Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 3

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

see also Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#Daverotherham

This request for checkuser was rejected on the grounds that "Checkuser is not for fishing". Piccadilly 16:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

deletion started for leader of one of Jersey's political parties by secretary of Jersey's other political party RichardColgate 00:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Restore Looking at the cached version on google, this person is notable in Jersey, which though small is an independent state. Aviara 00:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Relist Jersey is smaller than the typical nation, so I'm not sure if we should count it as the state. But the AFD shows no acknowledgment of the nominator's conflict of interest, nor any awareness by other participants of his role in the local political scene. As such, I don't think it constitutes an informed consensus about what to do with the article. I'm not completely confident that we do want the article, so sending it back to AFD is reasonable. GRBerry 01:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Restore Is both notable in Jersey and deletion was suggested by political opponent as per user page for User:Daverotherham, so clear conflict of interest. No independent Jersey persons involved in initial vote so not an informed concensus CathyTurpin 02:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. It doesn't really matter to me what happens to this article. If I find this overturned, I won't mind at all. Sr13 06:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• CommentRichard and Cathy are not declaring their interest on Darius's side, either, so they should not cast the first stones at me! To assess Richard's reliability and integrity from his own words, contrast his claim that Darius is leader of CP(J) here with his own edit of the Centre Party (Jersey) entry, where he cites Roger Benest as the leader.Daverotherham 15:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment See Progress Jersey an organization in which the subject was active, and the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progress Jersey. DES ^(talk) 16:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Restore Fairly notable person, thoroughly lousy procedure. Piccadilly 16:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn The main reasons for deletion given were "Running for a minor office and losing ... means this isn't notable", and "I don't think road inspectors are notable." This appeared to ignore the documented history of broader political activity, including being a significant part of multiple campaigns that successfully influenced legislative outcomes in jersey. DES ^(talk) 16:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn non-representative discussion at AfD that altogether failed to take account of the article. It does seem possible that the deletion is based on a partisan political feud DGG 20:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Prior to deletion the article was independently edited by two very active Jersey resident editors, Man Vyi and Tonytheprof, neither of whom felt the need to suggest a deletion, this was at the direct request of Daverotherham in line with wikipedia procedures. Whilst Daverotherham may feel that the subject is non-notable, Wikipedia is about concensus and the concensus would appear to be otherwise. If the subject is so non-notable then why spend so much time trying to get this page and any page remotely related to the subject removed? RichardColgate 21:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn weren't we supposed to counter systemic bias or something?  Grue  21:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I am trying to strip Centre Party (Jersey) related entries of self-promotion and self-advertising. I admit that being Jersey based too, I care about what is said about Jersey politics in a way that I don't about local politics in Des Moines, Iowa for instance, and I bet people there don't care about Jersey politics either. However, I also strongly believe in the principles of Wikipedia, and where I have judiciously invoked the "ignore all rules" principle, I have each time left the article better than I found it, even if others came after with further changes. The thing about stripping the self-promotion out of CP(J) related entries, is that some of them don't have any substance left, so they should go altogether. I have started a thread at the Village Pump on Local, Regional, National, to seek a wider consensus on the underlying issue in this and the rest of the suite of articles I asked to be deleted, which is whether ward officials are ward officials anywhere, or whether they count as regional politicians if the nation is too small to have real regions.Daverotherham 14:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It is not like an entry was created for every single elected official who must take an oath of office before the Royal Court; the rules state that significant press coverage and renown in the community as well as a regional position are required for inclusion on wikipedia. Therefore Geraint Jennings for his work in promoting Jersiase, Peter Pearce the only Jersey person ever to defeat the Bailiff of Jersey in a legal case in Jersey, Daren O'Toole who gets more press coverage than most States Members and Darius Pearce who also gets more press coverage than most politicians would merit a page whilst most would not. That they are all from St Helier is not surprising as St Helier incorporates more than half the total population of Jersey, we are unlikely to see any members of the other eleven Municipalities appear; even the Deputies and Constables as they simply do not get enough press coverage to merit it. That you left Geraint Jennings up means that you must agree with this or why not seek to delete that page? See: Wikipedia:Notability_(people) politiciansRichardColgate 17:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment There, You admit it. Significant press coverage, not occasional mentions, and regional positions, not ward and parish ones. Peter Pearce's entry was not about interesting litigation, it was about failing to reach high office, holding low office and, until another editor with respect for Wikipedia cleaned it up, being related to Darius J Pearce. (By the way, Peter and myself were colleagues in a now-defunct single issue political group a few years ago, and I have no personal axe to grind against him). Quote some references regarding Daren O'Toole's significant secondary coverage. I buy the Jersey Evening Post daily and have never noticed his name there. Darius gets occasional press, but no more than many others without entries, least of all entries that read like draft election leaflets. St. Helier does not have more than half of the population of Jersey, it has roughly a third - yet one more example of the systematic self-inflation in DariusJersey/RichardColgate/CathyTurpin contributions.I agree with Geraint Jennings notability, but I disagree with categorising him as a politician.Daverotherham 06:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Gates family (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Overturn and restore There was no consensus to delete this category. The legitimacy of categories for family categories has long been established, so there was no justification for the closer to override the debate. Sumahoy 22:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn Clearly closed without consensus. Each side asserted precedents, and no convincing arguments. Clsoed merely as "delete par precedent"
