first. Best practice is to let a debate run 24 hours or so before invoking WP:SNOW. If other speedy criteria apply, of course the AfD may be closed on that basis but this is a sufficiently borderline case that I think it is best to assume good faith and let the AfD run for at least a little while. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response : Doktorbuk, although I didn't agree with your suggestions to delete the article, you followed the process correctly, your arguments for deletion were presented in a civil manner, and I agreed with your concerns about the AfD being skewed by single purpose accounts. I don't have any personal fight with you, but could you please kindly drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Cheers. --Ritchie333 (talk) 12:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2 December 2011

  • Climate change alarmism – No consensus to overturn Like the AfD, the numerical representation here is fairly close... which amounts to no consensus to outright overturn the merge outcome. It is still entirely reasonable to editorially discuss (on the talk page, not here) what should be merged, how much weight should be accorded to this term, etc. – Jclemens (talk) 15:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Climate change alarmism (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closing admin said merge but there is a dispute at Talk:Climate change alarmism#Inappropriate merge tag removed. so would like a review whether this decision should really have been to just keep instead. Dmcq (talk) 19:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse close As one who did not opine at all, and recognizing that the discussion here is only about whether the close was reasonable. I count 1 weak keep !vote (which said the article is "lousy"), 11 keep !votes, and 13 delete/merge/comment !votes (which looked like a "not keep") from here. Thus the close is obviously sufficiently sound to survive DRV. Collect (talk) 19:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
May I point you to Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. The strengths of the arguments should be properly assessed. Dmcq (talk) 11:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close - Editors claiming that it was prematurely closed don't understand deletion procedure: It ran the standard length. (actually, a bit longer). The other claims - that it's supposedly not a POV-fork, etc - are simply trying to reopen the discussion they failed to win at AfD, without providing new evidence. Global warming controversy may be long, but climate change alarmism is pretty awful, and highly redundant to other articles so there's only a small amount of content that's worth considering keeping, if that. 86.** IP (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)86.** IP (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the article is a POV-fork, higly redundant, etc., etc., are irrelevant here, where we are reviewing how the Afd process was hijacked. If there is some requirement that Afd discussions must, automatically, close after a certain period, please show us where this is stated. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus(edit conflict). Most of the arguments for merge and/or delete where based on faulty argumentation. Claims of POV-fork needs to be substantiated - not asserted. WP:GOOGLEHITS is not an argument, and finally there is no reason that an article name/title must be a common phrase. Alarmism within climate change is a notable topic - and perhaps that would have been a better title - since no one would claim that to be a neologism. Do note please that contrary to some claims on the AfD (and elsewhere), i'm most certainly one of those that people have called alarmists (zealot even). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All of this was discussed at the AfD, and failed to win over. This is an article on a neologism about criticism of rhetorical techique, an esoteric subject. Google hits (which included news, sscholar, etc) are relevant to showing that a claimed notable neologism, in fact, isn't a notable neologism. No convincing argument has been put forth for why this single phrase and technique used to attack global warming proponents is worth an entire article, when it doesn't appear to even be widely used. Most of the article is an off-topic POV-ridden rehashing of the main global warming articles.
There are huge numbers of redundant articles and pov forks in the bingoglobal warming set of articles, all of which cover similar material. This review is unhelpful, and simply serves as an attempt to refight lost battles. 86.** IP (talk) 23:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - but that you don't buy into the argumentation (or that they failed to win you over), doesn't mean that the arguments were bad or not based on solid grounds. Had the article been called Alarmism in the climate change debate (which is a clumsy but accurate title), you wouldn't have been able to claim that it was a neologism => which makes that argument bogus. The only relevant issues are:
  • Is the topic notable.
  • Is the article written within WP:NPOV and WP:V.
  • and for POV fork: Is the content mirrored elsewhere with a different POV? (hint: It isn't.)
