Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 3

Category:2003 Iraq conflict (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

Unfortunately, there was scant commenting on this proposal, and it was a very good proposal to rename the category to Category:Iraq War. This decision should be reconsidered for the simple reason that Wikipedia should remain consistent, and this angle was not even mentioned. One call to rename, Iraq War to something else failed quite dismisally: Talk:Iraq_War/Archive_8#Requested_move (nominator withdrew it early); thus consensus is clearly that the English title is Iraq war, not the obfuscated nonsense about 2003 conflict, which is an ambiguous title anyway. Thus, consensus and precedent were ignored for this category discussion (of course, there is the fact that this discussion receieved preciously little, um, discussion, which is very important to determining consensus). The Evil Spartan 19:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse. Iraq war (disambiguation) is why it's not a good idea to name it "Iraq war". --Kbdank71 19:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Um, if Iraq war were a disambiguation page, I would buy that. But it's not. It's Iraq war, which is the recent one. The Evil Spartan 19:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Um, the point was that Iraq had many wars. Why should I assume that "Iraq war" refers to the recent one? What happens when Iraq gets in another war? Will "Iraq war" then refer to "the not-so-recent one"? --Kbdank71 19:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Precedent is not always an indicator of consensus. It is quite possible that the current name of the Iraq War article might not be the title which is most preferred by the community. Regardless, it is not the place of DRV to take the place of CfD when too few people show up at the original CfD discussion. I'd suggest waiting a few weeks and bringing it back to CfD. --- RockMFR 19:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Umm... could you please read Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Purpose. There was nothing wrong with the closure, and no attempt was made to reconcile this with me (the closing admin) before this listing. Note This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome. You are more than welcome to relist your proposed renaming with CfD, but deletion review simply cannot overturn a "keep" where the only two people besides the anon that commented said "oppose".-Andrew c ^[talk] 20:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Right. I'm having trouble thinking you're assuming good faith. I have read it. And I did provide something that was entirely unmentioned in the disagreements: that the precedent for Iraq war is to name it as this. In any case, I am withdrawing. The Evil Spartan 20:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Right, I don't think it would make sense for you to restart discussions with editors involved in editing the relevant articles. If you come to some sort of agreement, you can always restart the CfD: given the very low participation in the first one, I don't think there would be much complaining if you resubmit it in the not too distant future. Pascal.Tesson 05:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Amyphoto.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|IfD)

The copyright to school photos are owned by the parents, not the photo companies. Amy's surviving parent has repeatedly granted use of this image related to his daughter's tragic story. It is historically significant and specifically relevent to the article. Also, it has been reprinted numerous times in the Plain Dealer, the Cleveland Free Times, Cleveland Magazine, the Milwaukee Journal, the Beacon Journal, the Record Courier, the Lorain Morning Journal, the Elyria Chronicle Telegram, Sun Newspapers, and several other publications. Thank you. JamesRenner 18:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC) JamesRenner

Added after closing of debate, email from Mr. Renner

Good job. I'm sorry I had to sound snippy in that response. But there's a long history between the powers that be in Bay Village and me, over this book. It took me by surprise. But I'm very happy to see everything seems to have worked out. Can you post this message here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:DRV#Image:Amyphoto.jpg - Thanks, James

• FAIR USE PERMISSION SECURED FOR WIKIPEDIA FROM COPYRIGHT HOLDER Thanks are in order to Ohio School Pictures. Please see Email Release from Ohio School Pictures to use photo of Amy Mihaljevic in the Wikipedia Article BlueSapphires 23:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

*COPYRIGHT OWNER FOUND. Copyright ownership was the crucial missing information needed by Wikipedia in order to retain this image per [[1]] and [[2]]. Details on copyright confirmation and other relevant articles pertaining to photos of prominent cases of missing or murdered children below. see my input below.BlueSapphires 18:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• comment Last I checked when my kid had her school pic taken, the photo company owns the copyright...that's also why you can't just go to Walmart and make your own copies. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Correction: The photo in question was actually at Image:Amyphoto.jpg. - TexasAndroid 18:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment IMHO this is a Fair Use issue. The parents have not released the photo under a free license, so it really is irrelevant whether they or the photgrapher owns the rights. In either case, the photo can only be used here under Fair Use rules. So the issue IMHO should be, can the photo be used under FU, or not, rather than who owns the rights. - TexasAndroid 18:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Actually mention of the copyright holder is crucial in allowing the photo for free use, per [[3]] and [[4]]. It should be deleted in 7 days if no copyright holder is identified, per rules. This should have been found a long time ago, but there was resistance, due to a lack of understanding of copyright law. I added some references to the Jonbenet to help educate people on the issue. BlueSapphires 19:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

(From deleting admin) Most school photos are done "on spec," by a professional photographer who makes their living selling these photographs in hopes that the student will purchase the photos. As far as I can tell, unless an agreement was made otherwise, then copyright is automatically vested with the photographer and does not revert to the parents. If someone can provide legislation or case law that shows otherwise then my decision would be in error. Barring that, then WP:NFCC #10a applies and image should not be used on Wikipedia per policy. Wikipedia NFCC policy trumps fair use consideration. -Nv8200p talk 18:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you telling me any photo company can reprint images of my kids if they want? Doubtful. Show me the law that says photo companies own those copyrights. Why was it never an issue when it was reprinted in books and newspapers before? Beyond the issue of copyright ownership, there is a strong argument for fair use. This is historical and relevent. And this image has been used repeatedly in the past in reference to this case, including those articles referenced on the Amy Mihaljevic page. JamesRenner

Yes, the photo company that took the image can reprint it if they want (or they can grant rights to someone else). The person depicted still has publicity rights that could be upheld if the image was used for certain purposes. What other media outlets do with the image is of no issue to Wikipedia and Wikipedia's overly restrictive non-free content policy trumps fair use reasoning. Read this about the law that says who owns the copyright. -Nv8200p talk 18:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

So it sounds like who owns the photo is indeed an important issue. If the parents own it, then FU is likely OK, given the parents regular grants of usage permission. If the photographer owns it, then NFCC applies and it cannot be used. Is that a fair assessment? If so, then on the issue of who does own it, we have a complicated series of contradictory signs. It appears likely that the photographer owned it at least initially. But the parents have apparently been acting for a while as if they owned it, and widely granting permission for others to use it. I see several possibilities: 1) The law did give the rights to the parents, and they have had them all along. 2) The photographer owned the rights, but at some point sold or gave the rights to the parents. 3) The photographer still owns the rights, and the parents have technically been violating those rights all along, with the photographer not making a big deal of the situation for whatever reason. It should be possible to establish who had the rights initially by somehow finding the applicable law, but I have no idea how we could/would establish what happened to the rights after that. - TexasAndroid 19:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I would bet on number 3. -Nv8200p talk 19:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Regardless of the copyright issue, this is well within the boundaries of Fair Use. JamesRenner