  • Note: sockpuppet account, as described here. >Radiant< 06:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn No consensus, and a reasonable category of a common type. Not within the bounds of reasonable admin discretion. Olborne 23:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: sockpuppet account, as described here. >Radiant< 06:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. As I stated in the closing, there is ample precedent for this. If anyone wants links, I'll be happy to get them. --Kbdank71 00:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Doesn't endorsing your own decision amount to voting twice? Aviara 00:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Would it be considered original research to link a DRV where a sockpuppet who's "voted" three times in support of his own nomination commenting on the impropriety of voting more than once to Irony? Otto4711 01:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• • • Polling is not a substitute for discussion.--WaltCip 02:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Putting a word in bold like that in the middle of a discussion gives the appearance of changing the balance of the debate. At present it looks like someone has backed the closer, when no one actually has. OrchWyn 02:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn There are thousands of family categories, many of them about less prominent families than this one. Aviara 00:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: sockpuppet account, as described here. >Radiant< 06:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn No case has been made why this should be deleted while 156 other American families have a category. There was no consensus to delete. Membership of the Gates family is the most notable thing about the members with articles other than Bill Gates. OrchWyn 02:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: sockpuppet account, as described here. >Radiant< 06:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. Just because some American families have a category, it does not follow that all of them have a category. The debate was closed properly; the "keep" arguments boil down to the classic fallacy WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, as well as the argument that we should employ two redundant navigational systems. Since there are other families named "gates", use an annotated list for comprehensiveness. >Radiant< 09:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • No fallacy is involved. The supposition that there is a consensus that family categories should be deleted is entirely unproven, as only minor family categories have been deleted. This is similar to the situation with settlements. On a few occasions categories for tiny towns and villages have been deleted, but this does not mean that anyone thinks that Category:Paris is not appropriate. Sumahoy 13:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - precedent is clear. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not. There have been many, many cases where family categories have been kept. Around three dozen for Polish noble families alone. The recent deletions have all been of families at the bottom end of the notability scale, so they carry no weight whatsoever as precedents for more notable families. Sumahoy 13:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn CFD precedent is not convincing... family categories are useful even if CFD regulars don't like them. I've seen these "listified" and that is usually quite silly for small families. --W.marsh 13:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Arbitrary closure that overwrote the discussion on the basis of personal preference and precedents that don't stand up. Osomec 13:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: sockpuppet account, as described here. >Radiant< 06:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - dozens if not hundreds of family categories have been deleted. The precedent for such deletions is clearly established. The "precedents" cited by the keepers are the existence of family categories in general. It's likely that every category put up for deletion has a category similar to it that hasn't been deleted yet, so adopting other categories exist as "precedent" would effectively shut down CFD. Other keep arguments were based on the prominence of the Gates family. This argument does not stand up, as other prominent families (such as the hotelier Hilton family and the real estate Trump family) have had their categories deleted and prominence is not a justification for a category. None of the keepers rebutted the argument of the nomination, which is that categories named for people are overcategorization in the absence of an exceptional reason for the category (such reason was not offered here) and that the existing Gates family article is superior in every way as a navigational hub because it not only links all the articles, it also explains the relationahips between the family members, something a category can never do. Closing admin correctly recognized the superior precedent in this instance and correctly ignored the poor arguments of the keepers. Otto4711 14:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • None of these examples relate to truly major families. The inference that any family category would be deleted is not proven, and not even remotely credible. After all, there wasn't even a consensus in this case. Piccadilly 16:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• You and the keepers continually raise this issue of "major" families. I would say that the founder of a multi-billion dollar international hotel chain and his family are pretty "major" but the category for the Hilton family was deleted because it was recognized that it was overcategorization. "The family is important" or "prominent" or "notable" or "truly major" are not valid arguments for keeping categories. Every person with a Wikipedia article is "notable" but we don't need eponymous categories for every person. Any argument based on how "prominent" or "notable" the family is, is a ridiculous argument. Presidents of the United States and other world leaders are important too, but we have deleted categories for Presidents and other world leaders, not because they weren't "truly major" enough, but because the material being captured by the category didn't warrant the categorization. There is no basis in any policy or guideline that I can find that says that how "truly major" a subject is has anything to do with whether a category is needed. Such judgments about how "truly major" a family is are irrevocably POV as there is no objective standard for what constitutes a "truly major" family. Since no arguments were advanced for keeping the category that weren't mired in POV, the closing admin properly relied on the precedent of the dozens upon dozens of similar deletions. The keepers had the chance to rebut the nomination and all they came up with was how "truly major" the family is. That's not a rebuttal and it quite rightly did not save the category. Otto4711 19:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that the category system is a navigational tool, a major family in this context is one with many articles. There are some family categories with hundreds of articles (including articles in subcategories), primarily categories for European royal houses, and I don't believe any such category