Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 13

Naqshbandi Haqqani Sufi Order (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I know this is silly... I prodded this article. Request undeletion to merge any applicable info to Shaykh Nazim al-Qubrusi -N 23:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: You don't need an undeletion for that, just extract all needed information from Google's cache of the page. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice 05:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Yes you do - maintaining the history of the contributions is a requirement for the information to remain GFDL compliant. Obvious support but this will be restored as soon as an admin passes by. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oh, I forgot about the edit history. Changing vote to overturn.*

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

I would like to use this .ogg file within the Harvest article's main text. There is a reference to this song within the text. I would like to use it in a similar way in which "Image:MariahCareyBoyzIIMenOneSweetDay.ogg" is used within the Mariah Carey article. I will need to revise the fair use justification as it will no longer be within the Harvest article's discography Jamie L. 19:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• To use a single sample for purposes of critical commentary is fine. The one-per-track sample gallery was nuked for failing fair use criteria. As long as you can write a proper fair-use rationale, you can just upload it again. Guy (Help!) 19:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Smoky Hill High School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

WP:SOAP and WP:SPAM Steely 340 19:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy close, looks like this is supposed to be at AfD and not here. Arkyan • ^(talk) 19:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Our discussion is being held at User talk:SkyIsFalling Steely 340 19:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy close, an article has to have been deleted to be listed here, Smoky Hill High School is alive and well. --Holderca1 19:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

County Road 702 (Palm Beach County, Florida) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

There are ongoing discussions at WT:N/HWY to establish a notability guideline for roads. This article was deleted without any regard to the discussion, and the fact that being unsourced and possibly non-notable is not part of CSD. (→zelzany - uses a new sig) 16:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn per above and per the fact that this article was {{prod}}ed, but the tag got removed, indicating that this is not a speedy deletion candidate. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 16:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: removing a prod does not prevent the article to be speedied if it fits a criteria. However, I don't think speedy deletion was a good idea here. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn Even if the article is deemed non-notable by consensus (and that is debatable), notability is not a criterion for speedy deletion. At a minimum, it should have gone to AFD for discussion. --Polaron | Talk 16:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Contested prod; also, as stated above, notability is not a CSD. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 16:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and possibly list at AfD. Doesn't seem to meet any of the CSD criteria. If there are concerns about notability or sourcing then a centralized discussion on AfD is appropriate. Arkyan • ^(talk) 17:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Doesn't meet CSD criteria. Also as a former Florida state road, would likely be kept at AfD based on previous outcomes. --Holderca1 17:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, improper use of CSD A7. —Scott5114↗ 18:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, doesn't meet CSD guidelines. Inproper deletion. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, as a CSD was unnecessary here, this also smells of WP:POINT • master_son^{Talk - Edits} 22:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Accusations of French genocide against Algerians (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

this article was just recently deleted without any AFD vote by Philip Baird Shearer, he used the excuse that Algerian Genocide was deleted with an AFD vote and that he thinks this is similar however the old deleted article had a POV name (not a recognized genocide) whereas Accusations of French genocide against Algerians examined the accusations and included opposing viewpoints, it was well sourced and this is wholly inappropriate for an admin (who was previously involved in edit disputes in this article and about the issue of the Algerian 'genocide'[1]) to delete it with no AFD vote Bleh999 13:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and list on AfD. Process ought not be circumvented like this. --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(Profile|PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 13:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse there's no way this can be anything other than a list of accusations in the media - the effect is to circumvent any NPOV discussion relating both sides of French attitudes to Algeria. We don't need an afd to tell us this violates our neutrality policy. If the nominator can come up with a merge, or suggest a rename to something like French attitudes to Algeria, then it might be worth discussing.--Doc^g 14:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You could say the Iraqi government gassing some Kurds is a list of accusations in the media and therefore it should be expunged from this encyclopedia, that's just one example to show your reasoning is flawed. The title is not necessarily indicative of the content of the article and it doesn't appear you ever read it or know much about the subject at all. The issue of French atrocities in Algeria is not a hoax and has been discussed in France and elsewhere.Bleh999 14:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That is not a very good example. There was a court case over the Iraqi gasing of Kurds and it was found to be a genocide (See Genocide#Netherlands) --Philip Baird Shearer 08:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

