Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Administrator instructions

Skip to: Active discussions | Recent discussions | Archive

For simple image undeletions, try {{ImageUndeleteRequest}}

Wikipedia editors may find articles, images, or other pages that they believe should be deleted, and raise these concerns in various deletion forums. Administrators determine consensus and examine policy to determine if there is sufficient justification for their removal from Wikipedia.

Wikipedia:Deletion review considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions and speedy deletions. This includes appeals to restore deleted pages and appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.

If a short stub was deleted for lack of content, and you wish to create a useful article on the same subject, you can be bold and do so. It is not necessary to have the original stub undeleted. If, however, the new stub is also deleted, you may list it here for a discussion. If you are proposing that an existing page be reconsidered for deletion, please place the template {{Delrev}} on that page to inform editors who may wish to join the discussion here (administrators may replace with {{TempUndelete}} where appropriate).

Before posting a deletion review request, please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy.

[edit] What is this page for?

Please consider the options below, and then follow instructions to add your request to the main part of the page.

[edit] Principal purpose – challenging deletion decisions

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. This page exists to correct closure errors in the deletion process and speedy deletions, both of which may also involve reviewing content in some cases. Purely procedural errors may be substantive and result in an overturn (such as failing to tag a page for its XfD discussion) or irrelevant (such as closing 1 minute early).

The main purpose of the page is to review the outcome of deletion discussions, as described above. There are some ancillary cases where editors wish to have pages restored. These are also handled in main part of the page—please consider the usual reasons below and state clearly the basis for your request.

[edit] Temporary review

Request this if you want to use the content elsewhere (such as in other articles), you suspect the article has been wrongly deleted but are unable to tell without seeing what exactly was deleted, or if the full article history is needed to complete a transwiki properly. Please state whether you would like:

1. The article temporarily restored for all to examine during a review.
2. The article restored to your userspace so you can work on it to attempt to address the problems that led to deletion.
3. The source of the article emailed to you to review 'off-Wiki'.

Only uncontroversial revisions will be restored. Content that is moved back to the encyclopedia without being improved may be subject to speedy deletion, and content held in userspace without evidence of intent to work on it may also be nominated for deletion.

[edit] History-only undeletion

Request this to have the history of a deleted article restored behind a new, improved version of the article. The old, deleted revisions will sit harmlessly in the history of the page. 'History-only' undeletions can be performed without needing extended discussion on this page.

[edit] Contesting 'proposed deletions'

Request this if the article was dealt with as a 'proposed deletion'. A 'PROD'-deleted article can be restored by any admin upon reasonable request. Such an article may still be deleted at articles for deletion or under the criteria for speedy deletion.

Administrators restoring deleted articles should also restore the associated talk page if it exists and place {{oldprod}} on it. {{ProdContested}} (shortcut {{subst:PC|articlename}}) is available for notifying the original nominator that the article has been restored.

[edit] How do I do all this?

All requests go in the main part of the page below. Please state clearly your reason for requesting undeletion. If you want to review the debate or the cause of deletion, then these ancillary options are not appropriate, and you should request a full review.

Under no circumstances will revisions that are copyright violations, libelous or contain otherwise prohibited content be restored.

[edit] Instructions

Before listing a review request:

1. discuss the matter with the deleting administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion review. See #What is this page for? (above).
2. please check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.

[edit] Commenting in a deletion review

In the deletion review discussion, users should opt to:

• Endorse the original closing decision; or
• Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
• List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
• Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear.

Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.

The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum.

[edit] Temporary undeletion

Admins participating in deletion reviews are requested to routinely restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{tempundelete}} template, leaving the history for review by non-admins. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.

[edit] Closing reviews

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion process#Wikipedia:Deletion review discussions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented. If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate. Deletion review discussions may also be extended by relisting them to the newest DRV log page, if the closing admin thinks that consensus may yet be achieved by more discussion.

[edit] Steps to list a new deletion review

Before listing a review request, please attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page (or otherwise made the decision) as this could resolve the matter faster. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the admin the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, please note in the DRV listing that you first tried discussing the matter with the admin who deleted the page.

{{subst:drv2
|page=
|xfd_page=
|reason=
}} ~~~~

{{subst:drv2
|page=
|xfd_page=
|article=
|reason=
}} ~~~~

{{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=Deletion was entirely unreasonable.
}} ~~~~

Click to create a log page for tomorrow (7 July 2009)

[edit] Active discussions

[edit] 6 July 2009

[edit] 5 July 2009

[edit] Paola Di Maio

Paola Di Maio (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

Biography in relation to published work, projects and events systematically deleted (vandalized) by wikipedia editor since 1995. Suspected hate campaing, /ad since the biography and links to support the notoriety principles have been edited/added by various users and systematicaly deleted by the editors who obviously did not verify the supporting links, even when 'hold on' was placed on the page. Claim to notoriety met. Similar articles not deleted, nor questioned nor discussed, despite lesser links (see Nick Denton}, Patrick Barkham and many many living others whose profile is never deleted). All backlinks to related sources in other wikipedia pages also systematically wiped. Please restore and do not allow editors to delete this page, or please delete all the other pages that carry biographies of living people who are journalists/writers/researchers.

• Before I reply to this, please could an uninvolved admin confirm that the various G4 deletions here really were substantially identical to (i.e., near-carbon copies of) the original content from 2006?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • They were not. The recent recreated versions were all similar to each other, consisting of one sentence about Ms. Di Maio, several requests not to redelete, and assorted references. Stifle (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I should think we'll need some trouts, then.

      Procedural overturn as a bad G4, and list at AfD so the community can judge their merits per the correct procedure. Addendum: Before anyone challenges me on this, I should probably add that the references constitute a claim of notability so they invalidate the A7.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

      • I agree that the recent recreations weren't substantially identical - in fact they were substantially worse than the version that was deleted at AfD. They were composed pretty much of a little paragraph about how Wikipedia keeps deleting the article, one sentence about the subject, two links to blogs with vague mentions, and a copy-paste of some information from one of the blogs. Two of the three recent deletions have been valid A7 speedies, and the third one pretty much could have been. ~ mazca ^talk 20:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
        • To save further theoretical argument, I've made a temporary copy of the most recent deleted version (all three recent ones were essentially the same) - User:Mazca/Paola Di Maio. This was not a viable article in any way in the state it was deleted in. ~ mazca ^talk 20:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
• I suggest you work on a draft of the article in userspace and bring it here - none of the recent recreations have been in any way convincing of notability, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise. Creating an article with virtually no content beyond an angry statement about how it keeps getting deleted is not likely to solve the problem. ~ mazca ^talk 20:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Verna

Bill Verna (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

Substantial improvement was made during the course of the discussion and was ongoing at the time the discussion was closed. A courtesy notification, while not required, should have been made to the article creator (User:Faridzenger) and the relevant WikiProject (WP:PW). I question the motivation of three of the "delete" voters, as they had expressed displeasure at me for disagreeing with them in a previous deletion discussion and then all showed up to vote "delete" with no interest in weighing the merits of the additions to the article. While the discussion was ongoing, two of the "delete" voters removed sourced information that helped establish the subject's notability for reasons that, at ANI, were said by two administrators to be against Wikipedia policy. I was unable to restore this information without dancing around 3RR, but the article was deleted several hours later (while the ANI was still open). Due to the ongoing improvements up to the time of deletion and procedural irregularities during the discussion, I am asking that the article be restored or, at the very least, that a second, untainted AfD be opened. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm somewhat inclined to agree with a relist on the numbers, but I find your other remarks very concerning and I wonder if we're looking at a conduct dispute rather than a content one. Please could you provide diffs to illustrate what you say?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• To illustrate which points, specifically? GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'd like to see the removal of sourced content and the disapproval at ANI, please. My concern is that DRV can help with a content dispute but if there are conduct issues, other places may be appropriate venues as well.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for the clarification. Because the article has been deleted, I do not have access to the diffs for removal of sourced content. The removal is mentioned directly, however, at ANI here by an uninvolved third party as "de facto vandalism". This was supported by two administrators: [1] and [2]. The second "delete" voter removed the content in response to the first one recruiting him to help get around 3RR here. My concern is not to seek action against the editor (in fact, the first editor to remove the content has since left Wikipedia because the ANI at which he reported me did not go in his favor [3]). I would much rather see the article restored than have punitive action taken against anyone, but I believe that these diffs at least help to indicate procedual irregularity. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Yup, those diffs show an enormous amount of totally unnecessary drama, and I think they put your case that the AfD was tainted by disruptive editors beyond all reasonable doubt.

  Relist as a defective debate, and thank you to GaryColemanFan.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep deleted; I'm satisfied with the consensus at the AFD. Stifle (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
• Relist per S Marshall. If the comments made at the AfD were all that was happening, I'd call it a reasonable close, though verging towards no consensus. Given the fairly convincing evidence that there was some rather unsavoury behaviour going on at the same time, though, I think this needs to be restored and reviewed again at AfD to come to an untainted consensus on it. ~ mazca ^talk 20:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Oakbrook Mall

Oakbrook Mall (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

Decision was to delete and recreate as a redirect. I feel the page should simply have been redirected (edit history retained). While it was unclear if the subject the page now redirects to is the same as the one the creator had in mind, the rationale for the deletion was that it was a hoax. But given the creator's history, it seems more like a good-faith creation in which a poor job was done at specifying the correct details. More time is needed to check this out. Sebwite (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Closing admin: This was a very unambiguous close, with the DRV filer being the only person not in favour of deleting this article. Thryduulf (talk · contribs) 's responses to your two comments at the AfD were particularly useful - there's simply no evidence that this mall exists, whatsoever, resulting in a gratuitous failure of WP:V. If the article was created in good faith, the details are so unsalvageably incorrect as to not be any use. While I salute your desire to rescue articles, I really think that time could be better spent than rescuing an article on a mall that all available evidence suggests does not exist. ~ mazca ^talk 18:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: There is no problem being the only one with a certain view (see WP:OUTCAST). I am one who strongly feels deletion should be a last resort. Sebwite (talk) 22:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Absolutely, there's no problem with being the only one with a certain view - all good-faith viewpoints really are valuable in an AfD. However, they have to be closed in line with consensus, and your viewpoint unfortunately did not coincide with that. ~ mazca ^talk 23:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse. Yeah, that was totally unambiguous. Consider speedy close.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse, valid closure. Stifle (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Couldn't have been closed otherwise. I am sure, though, that any admin should be glad to provide the text to the nominator should he/she wish to continue an inquiry toward the determination of whether there exists the mall (or some approximation thereof) and whether in any case the mall would be an appropriate encyclopedic topic (although Thryduulf's thorough analysis seems to foreclose the possibility that anything might be rescued). Joe (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Tansuit

Tansuit (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

Decision was to merge and redirect to List of Space Ghost Coast to Coast characters, however new information came to light during the merging process. It turns out that an entry on this page for "Tansit" or "Tansut" already exists, and that "Tansuit" is an improbable misspelling of this character's name. Had I known this during the time of the AfD, I would have recommended Delete because I think it's improper for Wikipedia to maintain Tansuit as a redirect as it is an improbable misspelling. —  X  S  G  05:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse close. I don't see in what way this is an implausible misspelling - evidently whoever created the article made that mistake. I would simply redirect this as the AfD mandated, merging any further useful information that isn't already included under "Tansit", and leave it at that - the redirect isn't doing any harm. You can always take it to WP:RfD later if you really think it's implausible - I think the AfD close remains correct here even given the changed circumstances. ~ mazca ^talk 09:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

  I should also add that as the AfD nominator you are already assumed to be recommending "delete" - if you wanted a merge in the first place, articles for deletion was not the place to bring it. ~ mazca ^talk 09:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'd say "Tansuit" is quite a plausible mis-spelling. (Look at the arrangement of keys on your keyboard).

