Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July

July 20, 2007 Oakland Earthquake (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was deleted by User:Kurykh after an AfD discussion earlier this month. Kurykh made the decision to delete based on his opinion that this is news coverage and therefore doesn't belong, despite its meeting the notability standard. The discussion itself had an ambiguous result. I propose that, since the subject is notable, the article should be restored. Everyking 23:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, well-reasoned closing statement by closing admin. Notability is not incidental, and Wikipedia is not a news source; no arguments to the contrary were raised. As an aside, these sorts of events happen all the time, and there aren't articles on them since they don't have any lasting significance. --Coredesat 01:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The article seems to have clearly met the notability standard. While I can't view it now, in the AfD it was mentioned that it had many reliable sources cited and that Google News was listing hundreds of articles about it. There is no argument that circumvents that. Everyking 02:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, there is. WP:NOT#NEWS states that something being in the news for some period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article on it. WP:NOT is policy; policy trumps WP:N. All the news stories used as references in the article say the exact same thing - it happened, and there was very minimal damage. Not to mention that the article was absolutely horrendous and self-contradictory to begin with. --Coredesat 03:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
      • It's another example of how BLP-based policies are used to cover other areas of content. What you cite justifies itself by pointing to "the harm our work might cause" and says that "the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately". Of course, it makes no sense whatsoever to apply that to an article on an earthquake. Everyking 04:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion - The effects of this earthquake was "knocking out power to 4,600 homes in Oakland, damaging some stores and snapping at least one gas line." - A thunderstorm is capable of doing such minimal damage. There is just no historic notability to this event. Corpx 03:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Historic notability is not necessary. In the sense of historic as most people understand it, only a small fraction of Wikipedia's content has historical significance. The encyclopedia has been built on a much broader understanding of notability, which is encapsulated in the requirement to have multiple, independent, non-trivial sources. I am just arguing that the same standard should be applied here. Everyking 03:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • As Coredesat mentioned, historic notability is required. - "something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article". This sort of article is much more appropriate at wikinews Corpx 05:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
      • In your estimation, what sort of earthquake, or natural disaster of any kind, is historically notable? I can think of only a few earthquakes I would consider historically notable. What about hurricanes? Most of them drift harmlessly into cool water and dissipate, but our practice (quite rightly, in my opinion) is to have an article on every single one of them. Surely a hurricane that drifts harmlessly away from land is not historically notable? And back to earthquakes: what kind of damage or loss of life do you think needs to occur for historical notability to exist? I mean, if 100 people die, is that enough? 1,000? If a whole city is mostly or entirely destroyed, like Bam, Iran, should the quake have an article (I don't see one for the quake that levelled Bam)? Do a certain number of years, decades, or centuries need to pass so that we can ascertain historical notability? Everyking 05:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
        • This might be an earthquake, but it didnt cause any more damage than the storm that passed by my place last week. Do we really have articles about tropical storms that did not make landfall? Just like there is a difference between a thunderstorm and a tropical storm, there should be one for earthquakes (although I'm not qualified to say what that # might be) Corpx 07:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Yes, we have many articles on storms that didn't make landfall, and some of them are even featured. But most hurricanes that do make landfall aren't historically notable, either, are they? It's a very poor standard to apply. You shouldn't look at an event and evaluate its notability based on how many people died or how much damage was done; you should evaluate it based on references confirming recognition of the subject and importance attached to it. If it has those multiple, independent, non-trivial sources, then we should keep it: that's the notability standard, and it's the only one that is consistent and reasonable. Everyking 08:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
            • Everything that happens in the news will have significant coverage from independent sources. I dont think that means we should be writing about every story being covered by the press. I dont think an encyclopedia should be the documenter of current events with minimal long term notability Corpx 17:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
              • It sounds like Wikipedia is the wrong project for you. Click "random article" for a while and be horrified by all the non-historic information you see. Everyking 03:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
                • Start AFD-ing them then :) Corpx 06:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion - where the boundary lies between news reporting and encyclopaedic recording is a matter of judgement but in my view a fair factor is how long the media coverage lasts. In this case, no long term reporting is cited nor are any consequential infrastructure changes. Finally, there was a good majority for deletion. TerriersFan 04:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion Fair closure. Conflates news with encyclopedic notability. Eusebeus 04:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. There may be a line between news and encyclopedic notability, but this isn't anywhere near it. --Calton | Talk 07:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Is the article somewhere on Wikinews? As the subject for a newspaper article, this would probably be appropriate, but I feel that an earthquake in the Bay Area which caused minimal property damage, and no injuries is about as notable as a storm during the monsoon season, and does not have a sufficiently lasting impact to make it notable. Closing rationale was otherwise appropriate. Sorry Everyking, but I think I'll need to endorse this deletion from Wikipedia. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm just going by the notability standard. One thing that would be useful to know is how long this article was. If there wasn't much content, perhaps it could be merged somewhere (probably the ideal solution, since I doubt there's very much to say about it), although I don't know where. Everyking 09:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • If I recall correctly, we can not transwiki to Wikinews due to license incompatability. This is unfortunate, as many articles that belong on Wikinews are started here. If there is a Wikinews article, it needs to be an independently written article. GRBerry 12:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Sjakkalle, there isn't a Wikinews article that I can find. Nevertheless, GRBerry is correct that we cannot transwiki there as Wikinews uses Creative Commons licensing instead of GFDL. Everyking, the content in the Google cached version is about ten sentences referenced to two primary sources (USGS data) and one secondary source, a television station. Still, it wasn't deleted until five days after that snapshot. --Dhartung | Talk 03:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Brandy Talore (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article has been continually speedy deleted without ever having an AfD discussion. She passes the WP:PORNBIO notability criteria by having won a FAME award. Epbr123 18:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Most of the versions appear to be the same, and the only source in any of them is the performer's MySpace. Feel free to write a proper article asserting notability, but there's nothing to undelete I think. Guy (Help!) 20:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• There's a point that Epbr123 didn't address - it's salted, on Wikipedia:Protected_titles/March_2007, and he doesn't have the mop, so he can't write the article unless we move it off there. Personally I'm willing to do it, Epbr123 is an experienced editor, and, frankly, has been a noted scourge of pornographic performer articles of questionable notability :-) so this is something like Nixon going to China. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• I should also point out that there is a recently created article on Brandy talore. If Brandy Talore gets unsalted, the content can be moved from there. Epbr123 20:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Seems like a good-faith request from somebody who knows what they're doing; I see no pressing need to keep it salted at this time. As JzG mentioned, there's probably nothing much to undelete. At the very least, we could run it through an AfD. I'd say unsalt, with XfD listing optional. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Unsalt for recreation. DRV nom asserts notability so it should be sent to AfD if the rewritten article doesn't address concerns. Eluchil404 23:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Restore & Move - Not sure why Brandy talore was deleted today, because the FAME award certainly made it pass WP:PORNBIO. Restore Brandy talore and move to Brandy Talore Corpx 07:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• It doesn't meet Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, or Wikipedia:Notability, which are a lot more important than the ill-conceived WP:PORNBIO page. —Centrx→talk • 00:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• The article meets Wikipedia:Notability as she has received significant coverage in a reliable source that is independent of the subject. This AVN.com article is reliable and independent, and is significant coverage as it mentions her winning a major award. Epbr123 11:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Which is not grounds for a speedy delete, but rather for referral to AfD. Undelete and Move. Evouga 07:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• I stand by my deletion of this article. Keep deleted. JDoorjam JDiscourse 15:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Unsalt. Now notable per WP:PORNBIO. Tabercil 16:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Rule_34 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

A number of references exist, for example http://kotaku.com/gaming/porn/doa-tomb-raider-interactive-sex-flicks-283675.php and a number of websites dedicated to the term, such as http://rule34.of-the-internet.com/ . It seems to be a long-lasting meme which has occurred in multiple places. I came to wikipedia looking to find an origin of the term.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrjeff (talk • contribs).

• Keep deleted, unless you have more reliable sources than a gaming blog. --Dhartung | Talk 19:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I would have thought the existance of a number of websites, even if each is not a completely trustworthy source, which discuss the same "Rule 34", would demonstrate such a term exists, and it's common definition?Mrjeff 22:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no additive property to sources such that two sources deemed half-reliable add up to one that is reliable. Please read WP:RS, a core policy. --Dhartung | Talk 06:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted as above. A quick mention on a blog is not the same thing as a reliable source. Besides, it's been speedied 7 times by different admins going back over a year. If it was restored, it wouldn't last more than a couple minutes at most. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and protected, no evidence provided of WP:RS that would legitimize allowing the recreation of this much-deleted article. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to 4chan as an apparently plausible search term. Protect the redirect if need be. --W.marsh 00:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and protected either in its current state or as an indefinitely-protected redirect to 4chan (but why?), no evidence of any reliable sources. --Coredesat 01:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Do not redirect. --Coredesat 19:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Rule 34 is one of the oldest *chan memes, ever. Finding a source for its origin would probably be impossible; let alone a reliable one. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 01:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to 4chan, but to be honest it is one of the most prominent internet memes... ugen64 03:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Redierct as above, it's better than a redlink. >Radiant< 14:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Do not redirect. 4chan does not mention this. I don't care whether this is deleted or undeleted. --- RockMFR 15:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I've yet to find Harry Potter/Anakin Skywalker slash necrophilia mpreg porn, so the rule in itself is a load of bullshit. Will ^(talk) 16:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

"It will take magic to extend his light sabre again," he thought, examining the corpse... :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That hurt my brain. Well done. Keep deleted as quite likely unsourceable unless we make *chan boards reliable sources. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Steven Cann (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Has now rejoined a professional club (Rotherham United) [1] and also had a previous spell as a professional at Derby County. Also players like Andy Liversidge have articles although they have not played in a professional league. Kingjamie 16:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Restore, the AfD's notability concern is now addressed, as apparently the subject now plays in a fully professional league - but I might be wrong, since the other person, Andy Liversidge, apparently plays in the same club? Either they are both professionals, or neither is. Sandstein 17:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Restore per nom. Epbr123 19:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Twilight War: After the Fall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The deletion of this wiki was due to misunderstanding and old information. Smiling Gator Productions has long since handed production of the game over to General Computers Inc. Although funding was not available a year and a half ago with SGP, GC has since taken up the project and is expected to not only have a closed beta start early August, 2007 (http://www.twilightwar.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=80) but also has an expected release date within 2007. To delete this wiki on the premise that it is a game that will not make it into production is highly illogical and simply incorrect. I would expect that the game wiki would be restored, if you have any doubt as to why you should restore the wiki, please let me know and I will resolve any issues you may have. Thanks. Extra Resources that may help in your research: http://www.twilightwar.com http://www.twilightwarhq.com BackhillAccess 05:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, valid AFD and the sources provided by the nominator are not independent of the subject, nor do they address the concerns raised in the AFD. --Coredesat 10:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Valid AFD, no real sources, and let's face it: very few "in-production" games need articles: Halo 3, yes. This: no. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I made a note in the AFD that this game was still in production, although it was too late as no further votes were cast. This is a valid close. I wouldn't be against a restore, but the article would most probably have to be improved significantly to withstand another AFD. The game's about to go into beta, give it some time to pick up more players and sources and a recreation should be easy. - hahnchen 17:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Restore. There's a whole list of games that are in development on wikipedia, even games that won't be out for another year, how do you justify keeping all of those but deleting Twilight War? And the argument that this isn't as big as Halo 3 means it should be deleted is a matter of personal opinion only. There are many games listed that few people care about. Furthermore, if there's a problem with calling it an "XORG" that can be easily fixed by labeling it as a massive multiplayer online roleplaying game. - Daimos, 31 July 2007
• Restore. The article should be restored. Unless there is a policy that states at which point an upcoming game becomes worthy of an article then all these should be deleted too if the Twilight War article remains deleted. The game has been through a patchy time but is now coming to a beta stage, which means people are once again interested in learning about it. --Thinkharder 03:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion When it's released, an article can then be produced. Eusebeus 10:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. By that logic every article on every game that's not released yet should be deleted. I don't see how you can justly isolate one game. --Daimos

Image:SacredHeartPioneers.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Was deleted as being an orphaned fair use image, but the image was clearly in use on this edit which was made a full eight days prior to the deletion date and was the current edit at the time of deletion. fuzzy510 03:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of American apartheid (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

• Overturn - I question the qualification of ChrisO (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) to take an admin action because of his clearly one-sided activism on the page in question and in related discussions. Also, I don't see how the discussion and the vote at the AFD page warrant the deletion. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. My only edit in the article was a 2-line mention of a book Medical Apartheid. The Dark History of Medical Experimentation on Black Americans From Colonial Times to the Present. Why would this be a less scholarly & notable than, say, Jimmy Carter's opus on Israel/Palestine? For the record, I do support the proposal at Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid#Apartheid and invite others to participate at the discussion there. This would improve the climate at WP, because certain WP users insist on applying political epithets selectively. In particular, ChrisO's POV shines through in Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Apartheid and other related pages. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. - At the closing time, a clear majority of contributors had proposed the deletion of this article. Humus is of course wrong to claim "one-sided activism" given that I've never edited the article in question, nor did I take part in the deletion debate (unlike Humus, who has both edited and !voted). I've never even commented on the article prior to the AfD closure and I've only very rarely edited articles on US politics, which makes claims of "activism" all the more misplaced. The grounds for the decision are straightforward and based on well-understood policies. As I explained in my closing note ([2]), the notability of the subject was not sufficiently established and the article was an unnecessary fork from another article. Several editors, including Humus, made arguments on the lines of "you must keep this article if article X exists" ([3]). As I said in closing, WP:ALLORNOTHING and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are literally canonical examples of arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and should be avoided; to quote that page, "arguments based from side issues ... are not relevant to the issue of whether or not a page on Wikipedia should be deleted". A number of other editors expressed a preference to merge the article but gave no reasons why. To quote WP:AFD, "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." If no arguments are given, the closing admin is given no reasons to justify taking the course of action recommended by an editor. This is not a show of hands; we have to decide on the basis of arguments put forward, so if you don't put any arguments forward, you're not giving us anything to go on. -- ChrisO 23:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Please, let's not resuscitate this nonsense. CJCurrie 23:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Consensus was very clear.--Victor falk 23:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure consensus was clear. As a further note, only slightly off topic, it is also about time that we consider "apartheid" in the same vein as "cult" as a WP:WTA, even if a notable someone or lots of notable someones uses the term to describe the event, we don't need to adopt the alleger's words as a title in the article, unless we want to have articles such as this or Allegations that you-know-who is the worst president, Allegations that guess-who is the most overrated celebrity, etc., for which several notable people could be found to have made such accusations. Carlossuarez46 00:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Consensus was not clear. Delete lost versus keeping or merging content. If consensus was clear, we live in different math dimensions. Thanks! --Cerejota 03:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I should point out that "allegations" is also already covered by WP:WTA, though this wasn't a factor in the closure decision. -- ChrisO 00:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, my ears are still ringing. :-) But it's not a vote: the arguments of keeping were weak in the extreme = consensus. Carlossuarez46 19:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. A series of invalid or non-existent arguments does not make a consensus. -- ChrisO 19:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure as properly taken. Further endorse Carlossuarez46's proposal that apartheid should be a taboo word on the order of cult or terrorism and used only in the context of specific attribution. The choice of word is clearly POV and intended to evoke particular images that may have no appropriate analog in context. --Dhartung | Talk 00:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. This was a terrible abuse of process on a couple of levels. First, User:ChrisO has been a highly involved editor in these articles, from the original Apartheid Arbitration case, in which he was admonished, to his more recent activism (e.g. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] ) on the Central apartheid discussion page, to his attempts to get similar articles deleted (e.g. [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] )to his arbitrary re-naming of Apartheid articles [20] and abuse of his admin tools in forcing articles to stay at the names he preferred.[21]. Second, in the actual discussion only 50% of the votes were "Delete". Even if ChrisO were an uninvolved editor (and he clearly is not), his decision was inconsistent with the discussion on the AfD page. Poorly done and abusive all round. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment. This is little more than a paragraph of ad hominem. You of all people should know that AfD is not a vote (so why are you calling it one?) and operates on the basis of policy-based arguments. Policy-based arguments were advanced for deleting the article; many of the "keep" and "merge" recommendations gave no arguments at all. The decision was an objective one, based on a close reading of the debate. I remind you that DRV "should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome", per WP:DRV. -- ChrisO 07:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. Only 50% of the votes were to delete, and he is an involved editor as demonstrated above. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and consider sanctions on the cliche that created these articles, violating WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND by creating them. When articles are admittedly created by a faction of pro-Israeli editors to antagonize others. This constitutes a user conduct pattern that should lead to blocks. That the battle continued in the AFD is even worse and possibly also sanctionable, ChrisO correctly read the policy based arguments for this discussion and deleted the article. Redirection to Racial segregation in the United States would have been reasonable, but I note that Jayjg wrongly reverted such a redirection with the edit summary of rvv (it was not vandalism), so that would clearly not have been a satisfactory conclusion to the pro-Israel faction. I have also added {{afd-anons}}, as the history of discussions involving the pro/ant-Israel factions has been one with far too much canvassing. GRBerry 02:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • As has been pointed out, Sefringle's "admission" is meaningless, since he neither created nor edited these articles. You, too, could "admit" that they had been created "to antagonize others", and it would be equally meaningless. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    • As anyone with a couple minutes to look can find out on their own, Sefringle has been part of the factional battle about these articles. He has many contributions to the centralized discussion and was the nominator for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (6th nomination). When we have a faction that acts as a faction that regularly communicates about how to handle a dispute, I am willing to believe that a member of that faction has adequate evidence for their statements about the reasons for a faction's behavior. GRBerry 02:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
      • You keep going on about a "faction", as if it were something that actually existed. Sefringle is not part of any "faction" as far as I'm aware, he's an independent editor. Please avoid further factually false conspiracy mongering. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • There is actually a further problem in if I have pasred that that dif correctly it is a comment about how to make things NPOV across a collection of articles, not an attempt to antagonize editors. JoshuaZ 02:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• overturn, close as no consensus In addition to the concerns raised by Jayjg, I note that Chris had not closed an AfD since July 4, almost a full month ago. I'd like to assume good faith here, but given the difs and other details provided by Jayjg as well as this seeming to be a close completely out of the blue, I'm having a lot of trouble assuming good faith here. At minimum, Chris should have realized how bad this would look. I might have closed it the same way given the structure of the discussion(I'm not sure, I would likely have closed it as no consensus if I were closing), but Chris should have realized how bad this would look. Admins must be careful not only to be impartial but to appear impartial and in this case I have trouble seeing Chris as having done either. All of that said, GRBerry makes some good points and I think that both pro and anti Israel editors do need to remember that Wikipedia is not a battleground but a collobrative attempt to build an encyclopedia. Heck, the fact that so many editors feel a need to think of themselves as pro or anti is part of the problem, and it would be helpful if people could do a better job of divorcing their prejudices from their Wikipedia editing. If not, please go edit other articles. JoshuaZ 02:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure This does look bad, as Chris has been involved in the other debates. He should not have closed, knowing how it would look. However, consensus was clearly for deletion in this case, by my estimation; his intention has no bearing on this. What was it that Jayjg said about appeals to motive in AfDs?--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I fail to see how pointing out that Chriso was both heavily involved in the "apartheid" dispute and wrongly claimed that "no consensus" was actually a consensus to delete is an "appeal to motive". I haven't talked about his motives at all. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn as no consensus - I think JayJG is being overdramatic and borderline not asumign goof faith, however, the result is obviously no consensus. Delete 11, Keep 5, Keep or Merge 2, Delete or Merge 1, Merge 7.

All said and done, 14 for keeping content in some shape or form, 11 for complete delete, and one I split among the two (delete or merge). Clearly no consensus by any measure.

Not only no consensus but the admin action went against the spirit of the majority opinion (keeping content). How this was deemed a delete remains a puzzle.

Someone really should have thought things over before acting... One would thing that being on the receiving end of the Flaming Keyboard of Wikipedia would be enough deterrent to act sloppy, but apparently it isn't. Thanks! --Cerejota 02:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn per Humus sapiens and Jayjg. This was a clear abuse of administrative powers. Overturning the deletion should be only the first of the repercussions. 6SJ7 02:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Please, let's focus on the matter at hand. If you have complaints about Chris, I suggest you take to them to RfC or ArbCom. This discussion is simply a review of the deletion. JoshuaZ 02:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    • The matter at hand is that the deletion is invalid due to misconduct. I'm not allowed to say so? 6SJ7 03:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Now we are going to witchhunt? Please WP:AGF. There is a much more valid and central reason why this was a bad delete, and that is that there was clearly no consensus. As JoshuaZ correctly states, if you think ChrisO acted in bad faith and deserves some sort of punishment, you have places where to state this. Make this about content, not people. For making it about people, WP:DR process, or WP:AN. I think your attitude and that of other editors should be taken into account in such proceedings, but for this DRV, lets focus on content. Thanks!--Cerejota 03:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and censure User:ChrisO for acting way beyond his mandate as self-appointed demigod admin and in spite of a clear conflict of interest. In fact, this should simply be an administrative reversal, as ChrisO appears to have drawn his decision out of thin air. --Leifern 02:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn as per Leifenr. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn ChrisO is clearly involved as an editor, so he should not have closed this. Also, the vote was clearly no consensus; the article should not have been deleted. This was improperly handled from start to finish. FeloniousMonk 03:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Given that these "apartheid" articles are involved in interrelated debates, it was very wrong of ChrisO, an active participant, to close this deletion debate. This was an abuse of tools and should not be permitted.--Mantanmoreland 03:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn I count this as Merge 6, Keep 8, and Delete 12. Three people favored Merge as a second choice. Remembering that "merge" is a form of keep, not a form of delete, I do not see a consensus to delete here. This should IMO have been closed as "No consensus" although a "Keep" would not have been out of line. Before people yell at me that "this is not a vote" IMO the policy based arguments were equally strong (or weak) on each side, leaving this a judgment call where the numbers do rule, and where I think a "consensus to delete" means rather more than a bare majority, or in this case a 14-12 minority. I do not address the issue of the closer allegedly having been involved in related debates and on this issue generally, but involved closers are a very bad idea indeed, and if it is held that the closer was involved, that can be grounds to overturn and relist if any judgment call by the closer was needed (no reason to overturn say a 12-0 decision clearly in line with policy, even if the closer is not impartial). DES ^(talk) 04:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Yes, that is a good point. I voted to "merge." That meant moving the contents, not deleting them.--Mantanmoreland 14:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn, I hardly ever edit this kind of stuff anymore (primarily due to the sort of actions that ChrisO has just taken) but this situation is just ridiculous. I find it hard to believe that so many people above have insisted that there was "consensus", give me a break, do they even know what "consensus" means? Also ChrisO not only has a long history of pov editing with regards to this subject but more troubling, he also has an equally long history of impropriety and the bending and outright breaking of wikipedia policy in order to get what he wants.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, only 7 out of 28 people said "keep" the article in the original vote so undeleting it would be completly unacceptable and almost all the people who said "keep" made arguments that had nothing to do with the "American apartheid" article - the stated reasons for their votes were about a completely different article. "Allegations of American apartheid" is a ridiculous title and limiting the page only to references that describe modern American segregation as "apartheid" hurt its scope by not allowing the use of sources that talk about modern segregation without using the A word. American apartheid redirected to Racial segregation in the United States all along and that's where any material on modern segregation should be. -- LOTHAR

• So now we ignore those who propose merge or keep or merge? And you either pulled two people out of thin air, or I counted wrong. I saw 26 people making clear comments, 14 of which opposed delete, a clear majority. However, result should have been no consensus because the majority was thin and divided between merge and keep. Delete was the wrong call to make, by any math. Thanks!--Cerejota 06:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• If (some of) those who proposed "merge" or "keep or merge" did so without advancing any reasons to do so, or offered invalid arguments such as WP:ALLORNOTHING or WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS then yes, their opinions don't carry any weight - per WP:AFD, "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." Deletion debates operate on the basis of policy-based arguments, not a show of hands. -- ChrisO 07:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

