Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut:
WP:DRV
Deletion Debates
Articles (by category)

Templates

Images & media

Categories

User categories

Stub types

Redirects

Miscellaneous

Deletion review
policy - log - tools

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 are sufficient justification for their removal from Wikipedia.

Wikipedia:Deletion review considers disputed decisions made in deletion-related fora. This includes appeals to restore pages that have been deleted as well as to delete pages which were not deleted after a prior discussion. Before using the Review, please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Undeletion policy.

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 a page be reconsidered for deletion, please place the template {{Delrev}} on that page to inform editors who may wish to join the discussion here.

The archive of deleted page revisions may be periodically cleared. Pages deleted prior to the database crash on 8 June 2004 [1] are not present in the current archive because the archive tables were not backed up. This means pages cannot be restored by a sysop. If there is great desire for them it may be possible to retrieve them from the old database files. Prior to this, the archive was cleared out on 3 December 2003.

Contents

[edit] Purpose

  1. Deletion Review is the process to be used to challenge the outcome of a deletion debate or a speedy deletion where they are unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first - courteously invite the admin to take a second look.
  2. Deletion Review is also to be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article.
  3. In the most exceptional cases, posting a message to WP:AN/I may be more appropriate instead. Rapid correctional action can then be taken if the ensuing discussion makes clear it should be.

This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome but instead if you think the debate was interpreted incorrectly by the closer or have some information pertaining to the debate that did not receive an airing during the AfD debate (perhaps because the information was not available at that time). This page is about process, not about content, although in some cases it may involve reviewing content.

[edit] Content review

Editors who wish to have an article temporarily restored may place a request in this section. Common reasons are to use that content elsewhere, because the user suspects that an article has been wrongly deleted but is unable to tell without seeing what exactly was deleted, or because the full history may be needed for proper transwikiing.

Note that only uncontroversial content should be restored — not revisions deleted as copyright violation, potentially libellous content or similar. Using restored article text to recreate a deleted article without addressing the problems that resulted in its deletion can result in the article being speedy deleted. Keeping deleted content in your userspace if you have no immediate intention of using it for encyclopaedic purposes is frowned on, as Wikipedia is not a free web host. If kept too long, the page may be nominated for deletion at miscellany for deletion. Add {{db-userreq}} to the top of the subpage when you no longer need it.

  • none currently listed


[edit] Proposed deletions

Articles deleted under the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion procedure (using the {{PROD}} tag) may be undeleted, without a vote, on reasonable request. Any admin can be asked to do this, alternatively a request may be made here. However, such undeleted articles are open to be speedy deleted or nominated for WP:AFD under the usual rules.

Please list requests for undeletion of articles deleted by the proposed deletion process below. Admins restoring deleted articles should also restore the history of the talk page, if present, and place {{Oldprod}} at the top. They may wish to notify the original PROD nominator so that they can decide whether to list the article at WP:AFD; alternatively they may decide to nominate the article themselves. {{ProdContested}} (shortcut {{PC}}) is available for notifying the original nominator.

  • none currently listed

[edit] History only undeletion

History only undeletions can be performed without needing a vote on this page. For example, suppose someone writes a biased article on Fred Flintstone, it is deleted, and subsequently someone else writes a decent article on Fred Flintstone. The original, biased article can be undeleted, in which case it will merely sit in the page history of the Fred Flintstone article, causing no harm. Do not do this if the deleted version of the article contains copyright violations or defamatory material.

  • none currently listed

[edit] Instructions

Steps to list a new deletion review
  1. Follow this link to today's log
  2. Copy the following line to the top of the page to add a new entry:
    {{subst:Newdelrev|pg=ARTICLE_NAME|reason=UNDELETE_REASON}}
  3. Inform the administrator who deleted the page by adding the following on their user talk page:
    {{subst:DRVNote|ARTICLE_NAME}}
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
  • 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.

If there is a consensus to endorse a decision, then no further action is taken — the decision stands. If there is a consensus to relist or to overturn a decision and apply some other result to the debate, it is applied.

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] Decisions to be reviewed

Active discussions
Recent discussions
Archived discussions


[edit] 17 December 2006

[edit] Angry Nintendo Nerd

Angry Nintendo Nerd (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)— (AfD)


Wow! You guys closed the topic in record time without even letting me respond! Way to show your Wikicowardice, guys!

Now let's actually try debating me instead of what you guys usually do which is ignore every point I make and provide absolutely no argument because admitting you're wrong hurts your Wikipride.

  • Endorse deletion, again. "By every conceivable measure" - no, the only conceivable measure, which has been repeatedly explained, is multiple independent reliable sources, none of which you have presented. No-one cares about the Google test and the Furious Famicom Faggot isn't even explictly a parody of this website, not that it would establish notability if it was. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
    • No multiple independent sources! So, according to you, Google [[2]], Alexa [3][4], Something Awful [5][6] [7] [8], youtube[9] (265,103 views by the way), and mentions in six other languages including German [10], Japanese [11], Spanish [12], Swedish [13], Dutch [14] and Hebrew [15] aren't multiple or independent! So, how many more do you need? Apparently the standard for this article is light years ahead of most so I need to know how many millions of people do you require to have seen a person who talks about video games to attain your standards?
  • Endorse deletion. Notability does not imply verifiablility, and you must have verifiability. -Amarkov blahedits 15:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

What source do you require regarding reviews of old video games? This is an internet related phenomenon. He's already been parodied on Something Awful, which is one of the most popular internet humor sites on the web. Does he need to be mentioned in the New York Times? Please specify the standard so I don't have to keep bugging you people.

  • Endorse deletion - No new information. Notability/verifiability is not message with Ghits and Alexa. Wickethewok 19:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

As stated in the Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, if you can even be bothered to read it, it clearly says regarding the google test for example It should be realized that on highly specialized, yet suitable topics the number of hits might be much lower than for more well-known subjects.

I honestly don't know the insane standard you people have put upon somebody who reviews video games. Again, specify it please so I won't waste any more of your precious time.

  • Endorse deletion. While I am a fan of the Angry Nintendo Nerd, there's nothing new offered here that presents verifiability or notability. Something Awful making fun of someone is also not an indicator of notability. DRV is not AFD part 2. --Coredesat 23:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right. A mention on Something Awful isn't a measure of notability, I've already provided many of those, it's a measure of verifiability. This is an internet humor related article and Something Awful is the most prominent site regarding internet humor. If that's just not good enough then give me an example of what you would reasonably want. Don't tell me it has to be mentioned on CNN. What publication do you want him mentioned in before you'd accept it on this site? Does he have to be in a game magazine? If so, why? Millions of people have seen him but it's not "official" until Gamepro has featured him in an article?

The overriding theme I've noticed in this debate and the one regarding the articles related to the Adventure Game Studio is that if topics are popular on the web but aren't featured on television or a magazine then it isn't "notable" or "verifiable". I don't know if you guys have seen the cover of the latest Time magazine[16] but things are changing. This isn't like the 1980's or early 90's when things were only popular if you could find it in a library or it was mentioned on television. The ironic thing is Wikipedia is a part of this change and yet you guys are the most blind to it.

