Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 15

Talk:Brian Peppers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

We can live without this until 21 February 2007, and if anyone still cares by then, we can discuss it.— Jimbo Wales. On that day, the day that Jimbo randomly declared it all right to edit, discuss and improve... well, wait a second. If you study what he said closely, he doesn't even say that's what's going to happen. All he says is we may discuss it again. And well the article wasn't undeleted, but...... the talk page should be restored so we can discuss it again. SakotGrimshine 22:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• The article was restored, and got deleted again, so the talk is not required to discuss the article, if you disagree with the original deletion, start a DRV for the article not the talk page. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The discussion at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:Wikipedians by language was speedy-kept "per this being a WP:POINT nomination" when discussion had barely begun. In fact, several people had also mentioned WP:POINT, although no one ever said exactly what point they thought I was disrupting Wikipedia to make. As it happens, I wasn't. The Babel categories (Category:Wikipedians by language and its subcategories, however long-standing they may be, are unencyclopedic. They do not help the project in any way. The few people who did manage to say something before the discussion was closed claimed these categories are used to help in translation, but in fact they aren't. Category:Available translators in Wikipedia does that. Not everyone who is competent in a given language is able to translate it, and certainly not everyone who is capable of translating a given language is willing to do so. Once the red herring of translation assistance has been removed from these categories, there's nothing left for them to do except contribute to the MySpacification of Wikipedia. Therefore I request that the speedy-keep be overturned, and the UCFD discussion allowed to run its course. —Angr 21:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse There is a great shake-up in UCfD's right now. Let this one have a breather before starting in on it. Also re-opening this would promote wheel-warring. -N 21:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I closed this once, it was closed a second time by User:Ryan Postlethwaite. Seems to have little chance of being deleted; I suggested that a discussion on the village pump would be appropriate for these before the CfD. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Of course it has little chance of being deleted if the discussion keeps getting cut off before it has a chance to get underway. And the village pump is not the place to discuss the removal of unencyclopedic content; XfD is. —Angr 22:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - Great candidate for speedy keep. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 22:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Why? —Angr 22:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse and recommend this deletion review be speedy-closed as a patent violation of WP:POINT. Babel categories, beyond being a tool that may help localize possible translators (in which it is not a unique tool) also help in determining one's possible interest in articles that are of specific interest in a culture. Myself, I am a French-speaking Canadian, but through my understanding of French, I will have a keener interest in articles about French, Quebec or any other kind of frnacophone culture. Seeing Babel categories as just a potential source of translators is gravely underestimating the usefulness of these categories.