Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 19

G.ho.st (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD|DRV1|DRV2|DRV3)

New reference to support notability.Please look at the following external links that will be added to the page http://startupsquad.com/2007/04/11/exclusive-ghost-webos-for-real/ http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20/2007/04/10/ghost-to-showcase-virtual-computer-for-web-20-expo/ http://www.amazon.com/gp/browse.html?node=341908011 http://o20db.com/db/ghost/ http://www.webware.com/8300-1_109-2-0.html?keyword=g.ho.st TareqM 15:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Blogs do not equal reliable sources. Existence, and not notability, is established by the preceding links, and existence is not sufficient for inclusion. Nothing truly new here to consider undeleting the article. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep deleted, these sources are the same ones presented in previous DRVs that endorsed the deletion. They're not reliable sources. --Coredesat 17:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep salted No independent, reliable sources. The blogs are generally new, but definitely not reliable. I assume we will have another DRV next month, based on our pattern to date? Bad idea unless there really is new and meaningful information Any future drafts should be written in accordance with the guidance at WP:FORGET, using only reliable sources that are independent, not merely regurgitations of marketing material. Preferably by somebody that does not have a conflict of interest. GRBerry 18:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy close No new information, no policy/procedure issues I'm aware of that need revisiting --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 18:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:People museums (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

I find this one confusing. The nomination was to "rename", but the closing administrator closed as a "delete". I do not see a single person advocate for deletion in the discussion. If someone wants to delete the category, a deletion should be proposed and a discussion had on that issue.A Musing 14:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• It was renamed. See: Category:Biographical museums & [1]. We don't have a move button for categories. In order to move, the new category is created, all the articles in the old category are moved to the new one, and the old one is deleted. -- JLaTondre 15:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, I'd read the opening indicating that the result of the discussion was "a nomination to delete"; it looks like it was indeed renamed, which is a fine reading of the consensus.A Musing 15:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested Articles (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|RFD)

Redirect is useful, and should not have been deleted. 69.140.164.142 05:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:RA redirects there and is fewer characters than "Requested Articles" (although personally, I agree with you - we ought to keep the redirects around that are useful to new uses). --BigDT (416) 05:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but since it is redirecting from one space to another, it is generally frowned upon. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion valid RFD, nominator brings up no new issues. --pgk 06:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, RFD was valid and the redirect was cross-space. --Coredesat 07:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as closing admin. While the debate had mixed opinions, the general trend in RFD is to delete CNR unless they are clearly Wikipedia specific (i.e. no chance of confusion). This term (see [2] & [3]) is definitely not Wikipedia specific. -- JLaTondre 14:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • And they are generally kept iff they start with the WP: prefix. --Iamunknown 15:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
    • WP: is a pseudo-namespace. They don't count as CNRs and are specifically for Wikipedia content. -- JLaTondre 15:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Exactly. --Iamunknown 15:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse my own deletion, "requested articles" is certainly not exclusive to Wikipedia, and having the encyclopedia article that one might think would be on "requested articles" redirect to some meta Wikipedia-specific process is bad for the encyclopedia. --Cyde Weys 15:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, cross-namespace redirect. Guy (Help!) 19:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per JzG. JuJube 20:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, I'm glad to see that people are beginning to stop saying that cross-namespace redirects should be kept simply because they are useful. -Amarkov moo! 03:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion The "requested articles" title does not just apply to Wikimedia wikis, also to any other websites as well.

Cross-name space redirects are just not a good thing: and this one was clearly proving the point. --SunStar Net ^talk 10:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, the always-debatable claim of "usefulness" is not, IMO, sufficient to outweigh the problems and confusions of cross-namespace redirects. Xtifr _tälk 12:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Validly closed. No new info as basis for appeal. Doczilla 17:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Tim Bowles (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Closed wrongly. 15 Delete to 10 Keep ignored by closing admin; Strong delete arguments re WP:BIO non-notable ignored by closing admin; "partisan shenanigans" acknowledged but ignored by closing admin, see diff Justanother 03:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC) I should note that the closing admin seems to have changed his close from "Keep" to "No consensus"? 03:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

* Apparently it was clarified for the "literally-minded" [4]. I wonder what that could mean and to whom that could refer. --Iamunknown 06:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC) /me feels stupid, misread time stamps, sorry :-( --Iamunknown 07:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete. The majority of the keep !votes were to the effect of "per above" and "absurd AFD" without addressing the WP:BIO concerns. There were even claims it was a whitewashing attempt by the Church of Scientology. In my opinion there was sufficient consensus to delete, strong arguments made for a lack of sources to satisfy notability versus a weaker cadre of "keep per above". Arkyan • ^(talk) 17:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Correctly closed This was the 3rd AfD, all correctly closed as keep. He's a public figure. DGG 17:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• I won't be endorsing my own closure today, but I must warn the gods of DRV to watch out for partisan shenanigans on both sides, which this article seems to attract in droves. Please see my extended rationale at user talk:y -- Y not? 18:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