has ever been deleted. Of course families with many members with articles will tend to have made a "major" collective impact on history. But this is all to look at categories the wrong way around. Categorization is based on the identification of the defining qualities of the subject matter. Whenever a person belongs to a well known family, that is a defining quality for them. Therefore even two item family categories should be kept. Sumahoy 01:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the notion that a family category is required because two family members are notable is ridiculous. And even if it weren't, the Gates family contained something like five articles. If the definition of "major family" is "one with many articles" then the Gates family doesn't qualify. Or if the Gates family qualifies, then so do the Baldwin brothers and the Arquette family, which had a comparable number of articles. So your contention that no "major families" have had categories deleted, by your own standard, is not true. Of course none of this demonstrates why "major family" should be adpopted as any sort of standard, none of it demonstrates that by your definition the Gates family is a "major family" and none of it demonstrates why this category should be treated as an exception to the generally accepted standard for categories named after people, which is that the coverage is split into multiple articles which cannot otherwise easily be categorized. Otto4711 01:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, valid interpretation of the debate and valid deletion - the number of notable members of the Gates family is too small to make a category worthwhile. Guy (Help!) 15:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn The only reason that can be put forward to backing this deletion is "I agree with it because... ". But that isn't a valid argument on this page. The advocates of deletion had an opportunity to make their case in the discussion and they did not prevail. The closer than came to the discussion and saw a debate that he did not approve of. He could have closer the debate in accordance with the actual outcome and made a mental note to renominate the category after a decent interval. What he actually did was in accordance with neither the letter nor the spirit of the rules set out on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. Piccadilly 16:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• I note that one participant who started off as a "strong keep" struck out his !vote. I note that no one from the delete side changed or otherwise altered their !vote. It appears that the delete arguments "prevailed" over at least one keeper, whereas the keep arguments of "the family is prominent" and "other family categories exist" persuaded no one. Otto4711 19:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn per nom. No consensus means no change. Annandale 22:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Relist at AFD to warrant further discussion.--WaltCip 15:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Balance of arguments is sufficiently clear to justify close. Eluchil404 17:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse close although the closer merely cited precedent, most deleters gave more reasons; the precedent is based on the ultimate lack of utility of these categories for most families -- here there are articles about 5 people, who are all presumably linked at Gates family, the category is redundant as the link goes in or should go in each bio, notably, there are only 5 Gates (of the Microsoft Gates) out of the approximately 40-50 people listed at Gates who have WP articles. Does anyone really think this is comparable to the other family categories that are useful like the Category:Rothschild family of 100+ articles and only a few unrelated Rothschilds have WP articles. Carlossuarez46 00:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:American murderers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Overturn renaming to Category:Americans convicted of murder and restore to the standard name Category:American murderers. There was no consensus for this renaming to a form which is not consistent with the category's 44 siblings of murderer-categories or numerous American siblings. There have been several discussions on the issue of adding the word "convicted" to crime related categories, and the reasons why it is not appropriate have been set out in this debate and others. There was no justification for this arbitary admin override of convention, precedent and debate. Sumahoy 22:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Note: sockpuppet account, as described here. >Radiant< 06:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn No consensus. Not within the bounds of reasonable admin discretion. It qualifies for speedy renaming to what it was before! Olborne 23:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: sockpuppet account, as described here. >Radiant< 06:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, as usual. The only thing that the keep crowd could point to was "but is say convicted in the intro". And as I said in the closing, Readers shouldn't have to navigate to a category to find out what it means, it should be evident from the name itself. By looking at the name, it was unclear as to the meaning. --Kbdank71 00:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Doesn't endorsing your own decision amount to voting twice? Aviara 00:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply Closing admins are requested/expected to explain their rationale. This is not voting twice. If your premise of this question were correct, then no one who commented on the CFD would be allowed to comment here. What would be improper would be if the closing admin also were to close the DRV, and that would obviously not happen. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I see several compelling arguments that have nothing to do with the intro. This category cannot accurately meet its full purpose if it it restricted in this way. Related categories are not so restricted. OrchWyn 02:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, despite some disagreement. I can say that I might have closed this as "no consensus," but I don't think this was far out of line. I do think the closing creates some problems. As I noted on Kbdank's page, this does weird things to Lee Harvey Oswald, Baby Face Nelson, and Bugsy Siegel, who were all killers and not convicted of murder. But the closing wasn't improper. If the other murderers categories are brought up, this might get reconsidered, but that's a reasonable process to follow.--Mike Selinker 00:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore old name As Mike Selinker admits, this produces a factually incorrect outcome, and it does not reflect the will of the community. Aviara 00:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: sockpuppet account, as described here. >Radiant< 06:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn There's no justification for treating this item differently from the related items. If it is felt a change is required they should be renominated en masse. OrchWyn 02:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: sockpuppet account, as described here. >Radiant< 06:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note on the original discussion There were two identical discussions on the same day. The one reached by clicking on "No consensus" in the nomination is not the main one. OrchWyn 02:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