I have posted a request on the Fair Use talk page asking for additional input on the issue from people much more familiar than I with the project's Fair Use policies. - TexasAndroid 19:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use is kind of irrelevant on Wikipedia currently. The driving factor is the Non-free content criteria. If you can meet NFCC, then you easily meet the fair use factors. -Nv8200p talk 21:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - it was deleted under the premise that the copyright holder could not be attributed. Yet it seems pretty obvious to me that we know it was the studio who took the photo - thus, this clearly passes our fair use criteria. The Evil Spartan 19:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps it is obvious, but the copyright holder never was verified or attributed on the image description page, despite repeated requests during the deletion discussion. Instead, the assertion is still being made that the parent holds the copyright, with no verification. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 20:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I don't think anyone denies the photo could be used under fair use, in the right circumstances. But, if it is, the copyright holder has to be attributed per WP:NFCC#10a. The copyright holder has not been attributed, hence the deletion. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 20:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• In that case, overturn and mark as fair use, attributing the author properly. We shouldn't delete valid images if we can attribute the source. It clearly passes WP:FU - she's been dead for 18 years, and no free is equivalent. The Evil Spartan 20:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not arguing with you, but still nobody has supplied the name of the copyright holder - that is what is disputed and undetermined. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 20:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight. Your argument for copyright is: it's the photo company and not the parents that own the picture. But the argument for fair use is: no one has been established as the copyright holder. Are you trying to protect an image or just being needlessly contrary because I disagreed with your initial edit a week ago? JamesRenner

Please don't assume bad faith. All we need is the name of the copyright holder, per our non-free content criteria. This is a clear requirement and not difficult to understand. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 20:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn But if you follow WP:NFCC#10a a little further to Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Images it states, "It is important that you list the author of the image if known" (emphasis added). The idea, I think, behind this is that if the image is ever challenged we, the editors, have provided, to the best of our ability, a place to start for the investigator. We need a copyright holder and/or a source. Doctor Sunshine talk 20:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The important word there is author of the image, which is not necessarily the copyright holder (although usually is). The copyright holder is a requirement. If we don't know the copyright holder, we cannot use the image per #10. -Nv8200p talk 19:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're making this argument as all potential copyright holders are known in this case. However, nowhere does it say that the naming of the copyright holder is an absolute. Check any number of FA article image rationales and you'll see that the source and/or copyright holder is the practice. Doctor Sunshine talk 20:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Sheesh edit conflict

• Comment: In regard to school photos; the photographer owns the negatives/proofs (they do not go to the expense and time until the parent chooses to purchase them) If the parents choose to purchase them, they are then processed into actual photos, so then the subject and the parents are the owners after paying for the processed photos. (I haven't seen the image, so do not know the case) - Jeeny ^Talk 20:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

In that case, the owner is Amy's father, Mark Mihaljevic. JamesRenner

No, they own copies of the processed photos for their personal use, but do not own the copyright to the images and have no rights to release the image for non-personal use. -Nv8200p talk 21:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

No. Once they purchase them, they own them to do whatever they want with them. That's how school photogs make their money. Now if the photographs were taken in a studio, then that is different. School photos are a different criteria. They are taken at the school, in an area set up for all students. The photographer gets paid to release the images to whomever pays for them. - Jeeny ^Talk 21:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless there is a agreement specifically stating the buyer of the prints gets the copyright, the default is that the photographer owns the copyright. Being at the school or at the studio makes no difference. See here. Please provide references to legislation, case law or anything else to support your claim. -Nv8200p talk 21:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. This is splitting hairs of the finest kind. We should make a best effort attempt to find the image owner and photographer; fine. But the image is being used under fair use regardless. Whoever the owner is, parent, photo company, school, or the Sultan of Brunei, we're still using the image under Fair Use. Our rationale is exactly the same in any case. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn clearly fair use, and the exact wording of the attribution statement can be worked out--if the ownership is unclear, this can even be said, and both listed. We do not have to decide the matter between them to use it in WP. If it turns out the parent do have the rights, then they can release them if they choose and it will be free use, which of course is preferable. . DGG (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn There is clear information on the source. Now to commit a cardinal wikisin: the copyright holder in this case is largely irrelevant. Even if the school photographer makes a claim of ownership, our policy still allows use of the image. The uploader is a journalist who previously published the photograph and received permission from the subject's parents, this is enough to verify the authenticity of the photograph. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no argument the image is authentic and there is enough fair use justification to use the image for journalism. Wikipedia's non-free content criteria goes way beyond fair use and requires more in order to use the image and what is needed to satisfy NFCC is not here. -Nv8200p talk 19:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. And when policies prevent you from maintaining or improving Wikipedia, it is sometimes best to ignore them. While precise attribution is at this point impossible, we know that the copyright is held by the parents, the school, or the photographer. Each possibility could be acknowledged in the rationale. We are also aware of why this image was created, when and where it was first published, its usage in journalism, and its inclusion in public and FBI records. In short, there's enough attribution data to satisfy all but the most demanding readings of NFCC#10. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn - The next of kin of (parents) have released the photo for such use, as described above. Badagnani 02:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment If the image is kept, it will have to be properly sourced. I don't have a strong opinion on this one, as long as we get a source, but deleted images should not be constantly reuploaded. If there's doubt about who the copyright holder is, and if JamesRenner knows Amy's father, perhaps he could get another photo, and have it released under a free licence, although, I'm doubtful if a father of a murdered child would want to release photos under a licence that allows others to make derivative works for any purpose whatsoever. ElinorD (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per above, and agree that this is splitting hairs. Wikipedia:Citing sources#Images mentions that citing the precise copyright holder is only needed for certain licenses, and that it is important to list it if it is known. We know the source of where the image was obtained and who the possible copyright holders might be. If the sources where this was obtained were reliable (which it seems they were, newspapers tend to be careful with photograph attribution), then we should assume good faith that this was not a license that demanded specific copyright holder attribution. IronGargoyle 18:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• OVerturn, deleter should know better. Meets fair use criteria, comfortably. Neil ╦ 14:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn - per FAIR USE PERMISSION SECURED FROM COPYRIGHT OWNER FOR WIKIPEDIA (see below) per NFCC#10a COPYRIGHT OWNER FOUND , Copyright owner is Ohio School Pictures confirmation, per email 1 and email 2 BlueSapphires 18:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Copyright ownership was the crucial missing information needed by Wikipedia in order to retain this image per [[5]] and [[6]].

• Sourcing and Tagging. All media uploaded to Wikipedia require a source and a "copyright tag". Images that lack either of these will be deleted after a week. Note that the source is supposed to tell who holds the copyright to the picture—a URL to where you found the picture is good, but it is useless if the page you link to does not say who the copyright holder is or what kind of license it is available under. Simply linking to an image on Photobucket, or a GeoCities fan site is no good. Search a bit harder and try to find an official site for the person or company who hold the copyright instead, or otherwise include enough info to let people know who the copyright holder is.

BlueSapphires 19:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• == INFORMATION, COMMENTS & REFERENCES ==
• School picture (photograph) copyright law'. OSP is copyright owner unless there was a very-unusal case where the school obtained copyrights (rare) or unless the parents bought the copyrights (very, very rare, and highly unlikely) or unless OSP gave them the copyrights (unlikely and would require proof). See reference below to legal journal discussing this.

• To answer Mr. Renner’s question, your kid’s school photographer DOES own photo copyrights unless you have already paid him for them. It would have been ‘much’, so presuambly you’d know it if you’d purchased it.BlueSapphires 19:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Fair usage of missing/murdered children photos is discussed extensively for Jonbenet Ramsey pictures (see 1 and 2 below). In short, such photos are routinely used by the media and others, under the premise of fair use until such a point that copyright owners asserts ownership rights, which apparently has never happened in the case of Amy Mihaljevic. In the case of the Jonbenet “pink sweater photo”, the photo was released by police (on an unoffical basis) and subsequently published under the principle of fair use by AP, AFP, UPI, NBC, ABC, etc until the legal owner, an anonymous businessman, sought representation by ZUMA, and commenced with pursuit of licencing agreements from all media outlets. NBC was one of the few agencies to purchase a licence, AP, to take one example, viewed ZUMA as a competitor, and chose to instead issue a “kill order” on all future usage (which many journalists and editors chose to ignore, and were later asked to respect or pay).