We all understand this, however, what is your logic then? Based on the discussion, clearly there is no consensus either, a great number of the deletes meet the criteria for being ignored you set forward here... please provide clarity. I think you really acted in a wrong fashion here, and should revert. Thanks!--Cerejota 07:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse, per GRBerry, wikipedia is not a battleground and does not need articles created to belabour a point. Catchpole 08:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and close as no consensus. I have no opinion on the merits of the content, and I did not (as far as I am aware) participate in any of the prior discussions, but – as pointed out by Cerejota above – there is no consensus here to delete the article, taking into account the number of people that would like to have the content kept or merged, and the fact that our closure guideline states that "when in doubt, do not delete". Also, if the closer was in fact involved in a partisan manner in prior discussions, his choice to close this one was a very bad one indeed. Sandstein 08:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak overturn. Given how Wikipedia is indeed a battleground, it is difficult to run a genuinely instructive AfD on any of the articles in the allegations-of-apartheid series. However this time, as usual, the battleground didn't produce a consensus to delete, and I think we should respect that. As for ChrisO's decision to be the closer of this AfD, I have pretty much the same opinion of this action that I did of Jayjg's decision to close the United States military aid to Israel AfD.[22] Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 08:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Having apartheid as a "word to avoid" might be a good idea--Victor falk 12:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)--Victor falk 12:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure - Unless someone can point out where the policy is that precludes an admin who is involved in a topic from taking administrative actions in said topic, this sounds like a bunch of sour grapes from those that support the article. Tarc 13:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Did you note my analysis (and that of several other people here) that the closure did not properly reflect the AfD discussion, regardless of the involvement, if any, of the admin? Did you note that I, at least, have never edited the article or any related article in any way? There is more here than just the cry of "involved admin". That said, the appearance of impartiality is important. If admin A has been passionately arguing for the deletion of "G in popular culture", "H in popular culture", "I in popular culture", "J in popular culture", and "K in popular culture"; it is quite unwise for admin A, at that same time, to close the AfD on "L in popular culture" as delete on an AfD that is far from clear-cut. There are plenty of other admins -- leave it to someone more obviously uninvolved. Policy explicitly forbids closing a debate in which one has commented -- this is a fairly obvious extension. Now i haven't examined the closer's edits in this case, so i have no opinion on how much he was, or was not, involved. But the complaint, if supported by the facts, is IMO legitimate. DES ^(talk) 16:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn I did not !vote in the original AfD, but this is waaaayyyy out of process, both in terms of numbers, opinions offered, and, most importantly, because it was done by an admin who is deeply involved--indeed, who is a POV warrior on these subjects. I know this isn't necessarily the place for it, but a desysopping and/or topic ban for ChrisO is well past due. Enough is enough. IronDuke 16:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - AFD != vote. Too OTHERSTUFFEXISTSy. Will ^(talk) 18:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Seems like a perfectly reasonable close to me based on the comments in the AfD and by Chris in his close. As noted above, Wikipedia is not a battleground, or a soapbox. Good call. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I really don't understand the problem here. The most common suggestion in the original vote was to "merge with Allegations of apartheid". Looking at that article it looks like that's exactly what has happened so why are the same people who voted for that complaining since they got exactly what they asked for? Lothar of the Hill People 19:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure and a ratcheting-down of rhetoric all around. Will is right: AfD is not a vote, so quoting percentages and parsing merge/keep votes has at best a minor role here. That's why we have admins, rather than bots, close AfD's. On the merits of the AfD itself, Chris' close, while not the one I'd have chosen, is defensible as a reasonable interpretation of policy. The article itself is a POV fork of material which could be, or already is, contained in articles on racism and segregation in the U.S. It consisted mostly of quotes in which people had used the word "apartheid", but failed to establish the independent notability of these allegations as distinct from general writings about racism in the U.S. The AfD is not the place to point out that "other crap exists"; I agree that the entire series of "allegations of apartheid" articles should be scrapped as hopelessly divisive and POV, but the AfD is not the place to make that point, and creating a set of articles to prove that point experimentally (which at least one comment has alluded to) is highly WP:POINTy. ChrisO should not, however, have closed the AfD. Given his involvement in related discussions, he should have allowed a more uninvolved admin the "pleasure" of closing this hornet's nest. I view this as a error of judgement but not a desysopping or burning-at-the-stake offense; I don't think it's abuse per se, but admins, like Caesar's wife, should ideally be above suspicion. MastCell ^Talk 19:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure basically as per MastCell, to prevent this debate from escalating yet further. There are clearly some issues involved which might do with a recess--a long recess; I am very reluctant to delete articles as attracting spam/POV, but this might be an exception--and even with respect to the entire series. Apartheid is a loaded word, and probably best not used as a heading outside the original context. DGG (talk) 20:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per MastCell and because policy trumps consensus. Unless you are reporting the work of significant and recognized scholars who have written about American apartheid, finding instances of the use of the word "apartheid" by random activists and compiling them into a Wikipedia article constitutes original research. Also agree with MastCell that someone else should have done the close. Thatcher131 20:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure The numbers support the decision, the arguments even more so, as not one Keep vote challenged the policy issues laid out in the nomination.--G-Dett 21:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. Once again, the United States gets special favourable treatment, for all the the obvious reasons. El_C 21:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment El C, the AfD wasn't about the aptness of the allegation but rather its notability. There are literally no sources discussing "allegations of American apartheid." Systemic racism would be another matter.--G-Dett 21:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn, no obvious consensus (in policy or not) for deletion. I think Chris made an error of judgement here. Neil ╦ 21:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - I see nothing problematic with the closing rationale, so no reason to second guess the closer. - Crockspot 21:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, per MastCell and per Thatcher131. This isn't an article, it's a club being wielded in someone's battleground. --Calton | Talk 21:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. ChrisO should not have done this as he was involved, but I believe the rationale was sound policy. Censure the admin and move on. Cool Hand Luke 21:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn for misreading consensus, aggravated by conflict of interest. Merge or no consensus keep would have been the reasonable outcomes. Evouga 21:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn consensus was very unclear, and also whilst some of the Keep votes aren't convincing, equally some of the Delete votes throw around WP:POINT, WP:SYNTH and WP:POVFORK without really contextualising them. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 22:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. Good, well argued close, arguments for deletion well presented by the supporters of deletion, material covered elsewhere. Effectively a POV fork. Some of the keep arguments were poor: 'Keep as for all other articles with similar titles "Allegations of [your favorite country] [your favorite issue]' (that is a direct quote from the afd). Some were had potential: "the article has sourced content from notable and relevant commentators, and has recently been improved, adding even more of these". In his close, Chris takes this into account: "the topic appears to duplicate existing articles (specifically Racial segregation in the United States, which already has a section on apartheid comparisons)." Thus deletion and merge were both possibilities, though due to the neutral point of view and original research problems a merge seemed unlikely to be useful. Well within the scope of administrator discretion. If the proponents of this article want to continue working on the subject, they could do worse than to recreate it as a redirect to Racial segregation in the United States and add neutral, well sourced information to the already-existing section, "Modern segregation and comparisons with apartheid". This does not require an overturn, or even a review. --Tony Sidaway 22:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - while I sympathise with some of the rationales for dealing with the Apartheid entries re: WTA, ChrisO should clearly not have taken administrative action in this case. Even if someone else had done it, there is still no way that 50% delete should be closed as a consensus for deletion. While I respect ChrisO, I would have hoped that he would be more careful with his tools after the last two occurrences of using them in similar, questionable circumstances. Tewfik^Talk 22:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Since WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ALLORNOTHING have been invoked here, I just thought I would point out that these are shortcuts to an essay -- not a policy or guideline. This essay contains advice, suggestions and opinions about what arguments should and shouldn't be used in deletion discussions. I think this essay provides good general advice, but sometimes there are articles that are truly similar and should be treated similarly, and the essay does not prohibit that. That's my opinion, but here is a fact: The "arguments to avoid" essay is not a policy or a guideline. The closing admin's comments above suggest that he disregarded comments that "violated" this essay. That is reason enough for the deletion to be overturned, regardless of anyone's motivation. 6SJ7 22:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    • So you would suggest overturning any closure in which the admin used WP:ATA to help grade the value of comments, because it's only an essay? MastCell ^Talk 23:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm not suggesting anything, except what I am actually saying. Actually I think admins should not have as much latitude as they currently do in deciding what comments to count and what not to count. They are all applying their own individual mix of policies, guidelines, essays and their own opinions, and it's pretty close to chaos. But I suspect I'm getting beyond the bounds of this particular DRV.  :) 6SJ7 04:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• • • 6SJ7's judgment that the "allegations" articles are "truly similar and should be treated similarly" is debatable, but the grounds on which the "American apartheid" article was nominated and deleted were notability and original research issue arising from its total lack of secondary sources. I haven't known anyone to suggest that the Israel article (the referent of the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments) suffered from this problem.--G-Dett 23:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Then you should read further back in the talk archives for the Israel article. Both notability and OR problems with that article have been noted in the past. If you haven't seen them much recently it is because people get tired of repeating themselves. At present, notability probably is not much of an issue due to the strategy of Israel-haters to keep repeating this allegation until it becomes something one hears every day -- although I still have never heard of this subject outside Wikipedia and the articles cited in it. As for OR, the Israel article is a huge pile of OR. As far as I know there is one major secondary source, and it really belongs in an article on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not an article on its own. And actually the whole question of "sourcing" an opinion about what something should be called is problematic anyway. It's just one of the reasons I think that none of these articles should exist, but I also think that Israel should not be singled out. 6SJ7 04:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per Thatcher and Tony Sidaway. The article is not an essay on a coherent topic (as it has to be) but a concordance of various unconnected uses of a phrase, designed to advance a particular view. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Jumping back in to say that Tony's suggestion is rather quite brilliant, assuming the editors in question are interested in adding well-sourced non-POV material that respects Undue Weight, instead of just making a point. Thatcher131 00:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn - conflict of interest on the part of ChrisO.--Urthogie 00:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. This is a very touchy/controversial subject, as can be seen by the AfD and this deletion review. Unfortunately, there is no single outcome that will make everyone happy (and this is complicated by the inter-relationship between all the allegations... articles). Being a relatively new admin, and easily intimidated (;p) by large, controversial discussions, I probably would have closed this as no consensus, or possibly closed as merge to keep the sourced content in already existing articles on these topics. But ChrisO seems to have done a careful examination of each and every comment. The arguments for deletion ARE more compelling (and valid in terms of policy) than the arguments for keep. As others have clearly stated, AfD is not a vote. Everyone will agree that an AfD for a non-notable internet meme that gets flooded by first time and anonymous voters (due to say a something awful post) is likely to have those "votes" ignored. While this situation is clearly more complex, ChrisO did weigh the validity of each vote, and came to the reasonable conclusion that the arguments for deletion are superior than the arguments for keeping. It isn't cut and dry, and people's opinion on this vary, as obviously shown from the above. The only other thing is that Jayjg makes a good argument that perhaps ChrisO should have recused from closure (as Jayjg most likely recused himself for similar reasons)-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - I couldn't find a single policy-based argument to keep the article in the AFD debate. As for the "conflict of interest" - well I would have made the same decision and I've never seen that article before so... ugen64 02:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per MastCell, Tony Sidaway, and Thatcher, though a merge may also work. None of the keep arguments leveled a single guideline, let alone policy, to support their assertions, while the side for delete uttered enough alphabet soup to feed every child for a day. Perhaps ChrisO should not have closed the discussion, but those who call for his blood should be flayed right beside him if he is so. To Cerejota: vote-counting is about the weakest arguments in DRV, as vote-counting produces a statistic, not a result. —Kurykh 03:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, consensus clearly did not exist. Everyking 06:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Editors who have commented here may be interested to know that another newly-created article, Allegations of Chinese apartheid, has been nominated for deletion - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid. -- ChrisO 08:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "Newly created"? It's over two weeks old. Anyway, please don't even imagine that you can close that one. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, (1) AFD is not a vote count, and (2) an encyclopedia deals with facts, not allegations. >Radiant< 14:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Why am I reminded of a certain other AfD and review? Kwsn^(Ni!) 06:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. not that many votes were for deletion, and he is an involved editor. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and Keep. It was weird decision, no grounds to delete this article and no consencus unless all allegation apartheid articles are deleted obviously. Amoruso 11:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn While I have input on keeping or not, it is clear the closing admin should not have been one involved in the debate. This should have been also clear to the admin as an obvious COI issue. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Any admin off the street would have closed it the same... well, maybe not ANY admin, but most would. - Crockspot 20:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I count at least 6 current administrators, and at least 5 experienced editors who are not admins, commenting above, who wanted the decision overturned, at least in part because they said that the AfD consensus did not support the decision, and who either said or very clearly implied that they would have closed differently. Given the total number of editors commenting here that is not an insignificant fraction. If this group is at all representative, it is incorrect to say that "most" admins would have closed it as ChrisO did. DES ^(talk) 21:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn if only because this decision is automatically called into question by being closed by an involved admin. That sort of thing just makes folks suspicious and increases the conflict. FrozenPurpleCube 02:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - I agree that the AfD looks more like a No consensus than a Delete, but the Delete !voters had a much stronger argument; we don't need anything with a WP:POVFORKish title such as "Allegations of American apartheid". Any relevant content can be covered under racial segregation in the United States. Walton^One 14:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. It's just a bad article written by a very bad bunch of contributors. The consensus was to delete it. I just hope that it would be the same for Allegations of French apartheid which is much less notorious than Allegations of American apartheid. Unfortunately, French are not much powerful on this wikipedia and apparently deserve to be treated worse than Americans. Sad. Poppypetty 22:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Nothing but original research. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure/deletion per Walton, ugen64, Crockpoint, among others. It's unfortunate that the nominator chose to make a bad faith accusation against ChrisO as the basis for this deletion review, rather than focusing on the content of the AfD in detail. I suspect that is because the content of the AfD discussion, as others have pointed here, fails to provide compelling, policy-based rationales for the retention of this article. It is easier to shoot the messenger, than examine the message. (Since it was raised however, I should mention that as someone who regularly edits on articles related to Palestine, Israel, etc., whose encountered ChrisO from time to time, I have to say that he has differed with me on proposed edits and views at least as often as he has with those of my supposed "adversaries". While I'm sure he has a POV - as we all do, even those not directly involved in these kinds of debates - it's not clearly "for" one side or the other and I don't think he had to recuse himself from this closure. He does not edit the apartheid series, and while he has contributed to the discussions at the centralized discussion page to move towards finding solution, that shouldn't disqualify him from rendering an opinion on an AfD outcome here.) Tiamat 11:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Rachelle Waterman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I nominate to undelete because it's more than a temporary come-and-go-again "meme," which was the reason it was deleted. I recently saw a TV documentary about it, even though this event happened years ago.  Chantessy  12:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Reluctant endorse. I don't like the BLP rationale used by the delete side (and "not convicted?" neither was OJ) and would have been happy had this been decided the other way. Unfortunately, the result is not a violation of the discussion's consensus. Also, unless you can be more specific about what documentary you saw, we can't know if you saw a new documentary or a rerun. --Groggy Dice T | C 13:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Suburban Secrets, 2007.  Chantessy  13:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• endorse per identical logic to that of Groggy Dice. If on the other hand sources can be produced indicating that the case was either discussed well after the matter was over or that the case had some form of long-term effects(say a new law passing or a substantial alteration to police procedures), then we will have grounds for overturning. JoshuaZ 14:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I've never done an undelete before, so what are you guys "endorsing" here?  Chantessy  17:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

When someone says "endorse" they are endorsing the last decision made - in this case the decision to delete. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 17:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per valid AfD. A common crime with one unusual feature--that the accused had a LiveJournal. At this point, seems unlikely to remain a part of either criminal history or internet history. While the fact that she wasn't convicted is not in itself compelling reason to delete this, it does add weight to the already-solid reasoning against this having its own article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist Deleted against policy. There were many more unusual features, as a start, it was hardly a "common" crime: she was accused of killing her mother. Unreasonable following of consensus as opposed to policy is a reason to overturn. DGG (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, it's normal to follow consensus instead of policy, that's one of our most basic foundations (see Wikipedia:Five pillars). Besides, no policy states we *must* have an article on this anyway: murdering a family member is unfortunatly not all that rare, and in any case she was aquitted even of that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    • the argument is often made the other way, as in the afd just above. Interestingly, it's almost always used as a reason to keep something deleted. but actually the relationship between consensus and policy should be that the closer is supposed to take into account the consensus of the best arguments. deWP is said to go by a poll--we do not. The closer is supposed to know enough policy to determine which arguments are policy based and which are not.

No policy states we *must* have an article on anything. There are very few matricides and parricides, and I'd argue they were always notable. The press response was based on the accusation, so it made her notable, and she doesn't lose it by what happens after that. DGG (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn there was really no consensus either way in the AFD... closer just based his close on a rather extreme interpretation of BLP, which I don't feel was called for. --W.marsh 00:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. If we count votes, which we don't, there was just enough to show a 2:1 preponderance in favor of deletion, so the closure was in line with nominal consensus. If we count arguments, there was more consistency of argument among the delete voters, so the closure was in line with strength of argument consensus as well. --Dhartung | Talk 00:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion Nobody brought up any points to say why this had "historic notability" per WP:NOT Corpx 02:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. Routine biographies of living persons deletion. Nothing more to say. You want this shit on Wikipedia? Get a conviction! --Tony Sidaway 22:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Or have her make a few edits to Wikipedia, because apparently that warrants an article. --W.marsh 15:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion Happy to agree with tony. Eusebeus 04:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, notable. Everyking 06:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid closure of AFD with BLP concerns in mind. --Coredesat 06:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak endorse. This is a good example of where the proposed guideline WP:HARM might come into play; WP:BLP, as it stands, is too vague in relation to cases like this, so it isn't clear exactly where we stand with policy. If the subject of the article had been convicted, there would be no valid BLP reason for deleting; however, an article on someone who is notable solely for a crime for which they were not convicted has the potential to become an unbalanced pseudo biography that may be very harmful to a person's life, even if properly sourced. Nonetheless, as WP:HARM and WP:PSEUDO are not currently policy, I can appreciate that there is no overriding policy-based argument for deletion. Walton^One 16:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I dont think HARM would come into play. From the links, it is quite evident that the subject of the article wants the publicity for her case. DGG (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Sufficient notability evidence exists (print articles) although was not cited in article. Speedy page deletion appears not to have been proposed by admin, so deletion review should be first port of call. Flumpaphone 11:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment to nominator I don't quite understand your reasoning. The admin may not have proposed speedy deletion, but he carreid it out, and thereby approved it. The usual procedure is to attempt discussion with the deleting admin first -- it appears you didn't even notify the deleting admin. I have done so. I might add that I have found the particular deleting admin in this case to be receptive to discussing and reconsidering deletion decisions, although I have disagreed with him in at least some instances. DES ^(talk) 15:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Mistake on my part - confused nominator with admin. Thanks for the correction. - Flumpaphone

• Overturn and list -- Speedy delete WP:CSD#A7 importance or significance of Moonpod established with the statement in the article that, "Their first release, Starscape, won the coveted Game Tunnel 'Independent Game of the Year' award 2003." The Moonpod article has been around since 18 February 2006. AfD might be a better option. I don't think it should survive AfD's since the topic's lack of independent reliable sources makes it not notable. The only thing I could find on Moonpod (company) was Nava, Ahmed Kamal. (April 21, 2003) New Straits Times. Escape from alien's world. Page 21. (discussing Moonpod's game Starscape). There is something called Neff's Moonpods (2002), which I believe is artwork. The hallucinogenic/lethal seeds of the night-blooming moonflower are called "moonpods." In any event, the article should be given a five day review at AfD. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 12:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Have partly maintained this article so have some vested interest. However believe should have time to respond to the 'significance' and 'notability' requirements with evidence that needs adding to the article before a permanent delete decision is reached. There is plenty of circumstantial (though outside WP notability guidelines) evidence available by googling 'Moonpod' and the general fact of the number of indie games companies on WP (reason which prompted article creation) - unless of course they are considered for deletion based on notability. Though there are plenty of 'hard copy' articles that fit wikipedia's guidlelines: Edge Magazine quoting company founder Mark Featherstone (sorry, cannot find issue yet), Mr. Robot featuring in PC Format 2007 awards. (relatively) high scores (8-9) of Moonpod's games in print publications. - Flumpaphone
• Overturn As Jreferee says, the award mention alone was clearly an assertion of significance sufficient that an A7 speedy deelte was improper. What might happen at an AfD and how the article might be edited during an AfD is hard to predict, and DRV shouldn't try. I don't understand why an admin speedy deleted this in this state. DES ^(talk) 15:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I will restore it, although the editor who brought it here never even bothered to notify me, so these further sources can be added, but (a) the "award" is a red-link (not apparently notable enough), and (b) how this meets WP:CORP was and is not discussed, such as ghits etc. of non WP:RSes, but this can happen at Afd just as easily. Carlossuarez46 19:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I have no idea if this awared is truly notable or not, but I cautuion that it is risky to asume that anything that is a redslink is therefore established to be non-notable. Lots of notable topics we haven't gotten to yet. DES ^(talk) 20:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Agreed, but the awarding organization is red-linked, so an award from an unknown and not obvious bestower is hardly an assertion of notability. Carlossuarez46 00:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
      • My view ia that for A7 purposes, assertions must be accepted unless obviously or provably false or absurd. An assertion that might plausibly be true, and might persuade some reasonable editors on an AfD that it contributed measurably to notability, should IMO be enough to stop an A7. Or to put it another way, would you bet 1000-1 cash agaisnt notability being established via or partly via the claim? if not, don't speedy. Now not everyone will use exactly that standard, but the CSD text says "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject" It says nothign about how strong that assertion must be, nor about passing any of the various notability guidelines. And this is not an accident, but a record of a policy choice made via consensus. DES ^(talk) 04:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
        • The assertion of having won a non-notable award is not an assertion of notability. Otherwise, you wouldn't speedy a bio where the sole claim to notability is on the order of: "He's way cool, he's won an award for coolness", "She's a cheerleader voted most likely to succeed", "He's the elected patrol leader in his scout troop", "She was selected as scholar of the week by the local newspaper", "She won a red ribbon for her pie at the county fair", or a company article consisting of "It makes widgets, it's important, it's notable, it's won awards". Taking all those to Afd would but an unnecessary burden on that system (where there are routinely over 100 articles per day). Carlossuarez46 19:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Who deermined that thsi award is "non-notable"? That is not somethign for a single admin to decide. This is not comperable to "He's way cool, he's won an award for coolness" it at least purports to be a significant award from a significnt source. Whehter those claims are valid is for an AfD, not speedy deletion. Any reasonably plausible claim should defeat an A7.DES ^(talk) 21:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
        • A7 requires an assertion of notability, saying you've won an award where there is no assertion that winning such an award makes one notable is not an assertion of notability. I disagree with "any reasonable plausible claim" defeats A7, unless the claim is of "notability" rather than winning some unknown award, like winning a red ribbon at the fair or winning some local popularity contest. The proponent of the article must assert the notability of the subject; failure to do so is A7 unless you want to remove all speedies and take thousands of more articles to Afd. Carlossuarez46 21:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
          • We do not make article writers jump through hoops by saying things like "X won the NOTASBLE award Y" or "X is notable because Z". Note that actually, A7 demands a claim of "significance or importance". This is often treated as just another word for notability, but I think there is a subtle difference. In any case, winning an award is generally an indication of importance, unless the award is trivial (such as "coolest kid on the block") If an award is obviously trivial, than an admin wiill rightly disregard it, but if there might be a doubt whether it is significant or not, then use prod or afd, not an A7. Simialrly, there are many things that are generally an indication of notability, but do not always establish notability. A statement in the article that the subject has done one of thsoe things, unless blatently flase or obviously trivial, should be trated as an assertion of significance or importance, and thus bar an A7. Look at the number of experienced editors who have commetned in this reveiw, and the trend of their comments. Perhaps you are a bit out of step here? That said, the article was/is soemwhat marginal, and I can understand whyu it might be mis-read as an A7. But I really don't think that similar articles should be hit with A7s in future. DES ^(talk) 22:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I nominated Moonpod for Speedy on the grounds that it was not notable. I did not nominate Starscape. Starscape won an award, Moodpod didn't. Starscape is barely notable because it won an award from a website that is somewhat notable (as they now publish a magazine). I would also put out that it is possibly a terrible WP:CoI for Flumpaphone to edit these pages as they appear (judging solely by edit history) to be an employee of Moonpod, or a very narrow-minded fan (please look carefully at Special:Contributions/Flumpaphone). Just because the game is notable does not mean that the publisher is, nor the creators, nor the other unreleased games there are now external links to (please see Wikipedia:Spam#External_link_spamming). If the game is not notable enough to create a page for, it is not notable enough to link to directly. But no matter what, the article gives no assertions to Moonpod's notability. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • A completely fair point - I'm not an employee, but I am a fan of indie gaming in general and have pretty much made this and a few other articles the ones I try to maintain. I am more than open to their deletion given a sufficient explanation, but given that happening, there are a lot of indie games companies on WP that should be reviewed. This issue has come up several times with most of the indie games companies and I have been somewhat confused as to why the guidelines are not met. Please see the discussion Talk:Moonpod and let me know if these sources are metting the criteria. More detailed info (rather than a point to the guidlines which I have read several times) here would be greatly appreciated.
• Overturn. I strongly agree with David Siegel. "Does not assert the importance or significance of its subject" means "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." It does not mean "does not establish the importance or significance of its subject to a sysop's satisfaction."
  Indeed, the assumption that a red-linked subject is non-notable is the assumption that every notable subject in the world has an English Wikipedia article. (Of course, non-notability isn't a speedy deletion criterion, specifically because such a determination is so subjective.) —David Levy 06:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and list: clearly there was an assertion of notability, so WP:CSD#A7 should not have been used. Whether that assertion was valid and sufficient is not really the question here; it is something should be addressed at AfD. Nor do I think this is a clear-cut enough case to justify ignoring the rules and deleting or keeping; I think it's borderline enough that AfD is the best choice. The right choice. Xtifr _tälk 13:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Remand to AfD. Any assertion of notability, even one considered by a particular admin to be questionable or spurious, is enough to disqualify an article from CSD A7. Notability is for community consensus, not one admin, to decide. Evouga 22:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• overturn any claim to notability is enough. If it is thought to be inadequate, it needs to be discussed. An individual admin has no authority to decide if an award is notable, only the community does that. DGG (talk) 20:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Then we should remove all speedy deletion criteria involving notability - because if someone bestows a "coolest" award, or a university degree, the community and no individual gets to say that's insufficient ground of notability. So all college graduates, high school graduates, driving school graduates are Afd delete only because those are awards whose notability hasn't been passed upon by anyone? It's an interesting notion that should be discussed at the CSD talk page. Carlossuarez46 23:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Either you are seriously misunderstanding what I, and the people who agree with me mean here, or you are perversely pretending to misunderstand. (I trust it is the former.) You are making a strawman argument. This has been discussed a good many times on WT:CSD, and while there is never total agreement, I think there is a good working consensus. Look through the archives. FYI, WP:CSD#A7 is the only CSD "involving notability" in any way. A7 is mostly intended for lame attempts at articles that either make no attempts at suggesting significance "Joe is an accountant" or make a claim that is obviously trivial "Carol is the cutest girl in my class" or blatantly false or implausible "Fred Jones was elected King of the World last Thursday." Statements that no reasonable editor could consider to indicate notability are not "assertions of importance": for example "Marcia Smith has a bachelor's degree". We know what a Bachelors degree is, and that it doesn't indicate notability. However, consider "Marcia Smith won a Vandenberg award from the Ebeneezer Foundation." We don't know what a Vandenberg is, it may be utterly trivial, it may be highly notable. So we don't guess, this isn't a speedy situation. or consider "Rocker X's album was produced by Grammy-winning producer Y" Y is clearly notable. Does Y's involvement make the album, and hence X, notable? Reasonable editors might differ over this, so it isn't a speedy. To put it another way "If there is any plausible way that a reasonable editor would consider that a statement establishes or significantly helps establish notability it is a claim of significance or importance barring A7, even if many other reasonable editors would disagree." DES ^(talk) 04:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Straight pride shirt.JPG (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I uploaded an image and provided source, licensing information, and detailed fair use rationale. The reasons given for immediate deletion of the image were AP photos are blatant copyvio and AP photos are not fair-use. The article in which the image was used now is at AfD and the admin who deleted the image has participated significantly in that AfD. I do not believe that immediate deletion of the image was appropriate, particularly in view of the detailed fair use rationale provided for the image's use. I would like a review of this matter. Since the image may affect the AfD, I ask for a speedy restoration of the image while this DRV is going on if that is an appropriate action. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 11:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion and deny temp. restoration. While it isn't necessarily true that AP photos are always copyright violations, this photo should extremely easy to replace. Buy one of the t-shirts and take a picture of it. Of course, the photo of the student is less easy to replicate, but that is not the primary focus of the fair use claim for the deleted image. By focusing the fair use rationale primarily on a t-shirt, an inanimate object easily photographed, the up-loader made a mistake. The fact that the article is headed for deletion -- for reasons of sourcing, not lack of image -- doesn't help the request. Xoloz 13:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Although your !Vote does not support overturning the deletion, your reasoning supports my request that the fair use claim for the deleted image should be reviewed at IfD, not speedy deletion. Since the image is delete, it does not allow editors to verify your statement that the fair use rationale focused primarily on a t-shirt, which would not be a basis for speedy deletion even if true. The argument that a photo of the specific T-shirt and person wearing the T-shirt who both were the subject of the Federal lawsuit taken seven years ago at a time when the Federal law suit was ongoing is a replaceable image at seven years after the event is something that should be addressed at IfD, not through speedy deletion. Also, the deletion of the Straight pride article after a three day AfD and a one day review of the significant sourced changes to that article should not play into whether it was correct to speedy delete the image, especially since there are hundreds of reliable source material from which to develop the Straight pride article. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 20:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• You have a point regarding the "straight pride" article -- you should definitely consider a DRV nomination for it. However, at this point, I don't see much of argument for restoring the image to satisfy process requirements. Any IfD on this image that begins within the next five days would be distracted by the question of whether the parent article should exist. Contrary to your final assertion, I see no reasonable encyclopedic use for this image outside of the "straight pride" context. The image's utility to WP depends on the article's existence. Xoloz 22:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• endorse deletion per Xoloz. JoshuaZ 14:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. We absolutely should not be using agency photos. The agencies issue them under strict licensing conditions and have been heavily fining websites which use their images without permission. Not only is it a copyvio to upload such pictures here, it's an exceptionally risky copyvio for us. -- ChrisO 22:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• WP:FU#Examples of unacceptable use #5 calls out AP photos that aren't themselves article subjects as something that we Should Not Be Doing. I'm fairly sure it would be a speedy deletion criterion if it weren't for the possibility of occasional exceptions, and I don't see the harm of immediately deleting something that represents a significant legal risk. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Textbook case. Maybe speedy wasn't the "proper" way to do it, but there's no way this would have survived IFD. howcheng {chat} 21:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Was deleted as a cross-namespace redirect. However, it contained early discussions of Wikipedia's policies, and Wikipedia:Ignore all rules linked to a version of it before it was deleted. I'd like to suggest it be restored and moved to the Wikipedia: namespace. Father Goose 21:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm going to restore and merge the history to Wikipedia:Rules to consider (now a redirect). The first version in that page's history was a move from this title, which somehow missed the oldest bits of the edit history. Xoloz 01:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Finished. I won't close this DRV just yet. Although I believe I've done the best thing, there might be other suggestions out there. Xoloz 01:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Apologies to Father Goose, I did mean to get back around to dealing with this and it totally slipped my mind. Endorse Xoloz's solution - thanks. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I restored what appears to be the last version before it was abandoned and slapped a {{historical}} tag on it. I discovered a complicating factor, however: a similar page at Rules to consider. I can't tell if that page contains content not found in the history of the now-relocated Wikipedia:Rules to consider -- they're similar, but it looks like they forked at some point (take a look at the talk pages). I propose moving Wikipedia:Rules to consider over to Wikipedia:RulesToConsider, Rules to consider to Wikipedia:Rules to consider, and letting Wikihistorians sort out what the difference was between the two.--Father Goose 02:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh boy, is this complicated! :) First, remember that we don't have the full edit histories at any of these locations; edits from 2001-02 are only sporadically preserved, after previous database dumps, before Wikipedia became what it is today. Second, I'm afraid Father Goose's proposal won't work, because I've already merged "Rulestoconsider" to "Wikipedia:Rules to Consider" -- separating out those edit histories would be difficult, imprecise, and not fairly reflect the creation of the latter page. Thirdly, I'm unsure whether these pages should be left with content openly marketed historical, or redirected to "Policies and guidelines", as they have been for the last five years. "Policies and guidelines" began as "Rules to consider", so the redirect preserves a lineage, and helps keep any newbies from being confused. "Rules to consider" (without the "Wikipedia:" prefix) does need to be deleted, per CSD R2, so its content must be moved somewhere, but that is the only thing I know for certain. Xoloz 14:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, we can't unmerge the histories, but I don't think that's a huge problem. I'd still move the merged histories over like I proposed, put a historical tag on each of w:r t c and w:RTC, plus a note that they have been superceded by WP:POL, and add a note to each about there being another fork of indeterminate origin. Oh, and also note what pages they were originally located at. That's about as transparent an approach as I can come up with. Maybe someone who knows the origins of each page can then lace them together better, or at least explain the divergence.

I'd do it myself, but I couldn't move Rules to consider over the redirect that would be formed by moving Wikipedia:Rules to consider. I'll do the rest, though, if you agree to it.--Father Goose 17:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment There's Wikipedia:Archive which may be a good place to put any content which would otherwise be lost. --ais523 18:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

That's not a bad solution: Wikipedia:Archive/RulesToConsider and Wikipedia:Archive/Rules to consider, with the same tags and notes as above. I'll move them there in two days if no one objects.--Father Goose 19:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, done. The redirects that remain at Rules to consider and its talk page should be deleted.--Father Goose 06:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

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

At present there are at least 7 different Latin alphabets used by Tatars. IQTElif is one of them. The various alphabets are (there is only a difference of a few letters between most of them):

1. Janalif (there was also pre-Janalif, used for a few years)

2. Yanalif-2

3. Yanalif-3

4. IQTElif

5. Zamanalif

6. Inalif

7. Inalif-2

8. There is also another variant, which may or may not have a name.

9. People also frequently use mish-mash writing that has no system whatsoever.

Tatar alphabet has been abused for more than a century: in the interests of weakening the language it was forced thru real Arabic, made up Arabic, pre-Janalif, Janalif, and Cyrillic in the first half of 20th century. And switch to Latin alphabet has been forbidden for purely political, not linguistic reasons, which is all the more evident because it was done in Moscow.

Different people use different alphabets, and most of them don't mark the alphabet used. Each alphabet's name is irrelevant for individual users. IQTElif has only a couple of letters different from others. Some examples of such orthography are below:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tatar-l/message/10044

http://www.kultur.gov.tr/gaspirali/default.asp?lehce_ID=7&strDil=English transliterates Tatar Cyrillic to Tatar Latin.

http://www.kultur.gov.tr/tr/dosyagoster.aspx?dil=1&belgeanah=109902&dosyaisim=emirhaneniki.pdf

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/5295

Additions:

http://aton.ttu.edu/kirim_lyrics_tugtil.asp http://www.tatar.ro/articole/tukay_ve_tatarlik.php http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYv-4Xt9yN8 http://www.tatar.ro/video.php?video=KAZAN_TATAR_TURK_ALTINORDU_Abdullah_Tukay_Nogai_Bashkird&id=20 http://akidil.net/tatar/tatarsongs.htm http://www.turkfolkloru.com/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=75 http://www.tuqay.narod.ru/AbdullahTukay.pdf http://mtad.humanity.ankara.edu.tr/II-3_Eylul2005/oz2-32005/2-3oz_41fkilic.html http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=17&url=http%3A%2F%2Fekitap.kulturturizm.gov.tr%2Fdosyagoster.aspx%3FDIL%3D1%26BELGEANAH%3D109902%26DOSYAISIM%3DRavilFeyzullin.pdf&ei=cbKuRoe0NZneigHT78j3BQ&usg=AFQjCNGdxKKYsvlOunlNiyvKDSr6bTSGbA&sig2=oXj6A1f1ZoREZOYaSRbKoA http://www45.brinkster.com/karachaymalkar/tatarturklerininbuyuksairiabdullahtukay.htm

I'm also listing the references from the article:

Zaman Talebí. Şehri Qazan, 04/06/1994.

Tatarstan Republic Law No. 2352 of 09/15/99

Tahsin Banguğolu. Türkçenin Grameri. Türk Dil Kurumu. ISBN 975160268-8. (The Tatar vowels cube is inspired by a reference to a similar cube for Turkish language used by a famous European Turkologist, Jean Deny, and presented in this book as Deny'nin Kübü, i.e. Deny's Cube (e.g., see pages 36-37 in 3rd edition); Vowel represented by Ee is presented in this book at the intersection of the front and wide (open) edges (and é is also shown on the front edge itself), but is shown in Tatar vowels cube somewhat lower based on the IPA). The book also mentions that vowel represented by é is found in Old and Middle (time-wise) Turkish (Turkic), and is still encountered in the first syllable of some words in some Anatolian dialects, although it is not a part of the alphabet.)

If Zamanalif has a right to be on wikipedia, so does IQTElif. It is very sad to see Wikipedia acting as a censorship tool serving policies like Putin's prohibition of Latin alphabet.

Any attempt to delete this content on such an obviously disputed subject from wikipedia is politically motivated, is not in the spirit of wikipedia and is a disservice to Tatars and humanity. If this content is deleted, one could question a lot of other content attributed to Tatar language. What all this could lead to is a Cyrillic environment, which definintely doesn't represent use of Tatar language online.

There is no rationale for deleting this content. At best, it could be listed as debated, which i would agree with, given 7 alphabets in use.