  I endorse this close as an accurate reading of the consensus.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 4 July 2009

[edit] Category:Billboard 200 number-one albums

Category:Billboard 200 number-one albums (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

Articles in this category have the distinct defining quality of being ranked as a top-selling album on the weekly published Billboard 200 albums chart from a highly-respected trade publication in the music industry (see Billboard (magazine)). Wolfer68 (talk) 20:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse as closer. This category was previously deleted as a recreation of deleted material. So in this case, there needs to be a consensus to override the previous decisions to delete. That case simply was not made in the discussion. I'll add that there is a side issue in that the consensus for albums in this area may differ from the consensus for singles. I'll also restate from my close, that this is much better handled as a list since only the album name is contained in the category. As a list, much more information of note is included. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse, DRV is not CFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am not making this round two. I am disputing the argument that the category is not defining, which I believe it is. I thought the correct course of action on a disputed deletion was DRV. I have put up CFDs because of this result on similar categories (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 July 2), with arguments to keep as strong defining characteristic. This is an identical issue, so how can this not be defining? --Wolfer68 (talk) 20:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Disputing an argument is rearguing the CFD... DRV concerns itself with process issue in the deletion discussion. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• Relist A close not based on policy is an incorrect close, and this can require reviewing the arguments to see whether the closer properly took account of policy. In this particular case, I see no argument in the discussion that any policy was violated, and the arguments amounted to IDONTLIKEIT. The closer closed on the explicit basis that it had been deleted before, which is not a reason based in policy. Once re-creation had been allowed, it needed to be discussed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
  • CSD G4 is still policy last time I checked. Quite reasonably not being a bureaucracy and given it's age, it was allowed to go to a discussion to see if it could overcome the original reason for deletion (which would then exempt if from G4) as far as I can tell it didn't. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse - arguments for keeping were along the lines of "all categories should exist" and "it's useful", which don't come anywhere close to addressing the reasons for deletion. Otto4711 (talk) 02:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of male performers in gay porn films

List of male performers in gay porn films (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

Extremely valid BLP issues. Majority of the bluelinks are unsourced, and some are totally irrelevant leading to additional BLP issues. The AfD was closed by Bwilkins (talk · contribs), who is not an admin. Aditya ^α _ß 13:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment by closing non-admin I non-admin closed the AfD as "no consensus to delete". In my closing comments, I noted portions of the discussion related to ensuring WP:BLP was not violated, and to validate and clean-up as needed (as per Schmidt's comment "Remove bluelinks that do not lead to articles for male porn stars"). The discussion at the time included almost an equal split of Keep and Delete !votes, with stronger arguments on the Keep side. This article was obviously not going to have support to delete. The editor who has brought this to DRV has stated "If it survives AfD, I'll clean up the article by removing the unsourced material". There was no other possible valid manner of closing this AfD. Based on discussion, and because of the split !vote, "no consensus" was a 100% non-controversial close (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• That's true. I looked through a lot of the bluelinks though, and many are unsourced, while some are totally unrelated. BLP issues abound. And note, I said "if the discussion survives AfD". I don't think it should survive it, but if DRV endorses your decision then I'll have no option other than to go through that list and every article linked and brutally stub the unsourced statements. (I randomly clicked on two links on that list, one of them isn't even a gay performer, while the other is unsourced) Aditya ^α _ß 14:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Weak overturn and delete; though I can see the merit in a no-consensus close here - it was indeed fairly evenly divided. I have to say though, were I closing this myself I may well have leant towards deletion - there is a lack of any convincing argument as to why this is better than a category, combined with extreme BLP risks due to its unsourced and contentious nature. While I don't object on principle to non-admin closes of no-consensus discussions, I would definitely disagree with BWilkins that this is a non-controversial one. ~ mazca ^talk 14:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn - mainly per Mazca, but I am also not sure whether this closure by a non-admin was a good idea. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 14:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. Give me a break. BLP is a valid concern and should be addressed on BLP articles themselves as we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. This really is a case of logic that we are certainly going to have these articles and a list article is perfectly acceptable. In fact many of those poorly sourced or unsourced porn bios should be ... wait for it ... merged to the list article. In this way the onus is on the fans to justify a separate article bolstered by reliable sources - which likely do exist just are not on the article. If nothing else the movies they starred in are primary sources - many porn movies, even the bad ones, are also reviewed. And many of those actors won awards for their work. Does this make them superstars - no; but neither does it mean we pillage through and delete a list when likely every article can be sourced to merit inclusion on the list. Sorry but BLP is a guidance for us to avoid legal problems as well as perceived moral conflicts of "slandering" someone as being a pornstar. The cultural shift as well is that porn actors and porn are rather mainstream including the corporate mergers causing the top mainstream media companies - like Disney - to also profit from adult entertainment of all types. We should not stand in the way of content but find ways to better manage it. This is one list that simply needs clean-up. Per AfD that is regular editing and deletion is unneeded. BLP happens on the individual articles. Encourage sourcing and clean-up as always - I rather doubt calling a porn star a porn star violates BLP anyway although I'm sure that could be argued on. -- Banjeboi 15:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, per WP:BLP. Non-admins simply should never be making no-consensus closures, because they are by default not unambiguous. Stifle (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse That a named person is notable for being a pornographic actor and the evidence is sufficient to justify a Wikipedia article, makes all BLP considerations ones applying to the original articles, not this one. There may need to be some discussions there, but the 10 that I sampled from the ones not specifically cited in the list itself were all defensible with respect to BLP, though not necessarily notability, and at least half extremely solid in both respects, with relevant awards or the like. DGG (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete Per WP:BLP. The BLP issues of this are very serious and performers need citations (beyond IMDB which is hardly a reliable source) in order to be included. Userfication would be a suitable way to work on this article, but it should absolutly not be presented in the mainspace unless there is a shred of sourced credibility to it. Also the NAC was highly inappropriate. ThemFromSpace 01:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse close - whether or not a non-admin should close no consensus, the AFD clearly had no consensus for deletion. Otto4711 (talk) 01:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete per Themfromspace and Stifle. Jclemens (talk) 04:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
• Relist because DRV clearly can't decide.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse closure as No consensus, as the Afd nominator for which this came from. I personally would like to see it deleted for the reasons I stated in my Afd deletion nom but Deletion review isn't supposed to be a second Afd and as the Afd was clearly no consensus, I'll accept that. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 19:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Well, ASE, I think the "delete" side might arguably have won that (on strength of argument rather than weight of numbers, obviously). I'd be looking for something a bit more decisive from DRV than the result we're looking at here (which at the moment seems to be "no consensus to overturn the non-admin closure as no consensus", a horribly weak conclusion and hard to defend in the face of BLP concerns). I think "relist" is the stronger response.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• The dire BLP warning was addressed both in the AfD and here. I see some effort to delete as many of these articles is now underway so perhaps nothing will be left to list after all. -- Banjeboi 01:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I believe that it is clear in WP:NAC and WP:RELIST that non-admins should never close something as "no consensus", but we had the same arguments at the DRV for Nuvola here. Perhaps the wording needs to be more explicit? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn inappropriate NAC. BWilkins's explanation is reasonable, but after consideration, I think that it relies on a loophole in the NAC recommendations. Sourcing every entry should be considered – I believe that this has been insisted on for contentious lists in the past. Flatscan (talk) 04:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • This is hardly a contentious list. Someone is either a porn star in a gay porno film or they're not. The only contentious part is that some of the BLPs may have had the content removed or never added in the first place. That is not contention - just a matter of regular editing. -- Banjeboi 05:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• I think the closure is reasonable. I wouldn't mind relisting to get an admin closure, but really, what this article needs is more cleanup and not more AFDs and more DRVs. Kusma (talk) 05:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Telepathy and war

Telepathy and war (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

• Article was vandalised before deletion. Large blocks of well referenced content were repeatedly deleted by the same user and another user who appeared to be associated with that user. Up to 17 references from reputable sources were removed. The two users (Verbal and Papa November) then claimed that the article was poorly referenced and badly written, and so should be deleted. I would like to think the deletions of citation and reference material were made out of a genuine a desire to improve Wikipedia - if mistakenly - except that the conduct of the respective users over time suggested to me that repeated deletions and reversions to versions with very little content were motivated by un-wikipedia-like agendas. Before the article was deleted, at least two repair bots tagged the article, one citing "possible vandalism".
• The users who proposed deletion of the article engaged in acts of bad faith and what appeared to be edit warring, including reversions to versions with few references and almost no material and "biting" and baiting a relatively new editor.
• The article was supported by other users who became interested in the article and who began working to improve it, as far as they could between repeated content deletions and reversions to versions with few references. The article was nominated for rescue.
• User page histories show that the users intent on removing content have displayed an editorial bias in reverting and removing content from other Wikipedia pages as well. The users who campaigned for the article's deletion seemed to link to and quote a lot of rules and Wiki regulations during discussion but seemed themselves to have difficulty operating in good faith, constructively and with neutrality.
• The articles for deletion discussion was closed and the article deleted by an administrator whose own editorial conduct was called into question. The closing administrator's behaviour was found in an arbitration case [4] to include edit warring and sock puppetry. It is possible that the decision to delete [5] the article and close discussion that the article generated, was made by a biased administrator who could have engaged in sock puppetry specifically connected to the article's original vandalism.

I would like the article restored, with its edit history. I would like to continue working on the article. Although I contend that improvements might pose a challenge in the eyes of questionable administrators and users, I am willing to work in good faith on the article. Frei Hans (talk) 12:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC) Frei Hans (talk) 12:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, the decision was sound. Accusations of vandalism, sockpuppetry, "un-wikipedia-like agendas", bad faith, editorial bias etc are extremely subjective - irrelevant "sources" and speculative or irrelevant content was removed from the article. Note that Frei Hans (talk · contribs) has been shopping his complaints around for some time: see here and here pablo_hablo. 12:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)diffs added  pablo_hablo. 13:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Pablo, how is it that your comment here was posted only moments after I notified (following deletions review process) a known sock-puppeteer, whose editorial priveleges have been recently curtailed, that a former administration decision of his was up for review? Frei Hans (talk) 13:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll give you a clue, it wasn't telepathy.  pablo_hablo. 13:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It would not surprise me if many people have said editor's talk page watchlisted, for various reasons. I certainly wouldn't consider the appearance of anyone involved in this to be anything like a surprise, or evidence of suspicious behaviour. ~ mazca ^talk 14:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note. One editor who tried to delete the article also opted to merge some content into other articles. How is it that content can be deemed Wikipedian and encyclopedic when merged with a completely different article but not relevant and un-encyclopedic in the original article? If content is relevant enough to be merged, it is relevant enough to stand alone. If content can be merged with other articles then it stands to reason that the original (and more extensive) article with its greater depth should at the very least be restored to facilitate referencing and citation across other articles. Frei Hans (talk) 13:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Wikipedia is not an appropriate medium to publish one's paranoid phantasies. Some misguided editors of the "every sperm article is sacred" variety tried to rescue this hopeless case by transforming the pure tinfoil hat material into mere original synthesis of speculations in formally reliable sources. Frei Hans thinks this was improper. And it was, because trying to "save" a blatantly hopeless snow deleteable article in this way is disruptive. Hans Adler 13:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Addressing Hans Adler's deletion endorsement. Pardon me? I feel Hans Adler has tried to misrepresent what I, Frei Hans, think by ascribing words to my hand that never issued from my hands at all. To clarify, I take exception to the vandalism and misrepresentation of content that was cited and well referenced, with links to reputable sources:

~ The article was based on mainstream news reports, reports in well known science and technology magazines, and material on the websites of universities involved in the research.