--Ramdrake 23:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • As I said above, the Babel categories are not a potential source of translators anyway, because not everyone included in these categories is ready, willing, or able to translate the language whose category they're in. Your interest in articles pertaining to French does not mean you have to be included in a category of Wikipedians who have some knowledge of French. And the next time someone accuses me of violating WP:POINT without bothering to explain why they think that, I shall scream. I have explained in detail both in the original CFD and again here why these categories are unencyclopedic, and no one has given one single coherent reason to think they aren't, let alone a single reason why the issue shouldn't even be discussed. Instead, they just keep squawking "WP:POINT! WP:POINT! WP:POINT!" without stopping to consider the fact that a category of Wikipedians who speak French is no more helpful to encyclopedia-building than a category of Wikipedians who like bananas, and that a category of Wikipedians who speak a politically charged language like, say, Kurdish, may be as harmful to encyclopedia-building as any other category of Wikipedians based on their political beliefs. —Angr 00:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Angr, many people are multilingual and it is inaccurate to state that their linguistic knowledge is an indication of their political beliefs. It is also inappropriate to state that expressing knowledge of a certain language involves any sort of political expression. For instance, nothing precludes a militant Turkish nationalist from being able to speak Kurdish. Also, Kurdish (like many others) is a politically charged language only in specific contexts; in many others it is just a language. The same is true of English. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I know that not all speakers of any given language share the same political beliefs. But the perception that it may be the case makes these categories politically dangerous and potentially "inflammatory and divisive". Nor did I mean to imply Kurdish was unique or even unusual in this regard; I picked it as a particularly salient example, but virtually any other language could have served the purpose. The point is, these categories are just as susceptible to vote-stacking as the more explicitly political categories (even though the risk of people one expected to be on one's side voting against one's position is also just as high as with the political categories). —Angr 00:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Do you mean to say that you regard Babel language categories as potential statements of political affiliations? If that's the case I'm afraid you're dead wrong. That's merely prejudice, and it is this attitude, and not the reverse which is potentially harmful to Wikipedia. How can stating the languages one speaks be a divisive element on Wikipedia? The fact is, most speakers of any given language usually represent a whole spectrum of political beliefs, not a narrow range as you seem to be erroneously implying.--Ramdrake 00:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
          • I'm saying the Babel language categories have the potential to be misused that way (making them potentially harmful), and that they have no actual benefit to the encyclopedia. The fact that, say (again, this is just an example) Irish republicans may not have tremendous success finding sympathizers in Category:User ga-N doesn't mean they won't try. If that category were actually good for something related to encyclopedia-building, we would keep it anyway. But it isn't. These categories do no good, and could do harm, so we should delete them. —Angr 01:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. This was a valid keep per WP:SNOW, though I am unconvinced of the accuracy of the WP:POINT allegations. Perhaps only the closing decision should be modified. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - I cringe to call for an endorse of a speedy close of anything, as I've been burned on this one. However, let me explain:

• 1. The categories are most certainly useful. Nothing my-space-y about them: in fact, I've been able to use them in the past.
• 2. This really is a case where WP:SNOW applies, as even if it's not a WP:POINTy opening, there's little doubt as to the outcome. I fully support speedy closures where the result is already foreknown. The Evil Spartan 00:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse. Instantly keep-able. I can't stand the Babel system, and still I find this an unsupportable argument.--Mike Selinker 01:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly endorse keep. Re the commentary by the editor requesting the overturn: on the contrary, the cat is eminently useful. I use it all the time in order to locate Wikipedians who have a specialization in a particular language or script, when such expertise is needed on a page I am working to improve. Such groundless assertions that this category is useless, coupled with attempts to remove it entirely from Wikipedia, are entirely unhelpful to our project and must cease. Badagnani 06:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • And you have actually successfully found people who know something about the language in question in the category? If so, then congratulations! I used to try to use these categories to find people knowledgeable about various languages, but it never worked. Knowledge of one's native language is entirely subconscious, so it can't be accessed in a way where others can use it. (Try asking native English speakers when to say he and when to say him. I bet 90% of them can't tell you, even though they always get it right themselves.) And even if finding native and fluent speakers were beneficial to the encyclopedia, what use are the xx-1 and xx-2 categories? How does it help the project to know that someone has only a beginner's knowledge or intermediate knowledge of a language?? —Angr 07:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Angr, you seem to be mixing up knowing the language and being an expert on the grammar for a given language. Most people who speak a language learn its grammar, apply it and then tend to forget the rules on a conscious level (unless they work with them every day, such as a language teacher). That doesn't mean the category is useless. It means you are likely to need to ask several people in a given category before you can find one who can answer your question. Sounds like you may be expecting too much of a category.--Ramdrake 12:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not mixing the two up, but I think the people who claim these categories benefit the encyclopedia are. Precisely because being a speaker of a language does NOT entail consciously knowing anything about the language (and vice versa--I know a lot about Irish, but I don't speak it well at all), these categories cannot be used to locate people who know something about the languages. What I expect of a category of Wikipedians is that it be useful for building the encyclopedia, and these aren't. —Angr 13:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. Just passing through Badagnani's contributions and saw this discussion. I fulfilled a language request for this editor - so perhaps the categories are useful for something. Cheers, Paxse 03:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse The arguments presented for deleting are too weak. The userspace does not have to be encyclopedic, and this categorisation is a popular way for users to identify themsleves. Templates for users should be more about what users want to say about themselves or identify, than what is really useful. GB 09:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This keep rationale is almost entirely incorrect about user categories, which must be encyclopedic and are not in user space. They are not a form of free expression and are regularly deleted if they don't serve the purpose of building an encyclopedia. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    • You are right, but I think it's been amply proven in this discussion that Babel categories indeed do have a definite use, even though it might not be as straightforward as some editors would like it to be.--Ramdrake 14:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Please see my comment near the very top of this discussion. I should have pointed that out just above. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Sokker Manager, a web-based soccer simulation, has grown to over 47,000 users worldwide since it was first deleted in March 2006. Similar browser games like Hattrick, Battrick, Managerzone, Championship Manager Online, and Football Dot Manager all have active Wikipeida pages, yet Sokker keeps having its page deleted based on a debate that occurred well over a year ago. Reasons for deletion then were that it was an advertisement for the game, but various Sokker users want to make it into a guide/interesting article like the other similar game pages; however, the page is not allowed to stay it cannot be completed to reach the desired article point. Sokker has a page in other Wikipedia languages including Spanish, Dutch, and Italian (and maybe a few more). Why not English? Can we have another debate or will somebody please restore this page so it can be fine-tuned and finished. After all, with 47,000+ users spanning across six different continents, it is rather notable. WildManKY 20:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• When you say "users want to make it into a guide" that instantly rings alarm bells, per what wikipedia is not. Are there multiple non-trivial sources written by independant third parties in reliable sources for this. If so can you point us to two or three? (Note inclusion on other wikipedia is irrelevant, each one has differing inclusion standards, nor does similar articles here per WP:INN --pgk 20:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • When I say make it into a guide, I mean make it into an article very similar to the other ones. Talks of a parent company and developers, user interaction, game history and features, etc. It also belongs in various article categories that Wikipedia has. These are all attributes that the other English articles have, nothing less. If that's not good enough for an article, then what's with double standard?WildManKY 21:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Did you read WP:INN? We still need those reliable sources --pgk 21:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Please show me the reliable sources that Championship Manager Online and Football Dot Manager both hold on to for dear life, and then tell me that you're not holding Sokker to a double standard. We can provide game reviews and external help web sites that the game uses, which is also what the other articles have. People obviously want to establish this page and to maintain it with factual information. I would understand if we actually owned Sokker and stood to gain monetarily from people knowing about it, but we don't. This is not proactive advertising and deserves a article page simply based on the amount of people that play the game. Games like these help to bridge international gaps in communities and people should have the right to know about them. WildManKY 22:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• That would be WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Try addressing the actual question, please. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Users wanting to make a guide was what got it deleted in the first place. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Still waiting for those multiple independent reliable sources. Corvus cornix 07:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Admiral insignia.gif (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