Finally your claim that there are "huge numbers of redundant articles" is another bogus argument, since you fail to point out even one such redundant article. You claim that Climate change alarmism is a POV-fork (which means a deliberate non-WP:NPOV fork of already existing content), but you can't seem to point out what content that it should be a fork of - there is nothing in the Global warming controversy article about this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kim, I can see that this topic is important to you, but would you please do us the courtesy of letting us decide what the question is? I don't even remotely care whether it's notable, and I care even less than that how much coverage we have on local American politics. What I care about is how many climate change-related articles is the optimum number to have on a collaborative encyclopaedia. To see that, we have to see the topic area from the point of view of an uninformed, but intelligent and curious, lay person. Say, an African teenager who has two hours a week to use the internet and needs to research climate change for homework. How do we present information to him or her?—S Marshall T/C 00:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really important - i just hate bad arguments ;) As for the african teen - he won't get to this article, since it is deep in the information well. When you look at a topic - you don't start with the edges - you start with the base overviews, and then dig deeper. But that doesn't mean that side issues aren't notable or encyclopedic when you get beyond the basics. You do not cut Bayesian inference because someone needs to be able to grasp mathematics, and won't have time to get to a point where he can understand that article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really, really don't see this as analagous to Bayesian Inference. It's not an article about a rigorous mathematical process that's logically discrete and taught in undergraduate lectures. It's an article about people who have extremist views about climate change. When you get right down to it, climate change is not as wide or deep a subject as mathematics is, and there's a limit to the number of articles that the subject area can reasonably sustain. I think we've exceeded it.—S Marshall T/C 02:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This at the very least is a reasoned argument, and as such i respect it :) I just don't think that our policies support that argument (but that is a whole other thing), since what we determine article retension on is: Notable or not. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are other factors that determine article retention as well as notability. Yes, a lot of arguments at AFD involve quibbles about notability, but it isn't the only thing that decides whether to keep an article.—S Marshall T/C 02:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit conflict] Kim, if you don't put the phrase in quotes, you don't get the neologism. And we can't just say that using the word "alarmist" near the word "climate change" or "global warming" is notable - because at that point, we're not even discussing a neologism, we're attempting to do an analysis of the debate, and will need sources specifically discussing how the rhetoric is used in those specific cases to avoid WP:SYNTH. Unless you have such sources, all you get from that search is an incitement to Original Research, which is forbidden. 86.** IP (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bingo! Alarmism within the climate debate is not a neologism, it is a concept. Its about time that you grasped that.... You just destroyed your own strawman :) Humour aside: You focused too much on the title and what you saw as a neologism, rather than try to figure out what the topic area was - the topic area is not "climate change alarmism" as a word - but alarmism within the climate change area. And if you take a look at the very first reference, which is a scholarly article, you will see that it discusses alarmism within the climate change debate - So there is no WP:SYN there - the article clearly links "alarmism" (general topic), and analyses its usage in the "climate change" debate (specific). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we accept all your arguments, that gets us a sentence to a paragraph in a broader article, saying that global warming claims are sometimes claimed to be alarmist by those attacking them. If it's not a neologism, the bar is much higher for creating its own spinoff. You could reasonably argue that it'd be better merged to, say Media_coverage_of_climate_change, but you CANNOT say the article can stand alone. Also, have you ever looked at Template:Global_warming? There's literally dozens of articles, and there's a whole bunch more (like this one) that aren't even on the template. We don't need a subarticle on every tiny aspect of the rhetoric used. 86.** IP (talk) 10:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Putting in italics and capitals does not make your argument any stronger, it just shows you have strong feelings about it. There's lots of articles because it is a big subject and a lot of interested people. Anyway I thought it was up to people who proposed merge to investigate the suitability of where a merge should go to rather than just come to the conclusion they don't want an article and where it was merged to didn't matter. Dmcq (talk) 11:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement "saying that global warming claims are sometimes claimed to be alarmist by those attacking them" implies (to me) that you think that only skeptics think that way. However, many believers also complain about the alarmist claims. If anything, the article needs to be expanded with examples (exact quotes) of various alarmist views. Perhaps that would also make it clear that this is not a POV fork and that there is no other article that this should be merged to. Q Science (talk) 23:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close and enforce close. Consensus based on the strength of arguments was clearly that the article should be merged. It is not appropriate for the article's defenders to obstruct and complain about the close simply because they don't like the outcome. During the AfD debate, strong arguments were presented that the article is a POV fork and these were not addressed. S Marshall is absolutely right that we already have too many articles about the global warming controversy. Reyk YO! 02:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I see nothing except assertions that it was a fork, that is quite different from strong arguments that it is a fork. I do see arguments that it is not a fork. This whole area is subject to having a whole load of POV warriors on either side and the admins should take that into account and not just count votes. That there are lots of articles on other related things is not relevant, otherwise we'd be removing Lego Mindstorms NXT 2.0 for instance because there are lots of Lego articles.
    The points are whether the article is notable which it is, and secondly here whether it is a small article which would be best dealt with in a section of something else, which is what the merges basically said. It simply is not a fork of climate change controversy. It is if anything an aspect of the climate change denial article but could not be put in there as references to alarmism do not mention denial in the same breath. They are not about rational argument about causes consequences and actions which is what the climate change controversy article is mainly about.
    I feel those merges were mainly because they didn't like the article but couldn't validly argue for delete rather than because they thought the subject would be dealt with better merged elsewhere. Dmcq (talk) 10:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the merge close. For one thing, it was the consensus. For another, it was right. There was definitely not consensus for keeping the article, nor would I expect there to have been, for it's a clear POV fork. DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is a simple question for you: Since you claim that it is a "clear POV fork", then i'd like you to go to WP:POVFORK, read it, and then show:
    • What content, that this article is a fork of. (make a diff)
    • where content exists that is the same, but with a different POV. (again diff).