• The I/They published it under fair use, therefore Wikipedia can too justification. Whereas prior publication on the book is a one of the criteria for fair use on Wikipedia, Mr. Milhaljevic does not appear to be the copyright holder (which is the issue in question), and therefore he didn't have the right to grant such permission, legally speaking. Morally, it was good that he approved of the use of the image on Mr. Renner's book, of course, but that is not the issue at hand. Per other media usage of missing/killed children, I refer again to the Jonbenet case in references below.

• Better things to do. I had assumed that Mr. Renner would be only happy to help in this effort, and therefore I copied him on an email I sent (under alias) to the principal of Amy's school, asking for the name of the photograper, and if the school had been accorded copyright for school pictures (which apparently happens in some cases, though it isn't common). This was responded to, by Renner, with a schoolmarmish, scolding email to me, informing me that my approach was inappropriate, and that the principal had better things to do than provide the name of the school photographer or to respond to my questions. Renner also complained that I had no right to refer to his name (I'd copied him on the email, and mentioned his discussions online here). Whereas I accede that I should have asked Renner before mentioning him, I hasten to add that this entire discussion is on public display (Googlable), and add that I was surprised that he wasn't supportive of this research. In my point of view, he's being dismissive of what is being discussed here, which is essentially legal due diligence on behalf of the Foundation (one doesn't need to be a lawyer to undertake due diligence). I found his response to be incredibly pejorative, this being goading given my efforts to help him. I happen to earn more than a principal, and probably have more years of education than most principals. Not that that matters, but given his attitude, it bears note. I also spent hours last week finding references for his bio and Amy-article, to defend what I felt was an unfair attack against him. For this, my thanks. :/ Bottom line is that this entire protracted discussion (IMD, DR) could have been avoided if Mr. Renner had not been loudly proclaiming he knew more about image copyrights than he actually apparently does, including about this photo. He could have, should have, just found the name of the photographer, and that would have been that.

• Other optionsThere are other pictures of Amy online, probable copyright holder would be Mark Mihaljevic. They are not as clear, and in them she looks a bit younger. The school photo is much better and clearer, and so it is up to consensus vote if the ownership atttribution of the school photo is sufficient to satisfy Fair use criteria per Wikipedia Rules. My personal vote is to go with the school picture, as it has the added social benefit of forwarding information which has a possibility of sparking the memory of a witness who could help catch the murderer. The case is still open, and reportedly suspects are still being monitored.

• References

1. Discussion of Photographers Rights with Children School Photos Copying of school photos leaves industry shuddering Summary: Parents don’t own picture copyrights, this is a legal article about a principal who published an article on AOL suggesting that parents save money by scanning school pictures, which caused a furore among photographers and lawyer; the AOL article was pulled down.

2.Story Behind the Picture: Who Owns JonBenet Photos? (highlights)

• The fact that the picture was made available to media at the time of the murder did not give anybody the right to distribute it. What allowed AP and other media to use the image at that time was that the copyright owner did not take any immediate action to forbid it. But that does not mean he could not assert his rights later on.

Q: Are the still photographs of JonBenet Ramsey in the public domain-free for publication?

A: No and they never have been! There are no images in the public domain of JonBenet from ZUMA photographers or anyone, it does not apply. All the images were made between 1993 and end of 1996.

Q: Who owns the rights to these pictures? How did the rights-holders get these rights?

A:The creators of these images hold the rights. Per the copyright act and reinforced in the latest version of March 1, 1989. The creator automatically own rights from moment of inception, unless

Q: Weren't some of the photographs released by police?

A: NO! Never. And even if they had it is a moot point.

Q: What would/could happen if Web sites/newspapers/TV stations continue using the still pictures without paying for them?

A:I recommend always trying to work it out. Most of the time it is a lack of understanding of the law and not intentional. We always try to work with other media first.

3.Usage of JonBenet Images: No Substitute for Permission (highlights)

• Even had the police disseminated photos or video of JonBenet it is still incumbent upon those news organizations wishing to publish or broadcast such material to make a reasonable inquiry into who, if anyone, owned the rights to the photo. An example of this would be if someone offered to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge it would be foolish to pay for it until you knew that person had the right to sell it.
• In order to avoid unnecessary litigation and the possible payment of monetary damages it would be best that for anyone wishing to publish or broadcast this (or any) material to contact the copyright holder or someone representing the copyright holder and seek permission for use before they do anything.
• Author: Attorney Mickey H. Osterreicher, Esq., has been a member of the NPPA since 1972. He is the chair of the NPPA Media Government Relations Committee and is also a member of the New York State Bar Association Media Law Committee. He has been a photojournalist for over thirty years in Buffalo, NY, where he now practices law.

4.Supreme Court's Refusal To Hear National Geographic CD-ROM Case Leaves Conflicting Copyright Rulings (Digital Journalist)

• An article for image specialists who are concerned about Wikipedia liability for CD-ROM versions of the encyclopedia. Current legal opinion stands in favor of a digital publisher, given the fact that the publication is on a new media material.BlueSapphires 19:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse. In the excellent research by BlueSapphires, I turned up the following quote from David Tomlin, Associate General Counsel of The Associated Press [7] (scroll about halfway down the page): "Fair use can allow an otherwise infringing use of a photo where it is the photo itself -- not what is depicted in the photo -- that is news." Now he was talking about JonBenet Ramsey's school photo, but this is exactly the same case. It would be best to contact the family and get a different photo. howcheng {chat} 20:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Overly strict.