~ Reports stated that the Pentagon had been funding research into applications for "synthetic telepathy". The technology magazine Wired reported that projects have been funded in the remote control of robotics by the power of telepathic or telekinetic thought, and into applications for soldiers to use to communicate on the battlefield as well as to influence "enemy command".

~ Extensive reference material and citation was included in the history of the original article, which has been deleted.

~ Far from being a "tin foil" concern, the research has actually been gaining mainstream traction, and was reported by mainstream news organisations as referenced in the article.

~ The deleted material could be included in the Telepathy article but I deliberately created a new article and kept it separate because the material included military applications using remote controlled and wireless brain-computer interfaces, as well as the use of EEG. Perhaps the article content could be merged with the Telepathy article, but that can only happen if users have access to the content and content creation history.

NB, I also want to make clear that I am not Hans Adler, although our user names are similar, and wonder at the remarkable coincidence of his being here too. Frei Hans (talk) 14:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

nb I wish to make it clear that I am not A Man in Black, although our usernames suggest we are of the same gender. pablo_hablo. 16:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Headings such as "Orwellian future surpassed" and paragraphs such as the following were definitely not based on mainstream reports in any reasonable sense of "based on":

"No existing human rights law covers mind-tapping or torture using 'telepathic' applications developed for military use. The applications therefore exist outside of human rights law. Wire-tapping laws have not even been updated to keep pace with wireless LAN technology let alone telepathic technology. The development of telepathic technology raises almost incredible human rights abuse issues, and massive questions surrounding invasions of privacy for citizens all around the world."

The entire article was one large piece of improper synthesis plus a large dose of editorialising based loosely on the result of the synthesis. Hans Adler 23:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The premise of Wikipedia is that users can contribute to articles. If users take issue with the style that factual and encyclopedic content is presented in, then users should make an effort to re-write the content in a style they feel represents "neutrality" - although it appears neutrality itself is subjective. I thought the article was written in a neutral style with a lot of factual referenced content. Others wanted to delete the article, claiming neutrality was an issue. The paragraph Hans Adler described was actually re-written (by myself) after criticism.

Unfortunately some editors, whose behaviour suggested sock puppetry (and whose behaviour was consistent with the action of AMiB who has been proven to take part in sock puppetry), took it on themselves to delete referenced content and campaign for the entire article's deletion. Instead of attempting to re-write content with a genuine intent to improve it, those editors chose instead to sabotage and discredit the article. Now the decision making capacity and neutrality of at least one of the editor's involved in deleting the article has been called into question, with an independent arbitration case finding AMiB to have contravened the general spirit of Wikipedia including indulging in non-neutral activities and sock puppetry.

As it is, if editors want to try re-writing the article's content in a different style then the article needs to be restored. I am interested in negotiating a neutral style while retaining the article's factual and informative integrity, and to do that the article and its history needs to be un-deleted. Frei Hans (talk) 06:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, it seems a perfectly reasonable close given the discussion. I don't see the asserted vandalism having an immense effect either on the viability of the article or the AfD debate - the primary objections seem to be very basic, structural ones about the encyclopedic nature of the topic itself. ~ mazca ^talk 14:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Mazca, the closing and deleting administrator has recently been found to have engaged in biased practices and sock puppetry on other pages. These traits were all evident in the campaign to have the article deleted. Do you not pause to consider that a gross injustice has been perpetrated by an administrator who has since been topic-banned from the Article Rescue Squadron for inciting deletions and who has been placed on a standard editing restriction for one year? Frei Hans (talk) 14:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• I am indeed aware of the history surrounding A Man In Black (talk · contribs) and the associated ArbCom case. This is why I gave the debate and the article a good read, as I know there have been problems in this area. However, I don't really see any real symptoms of the problem in this particular debate: consensus does seem to favour deletion, and were I the closing administrator I probably would have closed it the same way. The fact that AMIB was desysopped and topic-banned for various issues does not automatically invalidate all the good closes he's made, and I do not personally see a problem with this one. ~ mazca ^talk 14:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion and give it an honest AfD. I have seen the sort of behavior the editor describes above. This practice of denuding an article of nearly all content and sourcing--good, bad or indifferent-- during an AfD is absolutely unethical, is becoming too common, and should be punishable. I know nothing of this particular article and its AfD, but I do know that the closing ex-admin engaged in exactly this sort of behavior in an AfD in which I was involved-- one brought up two times within a week of the article's creation, and Kept both times, but in the laughably censored version, in which it remains. So, restore article, allow editors to work in good faith to put the best sourcing and material into it, do not allow pro-deletion editors to mock the article by removing as much content and sourcing as they can get away with, and judge that version at the AfD. Dekkappai (talk) 14:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles at AfD can still be edited, which is a sensible way to go; articles at AfD are often improved during the AfD process, thus removing the deletion rationale. On what criteria would do you propose to disallow editors from working on articles listed for deletion? pablo_hablo. 15:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Dekkappai, you clearly don't understand the situation. I can't blame you since presumably you didn't see the article in its original state: Article version as preferred by Frei Hans. Some misguided members of the Article Rescue Squadron tried to rescue the article from certain snow deletion by removing most of the blatant nonsense and adding a few reasonable related tidbits. Hans Adler 23:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hans Adler, please stop misrepresenting me by stating what you think I prefer or what you think I would like. I do prefer versions of the article that retained more content and referencing, and would have preferred genuine contributions from other users if they had been able to make them without their contributions being deleted as well as mine.

I do not prefer the version you linked to and never stated that I do. Sections of the article were being deleted so rapidly while other editors attempted to create reasonable well referenced content that nobody could say that a "preferred" version could have emerged from the discussion around it before sections and eventually the entire article were deleted.

The earlier illustrated version was my favourite at first, as I put a lot of effort into that first posting - but during discussion around the article I found other relevent content and several interesting contributions by other editors were made that could have improved the article further if these had time to develop. That is why I haven't a particular favourite, and would prefer the entire article with its history be restored.

Research behind the military project also seems to be in continual development and new material about it is likely to emerge as well - another reason why I would never expect to settle on a static version. My preference is for genuine up to date and well referenced content without interference from deliberately disruptive users. Frei Hans (talk) 06:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion but recommend userfying the final wikified version to Frei Hans. They seem willing to try to understand concerns but still are missing some core issues of Wikipedia having to completely avoid original research; as such it's rather pointless to work in gray areas when all your work will be deleted like this. It's better to stick with mainstream sourcing and let other sources lead the way on what we report here. -- Banjeboi 17:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion the original and various other "long" versions would have been deleted as snow but for the disruption of one editor. The AfD went on far too long and I'm not surprised Hans feels aggrieved, but his article has no place in wikipedia. The shortened version had a lot fewer problems, but still failed to meet our standards. The AfD addressed both versions, and I see no reason to overturn the closure. There was nothing dishonest about the AfD, however the increasing attacks against the nominator (me) and others who contributed are a cause for concern, as is the bad faith shown by Dekkappai. If Dekkappai had been there he would know his accusation is baseless. I also endorse Hans Adler's and Pablo's comments. This was an unimpeachable delete. Verbal chat 18:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Also oppose userfication, endorse salt and would ask for a civility warning to be given to Frei Hans by an admin. This article is no good, and Frei has shown bad faith and poor judgement. Although he was given some bad advice by a few editors, he was given much ood advice which he ignored. He even reported me to AIV for nominating this article! Verbal chat 15:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and userfy back into User:Frei Hans/Telepathy and war (merge the histories or something) don't userfy per Papa November's comment and several attempts by author to recreate another deleted article that he wrote, send the article to him by email so he can go to some wiki specialized in paranormal phenomena and put it there. Many commenters saw the article in different times of its evolution, so it's not like everyone !voted and then someone managed to fix the article after that. Also notice that the creator of the article is mixing concepts, the wired article about computer mediated telepathy is not actually about telepathy. You use a computer to read an electroencefalogram and then a radio to transmit the computer interpretation. There is no actual telepathy going on at any part of the process, even if Wired and the researchers used that name because it sounds cooler. They just do something that looks like telepathy. Idem for the other Wired article. It's all like moving a Pong pad using a fugly aparatus attached to your head. Very old news for people that follow the Human computer interaction field. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, he didn't write the other article [6]. As to if he misunderstood the purpose of userfying, I guess we'll all have our own takes on that. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wired article and also military spokespeople and intelligence sources cited in the article used the term "telepathy" specifically. The applications being developed are "wireless" and involve non-intrusive forms of EEG - the effect is one of synthetically produced telepathy and the term "synthetic telepathy" was also used by some sources. Frei Hans (talk) 06:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. I checked all versions where there had been a major change in size of the article, and none of them were about this actual subject. Eric above understand the subject the same way I do. This is a development over a number of years of extremely exciting work with practical application and great promise, built not around the dubious ideas of parapsychology but upon actual science. Telepathy for military applications has been suggested from time to time, and in its wilder days I suppose DARPA may have tried it, but that would be a completely different article. I would not userify this: it's hopeless. An article on the topic should start over. DGG (talk) 03:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

If as you say an article on the topic should start over - then the original article should be restored for its reference and source material. An existing article can be reasonably re-written with additional material, and even renamed and moved. But a deleted article is of no use to anyone interested in the topic. Frei Hans (talk) 07:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion because that was the consensus, and salt because there's an extreme unwillingness to accept the outcome.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

What? If I made decisions with reasoning like that I could suggest that the users who campaigned for the article's deletion should all be "peppered" for their extreme unwillingness to work in a Wikipedian way to create improvements where they feel improvements might be made. Could you please describe "salt" in this context to me. I am unfamiliar with phrases like "salt" - perhaps because I am more interested in valid content creation then in disrupting the work of genuine Wikipedians. Frei Hans (talk) 07:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per DGG, and protect per S Marshall. Stifle (talk) 12:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - all the useful encyclopedic content has been merged into Brain-computer interface. Everything else was pure synthesis, speculation and original research to support a home-brewed conspiracy theory. I also object to User:Frei Hans's continued, flippant accusations of vandalism against myself, User:Verbal and the other experienced editors who foolishly worked hard to rescue some of his moribund article's content. Papa November (talk) 13:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