This deletism is unsubstantiated. Ultranet 19:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Discussed and deleted at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/İQTElif, which was closed with a weak consensus to delete. If you'd like to challenge the closure here, that's fine, but DRV is not a second deletion discussion. Zetawoof_(ζ) 20:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I edited Afd section, but it was overwritten. How to i dispute this deletism? Some people know how to work the system. I'm lost about the discussion process. Wikipedia has not right to favor any of the at least 7 Latin alphabet versions, at a time when this debate still goes on, and a time when there is clear political interference into the process, and demonstrated by laws coming out of Moscow. --Ultranet 20:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. This page is only for discussing procedural flaws, not to reiterate arguments for or against deletion. I can see no procedural flaws here. Sandstein 20:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I have answered the questions raised in the discussion. Therefore, the deletion is unsubstantiated. If DRV is the wrong procedure to follow, what should be done to dispute this deletism? And how's wikipedia's pre-judging of a contested subject among Tatars not a procedural flaw?--Ultranet 20:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Ultranet deserves fair treatment. Someone, please help Ultranet to discuss it properly according to Wikipedia policies. I am not too familiar with the intricacies of the procedure. Thanks in advance. --Amir E. Aharoni 20:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment The first step would be to stop and retract all prior frivolous accusations of bad faith and censorship, and to stop framing this debate as one regarding the nuances of the Tatar alphabet(s) and instead one that discusses whether the deletion was proper, with proper citations of deletion policy. --Kurykh 23:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see Violations section below.--Ultranet 04:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. I proposed the original AfD. I believe that Ultranet has knowledge about the Tatar language and that he has good ideas about reform in the Tatar alphabet, but i have not seen any proof that İQTElif is not Ultranet's original research. As for Zamanalif - it has its place on Wikipedia, because people actually use it. For example, as far as i know, the Tatar Wikipedia and Tatar RFE/RL both use Zamanalif (but please correct me if i'm wrong.) --Amir E. Aharoni 20:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete. How can you be talking about original research. People used and use this orthography. All i did is put an article about it on wikipedia.

Tatar Wikipedia Somebody has started this project, and they chose to use Zamanalif. So if they chose to use IQTElif that would've been different? Is this is a time competition then?

Tatar RFE/RL uses what could be called Yanalif-3, not Zamanalif.--Ultranet 20:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Time competition? Well, yes - something like that. If there is anyone that started a notable project and chose İQTElif, then there should be an article about it in Wikipedia, but is there such a project?

You can't list ultranet.tv as such a project, because it doesn't satisfy the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (web).

(I'm sorry if it's the wrong place for this discussion. If anyone can propose a better place for it, please tell us.) --Amir E. Aharoni 20:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not listing any single source as the project or the reference. I've given multiple examples. The argument on time competition is ludicrous: Tatar Wikipedia was started by somebody who made a judgment call on which alphabet to use. That does not give that chosen alphabet any advantage. Orthography represented by IQTElif was and is in use, and wikipedia needs to reflect that. If it doesn't, it would be a political stance on a disputed subject: read, censorship.--Ultranet 21:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The Yahoo groups link and the Firefox link are related to you, so you can't give them as examples. And i can't understand the examples in Turkish. I'll appreciate if you could explain them.

Please stop misleading people: i've already mentioned in prior deleted discussions that you replied to that yahoo groups post is by Mr. Devlet, and not by me. One of the other links is an example of a story published in that orthography. Another one transliterates Tatar from Cyrillic to Latin. --Ultranet 22:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

In the groups.yahoo.com link the posting is written by Mr Devlet, but you replied to him. Can you show an example of usage which doesn't involve you?

You have got to be kidding me. The poster is Mr. Devlet, and it doesn't matter who replied to his post. Anyway, i added about 10 more above under Additions:. --Ultranet 04:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The transliteration link is quite suspicious too. For example, it calls the Turkmen spelling, which is standard in Turkmenistan "special spelling". (I am referring to the spelling which uses ý for Cyrillic й.)

I don't care what one calls an alphabet. What matters is that it's used.--Ultranet 04:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The link which is hardest for me to contest is emirhaneniki.pdf. I understand that it is a an example of Tatar writing with translation to Turkish. But it is important to note that it doesn't mention İQTElif by name. Wikipedia cannot be the only place that uses this name. Who else is using it? --Amir E. Aharoni 05:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

If there weren't about 10 alphabets around, this alphabet wouldn't need a name at all. Most users don't care about marking what alphabet they use. This orthography was used by people before Zamanalif and Inalif. The only role the name has is to distinguish from other variants when it actually matters, and alas nowadays when talking about Tatar alphabet one can hardly avoid putting a name on an alphabet, because there are so many of them. Other than that, the name is insignificant.--Ultranet 04:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying that Zamanalif is in any way better then İQTElif. But someone made a decision and people joined him and started writing in that alphabet. Did anyone join you and started writing in İQTElif? You said that you handed out leaflets about İQTElif on a Worldwide Tatar Council; did anyone except you use those leaflets to write anything in Tatar? --21:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I've listed some examples of the usage. As i said, the alphabet was in use before me: all i did is express a preference for it out of close to 10 other alphabets. All the alphabets have something in common. IQTElif has 2 letters different from Yanalif-3, and 3 letters different from Zamanalif. Do you by the way know that delegates of the world congress were separated from people by police cordons on some occasions? You are talking about a place where there is little to no respect for human rights. The matter of Latin alphabet is debated, and wikipedia has no right or reason to censor on this subject.--Ultranet 22:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Human rights situation in Russia is not perfect, but it has nothing to to with İQTElif.

You say the alphabet was in use before me - can you prove it?

See the links above.--Ultranet 04:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not debating the whole issue of Latin alphabet. I am debating the issue of İQTElif - a particular type of Latin alphabet which seems to be promoted by you and not used by anyone else. --Amir E. Aharoni 05:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

See the links above.--Ultranet 04:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse. Enough good reasons given above. DRV is not a 2nd AFD, DRV is for policy violations, etc. Q ^{T C} 20:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Could somebody please give me a link to the procedure i have to follow to undelete? Am i supposed to follow this process: How_to_list_pages_for_deletion. Note, that i seek undeletion. --Ultranet 20:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

No, that's AfD, you want WP:DRV Q ^{T C} 02:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse The user who brought this DRV has since re-created the article at least 3 times demonstrating a disdain for the very procedure he invoked. Carlossuarez46 22:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• overturn There appears to be enough sourcing to source it well, some of the sourcing does not appear to have been mentioned in the AfD(am I wrong here? If so, someone correct me please). This seems to give us enough ground to have an article on the matter. The fact that the user has been acting disruptive does not alter whether or not we should have the article. JoshuaZ 01:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: What sources did you find? Please give examples. --Amir E. Aharoni 04:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The government websites in Turkish appear to be sources discussing the matter. I don't speak Turkish so we should get someone who does to confirm this. The nominator also mentioned a print source. JoshuaZ 15:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This page shouldn't be cluttered with this discussion. I created a page in my user space for discussing this, where everyone can present their opinions: User talk:Amire80/İQTElif. Thanks for cooperation. --Amir E. Aharoni 09:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to honor your little sabotage page by providing feedback to it, but for objective folks here i have to say at least this: at the present time, the Tatar language has no standard alphabet, and i am well aware of that, and i don't try to show ANY alphabet as standard. The Cyrillic alphabet doesn't fit the language, but is imposed at gunpoint, and there are too many Latin alphabets, and various games going on in that area as well. On the contrary, when i first looked up the Tatar alphabet article, Zamanalif was presented as the standard, even official, alphabet, whereas it is neither. What i did, is provided clarification that there were several Latin alphabets proposed and used, and that the topic was contested, and provided references to what the Tatarstani law attempted to specify, what the Cabinet of Ministers attempted to specify, how parliament speaker mentioned that they might be making some modifications in the alphabet, and how the Russia's law forbade the whole process. Look it up in history if you wish. It is you who is trying to present one of a bunch of alphabets as standard; it is me who is saying that doesn't reflect reality.--Ultranet 04:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

My page is not "sabotage" - i put it up to reduce the clutter. If you think that my claims are wrong, please explain why.

The new links that you added are only slightly more convincing. They seem like external sources, but none of them mentions İQTElif by name. The only thing that they clearly show is that Tatar language has a lot of different Latin spelling systems.

Are there any people except yourself that use the name İQTElif? You can't make up a name for X and write an article for it in Wikipedia, even if X itself is real. You can write in the article about Tatar alphabet that some Tatars write Ä, some Tatars write Ə and some others write E - i don't argue about that. But you can't make up a name for those that write E and use this name on Wikipedia unless you can prove that there are other people that use it.

Now, the links dissected one by one:

• http://aton.ttu.edu/kirim_lyrics_tugtil.asp
• http://www.tatar.ro/articole/tukay_ve_tatarlik.php
• http://www.tatar.ro/video.php?video=KAZAN_TATAR_TURK_ALTINORDU_Abdullah_Tukay_Nogai_Bashkird&id=20
• http://akidil.net/tatar/tatarsongs.htm
• http://www45.brinkster.com/karachaymalkar/tatarturklerininbuyuksairiabdullahtukay.htm

All these links show Tuqay's poem Tugan Til. Every page has it in a different spelling. So how does it prove anything about İQTElif?

You asked for examples of the orthography. The spelling is consistent other than circumstantial variations, like sh instead of s-cedilla.--Ultranet 05:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Examples of inconsistencies in different versions of Tuqay's "Tugan Til":

• i tugan til vs. Iy tugan til vs. İy tugan til
• Donyada vs. Dönyada vs. Dünyada

And there are more.

Seems to me that these differences go way beyond differences between İQTElif and other systems, but correct me if i'm wrong.

(Putting the alphabet issue aside, i think that it is a beautiful poem.) --Amir E. Aharoni 06:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the 3rd link is spelled in a way that makes the spelling closer to Turkish (that covers your Dünyada example). As for the your other comments: Donyada is ASCII-1 (7-bit) spelling of Dönyada, to which i already alluded with my sh vs. s-cedilla example. Ditto for I vs. İ: what letter would you use to avoid encoding issues? Various forms of that are common all over, and trust me there is much worse spelling diversity that this around. As for i vs. iy, you can find variations like that even in Cyrillic sources, after almost 70 years. Plus, take a look at other alphabets around. I can show you examples involving proékt and proekt, etc. You have to realize that you are talking about an oppressed language with close to 10 alphabets.--Ultranet 04:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

OK - you proved to me that some people just set up their keyboard for Turkish, probably because it was too hard for them to set it up for typing Ä or Ə (that's an educated guess). I don't mind if you write this in the article about Tatar alphabet.

But if you want to call this "İQTElif", then you also need to prove that someone except yourself uses this name. --Amir E. Aharoni 06:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYv-4Xt9yN8

Can you please explain what is İQTElif there? This is just a nice clip of Tatar TV showing celebrations of 75 years Arça rayonı. Everything is Cyrillic there.

Just the title.--Ultranet 05:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• http://www.turkfolkloru.com/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=75

It looks like this page is written in Turkish. What does it have to do with İQTElif?

Tatar text is embedded in the text.--Ultranet 05:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• http://mtad.humanity.ankara.edu.tr/II-3_Eylul2005/oz2-32005/2-3oz_41fkilic.html

What does it have to do with İQTElif?

Not much: just the spelling of a name of an organization in Qırğızstan.--Ultranet 05:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=17&url=http%3A%2F%2Fekitap.kulturturizm.gov.tr%2Fdosyagoster.aspx%3FDIL%3D1%26BELGEANAH%3D109902%26DOSYAISIM%3DRavilFeyzullin.pdf&ei=cbKuRoe0NZneigHT78j3BQ&usg=AFQjCNGdxKKYsvlOunlNiyvKDSr6bTSGbA&sig2=oXj6A1f1ZoREZOYaSRbKoA

It is possible that this document is written in İQTElif, but we need another expert to prove it. And it still doesn't mention the name İQTElif. --Amir E. Aharoni 08:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It is an example of such orthography. The main role an alphabet name plays is to distinguish from other alphabets. The main thing IQTElif says is non-Janalif, non-Yanalif-2, non-Yanalif-3... It helps for an alphabet name to also be somewhat descriptive, but that is secondary. How do you think other alphabet names came about? There is a need to distinguish one alphabet from another. This is especially relevant for localization. Other than that, the names have almost no significance, and show some variance from one person to another, and are not set in stone. I was involved in a long discussion about variant name for one of the alphabets, and until the very end noone knew what the name was going to be due to various factors involved. --Ultranet 05:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that you need to use some name to distinguish one spelling system from another, but i could find the name İQTElif only on ultranet.tv, on mailing lists of Free Software such as KDE, GNOME, glibc, Mozilla, etc., and on Wikipedia - and all of them were written by yourself. This is a problem.

I would also like to point out, that i really appreciate your efforts in localizing Free Software for the Tatar language. If you can prove that "tt-RU-iqtelif" localization was accepted into a notable program and that this program is actually used by anyone except yourself, then you win. For example, you can try to present verifiable statistics of people that downloaded the iqtelif localization package for Mozilla. --Amir E. Aharoni 06:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Procedure I'd like to get some comments on how the speedy deletion was performed over the weekend. Twice i put hangon w/ a comment inviting to look at the talk page, and followed instructions on Afd page (which said it is not to be edited, and from which one of my comments was overwritten) to provide rationale on the talk page. I attempted to provide explanations on the talk page twice, and both times the article and the talk page were deleted within less that a half hour, without any feedback from an administrator, despite the fact that the Afd page said the admin would review the talk page. I remember that at least once the talk page was deleted by Carlossuarez46 w/ rationale of the article having been deleted (within minutes of each other). I think he also deleted the article itself once. I don't recall for sure, but think another admin also performed 1 or 2 deletions in the same manner. I haven't brought this to light yet, but this didn't appear to be a normal procedure to me. This also touches on somebody's earlier comment above.--Ultranet 05:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The hangon tag you placed and the explanation you gave were quite surely looked at by the deleting admin, but since the article was effectively a repost of the earlier article, the speedy deletion criterion WP:CSD#G4 applies. Hangon does not mean the article can't be deleted, merely that the creator wants to make sure they have the chance to say something. This is explained in the {{hangon}} tag itself. Mangojuice^talk 13:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I would be shocked if what i experienced over several hours on Sunday is normal on wikipedia. If it is, i'd like to humbly suggest modifying this policy by requiring a written record for each delete action, speedy or slow, and/or a written response to the editor's hangon.--Ultranet 04:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - the debate attracted few comments but they were well-reasoned and detailed. I see no reason to overturn that result, considering that the only arguments for keeping were refuted quite well. Mangojuice^talk 13:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

hangon. I haven't seen a refutal. What i've seen is refutile. I'm sensing an attempt to play part 2 in the same fashion as part 1. I am going to quote from the deletion policy now, as suggested by Kurykh. Apparently that is what i should emphasize.--Ultranet 03:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion policy violations The deleted content does not violate a copyright, is verifiable in a reliable source, and does not include negative content about living persons.--Ultranet 03:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

What verifiable source uses the name "İQTElif"? --Amir E. Aharoni 06:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability: Quoting: 'The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.' Along with other references, anybody can refer to the following: Zaman Talebí. Şehri Qazan, 04/06/1994. When the topic warranted other sources were also referenced, and/or linked to. The references, including the first one, were there for months. Thus, the deleted material is verifiable, and should be undeleted. --Ultranet 03:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I severely doubt that i can find this book in a library in Jerusalem, so i'll assume good faith and take your word for it: Does that book use the name "İQTElif"? If it does, then i withdraw all my objections. If it does not, then it is not a verifiable source that justifies the use of the name "İQTElif" in Wikipedia.

If that book is the source for the phonological information in the article, then it is perfectly OK to put this information on other articles about the Tatar language. I already said in the AfD proposal that this phonological information looks fine. For that purpose i saved a copy of the page in my user space. --Amir E. Aharoni 06:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No original research: Quoting: 'Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories.' Because the material is verifiable in independent reliable sources, it satisfies No OR policy. All the major points in the deleted content trace back to published material. Therefore, the content should be undeleted.--Ultranet 03:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutral point of view: Quoting: 'All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources).' The deleted content was written from a neutral point of view, mentioning existence of multiple alphabet variants, and providing comparisons. Please note that this was not the case before the deleted content, at which time Zamanalif was presented as the standard and official alphabet, which is not the case. Note also, that now that the disputed content is deleted the user is left with only the presentation of Zamanalif in the Tatar alphabet discussion. This indeed results in a biased situation, because it is equivalent to Wikipedia taking a position in a unequivocally disputed topic. Therefore, the deleted content, unlike some other content, satisfies the 'Neutral point of view' policy, and should be undeleted.--Ultranet 04:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The article said: "It is the phonetically-and-pragmatically-optimal Latin-based alphabet for Idíl-Ural (Qazan) Tatar". Says who? There are two problems here:

• If you found out by yourself that it is optimal, then it is original research.
• If someone else thinks that his favorite system of spelling is more pragmatic, then it is not NPOV. --Amir E. Aharoni 06:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Conclusion: The content was deleted in violation of the deletion policy, and should be undeleted.--Ultranet 04:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

See my comments above. --Amir E. Aharoni 06:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Morse code in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

(Note: I nominated the page for deletion) I strongly disagree with Ceyockey (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves)'s interpretation of consensus at the AfD. To me, it would appear that the consensus was strongly in favor of the belief that the entire article was trivia, and therefore unencyclopedic (per WP:FIVE). --Eyrian 17:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment As I closed the AFD in question, I will refrain from indicating endorse/relist/overturn. I interpreted the objections voiced by persons indicating 'delete' to mean they objected to the trivial content; I noted circumstances where such content might not be trivial in my closure statement, that being in cases where Morse code was used as a major plot element rather than as an incidental plot device (for literature-related works, two examples noted in my closure statement). For music, the case is more difficult - simply having a snippet of Morse code in the song would not count as a 'major thematic element', but there are instances of this as well, such as the song YYZ from Rush (a particular snip of code serves as a recurring song element and ties into the central theme of the song). I also indicated that reliable secondary sources should be provided for all remaining entries after pruning trivia (as defined above here and in my closure statement). I believe my decision boils down to bringing the article into compliance with Wikipedia content policies and exercising discretion in not "throwing the baby out with the bathwater". I will not object to the outcome of this Deletion Review. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• I see this as the closer putting their own judgment of what counts as trivia over the overall opinion of the consensus. --Eyrian 19:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete. The closer interpreted the discussion as resulting in a consensus to delete most and keep some entries. However, no one suggested this in the discussion; the majority wanted to delete all and the minority wanted to keep all entries. Whatever one may think of the merits of the arguments by either side, the closing statement does not reflect the actual consensus, which was to delete the article. Sandstein 20:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Consensus is not merely choosing among the notions tossed out by the persons commenting. It is reaching a solution that is consistent with all input provided. Most people do a vote tally and act on that; I prefer not to take such a crude approach ... which is consistent with the instructions for WP:AFD. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete The consensus was for deletion. The idea that it can be kept "with major revision" is just pie in the sky thinking. This is what these "articles" are like. They are rubbish, and unlike other wikipedia content they have a built in tendency to get worse and worse as time goes by. They should all be killed off. Golfcam 21:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment "They should all be killed off" is not consistent with considering each article on its own merits. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Just do a sourced rewrite, that's the dinkum way to do things. --SpiritDispenser300x3 22:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete - mistaken close. Eusebeus 23:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Delete or merge, but keep is definitely not one of the available options in this case. --Kurykh 23:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• endorse close Well within admin discretion. If the article is not clean up later it can always be re-AfDed. JoshuaZ 01:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, delete and possibly userfy. I'm not sure how this decision was reached. Consensus on this seems clear, and for very good reasons. Nothing has been said to counter the claim that this article violates the policy against loosely associated facts. If someone can write a well sourced, detailed article about how Morse Code has influenced music (without lists of any kind, mind you), then I'd certainly support a decision to userfy and begin working on that article. Also, if the AfD's closure didn't appear to go so strongly against consensus. This is not about vote tallies, but about the discussion itself, which drives towards deletion. CaveatLector^Talk 04:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• ----- ...- . .-. - ..- .-. -. / .--. . .-. / .- -... ----- ...- . Will ^(talk) 14:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. The entire page violates our five pillars, closure was out of line. Burntsauce 17:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, consensus appears to have been misinterpreted in the closure. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 18:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete - Consensus to delete is clear and the closing admin substituted a "solution" that s/he invented out of whole cloth. Otto4711 18:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete - it pretty clear that the consensus was to delete; the solution given in the deletion summary does not appear to have any grounding in the discussion -- if anything, it's a "keep" argument, presented nowhere in the discussion added by the closing admin. If they were going to argue, then why not just comment in the discussion normally? --Haemo 05:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, clear consensus to delete in the AFD, closure was inappropriate due to the lack of arguments or comments addressing the WP:NOT#IINFO-related concerns. --Coredesat 10:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse The consensus may appear clear, but I think the closing admin was correct to put less weight on not particularly well argued comments like "trivia" and "Culturecruft, yet again" than on the well-reasoned keep arguments. JulesH 18:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete in popular culture. The way to deal with bloated popular culture sections in articles is to prune them, not to split them out into whole "articles" composed of nothing but loosely-associated (and often uncited) facts. Guy (Help!) 20:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. I applaud Ceyockey for his/her optimism in the closing, but the consensus here was to delete the article. It is not the place of the closer to save articles that may or may not saveable: they are supposed to read the debate and interpret its outcome. Ceyockey is also a Wikipedia editor, though, and if he/she (or anyone, really) wants to try rewriting the article after its deletion to a form that those in the debate might find acceptable, there would be no problem with that. Mangojuice^talk 21:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. The role of the closing admin is to weigh the discussion already provided, not add your own "keep" argument where the closing comment should go, and close the AFD to match it. Neil ╦ 13:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Tuotu is a popular software many Chinese people compared with Thunder of the Xunlei. Its English version is the Rabbit. Search its English name(Tutuo) in the search engines there are many English pages and many more Chinese pages about it. Search its Chinese name there are more pages. Another user edits the page some minutes after the page is created, and after some minutes another user post speedy deletion, the article are deleted and the admin said he doesn't know Chinese. Is tuotu notable to the wikipedia?Fairness528ele 11:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete and list at AfD Too notable to be a speedy deletion. It'll still likely be deleted if sources can be found, but it's possible (indeed likely) that Chinese-language sources exist. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn the speedy to allow editors to establish notability, but with option to list at AfD. --Ginkgo100^talk 16:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, as deleting admin, to allow whatever process to take place. However, I don't think it will change the ultimate result. I was offered three English-language sources to back this up; they are either passing trivial mentions or forum posts. But I allow that there might be better sources in Chinese that are beyond my reading capability (I can recognize the two characters for China and that's about it). I would also note that the creator made no edits to the article for some time after placing {{hangon}} on it; that admonition that it's on the tag placer to show why the article shouldn't be speedied has to mean something. Daniel Case 21:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete and list at AfD view - since there is the potential for sourcing and possible notability the best way forward is to undelete and allow for a fuller discussion. Having said that, I agree with the deleting admin that significantly better sources need to be provided for this to have a realistic chance of surviving the AfD. Bridgeplayer 02:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The request for deletion was biased strongly biased, I've read the user page of user Pablo and it says the following:

I have come to find out that any group with the word truth in its name exists for the sole purpose of spreading lies.

How to find articles that should be deleted The best way to find an article that fails Wikipedia's policies on inclusion is to use an article's what links here page. Often, crappy articles link to more well-known articles within the same subject. Here are some what links here links that are especially helpful in finding bad articles: * Loose Change * 9/11 Truth Movement * Daily Kos More coming!

The reasons for deletion no longer apply. After reading the discussions on previous deletion, most arguments were concerning the fact that the movie was not well known, using a simple search on Google I found out the movie Terrorstorm has more hits than another movie which does have it's own article, America: freedom to fascism. Joehoe665 22:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion (actually redirection) If I remember correctly, the primary reasoning last time this came up with DRV was that we should have an article about this because somebody wore a t-shirt at a concert, which had to be just about the most laughably awful reasoning I've seen here to that point. This request, while less overtly silly, is based on Google hits vs another (similar?) thing supposedly with an article, and is similarly invalid. See also WP:BIGNUMBER and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion/maintain status quo of redirection. Pablo's deletion request is fully justified, since he requested speedy deletion for recreation of an article which was deleted by consensus. His biases are beside the point; any other editor could have made the same request. That said, this doesn't call for an article until, say, Newsweek does a full-length article on the movie. —C.Fred (talk) 00:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse DVD comes out next week, and the reviews should follow. There should be no article without good sources, reviews, and strong sales figures backing up notability. -Nard 00:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Process followed, deletion legit. --Tbeatty 16:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• endorse deletion until we get reliable sources. We still don't have that. JoshuaZ 15:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - bias on the part of any editor is not important unless it appears to have caused them to misinterpret the closure of the debate. This does not appear to be the case. --Haemo 05:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Fake Photograph as BuriedAlive.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|IfD)

The image was nominated for deletion and the IfD was subsequently closed by admin User:Nv8200p as "kept"[23], citing that the image is considered in the public domain until proven otherwise. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the burden of proof is actually the other way around, that an image claimed to be in the public domain would be deleted unless it is proven to actually be in the public domain. The image page actually provides no evidence to back up the claim that it is in the public domain. In light of that, I am listing the image here for deletion review, for reconsideration to delete the image. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• The image was taken in 1937 or 1938. The Japanese Army was in control when the image was taken. I have found no publications of the image under the jurisdication of the Japanese government dated before 1957, so the image meets the public domain requirements of the image copyright tag. -Nv8200p talk 19:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually the image that was taken in 1937 or 1938 is this one - Image:BuriedAlive.jpg. The image in question here (Image:Fake Photograph as BuriedAlive.jpg) is a modified version, cropped and with a dotted line drawn in the middle, and so I believe it is a derivative work. In other words, this could be an image that someone produced just a few years ago, and copyrighted by the person. No evidence is offered on the page pertaining to the claim that it is in the public domain. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • The original uploader, Hare-Yukai (talk · contribs), licensed his derivative work under {{PD-retouched-user}}. A speedy close is in order. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Doesn't that count as original research, not to mention unencyclopedic. Plus he didn't just adjust the lighting or contrast in the picture. He mashed the picture horizontally and then produced a dotted line to accuse the original picture of being a fake. I don't really see any rationale or purpose for his fabricated picture to exist on wikipedia. It is not used in any article and there hasn't been any discussion (besides from the uploader) regarding either his faked picture or the original picture. If this picture has been used by massacre deniers as a "credible" evidence then I can see the reason to insert it into the corresponding article. But for this case I see absolutely no rationale. Blueshirts 23:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
        • It was used in the talk page for Nanking massacre before you removed it. Anyway, what you are talking about is a content dispute, the initial IfD and this DRV were meant to address the copyright status and deletion. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
          • The only way it was used was that it was aligned talk page as along with the original picture thumbnail peppered with engrish captions, with no further comments and follow up. Do you count that kind of shit as "discussion" in any sense of the word? Blueshirts 00:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
            • I don't particularly care, in any sense of the word. The comment you replied to meant merely to point out the copyright status, nothing more. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - It was already discussed here. Please see the discussion. It should be depend on the decision of the Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 June 28#Image:BuriedAlive.jpg. What meaning is there to discuss it again? Hong Qi Gong and Blueshirts were concluded as being the thinker(s) of the Communist's side. --Hare-Yukai 15:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

ps. or Are you Storker(s)?

Orphaned non-free image (Image:The baby setuped by Capra s staff.jpg)

Image:Fake Photograph as BuriedAlive.jpg

Image:Picture of smiling with army.jpg

Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 June 28#Image:BuriedAlive.jpg

Image:Fake Photograph as BuriedAlive.jpg listed for deletion

Image:Picture of smiling with army.jpg listed for deletion

Image:The baby setuped by Capra s staff.jpg listed for deletion

Image:Fake Photograph as BuriedAlive.jpg

Talk:Nanking Massacre

Talk:Nanking Massacre

Image:Picture of smiling with army.jpg

Talk:Nanking Massacre

--Hare-Yukai 20:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Still delete, see below. So the assertion is basically that this is outright fraud by one of our contributors? Wow. I'm tempted to speedily delete this, and indefinite block per WP:IAR. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak)

  Eh, what's the fraud? John Smith's 23:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

  Read what Blueshirts writes, then look at the two photos. It looks like one of our contributors someone took a historical photograph, retouched it, then drew a dotted line on it to draw attention to his retouching, and used that as evidence the historical photograph was retouched. That's just horrible. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 23:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

  Which picture is more horrible than? --Hare-Yukai 02:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

  Hahnchen says exactly what I wanted to say, more clearly, below. :-(. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

  I'm glad I resisted the temptation. On further evidence it looks like the original photograph uploaded as BuriedAlive.jpg was doctored, and this demonstrates the doctoring. However, the current photograph uploaded as BuriedAlive.jpg does not show this. Since the only purpose of Fake_Photograph_as_BuriedAlive.jpg is now unnecessary, we don't need it, and no fair use can be justified. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I would ask the admins to please take a careful comparison of this picture in question and Image:BuriedAlive.jpg. Looking at where the dotted line would appear in the latter, you can see that the modification is clearly more than just a dotted line. Parts of the middle of the original image was chopped off and then the remaining pieced back together again. If User:Hare-Yukai really did create this work as he claimed, then he has uploaded this image for the sole purpose of making the image page of Image:BuriedAlive.jpg a battleground to push his POV. Take a look at the history for Image:BuriedAlive.jpg. Hare-Yukai is not trying to use this image he supposedly created for the purpose of discussion, which as we all know should take place in discussion pages - he has been inserting this image right in the image page of Image:BuriedAlive.jpg itself. If he did create this image, then he is inserting original research in the Image:BuriedAlive.jpg page, and it would be extremely helpful if an admin sternly warns him against doing so. On the other hand, if this is not original research - meaning if this image was actually created by a reliable source - then it is a possible copyright violation. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I think that I would say that the IFD was closed correctly based on the narrow grounds under which it was opened. In the first IFD, HongQiGong argued that it was only used for discussion, which seems acceptable, thus not a rationale for deletion. In the second IFD, Blueshirts argued that it was not used in articles (same argument, same outcome) and that the uploader was attempting to discredit the original, which seems to violate WP:AGF while not being a rationale for deletion. In this technical sense I do not think the closing admins were incorrect. I am, however, concerned about the provenance of this image, and the opaque critique of Image:BuriedAlive.jpg that it presents. I'm particularly concerned that this image could somehow in the future be used in an article to present a case that its attribution does not support. I would like the uploader/creator to explain the image's creation in straightforward language, including his motivation for doing so, or to present the image's source in context. Is that appropriate here? I simply don't think, having read all of the linked materials, and I do mean all, that I have determined the intent or purpose of the image -- what it "shows" -- about the original. --Dhartung | Talk 08:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure but delete There is adequate reason to believe that the original is indeed in the public domain, and that this is a derivative work to falsely claim that the original was a fake. The creator of a derivative work can release their derivative work into the public domain. If this is indeed a derivative work by the Wikipedia editor, then its purpose is to attack the original image, so we should speedy delete it under G10. If it is not by the Wikipedia editor, then they aren't able to release the derivative into the public domain, so we have a false copyright status. Since it needs to be deleted whether the uploader is the one that modified it or not, we should delete it regardless of whether or not they modified it. GRBerry 13:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC) (New comment further down; I no longer stand by this logic, but it is important to the thread of the discussion. GRBerry 18:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC))
  • Exactly, thank you for putting the issue in words much better than I did. If this is indeed User:Hare-Yukai's own work, then the image was uploaded simply as an attack. If this is actually not his own work, then it's a possible copyright violation. In either instances, deletion is called for. There are dozens of websites dedicated to questioning the authenticity of these images, many having their own little modifications with lines and arrows drawn on the originals to show what they believe are discrepancies in the photos. It's not absolutely impossible that this image was simply downloaded from a website. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse but delete G10, I previously voted keep but I see now Wikipedia is not a place for Wikipedia:fringe theories. -Nard 14:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • In this case, the meaning is different from the meaning of G10 and this problem. --Hare-Yukai 02:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Uploading your own fake photograph to try and discredit another photograph, and citing it as conclusive evidence that the entire Nanjing Massacre was faked, is the most flat out worst thing I've seen on Wikipedia. I'm going to upload an image of King Kong smashing up the twin towers, and then claim it's conclusive proof that the whole thing was a conspiracy. - hahnchen 16:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note that if I were an admin, I'd block this user. Although these rash rogue decisions, is probably why I'm not one. - hahnchen 16:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    • There. That's what I wanted to say. And I am an admin, and barely restrained myself. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Real historic photograph, notice the normal face and torso of the man with his arm pointing towards the camera

Fake Photograph as BuriedAlive.jpg Faked photograph made by Hare-Yukai to discredit the real photograph. Notice the mashed face and torso of the same man, with the added dotted line.