  This has been fixed. --Kbdank71 14:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse, new name is less POV. The argument that "there are other categories using the old name" is a reason why this should have been a group nom, but only a poor bureaucratic argument for overturning this. >Radiant< 09:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It's a very strong argument, unless you think that professional standards of presentation count for nothing. But in any case it is not the main reason why this rename was wrong. The new name simply cannot cover the topic adequately. Sumahoy 01:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per closing admin and Radiant --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn This is an awkward area, but the issues were properly aired, and there was certainly no consensus for a change of name. Where there are existing conventions, the consensus for changing one item out of a group must by beyond question, or category naming will degenerate into arbitrary inconsistency. Osomec 13:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: sockpuppet account, as described here. >Radiant< 06:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn The only reason that can be put forward to backing this deletion is "I agree with it because... ". But that isn't a valid argument on this page. The advocates of deletion had an opportunity to make their case in the discussion and they did not prevail. The closer than came to the discussion and saw a debate that he did not approve of. He could have closer the debate in accordance with the actual outcome and made a mental note to renominate the category after a decent interval. What he actually did was in accordance with neither the letter nor the spirit of the rules set out on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. Piccadilly 16:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong endorse Yawn. When will people understand neutral point of view and stop disrupting wikipedia to make a point?--Cerejota 17:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It is beyond outrageous to accuse someone who is using official procedures in good faith of being disruptive. Sumahoy 22:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
    • It is beyond outrageous that you launch a personal attack against me, with out any evidence whatsoever. My comments where not directed at the use of the WP:DRV, but at the insistence of many editors in using POV titles for their pet articles, categories, etc, usually engaging on sometimes endless cycles of bureaucratic procedure in order to disrupt wikipedia to make their point. I would have clarified this had you taken time to ask. You accuse me of something very serious, and I ask you apologize before I raise a "no personal attacks" procedure. Thanks.--Cerejota 00:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Just look at your comments, which are a reply to my nomination. Can you not see that it was natural to take them as an attack on me? If this was not the case, then I apologise for the misunderstanding, but I think that your tone was to say the least careless, and that you should stop and think before adopting a disparaging tone and spraying references to conduct policies in a direction that is not entirely clear. Sumahoy 01:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • I see you admit you failed to assume good faith by reading into my "tone", and assuming I was attacking you. Since no one owns content in wikipedia I fail to see how my criticism could be construed as a direct personal attack.