A Dutch court ruling about supplying chemicals doesn't prove international recognition by any means, I don't want to argue about unrelated subjects, but the definition of which incidents constitute a genocide as you know is not set in stone, you didn't have any right to delete the article and entire content because you personally disagreed with the title, what happened to reaching consensus? Had you reached consensus on the talk page, a page move would have sufficed.Bleh999 23:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Have an article on the alleged facts, not on the alleged label. An article on massacres can record that some have called these 'genocide' - but simply listing every media source that's used the words and leaving the reader to draw the conclusions led to them is not NPOV. Focus on the incidents and not on the name calling.--Doc^g 16:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think French atrocities in Algeria would be a better title, but I didn't create the article, as per your own admission you haven't read the article and you don't know anything about the subject. Very few countries recognized the Herero genocide or the Armenian genocide 30 years ago, does that mean it was unencyclopedic to discuss them back then? It's censorship to delete things you don't agree with, and it seems like thats your only excuse, you even resort to bashing the media, what does that have to with deleting the article without an AFD? Bleh999 16:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

What? Please read WP:NPOV. We do facts not opinions. So 'things I don't agree with' and 'things I do agree with' don't belong here. This is POV crap - take it away.--Doc^g 22:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You should read the NPOV policy yourself because I wasn't involved in editing disputes in that article and therefore I can't be accused of POV in that regard, on the other hand you never edited this article yet you seem to have a point of view with very little knowledge of the subject in question, so why don't you read what lucasbfr said since he did edit the article, and he is not being accused of being POV or having a pro Algerian bias. The name of the article alone is not a criteria for deleting the entire content of the article. You seem to have a neutrality problem if you use disparaging remarks like calling articles 'crap', and you bash the media? that is counterproductive and not what you would expect from people editing an encyclopedia. It's funny that you are so against an AFD for this, I wonder why must be just 'things you don't agree with' like you said, lets just do away with the AFD all together and give power to you to delete articles as you see fit with no oversight. Bleh999 23:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[2] I see you have been implicated in improper article deletions, not a personal attack, but just commenting on its relevancy to your opinions regarding other admins power to delete with no AfDBleh999 23:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and list at AfD, this isn't a biography, so WP:BLP issues are minimal. The cache shows the article had 15 sources, most from reputable news journals. -N 16:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and list to AfD if you want. This article was well sourced, and got previously restored in April after being deleted under G4. I am very confident it doesn't share the same issues the previous one had, since I spent a lot of time rewriting it. SG4 is not a free ticket to delete an article about a similar subject that an article that was deleted more than a year ago without any process. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Please read Talk:Accusations of French genocide against Algerians#Article for Deletion. See the creation edit Accusations of French genocide against Algerians from 02:06, 20 May 2006, this title is not an NPOV title and it is an attempt to circumvent a previous AFD. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Normally we have a vote on moving the article to a different name, you don't just delete an article and it's entire content because you disagree with the title, that is a bogus reason, also see comments by Lucasbfr above, he says it doesn't have the problems of the previous article Bleh999 16:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

(conflict)I assume you are meaning that a 6 500 characters long sourced article a re-creation of a a 1 500 char unsourced one? IMO, the article was speediable in its first version, in 2006 (which was at the original title before someone moved it to lessen the POV), but not in its current state. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I put a speedy delete template on the article on 27 November 2006 and it was deleted on 28 November 2006

• 15:26, 28 November 2006 Kungfuadam (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Accusations of French genocide against Algerians" (csd g4) (Restore)

It was undeleted:

• 11:20, 25 April 2007 Kungfuadam (Talk | contribs | block) restored "Accusations of French genocide against Algerians" (66 revisions restored: the redirect was a repost, not this one)

I was not informed that it had been resotred in April and I only found out it was deleted today so I redeletd it becuase the original reason for its creation and existance has not changed.