Richard Cane 06:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The_Irascible_Professor

The_Irascible_Professor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)— (AfD)

This article was deleted with apparent disregard for the consensus to keep. Furthermore, the reason for deletion (no substantial case for notability), appears to ignore the discussion in which two third-party reliable sources were presented to satisfy WP:WEB. Overturn. dryguy 16:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse (my own) deletion. The two 'sources' referred to, [17] and [18] are trivial mentions; the first merely cites the blog as a source and the second recommends reading a particular post from the blog (it is not a review of the whole blog) halfway down a very brief article. Apart from that the AfD contained the usual 'this Google number is big' and other assorted armwaving. AfD is not a vote. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. What is it with the feeling that an article must be kept if there is any reason to believe someone might be theoretically able to source it at some undetermined point in the future? Unsourced things get deleted. -Amarkov blahedits 21:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sunday, 17 December

[edit] 16 December 2006

[edit] Orneryboy

Orneryboy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)— (AfD)

The article was deleted, but before I saw the AfD. Orneryboy, a webcomic, received the 2005 Web Cartoonists' Choice Award for Outstanding Site Design after being a finalist the previous year, had anindependant review by Comixpedia, as well as multiple mentions on said site. Though I know it can be futile to lean on Alexa rankings, it ranks above the 100K mark, and was an original member of Dayfree Press. Overturn and Undelete, please. Should this occur, I will add all of the relevant information. Fethers 17:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse deletion with no prejucdice against recreation, didn't assert notability. Just recreate it with your sources. -Amarkov blahedits 18:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Angry Nintendo Nerd

[edit] Template:Bruchim

[edit] Phajje ke Paye

Phajje ke Paye (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)— (AfD)

Possibly notable, but difficult to ascertain due to multiple possible translations of the name into the English alphabet. Apparently another remade it without going through the proper channels, but I still think it might be notable enough to actually be included on Wikipedia, it's just that it's difficult to find sources due to translation issues. The user in question provided the following links, though [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] and a small mention in a local(for Lahore, anyway) magazine, [32] Vercalos 05:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BudWheizzah

BudWheizzah (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)

The article I was writing should not have been converted to a user page. I have used the nickname BudWheizzah for seven years and have run a popular internet radio station in which the name is used. I believe it is only fair that I get my own article on Wikipedia. I do not know who converted my article.

  • Endorse deletion. I userfied this and marked the mainspace article for deletion under CSD R2 (redirects to user space) because of conflict-of-interest concerns. Mytildebang 06:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per Mytildebang. Danny Lilithborne 13:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse most deletions contested with "I deserve an article", or something of the sort. Nobody deserves an article without verifiability. -Amarkov blahedits 15:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LUElinks

LUElinks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)— (AfD)

Come on guys.Why is there no LUElinks article?I mean sure you mention it in the Gamefaqs article,but don't you think it deserves its own article.

Also,I heard it was deleted the first time only because of a hoax so why does it continue to get deleted?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Onewordpostguy (talk • contribs).

  • Comment: The "deleted because of a hoax" statement comes from my communication with the user, where I pointed to the previous deletion. Daveydweeb (chat/review!) 09:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse it was deleted for being unverifiable (this is what happens when you close the entire site off to non-members) and non-notable. Being a spinoff a notable site doesn't make it notable. Because it is the largest of a mess of non-notable sites it is worth mentioning as an example in the GameFAQs article. That's it. Koweja 16:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse valid deletion, more crap off teh internets. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] 15 December 2006

[edit] Flash Flash Revolution

Flash Flash Revolution (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (VFD)

The result is pretty clearly delete due to no reliable sources. --SPUI (T - C) 22:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Overturn and delete. Keeps were all "It's notable OMG", ignoring the issue of verifiablility, which was the main concern. You can't just ignore the issue and get it kept. -Amarkov blahedits 03:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and delete: As above, no reliable sources. --Wooty Woot? contribs 03:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and delete. I have to be consistent here, it's obviously notable enough for an article, but we won't be able to sustain one until our sourcing policies catch up to reality. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. Deletion review is not an appeals court; with 5 votes for redirect, 4 keeps (3 of them strong), and 5 deletes, I think it's fairly obvious that there was no consensus. I further point out the potential bad faith motives of SPUI, who has been banned from Flash Flash Revolution in the past. - 71.64.159.158 21:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Apologies, that was me. I forgot to log in. - Chardish 21:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and delete. AfD is not a vote. If there is no evidence of reliable sources given, the article can't be kept. WarpstarRider 22:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Please read the the section on "Purpose". Again, this is not an appeals court, nor is this a reopening of the discussion. This is a debate about whether the closer misinterpreted the AfD debate. The result of the discussion was no consensus, and the burden of proof is on those who wish to overturn the discussion to show that there was a consensus during the previous discussion, not to attempt to prove that their original point was correct. - Chardish 23:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
    • It says that that Deletion Review is to be used "if you think the debate was interpreted incorrectly by the closer", which is what has happened here. If you look at the Deletion Guidelines for administrators page, under "Rough Consensus", it says quite clearly,

      Note also that the three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus.

      If the article has no reliable sources, and is thus unverifiable, then closing a debate based on consensus is not a valid action to take; the article must be deleted unless reliable sources can be found. WarpstarRider 23:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I understand that the current article lacks reliable sources. This makes it a candidate for cleanup, not deletion. Only truly unverifiable articles should be deleted. - Chardish 00:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
        • The problem is that there are no reliable sources at all, for anything in the article. No sources means no verifiability. No verifiability means no article. WarpstarRider 00:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
          • If it's obvious that the article could be made verifiable, you have a point. In the absence of showing one or two sourced, it isn't obvious that it could be. We can't keep everything on the grounds that there might be sources. -Amarkov blahedits 00:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and delete. No sources, no verifiability, no article. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
    • "No sources, no verifiability, no article" sounds like the exact same thing WarpstarRider said, only paraphrased. I hope he's not canvassing. - Chardish 02:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Genmay

[edit] All Regional squad Template

Template:Denmark Squad Euro 1992 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Champions tfd November 21
Template:Japan Squad 1992 Asian Cup (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Champions tfd November 21
Template:Japan Squad 2000 Asian Cup (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Champions tfd November 21
Template:Japan Squad 2004 Asian Cup (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Champions tfd November 21
Template:Latvia Squad Euro 2004 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) tfd December 4
Template:Greece Squad UEFA Euro 2004 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Champions tfd December 4

And please read the rest of the list in November 21, November 17, November 13, October 17.

  1. Delete all or
  2. Delete all except Champions Keeping regional (& Confederations Cup) Champions squad. that's equal for Euro and Asian Cup. And/or
  3. Delete all except Current event Keeping last regional squad (Euro 2004, 2005 Confederations Cup), that's is England and Lativa.

As the usage of squad template discussed in August 11, a notable world-class player would play more than three "A" event, just like Paolo Maldini and Shunsuke Nakamura, and current squad list (2006 FIFA World Cup squads) is enough to provide the function as the squad Template adding to the player's article.

There is no sense the template showing he won the champions or not, as we can replacing it to medal template.

Matthew_hk tc 05:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse deletion per unanimous delete !votes, which shows something.. I don't understand what you're saying, either. -Amarkov blahedits 05:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tourette's Guy

[edit] Just Cause 2

Just Cause 2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)— (AfD)

When this article of a future video game was created, it had absolutely no sources. Predictably, somebody nominated it for deletion. The first few votes were for delete. Then I found 4 sources confirming that this game is in fact in development. The main source was an interview to Swedish magazine Kong by the the CEO of Just Cause maker Avalanche Studios, Christopher Sundberg. [33] In the published interview, he confirmed it was actually being made and gave some more information on it. Not alot, but it was certainly a confirmation. The source article was credited to reporter Jonny Knutsson. At least one vote was changed to "keep" after this new information was added. But the closing administrator chose to delete this citing there were no "reliable sources". I very much disagree that the company CEO and the magazine he interviewed with, along with credited reporter Jonny Knutsson, is not a reliable source. I tried being bold in recreating this article with this source, plus two more English language ones confirming the first [34][35], (plus some nice wikification) but it was deleted and locked by the first closing administrator. I respecfually disagree and feel this article of a sequel to a very popular game should be re-created. --Oakshade 01:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse deletion Sources provided are from late October and say that the game is confirmed as being in the company's product pipeline - the game designers have just started coming up with the master game design document, if they've started at all. This might be worth a mention in the original game's article but this sequel hardly merits its own article yet - especially in an industry infamous for vapourware. I kind of understand people who want to create articles for future games and films etc when there has been substantial marketing buzz (though we have to be careful that Wikipedia is not coopted into such efforts), but in this case there isn't even any buzz. Just a brief confirmation that the proposal for the sequel has been officially accepted by the company's bureaucracy. Bwithh 02:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure only for the sake of consistency. When this is announced by something a little more reliable, I'll gladly fight to overturn it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. What is the point of an article which says "This is a game. It may be released at some date in the future."? Because that's all the info you have. -Amarkov blahedits 02:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    • There was some more info than that, ie, the scenescapes would be different with descriptions and what platforms it was being made for. Even though that's arguably not alot, this can be considered a standard "let it grow" scenario. --Oakshade 02:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The point is to have an article ready for expansion, especially for anons/new users who can't create them. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
      • New users can create them. And an article ready for expansion is very good, if it can be expanded. Not if it might be able to, at some undetermined point in the future where more info will be released. -Amarkov blahedits 05:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
      • No, new users cannot create articles immediately. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse Deletion. This game is not released, and should either not exist or be a subsection in Just Cause. RedKlonoa 19:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Horseshoe Theory