    Otherwise your comment here is a bogus argument. You can't just claim "POV fork" and then not qualify that assertion. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There was no consensus. The argument that CCAlarmism is an obscure phrase while CCDenialism is not, was challenged directly in the AfD yet ignored by the closer. AfD is not a vote so counting up keeps and deletes is WRONG. Greglocock (talk) 06:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If these articles are meant to be about politics and sociology of science, then it might be useful to know what terms social scientists are discussing. I am starting a review of the literature. I found 46 results for my original WoS search Topic=("climate change" AND (sceptic OR skeptic OR denier)). I find 0 for "climate change alarmism". If not a neologism, it's a discursive trope, doesn't seem to be a notable one of those either. "Alarmism in the literature" is a POV fork of "the literature", in the same way that "anti-abortion arguments" is a POV fork of "abortion debate". Itsmejudith (talk) 19:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's a problem with the denial and alarmism articles. How people use the terms may not correspond exactly with searches, people may say global warming instead or say alarm instead of alarmism and denial or denialism instead of denier. You need to look at a few examples and tune the searches. Also neither of them are about science so searching for them in science databases is not liable to turn up much. The Global warming controversy article is more about the science aspects so you will get more hits in a science abstract for things there. Try "climate change alarm" in google books instead for instance to see how it is used. Dmcq (talk) 19:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Judith, in addition to the above, an article on "alarmism in literature" is not a POV-fork unless it is a POV rewrite of some other article (or section in another article). Do please sit down and read up on what the difference is between WP:Splitting/WP:Content Forking and WP:POVFORK. By claiming POV forking - you are making aspersions towards the editors who've written an article. By your personal definition - these are POV forks of literature: Comparative literature Scientific literature Dystopian literature etc etc. Which i guess/hope isn't your intention. If you still state that it is a POV fork - then please point out, in specifics, which content that this article is a POV rewrite of. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing "rewrite" in WP:POVFORK. I've seen lots of examples of good splits and quite a lot of poor ones. The point is that two or more articles are created where one might have been an option (but might have been too long). Logically, splitting doesn't have to involve any rewriting. There could be a History of Ruritania and you could break away Ancient Ruritania and Medieval Ruritania without doing any rewriting, just moving content. It would be a good way to split a long article. But if "History of Ruritania" were split into "Aggressive actions of imperialist Ruritania" and "Heroic defence of our Ruritanian motherland", that would be POV-forking big-time. Obviously nothing anything like that bad has happened here. I am making no aspersions on editor motivation. The comparative literature etc. examples you give above are great examples of good practice in forking. I can give you lots of examples of potential or real poor practice, i.e. POV-forking is a real danger in a whole number of areas. There are probably some good ways to split the Climate change debate article, which indeed is getting long. I will have another look and see if I can make some suggestions. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to "No consensus": AFD is not a vote. The arguments to Keep, while not in the majority, were still well reasoned and persuasive. Persuasive to the point where "No consensus" is the obvious result.– Lionel (talk) 23:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do nothing, at least not here at DRV. The close was reasonable, but AfD can only recommend a merge as a variation on keep, and the merge is subject to review subsequently on the talk page. If the talk page consensus, especially if it is at the target, is to not merge, then the article can be relisted with it noted that merge is not a viable option. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. There was clearly no consensus to merge and the closer appeared to be giving his own opinion of the matter rather than summarising the discussion — a blatant supervote. Warden (talk) 12:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tally of actual votes at Afd

Here are the actual !votes from the Afd, sorted. (I removed one comment, and one "keep" from a suspected sock, made minor topographical changes.) Twelve definite "keeps", and only seven "merge" or "delete or merge". It was a MISSTATEMENT OF FACT to declare "merge" as the "winner", let alone the consensus, per the closing statement. Even counting the "delete" and "merge" votes TOGETHER -- twelve. "Keep" would win on a plurality, but even if all the "non-keep" votes are lumped together it is a split vote. The closing statement was wrong, and the closure was abuse of process. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Keep 76.18.43.253 04:01, 22 Nov
  2. Keep Alan Liefting 23:05, 16 Nov
  3. Keep Cirt 03:57, 24 Nov
  4. Keep Deterence 12:06, 18 Nov
  5. Keep Dmcq 09:27, 16 Nov
  6. Keep Glynth 22:36, 23 Nov
  7. Keep Greglocock 05:33, 16 Nov
  8. Keep J. Johnson 18:04, 16 Nov
  9. Keep Kauffner 11:11, 16 Nov
  10. Keep Kim D. Petersen 23:35, 16 Nov