• 11:30, 13 June 2007 Philip Baird Shearer (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Accusations of French genocide against Algerians" (content was: 'npov A page with similar content was previously deleted as a result of an articles for deletion (or another XfD) discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Algerian Genocide) (Restore)

-- Philip Baird Shearer

What's your point exactly? In November 2006 it was a re direct (if I'm reading correctly...), according to lucasbfr the article was expanded significantly in recent months, it did not meet the criteria for speedy deletion when you recently deleted it, doesn't matter if it did in November 2006 Bleh999 17:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I contacted User:Kungfuadam last April and asked him to review his November 2006 deletion. As he wrote in his edit summary "the redirect was a repost, not this one". The repost tag was put back just after the deletion and I discussed with the person that put the tag on his talk page and he agreed that speedy was not a good idea. -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

When I put the page up for a speedy delete in November 2006 it was not a redirect. (See 27 November 2006 --Philip Baird Shearer 17:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Bleh999 I did not ask for the article to be deleted because of a page name move. I asked for it to be deleted because its creation circumvented an AFD. I put the page up for speedy delete in the usual way and it was deleted because it was a circumvention of an AFD. My recent deletion was because I still think that it is a attempt to get around the original AFD. Was there a debate to restore the article in April after its speedy delete in November? If so I was not informed of that debate in which I would have argued against its restoration because it is an attempt to circumvent a previous AFD. By saying "wholly inappropriate for an admin to delete it with no AFD vote" is I think a move away from a presumption of good faith and if I did not think you were acting in good faith a disingenuous argument. In disputes like this there is no right and wrong. If I had been informed that the article was restored in April I would have argued against its recreation then. I do not think that the article has changed enough since its deleteion, but perhapse Kungfuadam' can explain how (s)he came to restor it. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

We discussed it on someone's else's talk page, after I requested him to review the deletion (the first step before a WP:DRV when the deletion is speedy) there. By the way, I don't see the redirection in the edit you linked, I see the whole article. Am I seeing the wrong thing? If you want the article to be deleted, you should really consider an AfD. -- lucasbfr ^talk 18:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

this title is not an NPOV title and it is an attempt to circumvent a previous AFD That is your quote from above, so part of your reasoning for deletion (as stated by you) is the neutrality of the title, normally such issues can be settled by renaming the article rather than deletion of all content. As for the circumventing the previous AFD, I don't know about that, I wasn't involved in editing the article back then, but when I looked at it yesterday it wasn't a candidate for speedy deletion. According to lucasbfr the article is significantly longer and much changed than the earlier creation, even deleted articles are not banned forever from wikipedia if it is created again with different content and a more neutral viewpoint, it should be judged on its current merits not those of a previous article.Bleh999 18:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• This is different POV crap from the POV crap deleted by the AfD, so if everybody wants to duke it out yet again then good luck to them. I vote delete, because it's still POV crap, but whatever. Guy (Help!) 19:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