  Trust me in saying that the regular closers are mortals, not gods. I are one, after all. GRBerry 19:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete the majority of the Keep "votes" incorrectly assert the AfD was useless or out of process and do not address notability concerns. Eluchil404 20:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Correctly closed - Per excellent points by DGG, 3rd AFD, all previously closed as keep. Plenty of individuals weighed in on the AFD, and the AFD itself was open for plenty of time, and conducted properly. The AFD itself had been open for 6 days, one past the standard 5. Smee 22:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC).
• Overturn and delete I'm generally very leary of interfeering with admin decisions that result in keeping, but in this case the person clearly fails WP:BIO(it isn't even borderline) and does not appear to be someoen who has attempted to make himself a public person in anyway. This will of course not set any precedent for recreation if evidence can be made that he meets WP:BIO. JoshuaZ 02:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete Overturn because closed in error despite a clear 15 to 10 vote for deletion. Delete because it fails WP:BIO; does not show that the subject is especially notable among his country's one million lawyers; and he has objected to the article on the talk page. DavidCooke 06:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Correctly closed - per DGG and Smee. No new reasons were cited for deletion, nor was WP:BIO cited as a stated reason for deletion in the nomination statement itself. The article does need work, but I do not believe it is a "hopeless case". The reasons for the subject's notability were discussed in the AfD and were ignored by those displaying a clear COI by abusing process in burning the books about persons involved in keeping scientology working. Orsini 09:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure of AfD: AfD is not about voting but consensus, so 15-10 doesn't matter so much as whether policy/procedure is correctly followed. I don't see that the article fails WP:BIO. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 14:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, without prejudice to recreation: The two previous AfD's were closed as "no consensus", not as "keep" as is stated repeatedly and incorrectly above. Personally I'm with JoshuaZ: I don't see WP:BIO being met ("multiple reliable, independent, non-trivial secondary sources"? where?) despite assertions to the contrary. The article could be recreated if such sources are produced, but given that this is the 3rd AfD and they're still missing in action, they may not exist. MastCell ^Talk 05:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, without prejudice to recreation. As observed in the discussion, the article fails WP:BIO, it has no non-trivial independent mentions. The only non-trivial reference is his biography on his organizations page; the only independent references merely give his name and that he is an attorney. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse retention He's a notable public figure and the closure was correct as there was no consensus to delete. Hawkestone 09:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse retention: You can see from the citations that he is notable. I don't see any reason for this article to be deleted. .V. _[Talk|Email] 17:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Marx Brothers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

I think that this one may qualify for the "exception" noted in WP:OC#Eponymous categories for people. It was included in a group nom, but it was different than the rest in this. I'd like to see it at least renominated. - jc37 00:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - as nominator. The material formerly in the category is all easily interlinked with each other and through the main Marx Brothers category article. There is no need for this category and the closing admin correctly interpreted the CFD. Otto4711 04:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• I can't see the point of deleting this category. It would be ideal for providin g a simple navigation between articles on the brothers, their various films and stage shows, books, music and other performances. The only reason for deletion that I conceive is a blank ignorance of the purpose for which categories are provided. --Tony Sidaway 03:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, we don't categorize films and stage shows by the people who appear in them. Otto4711 16:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, if you look at the "performers by performance" bullet in the overcategorization guideline, it deals with such things as performers by performance or performers by role; I don't read it as covering little genres of films like Marx Brothers films; I'd think of this one more under the "eponymous" category, where there is a clear exception and the question is should this one fit in it - I'd say yes.A Musing 16:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• There is no such genre as "Marx Brothers films." As for the exception, it states "The main exception to this rule would be where Wikipedia's coverage of the person in question is split into multiple directly linked subarticles, articles which cannot otherwise be reasonably categorized." That is not the case here, as the articles can be and are easily interlinked and the articles can easily be categorized without the need for this category. Otto4711 18:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• If the policy can be interpreted as to forbid Wikipedia having a Marx Brothers category, obviously the policy has failed in this case and should be ignored. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that category. --Tony Sidaway 03:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Just out of curiosity, did you have an argument that addresses the actual content of the CFD, or are your only objections that you don't like the result and that you want the category for reasons for which we don't use categories, namely categorizing their films and such? Because WP:IDONTLIKEIT is really not all that convincing in the course of the actual discussion and really has no relevance whatsoever to a DRV, and it's been pretty well established that categorizing films by the actors who appear in them is not done. Otto4711 05:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist. This is why mass nominations should be used sparingly. Did people really consider each one seperately? It's impossible to tell, especially with one person selectively saying to keep this one. -Amarkov moo! 03:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. It's not for listing the brothers, there aren't that many of them; it's for listing their work, which is substantial. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• If that's the case then the category should remain deleted as performer by performance. Otto4711 16:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn Endorse - listing the Marx Brothers under a mass deletion for "Show Biz Families" was inappropriate. Points out not just the reason to use mass deletions with care but also the sillyness of assuming that because you can label a category "eponymous" it should go.A Musing 16:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I've changed to Endorse because I no longer view there as having been a procedural issue; the films appear to be separately categorized and not at issue. This does appear to have been a category filled with celebrity cruft. I'd suggest that others revisit.A Musing 18:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn per Tony and A Musing Tim! 16:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Bearing Mandy Rice-Davies's oft-quoted wisdom in mind, I'll limit myself to commenting on the comments rather than on the close. CFD lives on mass-nominations, and without them it will simply not work. The categories were similar in range and purpose, so that a group nomination was not inherently flawed. If Sam and Tony don't like WP:OC#Eponymous categories for people, they can edit it. I have to say that I wouldn't have been surprised if Wilhelm Marx and Karl Marx ended up in this category sooner or later, and perhaps even Leo Marks, Howard Marks, and Michael Marks. Having said that, I have no issue with a relisting, even though no relevant procedural point has been raised here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the procedural issue is that it really didn't fit in the labeled category for the Mass deletion - I, at least, passed it over, because, frankly, I have little interest in how Wikipedia deals with Hollywood families and similiar trivia; had I known actual movies were involved - well, those are more important to me.A Musing 16:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