  I also oppose userfication as Frei Hans has abused this privilege twice previously by immediately moving userfied content back to the mainspace. (Check the logs for User:Frei Hans/Theodore Kowal → Theodore Kowal) and User:Frei Hans/Telepathy and war → Telepathy and war). There really is nothing more that could be done to make the article worthy of a place in an encyclopedia. Papa November (talk) 13:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

  The second of those wasn't a restoration and was copied back to the article (as best I can tell given the comment) before the deletion discussion concluded and before it was deleted, the other may have been a genuine misunderstanding - the apparent lack of willing to assume good faith by Frei Hans, doesn't mean we shouldn't extend the same back. That said the listing here still seems to demonstrate a huge gap in Frei Hans' understanding of what wikipedia is about, so I'd be reluctant to restore until that improves. I can't see the benefit in restoring for the article not to have the key issues resolve and be wasting everyone's time and no doubt raising tensions. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 15:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion After reading through all of this I also think this needs deletion and should be salted to prevent this from continuing. The editor who wrote this doesn't seem to want to except this. Also a note to this editor about assume good faith and no personal attacks should be explained if it hasn't been already. I am sad to read all the accusations against so many good faith editors here and in other locations. It's time I think to delete all of the article that have been iVoted deletion and to salt them so they are not recreated again. Thanks for listening, --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
• Strong endorse deletion – reason for overturning is rooted in numerous ad hominem attacks and childish name-calling on the participants in the AFD. This squarely falls under the two bottom levels of Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement. MuZemike 20:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - I believe that an earlier version of this article exists in a usefied state at User:Dream Focus/Remote mind control. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 3 July 2009

[edit] Common End, Colkirk

Common End, Colkirk (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

Requesting the outcome be changed from delete to merge (with the edit history retained). The consensus seemed to favor merging better than deleting. Sebwite (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure by default due to nominator's failure to respond to a reasonable query. Stifle (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus. Two deletes, two keeps and four merges is not a delete consensus, and in the absence of socking, it's considerably outside admin discretion to interpret it as one. Sorry, Fritzpoll, but as I've said before at DRV: implement the consensus, and if you don't like the consensus, then !vote. Don't close.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus per that being the consensus. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - my comment in the previous AfD in the log was that there wasn't anything to merge - that is still the case with this article. So closing to merge seemed pointless, as was commented on within the debate - as I have said to you before, S Marshall, I'm meant to read the arguments at AfD to judge the consensus action. The consensus is that the article shouldn't exist in its standalone form - per the multitude of merge comments, and the non-policy/guideline based arguments by those arguing for retention. If preferable, a redirect can be set up to the proposed merge target, which may better fit the consensus. If people want these closed on the basis of votes, they should change our various guidances for administrators in these situations, not try to overturn these principles via DRV. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

  Additionally, as I have said repeatedly, I am a reasonable guy - I'm sure I could have solved this via discussion with the nominator rather than ending up here - but that's just a procedural/courtesy point Fritzpoll (talk) 11:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Merge" is a keep outcome. It seems very perverse, to me, to count a "merge" as a "delete".—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• It's an interesting question - I think of merge as meaning "we don't want this to be a standalone article". Now, normally, this means transplanting the material to a new article and redirecting from the old article, primarily for navigational and GFDL reasons. In this particular case, however, there was no material to be merged that required history attribution, since the article was simply a one sentence statement. So here, I simply deleted the article, on the basis of the merges intending "no standalone article" - what I should have done is to place a redirect there immediately as the final step of my "virtual merge". The effect would be the same, but would have been less controversial (with hindsight) - If I undeleted and simply redirected, thus completing the merge to the extent that it ever could be, would that be satisfactory? Or would it be ok simply to setup a new redirect at the current location, since there is no material to merge? Fritzpoll (talk) 11:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• I believe that such a redirect would not be ok, as it would fail the test of least astonishment. As you note, there was only one sentence in the article, and a factually incorrect one at that, meaning that there is no material to put in the target article, so you'd end up with the situation of having a redirect from Common End, Colkirk to Colkirk but with nothing in the article at which a reader would arrive to explain why they were there. ClickRick (talk) 11:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that merging is a problem. Personally, I agree that "merge" makes no sense at all as an outcome, but this isn't the place for that discussion; the AfD is finished and I don't see grounds to re-fight it. I do think the closing admin's role is to implement the consensus, and I don't see how a "delete" consensus emerges from that discussion. Therefore, my position (as I explained earlier) is that "no consensus" would be the correct outcome, and I'd just add that "no consensus" does not prevent an early re-listing that might result in a more intelligent consensus.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment (as the proposer of the AfD): there was no edit history to speak of. Specifically, there was the creator of the article (who unsurprisingly voted Keep in the AfD on the basis of WP:ITEXISTS) and me, when I had added an infobox as one step towards adding something notable to the article about the place. ClickRick (talk) 13:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 2 July 2009

72.11.69.198 (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 1 July 2009

[edit] Scott Campbell (blogger)

Scott Campbell (blogger) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

Around 20 new sources listed on this page, as well as articles/appearances for my startup Net News Daily in The Guardian Online, BBC News Online, BBC Radio 2, BBC Radio 5 Live, The Independent, The Scotsman, Original 106, Real Radio and Northsound 1. I also now write for TechCrunch/CrunchGear. I would count this as notable. Scott (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• I suggest you ask an editor without a WP:COI to create a userspace draft which can be brought to DRV. I think it very likely that the sources you have are sufficient to establish notability, but experience with DRV tells me the conflict of interest and the lack of a userspace draft may be significant obstacles.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• I stand by what I said in the last DRV. The AfD closure was appropriate, given the situation then. Now, more sources are present, and so I support allowing re-creation in principle. However, I think that we would be best served by re-creating as a redirect to the Net News Daily article (which I note was just re-created without any DRV) because the subject's notability is tied pretty much only to the site. ÷seresin 02:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Those sources are pretty much standard trivial sources, they aren't about the person, they are about the "experiment", the WP:GNG requires "sources address the subject directly in detail", these don't. Just listing up any mention of a person is not useful for an encyclopedia article. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• I would recommend a userspace draft. See WP:SUBPAGE. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, suggest non-COI user draft - per the reasons given above. Otto4711 (talk) 19:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Bonnie Doon Shopping Centre

Bonnie Doon Shopping Centre (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

Was just deleted after AfD. The closing administrator closed it simply by saying "the result was delete" with no further explanation. But several participants said keep with some good reasons favoring keeping. There seemed to be reliable sources on the subject (though I am not familiar with it myself), and it was far from clear that the consensus was to delete. Sebwite (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion by default due to nominator's failure to respond to a reasonable query. Stifle (talk) 20:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Thanks to Stifle for alerting me of this. AfD isn't a vote, and going by the strength of the arguments, there's a clear consensus to delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse it would have helped if the closing had been a little more specific--I suggest to Julian he might have also been more explicit here about what parts of the argument he considered strong. I am basically endorsing the result: Small malls are almost never notable, and there really wasn't enough to indicate otherwise. I did not join the original discuss and say that at the AfD because I thought it would obviously be deleted.DGG (talk) 01:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse as, as far as I can tell, people merely asserted reliable sources existed (or probably existed) but didn't actually point to any concrete examples. WP:V and WP:N demand more than just vague assertions. --Chiliad22 (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment There are sources that can be found here and most easily accesible

here. These describe notable details, including the center's history and uses. Sebwite (talk) 03:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• • • But between those three books in your second link there are only four sentences combined about this topic... it's not really seeming like nontrivial coverage to me. --Chiliad22 (talk) 12:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Youth United

Youth United (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_March_10 I, being a different individual seek to recreate the article of this organization with all the Wikipedia policies to be taken into consideration, so unprotection of the page Youth United is sought to create this page again as per Wikipedia policies. Regards Maihunggogoi (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC) -->

• Comment the latest version seems to still be at User:Extolmonica/Youth United. It has no references beyond its own web site. Unless some 3rd party references can be found, there is no real possibility of having an article, and we should consider deleting the one in userspace also. DGG (talk) 05:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Concur with DGG. The mainspace article does not need to be unprotected before you write an article in your sandbox. We need some evidence that a viable page will actually be written (otherwise all evidence is that only nonviable pages will be recreated). Once there is an article ready-to-go, it can then go to mainspace. That is, exactly same thing you heard at WP:RFPP. Please don't forum-shop. DMacks (talk) 06:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Concur with DGG and DMacks. When a userspace draft with serious third-party references is added, it will be considered. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Concur with above on Mainspace article But I don't think the userpage one should be deleted, they should be taught how to impove the article, and add real sources. --MahaPanta (talk) 10:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • comment - WP:NOBLECAUSE and all that. Unless there's a raftload of new sources out there, the original decision still should stand, despite forumshopping by the initial poster, etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed to the Admins First of all, the latest version of article is yet to be written. The article at User:Extolmonica/Youth United is written by some other individual and I don't take the liability for the same. I am obviously going to write in much different manner providing substantial third party sources. Please guide me as how to write the article in my user space. Regards Maihunggogoi (talk) 21:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• You can create a draft in your userspace here: User:Maihunggoi/Sandbox. If this will be your first article, I suggest reading WP:YFA before beginning. It also helps to be familiar with Wikipedia guidelines on notability and policy on reliable sources and verifiability.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Created a test article Dear admins I have created a test article for Youth United at User:Maihunggoi/Sandbox. I would request the admins to please move this article to main space Youth United and Unprotect it for further modifications. Regards Maihunggogoi (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but that one's worse than the last one, with not even a pretense of an indication of notability. If this organization is notable, where are the links to substantial coverage of its activities in reliable sources? --Orange Mike | Talk 01:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't know what do you mean by reliable sources. Couldn't you see the sources mentioned, which were primarily the National newspapers in India? If you were looking for our articles in Time Magazine or so then I would request to to be a little rational in deciding over anything. Look over the websites of National Newspapers like Times of India, Hindustan Times, Indian Express and Tribune India and see what notability you are looking for now. I request all admins to be rational and flexible to deal with this case. Regards Maihunggogoi (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• I think it might be OK now, with a little more work. I clarified some of the references, to show at least which ones were coming from Reliable 3rd party sources, but they still need proper expansion. Not all of them are significant mentions, but some of them are , especially [7], and they are from major Indian newspapers. If you finish formatting them correctly using the cite templates, they will be much more impressive, and reasonably so. I think it can go back to mainspace, and if anyone wants to list it for AfD, they can do so.DGG (talk) 01:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• User:Extolmonica/Youth_United Looks viable for mainspace. Although I think almost all of it is useless unencyclopediac minutae (extensive self-governance info), there's a kernel of a notable group here now. DMacks (talk) 17:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wal-Mart (disambiguation)

Wal-Mart (disambiguation) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

I had created this page a while back, and it was speedy deleted. I did not know it was previously created and deleted, and I know little about the previous version. The page that I created, I feel, meets Wikipedia:Disambiguation guidelines, and therefore, should be included. In this and this list are at least several titles that have a substantially different meaning from the title "Wal-Mart" itself. Tatterfly (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse valid CSD G4 — There is Category:Wal-Mart which l covers everything that a dab would. Since all of these Wal-Mart pages are, in fact, related to Wal-Mart the business, there isn't actually any ambiguity in need of dab. This was all said in AfD#2. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Restore and relist — valid CSD G4 redeleting the page in line with a badly flawed AfD#2. A third AfD can better decide what to do about lists, cats, dabs, &c than DRV can. See my comment below. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse, nothing unclear about the destination of the main Wal-Mart page or about the result of the AfD. All these pages belong in some way to the WalMart family and as such their links should be inlined into the content of the Wal-Mart page. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 09:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• I think there's more to it than that, because of WP:CLN. The underlying point here is to think of ways to group Wal-Mart-related articles to help encyclopaedia users to find them.