POV 'crap' because you don't like it, sounds very POV in itself. If it's really so POV why not undelete and list for AFD?Bleh999 20:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Because I am not a process wonk. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Process is important. The way I read it, JzG, you're trying to say that it ought not be relisted simply because you don't like it. Allow me to remind you that your biases aren't important here, we're trying to evolve a consensus, not work on someone's whims. If this article is to be deleted, it should be through a valid AfD. --The Raven's Apprentice 05:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, The Raven's Apprentice, I agree process is important that is why when an article has been up for an AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Algerian Genocide 29 April 2006) and been deleted the author should not wait a month and then recreate it under a different name. In this case the original author created a new page with similar content to the original during the AFD (see Algerian Genocide Claims from 10:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)) that was deleted along with the original (see Algerian Genocide from 11:19, 25 April 2006 . -- BTW user:Bleh999 the last editor of Algerian Genocide before it was deleted was user:Ligulem-- This page was a recreation of the second page that was created during the original AFD and the next edit after "Algerian Genocide Claims" was deleted was at "08:30, 22 October 2006. David Falcon (Redirecting to Accusations of French genocide against Algerians)" which I think is more evidence that this article is an attempt to circumvent an AFD. The current page we are debating was created with the name Genocide Against Algerian Identiy, on 02:06, 20 May 2006 by David Falcon , (about a month after the original was deleted) it was moved "18:16, 14 June 2006 . . Deodar (moved Genocide Against Algerian Identiy to Genocide Against Algerian Identity" and moved again "02:19, 27 September 2006 . and again: Dmcdevit (moved Genocide Against Algerian Identity to Accusations of French genocide against Algerians: neutral title at least, not sure if this is salvageable.." See above that it was deleted in November 2006 with a speedy deleted and remain deleted for half a year until undeleted in April this year. So the process has been followed, this article is an attempt to work around an AFD and I think it makes a mockery of the AFD system if it is allowed to remain. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be repeating yourself an awful lot, I think we can understand that the original article (Algerian Genocide) was deleted with an AfD, and I acknowledged that in my first post here. You are comparing an article with a different name and content deleted over a year ago to a different article with a much expanded and unique content, lucasbfr spent a lot of time writing that article and I notice he left a message on your talk page commenting on how you must have known this is a much changed article [3]. Funny how we have articles that get deleted and recreated and go through multiple AfD votes (based on the merits of their current content) but you seem to believe you have the right to delete (without an AfD) any article with a similar subject just because there was an AfD on a different article over a year ago. I'm not sure who is making a mockery of the process here. Bleh999 10:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW you do realize no one can see your links except wikipedia administrators? We can't see deleted content, so I fail to see why you keep posting them. Bleh999 10:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Did not know that you could not see them. ("If you could see her as I do") --Philip Baird Shearer 11:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

To reply to one of your suggestions, I don't think we can delete the revisions that directly fall under G4 (that would break the GFDL). But if someone thinks that's best, we can delete all revisions prior to September 2006. Honestly, I think we got screwed in May 2006 but, 1 year later, we should probably sit on it and try to comment on the content and not the way it arrived here. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted per DocG, who's points no one seems to have properly refuted. This is POV pushing under this title. Using DR policy to circumvent NPOV policy is Not On. Eusebeus 16:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• I have two issues with that kind of reasoning, first of all this page is about process, not about content. Therefore we should discuss whether or not the page was deletable under G4 (A page with similar content was previously deleted as a result of an articles for deletion (or another XfD) discussion), not whether or not the content of the page is NPOV or not (we have AfD for that kind of debate, and honestly I wouldn't mind at all having this article deleted, or even (let's dream) rewritten after an AfD). This is not the place to play WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Secondly, the title is not the original title, but a title chosen by User:Dmcdevit in September 2006 (prior to rewrital) with a reason "Neutral title at least, not sure if this is salvageable". If you don't like the title, why not propose the article to be renamed? I am French, I disagree with some of the content of the article, but as a very dead guy said "I don't agree with your ideas, but I'll fight for your right to express them". Wikipedia is of course not a repository of original thoughts, and I don't think this article is WP:OR. There will be good and bad articles in this encyclopedia, there are some crappy stuff I wouldn't mind to see deleted, but let's not play with our own processes and speedy delete it when no one is looking. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• The article Human rights in the Soviet Union started life as Soviet genocide which was moved to Soviet persecutions before moving to its current name (see Talk:Human rights in the Soviet Union#Page name). A section called "French Aligeria" in the article human rights in Algeria might be a solution to this problem. It would allow the accusations against the French to be set in an historical context of all periods of Algerian history including the post colonial period. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The templates proposed for undeletion are:

• Template:PokeArt
• Template:PokeCard
• Template:PokeCover
• Template:PokeFilm-screenshot
• Template:PokeGame-screenshot
• Template:PokeTv-screenshot
• Template:Pokeimage

(Listed in above format as {{Newdelrev}} permits the inclusion of only one page)

The concerned WikiProject was not notified of the TfD nomination, and thus the people who have an interest in seing the templates remain never got a chance to comment.

The TfD was closed with the sole argument of "over specialization" of the templates. However, these are groundless considering the fact that these templates added subcategories to Category:Screenshots of television which has 33,000+ images in it and Category:Screenshots of films which has 15,500+ images. Both of these categories (along with the game-related categories) recommend users place an image in a subcategory if the present category is already very large. The second reason is that categories, unlike articles, may be kept for internal reasons. a category of Pokémon images facilitates maintenance of those images. While the closing Admin was mindful of keeping Game Covers, Lead Images, and Pokémon Maps - the deletions have depopulated every single other subcategory. The Raven's Apprentice^{(Profile|PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 07:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. There was a clear consensus (indeed unanimity) that these should be deleted among those who participated in the discussion and no requirement that Wikiproject be informed when templates they might be interested in are nominated for deletion. The generic templates are quite sufficient and there is absolutely no need for every TV series etc. to have its own subcategories of screenshot templates. Right outcome, right assessment of the discussion. WjBscribe 07:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment:I'm afraid you're countering straw man arguments here, WJB. I'm not questioning the admin's interpretation of the debate. However, WP:DRV says that a deletion may be questioned if new info is available a the time of the review. I'm interpreting "new information" to mean "new arguments", and the grounds I state for undeletion were definitely not mentioned in the TfD. Neither do I seek undeletion simply because the WikiProject was not informed, that is simply the reason why these arguments were not stated in the TfD in the first place, nothing more. To refute my actual arguments (Categorization) you have only said, "there is absolutely no need for every TV series etc. to have its own subcategories of screenshot templates". I assume you meant "screenshots", but I have already stated why these subcategories are desirable (overpopulation of the parent category). --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(Profile|PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 11:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• overturn deletion and relist templates also served an important purpose in helping the images meet the WP:NFCC, by identifying the copyright owner of the images. note I have a small COI with this nom, I had to convince the closing admin to re-tag the images as generic {{fairuse}} rather than just leave hundreds (possibly thousands, I didn't count them) of images tagless. -N 10:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overrule and Relist. The arguments made in the TfD were at the least misinformed. The templates, while at first glance looking so, are not redundant with current templates for nonfree media, as the deleted templates also identify the copyright holder within their texts w/o adding extra - AFAIK, many of the other templates dealing with such don't. Further, as Raven pointed out, the main reason for these to be applied was to alleviate the problem of maintaining gargantuan categories. They are not "overspecialized" any more than {{Template:D&D Books}} is overspecialized. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 13:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overrule and Relist per above. Bleh999 14:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, there are no new arguments here in the nomination, only claims of ownership by the WikiProject. The process ran the proper length of time, if you can't be bothered to keep track of the templates you claim to own, then it's nobody's problem but your own. There is nothing more to be seen here. The TfD discussion was unanimous, and absolutely correctly so. Corvus cornix 16:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, DRV is not "XfD round 2" and the closure was 100% within guidelines, no procedural problems. The complaint that the Wikiproject was not notified is not grounds for overturning a valid deletion, either. Arkyan • ^(talk) 17:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Except that it would then possibly not have been deleted. It's only fair to let both sides of an argument present their cases. It's another thing to let just one side say "Delete!" while the other side sits, twiddling their thumbs ignorantly. If Wikipedia is built on consensus, then everyone has the right to participate in a discussion. Overturn deletion and relist. --Brandon Dilbeck 17:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    • "What if" is also not a reason to overturn a perfectly valid reason. Are you implying that everyone who participated in the discussion is on a "side" that opposes the Pokemon wikiproject? If anything I would take their opinion as uninvolved editors to be more neutral and unbiased than a project with a vested interest in the topic. Again, there is nothing here that has violated deletion policy or procedures and thus no grounds to overturn it on. Arkyan • ^(talk) 18:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