• Amazing cherry picking of that guys statement. The same guy said, What allowed AP and other media to use the image at that time was that the copyright owner did not take any immediate action to forbid it.. This is the essence of fair usage.
• AP used the image until copyright holder demanded licencing rents. Which was his main point. Besides the fact that you are cherry picking an out of context sentence, the man is only the General Counsel of AP, not Chief Justice Robertson. Opinions of a company counsel are not sources of law, nor are the legally binding, and therefore can't be used as grounds for removing the picture. I hasten to add that all the profit-making entities, such as newspapers or books, were not back-charged for use of the picture, nor were they sued. They were asked to stop using it anymore. So fair use is fair use until the copyright holder invokes rights. That's the case here, and we should respect it.
• Application of your arguement would remove all fair use from Wikipedia. I just had a non-free diamond image removed from my user page. It is the diamond that is the point of the picture, not the picture itself. It is here under fair use. Your logic would remove all fair use photos from Wikipedia.
• Please stop trying to GFDL a dead little girl. Stop, just stop please. Contacting her parents, NO. This is opening an old wound, it is cruel and NO. Just NO. His wife died of grief afterwards. Please try to focus on what it would be like if your sister or daughter were killed. Don't bother the man. To do such a thing to obtain a licence is pecuniary. And colder than cold. Besides the inappropriateness of bothering the family, this is NOT the picture to put in GFDL. For this kind of a picture, fair use is perfect. We don't want her on some user page. Or on the Chinese Wikipedia in an article about teenaged girls. NO. Don't do that. Guys, this is NOT a case for getting another GFDL image, please.
• Get the Copyright owner and it stay's. Oops, now it can't stay. I did my best to cooperate with the requests of you guys, and I'm sorry, but this response make me feel that you are all impossible. Just impossible. All over Wikipedia, it says, "find copyright holder". Then, your next response (evidently) is "we have to get GFDL from the copyright holder or it is out". Well, BS. - yes, that's my name :) If this was a huge breaking story, and the girl's pic was likely to get licenced (as was the case with Jonbenet) then that would make sense. This one is not a likely candidate for future licence. We can use it. It has been used over and over again, with no problem.
• Other pictures There are links to other pictures up there. I put them there. You can use them, and attribute them to her father as copyright holder, under fair use (yes, FAIR USE, just put his name as copyright holder) if you want to. If you write the father and ask for GFDL, so help me, ...(bangs head on desk)....(bangs head on desk again)....(regains composure).... Murdered little girls are not good GFDL candidates. And she is not likely to be licenced in the near future. She's a fair use candidate if there ever was one.
• Because it bears repeating. There is no reason for people to bother to find copyright holders, if your only arguement once that is found is "whoops, then we can't use it". Please start being constructive and working with people who have tried to observe the law, and Wikipedia policy. Thanks in advance. BlueSapphires 20:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The Associated Press must account for added considerations when publishing photographs in commercial works. Wikipedia is a non-profit entity and does not license photographs for commercial publication. Further, the copyright to this photo is not owned by a press agency, but by a local school photographer who as far as we know doesn't even license images for press use. Either the Tomlin quote requires us to reformulate fair use policy with respect to all photographs taken by professionals, or this whole dispute amounts to copyright paranoia. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

To respond...

• The same guy said, "What allowed AP and other media to use the image at that time was that the copyright owner did not take any immediate action to forbid it." This is the essence of fair usage. No, that is the equivalent of a takedown notice. Fair use is legal regardless of what the copyright owner wishes.
• A General Counsel of AP is just like any other lawyer, or person, who gets to voice his opinion. Yes, but his opinion is worth far more than mine or yours when it comes to the application of fair use.
• Your logic would remove all fair use photos from Wikipedia. Not even close. We have a number of non-free images that are included because they themselves are the subject of discussion: Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, The Falling Man, Guernica (painting), the O.J. Simpson magazine covers in Photo editing, etc etc etc.
• Get the Copyright owner and it stay's. Oops, now it can't stay. Yes, I did !vote to keep the image pending resolution of the copyright holder, but discovering who that is only clarifies the position. This was not a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. If the copyright holder had turned out to be her parents, then this would not have been an issue, but Ohio School Pictures is a commercial entity that makes money from sales of its photos. That they haven't exercised their prerogative in this case is no excuse for us to continue to violate their copyright.
• Either the Tomlin quote requires us to reformulate fair use policy with respect to all photographs taken by professionals, or this whole dispute amounts to copyright paranoia. No, because the Tomlin quote is about transformative uses. Our use here is clearly not transformative.

--howcheng {chat} 21:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Reply

• If the copyright holder had turned out to be her parents, then this would not have been an issue, but Ohio School Pictures is a commercial entity that makes money from sales of its photos.. The Jonbenet photo was owned by a private person who chooses to remain anonymous. For all we know, that anonymous businessman, owner of the pink sweater picture, is John Ramsey, her father. The anonymous person sought legal representation, after almost 10 years, by hiring ZUMA, which began to ask media for money to print the picture. More specifically, nowhere is it stated that a copyright holder must be a private individual, and not a company, for the fair use to be allowed on Wikipedia Nowhere. I understand you are trying to be careful here, but frankly, the ownership rights are no different for individual vs. business. Furthermore, what you've suggested, that Amy's father would be ok, but a photo company would not doesn't hold logic. If it were Amy's father, he could also decide to exert licence rights, someday, just the same as the anonymous businessman did in the case of Jonbenet. Again, your arguement calls for the destruction of all fair use on Wikipedia. Because theoretically, anyone, at anytime, could change their mind. Hence copyright paranoia.
• No, that is the equivalent of a takedown notice. That is your interpretation, or rather, an interpolation of what he said. He said that they were allowed to use the picture for free, until told otherwise (which is what fair use is all about). That's all he said. You are interpolating it to say 'we never should have used it', when he never said that. They aren't sorry they used it. They are going to do the same thing again. They aren't being penalized for using it. He also never mentioned the difference between private and business ownership of the picture. Because it was irrelevant.
• Fair use is legal regardless of what the copyright owner wishes. ??? Fair use stops being fair use when the copyright owners asks for licence rents. That's his/her/its wish. It is to be respected, legally. This is what Tomlin said, and again, buttresses free usage, even on Wikipedia.
• Ohio School Pictures is a commercial entity that makes money from sales of its photos. So do human beings. Human beings are legally not much different than companies (which are called 'persons' in legal jargon). What
• That they haven't exercised their prerogative in this case is no excuse for us to continue to violate their copyright. This is the essence of fair use. Has not exercised prerogative. Doesn't know to, or doesn't care to. Violation of the copyright is when they've informed you, and you've broken it. Even then, the approach is to ask to pay, and then to ask to take down if the person doesn't want to buy a licence. Good faith is assumed, as most people don't know copyright law, even in the media.
• No, because the Tomlin quote is about transformative uses. Our use here is clearly not transformative. Tomlin was talkign about Jonbenet's picture. The transformative use article was about National Geographic. I don't understand who you are arguing here, actually. But Tomlin was talking about the change in AP position after the exercise of copyright, and prior to that Tomlin was apparently fine with AP use of the picture. BlueSapphires 22:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Yes, but his opinion is worth far more than mine or yours when it comes to the application of fair use. As someone who works with lawyers, and who has corrected mistakes in points or conclusions made in legal drafting, and in analyses made by lawyers on various materials, I beg to differ. Having a law degree is honorable, but it doesn't mean you know everything about everything. Even about the law. And there are so any different facets and aspects and contexts of law, as well as different jurisdictions and modes of application that you simply can't take one guy's opinion - unless his writings have come to be considered as a 'source of law'. And then they are usually only a source in one area of law, and even then sometimes a special context of an area of law (trademark intellectual property specialists might not know jack about printed circuit IP law, which, yes, is an actual field, and probably has 2000 different areas where you can specialize). Not many people are able to have their writings become a source of legal opinion, and the opinion of a company counsel is far to biased, by definition. It is their job to look out for the interest of their employer (too COI, not enough NPOV). I wouldn't ever base a Wikipedia decision on the words of just any company counsel. Unless it was the Wikimedia Foundation Counsel, who's job it is to look out for Wikimedia interest. That would be relevant. Back to the point: Tomlin never said that AP's use of the picture was improper. They simply decided to stop using it when they were being charged. BlueSapphires 22:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Fair use stops being fair use when the copyright owners asks for licence rents. No, I meant what I said earlier. Fair use is fair use regardless of what the copyright holder says. See Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., Bill Graham Archives vs. DK Publishing and so on.
• The transformative use article was about National Geographic. Sorry? I think we have our wires crossed here. A transformative use is when the entity claiming fair use is using the copyrighted item in a way that is different from the item's original intent, so when Tomlin says that fair use can apply when using an item because that item is the subject the news itself, that's transformative. JonBenet's photo is used to show what she looks like, and in articles about JonBenet, that's not transformative. But in articles that discuss the licensing issue about the photo itself and about how ZUMA exercised its rights ten years later, then that becomes transformative because the articles would be using the JonBenet photo to discuss the photo itself, and not the person. Hope that makes sense.