• • • • • This isn't about you and me, it is about editing an encyclopedia. I can use, within civility, any tone I want, and I stand by my comments because they are relevant and apply perfectly to the discussion that emerged: there is a whole range of misnamed categories for "murderers" some of which have been attempted to be repaired for neutrality, only to be faced by disruption on the part of editors who ignore the need for neutrality, one of the five pillars.

• • • • • Perhaps in the future, before replying to something that inflames you, you should assume good faith before jumping the gun.--Cerejota 16:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn What is "neutral" about inaccuracy? This category now declares that some people were convicted of murder when they were not. That has to be one of the least neutral statements possible. Annandale 22:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

  According to the intro, they were convicted. So how is changing the category name inaccurate? I'd have to say the change made it more accurate. --Kbdank71 23:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Attempts have been made to make the intro consistent with usage across Wikipedia. They should be encouraged. It hasn't always mentioned conviction, and it should not do so. Sumahoy 01:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

  But it does now. Americans who have been convicted of murder is what the intro says. Convicted. It said it when the change was made, it still says it now. So again I ask: Changing the category name to better reflect the contents of the category, to reflect what the intro itself says, that is inaccurate how? --Kbdank71 01:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and restore obviously. If wikipedia is to function adequately, it must operate by consensus and be consistent and predictable. Arbitrary decisions like this one are corrosive of community spirit. Oh, and the previous name was more appropriate, as it is a simple matter of fact that many certain murderers were never convicted, including some of the most famous in history. Greg Grahame 01:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