We have a fine Template:Marx Brothers which links the Marx Brothers and their films in a much more obvious and visible fashion. The previously categorised articles which do not appear on the template are not about the Marx Brothers. These were Melinda Marx, Thelma Todd, Laura Guzik, My Name Is Uncle Groucho, You Win A Fat Cigar, Sam Marx, I'll Say She Is, Margaret Dumont, Hello, I Must Be Going (song), Hello, I Must Be Going! (biography), Gus Kahn, Freedonia, Gregg Marx, Flywheel, Shyster and Flywheel, Erin Fleming, Eden Hartford, Double Dynamite, Brett Marx, Arthur Sheekman, Barbara Marx, Arthur Marx (writer, tennis), Dee Hartford, Al Shean, Arthur Marx, Minnie Marx, The Incredible Jewel Robbery, and Susan Fleming. Amazing. Like I said, Karl and Wilhelm too eventually. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

So it did or did not include the films as well (regardless of whether those films are also in the template)? If indeed it only included family members and a few miscellany (e.g., songs from the movies, books and TV shows about the Marx Brothers), you may have addressed my procedural point, because then it may have fit within the Hollywood families description. (But, Angus, if you want a bit of unsolited advice, I'd lose the snideness about Karl and Wilhelm - it is unconvincing, offputting, and, in this case, inaccurate, unless Karl and Harpo are related in some way I don't know about - those may be relatively unnotable children and hangers on of the Marx family, but they are children and hangers on). A Musing 17:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No, or at least not at the time that it was deleted, it did not. I doubt if it ever did but we can't easily tell. The films used to be in [[:Category:Marx Brothers films], now called Category:Marx Brothers (film series). The only "Marx Brothers" productions include in Category:Marx Brothers at the time that it was deleted were the TV show The Incredible Jewel Robbery and the even-less-Marx-Brothersish stage show I'll Say She Is and radio show Flywheel, Shyster and Flywheel. Double Dynamite had one Marx Brother in it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The category was categorized under Category:Hollywood families. I don't think it's misleading or a procedural issue at all to CFD a category about the show business Marx Brothers (with just three other categories, so it's not like this was some impenetrable mass of categories) under a "show business families" header. If you neglected to read the nomination while it was open, that's, with all due respect, too bad for you but it's not a reason to overturn the deletion. Otto4711 18:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Otto, please, Angus has convinced me there was no procedural error and that it was properly listed; if it were (and I'm convinced it was not) listed under a misleading heading, I do think it would have been an issue worthy of relisting.A Musing 18:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. I don't think it was a procedural error; it was under Hollywood families, and Otto's been throwing all of those out for deletion. But in this case it just happens to be a Hollywood family, but it is more properly a Hollywood institution, like Category:Saturday Night Live. It might want to be renamed for that purpose, but it definitely should exist.--Mike Selinker 18:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per above arguments. Oliver Han 21:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, I don't see that the admin misread the consensus at all, and as for the claim that this "may qualify" as an exception, well, I think that between Category:Marx Brothers (film series) and Template:Marx Brothers. we have enough exceptional coverage to fully meet our readers' needs. Xtifr _tälk 12:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Although I'm with Otto on deleting almost all of the Hollywood family categories, the term "Marx Brothers" distinguishes these guys from other Marxes. The term links them as individuals and their series of films. "Marx Brothers" is like "Warner Brothers", a distinct name for a Hollywood institution. While I previously said to kill the "Marx family" category and I stick by that, I support keeping this one and regret having erred during the original CfD. We've had a lot of these votes lately. As one of the people who voted in the CfD on this article, I must acknowledge that I overlooked the word "Brothers" on this one. Doczilla 17:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• The points of response. One, how does one objectively define a "Hollywood institution" for purposes of categorization? If someone created Category:Hollywood institutions meaning prominent show business families with a presence in Hollywood, I would bet money that it would be deleted at CFD. Two, there is no category for either Category:Warner Bros the studio or Category:Warner brothers the brothers. Nor should there be, because any articles on the studio or the brothers are easily interlinked through the studio article and the articles on the brothers. Otto4711 19:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Virginia massacre.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This image is a photograph taken by a student on his cell phone during the Virginia Tech massacre. It was published by the Collegiate Times, Virginia Tech's school newspaper at http://collegemedia.com/ (the exact image URL is http://www.collegemedia.com/emerg3.jpg.) The student who took the photo is unquestionably NOT a reporter nor photographer for the CT. The CT does not own the copyright to the photo - the student does and the CT is using it either under a claim of fair use or with his permission. The logs [5] for the page are quite colorful. The deleting admin cited point #4 of section 107 (see [6]) which says that "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work" is considered when determining whether a use constitutes "fair use".