Horseshoe Theory (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)— (AfD)

The shortened stub does not contain any original research Horseshoesmith 00:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  • You are probably referring to Horseshoe Theory. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 00:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I've corrected the listing. This article was deleted in AfD on December 3. On December 8, it was recreated, in a shortened form, by Horseshoesmith, and deleted as a G4 by Deepujoseph about an hour later. Horseshoesmith recreated the article, and I redeleted it, noting that the user had been left a message, explaining how to contest a deletion. I think it wasn't entirely clear what was involved, and after a couple of quick recreations and deletions, I finally protected the page and advised Horseshoesmith how to list the article at Deletion review. I think the article, as recreated, still contains substantial original research, and doesn't seem to get past the sourcing problems of the former version. Thus, I suggest we endorse deletion, but I'm open to being shown that this topic is covered non-trivially in multiple independent sources, in which case I'll agree that we can support a well-sourced article about it. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Interesting case. The question is whether the recreation is substantially different from the AfD versions in the matter of argument. Is it different "where it counts," in other words. The article provides references to some people who have said things about the theory that are similar, although a stable and precise discussion of "horsehoe theory" instead of "the extremes meet" doesn't really work. (Jonathan Swift, in A Tale of a Tub, proposed that Peter (Roman Catholicism) and Jack (the Puritains) grow to look like each other during their fight (the Reformation and Counter-reformation), and that was in 1704. This isn't ever called a horsehoe theory, even though it is the observation being called that theory.) It's the point of view and application of a single term to this general observation that is original research. The general observation is a commonplace, but it doesn't have a single name or, to my knowledge, get a general discussion (only particular ones, like people swatting down the anti-communists who want to say that the Nazis were socialists). Endorse deletion or, and this is controversial maybe, send back to AfD for a new ruling on the more bolstered form. Geogre 13:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Friday, 15 December
  • Endorse deletion, my !vote must have been accidentally overwritten at some point. -Amarkov blahedits 02:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Rodefer

Stephen Rodefer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)

I am the owner of modernsculpture.com where the text came from and I wrote it and give full permission for it to be used here. Rodefer 07:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse speedy deletion, request speedy close per my comment at #Mavis McClure. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 08:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion as above, "Permission to be used here" is inadequate. Wikipedia the free encyclopedia. --pgk 13:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: What pgk means is that you need to explicitly place your work under the GNU Free Documentation License. - furrykef (Talk at me) 21:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Red Labor

Red Labor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)

I created the article on this artist group and it was speedy-deleted by Teke. I left a message on their talk page on November 28, 2006 and have heard no response. Teke cited G11 "Blatant advertising" as the reason for deletion but "Note that simply having a company, product, group or service as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion: an article that is blatant advertising should have inappropriate content as well." I would like to see the article up for an AfD vote as they have some good article contributions in the graphic design community. JohnRussell 17:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Somari

Somari (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)— (AfD)

The original premise for deletion was entirely invalid. (Somari is not a simple graphics hack; it is a very impressive conversion of a game from the Genesis to the NES, which itself makes it notable -- there are very few comparable examples. Porting a game to a different platform without the source code is generally a difficult feat even today; it's even more amazing back when it was made.) Several votes of "delete per nom" were explicitly based on this invalid premise. This seemed to have gone unnoticed until two days before the article was deleted, with the majority of votes that indicated any awareness of this coming on the last day. I'm convinced that if the debate had lasted longer, the outcome would be different. Therefore I'm posting this for deletion review. - furrykef (Talk at me) 21:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Overturn and relist. I hate to do vote counting, but when neither side bothers to back up their opinion, you have to, and there was not a majority in favor of deletion. -Amarkov blahedits 00:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bellflower (movie)

Bellflower (movie) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)

The reason for deletion is unclear Bennytrek 22:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The reason is that an article about the same thing was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bellflower: A Firefly Fanfilm. It's not an identical article but all of the reasons from the original afd would still apply, considering the article states that "shooting starts soon". - Bobet 23:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 14 December 2006

[edit] Uncle Sherm's Visit

Uncle Sherm's Visit (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)

This episode of SpongeBob SquarePants exists. I provided a neutral source (in german) on its talk page after it was deleted and protected. Kitia 21:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep deleted. A German fan page speculating about a possible episode because someone (unnamed) has seen the storyboards? Can it get any less reliable? ~ trialsanderrors 00:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
It has a picture of him... ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]] 00:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Still not a reliable source. What's the matter with your signature? ~ trialsanderrors 00:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
It's messed-up. I don't know how to fix it. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]] 00:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Go to "My preferences" and unclick "Raw signature". ~ trialsanderrors 00:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Come on more and more are going to believe that the episode IS real! I suggest that maybe you can re-create the page soon, because i signed a petition on the articles talk page. Please re-create the page soon. Thanks. Zany zacky (talk • contribs)
  • Overturn and Undelete Keep Deleted. Or perhaps suspend deletion? This episode is still in developement and will be aired in Gremany first, like the last few. It seems kind of redundant to delete a page just to make it again a week later with sources... Anyways, here are a few:
    • tv.com episode guide [36]
    • Storyboards [37] Kelden 05:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
      • They don't look like reliable sources to me. The first anyone can sign up for an account and add/change the content. The second maybe a story board to an episode (I'm no expert) but doesn't give an verifiability to any material in the article. Far from being redundant if deletion is what it takes to get people to provide sources then the deletion has had a positive result. --pgk 13:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
        • I see your point and I agree. It even appears the some information may have been added by wikipedia members (user:patrickrox11, [38]). I think I was little hasty in voting, I'm relatively new to wikipedia. Hence, I'm changing my vote. If this episode airs, it will be added then, such unfounded speculation is unencyclopedic. ~ Kelden 23:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion --pgk 13:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Category:Jewish-American businesspeople

Category:Jewish-American businesspeople (edit|talk|links|history|logs)(deleted history)

The original vote was here with just three votes: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_6#American_businesspeople_by_ethnicity

Category:Jewish-American businesspeople was created to break up Category:Jewish Americans into smaller pieces. It was NOT created to break up Category:American businesspeople into smaller pieces. By changing the category all the people lost their Jewish identity, and as below, their national identity. The change was made with just three votes and was made without thinking of the consequences of the change and the loss of information it would create. Now each article has lost their inclusion in Category:Jewish Americans. Important moves like this need much more debate before enacted. I suggest a minimal number of votes before decisions are made. Category changes are much more complicated than article changes because there are supracategories and supercategories that have to be considered. Remember if the category is a double intersection, you can't replace it with a single category, it has to be replaced by two categories. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Same for:

  • Category:African American businesspeople
  • Category:Mexican American businesspeople
  • Category:Irish-American Businesspeople

Jewish Americans is currently divided into the following, so why is "business person" not acceptable:

  • Jewish American lawyers
  • Jewish Americans in the military
  • Jewish American mobsters
  • Jewish American models
  • Jewish American musicians
  • Jewish American photographers
  • Jewish American physicians
  • Jewish American politicians
  • American rabbis
  • Jewish American scientists
  • Jewish-American singers
  • Jewish American sportspeople
  • Jewish American writers

African Americans are identified as:


  • Overturn and Undelete All subcategories I believe for consistency these subcategories should all remain. Removing ethnicity is not important here. Categories are used to group like things. In this case, we are creating one huge category of things that are different. TonyTheTiger 21:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Wow! Wikipedia has that much power? They lost their Jewish identity just through being moved to a different category? Let's move Category:Terrorists to Category:Really nice people who give money to charity and are good to their mothers and start solving the world's problems in earnest! Guy (Help!) 22:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    • You should probably avoid sarcasm, stick to what your good at. You also lost me with your terrorist metaphor. Was that an attempt at humor or are you equating Judaism with terrorism? And yes, when you remove an ethnic tag from an article, you are removing their ethnic identity. It is like taking a book from a library shelf, and removing the Dewey decimal code on the spine. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Uh.... my guess is that he's not? Bwithh 02:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm quite good at sarcasm, actually - what we have here is simply an example of a sarchasm. Be that as it may, the idea that Wikipedia exists to promote the Jewish identity of anybody seems very much like soapboxing. I am not persuaded that it is in any way helpful to identify Jewish Americans separately in this way, it seems to be more of a service to those wishing to validate their religion than to the reader (and I'd say the same if you were to substitute any other religious identity). What one can say with very great confidence is that the Jewish or national identity of any individual is completely unaffected by their inclusion in a category on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 08:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
That may be the case, but by that logic all of the other "Nationality Profession" categories (which are explicitly supported by WP:CAT) would be invalid. Your trolling is not appreciated, by the way and it would be in your best interests to cease and desist per WP:CIV. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 12:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • A few opinions:
    • Oppose Anti-semitism
    • Rename American rabbis to Jewish American rabbis
    • Speedy Delete JzG
    • Endorse Closure - crz crztalk 23:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • As the admin who closed the debate, I obviously endorse the deletion, otherwise I wouldn't have done it:-) Other reasons for my endorsement include my thinking that "Jewish-American people" and "Businesspeople" is not an encyclopedically meaningful intersection of categories. I disagree with TonyTheTiger that "Businesspeople" now contains "things that are different". If TonyTheTiger is right then if we have category Category:Jewish-American businesspeople then we should also have Category:Women American businesspeople on the grounds that women are arguably at least as different from men as Jewish people are from non-Jewish people. It is the splitting of the category Category:Jewish Americans (that should be Category:Jewish-American people) that was ill-conceived, not the deletion of this category. This debate shows us why we desparately need category arithmetic. If the result here is to reverse the deletion, then apply to me and I will gladly supply a list of articles that were in the categories. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The action shouldn't have been taken with just three votes, and without doing research into the categories already existing and their inter-relationship. Special care has to be taken with categories that are carefully crafted to provide intersections of other existing categories. You can't remove a triple intersection category and replace it with a single category, without losing information. These changes require some thought and familiarity with categories and the boolean logic behind them. If you don't feel that someone should be identified as African American or Jewish thats a much bigger discussion and needs to be argued elsewhere. You should also have the courtesy to notify the Wikiproject or Portal involved with these categories, since they have been working so hard to tag Category:Jewish-American people and then subdivide that category. And, lastly you should be responsible for undoing the damage you created, not others. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete/Keep The individuals involved in the original CfD either have not read WP:CAT or believe it does not apply to them. The existence of Category:British writers is explicitly supported here. Is there some logical reason why Jews should be treated differently? If you have a problem with WP:CAT, propose changes to the guideline, don't use your admin flag to circumvent consensus. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 16:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete/Keep - per jzg.Bakaman 06:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all others or keep this one. And save the wit for a crowd that might actually find you funny, Guy. Grace Note 09:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
What rationale are you using to support one and not the others? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 12:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist obviously there is not a consensus yet. Koweja 20:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Graal Online

Graal Online (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)— (AfD)

Overturn and Undelete. This article does not require deletion so long as it follows Wikipedia Guidelines. It deserves a place in Wikipedia. Also, this was just speedy deleted simply because of the past, while it had no conflicts with the Wikipedia rules. RedKlonoa 18:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse valid process. WP:ILIKEIT does not trump WP:V, WP:RS, WP:WEB or indeed anything else with any degree of consensual support. Guy (Help!) 18:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Nothing deserves a place in Wikipedia. Nobody and no thing has an entitlement to be here. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • ---RedKlonoa 19:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I was about to edit that out. Anyways, what I meant when I said "deserves" is that it is just like every other article, and does not need a delete. It is only because of other users that caused the article to be deleted. RedKlonoa 19:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment That assumption is not borne out by the AFD discussion linked above, that is full of editors agreeing that the site fails WP:WEB. The large number of trolls in the discussion didn't help anything, but do not appear to be the reason for the deletion, from what I can see. Fan-1967 19:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion again, process was valid. --Coredesat 20:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion for the second third fourth time. Far out, seriously, AfD has spoken, Danny (talk • contribs) has spoken (see the AfD), DRV has spoken, and all have said "delete". I also urge speedy close, as there is no new evidence presented. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 23:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Apparently valid deletion and process. Linked AfD page settles it for me, I think. Luna Santin 23:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Super Extra-strong Deluxe Endorse - It's been recreated how many times now? ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality) 23:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm still wondering what your arguement is... RedKlonoa 19:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment You opened this DRV based on what appear to be false assumptions. The AFD shows that a consensus of editors determined that it failed WP:WEB, i.e. it does not meet our standards of a notable website. You have not offered any counter-arguments relevant to that decision, or any reason for overturning the AFD. Fan-1967 20:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] fixity of species

Fixity of species (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)

The article was originally called "linnaean lawn" when it was proposed for deletion. It was then moved to "fixity of the species", a more commonly used name but was still not notable enough for undeletion. Finally it was moved to fixity of species (14,500 ghits. 648 google book hits) and more was added to the article. The previous reasons for deletion are no longer present. See previous deletion review: Wikipedia:Deletion_review#fixity_of_the_species. NOTE the change in name, as well as new information on the article. Pbarnes 18:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse deletion, new articles with "much better titles" are not a way of fixing consensus to delete. Guy (Help!) 18:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Here is an idea, rather than taking 5 seconds to read this topic and then replying your position, you actually go to the article look through it and make a valid decision of whether it should be deleted. Previous reasons for deletion:
  • Non-notable - "fixity of species" gets 14,500 ghits and 648 google book hits as well as is reference in every biology text book I have ever read.
  • Non-encyclopedic - Contains adequate definition and quite a bit of history. It's no where near perfect but it's a start.
  • Contains Uncited Information - I listed a number of references that are both verifiable and reliable.
-Pbarnes 19:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Or you could assume that I read the article. It's an aspect of creationism, as the sources make clear. A redirect would be unproblematic. Guy (Help!) 19:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
First, a redirect and deletion are not the same thing. If you want it merged into creationism, use the merge template...not a deletion template. Second, read this. Fixity of species is well known enough to have an article on it's own and what would be the point of making creationism more broad? Pbarnes 20:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This is being discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#10_December_2006, there is no reason to have two open discussions. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a different article with a different title. Grounds for previous deletion..."non-notable". Grounds for current deletion of "fixity of species"...I have no clue!!! 14,500 ghits and 648 google book hits...what more do you want!!!Pbarnes 19:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion - it has nothing to do with the number of google hits - the topic is basically a dictionary definition. Sure, it gets google hits, but there's nothing to write an article about (notwithstanding Pbarnes efforts to write an article about the history of evolution under that title). Changing the title of the article doesn't change the underlying reason for deletion. Guettarda 20:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The majority belief of pre-darwinian scientist cut down to "the topic is basically a dictionary definition"...I love it!!! Should flat earth and geocentrism be moved to witionary also? It's not like major topics like taxonomy are based on this notion of "fixity of species" or anything. Pbarnes 20:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
It's already covered elsewhere. A redirect would be fine, though. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Platt

Steve Platt (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)

First, I apologize for not knowing how to request this properly. I am not a Wikipedian. The article on the activist/comedian Steve Platt was not completed yet already showed its significance. A peer of Steve Platt tagged it for speedy deletion (which I felt was in itself an act of vandalism, but again, I do not know) and subsequently the article was deleted. I ask the Wikipedia administration to un-delete the article if they so choose.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.176.23.138 (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