  A category is not, by itself, adequate as a navigation aid. Oh, sure, experienced Wikipedians who can use categories proficiently don't struggle with it, but we're writing an encyclopaedia for an audience of the general public here.

  A navbox for moving between the articles, a disambiguation page, and/or a List of Wal-Mart articles (which is presently a redirect, for reasons I find very perplexing) are all options to consider.

  I think if we decide we can't have a Wal-Mart (disambiguation), we need to consider what provision we should have in its place.

  Personally I'm not inclined towards the navbox idea. Wal-Mart already has navboxes, and there are too many articles in the category to conveniently group in another navbox.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Very good points. The history of the list is worth looking at. It's certainly a valid CSD G4 given the conclusions of AfD#2, but it looks to me as if we should revisit the AfD since it did not consider constructive alternatives such as the obvious-to-me-now remedy of moving the page back to List of Wal-Mart articles. I'm considering changing my !vote to restore and relist; the reason for another AfD is so that the article isn't CSD G4 anymore. A third AfD, how lovely. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Undelete - after looking at some of the other pages starting with the title "Wal-Mart," I found several to be distinct enough from the Wal-Mart corporation itself that they would not belong solely in a List of Wal-Mart articles. The purpose of a disambiguation page is for navigation, and one who was looking more a more obscure meaning of "Walmart" (or similar) would visit a disambiguation page to find it, not "list of Wal-Mart articles." Sebwite (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• The article that was G4 deleted did not address the reasons AfD #2 deleted it. Namely the "partial title matches" section here—it was still a list comprising things that were not the same title, they merely included the word. Valid G4. ÷seresin 07:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Sure it was, Seresin, but with this very good-faith case, we're trying to be a little more helpful than that. If we can't have this page, then what system shall we use to group these articles for the benefit of end-users?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• What's wrong with this? ÷seresin 07:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• It's incomplete. There are 26 entries in Category:Wal-Mart and a dozen more in Category:Wal-Mart people.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Most missing entries seem to be noted in the main article earlier, but if something's missing, add it. But most of the things in those categories absolutely do not belong in a disambiguation pages, whose purpose is to disambiguate things with very similar names, not list related topics. ÷seresin 08:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Sure, and I'm not arguing for retaining this disambiguation page. As explained above, my position is that this content belongs in the List of Wal-Mart articles, the history of which article is highly relevant to this DRV.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

As for all the above arguments, It does seem that one in particular, Walmarting (with the redirect Walmart (neologism)), is the similar enough to the common title "Wal-Mart" to be disambiguated, but it would not make sense to put it on a hatnote either. It also does not belong in the see also section, because a see also section is supposed to list articles that one who reads that article may also be interested in reading, and it is not relevant enough to the Wal-Mart corporation to list in a see also section. Other titles include Walmart First Tee Open at Pebble Beach, a tournament that uses the name "Wal-Mart" (derived from and sponsored by the company, but otherwise unrelated, and therefore inappropriate for a see also section), and Wal-Mart camel, formerly an article, but now merged with the title redirecting, and given that name only because of the location where it was found. There is no standard on Wikipedia to substitute disambiguation pages with pages titled List of _____ articles. That would be like replacing Honolulu (disambiguation) with List of Honolulu articles on the basis that everything listed there is somehow tied to the city of Honolulu, and therefore should not be disambiguated. Sebwite (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• It's easy to come up with things we can't do, and reasons why we can't do them. It's a little more challenging to come up with things that Wikipedia policy does let us do to group articles with similar themes so users can find them. I'd like to invite you to think of something constructive.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 30 June 2009

[edit] Broken Cyde (closed)

[edit] Image:ARRahman2.jpg

Image:ARRahman2.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

No indication that the nominator even attempted to determine the image's copyright before listing it for deletion. Ricky28618 (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Note the original image nominator was User:Ricky81682 the nominator here who is brand new self confessed alternate account seems to be a violation of the username policy as clearly intended to be confused with the existing user. Regards the deletion, there is no requirement for the nominator to search down copyright status, the onus is on the uploader to correctly specify an demonstrate it. No issue to review here. If the image can be shown to be properly under a suitable license, simply reupload it, or show the details to the deleting admin and request it's undeletion. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

What confusion? My name has nothing to do with the nominator. -- Ricky28618 (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

So a an account consisting of a name and 5 digits where the difference between the two is just those last 5 digits in reverse. And the first edit is to ask for a review of a deletion nominated by the other account. And of course mere coincidence and no confusion possible, whatever. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 09:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

  The image was deleted in November. Also, seeing what happened below to the last editor who questioned that admin's actions, it's clear he has many friends around here. I suspect the same fate may come to me. -- Ricky28618 (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

  That's not a great reason. If you aren't courteous enough to ask the deleter for more information or to reconsider, I'm not sure I'm interested in restoring the image.

  All that aside, do you have any proof that the image is available under a free license? The copyright process here, de facto at least, is that text and images are presumed to be OK, but once questioned, the uploader/adder must provide proof of the free licensing. Otherwise, they're deleted. Stifle (talk) 08:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

  Keep deleted per Usrnme h8er below. Stifle (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse, no evidence provided to back up the Free license claim. If such evidence is available and can be posted with the image, no DRV is needed for the image to be reuploaded. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 14:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy close - since the nominating account hasn't presented any evidence of copyright permission and has now been blocked, despite their protestations about no confusion with the account who nominated this for deletion, posts to the other users talk page like this suggest otherwise. Similary nomination for deletion of articles created by the other editor --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Disney Villains

Category:Disney Villains (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

The page was deleted under the reasoning that fictional characters must not be categorized as villains per WP:POV and OR. However, The Walt Disney Company has released a franchise named "Disney Villains", which is more than just characters who are antagonists, witches, etc. There are direct-to-video films, video games and other merchandise by the franchise that can be categorized under "Category:Disney Villains", other than just characters in the official line-up. Therefore, the category would be named after an existing franchise and not as a way to label characters as villains only because they are "bad guys". --LoЯd ۞pεth 18:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• A category for Disney Villains seems like it'd be fine. Certainly doesn't go against the TfD. It should be located at the capitalized title (Category:Disney Villains rather than Category:Disney villains), though. You don't need permission here to create this, so go ahead. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Thing is that the page is protected. I asked for unprotection but my request was declined because the admin told me to make this deletion review to have consensus for a recreation first. --LoЯd ۞pεth 21:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - consensus is clear that we do not categorize fictional characters by characteristics like "hero" and "villain" because they are mutable. No indication that the original close was in error and no indication that the well-established consensus against such categories has changed in any way. Otto4711 (talk) 00:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • You have clearly not read the reasons for recreating this. "Category:Disney Villains" will not be for listing characters as villains, but to include merchandise from a franchise named Disney Villains. This category would include direct-to-video films, video games, etc. --LoЯd ۞pεth 01:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    • It must be wonderful to have the power to look through the eyes of others to be able to know what they have and haven't read. I hope you use this power responsibly. Otto4711 (talk) 12:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Just using "Disney Villains" as the category name is too ambiguous, and there is strong consensus against categorizing characters as "villains," and this category could be confused with a generic category for villains that appear in Disney media. If the proposed category is for the franchise, then why not name it Category:Disney Villains franchise or Category:Disney Villains (franchise)? There is already Category:Characters in the Disney Villains franchise, which would be a logical subcategory. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • But videogames and films are not "Characters (in the Disney Villains franchise) right? However, Category:Disney Villains (franchise) seems like a good idea. --LoЯd ۞pεth 06:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, that's why I said why not create Category:Disney Villains franchise or Category:Disney Villains (franchise), for the things that aren't characters. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per WP:NPOV. Stifle (talk) 09:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion — I agree that the category is not straightforwardly POV, but no reason has been given to prefer recreation of this confusion-risking category over creation of one of the clearly titled categories suggested by GoodOl. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. No objections to recreation with "franchise" or "(franchise)" appended. --Kbdank71 15:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 29 June 2009

[edit] Septoid2 (closed)

[edit] Terrible Trouble (closed)

[edit] Quadrosoft (closed)

[edit] File:Smallz.JPG (closed)

[edit] Eddie_Mitchell (closed)

[edit] Mungery (closed)

[edit] Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie (closed)

[edit] James P. Barker

James P. Barker (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

The at Afd listed article was incorrectly been speedy deleted per A7 and BLP1E. A7 and BLP1E are not valid reasons for a speedy deletion. The deletion was clearly incorrect and the deleting admin concedes he acted hastily. Proposed solution. Relist at Articles for deletion. Iqinn (talk) 10:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Could an admin please restore the original article so I can see for myself?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Restore & Relist No valid reasons existed for a speedy deletion. It may be unlikely that the article will remain as a separate article, however a full AFD discussion will allow the community to determine if a full deletion is the correct, or if there is info that should be merged or remain in the history of the redirect.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• How can you tell there were no valid reasons?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• I read the discussions at WP:ANI as well as the article that it's currently redirected to. I suppose to be 100% technically correct I could say that no valid reason for speedy deletion is apparent or has been offered on the later noticeboard discussion. This is further bolstered by the statements of the admin who deleted it as linked in the noms statement.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment — Most in the AN/I discussion seemed to be of the opinion that relisting on AfD would be WP:SNOW. But BLP1E says If the event is significant, and/or if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources. It seems to me that this means that application of this criteria is the kind of thing that should be sorted out at AfD. — Charles Stewart (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse, entirely reasonable BLP1E. Stifle (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse, fully valid, both within the letter and the intent of BLP1E. Relatively low attendance at the AfD but nothing indicative of an incorrect decision. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 16:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I believe the low attendance is due to the fact that it was open for just over 4 hours, instead of seven days. Question to both you and Stifle, Where in either WP:BLP1E or WP:CSD does it say that BLP1E is a reason for speedy deletion?--Cube lurker (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Fine, then note explicitly that this was out of process and then still endorse as being a valid delete all the same. BLP1E applies, even if the CSD was incorrect. I see no point in reopening this just to be a slave to process. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 11:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
      • To repeat a post I made further down the page: It goes beyond procedure for it's own sake. BLP1E's may be deleted. That's true. They may also be merged. They may be redirected with the history in place. They may be deleted and then a bare redirect created. Having the proper discussion would allow for arguments to be made for the options short of full deletion.--Cube lurker (talk) 11:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
        • I don't mind a redirect being placed where an article was deleted, nor do I mind another article being fleshed out with information from the deleted article. Nor do I think any of the participating admins would mind emailing you the content of the deleted article so you could accomplish this. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 07:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse per spirit of BLP1E. As I recall, there was no encyclopedic content outside of the 1E.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Relist at AfD. Closing admin agrees that it was not within the clearly defined criteria for a speedy so it seems procedural to me, regardless of its chances of surviving at AfD.--Talain (talk) 17:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I just double-checked the deleted version, and there's very little there that isn't covered in the article about the incident, and nothing I can see that's specific to this person except the birthyear and guilty plea. It was a 3-paragraph article. As WP:SNOW says, don't go through procedure when there's a snowball's chance in hell that carrying the procedure to its end will change the results... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Although I agree with Sarek about WP:SNOW, equally there are good reasons why we show editors that their contributions are not deleted without either (a) valid speedy grounds or (b) a proper consensus.