• For a quick side by side comparison, see the thumbnails above. Blueshirts 20:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The modification is also obvious at the man's legs. In the original, we can see negative space between the man's legs. In the modified version, the man's legs are pressed together side-by-side, with no negative space between them. If this modification comes from User:Hare-Yukai himself, then it was original research uploaded as a form of attack. However, if this actually addresses a legitimate concern, meaning it comes from a reliable source, then the photo is a possible copyright violation. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    • You shouldn't say such a lie at least. An original image was changed once. You know its fact. If anyone is administrator, history can be seen, and it will be able to be found easily. --Hare-Yukai 00:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    • How can you explain this fact?

(del) (cur) 12:44, 14 July 2007 . . Nv8200p (Talk | contribs)

(del) (cur) 14:42, 5 June 2007 . . Hare-Yukai (Talk | contribs)

--Hare-Yukai 00:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Refer to file history of the image:BuriedAlive.jpg.

14:47, 5 June 2007 Hare-Yukai (Talk | contribs) (199 bytes) (→Summary) (undo)

It is clear that at least another file existed before 5 June 2007. I up-loaded this file for the explanation of the currently file. Hong and Blue know its fact. What kind of reason do they say such lie for, and then they entrap me? They have the duty and have to explain its reason. --Hare-Yukai 02:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Please, you are not making any sense at all, aside from your atrocious English. Must feel pretty hot now, eh? You uploaded the faked photo with the dotted line to discredit the real historic photo uploaded by User:Johnnyboyca. So what's the deal about this "another file" that you're talking about? Care to show us any diffs that we can actually click, instead of some random timestamps? And what's with "entrapment"? You made this image trying to fool everyone, but unfortunately some of us have sharp eyes. Now, would you mind showing us the metadata or whatever that shows that you made the faked image, or perhaps give us a website where you grabbed it from? Your game's up and more confusing engrish from you isn't going to help you. Blueshirts 02:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

No need to make disparaging comments about his English. Hare-Yukai - your English is a little difficult to understand. If it helps, you can comment in Chinese and I'll translate. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Present image of the Image:BuriedAlive.jpg#File history were Up-loaded by Nv8200p. It should be revive the User:Johnnyboyca's up-loaded image. --Hare-Yukai 03:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as an admin viewing the deletion log, Hare-Yukai is right that until a few weeks ago, BuriedAlive.jpg was different, so we shouldn't accuse him of fraud. The Fake_Photograph is, however, now unnecessary. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• I have found three images on the Internet containing the same detail as Hare-Yukai's: [24][25][26]. I don't know why there are two photos around differing on that detail (possibly a problem with the photographic process?). Anyway, this could be a topic for (original) historical research, but I don't see how Image:Fake Photograph as BuriedAlive.jpg could be used in a place where original research is disallowed. Tizio 17:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks a lot. These images are known well and generally. The image file which was up-loaded by User:Johnnyboyca was the same as these images. Then, it was more high density image. The presented image Image:BuriedAlive.jpg(now) is extremely rare one. Where did they get it from? I think that it may be one of the precious historically record. --Hare-Yukai 18:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Hare-Yaki: where did you find that photograph? You have to provide the source of image:Fake Photograph as BuriedAlive.jpg and a discussion of why it was faked that comes from WP:RS ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 18:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I got it from user:Johnnyboyca's up-loaded file. You can guess it from file history. --Hare-Yukai 18:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Never mind, I see that was clarified above. Weird. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 18:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
        • normal picture on bbc news [27] The doctored photo looks like it was folded along the entire vertical axis, with distortion not only including the man with extended hand, but also shortened back of the man with white shirt in the foreground. [28] Blueshirts 02:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
        • It 5 is the secondary fake photograph. It is the photograph made at least after 1995. The first fake (montage) photograph 2 34 were made before 1943, and released by Chinese 國民党(National Party). --Hare-Yukai 09:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
          • And do you have any source for that claim? Blueshirts 15:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
          • This is kind of irrelevant. This photo with the dotted line was uploaded as a reaction to the original version of Image:BuriedAlive.jpg. Since Image:BuriedAlive.jpg has changed now and is not the same photo which the dotted photo indicates, this dotted photo is no longer necessary. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
            • It is described in detail there, the book of the "Nankin incident 'The verification of the Said Proof Photograph'", 東中野修道博士(Dr. Higashinanano Osamichi). 証拠写真「流れ圖」の概説(The summary of the Said Proof Photograph's "flow figure") in the 「証拠写真」の源流を辿る(The tracing of the source history of the "Said Proof Photograph") Depends on this description, it is certain that this photograph is a montage at least. It was already famous matter in Japan in about 1986. It is said that the many 'Said Proof Photograph' about the Nanjing Incident was released from the Nationalist Party bulletin in 1942. --Hare-Yukai 16:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
              • Yeah Hong's got a point. The simplest explanation is that the original photo got folded along the vertical axis in some first publications and was propagated subsequently. Otherwise, it wouldn't make sense to doctor the mashed photo to return to the original photo. Plus I don't trust a right wing revisionists book's take on this. It's like quoting "Did Six Million Really Die" on their take of some photos taken from the HolocaustBlueshirts 17:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
                • It is only an old image (Image:BuriedAlive.jpg up-loaded by user:Johnnyboyca ) that can be confirmed by this book. So it should be review old one and remove new one. --Hare-Yukai 23:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, deleted as no longer needed With the explanation here, the uploader has acknowledged that we no longer need the image. We certainly aren't going to use it in an article. A summary and link to this discussion should be added to the Image Talk page for the original discussion, explaining why the original image wasn't reliable and then we can delete this image as having no remaining use in building the encyclopedia. GRBerry 18:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The old image (up-loaded by user:Johnnyboyca) should be revive. I will use it for many explanations (If Hong and Blue don't disturb it[29]). This contains a new problem. Hong and Blue removed many articles which I wrote. So I can not write any more. Does such condition correspond to the no longer need the image? Let's think about this problem well with all. Then, let's leave this arguments in the important record of the Wikipedia. --Hare-Yukai 23:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • What's the point of uploading another photo where there's already one that's not doctored. Blueshirts 03:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
      • It is because a present image (Image:BuriedAlive.jpg up-loaded by User:Nv8200p) can't withstand to the proof of the source history. It does not exist at least before 1995. So the old image (up-loaded by user:Johnnyboyca) should be revive. As for being more important, Blue and Hong well knows the background of this incident (problem), and you are participating in this argument, like to know nothing. --Hare-Yukai 05:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Look, stop pulling stuff from your ass and post it here, capice? You know very well that the photo with the artifact line was used by revisionists to deny the massacre and at the same time they conveniently ignored the original photo. Blueshirts 05:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yu-Gi-Oh! Online (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

It does not fail WP:NOT, and I found sources for WP:WEB:

• GameSpot review
• GameZone review
• GamerDad review

Also, it was distributed with Weekly Shonen Jump, so it is notable (WP:WEB, #3). VDZ 19:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• You don't really need Deletion Review as there was no deletion. You can undo the merge and just improve the article. --W.marsh 19:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I did, but Jauerback reverted it and told me to take it to deletion review...so I'm waiting for an admin to simply say "the article can be undeleted".VDZ 19:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse nothing above to overturn a unanimous consensus at AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse as closing admin. This is technically not a matter for DRV, as no article was deleted, but I suppose one would need to produce a very substantial new consensus in order to overrule the AfD's merge consensus. Sandstein 06:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

But why? There's nothing wrong with the article anymore, now is there? VDZ 09:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse - I realized that this didn't technically belong in DRV when I told VDZ, but I also felt that simply letting the article get recreated with some minor changes wouldn't be appropriate, either. Jauerback 15:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• overturn I don't understand. it appears to meet WP:WEB. what's the issue? JoshuaZ 01:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Soul City FM (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I have been working on this article for a while and believe it just about meets the required level? If not please can it be restored to my user page so that I can work on it further? P.S apologies if im going about this wrong, im a bit of a novice here, but I do like it! Video killed the radiostar 14:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC) xxx

• Are there any sources here? Did newspapers, magazines etc. write about this station? If not, undeletion might be a moot point. --W.marsh 15:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah just userfy per Starblind. --W.marsh 00:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted unless sources show up; the article never had any, nor did it assert any notability. --Coredesat 20:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, no problem with userfying. --Coredesat 07:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak overturn This was an A7 speedy deletion, and it could be argued that radio stations are always notable (note that I am not making that argument myself). At least it can go through a discussion at AfD. --Ginkgo100^talk 21:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Restore to userspace so nom can work on it. Sounds like a reasonable request. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• There are one or two more sources i have found on the net using wiki radio project which are related to the subject, i have also found some papers with information on which i would like to/try to upload. This station was unique in the area it served as the format was un like any other. It also was the main contender for the licence. Video killed the radiostar 10:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC) xxx

Mr. Lee (cat) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Ryulong deleted this page twice. It's a notable cat. These are the sources:

• http://www.mr-lee-catcam.de/pe_cc_s.htm (all sources recorded here)
• Your Cat Magazine, United Kingdom
• Blikk Newspaper, Hungary
• Geliebte Katze Magazin, Germany
• The Globe and Mail, Toronto, Canada
• Germanys biggest Newspaper FAZ - Frankfurter Sunday Newspaper, Germany
• Heute Newspaper, Zuerich, Switzerland
• Matin Plus, France
• Huge article in Westfaelische Rundschau, Germany
• Article in NRC Next Dutch Newspaper
• Article in Het Laatste Nieuws, the biggest Bruessels Newspapers
• Yahoo News
• Article in the "Westfaelische Nachrichten" newspaper
• Article in the "Leibziger Volkszeitung" newspaper

I didn't even get to build it? Fromage911 07:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, my AFD thing I did after requested to show it was a valid article got deleted too by Ryulong because he said it was useless: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mr._Lee_(cat) Please let me know, and sorry Fromage911 07:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Overturn Even before the references were added the article asserted enough notability to not make it a speedy deletion by mentioning the international presscoverage. Agathoclea 07:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I did it right? Ryu just said on my page it wouldn't survive AFD because it's not an historic cat? Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fromage911 Fromage911 07:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

An AfD is a totally different matter again - this is about if this qualified for speedy deletion first of all - but people most likely will comment on the further use of the article - just sit back and wait a few days now. Agathoclea 07:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

thank you. what about my deleted afd? Was that oK? Fromage911 07:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

List of songs whose title constitutes the entire lyrics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I'm not sure that the decision in the AFD was really right. removing the "Don't be so deletionist" and WP:INTERESTING comments, the headcount is at 8:3. The deletes did give reasons. Additionally, the two that !voted "Weak keep" were rather wary on how encyclopedic the article was. Will ^(talk) 06:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• This should have been closed as delete since there is nothing encyclopaedic about songs whose title forms the entire lyrics, there is no properly authoritative source for most of them, and it's an entirely arbitrary selection criterion. Many similar lists have been deleted as random collections of information; this is no different. Just a list of songs matching an arbitrary criterion and selected in the main through original research. Guy (Help!) 06:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure this isn't round 2 of AFD, Guy. The closer seems to have been within discretion. --W.marsh 13:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• endorse closure as reasonable. I note that I am not too happy with this article myself--I did not participate in the AfD as i was undecided. But I notice that the first listed delete !voter changed his mind to !keep in the course of the discussion, so it is reasonable to think there must have been some convincing arguments. DGG (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. Given the number and weight of the arguments, I think that consensus (backed by policy and guidelines) is quite clear. Eluchil404 23:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, per Guy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete - Keep arguments were "its encyclopedic", "interesting", and EliminatorJr didnt explain how the article was not in violation of "loosely associated items" Corpx 20:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and Delete per Guy above. Eusebeus 22:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and Delete view - There was a balance of views at the AfD and I can see that it was tempting to close as a n/c. However, though these lists are 'interesting' and have a 'cute' factor they really are not encyclopaedic and are essentially pointless. Bridgeplayer 03:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• endorse close I would have closed this as delete but it looks within admin discretion to me. The users should feel free to start another AfD if necessary. JoshuaZ 15:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, the concerns raised by those arguing for deletion were not addressed, particularly the loosely-associated items concern. --Coredesat 04:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete I'm not sure if anyone noticed but this is the 2nd DR on this. I put up the first here Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_July#11_July_2007. I'm glad I wasn't alone in seeing how this AfD had an unreasonable expectations from deletion arguments. Bulldog123 04:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's cool and interesting and that IS enough of a reason to keep it on Wikipedia. 72.231.19.104 14:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, delete and write a song about that. Trivia. >Radiant< 15:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Chocolate Rain (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Currenly the most popular video on youtube, and like it or not people want to know about it. If you really care about wikipedia, don't delete the chocolate rain entry. It informs those who read it (self-included, after I googled the cache), and harms no-one who doesn't.

If a group of vigilant wikipedians really wants to prevent other people from accessing this page and learning from it, they'll probably succeed. But before you go down that path, ask yourself- why? What purpose does it serve? If people are truly so uniformly convinced the topic doesn't matter, they simply won't request info on it/ask it in the first place.

Bottom line: Chocolate Rain is all over Youtube and has been featured on nationally syndicated radio shows, and thousands of people are coming to wikipedia for info on it. "Noteworthy" is of anything, a gauge of what people are interested in reading about. And regardless of what self-appointed tastemakers think, Chocolate Rain currently fits that criterion.

I restored this article because it had the info I wanted about this song. Wikipedia let me down for the first time in a long time by refusing to provide me with information about this widespread internet fad. I and countless thousands of others were relying on wikipedia to provide us with information on this admittedly stupid internet fad. I see no reason why the hard work of fellow contributors written to address this topic should be deleted by third parties that think they know what I, and thousands of others, should and shouldn't care about, and should or shouldn't deem "noteworthy"

I've seen the video, I know it sucks, and that it won't be "noteworthy" in 6 months. THATS NOT THE POINT. A main reason wikipedia has an advantage over regular encyclopedias is because it covers this type of thing, good or bad.

Work on wikipedia with the aim of providing information, not deleting other peoples work because it isnt "noteworthy" in YOUR opinion. -jjrsJeffjrstewart 13:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Internet Phenomenon as many in the original AFD suggested. It's not notable, regardless of the hoopla in AFD over it. If not redirect, delete. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 13:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Chocolate rain, some don't want and some say overturn. I'm the former. Don't recreate Will ^(talk) 15:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse unless here is some evidence that it has been recognized as important by reliable sources. There wasn't any in the afd. We're a filter on the internet. As Jimbo says, we make the Internet not suck. DGG (talk) 15:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete If this song deserves a page, then let's give every song a page. Even the fourth song on the third album of "Goo Goo Dolls" - whatever that is. Niyant 15:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and salt this article to prevent its re-creation yet again. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse decision, or alternately, redirect to Internet Phenomenon - there were a lot of merge suggestions in the AFD, and that would seem to make sense. Nothing to complain about in the AFD, though. (Oh, and Niyant: There You Are, which was their first single and hit #21 on the Modern Rock charts. No article - yet... though it's a redlink on the album's article.) Tony Fox (arf!) 15:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and Salt Valid AFD, no good reason given to overturn. Fails WP:MUSIC by miles. Wikipedia obviously isn't going to have an article on every Youtube video, even the "popular" ones: that's more in the domain of a YouTube-specific wiki than a general-interest encyclopedia. No opion on a redirect to internet phenomena, but I suspect if it goes there it won't stay long. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and Salt as a valid AFD, wikipedia isn't a youtube directory, the article of the singer of the song has been created and speedied over 10 times btw, so that helps the idea of salting. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. Valid afd. --Kbdank71 19:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and protect from recreation, valid AFD closure, no indication here or there that the subject meets WP:MUSIC or WP:WEB; WP:BIGNUMBER isn't an indicator of anything. --Coredesat 20:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, and please don't add it to Internet meme because that's about the phenomenon, not a list of examples. Don't add it to List of Internet phenomena either until it's sourced. Wikipedia is not the be-all and only resource in the world. If you want to learn about unsourced things there's always google, and if it's not notable enough to put here you can always blog about it or put it somewhere else. Wikidemo 01:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and allow to fade away, as it surely will. Bridgeplayer 03:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Internet meme and protect. It's a somewhat reasonable thing to someone to search for, even if there's no article on it. But the AfD was closed properly (and I should add that Notability is not temporary). 17Drew 03:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn This is not AfD take 2! I would have voted "delete" myself in that AfD, but there was no consensus to delete at closure -- and in fact, closure was less than five full days after listing. --Ginkgo100^talk 21:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• This was the main merge rationale: "It belongs in Internet Phenomenon" - Since that cannot stand as rationale alone, the deletion was based more on factual analysis than on consensus.--WaltCip 01:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn Or get rid of "all your base" as well.

• You start, I'll endorse.--WaltCip 15:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Restore, there's plenty of other songs on wikipedia that are neither notable or have sources. This has both.

Image:AlexPorusCoin.JPG (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Admin closed the debate with the following rationale: 'However there is no information about how rare this coin is, where any samples are located, whether any can be photographed, etc. Because of this, the image can not be seen to pass NFCC #1. Further, there is no information on the source or copyright-holder of the photograph, so NFCC #10 fails as well. Sorry.' However, on the talk page itself is the answer to this very question: 'CBM (the nominator), for your information, most of the coins from the "Indo-Greek" series that you tagged are unique specimens, which are located at the Cabinet des Medailles, Paris, where it is not allowed for the general public to take photographs of them'. This is a request for review on procedural grounds. I feel as though the admin did not take into proper account the information within the discussion, and that the second guideline that s/he gives can be remedied rather than used as rationale for deletion. Therefore, please review this deletion, as well as the related coin image deletions. CaveatLector^Talk 05:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm the admin who closed the case and deleted the image. A few salient points. (1) There was no source for the photograph listed, and no information of who holds the copyright. (2) If there is only one surviving copy of this coin in existence, and if that copy is not available for photography, then I agree that the image is non-replaceable. But I have seen no evidence of this. (3) CaveatLector is a great contributor, and this image was useful and encyclopedic. I take no joy in deleting it -- I just don't think our policies allowed us to keep it. If we can determine where it is housed, I would be willing to write the museum and request that they release a photo under a free license, following this great advice. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore. The assumption that a rare historic coin is not available for photography is reasonable, I think. At any rate, a mere photographic reproduction of a coin (which by itself is of course much too old for copyright) is probably not even protected by copyright in many jurisdictions, for lack of originality. Sandstein 20:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Addendum. Of course, if the image is to be kept under fair use, it must have a source indication. If the source cannot be determined, it should stay deleted. Sandstein 20:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete per Sandstein above. I'm convinced by the argument that a coin is a two-dimensional public domain work of art and the photograph is faithful reproduction. But if this is not true, I agree that the lack of sourcing and the plausibility of taking another photograph both mean that the photograph cannot be kept. IronGargoyle 15:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Changing to endorse deletion per discussion below. IronGargoyle 03:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion The relevant case-law establishing the uncopyrightable nature of photographs of images already in the public domain (a photograph of the Mona Lisa, for example) is [Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.], cited in WP's templates. This reasoning does not apply to three-dimensional objects, however. The museum might have a commercial interest in maintaining the copyright for valuable works it contains. Hence, given the lack of definitive sourcing information, I must sadly endorse the deletion. Xoloz 22:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Question. So a coin is "three-dimensional enough" then? I mean some paintings (particularly oil) have a textural topography of brushstrokes that is greater than some coins. Hmmm... IronGargoyle 23:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Judges don't like to parse microns. :) The "image" is "two-dimensional", even as the paint and canvas do exist in our universe, where everything (outside of an exotic physics lab, anyway) exists in three-dimensions. Coins, however, are minted in relief -- the third dimension is employed to help create the essential image. "3-D views" in paintings rely on the optical illusion of perspective; coins, not so. I'm trying to explain a distinct that strikes me as "common sense", so I'm not sure how clear I've been. (Mind you, I don't like the distinction the court drew -- I think it's dumb, but it is the best precedent we have on which to judge.) Xoloz 00:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I know, there's a lot of gray area here. See this thread where Wikipedia's lawyer (Mike Godwin) says that photos of coins should be presumed copyrightable. (By the way, I think the court's intention in Bridgeman was to say that a reproduction is ineligible for copyright if it doesn't add any new information (lighting choices, angle choices, etc.), or if it can be shown that the reproducer intended to merely reproduce the original and all new information was unintentional. But some judges rule differently than others on this, and it's better to be safe than financially very, very sorry.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 00:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, if Godwin says it, Godwin's Law is good enough for me. Damn copyright Nazis... ;-) IronGargoyle 03:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad's Monsters (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article was nominated for deletion (see discussion here) on the basis that it failed notability guidelines as it lacked non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. the arguments for "Keep" asserted that because the author- David Bukay (and other authors used by him within the book) was notable, a seperate article on one of his publications was thus also automatically notable. the discussion was later closed as no consensus (default to keep), though still i believe the fundamental lack of any substantial reliable source coverage cannot be ignored. i raised the issue with the closing administrator, but as he disagreed, i decided i ought to run this case by other experienced users. ITAQALLAH 02:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• I summed it up in the comment I left for the nominator: It's not a "vote", so a 4-2 count isn't overly relevant. Similarly WP:BK is a guideline, not a command. Legitimate arguments were made in good faith on both sides by very established editors who with one exception (not a "keep" voice) have literally thousands of edits on Islamic topics - neither side of the debate's position was so overwhelming so as to demonstrate that the community's consensus was to delete or keep, hence "no consensus". Although not raised as in the debate there is a tendency to keep compilation works where the contributors include several notable people: when two or more notable musicians collaborate on a project/album/song or as here, a book with essays (chapters) by several independently notable contributors. Again, I could see no obvious consensus to either keep or delete.

• In short, I saw no consensus, but now we can have many more people see whether I ought to have seen one. Carlossuarez46 03:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, and in which direction consensus pointed. Carlossuarez46 03:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    • just to clarify: i don't believe AfD discussions are votes; i'm not too concerned about the numbers. there was no evidence of notability provided during the AfD, and i believe there is still no evidence of notability. ITAQALLAH 03:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
      • For what it's worth: I think I did manage to find the Haaretz article online here; at least I think it's the one. Carlossuarez46 06:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• This should have been deleted anyhow, because there are no sources. "Default" should not be, let's violate policy until we have a superconsensus not to.Proabivouac 03:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • What policy? What the WP:DELETE policy says regarding deletions based on no sources is: "Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources" and "All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed". If the mere fact of no cited sources permits deletion, I'd like to see that clarified here, because there are thousands of articles currently lacking sources: July, for one example. Other than Haaretz, mentioned by the nominator and Amazon.com are sufficiently reliable sources for the existence and identity of the authors of the book, which could be placed in a reference section. The question here really is whether there was consensus regarding notability. Carlossuarez46 04:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• I, too, think it fails the notability requirements. --Aminz 08:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Article should be kept , this book contains the writings of very notable experts on the topic.--CltFn 11:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Relist there was no consensus, but there might have been with a longer argument. I !voted to delete, on the grounds that the book itself was unimportant. The !votes for keep were on the basis that the authors were individually notable. The relative importance of this was not addressed, and I do not want to decide it here. There is a valid question about the applicable policy. DGG (talk) 15:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As CltFn point out, the book is written by highly notable experts. The closing admin made the right decision. -- Karl Meier 17:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Relist - I am with DGG on this one - we need to have a fuller discussion as to whether notable contributors constitute a notable book. Bridgeplayer 03:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Relist. The closure was defensible, but some more input should settle the matter. Relisting is usually the best thing to do in a no consensus situation with few contributions. Sandstein 20:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sin Sizzerb (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Meets WP Music,WP:N HarryHall86 00:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion Valid AfD, no new information given that would cause us to overturn. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: if some of the claims made at AfD were sourced (like the claim of reaching #19 on the charts in Serbia), then I would actually consider supporting undeletion. However, since the article was deleted at a proper AfD, and there were no obvious procedural errors, we need real evidence before we can reconsider this. WP:MUSIC is only a guideline; Wikipedia:Verifiability is absolute policy. Xtifr _tälk 12:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment:(http://www.sizzerb.com/news/IPS.xls) - reference to reaching #19 on Album charts in Serbia. (You may need to click open if it asks you to) 58.174.226.155 12:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • We need independent, reliable sources; sizzerb.com is clearly not independent, and is unlikely to be considered a reliable source. Xtifr _tälk 13:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion AfD was closed properly with clear consensus to delete. --Ginkgo100^talk 23:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-canonical spells in Harry Potter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I just need it for a few weeks (at most, tomorrow I'll be out of town until--I don't know) so I can merge it into Spells in Harry Potter. If this doesn't work, could someone send me the codes for the page (Wiki style) to therequiembellishere@gmail.com? Many thanks. Therequiembellishere 18:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

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

That picture claimed to be necessary for showing an historical event that can not be reprodued in anyway and the debate was completely in favor of keeping it. Pejman47 21:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - the original deletion discussion can be found here. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 21:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, which was per policy, not consensus - primarily WP:NFCC#8 (did not significantly increase the understanding of the reader in a way words cannot - simply saying "Saddam and Rumsfeld met and even shook hands" gets the point across equally well without a copyrighted image). Also, I think, had problems with WP:NFCC#10 - the copyright holder wasn't identified in the image description page or non-free use rationale. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 21:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. While I reasoned otherwise in the debate, I think the claim that the image is copyright under a non-existent government is pushing the limit. Note that CNN rebroadcast the image -- an implicit claim by a major news organization that the image is essentially public domain. In any case, this is an iconic image that is "all over the place" -- in other words, many other organizations believe that it is essentially free. I think we should take that into account when playing lawyer. Sdedeo (tips) 21:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I think you might misunderstand public domain - for example, CNN broadcasts clips from movies without claiming they're public domain. CNN presumably rebroadcast that image under fair use, and their fair use rules are less strict than Wikipedia's. I think really this argument hinges on WP:NFCC#8 - does it significantly increase the reader's understanding to have this non-free image? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 21:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    • CNN was not rebroadcasting the image while reviewing the movie "Saddam Hussein's Iraq", so your example is not really to the point. I think you, and many others, are really pushing this too far. Sdedeo (tips) 21:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Generally speaking, rebroadcasting a news clip from one station on another is a classic case of fair use (in a normal context, not on Wikipedia). -Nard 21:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Not at all. There was a controversy awhile ago about rebroadcast of the breakup of shuttle Columbia; in general doing that is considered OK under a "gentleman's agreement" among stations (when one has a live feed, but not others), but not otherwise. Bring on the wikilawyersing! Sdedeo (tips) 22:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
          • Please don't comment about the other editors, thanks. The term 'wikilawyers' is not helpful. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 22:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment What CNN did is of limited relevance, unless they actully discussed the copyright status. CNN might well have been claiming fair use, and our standards are more restrictivce than the law requires. For the matter of thst, CNN might have been mistaken. CNN might also have figured that the image was technically copyrighted but that the chance of being sued was very small. We would evaluate such a situation rather differently. DES ^(talk) 22:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse process seems to have been followed and close was within closer's discretion. I probably would have argued to keep though, technically you can describe any picture in words, if that's your standard, we'd have no fair use. Obviously some is allowable even by the strictest possible interpretation of current policy and standards. --W.marsh 22:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It passes NFCC#8 to show what a person looked like, since that can't adequately be conveyed in words. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The closing admin's argument (just as my argument as nominator) was not that the image must be deleted because it cat be described in words. You're (unintentionally, I'm sure) oversimplifying the matter. --Abu badali ^(talk) 22:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, I'm not going to bicker semantics here, but his statement said 'the statement "Rumsfeld once met with Hussein" does not need an image to be understood' and I think my comment was consistent with responding to that. --W.marsh 22:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, sadly. It's copyrighted (apparently to Iraqi State Television, although I can't find any documentary evidence of that), and we can only use copyrighted material if it substantially aids the reader's understanding in a way words cannot. What does one learn about the event by seeing the image, that one would not know if one read the description "Donald Rumsfeld met with Saddam Hussein in 1980, and the two shook hands."? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • What does one learn looking at the photo Dewey Defeats Truman that a simple text description couldn't convey? Some images are just iconic, so even if what's going on is relatively simple to express, they're still worth including. I'd argue that this Rumsfeld image could be somewhere near that level. But I'm not sure current policy actually backs that up, and closers do get some discretion. --W.marsh 22:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not familiar with this image, but the article says it's "one of the more famous images from the 20th Century", what (it correct) makes the image iconic. No educational discussion about an image is complete without a representation of the image. That's the difference (mentioned above) between the concepts of "images that can be described by text" and "texts that need an image to be understood". --Abu badali ^(talk) 13:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I went over to Commons and looked at template:PD-Iraq. I was stunned. Audiovisual works that are not "artistic" (arguably applicable to this shot) are protected for only 5 years? -Nard 22:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • If that's the case, then great! I'm all for free content - can someone verify this? Good catch. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 22:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    • On the other hand, we need to verify that the original source is Iraqi before this applies. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 22:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Check [30]. Sdedeo (tips) 22:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Those "artistic/simple" dichotomies are not always that clear-cut. In most jurisdictions, there has to be some sort of threshold of originality (see also Commons:Template talk:PD-Italy). Usually (and I don't know anything about the specific case of Iraq), "simple" photographs are those that require absolutely no creative input -- no choice of angle, lighting, etc, which usually means stuff like images from security cameras and the like, where no human has any real say in how the photo is taken. howcheng {chat} 22:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Move to close image is now on Commons. -Nard 22:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Please do not close. The image has been nominated for deletion on the Commons due to the public domain dispute. Let's finish this discussion here and not worry about Commons. --- RockMFR 22:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    • You're right. -Nard 22:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn most likely PD in Iraq, and qualifies as fair use. Future generations simply will not believe the change Iraq made from friend of the US to enemy in less than 10 years. -Nard 22:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • If it's PD, then this whole exercise is moot, but we're operating under the assumption that the image is non-free. That being the case, you still don't need to see an image of Rumsfeld and Hussein shaking hands to get the point that the U.S. and Iraq used to be allies. We have an entire article called U.S. support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war which contains numerous sourced statements that prove this point far better than this image does. howcheng {chat} 23:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    • It's a bit up in the air though, and open to interpretation. You don't need the image Image:JFKmotorcade.jpg to describe the Kennedy Assassination, but it does add significantly to the article. The Saddam/Rumsfeld video is one of the most famous examples depicting this period of US support, and you could say it adds significant value to the article. Discussions to whether this qualifies as free use are taking place at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Saddam rumsfeld.jpg. - hahnchen 01:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
      • If we don't need that image, then it shouldn't be there either, especially since this is a press agency photo and a perfect example of WP:NONFREE#Examples of unacceptable use #5. howcheng {chat} 17:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
        • I wouldn't call Iraqi state television a "press agency". -Nard 21:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
          • What would you call TASS, then? Just because an agency is state-controlled doesn't exclude it from being a "press agency". Heather 23:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• For the record, my understanding of this image is that it's fairly iconic. I don't have any flowery examples, including "Dewey defeats Truman!" or the JFK motorcade, as mentioned above, but I would personally submit a belief that the article is significantly improved by having this image. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