  • Comment I have no access to the deleted article, but the history on the Talk page seems to show it was out there for well over two months, so I'm a little curious as to how the article was "not completed". Also, as was already said on the article Talk page, labeling the deletion tagging as vandalism violates WP:AGF. Fan-1967 19:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Unsourced, no notability even implied, the article has been around since September 20, it could have been fixed in the more than two months of its existence yet was not. Endorse deletion. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] E-Sword

[edit] Template:Footballdatabase

Template:Footballdatabase (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)

i don't knoow why afd became tfd and not cleanup, the template is useful for create external link for some footballer. Matthew_hk tc 14:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep deleted, template creates external link to a commercial website. —Angr 15:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, WP:VSCA appears to apply to this case. Guy (Help!) 15:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PocketGPSWorld.com

[edit] Penumbra (game)

Penumbra (game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history) — (AfD)

The article about Penumbra has been deleted before because the game was only a tech demo. Since that deletion (and the article's recreation), Penumbra has expanded into a full commercial game that has received the mention and interest of major gaming websites such as Gamespot and IGN. It is possible that the game will be digitally distributed on Steam: a major market for gaming. The full game is significant enough to warrant its own article. The focus of the article as of now is on the tech demo, but it could easily be changed to place the emphasis on the full game being developed.

I also think it's incredibly unfair because the second deletion was only a proposed one. The template said to remove it if any reason was seen as to why the article should be kept (there was no actual AfD involved). I brought the argument up on the talk page and removed the notice, and a few hours later, the article was deleted. That aside though, I still think the article should be remade to focus more on the full version of Penumbra. ShadowMan1od 22:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I fixed the link to point to the AfD debate, as it should. Chris cheese whine 00:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    • That's an AfD from the first time the article was deleted though (which isn't the one this is contesting, but oh well :P). ShadowMan1od 00:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
      • If it's felt the situation hasn't changed enough for it to not apply, though. -Amarkov blahedits 00:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Now that you mention it, I guess that's the whole issue of debate. All the votes to delete it in that AfD were because it was just a college project and it wasn't notable enough. It's gone beyond that phase now, so should it still be deleted for the same reasons? ShadowMan1od 01:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The second deletion wasn't a proposed deletion -- I placed the {{prod}} and then it was brought to my attention that the article had already failed an AfD, so I deleted it without letting the prod run its course, and told this user to come here to have it undeleted. I do note several references in Google. However, I don't know if the article truly passes notability, it's possibly close. Andre (talk) 02:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Thursday, 14 December
  • Endorse deletion without prejudice against future recreation once the game is actually released. The game company's own website says that the first episode of this game isn't scheduled for release until Q1 2007[44]. Gamespy says this game isn't due to come out until October 2007, and hasn't been rated or found a publisher yet [45]. Gamespot has a preview of the game-project-development-still-in-progress from October, which suggests the first episode is likely coming out in March 2007[46]. IGN has like 3 screenshots, and that's it as far as I can tell[47]. What's the hurry in recreating this article if the game won't be out until maybe some time March to October 2007? Wikipedia is not a place for creating pre-launch/pre-"possible distribution through Steam" marketing buzz for unpublished software projects. Bwithh 04:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:SombatMetanee.jpg

[edit] 13 December 2006

[edit] VirusBurst

VirusBurst (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)— (AfD)
This is crossposted from the closing admin's talk page: User_talk:W.marsh#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FVirusBurst

I weighed into this AfD thinking that it was a straight-forward delete: No evidence of notability was presented, and my understanding is that editor testimony without supporting evidence is tantamount to a naked vote and will be disregarded. A quick breakdown of the participants:

  • "Keep it's notable" from members of the community who are *cough* very new:
    1. 30sman (talk • contribs) - Ten edits, all on 2 Dec, all to AfDs.
    2. Dpbeckfield (talk • contribs) - His only contributions was to that afd.
    3. Jmldalton (talk • contribs) - Thirteen edits total.
    4. 220.240.91.96 (talk • contribs) - Two edits in total.
  • Naked "Keep" votes with no rational:
    1. Firefoxman (talk • contribs) - Naked vote.
  • "Keep it's notable" from members of the community who are established:
    1. DGG (talk • contribs) - a "real" user, and provides at least some argument, but about verification not notability.
  • "Delete it's not showing it is notable"
    1. J Di (talk • contribs) provides no arguments in his nomination, true.
    2. Demiurge (talk • contribs) disputes a comment about google hits by refering to bias, also providing no evidence on non-notability.
    3. Finally {{subst:user|ME!}} with a bit of homework showing this is nothing special.
  • Other participants
    1. RichMac (talk • contribs) switched from "keep" to "Neutral" after thinking about google bias.
    2. EdGl (talk • contribs) suggested there were many other viri that could be deleted.

Whatever way we cut it, this looks like a clear delete to me: Nose counting (spit) give three-to-one in favour of deletion if you're into that sort of thing, and argumentation shows that the only evidence presented for keeping was Google hits, something the person who made the argument recanted. WM suggested I re-nominate it when I raised it with him, which I'd prefer not to do because a) This nomination has a clear outcome to me, b) The stigma of a renom leads to knee-jerk keepage often enough, and c) I can't create the sub-pages anyway.
152.91.9.144 00:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Overturn and delete. Why do people think that they can make an article verifiable by saying "It's verifiable!" -Amarkov blahedits 04:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Um. The AfD debate was largely a waste of server space, for reasons noted above, and although this is verifiable from AV vendors' sites that does rather place it in the category of a directory entry. Neither GNews nor Factiva shows any significant coverage other than press releases and AV vendors' threat databases. I say relist. Guy (Help!) 12:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and delete. If no sources are presented in the article or the AfD, the article should be deleted. AfD is not a vote, WP:V is a cornerstone policy, guess which wins. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It's verifiable enough, the problem is evidence of significance. Guy (Help!) 14:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Existence may be verifiable, but I see one directory listing in the article and one press release in the AfD which mentions the virus in passing. The AfD participants didn't come close to making an actual case for the article's retention in an encyclopaedia. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Which is what I said above :-) Guy (Help!) 22:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, it's why I believe this AfD should have been closed as 'delete', and consequently we should overturn it. It doesn't seem a good use of Wikipedians' time to have the same discussion again (no new evidence has been presented that would indicate that a second discussion would be substantially different from the previous) just so we can hope it gets closed in a different way, when the purpose of DRV is to change closings when necessary. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • My problem with the debate was that it was almost entirely irrelevant to inclusion. My first searches show no significant coverage, but there might be some. I am undecided, hence I'd like to see more discussion of the content, not the process. Guy (Help!) 23:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The keep arguments may have been irrelevant to inclusion, but the delete arguments weren't. Both the nomination and supporting editor cast the subject's notability into doubt, which is a good enough reason for deletion if no-one can debunk it by showing significant reliable coverage. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "It's verifiable enough" is good enough for me. Do not overturn. You had your shot and it was correctly kept. It's terrible that this forum is used for a small clique to delete articles they could not manage to rid us of in a more widely read forum. Grace Note 10:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
    • And why does saying it's verifiable make it so? I also find it funny that people claim either that only deletionists come here or only inclusionists do, depending on which they are. -Amarkov blahedits 15:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Turkey-related categories(A-Z)

List of Turkey-related categories(A-Z) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