  11. Keep Q Science 07:38, 17 Nov
  12. Keep William M. Connolley 08:24, 18 Nov


  1. Delete and redirect to GWC WegianWarrior 14:01, 23 Nov
  2. Delete AndyTheGrump 04:10, 16 Nov
  3. Delete First Light 20:06, 16 Nov
  4. Delete IRWolfie- 16:03, 17 Nov
  5. Delete Steven J. Anderson 04:31, 16 Nov
  6. Delete or selectively merge to GWC Sandstein 21:07, 25 Nov
  7. Delete/Merge to GWC Jim 17:38, 21 Nov
  8. Strong Delete or Merge Nwlaw63 18:23, 16 Nov
  9. Merge to GWC Stvfetterly 19:05, 16 Nov
  10. Merge to GWC Chiswick Chap 11:35, 16 Nov
  11. Merge to GWC DGaw 04:28, 26 Nov
  12. Merge to GWC Itsmejudith 11:43, 16 Nov


It is still the merits of the arguments on the AfD that are relevant - not the votecount. Personally i'd (of course) have chalked it as a keep - but milage of course varies. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For sure. But as a measure of the persuasiveness of relevant arguments, the vote count shows that the claim of a consensus for "merge" was false. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The issue here was did the closing admin abuse discretion in interpreting the weight of the !votes (noting one of the "keeps" was marked as being for a "lousy article" which I would consider as being "weak." RJHall said "I can't support a keep" so I suggest his !vote was not "keep" for sure. The IP seems to be very recent - hard to weigh the !vote of a person who has a very short history in WP. So the issue is "was the close egregiously wrong"? And the answer is plainly "no." Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly when did Wikipedia become a social forum instead of an encyclopaedia? The question in all cases is what is right for the encyclopaedia, not whether an admin was egregiously wrong. This is not a court deciding about an admin whether they are fit to do things or not. This is a deletion review to review a decision which a number of tpeople think was wrong and is most definitely not obviously right. Exactly where in policy is this silly way of doing things established? Dmcq (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note WP:DELREV which is quite clear:
This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome for reasons previously presented but instead if you think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate..
Seems quite sufficiently clear. It rrequires either that you present reasoning that the closer misinterpreted the debate or that you have "new evidence" of some sort. Too many here seem to just "disagree with the debate's outcome" which is an improper use of this board. Any closing admin should examine the discussion above in light of the board's stated policy, and not look at this as !votes as an "article popularity contest." Collect (talk) 13:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've not seen any evidence here or elsewhere that the closer interpreted the debate at all. My strong impression is that they just imposed their opinion of the matter. The closer does not seem to have responded to this DRV with any clarification or justification of their close and this seems especially telling. Warden (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I said that a number of people think was wrong and was not obviously right. Think the closer interpreted incorrectly is a far cry from egregiously wrong. One is simply a review to see if the evidence should have been interpreted differently. The other is a debate about an admin rather than about the result of a deletion review. It is called a deletion review, not an admin review. Everybody makes mistakes, this is not about covering the asses of admins who make mistakes. Dmcq (talk) 15:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The key words (as Collect quoted from WP:DELREV) are: "if you think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly". And (a minor disagreement with Warden) the closer did interpret the debate when he stated in his closing statement that "The result was merge to Global warming controversy", and in his tag (at Global warming alarmism) that there was "a consensus to merge the content into the article Global warming controversy." If anyone can point to a definite consensus please do so, because if all you can show is votes then merging was a distinctly a minority view. The evidence – such as we have, and as we do not have – is that there was no consensus, and certainly not for "merge"; KoH clearly "interpreted the debate incorrectly". (In addition to hastily and prematurely closing the discussion.) The issue here is about the outcome of the debate only in that that outcome derives solely from an abuse of process. An overly "bold" abuse that ought to be reverted so that substantive discussion may continue. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a response to your specific point about prematurely closing the discussion, it has gone on for 12 days. While it's true that an AfD doesn't have to be closed once time is up, one cannot be faulted for closing an AfD with enough discussion to generate consensus as long as 7 days have elapsed. I can understand your disagreement about the outcome of the close, but the timing of the close is not relevant. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding. Your understanding of the the deletion process, and particularly of the signficance of "7 days", seems at variance with the published policy. From WP:Deletion_policy#Process_interaction:

An editor who believes a page obviously and uncontroversially doesn't belong in an encyclopedia can propose its deletion. Such a page can be deleted by any administrator if, after seven days, no one objects to the proposed deletion. [Emphasis added.]