--howcheng {chat} 22:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• FAIR USE PERMISSION SECURED FOR WIKIPEDIA FROM COPYRIGHT HOLDER Thanks are in order to Ohio School Pictures. Please see Email Release from Ohio School Pictures to use photo of Amy Miheljevic in the Wikipedia Article BlueSapphires 23:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Good news, huh? I am thrilled. It has been fun debating with you, Howcheung, but I have things I have to get back to things left undone - my real work, for example. I still think it would have been ok without permission, but we have it now, so all is well. Try not to knock the house down while making repairs with your logic hammer. Keep your eye on the big picture. All the best, BlueSapphires 23:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• When can it be uploaded? BlueSapphires 23:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It *really* should wait for a neutral admin to close this debate. And since the debate has only been open 4 days, that would have to be an early close, which is not all that likely in this complex of a case. And no re-upload is needed. The photo is still stored, it just cannot be accessed by non-admins. So whoever the neutral admin is who closes this will be perfectly able to restore the picture as well without a re-upload, assuming they close it as overturn. At this point that looks to *me* to be the obvious outcome, but I'm not a neutral admin, so my opinion does not rule. Anyway, is it that much of a hurry that it cannot wait a couple more days for a proper closing of the debate? - TexasAndroid 00:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Just thought of one other option. If you used your new information to persuade one, or preferably both, of the deleting admins to reverse themselves, either of them could bring it back at any time. They are User:Nv8200p and User:ElinorD. - TexasAndroid 00:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the tip. I already informed Elinor, now I will also inform Nv8200. Again, I'm quite pleased. Looking forward to it being up again. BlueSapphires 00:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Restore image. I have no more objections. howcheng {chat} 00:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Restore - my concerns have been satisfied. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• I'm satisfied as well, and agree with BlueSapphires that contacting GFDL images of murdered children are not the best idea, and that contacting the child's father would be inappropriate. ElinorD (talk) 07:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who use LiveJournal (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

lack of consulation]] I can't find anywhere else to say this, so i'll say it here: as a member of the above deleted category I am annoyed about not being notified of the deletion debate - I only found out when a bot removed it from my userpage. And please don't say "you should have had it on your watchlist" - what sane person watches categories? In future I think members of user categories like this one should be notified of CfDs. A second point (relevant solely to this category) is that Livejournal hosts a community of Wikipedians, who would have found the category useful. Totnesmartin 09:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Endorse as a valid CFD. I have categories on my watchlist. Maybe you should have also? --Kbdank71 10:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'll watch something that never gets meaningfully changed. Thanks for pointing at that it's my fault. The original nomination probably is valid; all I wanted was to have been informed of a CfD affecting my userpage.

Hundreds of categories, articles, templates, etc. are put up for deletion every day - we can't really tell every affected user (the editors, people who have categories/templates on their userpage, etc.) about the debate. It's not practical... ugen64 12:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Exceedingly impractical, and definitely a job for a bot. Is there one, and if not, could you point me towards a user who could make one? Totnesmartin 16:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:BOTREQ. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 17:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Aha! Cheers mate! Totnesmartin 17:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Well, we could tell everybody. It is well within the capability of a bot. I think very strongly that we should--otherwise it is the actions of a few at CfD imposing their private views on the community. This is a policy change that would be widely supported. There are several ways to do it, starting at the VP, and the talk page for CSD. Making the bot would be easy. Getting agreement from those who now hang out at CfD is another matter, but of course anyone is welcome there and all WPedians have an equal voice. Be glad to see you there and join the discussion. DGG (talk) 23:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC).
  • DGG, I don't think "a few at CfD imposing their private views on the community" is an entirely fair characterisation. Yes, it's relatively few people, but most of the nominations have a grounding in policy, whether it is WP:NOT#SOCIALNET, WP:NOT#SOAPBOX (in relatively few cases), or Wikipedia:Overcategorization. As for the idea of mass notifications, I do not think it is productive. First, it would be a relatively unimportant task for a bot, considering that user categories are probably among the least important of pages on Wikipedia. In addition, mass notification implies a degree of ownership over userpages that I do not believe is afforded by WP:UP. It's not as if removing a category (often by editing a template, with no edit to the userpage itself) changes the layout or content of a userpage ... it's a minor, technical thing. Do we notify contributors to articles in a category that is nominated for deletion? No, even though articles are infinitely more important than userpages and user categories. We don't even have required notification of article creators when their articles are nominated (I proposed the idea a few months ago and it was solidly rejected). Note: Much of the above comment is copied from Wikipedia:Bot requests. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - nominator does not appear to have any reason to oppose deletion; rather, is expressing annoyance that they were not notified. I sympathize, and would urge nominators at WP:CFD to notify all users in their categories in the future, but do not think this has any real bearing on the deletion. --Haemo 02:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse self - consensus was clear. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Fan Wars (2008 film) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I want to create an article about a future open source film with no blatant advertising or any forms of spamming. Bryan Seecrets 09:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - wait until the film comes out and becomes notable, then write an encyclopedia article about it. AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as the userfied version doesn't look like anything that would survive an AFD just yet. Add some sources, then move it back to the article namespace. --W.marsh 13:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - non-notable film by an unknown, based on a little known fanfilm trailer. Bryan Seecrets is also the film's "creator", so the original article would still qualify for deletion as a vanity page. TheRealFennShysa 15:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Films aren't, strictly speaking, covered by A7 (although an "open-source film" would probably fall under web content I guess). Definitely would NOT pass an AfD at this time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians by physiological condition (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