  More than significantly improving some article (what's somewhat easy to achieve), a non-free images needs to make the article less intelligible when it's not present. I don't think it's the case here. --Abu badali ^(talk) 13:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

  I'd say a number of articles are quite significantly improved by having Image:Yalta Conference.jpg, an image showing the meeting of Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin in 1945 -- the Yalta image is public domain, yes, but it adds value is the point I'm getting at. Maybe not to the point of Tank Man, but I would actually say the article is lacking without this widely known image. This isn't just another album cover. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn, iconic image, overwhelming consensus on the ifd on that subjective point, and most of the opposition is based on misunderstanding, like thinking of it as a screenshot of a television program instead of an iconic image in itself. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The ifd closing, as Videmus Omnia explained above, was per policy, not consensus.
  • I also completely disagree with your description of "most of the opposition". --Abu badali ^(talk) 14:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    • "significance" is subjective. Most commenters agreed that it was a significant image. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
      • But did any of them agree it was required for understanding the text, which is the standard set in WP:NFCC #8? howcheng {chat} 17:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
        • I don't think it's required to have images in Dewey Defeats Truman or Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, but our understanding would be significantly impaired without them. Sure, we could just say "a photograph of the raid won a pulitzer prize and became an icon for the event" and would it really be necessary to have the picture on Elián González affair? All of them could just be described in text. But we'd lose something, like we're losing something by taking out the image that has become as much of an icon for relations between the US and Iraq during the 80s as any of those images have become an icon for those events. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
          • In those first two cases, NFCC #8 is fulfilled. The images significantly increase readers' understanding in a way that words alone cannot and their omission would be detrimental to that understanding. The Elian Gonzalez image won a Pulitzer Prize and so is significant in and of itself. This image, on the other hand, doesn't meet either of those standards. howcheng {chat} 18:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
            • But why? Everyone else says it's iconic. Why do two or three people who disagree without even presenting a reason overrule the many who say it is? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
              • "Without even presenting a reason"? Eh? Have I been talking to myself here this whole time? Because "Rumsfeld once shook hands with Saddam Hussein" is perfectly understandable without an image! Go read U.S. support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war#U.S. support for Iraq from which this image was removed after deletion. Can you honestly say that you can't understand what it's talking about without seeing the photo? Go and ask a co-worker or friend or family member who may not have a mental image of the photo and ask if they have any problem understanding this section and if a photo of Rumsfeld and Hussein shaking hands would make a difference. howcheng {chat} 18:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
                • "A man once stood in front of a tank" makes perfect sense without an image, yet I doubt I'd be alone saying we'd be mad, mad fools to get rid of that image without a truly compelling reason. When we say "this image is iconic," we essentially mean that the image has been displayed hundreds or thousands of times in association with a historic meeting -- it's ingrained in the public perception of the event, for many people. This is much more significant than "one time these two guys shook hands, lol." – Luna Santin (talk) 21:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
                  • Back up these kinds of statements with cited references in the article(s) and we can call this whole thing off. howcheng {chat} 21:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

                  Notice the difference:

                  From U.S. support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war:

                  "Donald Rumsfeld even met with Saddam several times, the first on December 19 – December 20, 1983. Rumsfeld visited again on March 24, 1984;"

                  From Tank Man:

                  "Franklin subsequently won a World Press Award for the photograph. It was featured in LIFE magazine's "100 Photos that Changed the World" in 2003."

                  Which of these makes the reader say "...But, where can I see it?" --Abu badali ^(talk) 22:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

                  • • (ec) That's a difficult call, and I hope you know it. ;) In an attempt to justify what I've said, I'll refer to (gasp!) the Google test. Now, if you search "rumsfeld saddam," the first 10 results will give you 4 pages showing this image, and another 3 that are primarily about this particular meeting, usually described as "Rumsfeld's handshake deal with Saddam" -- that's 70%, mind you. In the first 30 results, at least 7 pages show the image very prominently, and about 9 are primarily about this meeting -- the results get overwhelmed with current events stories, Rumsfeld talking about Saddam, and all sorts of Pentagon press releases, but even several decades later, this "handshake" makes a very prominent showing. Don't believe me? Take a peek at the image search. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
                      • Are those "google results" article talking about the image/footage or talking about the event captured? Can you note the difference? --Abu badali ^(talk) 22:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
                        • Both! :p Several, in fact, are only the image (or video). Way to demonstrate you didn't check. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
                    • And to Abu, thanks for pointing out something I already admitted: yes, Tank Man is more iconic than the handshake. That doesn't mean, in and of itself, that the handshake has zero iconic value. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
                      • Oh... I guess you didn't understand the argument. What's relevant here is not that the "Tank man" image is more "iconic" (although it is), but that the article Tank man calls for the image, while U.S. support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, doesn't. --Abu badali ^(talk) 22:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn iconic image. It is furthermore in very low resolution, and also highly relevant to the article. A good case can also be made that it is out of copyright. It certainly is in the country is produced, and CNN did not acquire copyright by rebroadcasting an image which at the time belonged to someone else. They presumably broadcast it as fair use because of the news value. DGG (talk) 15:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Nobody has said that CNN owns the copyright to this image. howcheng {chat} 16:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Looking at the deletion request on commons, it looks like the image is going to be kept, as they seem to be of the opinion it is PD. This is becoming moot. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Send to Wiki's Legal Dept for an answer about whether it's in the public domain or not: are there those who seriously favor deletion if we were all sure that it's in the public domain? Carlossuarez46 00:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Of course not (or at least I hope not). The best result is if this is public domain. howcheng {chat} 01:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • If it comes out to be PD, I would favor the upload of the whole video. --Abu badali ^(talk) 06:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
      • So why should we debate this and play lawyers at home when we can get a definitive answer and just keep or delete based on that? Carlossuarez46 20:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
        • My take on that: it seems to set an iffy precedent on two counts: first, that we should go bug Mark every time there's a copyright dispute; second, that the foundation should open itself to legal liability by taking a specific stance on everyday issues. Certainly there are issues and considerations we should be passing up the ladder, but that seems to be overkill in this case, unless we have a specific complaint from somebody claiming to hold the copyright on this image. Most of this particular discussion has been focused on WP:NFCC, anyway -- the legal/copyright side of the debate seems to be more on commons. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
          • I can see that it'd be a burden, but since here copyright status appears the only issue in contention, I'd seriously consider making the exception; normally, there are so many other reasons for deletion we don't really need a definitive answer. Here, there may be sufficient fair use arguments that we again don't need the definitive answer, so perhaps I'm wrong there. Sorry. Carlossuarez46 23:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
            • Nothing to be sorry about. :) It's a legitimate suggestion, obviously made in good faith. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep view - obviously not repeatable this is an image of huge historic importance. To say that the text 'Rumsfeld shakes hands with Saddam' is anything like comparable is simply, nonsense. This is an iconic image whose importance cannot be overestimated. Bridgeplayer 22:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • As I stated earlier, find evidence that documents the impact of this specific image, put it in the article, and voila, you have now built an ironclad case for using this non-free media. howcheng {chat} 05:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, the BBC thought it significant enough to feature it here as one of just seven photos used to summarise Rumsfeld's career. Bridgeplayer 00:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes and I see they credit Getty. Copyfraud at its finest. -Nard 00:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Battle Against Bald (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Battle Against Bald is a valuable resource for people seeking hair restoration. It shows informative videos and offers tons of information about hair loss. It's a blog, not a company trying to make money. Respond2 18:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse - Valid deletion. DB-Spam material. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 18:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, if it's not spam, it's still a website without an assertion of notability, and websites fall under A7. --Coredesat 19:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Possibly spam, clearly A7, as User:Coredesat said. However, if soemone came to DRV with a non-spammy, well sourced draft in userspace, I'd be willing to consider unsalting. I won't hold my breath, waiting. DES ^(talk) 20:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: Wikipedia does not exist to promote "valuable resources, whether commercial or not, so no valid reason for undeletion has been offered. Our general criteria for websites can be found at WP:WEB. Xtifr _tälk 11:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This is a very old speedy deletion. While I endorse the original deletion, if a user wants to take a stab at creating again as a well-sourced article, I would not have a problem with that, although it would have to address the spam and notability issues to avoid re-deletion. --Ginkgo100^talk 23:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

University of Washington Police Department (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This deletion (well, the deletion vote turned into a redirect) was carried out a long time ago. It clearly passes the notability test, and there are now many other University Police departments with pages on wikipedia (see Category:United States school police departments). Besides, the people on the Norwegian wikipedia don't think it unimportant enough, (no:Universitetet_i_Washingtons_Politi). This article clearly should have not been turned into a redirect. I propose restoring it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse the 2005 VfD decision to redirect to the original source of the content. I note that there is now only one small paragraph in the University of Washington article, and that neither that paragraph nor the 2005 version here nominated, nor the nomination has an assertion or evidence of encyclopedic significance. Absent evidence of such notability, an AfD decision these days would be to merge it to the university article. That it exists in the Norwegian wikipedia appears to be the result of a translation effort while it was a separate article here, never considered for whether it meets their standards, and in addition each Wikipedia maintains its own standards and theirs are not necessarily the same as ours. If evidence of notability (independent coverage about the police department, not primarily about incidents in which it was involved) is found later, expand the content in the University's article until it needs to be split, then get consensus on the University's talk page. GRBerry 14:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• I think it's fine to create an article here if you think this can be expanded. It's an ancient deletion discussion, it was just a redirect decision anyway, you don't technically need DRV to overturn that. --W.marsh 15:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Right. Just find some notable material--if it has been involved in matters where its role in the investigation was discussed in some significant way in RSs I think it would meet the requirement. 17:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Recreation, either as a section in University of Washington or as a separate article if notability is there, should not need DRV permisison. Since this was redirected rather than deleted, there is really nothing to reveiw. DES ^(talk) 20:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• You don't need a DRV to edit a redirect page unless it's actually been protected, but the resulting article still must meet the normal criteria (multiple substantial reliable independent sources, mainly). If it can meet that, edit away, if it can't, leave it merged. The existence of other university police articles would mean nothing to that, since inclusion doesn't indicate notability, and in any case some university police departments might be appropriate for standalone articles while others would be more appropriate to cover in the parent article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• endorse deletion unless there is some evidence of notability. there are only a few articles on university police departments, and some of these are being challenged at this very time, as they don't show independent notability either/ (some do, such as Virginia Tech, where the actions of the police department specifically were they subject of significant discussion in the press.DGG (talk) 15:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - this should be a matter for normal organic article growth. If the section on the police in the main article becomes so big with sourced material that it unbalances the main article then, and only then, should it be split out. Bridgeplayer 04:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Recently, Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians and its subcategories were listed for deletion. The debate was balanced but inconclusive, disregarding some last-minute "me too" and "I don't like it" arguments. Especially in light of the recent decision to keep the entire Category:Wikipedians by religion user category, I think that After Midnight's decision to delete these user categories was misguided. I therefore request that the deleted categories be restored.   — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 09:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Here follows some relevant information. If you've already decided how to vote, best to just skip it.

Stakes Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians and its subcategories Category:Cthulhu Cultist Wikipedians, Category:Discordian Wikipedians, Category:Flying Spaghetti Monsterist Wikipedians, Category:Invisible Pink Unicorn Wikipedians, and Category:SubGenius Wikipedians

Players

• Horologium nominated the categories for deletion in part "because no collaboration is possible". Horologium also voted to delete Wikipedians by religion, and all subcategories, specificaly because they were used for collaboration.
• After Midnight closed the discussion as delete. After Midnight also voted to delete Wikipedians by religion because categories are "divisive".
• Black Falcon voted delete here. Black Falcon previously nominated Wikipedians by religion for deletion, and ranted extensively in that discussion. Black Falcon deletes a lot of things.
• Octane has a gorgeous user page, but I digress. Octane voted to delete these categories, arguing on the premise that each subject only has one article. This premise is false. Some of those user categories have many associated articles; some have entire associated subject categories.
• I voted keep. I think my argument was reasonable, but then, I'm obviously biased in favor of my own arguments.
• WaltCip voted keep, on the grounds of avoiding discrimination.
• I think that WaltCip's argument is a good argument. (this is actually an incorrectly placed canvassed vote by Lighthead at 20:32, 26 July 2007 UTC - 1st ever deletion discussion)
• As previously mentioned, there were a couple other "me too" and "do not want" voters.

Events

• Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/June 2007#Category:Wikipedians by religion, the precedent discussion; closed as delete, but overturned as keep in review
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 25 (second entry on the page), the deletion review for Wikipedians by religion; conclusion was keep
• Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/July 2007#Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians, the discussion in review here

Discuss

• Note: The nominator, User:Bigwyrm, has canvassed for votes among former members of this category. --ST47Talk·Desk 11:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • There is nothing whatsoever wrong with letting people know when there is a discussion in progress that affects them. To do otherwise invites accusations of cabalistic behavior.   — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 13:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I suggest that you re-read WP:CANVAS#Votestacking --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • He also notified those opposed to him in the debate, such as User:After Midnight. So he was being non-partisan, the message was neutral, and he posted to less than 45 users (some of those links are article pages etc.). So doesn't this count as a friendly notice? DenisMoskowitz 19:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    • False - He did not notify ANY of those opposed to him in the debate. He did notify me, but I did not oppose him. I was the closing admin and he was required to notify me that this was here per the process. In fact, he violated the very first principle of Deletion Review which is "1. Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first - courteously invite the admin to take a second look." He clearly failed to do this and simply brought the matter here without prior discussion. I've addressed your question about friendly notice below where you first asked it. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I apologize for misreading the situation. I'm not sure exactly why we have the canvassing policy we have, but this does violate it. DenisMoskowitz 22:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I have since notified User:Horologium, User:Black Falcon, User:WaltCip, User:ESkog, User:Sawblade05, User:Octane, and User:^demon, who participated in the original debate. — The Storm Surfer 01:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Aren't the originators of the initial vote guilty of the same thing? As I mentioned below, users who were part of the categories in question were not even notified that there was an attempt be made to delete our religions. B.Mearns^*, KSC 12:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I would like to irrelevantly point out that at least one person who was notified by the canvas was not a member of the former category, but will agree that all those notified have probably expressed their opinion on the subject matter at some point. --Osho-Jabbe 05:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note to closing admin - among the first group of editors to express an opinion on this matter you will note that I have marked that several of them were canvassed to do so. Please note that the fact that these marks do not continue down the page is not an indication that there are not additional canvased votes here, but rather that I got tired of looking them all up. I am certain that more canvassed votes are here, but I felt that there were better things that I could do rather than tag each one. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 04:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn, as nom.   — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 09:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. Process was followed. Consensus was clear. I see no reason to disregard the comments that you characterize as "me too". When someone sees what they believe to be a well written nomination and they say "per nom", it is perfectly valid. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 10:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse consensus to delete. --Kbdank71 10:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• (canvassed vote - 1st Wikipedia space contrib in 8 months) Overturn or add Category:Discordian Wikipedians and others to Category:Wikipedians by religion. I don't see why I and other Erisians should be excluded from categorization. --Storkk 11:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn until and unless Category:Wikipedians by religion is deleted. I consider all religion a joke, to be quite frank, but Discordianism and Pastafarianism has every bit as much right to expression as Christianity or Islam. Either get rid of 'em all (which is the solution I'd prefer) or allow 'em all, but in this case, there really is no in between. It's not our place or business to decide what's a "real" religion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• (canvassed vote - 1st Wikipedia space contrib in 2 months) Overturn per nom. There are people who can clearly identify theirselfs with for example Discordianism so I think all those religions should be merged into Category:Wikipedians by religion. --helohe (talk) 11:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Provisionally overturn -- as long as Category:Wikipedians by religion is available. There's no obvious reason to discriminate among religions according to their apparent silliness. I wouldn't be upset if Category:Wikipedians by religion (etc) went, though: I'm puzzled by the desire for userboxes. (My page does sport one, but I'll spare you the reason for it and anyway it's religion-irrelevant.) -- Hoary 11:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• (canvassed vote - 1st Wikipedia space contrib in 9 months) Overturn - Unless we're allowed to move these subcats straight to Category:Wikipedians by religion, which I'm not saying is neccessarily a good idea, I don't see how the deletion of this cat is anything but discrimination. Saying, for instance, that Discordianism is not a religion is no better than saying Wicca or Paganism are not religions. I realize not everyone was making that argument, but some were. I know there is issue in general with the polemic user cats, but I think it's useful for everyone to know what lens (or grid, if you will) authors are writing from so we can better understand various points of view expressed on both talk pages and article pages. If someone is editing the article about Historical Jesus, I for one would like to know whether they belong to Category:Born again Christian wikipedians, or Category:Wikipedians who worship IPU. Just an example, but I hope you see my point. I don't believe collaboration is the only purpose for these categories. B.Mearns^*, KSC 12:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note - Those arguing that the first vote was sufficient should be aware that members of this category were not notified that such a vote was taking place. Seeing as how this was a discussion over a user cat, I think it was somewhat inappropriate to hold the discussion without notifying users who were in that category. B.Mearns^*, KSC 12:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• (canvassed vote - 1st Wikipedia space contrib in 11 months) Provisionally overturn unless "fictional" relgions such as Flying Spaghetti Monsterism and Discordianism are allowed into the "regular" Category:Wikipedians by religion — Xoder|✆ 13:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• (canvassed vote, fourth WP: edit in the last 2 months.)Overturn per nom. I personally don't see what all the fuss about "canvassing" is; some of us don't religiously follow User Categories for Discussion, and the first I knew of this was seeing my userpage modified by a bot. At any rate, I feel that the salient question here is, who gets to decide what is a "valid" religion which merits a category, and what is not? Obviously there's some level of "Making things up in school one day" but I feel that the groups in question here have outstripped that level and are long-standing groups with many members. And yes, before someone puts one of those little comments here, I was notified on my user page of this discussion ("canvassed", if you like, this is my first contribution to Wikipedia space in about 2 weeks) and I am a former member of the Discordian Wikipedians group. Fnord. Ryanjunk 14:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, being as the deletion followed process and policy better than this deletion review. The purpose of DRV is to correct procedural errors in deletion discussions and speedy deletions. Due to the votestacking in this DRV, I am inclined to believe that the deletion of this article through this DRV would be a greater evil than the alleged out of process closing. Pot, meet kettle. ----ST47Talk·Desk 14:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per nom, and per arguments by Seraphimblade and B. Mearns.--Alf ^melmac 14:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• (canvassed vote - 1st Wikipedia space contrib in 2 months) Overturn. Many of the arguments made in the deletion rested on falsities, such as "However, since the "religions" are satirical in nature, one cannot honestly claim them to be a philosophical view." Is Horologium the expert in what people have the ability to believe and believe in? These religions are satirical, but they are not only satirical. In addition, the phrase "no collaboration is possible" is demonstrably false - a number of Discordians came together to work on the Discordian Works article, for instance. DenisMoskowitz 14:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • AfterMidnight, please try responding to my arguments rather than marking me as "canvassed". Or do only those who obsess about category deletions etc. count in this discussion? As far as I'm concerned, what Bigwyrm did was "Friendly Notice", which is acceptable according to WP:CANVAS. DenisMoskowitz 19:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Friendly notice specifies a limited number of users, which 40+ certainly exceeds. This is certainly not acceptable. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
      • All this crap about "first contrib to such and such a space in such and such a time" is bullshit. I don't know if it's wikipedia policy (because no, I haven't memorized all 67 thousand articles discussing wikipedia policy), but if it is, it needs to be addressed. If a bunch of accounts were created simply for the sake of engaging in the debate/vote, then that's obviously an issue, but the fact that I've lately been too busy with real life to edit the wikipedia namespace is irrelevant to the discussion, and placing it there implies that my contribution is somehow less important or otherwise skewed. It's crap. The fact is, we were invited to join the conversation because it directly impacts us, and we should get a say in it, something we missed out on the first time around due to negligence on the part of the vote originators to properly inform those who would be affected. If you truly believe this vote is currently unbalanced, the simple solution is to notify all those who voted the first time so they can rejoin the debate, instead of hiding behind bureaucratic policies to avoid addressing the actual issue under review. B.Mearns^*, KSC 12:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn I am not sure the title of the category is a wise choice, but I do not see how we can possibly decide what counts as a real religion. DGG (talk) 17:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per nom, and per Seraphimblade. wikipediatrix 17:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment notifying members in a user category is in my opinion not canvassing--it is simply notifying the people who are likely to be interested in the discussion--they will not necessarily all support it--some may think it not worth continuing now that it has been called to their attention--or if none of them do defend it after notification, that certainly indicates a plausible reason to delete. DGG (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Response If what you assert is true, then why does WP:CANVAS#Votestacking state "Votestacking is sending mass talk messages only to editors who are on the record with a specific opinion (such as via a userbox or other user categorization) and informing them of a current or upcoming vote."? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• I do think that contacting the members of the category was borderline votestacking, but on the other hand, failure to notify the same members during the original AfD was equally questionable. Evouga 17:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but they should not be canvassed in either circumstance. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn, despite consensus to delete. Given the existence of Category:Wikipedians by religion, barring some Wikipedians from expressing their religious views would harm the encyclopedia - not only is attacking another's religion extremely divisive and uncivil, but is is also not possible for the community to decide which religions are "serious" without invoking systemic bias, the avoidance of which is one of Wikipedia's highest policies. Moreover, as a user category, this category is not cluttering up main Wikipedia articles. For these reasons I see keeping this category as doing less harm to the project than deleting it. Evouga 17:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - As long as Category:Wikipedians by religion exists. I really have no opinion on the various categories under discussion. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 20:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• overturn as per several others above, i see no valid argument for failing to treat this in the same way as Category:Wikipedians by religion, and failing to acknowledge the precedent-basied argument is in a way a process violation. That said, i hope this would be renamed if kept, to soemthing like Category:Wikipedians with non-traditional religions, or perhaps better just merge the various subcats into Category:Wikipedians by religion, so no distinction is made. But that is an argument for a different time and forum. DES ^(talk) 21:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have a few things to say about this. 1) WP:CCC 2) It is reasonable for people to feel one way about a hierarchically superior category and differently about its subordinates. For example, my friend loves dogs, but hates chihuahuas, and comments that they look like rats. 3) If someone closes a discussion based merely upon precedent and ignoring consensus, don't those items also come to DRV to be overturned? We can't have our cake and eat it too. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    • 2) No it is not when you are trying to construct an NPOV encyclopedia. Creating a "dogs" category but excluding Chihuahuas, because "they look like rats," would be exceedingly biased. Evouga 22:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    • 3) NPOV policy has always trumped consensus. Though I do not advocate frequently ignoring it, in this case I do not feel this category can be deleted on its own without introducing unacceptable bias. You're right that consensus can change, and if Category:Wikipedians by religion is deleted I have no objections to this category being deleted at that time as well. Evouga 22:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Overturn - I concede that I am a bit new to the community, but I have seen a number of articles and categories deleted without any discussion or reasonable consideration. I would support eliminating “Speedy deletions.” It seems safer to err on the side of being too informative, rather than not informative enough. I have noticed a general trend toward keeping any article (however poorly referenced) that fits within the dominant media culture, rather than any of the more diverse subcultures in this global community. Meanwhile, well-referenced articles are deleted, without discussion, simply because one administrator decides it is not notable (even when Wikipedia's criteria is met). The catchall phrase seems to be notability. So Paris Hilton’s drunk driving is notable, while a political movement, the symbol attached to a planet, or a less-known religion is not. As a realm of scholarly reference, Wikipedia needs to be more inclusive of fringe information (so long as sources are cited, referenced or linked).

That being said, I would support moving this category to a page with a different title. “Pseudo-religion” implies something phony or inauthentic. This is presumptuous for a subject matter where the buzzword is “Faith” rather than “Fact.” One person’s absolute truth is another person’s pseudo religion. The faithful have all kinds of pejoratives for those who differ in their beliefs: heathen, goyum, infidel, gentile, gray-face, damned, condemned, and so on. The bottom line is that alternative religion, or subculture, or minority world-view would be more descriptive.--Libertyguy 23:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I will agree with those who've stated that to be truly NPOV, we need to allow for the same categorization extended to those who are involved in mainstream religions and those who are in lesser knowns, such as Pastafarianism. And I'd like to see the opposition from the original VFD speak to this point, as this seems to me to be the clincher. Bo-Lingua 23:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, in order to avoid being tagged, I'll mention that Bigwyrm posted a message to my talk page as well. I will also note that this is my first Wikipedia space contribution in two days (so clearly I'm not an active member of the community and my opinion is useless?). I will also note that I discovered the original deletion debate as it was being closed and so was unable to participate in it. I can only speak for Category:Discordian Wikipedians myself, because I'm not really familiar with the others.

The only argument given for deletion that I cannot thoroughly dismiss is Sawblade05's “Does not belong here,” to which I can only say “Yes, it does.” (Or perhaps “WP:IDONTLIKEIT.”)

The nominator's assertion that the religions do not exist I personally find extremely insulting. Discordianism obviously exists, and I don't think we'd have an article about it if it didn't.

The assertion that no collaboration is possible is also false. As DenisMoskowitz pointed out above, Discordians have collaborated before.

The assertion that “they are parodies or satirical religions” is an opinion that may be true, but is not relevant. It says right in his own sentence that they are religions, and I can personally assure you that there is at least one adherent of Discordianism. I see obvious elements of parody and satire in Satanism, but Category:Satanist Wikipedians seems to be free from being deleted for this reason.

The assertion that “People who wish to express their disbelief in deities are welcome to add themselves to Category:Atheist Wikipedians or any of its subcats” is about as relevant to Discordianism as it is to Islam. After all, don't Muslims express their disbelief in thousands of deities in Tawḥīd? Discordianism, FSMism, and IPUism are even named after deities!

Black Falcon's assertion that “There is no collaborative value to these categories” has already been done away with by showing that there is. His point that “Identifying with a given religious philosophy (especially philosophies that parody other beliefs) does not imply an ability or desire to contribute encyclopedic content about them. ” is a very good one, but again DenisMoskowitz has shown that the ability and desire is there.

^demon's assertion that “There is absolutely no collaborative potential for these, and any such would be original research” is incomprehensible to me. It has of course been shown that there is collaborative potential, but the original research comment is just plain strange. Discordianism, like most Wikipedia articles, is not as well cited as it should be, but is it all original research? Sufism “is primarily concerned with direct personal experience” (according to its article); is that article therefore original research as well?

Octane asserts that “The nominated categories cover one article each”, but Category:Discordianism currently has 35 pages and three subcategories.

Any other reasons for deletion I have either overlooked (if I have please correct me!) or have not yet been voiced.

I'm not really sure if there are any obvious procedural violations in the original discussion (just poor reasoning), but I think this counts as “significant new information” per DRV purpose statement 3 (even though that is guided at articles).

In summary, I believe that at the least the deletion of Category:Discordian Wikipedians should be overturned. I cannot personally provide much information as to what should be done with the others. — The Storm Surfer 00:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Discordianism comment well-noted, but my point still stands for the rest, unless I'm looking at the wrong parent cat (Category:New religious movements doesn't have a category for any others mentioned here, aside from discordianism). :/ Octane ^{[improve me]} 27.07.07 0139 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion. Obviously, since I was the one who nominated all of these, I support the decision. There are a few misconceptions that need to be addressed above.

First off, Bigwyrm notes that I endorsed the deletion of all the religion cats, but rather egregiously misrepresents my position on the issue. I specifically stated (at first) that I did not endorse the mass deletion, but when I was informed that the categories were being used to canvass (like what was done here), I supported the deletion proposal. I didn't participate in the DRV, because I really didn't feel THAT strongly about it. Seraphimblade takes me to task for targeting certain "religions" (yes, the scare quotes are appropriate in this case). Four of the five main articles for the categories state that they are parody religions, which means they are not real. I repeat, they are not real. This is the crux of the issue. See Discordianism, Invisible Pink Unicorn, and Flying Spaghetti Monster, all of which specifically state that they are parody or satirical religions; Church of the SubGenius notes that it is an offshoot of Discordianism, and later notes that it mocks Scientology and New Age religion. Cthulhu notes that the deity was created by H. P. Lovecraft as a plot device for his series of books.

I am of the belief that the "religion" category should be reserved for real religions, or the lack thereof. There are several categories that are appropriate for non-believers (Category:Atheist Wikipedians and its subcategories, or perhaps Category:Bright Wikipedians, which is a subcat of Category:Nontheistic Wikipedians. Any religion that states in its introduction that it is a parody does not qualify as a religious belief in and of itself, and is more appropriate for some type of humor category. We go to great lengths to avoid offending people with the octopus-like scope of WP:BLP, which now covers dead people as well; why should we allow categories which openly mock traditional religions to exist?

Note also that this does not affect the userboxen associated with the categories; while I think they are pointless, I would oppose any attempt to delete the userboxen in question. I wasn't around for the great userbox purge, but I would have been there swinging against the deletionists in that case. A userbox is appropriate for noting the affiliation.

If there is a consensus that the categories should be restored, I really think that they need to be moved out of the religion (or philosophy) categories into a category of their own. (Somewhere in Category:Wikipedians by interest would be appropriate.)

I begin my vacation tomorrow, so my internet access will be spotty to non-existent. If I don't respond, it's not because I don't have a response to whatever you say, it's because I cannot log on or am actually doing something more important than Wikipedia. Horologium t-c 01:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Response: The assertion that parody means "not real" is understandable, but none-the-less false. Saturday Night Live is primarily parody, it's real. Further, it is a very genuine belief by some that parody is a very important and very useful tool. While this may not qualify as religous on it's own, you can not merely dismiss something just because it is parody.