      • That's not what he's implying, Ark. He's implying that the point of view from the WikiProject wasn't even heard from because nobody there knew what the frag was going on. He's not implying that only one side was heard, he's implying that one side wasn't heard. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 18:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
        • That is not anybody else's problem. It was a unanimous discussion by those involved, it ran the proper length of time. Nothing more to be said. Corvus cornix 18:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion The WikiProject does not need to be notified of this. The comments over at the TFD were perfectly valid deletes, and the templates were deleted. If you want the WikiProject's side to be heard, they should've hunted for that TFD themselves. (→zelzany - uses a new sig) 18:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • That's like asking Harry Potter to search for a Whaziflubbit, even though there's a possibility that they don't exist! --Brandon Dilbeck 18:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. This is not about the Pokémon project not being informed: there was no requirement for them to be. As above, this is about the fact that new arguments have come to light, and thus the decision for deletion was not made taking everything into account. As the page itself says: "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion". In this case, it has, so the templates should be relisted. Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 19:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you (and the others) may be misinterpreting the point about "new information". New arguments != new information, and that is why DRV != XfD2. For example, let's say an article about Some Guy was deleted as it lacked sources to establish notability. Now let's say I have found a number of news articles that can establish this notability, so I bring it to DRV as new information that was not available during the AfD. That is what is meant by "new information". What we have here is not new information that was not available during the TfD, but rather, new arguments that were not made during the TfD. So again, new arguments are not the same thing as new information, and are not grounds for overturning a decision. Arkyan • ^(talk) 20:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse The deletion process ran the proper length and had overwhelming consensus to delete. Lack of notification of a WikiProject is not a reason to overturn a TfD and restore the templates. --Farix (Talk) 23:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Isn't it evident from reading this discussion that there currently isn't an overall overwhelming consensus to delete? A sample of seven or eight people who somehow stumbled upon that TfD discussion over the course of a week is obviously not representative of a collaborative encyclopedia. --Brandon Dilbeck 23:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    • This is not XfD 2.0. What "protests" are brought up now are irrelevant to the original TfD. --Farix (Talk) 01:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse; the generic {{non-free character}} suffices for at least the several hundred images that I retagged this morning and earlier this evening. Other templates will also suffice.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Except that they give no information about who actually owns the copyright. The fact that it's Pokémon USA must be added manually, which is not the case for the deleted templates. And you still haven't commented on the category size. --The Raven's Apprentice 03:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Relist. Saying "too bad, you didn't get your arguments in fast enough, now consensus can't change" is silly. And substantial new arguments are certainly grounds for relisting. -Amarkov moo! 02:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • But there are no substantial new arguments. Corvus cornix 18:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • These templates add categorization (what do we need {{flagimage}} for? It duplicates other fair use templates. One thing it does though is categorize the pages it's on) and aid the images it's tagged with to meet the WP:NFCC by identifying the copyright holder. Those are *2* new arguments. -N 18:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: To those endorsing, I have a few things to say. For the "the WikiProject does not need to be notified": Perhaps there is no convention for doing so, but it should, ought to and usually is done by application of sheer common sense as opposed to WP policy. For "this is not TfD round 2": The original TfD was not nearly valid, whatever policy may state. A warning template is added to subjects being considered for deletion for precisely this purpose, to notify editors who may be interested in the discussion. In ths case, the subjects are templates which are used only on image pages, which is why no one ever knew about this discussion except those that were hanging around the TfD page. And "no one" includes the WikiProject which created these templates in the first place, and which might therefore have very good reasons for keeping them.When only one side is ever given the opportunity to speak when another, sizeable, side exists, the debate obviously becomes farce. Whether Wikipedia policy states it or not, this is a case for ignoring all rules and renewing the debate. And its not as if we have no new information at all. These templates are maintained for subcategorizing image categories like category:screenshots of television and category:screenshots of films, which encourage the creation of subcategories