(Moving here from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Content review) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Purpose of the temporary restoration - MustTC 17:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletion log; 18:21, December 13, 2006 Future Perfect at Sunrise (Talk | contribs) deleted "List of Turkey-related categories(A-Z)" (WP:CSD A3 - no article content, this shouldn't be in article space. Userfied version already exists.)
My message before deletion to the admin who deleted article here:
Dear FPaS,
Thanks for your good faithfull commends.
You are right, there is no enough number of editor which deals with these kind of works.
I undertake a project (One contributor, me) to organize categories,templates,images and articles.My first job is to collect related categories,organizing,renaming and cleaning of them.That is reason why I have a subpage "deneme", I created a new article.There will be another one; "List_of_Turkey-related_categories(by topics)".I think, many categories was created accidentally, and needed cleaning and reorganizing. Also I will create a Category tree and user manual in WPTR. I hope in the future other/newcomer user will use categories in proper way. This project will take a big time of course( all linked articles are needed to scrutinized one by one), all helps are welcome. I need some bots to handle so huge number of articles, is it possible?
I think My message include the undelete reason.RegardsMustTC 17:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Admin's comment: Page has now been userfied to User:Mustafa Akalp/List of Turkey-related categories(A-Z). Sorry, I would have done so right away, but I mistakenly thought you already had a copy of it there. Also, for some reason I didn't see your message on my talk page in time. - That said, I think the deletion was correct, this is a list that doesn't belong in article space. Project space ([[Wikipedia:...]]) might be okay though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion and userfication metacontent like this doesn't belong in the article space. It is, however, exactly the sort of this that you can keep in userspace or, if you want others to help out, project space. Eluchil404 18:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse as per Eluchil404. We should never have articles which link to Wikipedia meta-content. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. What exactly is wrong with just using the higher-level Category:Turkey? -Amarkov blahedits 15:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Request for close. I'm satisfied with the message of Fut.Perf. and all comments here. I already transferred the article to WikiProject Turkey and my subpage. No need to keep that article anymore.Sorry for headache to all of you. Please help me to finish this discussion(I dont know the correct procedure). Regards.MustTC 15:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Darcy Burner

[edit] Legal Medical Advisor

Legal Medical Advisor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)
Legal Medical Advisor Certification (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Page has been edited to comply with wikipedia TOS lpritchard 01:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone please review this blatant spammer's contribution history, permanently block the user, and delete and protect the latest spam pages. -THB 03:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse Deletion and keep protected. Every version of it has been spam, no reason to believe the author is capable of anything else. Fan-1967 04:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse Deletion and keep protected. The author openly admits the WP:COI and ignores our spam policy. -- RHaworth 09:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, spam from a single-purpose account. Speedy close if possible, we've wasted more than enough time on this nonsense. Guy (Help!) 09:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse Deletion of both and keep salted. Anytime I see "we" in a user's comments, that's a bad sign. -- Satori Son 15:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nonsense_Humor_Magazine

Nonsense_Humor_Magazine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)

Page was deleted citing "CSD A7 - Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." I would suggest that a college humor magazine that has published for more than 23 years, providing critical and alternative analysis of society and its publishing university, is significant. Article has autobiographic tendencies, but that's an argument for editing, not outright deletion. Toomuchjoy 06:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Userfy organizations and publications of single colleges are generally not considered notable on wikipedia. I am suggesting that the deleting admin place a copy of the article in your userspace so that you can edit and improve it to show how this one is notable enough for an article. Things to consider are has it won any awards, has it published work by notable authors, has it been mentioned in other reliable sources. Eluchil404 18:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Send it my way; the magazine has indeed won awards, been covered in other reliable sources, etc., and it will be simple enough to recast the last current info in the listing to reflect that and its relevance in a larger scope. Toomuchjoy , 13 December 2006

  • Endorse deletion. A grand total of 24 Google hits, if you take Wikipedia and its mirrors out of the equation. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Since the magazine is typically just referred to as "Nonsense," try a Google search of "Humor Nonsense Hofstra" and you get over 9,300 Google hits. Toomuchjoy , 13 December 2006

  • Endorse deletion, unless you can provide a reliable source. I can't find one. -Amarkov blahedits 15:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, below are a few from Newsday that I was able to dig up on short notice. Also, the magazine was awarded "2nd place, Special Interest Magazine" by the Society of Collegiate Journalism in the mid-80s (I'm still digging up specifics on that), has appeared in The Joe Bob Report. More to come if needed. Newsday articles, letters to the editor, etc. regarding Nonsense:

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=100187141&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=13371&RQT=309&VName=PQD http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=104078480&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=13371&RQT=309&VName=PQD http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=104782470&sid=2&Fmt=3&clientId=13371&RQT=309&VName=PQD http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=104781543&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=13371&RQT=309&VName=PQD http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=49254948&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=13371&RQT=309&VName=PQD

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=100891649&sid=5&Fmt=2&clientId=13371&RQT=309&VName=PQD http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=100191828&sid=6&Fmt=3&clientId=13371&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Coverage of when MIT plagarized Nonsense:

http://www-tech.mit.edu/archives/VOL_110/TECH_V110_S0615_P002.pdf Toomuchjoy 16:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Catholic League argues with Nonsense in The Catalyst, a magazine for the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights http://www.catholicleague.org/catalyst/1997_catalyst/197catalyst.htm#Anti-Catholicism%20Hits%20Campuses Toomuchjoy 18:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse although I would support a history undeletion, because any mention of the magazine should be at Hofstra University#Student life. Campus publications that do not achieve independent standing get discussions at their university articles. We do this with nearly all campus publications, no matter how august. The very, very few exceptions, such as The Crimson or Dartmouth Review, have other reasons for articles than that they have a long run and/or popularity on campus. Geogre 18:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

These college humor magazines--

-- all have Wikipedia entries, but haven't been around as long as Nonsense, which was founded in 1982; thus it seems the requirement of "a long run" is arbitrarily enforced (I might politely add that allowing an entry purely because a publication has been around for more than 24 years doesn't have anything to do with the quality of the publication). Meanwhile, judging a publication based on "popularity on campus"--which Nonsense always has been (Vault.com characterizes it as "a student favorite" here: http://www.vault.com/survey/school/college/Hofstra-University-social-life-74210.html ) --contradicts the argument that the publication has to be judged based on its relevance to the world at large.

Toomuchjoy 20:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Most of those magazine articles listed above appear to be clear candidates for deletion Bwithh 02:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense Humor Magazine was listed prominently in the The Directory of Humor Magazines and Humor Organizations in America (and Canada) 3rd Edition. Published in 1992 by Wry-Bred Press.

Nonsense was listed and sold by Spy Magazine in its December 1991 issue. "Spy Humor 101, Go Back to College for a Few Laughs". Spy got enough of a response to the listing to start buying advertising in Nonsense itself.

Heyitsal 21:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse deletion Couldn't find any hits in Factiva (which includes Newsday archives - though may not include letters to editors/some minor articles etc). I looked at a mirrored version of the deleted article here - I couldn't see any claims to encyclopedic notability Bwithh 02:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The most recent, up-to-date version of the article--which is NOT the one mirrored around the web--had been updated substantially in November with a lot of facts, figures and information, in order to make it more of a comprehensive survey of the magazine's history. Please don't base your opinion of the listing on the meager (and inaccurate) version still floating around on the web. Toomuchjoy 13:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blue_Dot_Inc

Blue_Dot_Inc (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)