  I would like to repeat my request for a history undeletion.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I have worries that the history includes BLP-vios. Stifle (talk) 08:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Relist as someone who managed to get a delete vote in per WP:BLP1E, I was a bit surprised to find it speedy deleted. Although, WP:BLP1E is a valid reason for deletion, it's not a valid speedy. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 00:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse per SarekOfVulcan. This article didn't even make an attempt at being a biography. It was designed, whether deliberately or by accident, to ensure that the only thing you will ever know about this individual is the crime they were convicted of. I'd support WP:SNOW as a valid rational for an article that was going to be deleted/redirected to the existing article on the incident per WP:BLP1E. Resolute 01:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. How about we just pretend that we relisted it, that more people commented requesting a merge per WP:BLP1E, and that it was closed after a more reasonable length of time? The close was too speedy, there was no valid speedy deletion rationale, the closing admin should be admonished to be more careful next time, and yet the correct decision was reached. Continuing to discuss it is just pointless bureaucracy. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • That would be a good idea. Stifle (talk) 07:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Of course, this common sense approach works, too. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 09:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong support (!voted above) for the Hammerstein and Kern option. :-)
• Overturn and list at AfD on the assumption that the nominator's complaints are valid, since I'm not permitted to see this for myself.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Emailed latest (and longest?) version to S Marshall. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Thank you, Sarek. I agree that this was a textbook case of BLP1E, but I would just note that BLP1E is not a CSD criterion. Further, every single allegation in the version of the article I saw was sourced to reliable sources.

      I'm going to take this as further evidence to back my position that except in cases of copyvios, extreme BLP issues, or other cases of potential harm to Wikipedia, it should take two pairs of eyes to speedy something. From the evidence I saw, this wasn't tagged. It was deleted out-of-hand as an act of sysop fiat.

      I also endorse everything DGG says below.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist at AfD. There are violations of BLP that I accept as justifying speedies, such as potentially defamatory remarks. This does not seem to be one of those cases, according to anything said here. Further points:
  • I don't understand Stifle's argument against restoring the deletion history: either there are specific concerns, which can be outlined without violating BLP here, or there aren't, in which case the history can be restored.
  • DRV has a quite different audience and purpose than AfD, so a DRV discussion is not the same as another AfD. After all, if it did, we would not need a relist option on DRVs.
  • The AN/I discussion mentions that one of the other participants, Steven Dale Green, is judged to pass BLP1E despite being notable only for this event. WP:SNOW applies only to hopeless cases, which this does not appear to be. Barker was the first case brought, and he testified against the other participants, potentially adding cogency to the article.

I've held back, hoping that the more of the endorse case would emerge, but it has not. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn and Relist. It is normally futile bringing an article here if it is unlikely to stand, but in this case it should be relisted and procedure followed properly. This is not covered by any CSD rule, SNOW is not the least obvious, and it is important to establish the principle that BLP 1E is not a reason for speedy. Though "any aspect" is specified in the arb com ruling, I doubt they had matters like this in mind where there is no doubt about the facts and no possible harm to anyone. Since most such cases are in fact disputed in good faith, I doubt there would be consensus for including it as one, because speedy should be for articles where we would all agree are unsuitable. As for any BLP considerations except 1E, they hardly apply to an article on a confessed and convicted murderer & rapist in a crime that had world wide attention for political reasons. In any case, it is not accepted that arb com can make policy about article inclusion, no matter whether they think they can; their ruling has been generally accepted because for the most part it does express very clear consensus of the community as a whole, and has been generally applied in a reasonable fashion that is supported. This is not reasonable, for there is simply no case for drastic unilateral action. Not restoring the history is unreasonable also, for no version of it is defamatory. DGG (talk) 13:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I can't speak to the article content, not being an admin, but if admins who can see the old article agree it satisfies criteria for deletion under 1E, then we shouldn't overturn and relist. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and we shouldn't engage in procedure for its own sake. Ray^Talk 15:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• It goes beyond procedure for it's own sake. BLP1E's may be deleted. That's true. They may also be merged. They may be redirected with the history in place. They may be deleted and then a bare redirect created. Having the proper discussion would allow for arguements to be made for the options short of full deletion.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist. I fully accept the proposition that there may be occasions that justify the use of speedy deletion for BLP purposes. However, as mentioned above, a case in which the worst of the facts have been confirmed by a criminal conviction reported in reliable sources is a poor candidate for such a deletion. Our normal procedures are sufficient for dealing with this matter. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse: A7 and BLP1E are reasons for deletion. Well, A7 is more of a criterion, but that's just splitting hairs... Sceptre ^(talk) 21:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • To summarise what is being discussed: these are valid grounds for deletion, but what is disputed is whether they validate a speedy. The deleted article was not A7, but Manning, who speedied the article, thought there was precedent to extend the scope of A7 on the grounds of BLP1E (cf. AN/I, RfAr). Should we take it that your endorsement means that you agree with Manning's reasoning? — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Watchmen

Template:Watchmen (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Deleted due to having few articles to link to - but there seems to be enough now (comic book, the movie, video game, the main characters article and the seven protagonists, soundtrack albums, and possibly two parodies), and Template:V for Vendetta shows a proper way to build it. igordebraga ≠ 18:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'd say that the additional articles added since the February TfD merit discussion rather than a G4 deletion. So, I'd have to go with permit recreation, though of course it can be nominated for TfD again. I'd also like to note that the middle version (the first G4 deletion) used yellow for the background of the title and group titles, which seems slightly appropriate. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Allow recreation per Lifebaka, reasons for the original TfD seem to be moot now. Kusma (talk) 08:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Recent discussions

[edit] 28 June 2009

[edit] Fantastico_De_Luxe

Fantastico_De_Luxe (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

"Fantastico (web hosting)" already exist separately. Surely it would make sense to redirect from "Fantastico De Luxe", and yet this article has an ugly history.

My interest in Fantastico De Luxe derives from cPanel, which is used by Webhostingpad.com. I'd like to figure out whether I should be using CGI, Perl, PHP, Ruby, RVSiteBuilder, or Fantastico De Luxe. So I've been checking each one at Wikipedia.

With all due respect, the reason that any modestly, useful information ever has to be deleted escapes me, but this seems to be the protocol. For my part, I have done my best to meet that protocol. This is the result. C-U RPCV (talk) 03:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 16:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The closing admin is on wikibreak until August, so that might be hard, at least short term. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 16:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• The AfD was closed 3 years ago, be bold and create the redirect, which seems reasonable. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 16:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

  Though Fantastico (web hosting) itself is possiblty a G4 speedy, I can't see the original deleted article, but this article suffers the same problems which led to the original deletion. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

  Agreed, though that would be at the discression of an admin acting on a db-g4 tag on the main page. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 09:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Jewish_surnames