if the existing category is very large. These categories currently have 33,000+ and 15,500+ images respectively, which would be considered "large" by any standard. That is information which was not mentioned in the TfD, i.e. it's "new information" for wikilawyers. That is the argument that was originally presented, and none of the "Endorse" crowd has said anything to counter it. The only argument for endorsing seems to be along the lines of, "The TfD was valid, you aren't allowed to say anything now, so run off and play with your toys." not anything constructive to the ongoing debate. Thank you. The Raven's Apprentice 03:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: no valid arguments for overturning have been presented. In fact, the bulk of the argument seems to be addressed towards some categories which do not need a template to be used! This overspecialized and frequently misguided Wikiproject seems to be constantly amazed that its whims and WP:OWNership claims are not automatically accepted by the rest of Wikipedia, and seems oblivious to opinions about bad precedent. Project membership does not trump consensus! Similar templates have been discussed before (e.g. at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 29#Template:PokeImageNR), with similar results. And the claims here that the TfD was not valid because some random wikiproject which may or may not have had an interest in the matter was not notified are beyond preposterous! Say it with me again: "project membership does not trump consensus". And frankly, the more specialized the project, the less likely (in my experience) that it will be able to muster unbiased arguments, and the less appropriate for it to create hordes of overspecialized templates and categories. I could see having templates and categories for cartoons in general, but having separate templates and categories for each and every cartoon series in existence is a horrific idea! I strongly suggest that this project work together with other related projects to come up with a few (one or two) general-purpose templates which can take arguments to specialize them, similar to {{WPBiography}}. Xtifr _tälk 21:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Hear, hear. WikiProject ownership of articles/templates/whatever is a very serious problem. Corvus cornix 02:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
    • "Categories that do not need templates"? What I have been saying is about depopulating general categories, not populating specific ones. {{Film screenshot}} adds ad page to the overpopulated Category:Screenshots of films and {{Tv screenshot}} adds it to the overpopulated Category:Screenshots of television. Neither does the Project claim ownership of the templates, but seeing as templates are not used by Wikipedia readers but rather by a section of editors, seeing as it is only the Project which uses or needs to use this template and it is the Project that will be incovenienced by their deletion, I think the Project would earn a right to outrage. And as for "each and every" cartoon having its own image category, I'd like to remind you that Pokémon is not any other cartoon, it is a fad that has lasted for a decade and still going strong. Notability aside, what matters is the numbers: Category:Pokémon lead images has around 500 images. I'm estimating around 1500 images for all the categories put together. 1500 images, in short, which use the template.
      And as N (who, for the Endorse crowd, is not a member of the WikiProject) pointed out, the templates contain the information that the copyright is owned by Pokémon USA, which must be put on the image page to make it comply under WP:NFCC. Without these templates, this information must be manually added to an estimated 1500+ pages. I suppose it could be done, but I doubt any of those currently yelling "Endorse" would like to do it themselves. And even as we speak, several images that were tagged with the deleted templates have been tagged as lacking a tag by the deleting Admin's bot, and are under direct threat from OrphanBot. If the discussion closes on "Endorse", they shall be deleted exactly a day after it. And as it was only the Template which added them to the categories, their respective categories have been blanked now and it's impossible to identify them and prevent this unless one goes through all the 1000+ Pokémon-related articles on the Wiki. Again, that is work that none of the Endorsers would be keen on doing.EDIT: That problem won't be solved even if the decision is "Overturn". The WikiProject is expected to do all the dirty work, as usual, and if we complain we're "claiming ownership". --The Raven's Apprentice 03:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm confused what Xtifr means exactly by "Project membership does not trump consensus." Consensus of what? --Brandon Dilbeck 03:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
        • He's basically trying to say that just because the WikiProject members say the templates should stay doesn't mean they should, and that agreement of the WikiProject members is not an all-Wikipedia consensus. --The Raven's Apprentice 03:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I thought at first that people honestly did think that there were strong arguments not considered, but recent events on WT:PCP have demonstrated that it's really more of a "we weren't told so it's wrong!" thing. -Amarkov moo! 19:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I suggest for the Pokemon folks to prevent this in the future, have someone just watch TFD for you. All I am seeing here is that a project wasn't notified, so that should cancel the vote. I don't buy that at all. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