As far as the articles themselves claiming they are parody: a) that may indicate the articles need editing since, as is often the case, these religions have all taken on a life of their own far beyond what their originators may have initially intended, so even if the religion began as nothing but a joke or literary device, that does not mean that is the limits of it today. b) In Discordianism, at any rate, the only reference I found in that article for "parody" or "satire" is in the second line where it specifically says it is "regarded" as a parody religion. That doesn't mean it is. There are those who consider Christianity a religion that parodies Goddess worshipping (or reality for that matter). That doesn't mean members of that religion necessarily see themselves that way. If they do, refer to my point above.

As for Lovecraft's invention of Cthulhu as a literary device: a) I would just like to point out that the originator of the Church of Scientology, was a science fiction writer. I'll leave conclusions to you. b) Many of the ancient Greek gods/deities were invented through mythology, i.e., they were a literary device. Would anyone argue that the Ancient Greeks did not have religion?

This is not the first time in this pair of discussions, and certainly not in wikipedia at large, that these religions have been clumped together with Atheism, but that's not at all appropriate in all cases. I too, cannot speak for anything but Discordianism, but as a Discordian, I do not in any way consider myself an athiest, nor do I consider any part of Discordianism as expressing anti-theistic beliefs. We worship a goddess, The Goddess. Her Name is Eris. Just as Christians worship Jesus and Protestants worship an old man in white robes. For myself and many other Discordians, this is not merely a funny tool for talking to Born Again take-yer-picks, it's a genuine spiritual belief, and to try to tell me or any one else that they don't really believe in Her is no different then telling a Muslim that they don't really believe in Ala. So to imply that our religion is not a real religion when we, it's members, are telling you straight up it is, is nothing short of close mindedness and institutionalized discrimination.

There was a comment about not allowing religions that mock other religions. Many religions, particularly western religions, in one way or another mock or offend other religions, notably by saying or implying that other religions are wrong, and their followers will burn in hell (just as an example).

B.Mearns^*, KSC 13:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

While I'm not sure Wikipedia is a good source for information to be used in deletion debates, I believe you are misrepresenting the contents of the Discordianism article, which begins (after many edits): “Discordianism is a modern, chaos-centered religion founded circa 1958–1959 by Malaclypse the Younger with the publication of its principal text, the Principia Discordia.” The key word here being religion. It goes on to state that “It is widely regarded as a parody religion.” The key word there being regarded; in other words this stance is but one supportable opinion that many have taken (and others, significantly, have not). It happens to be your position that these are not real religions, but please do not represent it as some sort of indisputable fact upon which we should take action.

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons doesn't seem to apply to dead people (I'm guessing this from the number of times the phrase living person appears on that page versus the number of times the word dead does). In any case, BLP is not about offending people, it is about protecting the foundation from legal attacks and bad publicity. If it was about preventing offense, it might include such principles as only saying nice things about people, not putting up naked pictures of them, and not discussing politics, religion, or sexuality. Wikipedia contains content that offends some people. Some of it is in articles like Profanity, Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, or Roman Catholic Church. Some of it is outside the article space, like when you say Discordianism is not a real religion. — The Storm Surfer 02:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn Deletion Freedom of religion here people, we have categories for everything else. Just my humble !vote. --BsayUSD [Talk] [contribs] 02:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as being within process and proper. No one here has provided any reasonable arguments as to how these categories have collaborative potential outside the bounds of original research, which was one of the central arguments that led to the deletion. If this leads us to be inconsistent with respect to some other categories, we should examine those as well, but cries of religious discrimination are, frankly, ridiculous. (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what more you'd want me to say to support that “these categories have collaborative potential outside the bounds of original research”, or what was unreasonable about my argument to that effect. — The Storm Surfer 03:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• I think the deletion was fine. I find Seraphimblade's argument not compelling - we certainly can apply our editorial judgment to distinguish between any significant established religion and spaghetti-monsterism. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I admit that I am here because of a message on my talk page. But is there a reason that Christianity and Islam should be given precedence over the above? (seriously, if there is, say so). It seems bias to allow categories for some belief systems but not others. The most "fair" thing to do is to either delete Category:Wikipedians by religion completely or keep it altogether. The fact that certain belief categories are allowed but others are not doesn't seem very neutral. Anyway, the bottom line is that I don't mind if people add their POV to their userpage, but as long as they don't add their POV to Wikipedia articles, it should be fine. Spellcast 03:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• What the hell? Pastafarianism isn't real. Go home, kids. You're worse than the bunch of people who insist the Zombie Survival Guide be labelled "non-fiction." If any of these are serious religions, undelete those and list in Wikipedians by religion. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I disagree, Pastafarianiam is real in the sense that it exists. It's not entirely serious and various points within its' 'mythology' confirm this. But it makes as much sense as any set of beliefs, and it is entirely possible that someone holds these as their belief. It should be included based on this and not whether anyone regards these as the 'valid' or 'true' belief. I am of the opinion that the Wikipedians by Religion Category is not useful to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia but if you're going to keep some of it, keep all of it; otherwise delete it all. --Osho-Jabbe 08:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not entirely sure if Wikipedians by religion is a useful category, either -- but that doesn't appear to be the matter at hand. The rest, we'll have to respectfully disagree on. If I saw somebody on the street preaching about Pastafarianism as the one true religion, I'd laugh along and encourage them. If I saw somebody persistently editing the Wikipedia article to present it as anything but a parody religion, I'd warn eventually block them for disruption and vandalism. You seem to have proposed that there's no difference between, say, Roman Catholicism and Pastafarianism. There's a shockingly obvious and very, very simple distinction: one is a parody, the other is not. That's clearly the basis on which one group of categories was kept when another group was deleted. You could argue whether that's a valid basis, but it is an objective and logically sound basis, and to pretend or suppose otherwise is, I suspect, mere tomfoolery. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse. These weren't useful. I'm sorry your vanity categories were deleted. They're just as useful as they ever were as a redlink. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non notable categories - endorse in general -- "pastafarianian" is non notable, a few may be notable. Neither delete all automatically, nor keep all automatically. Feel free to create a category "other". Do WP:WEIGHT, WP:N and the one about making a point, apply to such categories? What about BJAODN? I think they might profitably do so. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment discovering that user categories can be deleted without notification of those in them has moved me to start watching all categories I am in. This seems kind of broken - surely those in a category should have some chance to see that it is being deleted, just as if they were watching a page - but for now, we'll have to defend ourselves manually. DenisMoskowitz 14:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment as I see it, Notification is permitted even under existing policy if everyone interested is notified--it cannot be assumed that those in a category will support it if it is challenged so it is not votestacking. It can be a valid way of determining if there is still interest in a category. Further, some of the people, seeing the arguments, may decide that it is not a valid category--and such an opinion would cary weight.

I agree with Denis that it should in fact be required and automatic and will propose such a change to the UCfD rules if it seems there is support. UCfD is a very obscure process and can easily be seen as unfair. DGG (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I specifically do not support this. Let's take an extreme example, someone wants to propose deletion of Category:American Wikipedians and it's subcategories in good faith. Is it proper to leave messages of the talk pages of thousands (tens/hundreds of thousands) of users in those categories? I don't think so. Let's extrapolate this into the article space. Right now, Category:California porn stars is listed at CFD. The category contains 27 articles. Should the talk pages of all 27 or those articles be posted as to the discussion? Should all the editors of those 27 articles be spammed with a notice of the discussion? Once again, I think not. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with adding the categories you're in to your watchlist? I'm with AM. Required notification will do nothing but clog up talk pages for no reason. If you are interested in something, why would you rely on someone else to make sure you know about it? I certainly wouldn't. --Kbdank71 19:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: while Pastafarianism and the IPU are clearly the real-world equivalents of WP:POINT, Discordianism and the Subgenii are another matter entirely. Both of the latter have strong ties to the Neopagan movement, and, while they have definite tongue-in-cheek elements, they also have definite "ha-ha, only serious" elements. If you're going to exclude something from being called a religion because it has nonsensical elements, you'll have to exclude Zen Buddhism as well. Frankly, I think the parent category is borderline offensive, and think it should remain deleted, but its former children, or at least some of them, should be reinstated and reparented in a more appropriate category. (Whether a by-religion or a by-philosophy category, I don't really care.) As for the general usefulness of Wikipedians-by-religion/philosophy categories, I don't see any broad consensus on that. But it is certainly a non-neutral point of view to claim that these particular categories are any less useful than other religious/philosophical categories. Xtifr _tälk 20:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Better put than I had. To hopefully be clear, my comments were directed at the FSM and IPU categories in particular; several of the others, I'm unfortunately not as familiar with as I would like, and I can't make a judgement call on something I don't know. It may be worth splitting those off from this discussion for separate consideration, as there seems to be a bit of a crossfire going on. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly Endorse Closure, there was nothing out of process. Saying "we have other religions, why delete these" is no reason to overturn a valid UCFD discussion. In addition, I'm not to sure about the legitimacy of this DRV, as it seems like a "I don't like the outcome" and "I don't like the people who voted/closed/nominated." (see top about the different people, and the attempts to cast them as poor decision makers). ^demon^{[omg plz]} 23:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • But once again, the issue here is not whether or not there was a violation of procedure per se, but whether or not the vote included all the appropriate parties. B.Mearns^*, KSC 12:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    • It was listed on UCFD, are we supposed to notify every single member of every category? That's senseless, as it would only perpetuate a stream of ILIKEITs. Imagine if we did that for Category:Wikipedians by musician (which is currently on UCFD), which contains many thousands of users. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. I agree with DenisMoskowitz who says that "These religions are satirical, but they are not only satirical," and notes that the assertion that "no collaboration is possible" is false for at least some of the religions in question. Scientology, for example, is no less "made-up" than Discordiansim; nevertheless, some folks are sincere Scientologists, just as some of us are sincere Discordians. As long as Category:Wikipedians by religion exists, religions shouldn't be discriminated against because their adherents make skepticism about organized religion a central part of their belief system. I can't speak to all members of this subcategory, but Discordiansim and the Church of the SubGenius are certainly long-standing communities where collaboration is possible on Wikipedia content. Szarka 04:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Sounds like you favor a partial overturn, in that case? That may be the way to go -- this discussion is getting fragmented because we have such a mix of categories. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Compromise (not to highlight my opinion, but because we need another section break)

• Compromise as follows(and it represents a change of my earlier views, based upon some of the arguments, particular those directly above)

1. WP has no basis whatever for classifying religions as true or false, not what counts as a "pseudo"-religion. This is especially true considering it probable that some beliefs originally put forth a a joke have been seriously adopted by others. I recall Gibbon's famous line in chapter 13 of Decline and Fall “The various modes of worship, which prevailed in the Roman world, were all considered by the people, as equally true; by the philosopher, as equally false; and by the magistrate, as equally useful. And thus toleration produced not only mutual indulgence, but even religious concord."

I have pretty definite personal views on the likeliness of various religions, but I have no intention of saying what they are here at WP. Personally I follow what has been said about my profession: But I can see that some people might want to self-identify as a sign of faith, or as a sign of background, or as a joke. I do not see that it hurts the encyclopedia--some of the most objectively neutral editors here on religious topics identify strongly and openly with particular religions. Sp my inclination is to let them do so. But if anyone may do so, everyone may. If any religion may be asserted as a matter of personal concern, all must be allowed, regardless of anyone's opinion about them. Nor can we possibly decide who among them are the genuine believers.

So each individual category is valid, and must stay, or else we lose the core principle of NOTCENSORED, and the even more important general principle of allowing freedom of religious expression in private and in public in all non-sectarian contexts.

But what about the super-category--this category is opinion, pure and simple. I think a few of these categories are pseudo- in every sense of the word, and many or all of the individuals involved would share it. I can see how those of other religious beliefs might think it wrong to admit some of them to the supercategory religion, and how to deal with that is another matter--perhaps by renaming it religious and spiritual beliefs.

I accept there is a category of pseudoscience, because there are objective standards--but I am not happy with it. Personally I think there is pseudo-social science as well, but there would certainly not be general agreements about what would fall under it. But pseudo-religion? No human can safely say that. I think we must remove it. As a compromise, I can see renaming it: spiritual beliefs. That at least they certainly are. DGG (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree with several of the points you raise, because (in the case of the IPU the FSM, and Cthulhu) there is no assertion that anyone follows the "beliefs" of the two religions, which are (as noted above by a couple of editors) rather POINTy. The other two are a little more believable, but still essentially joke religions. If someone who belongs to either "religion" has managed to get the IRS to grant them a tax-free status as a result of their affiliation, I'd be much more inclined to agree that they are real, but (AFIAK, IANAL) that is not the case. I rather strongly feel that any retained categories should be moved into a "Wikipedians by interest" category, rather than into the philosophy or especially the religion categories. For those who want to show their "affiliation" with the category as a joke, there are a variety of userboxen (well-designed and otherwise) to use to display such an affiliation. But (especially in the case of the IPU and FSM, and less so for the Discordians, the CotSG, and Cthulhu) there is little or no use to retaining them as categories. As an aside, I find it interesting (and really, rather ironic) that most of the coordinated actions on contesting this deletion are coming from the Discordians. (!) Isn't that sacrilegious for them, or something? Horologium t-c 04:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

  Nothing is sacrilegious for a Discordian unless they want to comment sacrilege for some reason. Episcopisian Discordians believe that the dichotomy between order/chaos is false (and that people who believe in order for order's sake are Greyfaces), and that the dichotomy that matters is creative/destructive. That said, Discordianism is somewhat of a roll-your-own-religion anyway. (I still think that these categories are useless, but whatever.) - Pope AMIB II 05:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

the IRS classifies religions for tax purposes according to its own set of rules, and I don's ewe that that has anything to do with what WPedians choose to say they affiliate with.DGG (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the main thing to remember is that since all religions are false, there is no justification for saying some are falser than others. As for some being jokes: Scientology is a joke, the result of a bar bet between L. Ron Hubbard and Robert Heinlein. Would you honestly say that no one believe it? Kww 18:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I primarily oppose restoration of the IPU and FSM categories as obvious and undeniable parodies. It seems quite unlikely that those two in particular have any collaborative use that a quick glance at the relevant article's history page wouldn't already provide. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You may call them parodies, but they are religions nonetheless, valid, and with a cult popularity. Religion is defined by faith, and without faith it is nothing. Therefore, if these are deleted, so too must be Category:Wikipedians by religion.--WaltCip 01:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

No, they are not. From Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monster:

From time to time, editors argue that FSM is a real religion. This has been suggested several times, and consensus has always been to call FSM a parody. If you disagree, please read the archives and use this Talk page, before editing the article.

And from Invisible Pink Unicorn:

It is accepted that there are no actual believers in this mock goddess, but it has become popular, especially on atheist web sites and on-line discussion forums, to feign belief in her both for the sake of humor and as a form of critique or satire of theistic belief. These professions of faith intend to demonstrate the difficulty of refuting avowals of belief in phenomena outside human perception.^[1][2]

There are no worshipers of these "religions"; they are parodies. What is so hard to understand about this rather elementary concept? Horologium t-c 02:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

And how is Buddhism not a parody of Hinduism?--WaltCip 04:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You're seriously equating the Invisible Pink Unicorn with Buddha? Classy. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hardly equating; not all religions are equal, though they are very similar. Is it wrong for a religion of the Invisible Pink Unicorn to be created by a man with a big idea just as Buddhism was created (this time by a big man with an idea)?

"I'm not equating them, but here, let me equate them again." We're not here to indulge vanity. To turn around the Saturday Night Live example used several times above, while yes, SNL is real in the sense that it exists; no, we don't categorize it as a documentary or drama series, because it isn't either of those things. By the apparent argument of many of you here, we could categorize SNL in Category:Crime television series because a skit, at some point, mentioned criminals. That obviously doesn't add up. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with the sentiments that Discordianism and The Church of the Subgenius have grown into groups in their own right, and think that they should be categories in the Wikipedians by Religion because of this and because collaboration is possible within those two groups. However, Pastafarianism and the IPU aren't good for inclusion in Wikipedians by religion. Pastifarianism is too new to have grown much beyond the original purpose of its creator as a parody and probably shouldn't be included until more people have used as more than a POINT arguement and a joke, and actively hold it as a true belief. With the IPU I don't think anyone uses it as anymore than a POINT argument and as it is unlikely to ever grow beyond this it shouldn't be included. I've not had enough experience with Cthulu to comment on it. Those that probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia by Religion could be put into a subcategory of Wikipedians by interest called Wikipedians interested in Parody Religions, with sub-subcategories addressing them specifically, and the Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians can be left deleted. --Osho-Jabbe 23:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I think the consensus I see is this: Nobody wants Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians recreated, most everybody wants the Discordians and Subgenii recreated, and there's still widespread disagreement about Cthulhu, IPU, and Pastafarianism. Is that accurate? DenisMoskowitz 13:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Just to throw it out there.... I've seen several "if you have Category:Wikipedians by religion you need to have these..." comments. Is there perhaps consensus that Category:Wikipedians by religion should be renominated and that the whole lot should be removed? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• That would be fine by me; I only oppose removing these religions while keeping those at Category:Wikipedians by religion. Evouga 09:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion: I don't think any amount of talk would justify keeping these vanity categories. .V. _[Talk|Email] 21:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• I invoke Wikpedia's prime directive: Wikipedia is a project to build a high quality encyclopedia. Stupid crap has no place in that vision. It must die, and this crap was killed righteously. Let's not waste any more time arguing over the corpse. --Tony Sidaway 02:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • That argument is frivolous because the alleged "crap" is in user space, and not part of the encyclopedia proper. Evouga 07:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, it's in the category space. (; Octane ^{[improve me]} 31.07.07 0819 (UTC)
      • That some editors feel they have a right to colonise category-space and template-space with their own crap does not make it any less useless and, in the end, distracting from the mission in that it inculcates an entirely false view of Wikipedia: to wit, that it is a community-building exercise for its own sake. Crap must die. And yes, crap must also die when it's in userspace and not of benefit to the mission of building an enyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 14:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Girls by the pool.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This file was deleted by User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson for the reason of "18 USC Section 2257". I'm unaware of which speedy deletion criteria that falls under. That law requires producers of porn to maintain records verifying the identities of models used. Since the image was produced outside the US and is not porn but simple nudity, which is exempted from that law, I can't really see how it would apply here. In addition, I don't think that would make this a proper speedy deletion even if it did apply. -Nard 08:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It is unencyclopedic, unremarkable, and may be agianst the law. There is no benefit to keeping the image, especially if the subjects are minors (a distinct possibility), and if they didn't know they were photographed (also a possibility). I stand by this deletion. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 08:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any reasoning that doesn't involve citing a law I've demonstrated doesn't apply? -Nard 08:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn unless there is any speedy deletion criteria than can be demonstrated does apply. Viridae^Talk 11:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment 18 USC Section 2257 is fairly specific in that it applies to actual sexually explicit conduct, further defined in 2256. As this is simple (public) nudity and not sexual conduct of any kind, 2257 really does not apply. EFF FAQ. I am not a lawyer, but I don't see the legal justification here. --Dhartung | Talk 13:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• If it isn't porn, why is it linked on Portal:Pornography/Gallery2? Was it in use in any actual encylopedia content? If not, we should keep it deleted as the encyclopedia has no use for it. Legal risks without encyclopedic rewards are not worth taking. GRBerry 13:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It was in use in the article toplessness. -Nard 14:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Also in nudity. --Dhartung | Talk 15:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • These lists of supposed porn should perhaps be deleted... if you present something as porn, law enforcement just might agree with you that it is. I agree that the image was not "sexually explicit", but if we're labeling it as such... --W.marsh 15:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Nothing links to that page named Gallery2 (except this DRV and MediaWiki:Bad image list). It appears to be some kind of attempt at sorting created in one fell swoop last week.--Dhartung | Talk 15:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • That gallery also contains images of breastfeeding, an anatomical drawing of a breast, etc., etc. Suggest <s> your comment; it really doesn't apply. Jouster  (whisper) 05:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• overturn since per nom and Dhartung there is no real legal concern. We should also consider an MfD for Galllery2. JoshuaZ 15:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

  Since the gallery has no incoming links from content (article/portal) or content talk spaces, and is a cut and paste copy of another page, I've gone ahead and created the MFD nomination. GRBerry 16:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn per nom. Paranoia about mere nudity is getting out of hand here. Being naked is not in itself sexually explicit. That's not just my opinion, it's the law. Although the image should be restored, it had no business being in Portal:Pornography. wikipediatrix 17:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Endorse. Ordinarily I am strongly opposed to any speedy deletions which do not fall under a specific CSD criterion. However, I think the need to comply with legal requirements outweighs that. And as to the other point - i.e. that simple nudity is not necessarily viewed legally as pornographic - I think we should be careful on that point. I don't personally know anything much about pornography (I'm proud to say), but better to over-interpret the law than risk inviting legal trouble, IMO. Walton^One 18:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and list on IFD, no speedy criteria apply here, and the image is not sexualized (and is technically not pornography). It would take a lawyer to decide whether this image actually violates federal law. --Coredesat 19:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Exactly - so, for the sake of caution, we should assume that it does violate the law unless we are informed otherwise by a lawyer. Walton^One 09:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per Coredesat, it can be listed on IfD if necessary. Not a speedy-able image. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 20:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. We have other images on Wikipedia significantly more sexually explicit. This is just a bunch of young women walking in public, wearing bikini bottoms and no tops. More explicit pictures are in any Victoria's Secret catalog. Whether it fills an encyclopedic purpose can be determined elsewhere, the deletion reason is blatantly invalid. The law in this matter is clear, and there are multiple cases on point. I can cite several popular accounts off-hand, and can find legal citations in fairly short order if anyone really wants them. Yes laws can be complex, and I am not a lawyer, but in this case the relevant US Supreme court decision specified that the law had to make it plain to ordinary non-lawyers just what was and was not prohibited, or else it was unconstitutional. See The Brethren by Woodward for the judicial side, and The End of Obscenity for the lawyer's side, just to name a couple of respected sources that go into some detail on this issue. DES ^(talk) 21:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Overturn. Completely out of process. With all due respect to the nominator, determining what is or is not legal is a job for a professional lawyer, of which the Foundation has several, and not one particular editor. Evouga 22:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Very true, I shouldn't have said I "demonstrated" a meaning of the law. More like "it is apparent from my reading that I appear to have interpreted the meaning in a way contrary to yours." -Nard 23:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and list on IFD per Coredesat's excellent reasoning. Heather 00:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn obviously misguided albeit presumably well-intentioned deletion. Conflating nudity (and especially partial nudity) with sexuality is borderline offensive, although I'm sure there was no intent to offend here. I see no reason to bother listing, but won't object. I might object if anyone tries to insist that I wear pants while editing Wikipedia, though. :) Xtifr _tälk 01:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - Wiki-lawyering + censorship == bad speedy. Tarc 12:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per all of the above, and Immediate Overturn per WP:SNOW. Jouster  (whisper) 23:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Overturn per nom and Dhartung; not a valid speedy. And I agree with JoshuaZ regarding that portal. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted for reasons completely unrelated to pornography - did anyone actually bother to look at the deleted history? Umm ... this image has no source. The first revision [31] is GFDL-no-disclaimers ... no GFDL-self ... no claim of authorship ... just GFDL-no-disclaimers. The second revision is Orphanbot tagging it as unsourced. The third revision is an IP tagging it as GFDL-self several days later. The IP has no other edits and the original uploader has no edits other than to add the tag. The image is 353x480, which is not a size commonly associated with user-created images. In short, there is no warrant for believing this to be a free image. If restored, it should immediately be re-deleted as having no source. --B 06:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. As said above, it's unsourced and as such should be taken down. It clearly did not show anything sexually explicit, but breaks Wiki rules nonetheless. If it is re-submitted with a clear source and permission to use, though, I see no reason it shouldn't be left alone. --Safe-Keeper 07:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Although I did not agree that the legal argument was justified, I find B and Safe-Keeper's arguments about sourcing persuasive. --Dhartung | Talk 16:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Boobs don't equal porn. This image is clearly non-sexual, and therefore no CSD criterion applies. --Ginkgo100^talk 00:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • How about I4? The image has no source. We delete images that have no source. I'm mildly amused that in two days of indignation and showing how open-minded we are, none of the admins commenting on this felt it worth looking at the thing they wanted to undelete. --B 00:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • It was tagged gfdl-self. That implies that the source is the uploader, who took or otherwise owns the image. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
      • The uploader did not tag it as GFDL-self. Look at the deleted history - the uploader tagged it as GFDL-no-disclaimers. An IP user, using our "make up a tag to stop Orphanbot" program, tagged it as GFDL-self. --B 17:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, it is GFDL. Even if it did not have a source listed, speedy deletion process would require it to be restored so it could be placed in the category of unsourced images for seven days. However, I would support a listing at IfD per comments here. --Ginkgo100^talk 16:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Orphanbot properly tagged the image as having no source and notified the uploader (see the uploader's talk page). The fact that an IP user removed the warning and invented a false tag does not reset the week. The week expired in November of 2006 and thus if the image is restored, it should be redeleted forthwith. --B 17:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, there is no indication that the persons photographed have given permission to be photographed, or have given permission to the uploading of the picture. In that case, I think we should err on the side of caution and protect the privacy of these girls. Aecis^Brievenbus 11:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per the research by B as to the lack of adequate evidence of copyright status allowing us to use it. GRBerry 13:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn: It does not seem to fall under the purview of that law. .V. _[Talk|Email] 21:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per B and Aecis. We don't need this. --Tony Sidaway 02:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

2the Max (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The company and its product is notable. Its motherboard and power supply is very notable in Hong Kong and China. Its motherboard is one of a few major brand comparing to Intel and ASUSTek[32]. It has 17500 entries in Google. It is unreasonable that the article was deleted within a few hours after its creation, without notifying any major authors and I have no chance to put a hang-on tag. — HenryLi (Talk) 03:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Please read our speedy deletion guidelines - an assertion of notability is required for articles about corporations, or else they may be speedily deleted. The "hangon" tag is just a courtesy - admins are not obligated to allow users time to contest the speedy deletions (that is what DRV is for after all). In fact, admins can speedy delete articles even if they are not tagged for deletion, based on their own judgment. ugen64 10:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

According to Notability guideline,

If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself,6 or: Ask the article's creator for advice on where to look for sources. Put the {{notability}} tag on the article to alert other editors. To place a dated tag, put a {{subst:dated|notability}} tag. If the article is about a specialized field, use the {{expert-subject}} tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online.

When something is about notability, it should be handled according to notability guideline (WP:N). If speedy deletion criteria can override the WP:N on notability, what the purpose of WP:N ? There are no actions has been done according to procedure in WP:N. What I want to have is to get the article undeleted and improve it. I have already give the Google count above.

— HenryLi (Talk) 16:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• overturn To be deltable under A7 it must have no claim to notability. The articles asserted " Its products include [[motherboard]], [[display card]], [[power supply]], [[peripherals]] and [[surveillance]]. Its products are marketed in [[Europe]], [[United States]], [[Australia]], [[South Korea]], [[China]] and Hong Kong. . I consider that a claim to notability enough to prevent A7. That said, I would advise the ed. to improve the article--if notable, there will be some reviews of it in RSs for the subject. DGG (talk) 17:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• overturn per DGG. JoshuaZ 19:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• overturn selling products in diverse markets is a weak claim of importance (anyone can sell, does anyone actually buy them?) but I guess it's enough. Appears to be some sources on this company [33] but might not be enough. Still, probably should have gone to AFD. --W.marsh 20:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• -Overturn as per DDG and W.Marsh. However, unless better sources are added, I woudn't expect this to survive AfD. To HenryLi the bar to avoid speedy deletion is intentionally lower than the one to survive an AfD, so the notability guidelines are generally not relevant when considering an A7 speedy. There is, IMO good reason for this double standard -- to give a chance for arguably notable topics to properly establish and source their notability, even though the price is that non-notable or marginally notable articles soemtimes sit around for a few days. DES ^(talk) 21:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• comment this has been recreated, by User:HenryLi at 2the Max. DES ^(talk) 04:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • My error, the deleting admin undeleted to allow notability to be asserted. I'm not sure he was aware that a review had already been started. DES ^(talk) 04:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Er, that's she, not he. I was not aware, so thank you for notifying me. --Ginkgo100^talk 20:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I'm the guy that originally put the speedy tag on this thing, not an admin, so I'm not sure if I'm allowed to vote. "We sell stuff" cannot be a claim to notability, not even a weak one. When I go through the list of new articles and mark the spam and non-notables, the vast majority of them are people that sell stuff. To allow "we sell stuff" to become a claim to notability would force a lot of articles to go through the full AfD cycle instead of just cleaning them out quickly. What really mystifies me is the author's reaction: if this company is notable, why didn't he just recreate the article with some external sourcing? Why is it so important for this article to be recreated in its original weak form instead of correcting it and putting it up then? There's no rule against recreating an article that went through speedy delete after you correct the reason for the speedy deletion. Kww 05:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Contributor is not anonymous and surely can be asked for improvement. It should not be hard for one do one more step. If one is questioning about notability, read the notability guideline. The initial article is not one line spam article, but with source and projects corresponding to. What really mystifies me is the reviewers never check the content, references and contributors, and never do a simple Google search, and conclude rudely it's not notable, and ask for speedy deletion. Before deletion, if we carefully examine the deletion policy, it has stated that "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. A variety of tags can be added to articles to note the problem". The reviewers never think of improvement and disregard the deletion policy. Putting a {{notability}} template is as easy as putting a speedy deletion template. Kww, I cannot agree with you that an article can be deleted because it can be re-created later. Wikipedia ought treat contribution seriously. I suggest you read the notability and deletion guidelines rather putting deletion template for fun. — HenryLi (Talk) 19:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. It was not necessary to ask you for an improvement. I did not "disregard the deletion policy." I followed a process, even if it is one you disagree with. I manually review 2000 articles a day to find nonsense, spam, and non-notables, and I tag somewhere around 25 articles a day for deletion. All of my taggings are reviewed by admins, and they override one every two or three days. The purpose of the speedy tag is to rapidly and efficiently get rid of new articles that do not meet minimum standards. In my view, yours didn't, and still doesn't. If you had simply fixed your article and recreated it, it would have been faster and simpler for both of us. If you need to whine more about me, please take it to my talk page ... you know where it is.Kww 21:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment. How can you reviewed 2000 articles a day? It is exactly what the problem is. Just skimming and and put a deletion tag. Is it a competition for number rather than the quality of review. I have no doubt in the value of review and remove spam and non-sense, and non-notable. But it must be taken seriously according to Deletion and Notability guideline. You are relying on admin for review instead of review carefully yourself. If one admin failed to follow the guideline, a mistake will happen. Here the article is deleted in about 2 hours, not 2 or 3 days. Please do it carefully and do what is stated in the guidelines . It is not a number competition. — HenryLi (Talk) 00:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, article contained no assertion of notability, proper A7, and I don't see much hope it can be done. I only see one pretty thin source on W. Marsh's Google News search, the rest are about totally different subjects where "2 the Max" happened to be used, not about this particular company. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Although it is not well-written, I've found source about the company and its product from ACCA, AMD, Microsoft and others. — HenryLi (Talk) 18:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Notability was asserted so not a valid speedy deletion reason. Catchpole 12:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment from the deleting admin -- I had no idea until just now that this was on DRV. I restored it when the author asked me to. I'm rather nonplussed to find it was listed here before I was contacted, but at any rate it's a moot point. --Ginkgo100^talk 01:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Further comment I just visited the article for the first time since I restored it, and I would not speedily delete it now, as it claims notability in the form of an award. I make no comment, positive or negative, as to whether an AfD discussion is appropriate. --Ginkgo100^talk 20:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and list at AfD, article isn't notable enough for inclusion and should be deleted via AfD, but it's not speedyable. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Aardwolf (game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Game is notable - online numbers claims can be verified

This makes no sense, the article was apparenty flagged as needing references since February which was brought to my attention today. References were added today along with links to external reviews and an entire DMOZ category for the MUD, and suddenly the page is deleted. Meanwhile many of the muds on the list of MUDs in "borderline" status cite reviews on Topmudsites and/or The Mud Connector with a note that they will probably be OK based on the reviews - Aardwolf had many of both. After spending several hours today trying to fix our page this is a slap in the face with zero feedback - would appreciate some transparency here please. Part of the contention appeared to be the claim of being one of the "most popular" - we have notified the administrator that we were working on this, but were not given time to complete. The game is notable and online numbers can be verified at any time simply by logging in and looking. If it takes a third party to verify our numbers that can be done too, but just deleting the page right after we start dialog seems unreasonable. Please reconsider. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aardlasher (talk • contribs).