G11 does not apply here. The purpose of the article is to describe a company, not promote a company. Further, the company is notable by reference to the cited independent news sources covering Blue Dot. I feel it was quite rude to have the article summarily deleted with no discussion; the article was obviously well structured, informative, and undergoing a process of improvement. Mike Koss 21:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  • You say? I reckon you're the head cheerleader at Blue Dot, having a great time working to help Blue Dot "become a great service and a great company." You didn't mention that YOU LOVE BLUE DOT. Given your self-evident conflict of interest I'm more inclined to believe the Crazy Russian, and my own reading, and diagnose spam. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:COI, WP:CSD G11, notability never at issue. A non-COI user may recreate this if notable (on which I reserve judgment) - 22:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Prior to deletion, notability was in question, as which point I added citations to demonstrate notability. I don't deny I have a COI. But I would ask that you judge the article for yourself. I believe it displays a NPOV, and contains factual, valuable, and cited information. I've created a copy here so you can read for yourself User:mckoss/Blue_Dot_Inc. The article was not created by me, but I started to improve it when it came under question as to the notability Mike Koss 22:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse Deletion. Comments like "Crzrussian seems to be a real a**hole here", even off-Wiki, are not very helpful in convincing us you can present this topic in an unbiased and dispassionate manner. WP:NPOV is one of our most important policies, which is why we have the WP:COI guidelines in the first place. Please let someone unaffiliated with the company recreate this article when it reaches a sufficient level of notability. -- Satori Son 22:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't know why my comments off of wikipedia are relevant. I have a long history of wikipedia edits accepted as NPOV. On my own private web site, I don't think I need to maintain NPOV. As yet, I've not heard any justification for speedy deletion based on the content of the article. I believe that should be the ultimate guiding principle - all other guidelines are meant to aid editors in making decisions. Mike Koss 23:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I am not even remotely suggesting that action should be taken against Mike Koss for his personal attack that is off-Wiki. I am simply stating that, because of his uncivil behavior and severe conflict of interest, he should be strongly encouraged to allow other, uninvolved parties to recreate the article if and when the time comes. -- Satori Son 01:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep deleted, clear bad faith request for undeletion and WP:COI violation. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
You people have a clear problem with being civil. In what sense did I act in "bad faith"? I may not have understood the esoteric wikipedia guidelines. But I never acted in bad faith and have always been honest and forthright about by relationship to the company. I would like an apology. Mike Koss 00:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
How can you possibly say calling someone an asshole is not bad faith? User:Zoe|(talk) 01:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Again, just playing the devil's advocate, it's possible to say something like that off wiki and still operate in good faith on wiki. Although in WP:ARBCOM(Snowspinner) linking to one's own nasty comments off-wiki was found to be uncivil, in WP:ARBCOM(Giano) Cyde's reposting and linking of Kelly Martin's off-wiki smear didn't even rate a mention. The ground is fairly well trod that unless off-wiki comments are death threats or lead to harrasment, we're meant to simply ignore them.
152.91.9.144 01:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I've dashed off a version here of this article that should at least go to AfD. I have no idea of the content of the deleted article, and must admit the it's very thin and might not pass the proposed guideline but then again there is another guideline that it could be said to pass as there are multiple media mentions and the question of if they are "non trivial" is not to be hashed out in this forum. I can't create pages, but if someone wants to make the User:152.91.9.144/Temp page with nothing on it but perhaps {{software-stub}} I'm happy to copy-paste my own material into it to avoid any GFDL problems. - 152.91.9.144 02:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    Aww sheezamageeza. Why did I not see User:Mckoss/Blue Dot Inc until after I wasted that twenty minutes? Note to self: Read discussions more carefully next time.
    152.91.9.144 02:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Looks good. I've taken the liberty of posting it at Blue Dot. I think this discussion is moot now. We have a neutral version, supported by references. Thanks, asshole asstalk 05:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. (BTW - Please accept my apology for the A**hole remark - it reflected my frustration at being cut off mid-discussion on the talk page, and that fact that you used sarcasm when making comments to me). I realize that the new page may be marked for deletion - I will just stay out of it (as recommended by COI guidelines). I am generally a big fan of wikipedia and have been amazed at some of the results. The problem, I think, in this case is that because of the speedy deletion rules - there is no record, debate is cut off prematurely, and a (potential) author is cut off with no sense that the community respect that there might be some value in the contribution. If the article is porn, profane, or link-spam, I can understand a speedy deletion reaction; but I don't think this article falls into that category. It's not just me - several of my friends (all potentially good conrtibutors) have written off even contributing to wikipedia again becuase of heavy handed administration. Mike Koss 16:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barse

Barse (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)— (AfD)

UNDELETE_REASON 193.1.172.163 23:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC) The term "barse" referring to the bit between the balls and the arse has been deleted 6 times from Wikipedia. It is a term I as an Irish person regularly use. I did not make it up. All my friends use it. People I don't know use it. I have met English people who use it. It seems to be a well used term in England and Ireland, and was probably coined on television. Reasons for deletion have included "hoax" "complete load of arse" etc. While it may be a vulgar/humourous term, it is certainly worth having a look at, unfortunately I do not have the time/resources to do this. I am responsible for the last article (my first on this site) and can't help but feel frustrated by the situation. Perhaps instead of googling the term you could use a blog searcher to search bebo or myspace for "barse". It is a part of modern culture, I am sure of it.

  • Comment. Perhaps instead of asking others to do your research, you could locate Reliable Sources to support your argument. First read the definition of Reliable Sources. Myspace and bebo, as well as blogs, do not qualify. Fan-1967 23:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. What are reliable sources for commonly used internet slang?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.1.172.104 (talk • contribs).
On talk pages and in discussions, please sign your posts by typing four tilde's (~~~~) at the end of your entry. It will translate to your user name with the date and time.
    • The same as for anything else, independent sources, which are not forums, blogs, or the like writing about the topic (not just using the word). -Amarkov blahedits 04:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Respectfully, endorse deleting and salting because, even with the most reliable sources in the world, this is an utter deletion from start to finish because it is a dictionary definition and therefore would belong at Wiktionary, if it could be validated. In the absence of validation, it's an inappropriate entry inappropriately done. Geogre 18:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 12 December 2006

[edit] Sorin Cerin

Sorin Cerin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — {AfD}

This article was deleted on December 3 with conclusion: "Deletion endorse among established editors" because the article was very poor in information.After that time we recreate another article,with more information and now we beleive that article is good to be in Wikipedia.The new article was deleted on December 11 with conclusion:"the article must to go first through deletion review again"Alinaro 08:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Overturn deletion. A forced DRV only applies if someone wants to repost deleted content. The new version of the article (before it was redeleted by Jmabel) asserts notability by national news coverage, which the originally deleted version didn't. - Mgm|(talk) 09:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn per MgM and cleanup. Zocky | picture popups 11:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn per above. Said it perfectly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn You can't delete an article with the same reasoning if it's substantially different. Xiner 17:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Armeniapedia

Armeniapedia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)

Article was definitely not a candidate for speedy deletion. If the deleting admin believed there was no assertion of notability as stated in the deletion log, then he or she should have listed it immediately through AfD, which is standard and proper procedure, rather than delete unilaterally without discussion or notification. metaspheres 08:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: WP:CSD A7 is for exactly this: articles that do not even assert notability can be speedied without AfD. And I didn't "believe" there was no assertion of notability; I saw there was no such assertion, I don't need AfD to tell me that much. BTW, as a courtesy to interested editors I even notified the Armenian noticeboard in advance, which I wouldn't have been required to do. But anyway, I'll be happy to provide you with a copy of the deleted material if you want to work on it and improve it (although I'm skeptical). Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. Fut. Perf. is quite right. There was no notability asserted. It did however have 3 links to the same domain where one would've sufficed. Sounds like spam. - Mgm|(talk) 09:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion Please read WP:CSD A7 again. Then read it a third time. Dragging an utterly non-notable wiki to DRV after a perfectly valid speedy is ill advised. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 15:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, I'd advise you to assume good faith and not attempt to look cool by treating other editors as children by telling them to read something again and again. Deletion review exists precisely for these reasons, and if you believe otherwise, that's tough. If you have any other problems with me, take it to the proper channel. metaspheres 10:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment would somebody please delete Urdu Wikipedia as well? There is no assertion of notability there as well. Tizio 17:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion There is nothing that asserted notability in the article's previous incarnation, but if notability becomes asserted at a later date, then recreating it is OK. --SunStar Nettalk 11:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freedom Imaging Systems

Freedom Imaging Systems (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (AfD)

This article was removed under the rule CSD A7 by Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh On 19 November 2006. The reasons for this were it not being notable. Comments included its lack on mention on websites such as Forbes. What is required to prove notability, and who decides?