  Then they shouldn't be in that category, as the intro clearly states Americans who have been convicted of murder. Changing the category name to better reflect the contents of the category, to reflect what the intro itself says, that is arbitrary how? How much more appropriate can it be for the category name to match what it says in the intro?? --Kbdank71 01:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse rename. Policy concerns outweigh mere numbers. Eluchil404 17:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse rename It's interesting when on the way to deletion, a better idea surfaces - gotta love the ingenuity of wikipedians - the rename which was ultimately effected. The chief argument in favor of the prior name is basically that some murderers were never convicted. Well, so they say. WP cannot be in the business of determining independently of the judicial system the guilt or innocence of various purported "murderers." The elegance of the new name is threefold: (1) the category is what it says, those convicted of murder (not those who got away with it in someone's even everyone's view, not those convicted of manslaughter that someone wants to label "murder" because of personal taste or bias); (2) it's Verifiable, quite black and white: one may quibble whether the person's conviction is just, unjust, fair, unfair, right, wrong, or will be, ought be overturned, quashed, vacated, but the fact remains that the person in question has been convicted of murder; and (3) it satisfies the WP:BLP concerns: we don't have to call someone a murderer (we merely state that they were convicted of murder) and if it is overturned on appeal, or some new evidence comes to light that shows the conviction to have been in error, no one has libeled the person in question by calling him/her a murderer. Carlossuarez46 00:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Change back to American murderers. There have been a number of murderers who have died or got off on a technicality who were/are still murderers, without conviction. What about OJ, for one? I can't name a couple of others who killed themselves or were killed before trial. But hope the names will come to me soon. One is the VTech shooter. He died, and it was obvious he was the killer of all those people. - Jeeny ^Talk 02:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - OJ was accused of murder and found not guilty. There is suspicion and controversy around him - even a civil court found him responsible of wrongful death. However, if we label him a murderer, we will not only opening ourselves to libel and violating WP:NPOV, but would be doing something very cruel and inhuman: labeling someone that possibly didn't commit murder a murderer. If someone was not convicted of murder, then we cannot call them "murderers" regardless of guilt - at most suspected murderers - and "suspected" carries a weasel word original research tone that might be unacceptable. If someone is convicted of murder, he or she might not be guilty as convicted, so Americans convicted of murder is the only neutral possibility.--Cerejota 15:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

  Remember, even before the name was changed, the intro CLEARLY stated that these are people who were CONVICTED of murder. Not people who died before a trial, not people who got off on a technicality. So OJ, or the VTech shooter couldn't have been in the category anyway. Every oppose but one (that isn't a sockpuppet) has mentioned that they might not all be convicted murderers. I'm asking you this sincerely: How can you argue to overturn on the basis that they might not be convicted murderers when the category intro states exactly that? --Kbdank71 02:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

  Response: Maybe I don't understand then. Are you saying that the new category states that they might not have been convicted? I'm sorry, I'm trying to understand. I'm not stupid, even though it may seem that way. I'm open to instruction. I'm new at this sort of thing. I guess I'm not sure of the Endorse or Overturn. Does Overturn mean to go back to the category named American:Murderers? Can you explain it to me? - Jeeny ^Talk 03:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

  I'm saying the category has stated in the intro, that it is for people who have been convicted of murder. It's said that since December of 2005. The old category said it as does the new. The rename puts the category name on par with what the intro states anyway. So when someone says overturn the decision to rename it, that it's better as "American murderers", and the new name isn't good because not all people in the category have been convicted, I'm at a loss to understand why. It's almost as if everyone is ok with the intro stating the category is for convicted murderers, but not ok with the category name of convicted murderers. Why the big inconsistency? --Kbdank71 04:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

  Can you point me in the direction on where this "intro" is? This is what has me confused, I do not know where to look for the category's instructions. Thanks. - Jeeny ^Talk 04:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

  Category:Americans convicted of murder Right at the top. --Kbdank71 10:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn - So where are you going to put murderers which weren't convicted then? Category:Americans not convicted of murder, but who are murderers? Or just plain Category:American murderers. This current category could be a subcategory though, but the renaming shouldn't have worked like this. - hahnchen 11:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

  So because you can't think of a proper category, you'll take one that is clearly incorrect and inconsistent? --Kbdank71 13:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

  No, because we already had one. How is it clearly incorrect and inconsistent if we just place all American murderers in one category? Here's a novel idea, place all Americans convicted of murder, and those murderers which weren't, say murder-suicides and place them all in Category:American murderers. Wow! - hahnchen 22:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