The whole idea here is that if you write a book and I copy and paste the juiciest part of your book on my website, that is not fair use because nobody needs to buy your book any more. But in this case, the only potential market value is potential licensing fees. When we are dealing with a real news media photo, that's a big deal - by using a Reuters photo without permission, we would be depriving Reuters of their right to sell us that photo for a fee - that's how Reuters makes their money. But this photo is owned by a student, not a press agency.

In any event, nothing in the deletion log resembles a criterion for speedy deletion. I ask that the image be restored. Thank you. BigDT (416) 00:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, from what I can tell looking at the deletion log and the history, this is essentially replaceable fair use. At this point, I'm not sure there's any point in restoring the image since the 48 hour time limit would apply (generic fair use tag). --Coredesat 01:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • In what way is it replaceable? A replaceable fair use image is something like a building or a person. I certainly hope that we do not have another chance to create a freely licensed version of this photo. The generic fair use tag issue is only when there is no rationale. There was a rationale on this image description page. --BigDT (416) 01:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment If the student is living, they have copyright and have the right to realize the market value. If the student is deceased, their estate does. The difference between it being taken by a student and by the CT is immaterial for Wikipedia's purposes, except to determine who has the legal right to release it under an acceptable license. GRBerry 01:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Under that interpretation, how can anyone in the country use any fair use photo anywhere? --BigDT (416) 01:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. As the deleter and the protector, I have deleted the image under the violation of not Wikipedia fair use policies, but under US Law. Under the four tests of fair use, the fourth one was failed due to our use of the image. This is a press photo used by the AP, while taken by a student. Many photos from students and films from phones were given to the news agencies, so they are using it and selling it to cover the story. Thus, the images have commercial value. Our use will break that commercial value, which is a violation of US fair use law. Until the media sensation with the event ceases, we should not use the image at all. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It may be used by the AP, but they do not own the copyright to it, any more than some guy who uploads images he finds on the web to his flickr site owns them. --BigDT (416) 01:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
    • They do, however, have an exclusive license AFAIK to distribute and profit from the image. Our distribution of that image to a wide audience (i.e. everyone who reads Wikipedia) seriously affects the market value of the image for the AP and thus miserably fails WP:NONFREE#2 and point no. 4. (This is an endorse, BTW.) --Iamunknown 01:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
      • The AP has exclusive rights according to whom? The photographer is a freshman student. He doesn't work for the AP. The photo isn't on Yahoo news, which usually carries AP photos. Nowhere that I have seen the photo used on TV has credited the AP. There's no logical reason to believe that the AP has rights to the photo. If the AP had exclusive rights to the photo, then I would 100% be leading the call to keep it deleted. But nobody here has offered any evidence that anyone other than the photographer owns the photo. --BigDT (416) 02:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
        • So who owns the copyright to the photo? I don't know. But I don't have to go looking. You do, prior to even uploading it, per WP:NONFREE#10. --Iamunknown 02:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. I'm not really sure this was the best route of action. It's tough to investigate claims in that 48 hour window if the image doesn't exist in context. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• I withdraw my nomination. The photographer has agreed in principle to release the image under the GFDL. I'm working out minor details, but, barring a shock, will have it posted before I go to bed tonight. Can someone close out this DRV with whatever templates are used? Thanks. --BigDT (416) 02:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)