AfD with a general Keep consensus prematurely closed and article deleted. Request review. Thank you. Mikebar 05:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: My late reply here is not because I did not care to participate, but rather because I was not notified of this discussion. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn - At best this should have been a non-consensus close. There are good arguments on both sides, and a deletion without consensus seems a bit inappropriate. AKRadecki^Speaketh 05:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. Closing admin correctly determined the strength of the arguments. --Kbdank71 10:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, nothing out of line here. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: ^demon is the person who nominated the categories for deletion. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 03:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Um, yeah, that is true. Are you implying that his opinion should be less valued here? Many of the people commenting here already also participated in the original discussion, would you like to flag all of them as well? By the way, the use of that icon is depreciated here. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
      • No, of course not. The strength of the arguments is to be considered. And what's wrong with that icon? :) Melsaran 15:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn There was no consensus, and if anything the strongest argument is DGG's keep some opinion. I note that one was kept just the prior month. The reason for user categories is collaboration on building the encyclopedia, and for building an encyclopedia that the deaf/blind/colorblind, etc... can use, the best collaboration is getting input from those editors that have the condition. Looking at the discussion, deceased obviously needs its own discussion, as there were multiple opiners that said keep it delete the rest or delete it keep the rest. GRBerry 21:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. I feel that this was well within admin discretion. If the categories are restored, then at least keep deleted Category:Deceased Wikipedians. The "collaborative potential" argument, used by DGG and Legis, does not apply to that. Anomie suggested retaining because it could be "useful as a subcategory of another category", but that's not a valid reason to keep, since the suggested parent cat may be useless in and of itself. Espirit15d recommend keeping the deceased category for record-keeping; as I noted later in the discussion, another page already exists for that purpose and the category cannot hope to be a complete record in any case. SqueakBox suggested keeping that one on the basis that "dead means notable". I think this was a misunderstanding, since there is no reason to expect that the editors in that category meet WP:BIO. Wikihermit suggested keeping that one, but provided no reason. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn I think the same way now as I did at the CfD--this is imposing the will of a minority. I made specific arguments there for keeping Deaf Wikipedians and astigmatic and color blind and carpel tunnel, for they affect the design of the interface, including such things a user boxes and warnings. If I were to rework a warning template, I'd surely want to ask someone colour blind to examine my work. Good arguments were raised by others about working on disease related articles. A close in face of good arguments was not reasonable. If I hadn't been arguing, and had no particular view on the matter, I'd have closed either keep or no consensus. This nomination was a poor one in addition, for the factors involved in the category of deceased WPedians are very different from the others. Probably inadvertently, it was a straw man approach--include a very weak one and and affect the deliberation on them all. DGG (talk) 00:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, the result should have been keep. Of the delete "voters", only ^demon (the nominator) provided a real argument (little or no collaborative potential, encourages original research). The others were endorsements of the nom and/or an invalid argument ("why keep it", "is just silly"). Anomie made a pretty strong counter-argument against the "little or no collaborative potential", which hasn't been refuted. Horologium pointed out that "people who fall into these categories are more likely to have knowledge of, and access to, reliable sources for their particular conditions", a valid argument to keep. Finally, DGG cites the common "does no harm" argument, which is usually not very strong, but this time there was no compelling reason to delete.
  Also, I think that we should relist these categories for further debate, because these categories are actually widely used, so a more thorough discussion wouldn't hurt. Category:Deceased Wikipedians was an entirely different debate, of which the delete argument was stronger imo, but I think we can restore it and relist it separately, as this is of critical importance to Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 03:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse self - #1) UCFD is not a simple numerical vote, but, if it was, the vote count was not swayed to keep as they were pretty evenly split. #2) The result of the debate was delete all per strength of augments. The delete votes cited concerns regarding WP:OR and a lack of legitimate collaborative potential. The keeps cited being able to collaborate easier. For this issue, WP:OR and WP:NOT#SOCIALNET tips the balance. Also, Black Falcon's comment on Deceased Wikipedians was particularly strong. The deletes also did a better job of refuting the arguments of the keeps. In my opinion, this equated to delete all. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  • OR can only apply to deceased wikipedians. Anyone else is putting themselves in the category, and they know their physical condition. Plus we usualyl don't worry about OR on user pages. GRBerry 01:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
    • The OR issue affects whether a category carries any encyclopedic collaborative merit. It is not related to the user categorisation itself, but to whether a specific affiliation enables editors to contribute content beyond just their personal experiences or interpretations (i.e., original research). -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist - While I agree such a closure may fall within admin discretion, I think in this case the result should probably have been no consensus, or at least a relisting for more information in order to determine consensus. - jc37 10:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, reasonable closure. Sheesh, perhaps we need a WP:DRVU next? >Radiant< 08:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

List of sportspeople by nickname (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

AfD with unclear consensus prematurely closed and article deleted by an admin who cited "WP:BLP concerns" that seem to me ill-founded. When I queried the admin about these concerns (see under "Closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sportspeople by nickname"), the response was a citation of three nicknames that simple Google searches [8] [9] [10] could have shown to have been used in such reliable sources as the ESPN Web site, Sports Illustrated, USA Today, and the New York Times. Recommend that the article be restored and relisted at AfD and that the debate be allowed to run its full course before a decision is made. (I was planning to wait a while and think this over; but now I see that the closing of this AfD is being used as the justification for another AfD, and I think this needs to be cleared up.) Deor 01:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn Another BLP disaster... fix it, don't nuke it as a punishment because some items were incorrect. Pretty blatant bias too, which is not surprising with BLP deletions. The nom made a weak argument... we don't delete articles because they don't cite sources yet, we delete them because no sources could ever be cited with any validity. Certainly many published articles and books will confirm popular nicknames and can be cited. And as for WP:NOT, people should actually read the 5 items under "indiscriminate collection of information" before saying it applies... none of those 5 describe this article. Just deleting it and walking away is anti-content... there were much better ways to have closed this. --W.marsh 02:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion - "Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no neutral version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion" - From WP:BLP Corpx 03:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • This was not a biography, not negative in tone, nor was it unsourced. BLP is not just a magic wand to remove any article remotely related to a living person. Or at least, it isn't yet... --W.marsh 03:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm pretty sure this was unsourced as I dont remember many citations at all. If these nicknames are mentioned in the articles about the subject, without references, then they should be removed. Same should apply here. Corpx 03:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
      • But the unreferenced ones weren't removed in good faith, the article was deleted wholesale with no effort made to fix the fixable problem. Anyway, some references were to the Wikipedia articles, but many were to external sources (there were 40 total references). A literal application of BLP falls flat here. --W.marsh 03:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
        • If that's the case, then we should be USERFY this somewhere till every entry is cited from a reliable source. On another note, wikipedia itself should NOT be used as a source, as it is a tertiary source. Corpx 03:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
          • There's no basis in policy for requiring an inline citation for every item, although such a thing can be agreed upon by article editors in some cases. And I'm not saying Wikipedia articles should be used as sources, the point is just that deleting this as "BLP" is invalid, there were better ways to handle this. --W.marsh 03:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
            • For a "List of ____", I think every entry should be in line cited, since they're a bunch of related items. Anything written about a living person should be cited thoroughly. Corpx 03:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
              • Then start citing, and removing dubious ones... that can't be done with the article deleted though. But again, requiring every single claim related to a person to have an inline citation does not (yet) have any basis in policy, nor does deleting an article due to a lack of inline citation density. Deletions like this are not even backed up by BLP. --W.marsh 03:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Citations should be added when anything related to WP:BLP is added to an article. Anything not cited should not be allowed to stay while sources are being looked for. WP:BLP again says "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced". Since the whole article was unsourced, it should've been taken down. Again, if somebody wants to WP:USERFY it, while every nickname is cited, I'm fine with that. Corpx 03:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Sheesh, the whole article wasn't unsourced, and there's nothing in BLP that says the article has to be userfied until every claim is sourced. We've been over this. And only dubious items should be removed while sources are being looked for... if you think something is true yet remove it just because it doesn't have a source, that borders on vandalism at times. I'm all for trying to source this, but not if some guy is just going to waltz by and delete it for "BLP" regardless of the sourcing then walk away. Waste of time. --W.marsh 03:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, note that Corpx's supposed solution about Userfying doesn't actually work. If this were a BLP problem that mandated deletion then we couldn't have it in userspace either. JoshuaZ 04:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This list is older than WP:BLP, and the majority of its content was present before the first edit to WP:BLP. So, no, citations certainly did not have to be added at the time most of the content was added. GRBerry 21:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• overturn per W.Marsh. Yes, such lists should in general have in-line citations. No, unsourced nicknames are not serious enough to merity immediate BLP deletion. We should only engage in such deletion when there is (1) a likelyhood that we are violating the privacy of non-private individuals or (2) the information is likely to be contentious or potentially negative/defamatory. A list of nicknames such as this simply does not meet either of these (it isn't like we nicknames listed here like "Has-Sex-With-Underage-Girls". JoshuaZ 03:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Abuse of BLP. No harm would be done by leaving the article undeleted while sources are found. Evouga 06:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and Return to AfD - misreading of BLP to speedy delete this. I agree with Jaranda's nomination, but this a procedurally flawed close and should be sent back for full discussion. Eusebeus 08:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist - Either the BLP guidelines need some serious overhaul or admins need a refresher course, as these sorts of things are being consistently and routinely mishandled. If someone's trying to list something e.g. "Barry (BALCO) Bonds" there, then delete the offending entry, not the whole list because of it. Having said that, I probably would've voted to delete on the basis of it being a trivial intersection of nickname + athlete, but I'd like to see it argued out by others first. Tarc 13:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, massively trim, list for AFD 90%+ of the items were not sourced. BLP requires the highest standards of sourcing - so 90%+ of the items need to be cut. However, deletion of the entire article when 40 items are sourced is contradictory to BLP, so we overturn and massively trim. Whether we even should have this article is an AFD question, and I'd like to opine on that there. GRBerry 17:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. BLP:"Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced". I didn't see anything that was contentious, but even if I missed some, remove or cite that. No need to remove the whole list. --Kbdank71 19:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. WP:BLP justifies the removal of all unsourced entries, but it does not justify deletion (especially speedy deletion) of the entire article. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and return to AfD per Kbdank71, Black Falcon and others. -- DS1953 ^talk 00:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. BLP deletions of articles wholesale should be used when the article is unsalvageably a BLP violation, not if there is some material which may, or may not, be a BLP violation in an otherwise acceptable article. WP:BLP clearly states that unsourced material should be removed; not the entire article deleted. --Haemo 02:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Relist wrong reason to delete the article, even though it was in the five day closing limit. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, and remind ^demon to actually read WP:BLP, which some admins are now using as a hamfisted excuse to nuke anything they don't personally like - BLP says remove uncited statements if derogatory, don't just delete the whole thing. And technically, I'm not sure how this list could ever have been considered a biography. They don't even need to be inline cited if the citation for the nickname already exists in the article. Neil ╦ 14:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Campion Higher Secondary School, Tiruchi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article should have been deleted because WP:NOTE was completely overlooked int his case. Corpx 01:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't overturn. The closer correctly interpreted that there was no consensus, leaning towards a keep, and that a majority of respondents had not argued to delete. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to overturn a perfectly valid close. Rebecca 04:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• How can failing WP:N be construed as WP:IDONTLIKEIT ? Corpx 15:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment As the closing admin, I'm not going to comment either way, but it strikes me as interesting that time and again secondary schools in the UK and US that show up in AfD invariably are kept with the comment that secondary or high schools are generally considered inherently notable. This has been discussed so many times that I'd venture to say that you could call that a consensus decision. So why is this school not notable...just because it's in a different country? C'mon, folks, let's be consistent and not U.S./UK-centric. AKRadecki^Speaketh 05:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse, but... Close as keep was in order, but please, User:Akradecki, let's not enshrine the ridiculous view that secondary or high schools are generally considered inherently notable... Ugh! That is in no way a consensus view! Many of us feel this schoolcruft should be expunged, little matter the flag that flies out front. Eusebeus 08:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment First of all, I am the nominator. I think at the very least, the discussion should have been closed as "no consensus". One "Keep"'s argument was high schools are notable, which, as Eusebeus points out, isn't part of the notability guidelines yet. Another "Keep"'s argument was has source which in fact it didn't. That said, now that I found the copyvio, and got rid of the poorly written, almost nonsense sections, I believe the article is better. The article still has sourcing issues. It has not been established that the school has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, independent publications. Both of the main notability statements in the article has created many achievers in various fields. It has attracted students from all over the nation are currently unsourced as well. As I said in my nomination, if this can encourage users to bring the article up to standards, great, but it still isn't there and I still think deleting an article that doesn't currently meet policy is better than assuming someone someday will hopefully do it.- Andrew c ^[talk] 13:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure There is no consensus project wide as to which schools are notable. The specific discussion certainly did not have a delete consensus. The copyvio sections have been removed, so there is no argument for deletion from overriding policy. GRBerry 17:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse for the following reasons:

• First, WP:NOTE is a guideline, not a policy, and should not be used to trump consensus.
• Second, the guideline only seeks to established what is necessary to establish a presumption of notability. Failure to meet the guidelines simply means that no presumption in favor of notability exists; it does not mean that the subject is conclusively, or even presumptively, not notable.
• Third, the introduction to the guideline states "The topic of an article should be notable, or 'worthy of notice'. This concept is distinct from 'fame', 'importance', or 'popularity'." Notability is very subjective. Many editors strongly believe that every secondary school is "worthy of notice"; others disagree with that position and apply their own standards, some very high and some (to the thinking of other editors) very low. If, after extensive discussion, the consensus of the community is that an article should be kept, the clear implication is that the community believes that the subject is "worthy of notice" and an assertion that "WP:NOTE was completely overlooked" is not correct. -- DS1953 ^talk 20:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

*Endorse, permitting re-creation when a better article gets written. DGG (talk) 00:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC) oopsDGG (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You do realize that the result of the AfD was keep? There is nothing to be recreated. Evouga 00:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Just wanted to mention that although the argument that all high schools are notable is in fact raised at each afd, it is always challenged, it is not the consensus position, and those schools whose articles are kept are kept because there is reason to consider them actually notable. Quite a few are rejected, and the decisions are in general reasonable--as in this case. DGG (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Sorry I missed the chance to vote Delete in the AfD, but I think this AfD had no consensus, and I have not heard of any specific defects in the way the deletion debate was conducted. Though the closure would better have been marked as No Consensus than Keep, the practical result is the same. The AfD discussion seemed to show a reasonable knowledge of policy among the participants. It should be noted that there is no consensus in WP for the belief that all high schools are notable. I hope that the article improves, because in its current state it looks like another AfD might be successful, due to lack of sources to document notability. EdJohnston 02:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse There was a consensus to keep this school, as there has been for many other high schools. There is certainly not community support for those who wish to delete high school articles. Golfcam 18:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Nirvana band four members.jpg (edit|[[Talk::Image:Nirvana band four members.jpg|talk]]|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Was deleted as being a replaceable fair use image, but I don't see how. The band's been broken up for years, so they won't be together anytime soon, especially since there's also the small matter that Kurt Cobain is no longer with us. Any attempts to replace the image would likely only result in the use of another fair use image, unless someone out there has a free version. The problem, of course, is that we can't guarantee that they do, and until we can, the image isn't truly replaceable as I understand it. fuzzy510 01:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any idea how I missed this. This was an embarrassing mistake. Fuzzy510 is right, of course, this image is obviously non-replaceable, and I have restored it. (I'm usually extremely careful not to make this sort of error, since there are many who hold grudges against me for images I deleted in the past, who enthusiastically bring up my mistakes. But this one's a real boner. My apologies.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

List of people with epilepsy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Inappropriate use of WP:Speedy Keep. I come back to comment on it and I find it closed when it fits none of the criteria set in WP:Speedy Keep Corpx 01:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse keep - I closed the debate as keep. At the time, I wasn't aware there was a specific criteria for Speedy Keep; I interpreted it as a request that the debate be closed per WP:SNOW. Thus, I closed it per this criteria. My reasons for closing the debate as keep were:

1. The article was nominated as a process nom, and the nom abstained, so there were only 2 delete voters (Corpx and Harlowraman).
2. Corpx's delete argument; WP:NOT#DIR - was shut down by the two responses to it.
3. The other delete vote was per Corpx, thus it had very little merit when the argument it was declaring had already been shut down.
4. The list had been around a long time; it had reached featured status, etc. Surely if it was deletion-worthy, someone would have raised it by then.