See also: [48]

  • Endorse deletion, read WP:ORG and WP:WEB please. -Amarkov blahedits 02:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn deletion I found at least one third-party non-company reliable source, see "Ex-files" which means this entry has the potential to satisfy WP:CORP. Deletion was definitely a hasty a decision and the user should have received notification of the standards needed for the article to pass muster. Endless blue 21:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Then just write a new article. A7 doesn't care if something is notable, it cares if the article asserts such. If it does not, it gets deleted. There's no prejudice against creating a new article that does assert notability. -Amarkov blahedits 21:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I hear you, but I'm not the author, and the author requested more than restatement of policy that does not apply in this article's case. I'll put something on their talk page. Endless blue 22:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Tuesday, 12 December
  • Endorse because the deleted version was awfully like an ad. It was promotional in tone and wording, with how many products now offered, etc. In other words, undeletion of this article would be to reinstate an article that violates the deletion policy pretty clearly both in terms of lack of reliable sources and for being an ad. The fact that the company could be covered just puts us back to the "article needed" stage. I do not think this is a cleanup case: this is a rewrite from scratch case. Geogre 10:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Circle Square Ranch

Circle Square Ranch (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)

Not a commercial page, only meant to inform viewers about the company. It's a non profit organization, they don not advertize on wiki. I was a volunteer there onece just thought i would make a page, cause i love wikipedia. If I broke a rule please explain it to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.1.163.100 (talk • contribs).

  • Informing people about a company is exactly the same as advertising even if you don't call it that. To be listed on Wikipedia it has to be notable (i.e. covered by independant third party reliable sources). Being famous for something is not required but helps. - Mgm|(talk) 09:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse if AfD: This isn't a speedy deletion candidate, but it is an article that violates the deletion policy. "No advertising" is one of our most important principles at Wikipedia. We can't promote even the things that a majority support, and so we can't be used to announce or promote awareness of even non-profit and humanitarian organizations. Instead, we report on things already reported on by multiple others. Geogre 10:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Captain Stabbin

Captain Stabbin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

- I believe the Captain should be re-put, for the reasons i stated on the talk page of the article. I am not from a porn company, i merely tried to add an informative article on the subject of a porn start who is notable amongst young men, particularly college students. The Captain is notable for these reasons, and the article therefore conforms to wiki policy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Captainstabbin (talk • contribs).

  • Which part of WP:PORNBIO does he fulfill? Also, note that autobiographies are discouraged. If you're not him, you should pick another name. - Mgm|(talk) 09:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion': There is no claim whatever, no reference, to indicate "fame." This is an Internet porn star? It looks like a school boy prank page. It also looks like the worst form of misogyny, but that's irrelevant. Vanity, A7: entirely appropriate delete. Geogre 10:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just Dial Communications

[edit] Image:Bob rae posed 2006 campaign.JPG

Image:Bob rae posed 2006 campaign.JPG (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Attempts to replace this with original content have been made, all failing. Because a random Wikinewsie applied to attend a Liberal event early the campaign, and didn't show up, we ended up banned from this weekend's leadership vote. None of the flickr photos of Rae are CC-BY, I've yet to hear back from anyone I contacted, urging relicensing.

Rae will either become the leader of the federal opposition party, and be extremely hard to get a hold of; unless he becomes Prime Minister, there will likely be no free images of him. Or he will lose, and disappear into private retirement. Unless we secretly have Wikipedian who holds membership to elite Canadian country clubs, forget it.

Additionally, this is a politician. It doesn't inflict on sales of anything, because he doesn't sell anything.

Finally, his press relations manager personally encouraged the image's usage. Until Monday, there's no hope in heck I'd be able to converse with them, to ask them to relicense the image, due to the busy last minute campaigning. -- Zanimum 22:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'm missing something here. Are you saying that if he becomes leader of the federal opposition, he'll become a recluse? Why will no one be able to take a photo of him in that situation? If he does disappear into private retirment then the issue of availability of free images can be readdressed, now is premature --pgk 22:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
No, if he becomes the leader of the opposition, he'll be so booked by shadow cabinet meetings, national publications and stations, etc., that he won't have time for the little people. When was the last time you saw Bill Graham at an event? Yes, he's interim, but so what. Can we not just undelete, and then discuss this on Monday? -- Zanimum 02:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
People will still be able to take photos, he'll still make "public" appearances, taking a photo doesn't have to be posed or one on one. The image was originally deleted over a month ago, we've had over a month to replace it and no one has bothered, I can't see what difference a couple of days without an image would make. --pgk 07:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
If you eliminate (a) all the events that are $100 a plate, (b) only for the registered media, (c) only for Liberal members, you're not left with a lot. The only opportunity to see Bob publicly, for free, was in Toronto at 8 am on a Thursday, and on a Friday in Ottawa from 3 to 5 pm, at the Slovenian Canadian Club of Calgary, and in Cupar, Saskatchewan, which is in the middle of no where. He's trying to attract a very limited bunch of people, the Liberal delegates. Thus he has no need to be freely accessible to folks like us. -- Zanimum 15:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
He'll still be appearing in places the public can attend and take photos, again it doesn't need to be a posed shot or a one on one. Why you eliminate (a) and (c) I'm not sure anyway, are we saying the being a Liberal member and being able to take a photo for use on wikipedia are mututally exclusive? The policy on replaceable fair use says nothign about replacement images needing to be taken for zero cost. --pgk 15:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
That list is to prove that almost all of the events on his tour of Canada were inaccessible to Canadian Wikipedians. They were members-only or expensive. Do you see anyone that's willing to spend $100 dollars for one photo? -- Zanimum 14:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Again the criteria says nothing about cost or willingness of any given individual to meet that cost. The person will still be appearing in public and will still be able to have his photo taken, and indeed you can still persue getting an "official" image released under an appropriate license. I assume this individual doesn't get out of cars with a blanket over their head as they get shuffled into buildings with blacked out windows with individuals searched to remove photographic equipment, they aren't a recluse. Your list doesn't "prove" anything regarding unavailability of a photo or ability to take one. As to the general principle is someone willing to pay $100 to get a given photo, if not then I guess the photo simply isn't that important to the article. --pgk 15:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
If someone took a picture of a unicorn, but kept it under copyright, you'd say we couldn't use it? Because "oh, we can just send a photographer to Antartica to wander around for five months to take a free alternative". Correct? -- Zanimum 18:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Well putting aside that unicorns don't actually exist, then I can't see what this has to do with anything. Bob Rae isn't a recluse hiding out in Antarctica, he is a public figure, he appears in public regularly, I would guess he probably even has a fairly public diary. Go to flickr and people have photos of him, (they aren't licensing them under a suitable license) they undoubtdly have managed to take photos of him, why those people can manage to but you reckon no one else in the world will be able to is beyond me. If your unicorn appeared in public regularly, then yes it would fail replaceable fair use, if it cost $100 to get the picture, it would still fail replaceable fair use. For sports personalities in such situations we say people can go to a game and take a photo, they can indeed cost $100 or more to do. --pgk 19:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Tuesday, 12 December
  • Endorse deletion. This is a classic case of replaceable fair use. howcheng {chat} 20:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  1. Overturn and relist - Rae has "retired" from Canadian politics, future photos may be impossible to gather. Rae has stated he's avoiding the public eye now, as such, photo chances are very minimal -- Tawker 21:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:CRIIRADmap.gif

Image:CRIIRADmap.gif (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Has been deleted on the claims that one Wikipedia could draw the same map. First, this would be a breach of copyright, since the map would be copied from the CRIIRAD's map without even stating it. Second, since this map is relevant to the Chernobyl catastrophe and has thus scientifical implications, clearly it carries no weight if drawn by an anonym user (be him a known Wikipedian). Lapaz 15:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone could have copied the information from that map (the coordinates of the dots) and incorporated that same information into a PD map of France. It looks to me like this deletion was proper. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Tuesday, 12 December
  • Comment - I'm not sure simply copying the coordinates from this map would clear copyright issues. As I understand cartography copyright, we would need a new map constructed from the same data, if it's available in a published source. Zocky | picture popups 11:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. Facts aren't copyrightable. A new map constructed from the same data would put the dots in the same location, so what's the point (or what's to stop me from just doing that and saying I reconstructed the whole thing)? howcheng {chat} 20:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/e/l/Wikipedia%7EDeletion_review_5db6.html"