• Endorse deletion - the AFD showed a consensus to delete, as long as there were no reliable sources to back up the claim of notability. I don't think there were any in the article when it was deleted. As for other, similarly not-notable MUDs still having articles - well WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a good argument for non-deletion :) ugen64 03:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[[User:Aardlasher|aardlasher] 26 July 2007:: So you are deciding the references at the two top ranked non-wikipedia sites for 'Mud' and 'Muds', dating back to 1996, are not reliable? DMOZ review of the site and granting it's own category is not noteable? If you decide MUDs in general aren't notable fair enough, but to arbitrarily decide one of the largest MUDs around isn't notable? Why the deletion *today* of all days when the article has been flagged for months? The day we contact you for help and confirm intent to provide those references? Sorry, but this just looks like someone wanted us gone quick before we came back with the necessary info.

• Endorse deletion as closing admin. It's my job to determine consensus with what I have. It's your problem that you didn't say anything in the discussion, and now you complain to me because you kept your mouth shut? Are you actually going to say that it's our fault because we rightfully deleted an article, coincidentally on a day you just came? Your rationale for deletion review is absurd beyond logic. —Kurykh 04:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[[User:Aardlasher|aardlasher] 26 July 2007:: There was a lot said on the articles 'talk' page today. Apparently this was in the wrong place and should have been on the delete discussion, my bad for not knowing the inner workings of Wikipedia. Please read the 'talk' page from the article before it was deleted and the exchanges with Martijn.

The best thing I can do now is put it up in your user space and let you work on it. How about that? —Kurykh 04:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

""Sounds good, thanks! Can you include a link to info on the process to move from user space back to an article? Appreciate your help with this.[[User:Aardlasher|aardlasher] 04:38 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Damn New Thang (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

South African Defunct Magazine Ethnopunk 09:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• As a contested prod this should technically be undeleted, but a fanzine that lasted 2 issues has a, shall we say, less-than-stellar chance at AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Process tells us to undelete this one. Common sense tells us it would just wind up being deleted at AfD again. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• It is, i suppose, possible that those two issues were somehow highly significant, but I don't belive it, the article doesn't in any way imply it, and no one has so much as hinted at any such situation. The best outcome here would probably be for Ethnopunk to withdraw his request. DES ^(talk) 18:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• I, too, would prefer a withdrawal outcome. However, the history of the user's contributions makes me think it is unlikely. Since January 19th, he has only edited on three days. I am refraining from acting in hopes of a return to review this discussion, while being doubtful that it will occur. GRBerry 19:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Yeah, technically it was a PROD. However, it seems to me that WP:CSD#A7 applies here. And in any case, the article was about one sentence long, if someone wanted to build a quality article it wouldn't be much help. Mangojuice^talk 19:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • A7 doesn't apply to magazines. I don't see any of the WP:CSD that really does apply. If this had not been delted, but the prod had been contested in time, I think that the only option would be AfD, unless someone did an IAR deletion, which i don't think would be warrnted. DES ^(talk) 20:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
    • It applies to companies, that's how I was seeing it. Mangojuice^talk 13:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Ignore the rules and keep deleted - Policy only gets in the way of completing the inevitable. And you really can't reverse a PROD after it has taken effect.--WaltCip 21:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • actually you can, and in any case even slightly more likely to survive an Afd I would have undelted already. as it is, i'm torn. DES ^(talk) 23:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• technically, any admin could undelete it right now. .DGG (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

  And I note that several of us are choosing not to do that, despite the fact that PROD contests, even after the fact, should automatically be overturned. If this goes five days in that status, I think WaltCip's (and other's) IAR argument will be shown to have consensus for now. GRBerry 21:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

the reason I chose not to do so was respect for communal decision, since it was being discussed, even though I think deleting it out of process was altogether wrong. Not following process when process is available leads to arbitrary decisions. Had I said in my RfD in reply to the semi-obligatory question that IAR was to be used whenever the result would be right, I hope I would have been rejected. DGG (talk) 17:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, there's hardly any point in process for the sake of process here given the obvious non-notability of the subject. And yes, I was the one who originally PRODded it. I couldn't verify the magazine's existence, for one thing... --Coredesat 00:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Ethnopunk added the following comment into 27 July DRV log, which I deleted and reinstated here (Duja► 09:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)):

  Admin opened the debate without referring to the person who created the page. I believe there should have at least been an opportunity to discuss the deletion. I can't even follow the rationale for deleting the page, other than somebody objects to the title of the item in question. Please review this deletion and give South African's a chance to participate in Wiki. We don't all have high bandwidth, or live in a first world country.Ethnopunk 08:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• And what is their rationale? "Useful" or "harmless"?--WaltCip 15:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Undelete/WTF. The above refusals are ludicrous on so many levels I'm not even sure where to begin, and a borderline abuse of power:

• Process demands a contested PROD be undeleted because PROD short-circuits the typical requirement that consensus be formed before content is deleted. The "consensus" to delete this article was the opinion of a single editor. DRV is for discussion of process, not content, and yet the entire discussion so far has been about denying the community the opportunity to discuss the latter by trampling all over the former.
• I'm told that this article is a snow delete, and yet, unlike in a real AfD, nobody that's not an administration can verify this claim. Since this article presumably does not have any WP:BLP or copyright problems, excluding all regular users from contributing to consensus is extreme abuse of process.
• PROD is meant to be a weak form of deletion, weaker than ordinary nomination, and not a super-sneaky way to speedy-delete articles when no reasonable WP:CSD argument can be articulated.Evouga 08:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment There's too much controversy for IAR to be a good idea here, so I followed process and restored it as a contested prod, then nominated it for AfD. Suggest closing admin not use WP:SNOW due to controversy here; let it go for the full five day's, the drama's not worth it. --Ginkgo100^talk 00:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Cage the Elephant (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This band is an upcoming band and have been the artist of the day on spin.com [[34]]. Jmaurer2 05:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This article failed WP:MUSIC - no evidence of notability. - Philippe | Talk 05:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This band has played at such notable places as Summerfest and are scheduled to play at Bonnaroo [35] and Lollapalooza [36]. --Jmaurer2 05:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok at this point the band does not meet the criteria but will I be able to add them later on without issue? --Jmaurer2 05:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I tell you what, I'll be glad to userfy it for you - place it in your userspace. Then, you can continue to work on it. Once you have it to a position where you think it meets the criteria, let me know and I'll glance at it and tell you if it meets WP:MUSIC. How will that work for you? - Philippe | Talk 05:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good to me, thank you for looking into this and taking the time to do this. --Jmaurer2 05:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Done, and you'll find the address on your talk page. - Philippe | Talk 05:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

List of Missions in 3-D Pinball Space Cadet (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The deletion, though valid, did not take steps to allow the creator to userfy, preserve, or Wikify the article content. It is with boldness and the assumption of good faith that I wish the deleting admin to seek a better interpretation of the consensus, or allow the creator to restore the page for userfication. WaltCip 03:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Closer's notes See this diff on my explanation to the author on the deletion. He hasn't responded or objected to the deletion (it's his space we're dealing with, so it's his choice on whether he will agree to a compromise) so nothing can be done in the meantime. DRV is probably not necessary here; discussion on mine or the author's talk pages would have been more suitable. Sr13 03:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Then I am mistaken. Speedy close per above.--WaltCip 15:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

John Bambenek (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

If he's going to make an ass of himself and file FEC complaints [37] people should know <BLP violation removed - Corvus cornix 18:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)>. 74.134.253.87 03:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Fran Mérida (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article was very well-sourced, all reliable verifiable sources, all arguments for deletion claim he was not notable as a sportsman, which is patently true, but he is indeed notable as per media coverage as a possible professional sportsman. Claim of non-notability based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than verifiability and reliability of sources; it leaves a vaguely fancrufty flavor in the mouth. Already undertook a delete which was overturned in DRV, and this new AfD was closed by one admin as weak delete delete when it was obvious there was no consensus and should not have been deleted to allow consensus to form. Cerejota 01:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn what a bad closing. The "policy" he refers to is only a guideline, and it's only one plank of a guideline, another more important plank of that guideline allows inclusion if there's multiple non-trivial sources covering the person. The entire basis of his close is just embarrassingly incorrect. --W.marsh 03:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. The player may not have coverage as a athlete specifically, but definitely passes the general criteria, written above the section. Nevertheless, it was a bad closure which should have been closed as no consensus. Sr13 04:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, I see that I've misinterpreted and I'll restore. --Stephen ^1-800-STEVE 05:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

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

INCONSISTENT_POLICY

My entry for AudioSparx was deleted and protected from recreation. This is patently unfair, especially considering that you continue to list the page for another very similar site (SoundDogs). Our two sites were started at around the same time...in reality ours began operations prior to SoundDogs.com, and while they have a larger client base, we are still and currently one of the largest sites on the Internet for licensing and publishing all forms of digital audio content (especially sound effects).

Our site, AudioSparx.com, was previously named UltimateSoundArchive.com. UltimateSoundArchive.com domain was purchased in 1998, however, the site had already been in operation for over two years by 1998 as a sub-web under Advances.Com domain name. To substantiate this, here's a link to the Advances.Com home page circa 1998, which has a link to our "sound archive", which when you follow that link (http://web.archive.org/web/19981212033703/www.ultimatesoundarchive.com/) you will see the original cover page of the Ultimate Sound Archive, with a link to the home page of the Ultimate Sound Archive circa 1998 (http://web.archive.org/web/19981206211452/www.ultimatesoundarchive.com/MAIN.cfm).

Here's a reference that was created in 1998 that further substantiates what I'm saying: http://www.bizwiz.com/cgi-bin/docsrch.pl?TYPE=Film-&-Video-Production (search for "ultimate sound archive" there)

I've included additional supporting information below. The bottom line is that this is a site that should be covered in Wikipedia because of the historical significance of being one of the first, if not the first digital audio sites to ever operate on the Internet. Or if you still really feel that our site is inappropriate for Wikipedia, then please maintain uniform standards and delete SoundDogs from the site, or please explain to me why SoundDogs should be permitted to remain on Wikipedia and AudioSparx shouldn't be....what's the difference??

Thanks,

Quinn Coleman quinn@audiosparx.com

Here's other links from the web to the original site: http://www.sbs-baseball.com/sbs481.pdf http://www.bib.umontreal.ca/ss/media/enregsonores.html http://www.bl.uk/collections/sound-archive/soundeffects.html http://www.theatrecrafts.com/sound_links.html http://www.d.umn.edu/~mharvey/websitesound.html http://www.horton.com/html/toolslist.aspx?CatName=Media:%20Clip%20audio http://www.amptone.com/effectslinks.htm http://home.carolina.rr.com/charliehughes/Links/Links-Fr.html http://www.cult.tpu.fi/sound/english.htm http://home.howstuffworks.com/question153.htm http://www.virtualrealms.com.au/vrml/tute01/links_resources.htm http://www.clickopen.co.uk/links/index.php?s=12&type=Sounds&subtype=Search http://www.triskelian.com/Favorites/sound.htm http://www.proxyroxy.com/Neighborhood/index.htm http://www.fsc.yorku.ca/resources/powerpoint.php http://www.u4eamusic.com/links.htm http://www.xomreviews.com/ultimatesoundarchive.com http://web.pitas.com/apathy/06_18_2000.html http://www.lamezoid.com/ http://paginas.terra.com.br/educacao/audiolist/musica.htm

WHOIS RECORD FOR ULTIMATESOUNDARCHIVE.COM

  Registrant: Make this info private
  Navarr Enterprises, Inc.  
  7810 NW 4th ST
  Plantation, FL 33324 
  US 
   
  Domain Name: ULTIMATESOUNDARCHIVE.COM 

  Administrative Contact , Technical Contact :   
  Navarr Enterprises, Inc.  
  admin@audiosparx.com 
  7810 NW 4th ST
  Plantation, FL 33324 
  US 
  Phone: 954-727-3189 
  Fax: 954-252-2352 
   
  Record expires on 30-Jul-2007  
  Record created on 31-Jul-1998 
  Database last updated on 05-Oct-2006 

WHOIS RECORD FOR ADVANCES.COM

  Registrant: Make this info private
  Advances.Com  
  7810 NW 4th Street
  Fort Lauderdale, FL 33324 
  US 
   
  Domain Name: ADVANCES.COM 

  Administrative Contact :   
  Administration, 
  info@ADVANCES.COM 
  Advances.Com, Inc.
  7810 NW 4th ST
  Fort Lauderdale, FL 33324 
  US 
  Phone: 999 999 9999 
  Fax: 999 999 9999 
   
  Technical Contact :   
  Advances.Com  
  support@ADVANCES.COM 
  7810 NW 4TH ST
  FT LAUDERDALE, FL 33324-1904 
  US 
  Phone: 954-452-8466 
  Fax: 954-452-1139 
   
  Record expires on 22-Oct-2014  
  Record created on 23-Oct-1996 
  Database last updated on 05-Oct-2006 

Qdogquinn 00:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Two separate admins deleted this as spam. I can't see the cache, so I can't tell what the article looked like, but if Odogquinn wants to create a new version in his/her User space which is not in ad-speak and contains reliable sources and claims of notability, then allow recreation. Corvus cornix 18:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment As the creator of the subject of the article, Qdogquinn has a clear conflict of interest and probably shouldn't be the one to recreate the article, even if it's done less "spammily." He does have a legitimate issue though, in that Sounddogs, the competitor site he mentions, is an unsourced article that doesn't do a great job of asserting notability. Quinn, that article needs improvement and currently doesn't meet our policies; its existence doesn't equate to community approval of its status. Leebo ^T/C 19:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• allow re-creation if a decent article is written in user space, as . Corvus cornix suggested. it is reasonable to ask to see it first because of the possible COI problems. DGG (talk) 21:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• As one of the two to delete this blatant spam (identical text posted by two separate single-purpose accounts, of which the requester is the second) I am highly sceptical that the requester could write a neutral article, especially given the admission that they are tied to the site in question. Guy (Help!) 06:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak overturn Definitely borderline, but from my reading of the text, a little of this is salvageable (thus does not meet G11). Recommend removing most of the text as spam, but some of the intro is not written in a promotional style. --Ginkgo100^talk 00:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

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

See also: Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 July 13#Image:Past Doctors.jpg or Image:Past doctors.jpg - clear consensus that both images were used for different purposes, passed WP:NFCC, and consensus to keep the image. Will ^(talk) 00:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn The consensus was clearly to keep. Since it involved copyright, its not just the consensus, but the strength of the relevant argument that needs to be considered, and the arguments to keep were soundly based on policy. Deleting this was a personal view based on what was nececessary in he articles by an editor who admitted unfamiliarity with the subject. DGG (talk) 17:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I refer you to Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria item 3a: As little non-free content as possible is used in an article. The kept image could easily serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the deleted one, so there is no real reason to use both. Perhaps the deleted one makes the point slightly better than the kept one, but the kept one is adequate enough. howcheng {chat} 23:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    • now that is a matter of judgment, and individuals can differ. When its a matter of judgment, the independent views of different wikipedians does carry weight and consensus is not irrelevant. DGG (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry, but Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria is non-negotiable and policy trumps consensus every time. Have you actually read Human Nature (Doctor Who episode)? I think it's good that I'm not familiar with the subject matter, because reading it now, with only one image, it still makes enough sense to me (well, as much as possible considering my lack of knowledge about the Doctor Who universe). Do you honestly believe that a small portion of this book image is necessary for understanding the article? I'm not even really convinced that the overall image is required and if it were totally up to me, I would have deleted both. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise's arguments were the most in-line with policy and there were a lot of WP:PERNOM arguments as well as speculation about the nominator's motives and/or credibility. The goal of this exercise is not to find the solution that makes the most people happy, but how to make the article conform best to policy while still being comprehensible. Leaving the one image accomplishes that. howcheng {chat} 16:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Consensus should determine what minimal use is. This close disregarded that consensus. IronGargoyle 03:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn When I first examined the case, I was incline to agree with Howcheng. However, each image is used in the article in a different context. Although they are similar, one relates to the broadcast episode, and the other was supplied by the BBC on-line. Each does merit its own critical comment. This special set of circumstances means that NFCC 3a does not apply to these uses: each is necessary in a different context. Xoloz 14:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• overturn per DGG and Xoloz. JoshuaZ 15:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Pobladores, the deletion of this page by initiated by Android79 (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Pobladores is very short providing little or no context to the reader. I am requesting that the deletion be reviewed. The information in the article is intellectual relevant and historically accurate. It has been verified by a number of credible sources. If the page was too short, I can add more information to it. I think that it was deleted too quickly. Gonder 00:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted as this seems to have been a copyvio of [38], straight cut and paste. --W.marsh 00:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Just write a new, better article using your own words. We never restore copyvios. MER-C 12:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

William Bain (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I wasnt around to respond to the prod but this isnt a vanety page, William Bain is quite a noted accademic in International Relations theory. Talkshowbob 23:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Dash Signature (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The content on the Dash Signature page was an article about the history and development of an audio software company, Dash Signature. The content is worthy of inclusion on the following grounds: 1) the "Virtual Studio Technology" industry is relatively small and young - Luigi Felici and WilliamK, the original founders of Dash Signature, have been involved at some level or another with this computer-based music instrument industry since its inception. They both still remain active and prolific developers in the independent VST industry (although they no longer work together). Several of their products were landmarks, pre-empting ideas that were later picked up on by larger, mainstream companies. For example, their TubiLeSax, a saxophone VST instrument, got further developed and commercialized by LinPlug. EMMKnagalis was the first ever dedicated ethnic instrument sound module in VST format, paving the way for other products. DaAlpha 2K was one of the earliest VST emulations of a hardware synth, followed by their cult classic DaHornet.

2)The idea of the page is NOT to advertise, but to note some important contributers to a new technology for musicians. By only focusing on "mainstream" developers (several mainstream developers have wiki articles that are not contested, and contain blantant advertising- for instance, the Native Instruments page), Wikipedia would simply be recreating a balance of power where commercialism and capital outway innovation and independance.

I hope the deletion will be reviewed in favor of the page being returned. Paulrwalsh 20:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion; valid A7. Article contained no assertion of notability and almost certainly suffered from WP:COI issues. Heather 22:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: --Luigi 23:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC) -Comment below-

Wikipedia must be consistent rather than unfair,assertion of notability and WP:COI if were there for Dash Signature, they are the just same for pages like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fxpansion and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Instruments,

and please note that I did read the "What about article x?" in WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS but it fails as it reads: "The nature of Wikipedia means that you can't make a convincing argument based on what other articles do or don't exist; because there's nothing stopping anyone from creating any article" Wrong! Someone stopped the creation of Dash Signature article. --Luigi 23:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• overturn. Well, the article is full of fluff and sketchy namedropping (they developed ensembles using famous synthesizers, emulations of a famous instrument, etc.) but there is one genuine claim of importance in what was deleted: "DaHornet (now freeware), which has been widely used in the hip hop musuc scene, and by a number of commercial artists including Nine Inch Nails". Then there does actually seem to be some coverage of this, [39], [40]. I think this should go to AFD, but it will take a bit to overcome the conflict of interest... get ready to cite sources in the article rather than just make arguments about how unfair we are. --W.marsh 00:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'm the deleting administrator. After several rounds of discussion with Paulrwalsh and Luigi, I suggested the matter be brought here for review. Note that User:Liqih is the Luigi Felici discussed in the article and in the review summary. Keegan^talk 00:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'm happy that the discussion has moved onto sources to cite and fluff removing. So I call myself off as I'm obviously too biased and I let the actual author of the article to speak on. Thanks --Luigi 03:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. W.marsh wrote "Well, the article is full of fluff and sketchy namedropping (they developed ensembles using famous synthesizers, emulations of a famous instrument, etc.)". I wonder if you are familiar with VST? I see no reason that what I actually wrote is more sketchy than the 'Nine Inch Nails' reference, which you write is of genuine importance. In fact, these comments that you claim as fluff are MORE relevant to the development of VST, and can be backed up through a historical overview of VST development (A huge job which I am not seeking to undertake comprehensively).

About sources to site: there is an issue here- with writing unwritten histories sources are few and far between, in fact source might be, for instance, the collective archive of the KvR forum - how do you propose to reference that? Paulrwalsh

• Well Wikipedia articles are just summaries of published sources... if none exist, an article is usually precluded. --W.marsh 03:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

ok, so if I can cite some sources for such claims, the article may be considered for inclusion? I will collect some sources over the new few days. Thanks.

But, I must, say, as a user, Wikipedia is definitely not a database of "articles [that] are just summaries of published sources". Paulrwalsh

• If you find content that can't be sourced, remove it... we're not perfect but that's our standard. --W.marsh 14:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn per the logic of W.marsh, though without improvement I doubt that it will survive AfD. -- DS1953 ^talk 23:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn whether or not its a valid article should be discussed at AfD not here. A11 requires that the article not be readily capable of improvement. if the eds. involved think they can improve it they should be allowed to try.DGG (talk) 17:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. The nominator of the DRV, User:Paulrwalsh, has not yet offered a single reliable source. What he has stated above about unwritten history suggests to me that he doesn't fully grasp our sourcing needs. If he can come up with any reliable sources before the close of the DRV, I'll consider changing my vote. EdJohnston 05:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Georgecarlinmugshot.jpg (edit|[[Talk::Image:Georgecarlinmugshot.jpg|talk]]|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Mugshot of counter-culture comedian George Carlin. This file was deleted by Howcheng (talk · contribs) pursuant to an ifd nomination. It was undeleted a short time later by Alkivar (talk · contribs) with the claim that "debate at IFD did not have a consensus to delete". Abu badali (talk · contribs) brought the issue up at AN/I, whereupon this image was again deleted by Butseriouslyfolks (talk · contribs). Note that in IfD closings policy often trumps consensus, or lack thereof. Note also that the image was not a blatant copyright violation and there are many instances of {{mugshot}} use in biographies. The copyright status of mugshots varies based on jurisdiction and local laws, so the tag defaults to a fair use claim. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this a procedural listing? --Abu badali ^(talk) 04:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

No, see below. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn - I think that the IfD nomination was largely baseless. George Carlin was a free-speech pioneer following in the footsteps of Lenny Bruce ('cept the obsessive indignant streak) and his "Seven dirty words" bit led to a Supreme Court case and notable changes in FCC policy. The mugshot of a comedian detained for "public indecency" is iconic and would serve a valuable purpose in Carlin's article. It is not, as Abu badali claims, an "Unnecessary, non-notable, non-free mugshot of an actor". ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  Dispute: An inconic image is not one that has been produced during an iconic event. An iconic image is one that have been discussed by other sources. Do you know of any discussion (by reliable sources) about this image?

  About the nomination being "baseless"... are you sure you're familiar with item #8 of our policy on non-free content? Non-free material is not used unless it's absence compromises the understanding of the text. It must convey (noteworthy) information that words alone can not. That image was only being used to illustrate the fact that that man was arrested, but this is the kind of information that doesn't need an image to be understood. --Abu badali ^(talk) 05:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  Iconic is not a legal term, it is instead a wonderfully descriptive word used to add emphasis. Your appeal to reliable sources would only be relevant if I was proposing to add the word "iconic" to Carlin's article or mugshot caption.

  I am aware of criterion #8, but it is not wholly aligned to your interpretation. I suppose that almost any photograph could be replaced by a text description; after all, do you really need Image:JFKmotorcade.jpg to visualize JFK sitting in the back of a convertible? It is preposterous to claim that media associated with notable developments must be somehow *proven* to be significant. There are no alternative free-license photographs of Carlin that could adequately portray the artist as he appeared at the time of his arrest. As this photograph documents an important development, its editorial value is self-evident. If you had written the article, I could understand an objection based on editorial grounds. However, seeing as you are a self-professed fair-use inquisitor, you start of with a conservative set of presuppositions and proceed to cherry-pick random copyrighted images without much concern for actual encyclopedic coverage. This is a criticism of your method, the same thought process that led to your biased (and, IMO, deeply flawed) IfD nomination. So no, I don't agree with the assertion that this mugshot violates NFCC#8, or any other criterion. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  I never said or implied "iconic" was a legal term. But if you plan to keep this image based on the fact that it's iconic (what I believed was your argument above), then you'll have to provide sources for the claim that the image is iconic. It's not up to us, as an encyclopedia, to establish the image's "iconicness". We in this case, we would be using the image to talk about its notability, and not as a convenient illustration.

  I completely disagree that almost any photograph could be replaced by a text description. A lot of images contain noteworthy information that can't be conveyed by text. But a mugshot is hardly one of those images.

  You're completely mistaken if you believe that the use of non-free material is an editorial decision. We have a (very strict) policy that can't be ignored. Deciding among a non-free image and a piece of free text that conveys the same information is not an editorial decision! Our policy dictates that, as long as the information can be conveyed with text, no non-free image can be used. --Abu badali ^(talk) 06:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  Um... any decision that has any bearing on article content is an editorial decision. You assert that a mugshot does not contain noteworthy information, I disagree. So do several other editors. You appear to agree that not every photograph can be replaced by a text description, but then say that as long as the information can be conveyed with text, no non-free image can be used. I think that it is naive to ignore any possible overlap, or to assume a definite line separating the two extremes. In short: this picture is worth a thousand words. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn The debate itself had no consensus to delete, nor is this a clear case of policy trumping consensus/lack there of, the fair use claim is justified in that the arrest associated with the mug shot has historical value. I have heard of that picture before I saw it here today. Until(1 == 2) 05:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  If you could point to sources discussing that picture, maybe it could be kept. But besides that, it was a clear case of policy being applied. Both the rationale and the keep vote failed to explain why was this image necessary for the reader's understanding of the text. --Abu badali ^(talk) 05:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  By the same token, I could claim that you failed to explain why this image was "non-notable" in spite of overwhelming evidence or "unnecessary" despite multiple contradictory opinions. Alternately, I could point out that it is ludicrous to demand a sourced discussion of every copyrighted image on Wikipedia. Some images are notable or controversial in and of themselves while others are notable for documenting a controversy. It is important to recognize the difference. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  You can't use the same token because the onus is on the one wanting to use the non-free material. We need strong reasons to use non-free material, and not to not-use it. Every non-free image must contain a fair use rationale explaining, among other things, what is the image used for and why can't free text (or images) be used for that purpose. This image failed to do so, this was pointed out in the ifd nomination, but the problem wasn't fixed during the ifd discussion. The deletion was the correct decision! --Abu badali ^(talk) 06:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  As I just said: you simply ignore any reasons put forth for using this image. On a side note, it did include a detailed rationale. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse - Both the rationale and the keep vote failed to explain why was this image necessary for the reader's understanding of the text. Unless some new information arrives (as some claim that this image is notable), the deletion must be endorsed. --Abu badali ^(talk) 05:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn There was CLEARLY no consensus to delete at IFD as 1 delete and 1 keep does not a consensus make, the only user pushing for this deletion is Abu Badali who has been stalking my contributions for months. Image had a very strong fair use rationale, and met all 10 of the WP:NFCC criterion. Abu Badali's immediate run over to ANI to object to my undeletion clearly shows he's following my actions, as undeletions do not trigger on watchlists.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  Please, avoid personal attacks. Also, as an admin, you should already understand that consensus has nothing to do with counting votes. --Abu badali ^(talk) 05:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  Umm ... I have no idea how he came to be aware of your undeletion, but right after you undeleted the image, you edited it to remove the IFD notice. That would trigger a watchlist. --B 05:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Don't really care but IFD, unlike AFD, is more a question of policy than of consensus. If the !votes for keeping a replaceable fair use image are 10-1 in favor of keeping it, we still delete it. Consensus only matters when it is an editorial question (ie, should a low quality photo or drawing be deleted) rather than a policy one. Personally, I don't see how a mugshot can add significantly to the article. WP:FAIR, paraphrasing Kat Walsh, says that we use non-free images for subjects "that are hard to discuss in an educational context without including examples from the media itself." We could not, for example, discuss the Kent State shootings without the famous photo. But a mug shot? Unless it's someone like William Morva who will be in jail for the rest of his life and a mug shot is the only photo we will ever have, I don't see a reason for it. A mug shot just to illustrate the fact that the guy was arrested isn't that big of a deal. --B 05:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist. I don't see consensus to delete or any policy that trumps consensus. I'm on the fence on Abu's WP:NFCC#8 objection, but that's a judgment call anyway, not a clear matter of policy. When it's relisted, I do think the copyright holder should be clarified per WP:NFCC#10, and I think we need to confirm that it was published (as opposed to just leaked) to satisfy WP:NFCC#4 (unless there's some exception for this sort of public record). -- But|seriously|folks  05:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  Considering that both the rationale and the keep vote failed to explain why this image is necessary for the understanding of the text, and that this alone is ground for deletion, what benefit would a relist do? I see we having like 19 votes saying keep while still not explaining why is this image necessary for the understanding of the text. The image would have to be deleted anyway and a new horde of policy-unsavvy users would come to argue about how the "19x1 consensus" wasn't followed. Please, read the ifd achieves from the last months. If it wasn't for Alkivar breach of admin tools, this ifd wasn't different at all from dozen of others closed daily. --Abu badali ^(talk) 05:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  Mugshots are neither published nor leaked, they are a matter of public record. FWIW, here's an example of this mugshot's use in published journalism. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  Please note that the copyright status was never an issue in the ifd nomination. Unless this image comes out to be free (in each case it's use would be an editorial decision), it shouldn't be used because it doesn't helps in the article's comprehension. --Abu badali ^(talk) 06:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  Strange, I figure the journalist must have had some reason to use it... ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  I have checked the websites of the authorities that arrested him and they said nothing about the copyright status of their images. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  It is disputed whether booking photographs constitute copyrightable subject matter. Authorities provide access to them as public records, they don't publish them as intellectual property. If they are copyrighted, the copyright is held by local governments, i.e. non-commercial entities, thus easing the standards for a fair use claim. In this case, Carlin's booking photo has been published by the media and holds a unique historic value. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment from closer: To respond to User:Anetode's argument "there are many instances of {{mugshot}} use in biographies", all I have to say is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. His second argument about a journalist is also irrelevant. Uses that may be allowed under "fair use" in the U.S. are routinely disallowed here because they are not compatible with the goal of free content. As for its "iconic" status -- cite some reliable sources that discuss it and work them into the article. WP:NFCC #8 is supposed to be pretty clear: The article must need the image such that if it were missing, the reader would have a hard time understanding what the article is trying to say. This really is more of a procedural nomination, despite all claims to the contrary. I could have !voted after which it probably would have been deleted by someone else, citing a consensus, or I figured I'd just save that other person the trouble and just do it. howcheng {chat} 16:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Following your interpretation of NFCC #8 the following all fail Image:TrangBang.jpg Image:Tianasquare.jpg Image:Aftermath_of_the_Bath_School_Disaster.png Image:Hitler walking out of Brown House after 1930 elections.jpg ... your interpretation is absolutely 100% without a doubt impossible to pass for any image.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes and no. Image:TrangBang.jpg and Image:Tianasquare.jpg are both absolutely necessary. No discussions of Phan Thị Kim Phúc and Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 respectively are complete without those photographs. The Bath school disaster, I'm not so sure. The Hitler image is definitely not necessary to the article; there are plenty of free Hitler images there to decorate that article. howcheng {chat} 18:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Images like Image:TrangBang.jpg and Image:Tianasquare.jpg were widely commented about by reliable sources. Other examples include Image:Ap_munich905_t.jpg and Image:Inselian.jpg. That's what it means for an image to be iconic. --Abu badali ^(talk) 19:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Otherstuffexists wasn't an argument for using this particular image, I mentioned it to define the context of prior editorial decisions. That is to say that there are numerous occasions when consensus determined the necessity of using a mugshot in a biography (e.g. Mel Gibson#Alcohol abuse; otherwise, why keep them around?). To address your other point, I believe that there is a clear basis for using this image. It contributes significantly to the article - an editorial stance corroborated by journalists using it for exactly the same purpose. You will be hard pressed to find a discussion of the majesty of this booking photo as it's not an artistic piece. It wasn't exactly like the police department published it in a "best-of" calendar or that this mugshot made it into photography magazines. Nevertheless it does document a very notable event, one studied by first amendment scholars as well as cultural historians. Public records of notable events hold a historic value. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
    • The ifd nomination and deletion was never about an editorial decision. It's about the policy. The "journalists using it for exactly the same purpose" are not committed to free content. In their case, it is only an editorial decision. We can only see this as "clear basis for using this image" if we choose to ignore what WP:NFCC#8 says: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". --Abu badali ^(talk) 23:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• overturn not only the most extremely notable images are important. In the context of his life and activities, this is sufficiently significant to justify itself. DGG (talk) 20:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Here is an example of a story on that incident. It uses that photograph. http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=626471 That's strong evidence that specific photograph is important enough to be fair use. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  This only shows that the image is useful. Do you understand that, for non-free material be used on Wikipedia, it must be far more than simply useful? --Abu badali ^(talk) 23:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  It must, in fact, cure world hunger. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  Your sarcasm is not particularly helpful. The standard set in WP:NFCC #8 is that the image must be required for reader comprehension. howcheng {chat} 16:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. 1) Are mugshots produced in the US really nonfree? I was under the impression that they were uncopyrightable and public record, like trial transcripts. 2) I seem to recall there even being a licensing template for mugshots. 3) Did I miss a discussion somewhere? Heather 22:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, to all questions. I'll number yours for easy reference. :-) 1) It's debatable, see the discussion at answer 3. 2) Why yes, there is, Template:Mugshot. 3) Yes, the discussion is at Template_talk:Mugshot. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks greatly! Heather 23:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore per nom. Golfcam 22:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  This is not a vote. Do you have some new information to add? --Abu badali ^(talk) 23:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  • "I've been convinced by the nominator's arguments" is a perfectly fine statement, and important, lets the closer judge consensus. Convincing people is the goal of the discussion, right? It's not just presenting arguments, and the side with the most different ones wins, but rather the side with the most convincing arguments wins. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 23:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn per Anetode. I don't approve of relisting, most IfDs don't get enough traffic for a debate. Anetode's explanation as to why this image is needed is a good one, indeed, the label "iconic" does not seem incorrect to me. Mangojuice^talk 20:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