That "seven days" clearly does not apply. Below that, at WP:DP#Deletion discussion, we have: "The discussion lasts at least seven full days...." (Emphasis added) Note: that is seven days as a minimum. After which deletion may follow "if there is consensus to do so." Also: "The deletion of a page based on a deletion discussion should only be done when there is consensus to do so." (Emphasis added.) And in the next section: "The review normally lasts for seven days, sometimes longer if the outcome is unclear." This "seven days" is only a minumum. The correct criterion for closing discussion is not some number of days, but whether there is consensus. And if no consensus, then no deletion. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are referring to WP:PROD; this is an AfD that is being reviewed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said below, see Wikipedia:AFD#How_an_AfD_discussion_is_closed - this whole discussion is based on not having read the relevant instructions to admins. 86.** IP (talk) 02:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing admin: I hold no opinion on global warming / climate change. In fact, I haven't been editing articles much recently. As a general habit when closing AfDs, I often state the dominant argument without any qualifiers for the purposes of conciseness: there is no need to state "the delete !voters said this" or "the keep !voters said that" if it's obvious. Hence I might appear to be injecting my personal opinion. I saw that the debate was somewhat close, and if "merge" were not an option (and the !voters in that direction were removed), I might have closed as "no consensus." However, in this AfD I felt that the "keep" !voters did not sufficiently address arguments that the article was a POV fork and otherwise lacking in independent notability. Also, quite a few of them gave invalid reasons like WP:BIGNUMBER and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Overall, I found that the general idea in the discussion was that there was insufficient coverage to support the scope of this article. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for responding - this makes your thinking clearer. However, you seemed to have missed that the WP:BIGNUMBER issue was prominent because this was one of the nominator's primary arguments. The argument that the article was a POV fork was stated by the nominator to be a secondary argument. Given this framing of the motion, your reading of the discussion seems to have taken it out of context. Warden (talk) 09:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. That the POV fork contention (a secondary issue) is perceived as inadequately addressed is understandable, as that discussion was still in progress when it was arbitrarily closed. If you had thought there was a consensus, or that it the discussion was not going anywhere and should be cut-off, then it would have been better to first state what you thought the consensus is, or a finding of no consensus, and checked for significant objections, before unilaterally proceeding. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This needs to be said: the discussion was not arbitrarily closed. See Wikipedia:AFD#How_an_AfD_discussion_is_closed - 7 days had passed, that's when admins are meant to close it, as described there. To claim that it's arbitrary is an unfair attack on the closing admin. 86.** IP (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it wasn't arbitrary - that point is correct. But the argument for consensus was wrong. I don't blame the closing admin particularly - he/she was probably in a hurry, and misread/failed to examine the arguments ... to determine consensus when the !votes are split like this, means that you have to either go for "no consensus" or examine the arguments individually. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a judgement call, and I personally think it's a reasonable one, but the claims that he was out of process for supposedly shutting down the discussion early needed to stop. I'll debate your other points below, but think we should close this part of the discussion, as it's based on a false premise (that the closure was premature). I suggest putting it between {{hat}} and {{hab}}, and pulling out any valid arguments elsewhere. 86.** IP (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. Unfortunately (imho) you misread the discussion.... in that a lot of the argumentation was assertion (and WP:IDONTLIKEIT) rather than based in policy or reality. (the POV fork argument for instance still hasn't been substantiated - even here). If the argument had been based upon a sufficient number of reliable sources, then i would have produced such... but it wasn't... I don't blame you for not looking deeper though, which is also why (i think) that no one in this review has cast any aspersions that way ;) - just that it was a wrong judgement. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. While there's a little new content, the majority of the article is a slanted depiction of the debate. That a small amount of new content appears isn't enough to prevent it from being a POV fork, particularly when said content is based on WP:SYNTH and defining a term which we established isn't in wide use. See WP:COATRACK. 86.** IP (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. You seemingly don't understand what a POV fork is... which is where you go wrong. A POV fork is a deliberate rewrite of some already existing content to a specific POV - thus resulting in forked content (content that exists in two places).... This article does not rewrite any existing content, nor does any similar content exist that describes the same content with a different POV. - and thus cannot be a POV fork.
  2. As for your claims of synthesis - you will have to describe exactly what the synthesis is - Since we have, and reference, scholarly articles, that directly link the two major aspects of this subject: "alarmism" + "climate change" (debate).[56] - thus rendering your argument moot. (see hat note below)
  3. Addressing your "term" claim... this is apparently based on a misunderstanding that article titles must be entirely based upon phrases in common use. That is not the case. We can demonstrate (with scholarly articles that "alarmism" specifically linked with "climate change" are important aspects of the debate).
  4. As for being a coatrack .... I'm sorry? A coatrack for what? (Don't assert! Show). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
specific quote to show that the two aspects are linked by secondary sources
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Quote from the article's summary of this aspect:
Alarmism
Climate change is most commonly constructed through the alarmist repertoire – as awesome, terrible, immense and beyond human control. This repertoire is seen everywhere and is used or drawn on from across the ideological spectrum, in broadsheets and tabloids, in popular magazines and in campaign literature from government initiatives and environmental groups. It is typified by an inflated or extreme lexicon, incorporating an urgent tone and cinematic codes. It employs a quasi-religious register of death and doom, and it uses language of acceleration and irreversibility. The difficulty with it is that the scale of the problem as it is shown excludes the possibility of real action or agency by the reader or viewer. It contains an implicit counsel of despair – ‘the problem is just too big for us to take on’. Its sensationalism and connection with the unreality of Hollywood films also distances people from the issue. In this awesome form, alarmism might even become secretly thrilling – effectively a form of ‘climate porn’. It also positions climate change as yet another apocalyptic construction that is perhaps a figment of our cultural imaginations, further undermining its ability to help bring about action.