One of many United States Navy officer rank insignia uploaded in 2005. Deleted by User:Majorly as having no source. I noticed this when Majorly began to orphan the commons image showing through. I believe we should WP:AGF these are indeed public domain images (works of the U.S. Navy) until shown otherwise. -N 19:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Close debate - I believe you want to handle this at the commons, not here. The Evil Spartan 19:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

  I care not how commons closes the deletion discussion. I believe the local version should be restored, so the tag {{PD-USGov-Military-Badge}} can be added, since apparently it was missing. This image was tagless when the generic {{military-insignia}} was deprecated. Either that, or list any of the other dozen or so images from the same set by the same uploader for deletion. I tried to retag them all when military insignia was deprecated but it looks like I missed this one -N 19:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• You mean that "[You] believe we should assume these are indeed public domain images...", right? AGF has nothing to do with this, because no one is assuming that the uploaders of these images were acting in bad faith. That said, I am kind of frustrated that someone interested in the images has not yet found out the copyright status of these images; they have been around for at least two years, you'd think if they were public domain we would have found out by now. --Iamunknown 19:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually it was a single person, User:Mbr7975. -N 19:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
    • There are others who uploaded many images (not of these insignia though), notably (due to a lengthy arbitration case, disputes with a prominent then-admin) User:Husnock. The underlying problem is that we simply do not know with assurety that these images are indeed in the public domain. I have read assertions by some editors knowledge in copyright law that they must be in the public domain due to the Geneva convention's requirements that all countries may reproduce military insignia, but (IMO) asserting that (1) because the Geneva conventions requirements (2) military insignia is in the public domain is a logical fallacy; all it says is that the Geneva convention permits other countries to reproduce military insignia, it says nothing of derivative works, commercial reuse, etc. That said, I am not sure how this will be resolved (and so I guess I can understand why editors, even those interested in these images, have yet not resolved them), because I am not aware of any case law or legal opinions of intellectual property lawyers that deal with these types of works. At this point I simply feel I am spilling ink, and that DRV is the inappropriate venue to resolve these issues. The image as deleted or undeleted will not change that fact; it will only change the fact that we will be able to use it. --Iamunknown 20:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I am not talking about non US images. That debate is not for DRV, I agree. This uploader uploaded US Navy images and marked them as PD. There is no proof the images by this uploader are not {{PD-USGov-Military-Badge}}. The rest of the images in this set by this uploader have been maintained. This particular image just failed to get a proper new tag when {{military-insignia}} was deprecated. -N 20:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
        • The long version: Sorry about misinterpreting your points. A lingering doubt I have is that the image (I am examining the Answers.com mirror) appears to be more than a simple graphical representation and is instead a photograph. If this image was indeed a photograph instead of an illustration, we need to know whose work it is (or if it is a work of the United States government / State Department / Military) in order to verify its copyright status. (But we only need to do that if we feel that there was original authorship in creating the photograph - if it is indeed a photograph. That is debatable; it is my opinion that we should not extend the slavish-reproduction rule of Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. to anything other than its original scope - paintings, but I understand that others disagree.) Indeed, no evidence has been provided to show that the images are not PD by virtue of being property of the United States military (or by virtue of being slavish reproductions of such works), but neither has any evidence shown that they are PD by the same virtue.
        • The short version: I left a note on the uploader's — User talk:Mbr7975 — talk page and requested comment here. He or she was active as of last month, so maybe we will soon hear comment!
        • My opinion: maintain status quo (deleted) until we learn of the source or the uploader's comment. --Iamunknown 20:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
          • The problem with many of the insignia images is that they are tagged with a PD tag and no source and this has been the state of those images for some time. Even with non-US insignia, that is a problem I faced here and the Commons (where I started a deletion debate about insignia on there). Anyways, I endorse the deletion of the image. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
            • Ok, right after I said that, I found the source of the image: DefenseLink, the official website of the US DoD. I am still looking for a copyright notice. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
              • And http://www.defenselink.mil/multimedia/about.html says the images are public domain unless otherwise denoted. So, the image is PD, so restore the images. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
              • Main page here. Sometimes it's only after being forced to get off our asses do we actually fix this shit. I suppose the wisest thing would be to upload them all to Commons with correct sourcing and licensing and then delete local copies. I'll do that now. -N 22:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
                • It wasn't that hard, maybe a minute or two on Google fixed it. Anyways, yeah, upload them to the Commons (as a Commons admin, I suggest maybe saving them as PNG files). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
                  • The quality on them went to crap after I converted them. Withdrawing nomination. -N 23:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
                    • I'll see what I can do this weekend. It may be warranted simply to make svgs of the images and upload them. The next uninvolved editor who sees this, feel free to close the DRV. --Iamunknown 23:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Ball piston engine (Wolfhart engine) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This engine fits 100% in the “proposed engine designs” [[1]] and has merit. Some criticized things can be changed.

By the way: The same German article survived just a deletion attempt. [2]

The Wolfhart Engine is even honored in the portal of Wikipedia: [3]

--Wolfhart Willimczik - Physicist & Inventor 18:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inventor (talk • contribs)