  No, we didn't. I don't know how many more times I need to say this, but Category:American murderers already stated, since December of 2005, that the category was only for CONVICTED murderers. Wanting to keep American murderers and populate it with non-convicted people is the exact same as putting people who haven't been convicted of murder into Category:Americans convicted of murder. --Kbdank71 03:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment Easy: Category:Americans suspected of murder. Murder is the most controversial of crimes, and one when even convicted people are shown in significant percentages to actually be innocent, and in which a significant number of non-convicted suspects are actually guilty. So in order to remain neutral, and follow our own policies regarding controversies, we cannot label the involved as "murderers". O.J. Simpson would fit Category:Americans suspected of murder and Stanley "Tookie" Williams would fit Category:Americans convicted of murder, both neutral, both based on reliable sources and not original research. Category:American murderers would lump both together AND be non-neutral, and would indeed engage in original reasearch because labeling, for example, OJ Simpson a "murderer" is a highly novel idea not sustained by WP:RS, outside it being the opinion of many people.--Cerejota 16:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Evilclown93 thought that my Fiesta Online article was a very short article and speedily deleted it. His reason: "Very short article providing little or no context (A1)." My argument is that I was testing my article out. After I saw that my article came out good, I started to add more content. While I was editing the content, Evilclown93 deleted it. C.Fred thought my article had unverified sources and he deleted my article. Then he said it was empty. His reason: "CSD G1: Patent Nonsense" and "CSD A3: No content". I gave him my sources on his talk page and he still hasn't talked to me yet about whether or not they have been approved yet. My article was empty because he deleted it. I went to his talk page after he deleted my content....though I should've tagged my article. Mike Rosoft thought my article lacked significance. His reason: "No claim of notability - online RPG (WP:CSD#A7)." How does my article lack significance? If it does, tell me how to fix it. There are two other articles that are on wikipedia that show information on online games. They haven't been deleted yet. I don't know how to tag them. Why say that my article is insignificant? Wikipedia is a place where people can read about things. Why not games? Many people love to read about games. FisherQueen said that my article was too short and it lacked reliable sources. Reason: "WP:CSD#A7, no assertion of notability" and "WP:CSD#A1, a very short article lacking context". Ok, read my arguements on the last 3 admins. All three admins accuse my article of being short and lacking both reliable sources and significance. I've talked to each of them. Two of them still haven't replied back to my recent message. Fisher Queen wants to block me. Why can't I have my article approved? There are two articles that talk about online games, 9Dragons and GunZ the Duel. The source I am using is Outspark located at http://outspark.com. Why is this source unreliable? It's a professional gaming company! Windrider07 21:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Clarification. My objection to the article is that there is no clear assertion of notability. The second time I deleted it, I used "a very short article lacking context" because the creator recreated only the speedy-deletion tag, without any text. As one of the admins who have deleted the six recreations of this article, I'll refrain from voicing an opinion about undeletion, though.-FisherQueen (Talk) 21:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Part of the reason that the deleting administrators believe the source is not reliable is because it's what we call a "primary source", meaning it is actually from the company that makes the game. Primary sources are a great source of factual information but are not good sources to establish notability - those require secondary sources, like game review articles from an established gaming magazine, for example. Something independent of the subject to show us that it is notable. Arkyan • ^(talk) 21:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overthrow and send to afd. It has been speedied several times, and for some reason the author never thought to add a sentence claiming it was important. (sometimes the version speedied was the one after the content had apparently been accidently removed) But that's quibbling--the latest version has :"Fiesta is known as the English translation of the Japanese, Korean, and Chinese versions of the game." Saying that a game has been translated into multiple languages is a claim of importance. If importance is asserted it is not a speedy, and the lack of sources is not a reason for speedy. DGG 22:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I am one of the deleting admins. The two versions I deleted contained the text from a speedy deletion tag, as noted above by FisherQueen. Those versions were clear non-articles and obvious deletion candidates. As far as actual article text, everything I have seen has had exclusively primary-source information. The sources Windrider gave on my talk page were also primary. My own Google search turned up no reliable sources; the closest I found was onrpg.com, but it appears to solicit user reviews rather than have an in-house review staff. Accordingly, I see nothing to verify any claim of notability, nor any assertion of notability per WP:WEB, so I would have deleted the actual article test version under speedy deletion criterion A7. —C.Fred (talk) 22:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, I understand where DGG (talk · contribs) is coming from, but I don't believe that an English translation of a game automatically asserts notability. Regardless, I'd say endorse as a mercy rule to spare the creator 5 days of anguish watching the delete !votes roll in at AfD. Looking at the last content version there is really no way that a crystal-ballish article about a beta MMORPG with no external reliable sources demonstrating notability is ever going to be kept at AfD. Sending it there is just delaying the inevitable.--Isotope23 01:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd probably agree about a single translation--this appeared in four different languages. DGG 20:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn It seems that there might be a useful article here, but the way it has been deleted means that it is impossible to say for sure unless it is restored, at least as a temporary measure. OrchWyn 02:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. No evidence that this is an encyclopaedic subject. Guy (Help!) 15:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Would be a waste of time to send to afd, as there is still no real claim of notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Kevin1243 thought it was advertising. His reason: "Little content besides a website link." I made it a little bit more to make it not look like advertising. So Evilclown93 deleted it. (Yeah I know: Should've put {{hangon}} on the talk page). So I am still creating articles related to the Moneual company. AppleMacReporter 01:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• The article really didn't assert importance... I can userfy this for you until you can bring it to a state where it doesn't fall under any CSDs. --W.marsh 14:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion. The last version prior to deletion is exactly what it was deleted as, "Little content besides a website link." From a quick Google search, they *appear* to be notable enough for inclusion, but it would require a major rewrite. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