Note that this is only the summary - the review goes much more into details and specific aspects in the main body of the article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
86** asserts "7 days had passed, that's when admins are meant to close it", citing WP:AFD#How_an_AfD_discussion_is_closed. Ironically, the shortcut for this section is WP:NotEarly. And the actual text does not say that a discussion must be closed; it says only that after seven days an admin will "assess the discussion for consensus" – nothing more. And note that I do not object to assessing the discussion, I object to this notion that discussion is mandatorily closed after seven days; there simply is no such requirement. If that is unclear, check the lede at WP:AFD: "Articles listed are normally discussed for at least seven days [emphasis added], after which the deletion process proceeds based on community consensus." If that is not clear enough look to WP:Deletion policy, as I have previously cited. As I have said before: The correct criterion for closing discussion is not some number of days, but whether there is consensus. And if no consensus, then no deletion. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Alessio Rastani (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

He has received coverage outside of his original remarks on tv.

The continued coverage may be sufficient enough to pass WP:BIO. Smallman12q (talk) 17:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse- in that the closing admin clearly judged the consensus correctly, as it was at the time. If the situation has changed since, then the article can be re-created. Reyk YO! 02:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not questioning the closing admin's decision. I'm asking if the subject currently is meets notability standards. Smallman12q (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

1 December 2011

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
2011–12 Hannover 96 Season (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The admin that closed th afd mistakenly thought that Wikipedia:R3 didn't apply to the article. This I believe is definetely an implausible typo as did 7 of the 11 other users who participated in this afd. It was a duplicate article and is clearly is an implausible redirect. Fact is that the search engine that Wikipedia will show the correct article. By the time a user types in "2011–12 Hannover 96", it will show the correct article. In fact, as I typed "2011–12 Han" in Wikipedia's search engine, it showed the correct article and didn't show the redirect. Kingjeff (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This should really just be a speedy deletion, no need for this redirect, as Kingjeff and Walter Görlitz pointed out already. Calistemon (talk) 00:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, an accurate close wholly in accordance with policy and correct practice. The capital S rather than the small s is a perfectly plausible typo and I don't understand the objections.—S Marshall T/C 07:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (again) - I don't think it's a plausible typo at all; if it is, then we should create hundreds of alternatives, all with one letter incorrectly upper or lower case. Ridiculous. GiantSnowman 09:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The Search Engine is one avenue for finding an article, true. But a redirect here also serves to make 2011–12 Hannover 96 Season a blue link. If someone links to the actual article and accidentally or inadvertantly capitalizes "Season", then they'd be left wondering why the hell such an article is a redlink. Then, as has happened in the past, they'll find themselves creating the article in an effort to help improve the project - only to find out that the article already exists. A redirect here saves time and headache down the road. My arguments at the AFD stand, as well - having this redirect harms nothing and no one, and may indeed be of benefit to readers and editors. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - "When I typed 2011–12 FC Bayern Munich Season", I got "2011–12 FC Bayern Munich season" (without the capital S). Therefore making this an implausible typo. Kingjeff (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're missing the point - who cares about the search engine? I'm pointing out what you would get when you type 2011–12 FC Bayern Munich Season. That's a redlink, which makes me (as an outside reader) think that we don't have an article about FC Bayern Munich's current season. And that's precisely why we need a redirect. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not missing the point. It's a redlink because it's an implausible typo. Kingjeff (talk) 03:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • So, when some FC Bayern Munich fan decides to start that article, how Bitey does it seem when we call him/her out for using such an implausible spelling? Or would it be more user-friendly, efficient, and/or time-saving to just put a redirect there? When we have bots editing articles site-wide to remove links to redirects and point them at the correct article, what offense does this particular redirect cause? I'm still not seeing how this article being a redirect does any harm whatsoever to the project. There is no slippery slope here, as far as I can see. I feel so strongly about this issue that I'm inclined - but for this discussion - to make 2011–12 FC Bayern Munich Season a redirect per WP:BOLD. I see absolutely no harm in that link - or the one under discussion here - if it were to be a redirect, and no one has been able to show how the closing admin harmed the project or overstepped his/her authority by WP:BOLDly creating it after the debate. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 05:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse redirects are cheap and there was no consensus to delete. Further, there was an article there, if someone externally had linked to it, it is better they get to the right article than a blank page. Hobit (talk) 16:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC) Kingjeff (talk) 16:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I think there was a consensus to delete. Fact is when you type "2011–12 Han", you already see the correct article and not the redirect making it an implausible typo.