Category:Jewish_surnames (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

Another problematic close from the same admin who brought us the problematic close of Surnames by country. The decision by User:Good Olfactory to upmerge this into Category:Surnames tosses hundreds of surnames with thoroughly-documented Jewish connections into a useless catchall category with more than 14,000 entries. While the closing admin acknowledges that "This category may have to be re-created in some form depending on what scheme is developed", the decision to delete and upmerge was made in the face of clear consensus to keep. The nomination offered rather muddled reasons for deletion, and the only participant supporting deletion voted based it on the claim that "names are not and cannot be bounded by religion or ethnicity in any meaningful sense", which is rebutted by the rather obvious observation that the use of names by different religions is rather easily handled by using multiple categories for each name/religion combination that can be documented by reliable and verifiable sources. Furthermore, a dozen published books on the background and history of Jewish surnames makes it clear that this is a well-defined field of study that constitutes a strong defining characteristic of such names. It appears that the closing administrator has a rather strong bias towards deletion of such categories, even in the face of clear consensus to the contrary. In classic We had to destroy the village to save it style, we are now left with the Sisyphean task of rebuilding a rather clear category and plucking the appropriate names from among the 14,000 in Category:Surnames because one admin decided he doesn't like it. Alansohn (talk) 05:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Opinion (closer). What to do depends largely upon what results from the other DRV and depends on the consensus at Category talk:Surnames, since this was essentially an appended decision to the main one. Could have probably been useful to wait for the result there, but whatever. The names are not lost and you don't have to pick through 14,000 to find them. They are readily available from Cydebot's contribution history and I can provide a list to anyone in fairly short order. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "Jewish" is not a country, and appears to have no relation to any other structure other than the inclusion of the word "surnames". The rather clear disruption caused by the needless deletion is not mitigated by the fact that the names are not irrevocably lost, but any wasted time and effort could have been avoided by closing this as no consensus, at worst. The dozen books listed in the CfD should have amply justified that the category is defining, regardless of any of the nominator's preconceived prejudices on the subject. Alansohn (talk) 06:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy close and deal with at Category talk:Surnames (closer). On second thought, this doesn't even require a DRV. The close stated that the could be re-created if agreed to by consensus. All you need to is say you are going to re-create it at User talk:Surnames. If you get agreement by positive responses or silence, then just re-create it. That should have probably been what you should have done, and then if your re-creation proposal was opposed there, then you could have considered coming to DRV here. I'd note that the user didn't approach me at all about this close, which would have provided me the opportunity to give this advice, and even the list of articles that were in the category. DRV is a last resort, not the first stop for those who disagree with a close. (By the way, if getting the list of names from Cydebot's contribution history is a "Sisyphean task", the standards of how that phrase is used is clearly slipping. I could probably do this in 5 minutes ...) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • This is simple disruption by the closing admin, perpetuating the disruptive WP:POINT made in the close. "Jewish" is still not a country and has nothing to do with the restructuring of Surnames by country demanded by the closing admin in complete disregard of consensus there. Whether we are treating this as overturning the improper close of this CfD, or recreating it based on the Surnames by country as demanded, this is where the discussion should take place. There has been enough disruption already, and the Wikilawyering demands that this must wait for a discussion of an entirely unrelated category only perpetuates the abuse of process. Alansohn (talk) 06:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Um, thanks for assuming good faith. I treated it as part of the previous nomination because that seemed to be the intent of the nominator. May have been correct; may not have been. Give me a break, though—you didn't even approach me about this! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
      • You have no idea if it was the nominator's intent, but you deleted the category regardless of consensus? Give Wikipedia a break. "The nominator may have wanted it deleted so I tossed into the delete pile" is a rather poor justification for deletion. You have already been approached about this and other vaguely related categories, and your mind appeared to have been made up, with no evidence that it could have been swayed, cutting down on needlessly wasted time dealing with this improper close. Alansohn (talk) 06:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
        • No, I have an idea, and I have little doubt about the nominator's intent. ("Missed in yesterday's nomination as it's missing from the regular part of the tree." is relatively clear, IMO.) I was suggesting that maybe my assumption would be "wrong" in the view of a WP consensus, or that even if correct, that it wasn't correct to give credence to the intent. But you can't have it both ways. Either it's parceled with the other CfD and we wait for the result at that DRV; or, if we treat it as separate, you probably should have approached me about it first and not assumed that my response would have treated it as being parceled with the first one. You can't say, "it's separate" and in the same breath say "you already refused to reconsider because it was parceled with the other". Anyway, it's all relatively moot. As usual, your behaviour is tiring in general, Alansohn. All I can say is go ahead and discuss this to your heart's content. But it's a waste of time, because you can just re-create the category and get the list from me, or look up the list yourself. There's no real need for a DRV if you're strongly craving re-creation. You could save yourself a lot of time by just being less confrontational. (Of course, maybe you don't want to, which we must keep in mind.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Recreate and repopulate. I was in favour of upmerging the 'surnames by country' categories but not the non-countries (such as Category:Flemish surnames) which the nom (WAS) tosed recklessly into the mass nom. The cfd for Category:Jewish surnames was separate from the bulk nom and was not a 'delete by consensus' (there are only 2 in the Jewish surnames cfd suggesting 'delete', the nom + Otto, and the others are keep or rename). Alansohn does have a point here, albeit over-stated; I think Good Olfactory should do the recreating and repopulating.Occuli (talk) 13:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Why don't we just re-create it? As I've said above, this was clearly anticipated by the close. Honestly, I can't see the benefits of a discussion here. I probably won't be checking back here so if someone will notify me if this is speedily closed as re-create, then I could assist as needed or wanted. I would just go ahead and re-create it now, but as long as the discussion is ongoing I probably shouldn't. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse - a difficult CFD, brought to a correct conclusion through appropriate deliberation by the closing admin. Otto4711 (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy close - This appears to be a definite vendetta between Alansohn and Good Olfactory. Further DRV actions should be taken by an uninvolved party - see WP:COIWP:TEA.--WaltCip (talk) 04:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with WaltCip. --Kbdank71 12:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Recreate and repopulate. Countries (whether the user conceives of these as territories or states) rarely produce surnames. Surnames are produced by national or ethnic groups. Thus, there are Flemish surnames and Walloon surnames but no such thing as a Belgian surname because Belgium is political construct cobbled together for the convenience of, variousy, the British, Germans and French - not a nation with a culture, language or ethnicity. Certainly there are Jewish surnames, although it is probably more accurate to write of the jews of Ashkenazi, Kurdish, Romaniot, Sephardic, etc. heritage.Historicist (talk) 23:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Follow-up comment (closer). Re-creation has now been raised (by an editor not yet involved here) at Category talk:Surnames#Jewish surnames. As mentioned above, I see this (combined with perhaps an inquiry on my talk page) as one of the possible steps that could/should have been taken before considering getting a DRV off the ground. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion (nominator) -- Jewish surnames was just added to the nearly empty Category:Surnames by culture by Mayumashu, removing more pertinent categories such as Judaism. As explained by the (insufficiently referenced) article itself, most of the surnames are not unique to Jewish culture, but rather were assigned during the diaspora.

  ... he showed, from examples taken from all periods, that the Jews had freely adopted the current and popular names of their neighbors in all parts of the globe.

  As noted in the category description:

  Please note: even though surnames such as Harris, Lewis, Green, Black, Miller, Brooks, Gordon, and others are common Jewish surnames in some Western countries, they are also quite common amongst non-Jews as well. Also many names that are common in the Jewish community are really just ordinary German or Slavic surnames. Just as Smith, Thompson, Jones, Evans, Jackson, and Washington are common names in the African American community, one would not just assume they are exclusive to that culture. Most people named Schwartz, Klein, Roth, Hoffman, Schneider, Meyer, etc., are non-Jews despite common use of the names in the Jewish community.

  Just a slippery slope. Over and over we've seen Jewish categories tried as a "nation", resurrected as an "ethnicity", and resurrected again as a "culture". For those of Hebrew (sometimes called "Biblical") origin, a nicely referenced Hebrew-language surnames category would be preferable.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion this was clearcut because no one could OBJECTIVELY state criteria for inclusion or exclusion from this category, which makes the category unsustainable. Any Jew with the surname merits inclusion makes the category useless and only Jews have the surname would be hard to demonstrate and also probably useless as most Jews' surnames won't be in there - any where along that continuum is purely arbitrary and SUBJECTIVE, so useless. Also, there is no accounting for national differences among Jewish communities unless someone can provide some WP:RSes that Jews in Mexico have the same surnames as those in Russia or Iran or China, and they with each other, this is pure WP:OR and WP:ILIKEIT at work. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Recreate No consensus to delete and unfair to those working on category to make them deal with it at broader category. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up comment (closer). Category has been re-created by a user not involved in this discussion, further rendering this discussion moot. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Not so fast:William Allen Simpson has already tagged the re-created category for speedy deletion, and apparently depopulated it again.[10] And just so we are all clear about the level at which we are dealing here, WAS has also just deleted Cohen (!) from both Category:Hebrew-language surnames and Category:Jewish surnames.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Strongest possible recreate and repopulate - There is an active, vocal minority of extremist WP editors (including some admins) that have been intent for several years on diluting our encyclopedia's coverage of Jewish-related issues, including the elimination of very many categories. Their reasoning in this case is that Jewish surnames cannot be verified as typically Jewish. This is entirely inaccurate and unreasonable as there are numerous sources we rely on for the history and documentation of historically Jewish names. Let's abide by reasonableness rather than extremism and recreate and repopulate the category. The legwork for this should be done by the same editors who insisted on this category's deletion. Badagnani (talk) 05:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Arthur Kade

Arthur Kade (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

Person is not notable. Seriously, I don't see how this afd was not closed as Delete. Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 00:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse. While I'd probably have voted delete on the original AfD, neither side of the argument was sufficiently overwhelming in argument or numbers nor any errors of policy to justify overturning a decision of no consensus.--Talain (talk) 01:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there was no consensus in that discussion, but I think it blatantly obvious that this should be deleted.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 02:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Uh, endorse overturn and delete – yeah, person is not notable. Consensus for deletion backs that clearly. Rough consensus is not equivalent to unanimity. MuZemike 08:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. It's a judgment call as to whether the subject's media appearances convey notability, but the overall trend of the discussion was that the subject had not yet achieved notability sufficient to justify an article. The article has plenty of references but hardly any actual content. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Weak overturn and delete per Metropolitan90. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Closer statement. I don't mind particularly if this stays or not. If it's decided here that the article should have been deleted then fine, let's delete it. I disagree though that any consensus was there to be teased out of the discussion. By the numbers it was 6/3 in favour of deletion, but I feel JorgeMacD and Drawn Some's comments were adequately countered by subsequent comments, so discounted those; the nominator, Met90, and Orange Mike all assert that he's not notable, but seem to be measuring by some arbitrary standard that's stricter than wp:n and none of them explains at what point he would subjectively cross the threshold, and none of them explain why the Philadelphia magazine coverage fails to put him over the bar; and DGG's delete doesn't seem to be grounded in any particular policy, perhaps wp:notwebhost? but I don't see how that's relevant here. The onus is on the deleters to explain why he doesn't meet our standards for inclusion and I don't think they've achieved that here. Flowerparty^☀ 19:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• endorse close No consensus or keeping both seem to be reasonable closes. If we're going to override this close we need a good reason to do so and right now the primary one seems to simply be disagreeing with the result. (Disclaimer, I've argued for keeping in the discussion). JoshuaZ (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The only reason I can give is lack of notability. I think the argument for deletion was stronger then that of the argument to keep.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 10:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• I endorse Flowerparty's accurate reading of the consensus, and would remind all concerned that this is not AfD round 2.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse Flowerparty's statement makes a very reasonable explanation at to why the closure was no-consensus. I see no process error here that would require overturning here at DRV.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

  The closing admin has already commented on this DRV.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 21:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

  That doesn't answer my question, I'm afraid. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

  Endorse closure of no-consensus. Stifle (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse, close but within admin discretion. I would have preferred if Flowerparty's explanation had been provided at closing. Flatscan (talk) 03:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse as per flowerparty.Historicist (talk) 19:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment this is not AFD 2.0; the closer got it wrong but not so horribly wrong as to overturn. A no-consensus close can be renominated later without any pre-conceived outcome expected. Since some people think that this article shows sufficient level of notability, I guess our WP:GNG should be amended to reflect that as this surely doesn't meet it (but that's an AFD not a DRV argument). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• I tried to run an AFD round 2 but it was closed with the closer saying to come here if I wanted to delete the article. In the second AFD take note that the only !vote was to delete.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 15:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 27 June 2009

[edit] 26 June 2009

[edit] Headshot (closed)

[edit] Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 (closed)

[edit] File:Crayola.jpg

File:Crayola.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Not a copyright vio, fair use under United States law and Wikipedia standards. All problems brought up in the deletion nomination were dealt with. Although the article itself is about Crayola, the image is used clearly in reference to the stamp in question in a section about the stamp, not as a primary means of identifying the subject of the stamp. The Wikipedia copyrighted U.S. stamp template clearly states that copyrighted U.S. stamps can be used here "to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamp's design)" under fair use if they are used to illustrate the stamp, not simply to illustrate the subject. Free images of Crayola crayons are in the article before the stamp image, so it's obviously not being used for that purpose, but to illustrate the stamp itself in its historical context.

I would be grateful if the decision to delete this image was reviewed, I feel its deletion was unnecessary, not by consensus, and detrimental to the article and by extension Wikipedia as a whole. Thank you. -- Dougie WII (talk) 04:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• The "keep" side had that debate by the numbers, and I don't think the "delete" side's arguments held much water. The basic question here is whether it's appropriate to have a public domain fair use image of a stamp, in a section of the "Crayola" article about that stamp, which (I respectfully submit) is a complete no-brainer.