Those are my reasons for closing the debate as keep. If consensus is against me, so be it, I'll learn from my mistake. Giggy ^{Talk | Review} 01:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse keep - seems an obvious result for a featured article. Also per the explanations given by Colin in the AfD. --Quiddity 01:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse keep, given that this is a featured list. If for some reason you want to AFD it, find a valid reason to get it de-featured, then nominate it on AFD. --Coredesat 04:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse keep - There's plenty of garbage that should be deleted before going after featured content. This seems, to me to either be a bad-faith nom for deletion or what happens when someone has a complete lack of understanding of how much scrutiny an article has to go through to get to featured status. I'd like to see Corpx do all the work necessary to take an article to FA...then let's see how he feels about deleting such articles. AKRadecki^Speaketh 05:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Endorse Keep. Nominating featured content for deletion is always questionable and usually merely disruptive, as by being featured it already has the overwhelming support of the Wikipedia editors. For a nomination to be taken seriously I would expect major problems, such as copyright or BLP violations, and not a vague dislike of lists. Evouga 07:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy keep. Nomination of featured articles/lists for deletion is utterly frivolous. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep I agree with Corpx that Speedy Keep is inappropriate. Giggy's edit summary on the list's page ("AfD speedy closed") may reasonably have been interpreted as "Speedy keep", though it now appears he was unaware of that guideline. I'm sure Giggy will be more careful with his words next time. I'm not familiar with the use of WP:SNOW, but the presence of this DRV suggests it was borderline. The debate was slowing but still ongoing: ikkyu2 had asked Corpx a question, to which he is now unable to respond. There were actually three "delete voters". David Fuchs (the original nominator of the AfD whose split created this one) turned up to argue for deletion. His unfortunate bolding of the words "To all Keep" may have led to his opinion being overlooked. Whether Corpx's argument was "shut down" or merely disagreed with is a matter of opinion. Colin°^Talk 08:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I don't think some of the criticism here of Corpx is fair. He didn't create this AfD and it may have been my comments on his talk page that encouraged him to go for DRV. His comments on the AfD were well reasoned and in a good tone. I, and most others, may have disagreed with him, but it was fair for those issues to be raised. I agree that "voting" Delete on featured material should not be done at all lightly, but I don't think any content should be exempt from AfD. Colin°^Talk 08:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse This list was clearly going to be retained so there is no point in its being relisted, and perhaps a premature closing of the debate per WP:SNOW was applicable, but bringing this up for review at AfD was not inappropriate and decidedly not frivolous simply because it was featured (although I have great respect for Sjakkalle and other editors who ground their views on this basis). The grounds for the encyclopedic value for this list are based on the assertion (from the article) of a possible link between epilepsy and greatness. That, however, is a controversial claim and bringing up the topic for discussion is entirely reasonable. Eusebeus 09:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Maybe I should've clarified my position earlier. I didnt want to delete it, but think it should be re-listed because it was closed early on faulty grounds. Corpx 15:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

  Are you suggesting that it doesn't need to be deleted, but it should be relisted for deletion anyway? Whilst process is important, I would suggest that it was incorrectly listed in the first place – Listing a featured article for deletion, without even trying to discuss any concerns at its talkpage first, is in gross violation of something-or-other (etiquette/guideline/etc)... ;) --Quiddity 17:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse as an obvious keep, although protest the use of "snowball" clause. It's pretty evident that another 25 hours was not likely to alter the outcome of this AfD and thus I endorse the closure, but I am wary of the use of WP:SNOW by non-administrators - particularly since there were some delete !votes. It's better to play it safe and prevent the need for DRV's like this one. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 17:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure and award a trout. The closure was correct for the discussion, but it should not have been done by a non-admin that early. So the closer needs a trout. GRBerry 17:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, it should. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 03:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - there were at least 3 days for discussion, which is enough. The Evil Spartan 19:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Recreation of deleted articles is ok, if and only if the article is substantially different then the version that has been deleted. A suggestion to anyone that would like to recreate this would be to talk to the deleting admin, or admins and ask them why it was deleted. I would also review the Articles for deletion debate as well. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 15:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Compete, Inc (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article did meet Wikipedia's minimal criteria I said a bit more that "its notable" on the talk page. I gave two specific reasons why it was notable, neither of which were addressed. This is why I question the thuroughness of moderation here. I fully understand that you need to watch for vandalism and nonsense, but people who do such things typically don't engage in discourse as I did.

1) The firm has been cited by several independent sources, one of which was in the second sentence of my article. If you need more articles refering to the firm, have a look at these:
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/news-desk/2007/7/18/study-gauges-state-by-state-online-activism.html http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/google-earnings-jump-second-quarter/story.aspx?guid=%7B2252586E-8640-4076-8A9F-9E798C332FF2%7D http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/07/ubuntu_vs_red_h.html http://thebrowser.blogs.fortune.com/2007/07/11/zillow-goes-crowdsourcing/

2) Other apparently notable companies specifically refer to the company I was attempting to write about. It suggests that Wikipedia, as a source, is neither reliable, independent or serious enough to automatically establish notability.

3) Prior attempts to start articles on this subject are irrelevent. If someone wrote an article on Brazil that was nonsense, it would be unreasonable to continue blocking any and all content on articles called "Brazil." The same principle applies here.

--MD277711 19:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse speedy deletion but conditionally allow recreation: I endorse the net result of the last speedy, since the last version of the article was in the gray area between WP:CSD A7, G11, and A1. I feel like the subject could merit an article, but the article simply stated Compete, Inc. is a Boston-based online marketing research firm ("is" really isn't an assertion of notability... mere existence is not notability), followed by a spammish style quote directly copied from one of the sources. Hardly a stub worth salvaging, but no objection to recreation if and only if WP:RS can be found on the subject (preferrably the web sources won't have "blog" in the URLs)... AfD can sort out any notability issues if an assertion is made. Maybe the userspace would be a good place to start? --Kinu ^t/_c 04:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion with caveat - The entire article consisted of one sentence, "Compete, Inc. is a Boston-based online marketing research firm" plus a quote from a publication. There is no assertion of notability. There are zillions of marketing firms...so what makes this one so encyclopedic? The article was AfD deleted once, then subsequently speedied twice. The caveat is that I'm endorsing without prejudice to recreation if and only if the writer produced a draft of the article in his user space where notability of this firm is clearly established, and then had one or more of the deleting admins review it for him. AKRadecki^Speaketh 05:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• permit re-creation on the basis of the new material. The only source when deleted was the one from business wire, which is PR and not evidence for notability, but with the added material it seems it would pass AfD. Even though I am reluctant to speedy delete articles of this sort, I think the speedy as the article stood at the time was not unreasonableDGG (talk) 00:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse the deletion, but allow re-creation. This isn't really even a deletion review issue; an article speedily deleted in the past can be recreated if the recreating is a valid article without passing through this process. --Haemo 02:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This is not just a question of allowing a speedy-deleted article to come back for a full debate. The article was deleted in an AfD back in March, 2007 and has been re-created against policy twice more since then. Since there is no evidence of any great eagerness to learn our system or improve the article, I suggest that the article doesn't deserve a second AfD at this time. From what was said above, the just-deleted article must be practically unchanged from the one first deleted four months ago. EdJohnston 03:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)