  • Overturn - Just stating that deletion is really the only option. Kingjeff (talk) 17:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Per UltraExactZZ, this is a plausible redirect. It also has a funny page history the deletion of which would be pointless. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse This is not an implausible typo. Implausible typos are things like gldfisho -> goldfish, which any sane person would immediately recognize as incorrect. Wrong capitalization is a very common and plausible error and it is thus ineligible for R3. It has been argued that, since this redirect is not found when searching for the article in google/wikipedia, it is an implausible title. This is false, as redirects can be reached through wikilinks or external websites. Trying to link to the article through a wikilink is the most likely scenario for the typing error to be made. I am not saying it is a very common situtation, but the redirect is not by definition useless. Another argument for deletion that has been used is that this redirect should be deleted because we don't want such redirects for every title. This is a fallacy (Converse accident), as keeping this redirect does not mean we should masscreate redirects of this type. We discourage their creation, but once they are made there is no reason to delete them. Yoenit (talk) 11:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - I don't think that this typo is likely. Who bothers with capitalization at all when entering something in a search box? I mostly enter only lower case letters --Jaellee (talk) 12:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Just one thing to consider: Hannover 96 is a German club and for a German reader 'Season' is a plausible typo as in German all nouns are capizalized. OdinFK (talk) 09:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I endorse retaining this page as a redirect. The capitalisation of one letter is not an implausible search term. – PeeJay 13:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The histories of 2011–12 Hannover 96 season and 2011–12 Hannover 96 Season are very odd. My first guess was that Ruaridh13 (talk · contribs) was copying back and forth, but cross-page diffs (s→S, S→s) show that large portions (particularly the table formatting and the player templates) remained distinct. Flatscan (talk) 05:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per UltraExactZZ. Very plausible redirect. It would in no way benefit the encyclopedia to turn 2011–12 Hannover 96 Season into a redlink. Jenks24 (talk) 12:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:Hugo Chávez (1992 Coup Surrender).jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

This is a historic image in both senses outlined by WP:HISTORIC. It documents a historic event: Hugo Chávez's appearance on TV at the end of the failed 1992 coup attempt. But it is also an image that has iconic resonance in itself. It is the moment at which Chávez burst onto public consciousness: he is here seen giving the brief speech in which he said his efforts to transform the Venezuelan state were halted "for now" ("por ahora"). This phrase subsequently resonated in Venezuelan politics, and to some extent the country is still living with its consequences. This image is every bit as iconic as (say) the image of Chamberlain's coming down from the plane to announce "peace in our time." The argument used by damiens.rtf against the image is extraordinarily misleading. Moreover, the discussion's close is strange: three very brief "delete" votes (one of which was simply "per nom," the other of which was the--simply incorrect--"just a generic guy at a mic"), versus two much more passionately and lengthily argued "keep" votes. I think that the close was a mistake. jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(And I see for what it's worth that the nominator has a history of rather acrimonious and controversial "carpet bombing" of FfDs. Here he seems to have taken an interest in a series of photographs of Hugo Chávez mostly uploaded by User:Caracas1830. But to delete this image is definitely going much too far. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]
It is entirely appropriate, where one sees a problem across multiple images, to bring all of those images to FFD. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt that it is. But he seems unable or unwilling to distinguish between the various kinds of images that get caught up in his dragnet. That's what's makes his approach (to use another metaphor) similar to "carpet bombing." This has, in the past, caused annoyance and bafflement. It does today, too. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. This is different from the previous DRV because in the present case, there was sufficient participation at the FFD and there was a genuine consensus to delete there. Fastily could not have decided otherwise than as he did.—S Marshall T/C 12:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Consensus of the debate and strength of argument was read correctly. Nothing for DRV to do. Tarc (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The strength of the argument? A misleading proposal in the first place, a "per nom," a factually incorrect statement ("generic guy") and then, as the strongest case, this: "I'd be hard pressed to make a case that the file could pass NFCC#8." Please! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • All the keepers could muster was "I think its notable", of a picture of a guy giving a press conference. The event may have been historic, but that doesn't necessarily confer historicity onto an image of the event. Put this image in front of 100 people and 99 of them will not have the slightest idea as to the context. Tarc (talk) 17:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, the fact that the event was historic is a start, and should have been taken into account. As to whether the image itself is iconic, you're showing your cultural blinders: put this image in front of 100 Venezuelans, indeed 100 Latin Americans, and they will instantly grasp its significance. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I dispute this. Do I have to take your word for how well-known this image is for Latin Americans, or can I read something about the image somewhere? Would you point me to such sources? --damiens.rf 17:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I just did, at the other discussion. Or open just about any book or article about Chávez. This is such an iconic image, it's hard to over-exagerrate. I'm somewhat shocked about the narrow-mindedness shown here. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • And I've given two sources over there, but just for you here's another one: "Chávez’s defiance in defeat in 1992 and his televised call to surrender por ahora (for now) made him a symbol of dignity and hope, a cause of public adulation, and the subject of a series of popular songs and poems. His military uniform and trademark red beret came to be associated with a break from the corrupt past and hope in a new dawn. They captured the imagination of many Venezuelans, and the red beret (and the color red in general) was transformed into a political statement, a symbol of the change ahead" (Zúquete "The Missionary Politics of Hugo Chávez" 110). --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • The only part of the text that deals with his look is "...His military uniform and trademark red beret came to be associated...". Do we discuss his uniform-beret look in some article? Do we need this image to illustrate the text? --damiens.rf 17:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Um, no, the whole quotation is about his "televised call to surrender," which is what the image depicts, and the way in which it "made him a symbol of dignity and hope, a cause of public adulation." I dunno, Damiens, it doesn't seem to me that you are very interested in a discussion of the validity of this image. Your deletion proposals are misleading, then you ask for reliable sources, which I give you, and you fail to read them with care and attention. You point to WP:HISTORIC, which you also misread. Again, you seem to have a track record. It feels as though you are trolling, rather than making a serious attempt to think about how these images might advance the purposes of the encyclopedia. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • The point is that we have plenty of free images depicting Hugo Chavez wearing his uniform and a red beret, and we don't need to use a black and white non-free image to fulfill this job.