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

This image was speedy deleted by an admin, Angr, who apparently was a troublemaker and was kicked out of Wikipedia. I didn't notice until now, because I haven't been logging on lately. I can't find any record of anyone discussing this deletion; for all I know it was Angr's unilateral decision. It was not copyright violation, for reasons explained in the fair use justification. There is no other image of Richard C. Casey available. Hyphen5 01:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Straight up replaceable-fair-use case, and the claims regarding User:Angr cross the border from "false" into "laughable". --Calton | Talk 04:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Angr is an active, valued editor and administrator; suggesting otherwise in an attempt to overturn a decision is not cool. Also, endorse. Chick Bowen 06:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I clicked on his name and his user page has been deleted, apparently, for vandalism. That's what it says. --Hyphen5 06:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstood -- people were continually vandalizing his user page and he decided he didn't want one anymore. The last few deletions have been other users creating vandalism. howcheng {chat} 07:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, open-and-shut replaceable fair use case. --Coredesat 07:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Restore Not realistically replaceable. Wimstead 14:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Replaceable doesn't matter when it's a news media photo. To use it without permission or paying royalties would be a flagrant copyright violation. --BigΔT 21:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Question Given that the subject is dead, and no freely licensed picture of him seems to be known, why is this image "replacable"? It it isn't replaceable, there seems no reason not to restore -- the rationale seems otherwise ok. DES ^(talk) 16:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The key word in your first sentence is "known" -- known to whom? The late Judge was a long-lived public figure, not a camera-shy hermit, and that User:Hyphen5 claims there is no other image available doesn't actually make it so. --Calton | Talk 17:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Fine, but most pictures, even of public figures, are not released under free licenses. As soon as anyone finds such a picture, then it should be used to repalce this one. But what is the point in deleting this picture just becaue there might be a free picture out there somewhere? WP:FUC says: "Non-free content is always replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available." It does not say "should be deleted if there is a possibility that an unknown free altrnative might be available." Overturn DES ^(talk) 19:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• In short, known to anyone in this debate or anyone who might have uploded such an image to wikipedia. DES ^(talk) 19:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Replaceable doesn't matter when it's a news media photo. To use it without permission or paying royalties would be a flagrant copyright violation. --BigΔT 21:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    • That's what fair use is about -- circumstance under shich copyrighted works may be used without permission or paying royalties. News media are not exempt from fair use -- indeed their work is among that most frequently so used. What you are sayiong would mean that ther can never be fair use (on wikipeida, at least) of any news media photo that is not "iconic". Where exctly is this policy spelled out, so that i can propose a change.DES ^(talk) 21:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
      • How exactly do you think news agencies make money? By selling their content (news and photos) to people/organizations that want to use them. One of the four factors of fair use is "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work". By just taking their photos and using them in the same manner as they were intended, we are basically just stealing. However, if we are using the photos in a transformative manner, as in Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima (an Associated Press photo), that's fair use. See the difference? Oh, and endorse deletion, if it wasn't obvious what my position was. howcheng {chat} 05:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Note that trans formative use is only one of the four factors involved in a fair use claim. Case law is clear th qt no one of the factors is required, there is a balance to be struck after considering all four. Indeed "the effect of the use upon the potential market" is another of the four factors, but to evaluate it one must determine what the actual potential market is in a particular case. If there is little or no market for a particular work, this factor will be of little or no import. Whether the copyright owner is engaged in commercial sale of copyrighted content as a business is not dispositive -- virtually all cases of fair use are of content published by commercial entities in the business of doing so, and your argument would essentially eliminate fair use except for "iconic" works or highly trans formative uses. That is not the law, nor is it wikipedia policy. You say that using a photo from a news agency is utterly forbidden except in the case of "iconic" or highly trans formative uses. Is a photo from another source given the same level of protection? for example, if this photo had been published in a biography of the subject, having been taken by the biographer or by a professional photographer hired by the biographer, would you say that the same rule applies? If not, what is the difference? If yes, your rule would effectively limit fair use on Wikipedia to "iconic" images, a drastic restriction not endorsed by WP:FUC, nor by any other policy page. As for "stealing" people are entitled to copyright at all only because of a statute -- it is not a natural right, and is a much later creation than other property rights. Thus they must accept copyright with the limitations provided in the statute, one of which is the fair use exception. It is not stealing, no in any way improper, to use the rights expressly granted by law. Now if you want to argue that this particular photo would not be fair use, argue that point. But to argue that no image from a news agency can ever be fair use (unless iconic) is to argue that fair use does not fully apply to news agencies, which is simply absurd. DES ^(talk) 14:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
          • Yes, a photo from another source should be given the same level of protection when our use of it is the same as the same as the original intended use, but if you want to talk about this specific image, fine: This is a textbook case of WP:NONFREE#Examples of unacceptable use #5. howcheng {chat} 16:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• HOLD YOUR HORSES. Subject is no longer alive. Statements of "not realistically replaceable" likely don't take that into account (see WP:JUSTAPOLICY). Note - original photo here. As such, restore.The Evil Spartan 19:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Replaceable doesn't matter when it's a news media photo. To use it without permission or paying royalties would be a flagrant copyright violation. --BigΔT 21:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    • You made that exact same comment above. I don't find it more persuasive when made twice. DES ^(talk) 22:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • That's not replaceable! Sure is! Seriously, before you claim it isn't replaceable, please actually try to obtain a free image. In the meantime, endorse the deletion of a clearly non-transformative press image used in a situation that replaces the commercial market for the work. --Iamunknown 06:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and list Given that the judge is dead, and was before the image was tagged (by Angr) as replacable and before deleted (by Angr again), the default reason for considering the image replacable does not exist. However, he was a Federal judge. If there is known to be an available series of pictures of federal judges taken by U.S. government employees, then we would have reason to believe a better image is available. That is a question for IfD to sort out. There might be. At the very least, he served recently enough that there was probable a photo ID for security purposes. However, if Since this photo also illustrated his working as a blind judge, as described in the relevant article, (I'm not undeleting just to look), a photo ID picture would not be an equivalent replacement. At this point, I conclude that there are multiple issues needing an IfD discussion, so the issue should be sent there. GRBerry 19:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Obvious endorse - News media photos that merely happen to depict an object of interest (as opposed to ones that are themselves iconic) are not acceptable for fair use. Period. --BigΔT 21:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Where exactly is the policy page that says that? I don't see anything in WP:FUC that indicatres that there are special rules for news media photos. If the argumetn is that this hinders the commercial market for this photo, make that argument -- i rather doubt that ther is a large commercial mrket for a photo of a notable, but not super famous, judge who is now dead. DES ^(talk) 21:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Besides my knee-jerk reaction that this should be speedy-closed due to the ridiculous claims about User:Angr in the nomination, my opinion is endorse deletion, copyright violations don't belong here. Corvus cornix 02:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The claim was absurd, but now appears to have been a simple mistake. But it is really irrelevant. And if this is properly used under fair use, it is not an infringement of copyright, because fair use is expressly provided for in the copyright law. DES ^(talk) 14:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Only when the image is being used to illustrate an article about the newspaper it came from. Corvus cornix 00:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn non-replaceable photo of a dead person. (Oh yeah, I'm sure fair use deletionist trolls will come up with a way to get a free photo of him...)  Grue  21:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Administrators such as yourself should not have to be admonished to follow WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. howcheng {chat} 17:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• I personally looked on Google; there is only three photos I have personally found of the Honorable Judge; the one we had, one from the National Federation of the Blind and one from a meeting with Pope John Paul II. I understand many of you want to have a photo of the judge, since I notice the countless templates on pages saying "pics please." However, if the only choice for a photo comes down to the AP, then we need to be careful. There are countless times where press photos are discouraged, since they still make cash on said photos. But, if you decide to use this deleted for fair use, you better come up with a very good rationale for us to use it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, obvious, strong, emphatic, etc Regardless of the admin who did it, this image was a clear new photo from a press/media source. Total copyvio. There seems to be confusion here on what constitutes acceptable "non-free" and what doesn't. A press-kit photo meant to be distributed publicly without charge is almost always "non-free" in that it is subject to a license/copyright other than GFDL, but can be used here until a free replacement can, because the fair use is clear. However, a media photo is verboten always, as there is no fair use possible. The key here is if the non-free source can be used under fair use or not. By now, this criteria is pretty solidly established in wikipedia for most cases, and should be obvious to editors.

• My suggestion to the interested editors is that since this was a judge, it is very possible he had official photographs taken, for display in his chambers and the court offices etc. It is very possible these photographs are available in the archives of the courts, and writing to the relevant court to procure a digital copy might result in a totally free image, and of high quality to boot. This is because US Federal and State government official photographs are public domain.--Cerejota 16:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • FYI, works of state governments are hardly ever in the public domain. howcheng {chat} 06:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)