  Endorse I have seen 3 arguments in this DRV to undelete the templates. I have listed them and why they don't make these templates necessary.

  • Wikiproject not notified - People from Wikiproject Pokemon should pay more attention to Xfds.
  • Categorization - Make a new template to subst into images with the necessary categories and text saying "Copyrighted by *copyright owner*".
  • Compliance with fair use policy - See Categorization. Funpika 02:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

"WikiProject not notified" was never an argument for overturning, it was solely an argument for permitting this DRV in the first place. Looks like FunPika has addressed all issues, except one: overcluttering of the parent category. Unless we make at least one template, which can use variables to serve the functions of all those deleted, the parent category'll just clutter up a bit more. --The Raven's Apprentice 03:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

{{Non-free television screenshot}} can easily have a parameter for changing the category. –Pomte 08:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure as delete, no process went wrong here, nothing to review. Funpika's three points are also relevant. --Iamunknown 05:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Posting the TfD at the talk there would have undoubtedly brought in a bias towards it. There's no reason to make specific templates for a show when generic ones do the job just as well. Kwsn^(Ni!) 21:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist - ironically enough, I am the person that nominated these articles. I apologize, as I was in a hurry that day, I did not notify that original creators. The point of the TFD ought to be to have a discussion about the merits of a template, not a simply "you better get your vote in now or it will be deleted forever without your valuable input". I apologize, but I believe it would be best to have a full discussion from all elements present on these templates. The Evil Spartan 01:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist - Per User:the Evil Spartan. FunPika 13:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

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

A google search of this man's name yields his accomplishments and relevance as a film maker and director of music videos. The article lacked citations, however I would be more than willing to add them if the article was un-deleted, and clean up the silliness of some parts of it, e.g. "Titles: King of the San Fernando Valley". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.86.97 (talk • contribs)

Google search results have very little meaning, can you provide some non-trivial coverage in reliable third party sources ? --pgk 06:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Unless this person has been the subject of multiple non-trivial mentions in reliable sources, he does not meet our inclusion criteria. WjBscribe 08:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse valid afd - no new evidence is being presented here yet. However, please note that WP:BIO is NOT part of the deletion policy, it is merely a distillation of what the community tends to do. Thus meeting WP:BIO isn't a prerequisite for overturning a deletion. Meeting WP:V is.--Doc^g 08:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, but allow for recreation if the nominator wants to rewrite the article with reliable sources. Corvus cornix 16:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, unless you can find some reliable sources that wrote about this person's work. -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This one has vanispamcruftisement written all over it - a resume going back to student days, crediting the subject as webmaster of his own site, created as the sole edit of Nklepper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and all subsequent edits by a couple of anons in the same geographical location. Guy (Help!) 19:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The google results make no claim of notability and neither do the pages it links to, this discussion itself takes up over 5% of the results! GB 09:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Relevant to aother articles and an important figure in providing mathematical foundations of emergy concept Sholto Maud 05:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)