                    • Stop calling my nomination "misleading" on every post. This is annoying. --damiens.rf 19:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per the source given. It seems that how Chavez looked at the time is significant. (I am inclined to take jbmurray's word at face value without the source, because of his significant ethos from WP:MMM and his other related writings and projects) --Guerillero | My Talk 18:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per jbmurray's arguments. I am inclined to trust a Latin American scholar on how historically iconic an image is over a couple of short comments by editors who do not have as extensive experience with the subject matter. If the keeps have a stronger argument, then the image should be kept, simple as that. NW (Talk) 19:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not too convinced by a "iconic for me but not for thee" argument. If we're going to muster an exception to NFCC for historical/iconic reasons, then it should be something more universally recognized as such and not just within a subset of the people of one region. Tarc (talk) 01:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • By that logic, File:Ruby-shooting-oswald2.png could not be used in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy article, as it would be iconic only to people who have studied Kennedy's assassination. Yet I don't see anyone clamoring to delete that picture, because as Westerners, we all recognize the iconicity of that photograph. I hardly think that most of us are familiar with what counts as an iconic photo in terms of Latin American history, and therefore we should be more deferential to people who know what they are talking about (systemic bias and all). If a professor of Latin American studies says asserts that it is widely considered to be an iconic photograph in the context of academic study of the region, then I think that is an argument that the closer should have given a great deal of weight to. NW (Talk) 01:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure how many times I can repeat... this is not "Chávez in front of microphone." I agree that such images are two a penny. This is something else, as the sources I've offered show (and as was emphasized in the original discussion). As an aside, I'd note that you and Damiens are offering exactly the same argument as was offered against images on the Mohammed page: that images are never strictly necessary and that if there is some other principle at stake (either giving offence or, here, their non-free status), that over-rides any educational or pedagogic function the image may conceivably have. I hope to write this up in an appropriate place at some point, because this is really a strange situation to find ourselves in. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, since you're wrong, there's no need to repeat at all. There is nothing gained by the reader from seeing a beret-wearing Hugo addressing reporters. And please don't troll this discussion by trying to tie this to Muhammad, this has nothing to do with the effort to fend off religious fundamentalism dictating image policy in the project. Tarc (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, we'll have to agree to disagree about who is wrong. For instance, Chávez is here *not* addressing reporters. He is addressing his fellow coup-plotters. And the structural similarity with the Mohammed argument is striking: it's about when when other principles over-ride the educational project of the encyclopedia, and about the difficulty about arguing for image retention in the last instance. There's nothing trolling about pointing that out.
  • Endorse. Accurate reading of discussion consensus. DRV is not AFD redux. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Agree with HW, an accurate assessment of the discussion. To the extent we're doing AFD redux, the deletion was also warranted: we can illustrate his trademark look using other free images, or just describe it with text. There is no need to use this particular nonfree image of Chavez. Even an important photo has to pass all of the NFCC, and this one is replaceable with text ("Hugo Chavez wore his trademark red beret and a military uniform when he announced...") or a free image. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • undelete I think delete was a reasonable reading of that discussion (though perhaps NC would have been better). However, we now have sources that attest to the importance of the image and cause it to meet the NFCC. As I said, I think NC would have been a better close to begin with, so... Hobit (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – Again, notability does not override the non-free content policy. –MuZemike 14:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The article was deleted by user Andyjsmith because, as he said "The material is fully covered elsewhere in wikipedia. I'm not convinced that there is such a thing as "driving etiquette" but if you think there is and you can prove it from reliable sourced then you should look at adding it to an existing article such as Traffic." My counter argument was "I do feel that your rash deletion was unjustified. You do have a point [in that the info might be covered elsewhere on Wikipedia], but there is no mention of driving etiquette in the article Traffic, and although it was a quick stub that I wrote in a little while, I do think that the subject has a lot of potential and a lot of importance in it's own right" and "Driving etiquette at Google Books ([57])- the first source specifically. It seems like a well-documented concept. Also I think if it were an article, it would be a very useful article. I would imagine many people would find it useful to find a concise article on tdriving etiquette without having to fish out the info from various other parts of the internet". I don't mean to be (i can't remember the Wiki-term for it...) continually pushing the same view forward in the hopes that it will pass in a different forum. I do feel like I have been short-changed and would like a second opinion. -Coin945 (talk) 09:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Driving etiquette
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_December&oldid=478534312"