  Overturn to keep.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Question — Is it true, about the broad scope of fair use associated with images of US stamps asserted on the template page? Can we have some authoritative source for this? — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The Wikisource summary of the relevant law seems to say that stamps are not subject to the general copyright waiver applying to Federal government works. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment -- The question is not whether this image is in the public domain. In the original XFD, some people brought that up, but I have never claimed it. The issue is whether this is a fair use of a copyrighted image. -- Dougie WII (talk) 08:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm generally minded to say that FfD discussions get NFCC#8 right, but, given that Stifle's assertion about the PD-ness is wrong (the stamp is from 1996, it is the crayons that are from 1903), and he otherwise argues against fair use per NFCC#8, I don't see that the balance of the FfD discussion favours saying the image was fair use. Is there something in particular that you think went wrong in that discussion? — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

    I do not agree that NFCC#8 was broken here -- it's impossible to adequately describe a stamp design in words succinct enough to be in Wikipedia. I could probably photoshop together hundreds of fake stamps showing Crayola crayons. There is critical commentary about the stamp that would not be fully understood without seeing the actual image of the stamp (specimen). The stamp image is being used to illustrate the stamp, in the guidelines of the Wikipedia stamp template, general U.S. copyright law and the guidance given by the U.S. Postal Service itself (educational and philatelic use). Interpretations that this is a copyright violation are so draconian that virtually no image of a modern American stamp could ever be used on Wikipedia. -- Dougie WII (talk) 09:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

    I'd like to see the informational value of images be more widely appreciated here (cf. Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/galleries) but it's the place of DRV to argue about FfDs that are problematic either because they were incorrectly closed, or because their discussion was carried out in ignorance of obviously cogent information; they are not a forum to continue any FfD discussions just because they didn't go the way you wanted. I think, as I said, the closing was OK. The point about USPS guidance might be the kind of obviously cogent information, but where is this guidance? How does it change the NFCC#8 case? — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

    I think it was improperly closed because there was no real clear consensus. I am hoping that a posting here will generate a clearer result. Oh, and the USPS fair use guidance is here. -- Dougie WII (talk) 11:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

    Copyvio is one place where consensus rules don't apply in the normal way — check WP:CON, sect 1.1. If 100 wikipedians said an image was acceptable, but there is one person who showed a clear WPCC#2 violation, then the admin should delete the image. WPCC#8 is a more subjective requirement, and its the kind of thing where the weight of community opinion comes into play, but admins have to be conservative (not paranoid) in their interpretation of the WPCC rules. The absence of consensus is not troubling. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

    I agree that copyvio, or any other case where there's clear risk of harm to Wikipedia or to a living person from leaving content up, needs to default to delete. But where there is no risk of harm (as in this case), the absence of consensus most certainly does not default to delete. Quite the contrary.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

    Despite that the stamp was created in 1996, it is a mere copy of a PD image which does not gain a new copyright. Stifle (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly *not* a mere copy. It doesn't meet the Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. criteria, for example, which is the basis for such claim and our rulings here. Could you maybe try to read and understand copyright rulings before making such aggressive declarations? DreamGuy (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion — I think I would have !voted keep in the FfD, but, putting aside the PD claim, this FfD looks to have been closed correctly, and no new information has come up indicating that it should be kept. It might be worth looking at taking another look at the copyvio policy with regards to USPS images, since at present we have a template that seems to suggest they can be used here freely, whilst the NFCC guidelines do not treat them any differently to other fair-use images. But DRV is no place to argue for changes to policy. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn as a close against valid consensus. Of course consensus rules in deciding on copyvio--how else are we to decide if the NFCC is actually violated? To take an individual person;'s word for it? No, the decision like all decisions is to be made according to the established rules by the community. The role of the closer is limited to rejecting arguments that are not based on the established guidelines. If you are the 1 in 100, you may possibly be right, but the overwhelming likelihood is that you are wrong. In this case the consensus was to keep. DGG (talk) 15:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn The thrust of the discussion in the FfD was whether or not the image of the stamp added significance to the article per WP:NFCC#8. The closing admin believed that the Keep votes were not following policy, but the entire focus of the discussion was on how that policy should be applied and in that there was certainly no consensus. While copyright violations can be objective in some cases, significance is rather more subjective, and thus, subject to community consensus. That was the criteria used by the closing admin to delete.--Talain (talk) 17:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. There were two !votes saying that the image passed NFCC#8, and two saying it did not. Both of those opining that it passed NFCC#8 claimed that because the image was used in a section about the stamp, and was being used to illustrate that stamp, NFCC#8 passes. This is very much against precedent. If an article about a music band has a section on a particular album, we don't illustrate that section with a non-free image of the album, because the article isn't about that album (and the band can be fully understood without seeing it). It's the same here, but more so. The stamp is not particularly important in the history of Crayola. Crayons have been used on album covers too, but we don't show those in the article. If the article on roses had a section about how a rose was on an album cover, we still should not use a non-free image to illustrate that section. The closing admin could not have kept this image without going against years of precedent, and two !votes are not sufficient for that. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If I said that Wikipedia specifically disavows precedent, specifically because it doesn't want current discussions to be bound by previous decisions, and cited WP:OCE as my evidence for this, and added that the closing admin is specifically enjoined to disregard precedent in evaluating the consensus, how would you respond?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

An image of some music band may be superfluous to the understanding of one of its songs or albums since the real content is musical, not visual. However, in this case with a particular display of a product in a postage stamp, the meaning is not easily conveyed in anything else but a faithful reproduction of the image itself. Here we are talking about a specific image and what is displayed in that image as a critical part of the article, noting the intricacies of the "Gold Medal" award on the stamp, what it means, and how that is related to the history of Crayola products. This can not be understood without the image. -- Dougie WII (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - Our image use rules are quite clear on this, and, more importantly, there was nothing at all improper about the close except that some people didn't get what they wanted. And the claim that we need to do whatever the uninformed majority vote wants in legal matters is just absurd. As in all deletion discussion closes, the closing admin has to make a call if the votes and arguments are in line with our policies or not. There's no right to jury nullification here. DreamGuy (talk) 17:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

this is not a legal matter, because it is clear fair use under american law; the NFCC requirements are much stricter than that very liberal policy. So its a question of whether it meets our requirements, for which one need not be an expert. NFCC is policy--just how to interpret it is often open to question. The decision on how restrictively to interpret it is one that the community decides, both on the policy pages and in individual cases. The decision on when to make exceptions altogether is also one for the community, as long as it is not overruled by OFFICE as not meeting the Foundation policy [12] or US law. DGG (talk) 18:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you simply do not know what you are talking about... Fair use is a legal matter, and one you clearly do not understand in the slightest. DreamGuy (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn as the image was published in the USA in 1903, therefore is public domain. If it were fair use, it would be decorative and not permissible. Stifle (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

  Reply to incorrect information: The stamp was not published in 1903. And the image is a photograph of three dimensional objects, which has a new copyright of whenever the photo was taken, even if some of the art on the box was designed in 1903. Good grief. This is why mob rule shouldn't be used to make decisions on legal matters. DreamGuy (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  My understanding is that the stamp was issued in 1996, and is derived from a work from 1903 work now in the public domain. I would guess that the USPS does have copyright on the stamp on the grounds of transformativeness: the USPS successfully argued transformativeness in Gaylord vs US, part of which argued that artistic enhancement improved the case that the stamp counted as a new work. But IANAL, maybe it would count as a PD derivative work. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  The stamp features a three dimensional image (photo) of crayons in a box issued in 1903 or so. If this were just a scan of the image from the front of the box, then it would be public domain... but it's not. The photo is modern and under copyright, as it is of a three dimensional object and requires artistic choices of lighting, etc., so is a new work of art. the legal rationale for copies of public domain works to be public domain only applies to un-artistically altered two dimensional works. DreamGuy (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  The image is no different from one that would be obtained by putting the box of crayons on a scanner. I stand by my assessment that it is not sufficiently original to generate a new copyright. Stifle (talk) 09:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, but that's just nonsense. The stamp included more than just the front of a box, it included the full box with crayons, with full artistic composition of the three dimensional elements. Please familiarize yourself with the appropriate legal standards instead of aggressively making such baseless claims. DreamGuy (talk) 11:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

  Take a look at the Gaylord vs US summary, which noted the considerable effort and artistic talents of the photographer in his choice of lighting conditions, angles, exposures, and time of year and day, and observed that the Postal Service enhanced the artistic expression... in support of the courts view that a USPS photo of a sculpture counted as an independent creative work. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

  The Gaylord case only enhances my argument since it upheld "Fair Use". The court said that the USPS could use a statue in a postage stamp without permission. It said "the stamp caused no harm to the value of Gaylord’s work" and "a stamp is an unlikely commercial substitute for future products sold by Gaylord." The exact same principles apply here — an image of a stamp in Wikipedia is not going to harm the USPS's ability to market a stamp (nor for that matter the ability of Crayola to market boxes of crayons), in fact it might actually stimulate demand for Crayola crayons, plus the stamp even though it's no longer being sold by the USPS itself. -- Dougie WII (talk) 23:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

  Gaylord vs. US states it was fair use on the grounds that it was a substantially novel artistic expression. In particular, that stamp is copyright USPS. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

  This is not a sculpture, it's a box of crayons. Or more precisely, the front cover of a box of crayons. Stifle (talk) 12:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse as closer - though overturn if Stifle turns out to be correct and this image is PD. Copying my notes to the creator of this DrV from their talk page:
  • The nomination was on the basis that the image did not significantly increase reader's understanding (NFCC#8) and also that it fell into one of the "unacceptable use" categories under the non-free content interpretation guideline
  • WebHamster responded that the image was used in a section about the stamp and claimed that the in-context it met the guidelines, though they did not state how it met the significance requirement nor why an image that was covered by "unacceptable use" was to be allowed.
  • Stifle stated that it was PD as the object depicted was sufficiently old. I note here that the image page did NOT claim that it was public domain.
  • Quadell refuted that it was PD and re-iterated that the image failed NFCC#8
  • Howcheng and the nominator chimed in that in their opinion it was not a PD image
  • Dougie stated largely that the use of the image was to illustrate the stamp, though without addressing the "unacceptable use" problem nor showing how the image significantly increases reader's understanding.

Resulting from this the image is not public domain (so we must meet the criteria), falls into one of the examples of "unacceptable use" and no-one has sufficiently refuted this and lastly the arguments as to it significantly increasing reader's understanding fell short of those saying that it did not.

If the image is PD (which is not a matter I'm knowledgeable enough to decide) then there is no issue, if it is not PD then I see that I closed the discussion correctly in line with consenus/the NFCC policy - Peripitus (Talk) 05:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I entirely agree with that assessment. Stifle (talk) 09:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• OverturnComment as nominator -- All "Delete" votes and conversations cited above by the closing admin occurred before major revisions were made to the article to address the issues raised, especially by the original nominator. Yet he still closed the discussion summarily without any chance for other editors to comment on my changes that fixed the problems that had been brought up, in particular NFCC#8 issues. But even without taking that big point into account, there was still no clear consensus to delete, so it should have been left open for further discussion or relisted if possible in xfd as in afd. -- Dougie WII (talk) 08:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You opened this here, so you already made that clear. You wouldn't want anyone to mistakenly think you respresent the opinions of more than one person contributing to this conversation, would we? DreamGuy (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you do the same with above "vote" by the closing admin then? -- Dougie WII (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Huh? The closing admin didn't have a double !vote here. DreamGuy (talk)

• Overturn There was no consensus to delete and the closer should not insert his own view of the matter. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn to keep per consensus and policy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn to "no consensus": The deletion was closed based on a violation of WP:NFCC#8. However, that particular criterion is the fuzziest of the criteria and the most open to interpretation. Looking at the arguments raised in the FFD, there is an almost equal balance in persuasiveness between the two sides, so I would say that there was no consensus to delete.--Aervanath (talk) 05:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 25 June 2009