  Dispute - An iconic image is one that have been discussed by many reliable sources, won some award, etc., Not one that is specially convenient to decorate a a discussion topic. An image's iconic status must be established outside of Wikipedia. Who, other than wikipedia editors, have considered this image notable? It's surely "useful", as shown by the news articles using them. But there's a long way from "useful" to "notable". This image had no impact on the history, not even in the history of the person depicted. The event it illustrates (the arrest) had a lot of impact, but not all pictures of Elvis are notable images. --Abu badali ^(talk) 23:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

  Could you please consolidate your disputes, as it is you are adding the same argument to nearly every comment that doesn't agree with your position. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

  Remember that the "iconic" thing is meant to apply to press images. This is different, because no one stands to profit from this image in any way. So, since it is an important, non-repeatable historic event, for which no free alternative can be created, and for which omission would harm the article (the mugshot has a unique visual impact that cannot be replaced by words), and on top of that, it has no market use, this image is, in my interpretation, compliant with every one of the 10 points at WP:NFC. You may disagree, but I don't think there's much point in either of us trying to convince the other. Mangojuice^talk 00:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

  • "Remember that the "iconic" thing is meant to apply to press images" -> I don't know where this restriction comes from.
  • "...the mugshot has a unique visual impact that cannot be replaced by words" -> We absolutely do not use non-free images to cause a "visual impact". We use it to discuss topics "that are hard discuss in an educational context without including examples from the media itself."
  • "I don't think there's much point in either of us trying to convince the other" - That the whole point of a discussion! We would be having a poll and counting votes if we didn't believe discussions to be important. --Abu badali ^(talk) 14:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and undelete or dismantle the existence of fair use all-together on Wikipedia. If we're not going to do the latter, then this image clearly satisfies even the most anal interpretation of our fair use guidelines and needs to remain. It isn't here for decoration like most other images we happen to host (the other 99%). Burntsauce 21:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I beg to differ. Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima satisfies the most anal interpretations. That article cannot exist without that photo. That photo has had books written about it, a monument designed after it, and a film made about it. Where is the commentary about this mugshot? howcheng {chat} 22:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Ahh but you see, there are SEVERAL NON-RESTRICTED FREE LICENSED equivalents of that image: Image:First_Iwo_Jima_Flag_Raising.jpg Image:IwoJimaWikipedia.jpg Image:USMC_War_Memorial_Night.jpg so by policy that image should be deleted... but wait your implying we should keep it... how about applying some consistency here!  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Now you've shown your failure to understand the difference between "using an image to illustrate an event" and "using an image to illustrate a discussion about the image itself". Understanding this difference is a pre-requisite for understanding the concept of Fair use as well as for understanding our policy on non-free content. --Abu badali ^(talk) 13:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Exactly. This is a very subtle point that many people simply do not get. The article Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima is about the photograph, not the act of placing of the flag, just like The Falling Man is about that photograph, and Guernica (painting) is about the painting, and not the Bombing of Guernica. This last example is a perfect analogy and maybe it's more obvious because of the different media (painting vs photograph). howcheng {chat} 16:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    • This photograph accompanies critical commentary of the event it documents, it provides a visual context. No, of course it is not as significant as "Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima", few photographs have ever reached that level of renown. You can't write an article entirely on Carlin's mugshot, but the section on his arrest should be expanded. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
      • No, but can you see the difference between the importance of the photograph itself vs. what is depicted in the photograph? Was the mugshot of any importance in and of itself? Was it the target of parody? Were future works inspired because of the mugshot? If you can cite references that state these sorts of things, then the image becomes required to understanding the text. See WP:NFCC #8 -- in order to keep the image, its omission would have to be detrimental to the reader's comprehension. Do you honestly believe that by not having the mugshot, people would not be able to get that Carlin was arrested? I certainly don't have such a low opinion of our readers. howcheng {chat} 16:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Here's how it works: Carlin was arrested, this is documented by public records, of which this mugshot is definitive proof. Just as our editorial policies allow us to exercise fair use by quoting sources to verify biographies, they allow us the freedom to illustrate and identify important events as captured in the public record. There seems to be a higher standard on Wikipedia for fair use claims on visual intellectual property, but it is exactly the sort of information that cannot be conveyed by a free alternative. No Wikipedian is in a position to provide a free alternative to 70's booking photo. Your approach is certainly valid when applied to visual works of art and controversial photographs, but I think that it is mistaken when it comes to irreplacable visual media which documents notable events. Again I would like to assert that it is my opinion that the omission of this image would be to the reader's detriment. Again I would like to assert that it appears that I am not alone in that judgment. Again I would like to point out that the apparent fetishizing of NFCC#8 has a flawed basis if it is used to automatically dismiss the valid editorial opinions of other contributors. I don't have a low opinion of our readers, I respect that they realize and appreciate the superior coverage provided by our use of visual media to document a historic event. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
          • What do you mean by "...quoting sources to verify biographies"? --Abu badali ^(talk) 00:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
          • Please, do not misunderstand the meaning of "replaceable" in the context of Wikipedia's policy. It's the encyclopedic purpose of the image that should be taken into account. If a 70's booking photo in only used to convey the information that someone was arrested, it's replaceable... by free text. --Abu badali ^(talk) 00:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
            • By that I mean public records are sources in and of themselves, it is a unique property which adds greatly to their usefulness. The Milwaukee Police Department released a booking photo of George Carlin, booking photos are used to verify identity and arrest. This quality pertains directly to the necessity of the image. While you can convey the information that someone was arrested by text, you can do the same for absolutely any event. Many arrests are unimportant, Carlin's had a historic significance, it deserves to be documented. Perhaps not to the extent that the Iwo Jima flag raising deserved to be documented, but the mugshot has a definite historic value. You see, this is the locus of our dispute. The interpretation of NFCC#8 that leads you to want to delete this image is logically flawed, as it depends on undue weight to the image reviewer's judgment. If you look on the framework of the ten NFC criteria as a whole, you will see that they attempt to balance US fair use standards with editorial necessity. Fair use images have to be previously published - this is an objective standard for determining editorial value. Fair use images must be irreplacable - this is a standard used to determine the necessity of a fair use claim. Fair use claims must respect the commercial prospects of any photo as a piece of intellectual property - this standard determines whether a fair use claim has any standing given US copyright law. Your choice of NFCC#8 is rather obvious, as it is the only one where editorial judgment must be applied. Note that the NFCC do not require sourced discussion of an image, this appears to be a tangential criterion used by "fair use inquisitors" as something to fall back on. Again, previous publication is evidence of editorial value. Your IfD nomination of this image didn't even specify any NFC criterion, it was a haphazard attempt to get rid of an image you, personally, did not see the value of. Everything that has followed has been a sad sort of game where you attempt to nitpick Wikipedia policy to establish a set of rules skewed towards a biased and ultimately myopic interpretation of our mission to create an encyclopedia. This isn't about editors striving to suppress free content (wonder why I've been going on about replaceability?), this is indeed about the encyclopedic purpose of using a copyrighted image. And it is that very purpose that you insist on denying without any acknowledgment the importance of the arrest or its public record. Note that I am not objecting to your nomination of Image:George carlin headshot.jpg, a photograph that has no particular historical or editorial significance, where Wikipedia use clearly infringes on copyright. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The closer followed correct procedure. NFCC #8 requires that a non-free photograph be used only when it conveys important, encyclopedic information that words alone cannot. The use of this mugshot does not aid the readers understanding of the incident more than the statement that he was arrested. I don't see any way to read NFCC#8 that would allow us to use this image. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Abby Abadi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article on a Malaysian actress got tagged for A7 at the start of an AfD, and was deleted while I was typing up my keep !vote. Arguably, it might technically meet A7, since it doesn't explicitly assert that she is a popular or significant actress. However, despite the lack of notability boilerplate, the evidence suggests that she is very popular in Malaysia. She won the Anugerah Bintang Popular Award for "Most Popular TV Actress" in 2000, 2001, and 2002.[41] She has a major role on a popular TV series, Gerak Khas, and its spinoff feature films. She's got 50 News Archive hits[42], and her raw Ghit count of about 20K[43] strikes me as pretty good considering that a) Malaysia is a less wired country with a smaller population, and b) her peak of popularity seems to have been around 2000-2002. Overturn speedy; I'm indifferent to whether the article is relisted on AfD, if anyone still doubts her notability. Groggy Dice T | C 03:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment If the cache is accurate of the state of the article at the time of deletion, why not just recreate it? Corpx 03:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - you are making arguments that would be more appropriate in an AFD. As far as I can tell, the process was followed here and if you wish to recreate the article with a more specific assertion of notability, then at least it won't be speedied (maybe AFD'ed to be fair). ugen64 03:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I admit I was a bit hasty in speedy-tagging this, but the lack of claimed notability in the article got me. I'm taking this as a lesson to research stuff a little better before tagging. I say re-create an article if you want. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion appearing in non-notable movies (they don't have articles) is not a claim of importance, and that's all the deleted article claimed. Feel free to recreate with sources and a claim of importance... I will userfy the content if you really need it but there was just one sentence of prose. --W.marsh 04:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I did consider just recreating it, but since I don't know the original author, I preferred to get the history restored so he would get proper credit. If someone wants to move it to my userspace, that's fine. As for the assumption that her movies are non-notable because they don't have articles, that's apparently not a battle I have to fight today. Userfy and close. --Groggy Dice T | C 04:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • If this is recreated with a clear claim of notability, I'll be happy to undelete the history. If no one here objects, I'll userfy it for Groggy Dice. DES ^(talk) 07:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Userfy to Groggy Dice per discussion above. Bridgeplayer 16:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Restored and userfied to User:Groggy Dice/Abby Abadi. DES ^(talk) 18:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

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

As explained in the discussion in my talk page, the article is notable and I did referenced more than just websites, I referenced two leading newspapers and media sites that wrote articles ABOUT BWITTY and not just mentioned bwitty. I think it should be recosidered. I don't like being called a sockpuppet, because I do try and write articles on various subjects. I wrote many Israeli atricles and I put time and effort into this one, and I want the deletion to be recosidered because if I referenced to articles about this subject it is notable according to the Wikipedia rules. According to WP:CORP, bwitty has been the subject of secondary sources. And those sources are the biggest newspapers in Israel, you can't get more reliable, and independent of the subject. It's not Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject. I saw a few more in-print articles, and I'm quite sure I saw something on the TV at the time. But, I can only reference to what I have online. MyWiseData 15:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• This may be notable. It was deleted as "Corporate promotion", that is WP:CSD#G11 spam. And the article in the last version before deletion does have rather an advertising flyer tone. Phrases such as "bWitty Notes, allow users to create...", "Notes are saved online, thus allowing users to access them everywhere with Internet access.", "bWitty is compatible with all major web browsers", "WittySearch featured a new complex system of search" evoke the marketer, not the encyclopedist, IMO. Thus it was not unreasonable to delete this as spam, no matter how many references there were. Weak endorse but with no prejudice against recreation in a more encyclopedic tone, and I'll be happy to userfy if so requested. DES ^(talk) 15:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment It's possible it needs to be modified, but I can fix it instead of deleting the article. The "Corporate promotion" claim was made before I created the article, it was once deleted (I didn't create the original one) and I re-create it with new information because I think it is notable, it was one of my first articles so it might not be perfect, but it can be fixed. MyWiseData 17:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

"Corporate promotion", was the reason given in the deletion log for the final deletion (the only deletion under this exact spelling) which occurred after your edits. The deleting admin apparently thought it applied to the version resulting from your edits, and looking at that version, I can't say this was grossly wrong. Note that there is currently no prohibition on recreation, and as far as I can see, no DRV is required for such a recreation. DES ^(talk) 17:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

So you suggest I recreate the page? I rather feel that the deletion should be undone and then I'll fix the problems with the article. Otherwise, it's kinda useless to create it now. MyWiseData ^(talk) 18:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Up to you, but you may not get support for overturning the deletion. (Indeed so far no one has supported doing so.) Note that I have offered to userfy -- that is, to place a copy of the article as it was just prior to deletion (with all its history) in your userspace, for you to use as a basis for creating a more acceptable article, which could then be moved back into the article space. Still want to push for overturning the deletion first? DES ^(talk) 18:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

If you "userfy" this article, and I rewrite it and post it again, why would it now be deleted all over again? Would you mind helping me fixing the article so it will be fit? MyWiseData ^(talk) 19:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Any article can, at any time, be sent to WP:AFD if any editor thinks that it ought to be deleted, even if it has bene kept previously. There a discussion is normally held, to determine whether the aricle will be delted or not. in that discussion, issues such as the notability of the topic, and the degree to which this has been established by Reliable sources are often raised. if you accept userfication I'll be glad to assit you. on the other hand, if this discussion procedes and the article is undelted, it is likely to be listed on Afd fairly propmptly, and it will then be important to fix any problems durign the 5-day course of the Afd discussion. DES ^(talk) 21:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• overturn and list at afd I think it was fixable, so deleting it by speedy to abort an afd was out of order. Deletion was requested as A7, tho it clearly did claim notability. However, it was deleted using A11 , saying "corporate promotion," but g11 is for corporate promotion that can not be reasonably turned into an article. The afd should have been permitted to proceed. The matter seems to have been arguable, so it should have been argued. This is not the place to make decisions about notability. AfD is. 'DGG (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Not an unreasonable point of view. DES ^(talk) 21:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Endorse deletion. There is no lack of a full deletion process. This article went through a full AfD as 'BWitty' back in April 2007. It closed as Delete. It just went through a second AfD on 22 July that was speedy closed as Delete. See also log for Bwitty and log for BWitty. Most recently its notability issues were discussed at length at User talk:MyWiseData#Deletion of bWitty. As someone pointed out in the 2nd AfD, BWitty gets less than one hit per day on Alexa; there are about 7 million web sites that are more popular. Take a look at http://www.answers.com/bwitty if you feel it may have been unjustly neglected. I can't tell if the first and second articles were the same (BW versus Bw) because I can't see the first one; however the version now at answers.com does not seem to have third-party references that establish notability. The logs show that one spelling was moved to the other in May, and User:utcursch's name appears in the log because he deleted a redirect. I filled in the AfD pointer in the DRV header above to point to the 'BWitty' AfD since I don't perceive the criticisms raised there have been answered. If you think the articles are substantively different, you can undo this. EdJohnston 03:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment. If you look at Answers you see a link to YNET, there you have an article about bwitty that was printed in the Israeli biggest newspaper (Yedioth, and in YNET the biggest Israeli news website. What's more notable than that? Regarding Alexa, their way of measuring popularity is disputed, just lately Nilsen NetRatings changed their system of measuring websites popularity to time spent in page instead of views. Alexa measures US traffic mostly, I think the Israeli market is invisible to Alexa. And in any case, notably it not a popularity contest. MyWiseData ^(talk) 10:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Please let us know if you have found any reliable sources that comment on Bwitty in English. The ynet.co.il reference is in Hebrew, so I can't tell whether it's a passing mention or a full treatment. Also there's nothing in the text of the article at answers.com which indicates that the subject is notable. Simply being an ISP isn't notable by itself. Offering a sticky note application isn't notable if no third party has commented on its signficance, especially if its user base is completely unknown. EdJohnston 14:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I don't have English translated articles. On the other hand, most articles about Israeli issues (people & etc.) don't have English backing for them. You can see Galila Ron-Feder Amit, Dana Berger, QText. The latter, it the best important example, every Israeli that had a computer before the Pentium age knows what QText is, but no English speaking person will have any clue. And it QText is not notable, nothing is. Still, I can't find you articles about QText in English. Give me some credit, that I won't refer you to an article in a language you don't speak and tell you it's about something it's not. Look at the pictures in the article, they are from the bWitty wesbite. MyWiseData ^(talk) 14:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely no requirement that supporting references be in English. It is however reasonable to ask for a translation of the key portions. DGG (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. As has been pointed out above, Alexa shows that hardly anyone uses this website. Furthermore, this has been through two deletion processes already and only one person is arguing that it should now be restored. I cannot resist commenting that I would be surprised if WP:COI were not at play here in some form. The original deleted entry for bWitty appeared at the same time as the obvious vanity article for Amit Avner, which also sounded like an advertorial. TreveX^talk 18:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

We are not discussing the old article, I would appreciate if you stopped accusing me of stuff (from being a sock puppet to WP:COI). I have no connection with the previous articles, and I won't defend them. I can only discuss about my work. MyWiseData ^(talk) 20:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - my gran's facebook profile gets more hits than this website.[44] Peterharris 18:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

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

This is a common phrase used in New Berlin, put it back up! It will catch on. Brian002100 17:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted I disagree that WP:CSD#G1 applied, as the page is perfectly readable, and not gibberish. However, the page unambiguously does not belong in the encyclopedia. WP:CSD#G10 or WP:CSD#G3 would have been better speedy deletion criteria, even though they are each imperfect. GRBerry 17:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• What is "New Berlin"? Corvus cornix 18:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

New Berlin, Wisconsin, incubator of cultural phenomenons it seems. Kuru ^talk 18:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that hotbed of cultural renaissance. Corvus cornix 20:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, agreed that it's not technically G1, but closer to WP:CSD#G3. Article and accompanying personal photo were simple graffiti. Kuru ^talk 19:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Please just restore it. Its not hurting you. I will make it appear nice. I have like 20 people working on it that want it restored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian002100 (talk • contribs)

I would like to see this page replaced. This quote has become popular in New Berlin, WI and around Milwaukee, WI. If this page does not deserve to be replaced, I believe it should be added to the New Berlin, Wisconsin page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bladder123 (talk • contribs)

• Keep deleted per GRBerry and Kuru. -- Gogo Dodo 19:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Can it be added to the New Berlin, Wisconsin page? (To Gogo Dodo) -- Bladder123 19:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

What nonsense - what do you know about the saying "Get in the truck"? Let people use this site the way it was intended.

• I want to oppose, but... This was not a proper speedy, it clearly was not Patent Nonsense, and i don't think any of the other speedy deletion criteria really applied either. But this is so clearly non-notable and non-encyclopedic that in this rare case I have to say that restoring this would truly be an exercise in pointless process. However, I very much wish that the deleting admin had used {{prod}} instead -- this sort of thing is exactly what prod is for, IMO. DES ^(talk) 23:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Hardly. The sockpuppeteer/vandal (whose two accounts have now been blocked) would just have removed the prod tag, and then we'd be stuck with this crap for five days. Corvus cornix 23:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per the law of inevitable deletion. Really inevitable in this case. --W.marsh 01:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, yes... it wasn't a G1 but there is no chance this would survive an AFD as an obvious neologism.--Isotope23 ^talk 02:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion-nonsense. Ratherduarm 02:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - common sense. ugen64 03:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, if not G1 it's G3, wouldn't come close to surviving an AFD. --Coredesat 05:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Gerak Khas (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was originally tagged as an A1 (lacking context). After I mentioned it in a discussion as an example of an over-hasty tagging, ugen64 looked at the article and deleted it under A7. However, I certainly see the article's claim to be a "long running Malaysian television series" that became the basis for three films to be an assertion of notability. Searching Google News Archive turns up 145 hits[45], of which about 115 or so seem to be related to the show or its movies (GK apparently means "special forces" in Malay, so there's an army unit and some other entities). These hits describe GK as popular, a hit, a blockbuster, etc. If these claims of popularity can be debunked, it should be at an AfD; the subject passes the A7 threshold. So, overturn. Groggy Dice T | C 16:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn It passes A7, for one thing, there is no provision to use A7 for movie series (or other creative works). Whether or not the series is notable is a question for AfD. DGG (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn This was not an A1 (it had content), and as DGG says it had at least an assertion of significance, plus A7 simply soent' apply to TV sereis, movies, books, or other such creatice content. DES ^(talk) 23:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - A1 has nothing to do with content, just context. If you want, this one can be Relisted on AFD where it will probably fail (for example a search for "Gerak Khas" movie -wikipedia comes up with less than 1000 Google hits). ugen64 03:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
    • This is one of those cases where Google is giving funky results. If you search for "gerak khas" movie with wikipedia, you will get around 400 hits. In theory, then, "gerak khas" movie should give around 1400 hits. In fact, you get around 10,000. If you search for "gerak khas" movie OR television, you should be guaranteed more hits than searching for movie alone, but in fact the number shrinks to 900 hits. Given this weird behavior, I trust the News Archive results more. --Groggy Dice T | C 05:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
      • The reason why "Gerak Khas" Wikipedia gets a lot of hits is because there are other references to "Gerak Khas" on Wikipedia and related pages (for example, Grup Gerak Khas). Also, you will notice if you go all the way to the end, that there are only 365 unique Google hits for "Gerak Khas" movie, because the original number of over 10,000 includes duplicate hits. ugen64 14:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, and possibly relist. Yet another abuse of speedy deletion. Evouga 06:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn if the matter needs argument, Afd is the place to do so. Speedy is only for incontestable deletions. ugen64 may be right, but Afd is where he should be making the argument. DGG (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  You already said that. See above at 18:05. Picaroon (Talk) 22:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn, the article asserted notability, even if it wouldn't appear to be much. A7 if for where there is no assertion at all. Picaroon (Talk) 22:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn- clearly A7 is not appropriate here. -- DS1953 ^talk 22:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Storylines of EastEnders (2000s) (EastEnders storylines nomination) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Overturn and delete - yes, it is true that more people wanted the articles kept than deleted. However, AFD is not a vote. The arguments offered by the keepers do not address the cut-and-dried WP:PLOT policy violations of these articles. The 2000s article was AFDed and closed no consensus with the only argument saving it being that the article would be brought into compliance with policy. This editing didn't happen and in fact no editing happened on the article at all. The "we didn't have enough time" and the "we need the articles to write better articles" arguments should not save the articles, as the content can be userfied rather than left in article space until such time as the editors have time to bring it into compliance. The only other argument for keeping the articles, that the articles are part of an overall approach to the series and that having the massive plot articles is better than having individual articles on every episode of the soap opera, not only puts forth a dilemma that doesn't exist (there does not appear to be any interest in writing individual articles for each episode) and ignores the black and white statement of WP:PLOT which specifies that a plot summary may be appropriate as part of an overview of the work but not as a separate article. The "overall approach" argument has been soundly rejected for separate plot summary articles for everything from Buffy the Vampire Slayer to Les Miserables to All My Children and the argument is no better here. Closing admin, while acknowledging that AFD is not a vote count, still did a bit of vote counting but also stated that editing could take care of policy concerns. I strongly disagree and, given that the strongest advocate of keeping the articles is not editing the existing articles but is instead starting over from scratch, the policy concern of WP:PLOT is not overcome by the possibility of editing (which is not being done). The necessary work was not done to save the articles, the policy concerns override the majority and the keep arguments do not answer the blatant policy violations. Otto4711 12:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse as closing admin. I agree on the merits with Otto, but do not think a "delete" close would have been acceptable here. AfD closers generally only override consensus when the core policies V, NPOV and NOR are violated, because these policies are not subject to amendment by consensus. This is not the case with WP:NOT#PLOT. Additionally, the PLOT concerns can conceivably be addressed by merging, which does not require deletion. See also the prior discussion at my talk. Sandstein 13:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Sandstein's reasoning makes sense. --W.marsh 13:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse The matter is not quite as well settled as Otto says, as the opinion in disagreement on the AfD make evident. Nor has the "overall content argument" been decisively rejected -- there were other arguments in each case, and, in each case, the final decision was not overwhelming. But he does say , correctly, that there has been an inconsistency in the results of AfD. This issue needs a wider discussion. Everything considered, the close was as appropriate as the closes in the other direction. DGG (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Is there a single AFD for a plot summary article, other than these and its fellow EastEnders article Who Shot Phil? (which actually had work done on it unlike this one), that has survived AFD? Every instance has resulted in either deletion or merger; none but these have survived. Has the overall context argument ever been accepted, or any other AFD in which it has been advanced, closed with a keep? Because I'm not seeing it. I'm not sure how you can suggest that the argument against plot summary articles hasn't been settled when every other unimproved plot summary article has ended with a deletion (or in a single instance, a questionable merge).
• As an aside, assuming that the closure is endorsed, is there some sort of timeframe where, if and when these articles are not improved, the "we need more time" arguments will be discounted? I, obviously, would have thought that a month with no activity would have been enough but apparently not. Otto4711 19:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete No compelling argument was made in the AfD other than that of overall context and "we need more time". WP:NOT#PLOT is policy. --Phirazo 22:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete I opined to delete in the AFD - "A brief plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic, but not as a separate article." WP:NOT#PLOT Seems cut and dry to me. Corpx 03:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• endorse This is not the place to make policy. There's obvious disagreement on the matter, and the place to debate it is at Afd, and that was done. If someone thinks that all plot articles should be deleted, this is not the place to show it. If someone thinks it is not being improved, the place to discuss that is Afd, in a reasonable amount of time after the first afd. I suggest 3 months. DGG (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Please do not vote twice. I've struck your second vote through. Sandstein 20:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• It hardly seems reasonable to try to cast a quoting of policy as an attempt to make policy. Otto4711 02:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment Is this a new discussion? It isn't advertised on the article(s) themselves, which hardly seems fair. Stephenb (Talk) 07:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Fixed. I added an DRV notice to the three affected articles. --Phirazo 17:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

DJ-Kicks: Tiga (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Deleted by User:Philippe with no reason given in the deletion log. After discussing it on his talk page it seems that he deleted it because he felt it wasn't notable or didn't assert notability, but this isn't a valid reason to delete an article about a music album; csd a7 doesn't cover albums. P4k 05:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• List on AFD - I could see the argument for CSD A7 but I tend to agree with your argument here. ugen64 05:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• I don't undertand why you are claiming that there was no reason given in the deletion log, when it clearly says "{{db-spam}}". Corvus cornix 16:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and list at AfD It does not seem to be any more of an advertisement than most sarticles about albums. DGG (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Corvus cornix, read the discussion on Phillippe's talk page where he states that he deleted it because of notability concerns. My initial assumption was that he deleted it because of spam, but apparently that wasn't the case. You can call that tag a "reason" if you want, but it's not why the article was deleted.--P4k 21:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist; yet another misuse of A7. Evouga 06:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Overturn The deletion log would lead one to believe this was deleted as spam - it was surely tagged as spam. It is basically a factual (or allegedly factual I haven't verified) description of an album, with the only possible puffery being a mention that critics have praised aspects of it. But that is just the kind of "reaction" info we often ask for in articles about creative works such as albums, books, and films. The deleting admin says here "I deleted it because I saw no notability in the article. It appears to be one article by an artist with no assertion of notability." That would be WP:CSD#A7 no where mentioned or implied in the deletion log. But in the first place, A7 doesn't apply to albums; in the second, "Tiga has been praised by critics by using his mixing skills in this compilation" would be an assertion of significance if A7 did apply; in the third place, the link to the apparently notable DJ-Kicks series would at least suggest notability for this element of the series; in the fourth place, the link to Tiga (musician), where it says the artist is "widely known for his remixes" would also at least suggest notability. DES ^(talk) 07:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)