• Endorse per unanimous AfD and obvious COI, without prejudice to re-creation if better article can be written. -N 18:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse as it is still not notable. GB 09:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion AfD decided unanimously that notability and WP:COI concerns made deletion proper. Even if the first concern is addressed, the second is still problematic and reasonable here. No compelling reason given to overturn. Xoloz 17:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Category People from Ealing by district (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The whole discussion was incomplete with outstanding issues unadressed and yet this has been closed and the categories removed. Also this now leaves one borough with people categorised incorrectly as being from Ealing when they may be from somewhere very different which just happens to be in the Borough of that name. Finally this now puts Ealing out of sync with the rest of the London categories, which no consideration has to be given to. The original deletion debate was at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 8#Category:People from Ealing by district and please note the sub cats also deleted with this. Regan123 17:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• I agree the categories should be restored. The retrospective application of contemporary units to people who were born hundreds of years before their creation is highly problematic. The individual settlement categories were categorised into groups by current units (i.e. People from Ealing by district) and by the historic divisions to avoid anachronistic use. The individual settlements people are from are 100% verifiable through documentary evidence; I do know of any source which documents people retrospectively by current districts. MRSC • Talk 18:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse as reasonable, and adequately discussed, since many of the considerations were also previously discussed at analogous deletions. As I understand it, all smaller regions were merged into boroughs as possible, so I ask for further elucidatation of "out of sync." The problems involving change of name over time are common to many cities. If one knows England well enough to look for people in one of the previous smaller towns, wouldn't one know they are now in Ealing? There are only 42 people at present in the combined category.DGG 18:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome. --Kbdank71 18:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This is not a case of simply I don't like it, but I think that all the issues were not fully discussed. Regan123 23:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Why did you close the original debate with so little input? MRSC • Talk 18:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
    • CFD doesn't always get the amount of input that other xFDs do. Sometimes you need to make do with what you're given. --Kbdank71 18:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse merge/deletion - For a debate at WP:CFD, this debate had a reasonable amount of discussion. Moreover, the proposal was also discussed at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject London with a fair amount of support (although Regan123 and MRSC dissented). The deletion/merge really seemed appropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 20:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Looking at Regan123's comments further, I can comment that it may be appropriate to propose upmerging other "People from borough by district" categories into "People from borough" categories. This also does seem to have some support at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject London, and it would eliminate the "out of sync" problem cited by Regan123. (Regan123 even requested at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject London that further merge proposals should wait pending the outcome of the debate here.) Dr. Submillimeter 20:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I would object to any upmerging. This is an England wide system not just for London and has been used to try and avoid historic/new county edit wars as well as confusion. My contention here is that the structure should be restored and a full discussion across the whole of England and/or the whole UK is structured to gain a consensus for the way forward. Regan123 23:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
    • A community decision needs to be made as this affects all the UK, not just Ealing or London. There is resentment at the use of local government districts and this is an emotive issue with some (more pronounced outside London). Following this idea nationwide would produce arguments similar to the one going on at the moment over the naming of Category:Oldham. It would not be so bad if we were only dealing with people born after 1965/1974, but we are not. Although to my mind the greater concern is that we are introducing innacuracies, and this concern has not been properly addressed other than to say it is a rationalisation exercise. A rationalisation exercise which introduces errors should be halted and reversed. If there is genuine desire to expand this, we need to take the decision at a much higher level with much wider input. MRSC • Talk 05:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, valid CFD. >Radiant< 11:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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

A notable footage library that owns the rights to many shows from the '50s, '60s and '70s. BlueLotas 16:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Overturn deleted as a speedy for importance not asserted (A7)--but the article asserted "extensive collection" If people keep marking A7s for articles like this, and admins keep deleting them, perhaps we need a much narrow definition of A7, such as as "shows nothing to indicate any possible importance"--which does happen--there was one yesterday where the contents was "I'm alive."DGG 18:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - 1) a library does not qualify for a7. 2) I do not have access to the old page, however, I am willing to believe asserts notability. The Evil Spartan 19:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • • • • Strong overturn - after seeing, it surely doesn't qualify as pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group, service, or person and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic (g11). Why was this deleted in the first place? In any case, the spirit of a7 does not apply. The Evil Spartan 19:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment- The article was marked originally for G11 (blatant advertising), not A7. Sr13 05:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment since there's nothing in the google cache, could we get the history restored behind a screen. DGG makes a good case that A7 doesn't apply here but one really needs to see the content to judge a G11. Eluchil404 17:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Done. --Coredesat 18:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I do not believe that it is so spammy as to qualify for G11 and thus should be relisted. The sources in particular should be fully evaluated at AfD. Eluchil404 18:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
      • This was a speedy deletion. There was no original AfD, so it could hardly be relisted. -N 18:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Their Imdb page: [4] BlueLotas 22:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Not a spammy tone at all, except "vary from" can be reworded to "include". –Pomte 08:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Hi, I am looking to restore my page to wikipedia. I have been working very hard to create my first wikipedia page. Seeing as I have never done this before, I have made a couple of mistakes on the copyright information about my uploaded photos and text in my article. I have all the copyrights to everything I have put up on my article; yet, due to improper citing I have been accused of plagiarsm. I would really like to fix this misunderstanding, but my page keeps getting deleted before I get a chance to and now I see it is protected so I can not even start it again correctly. I have worked very hard to try to get my page up, and it is very frustrating that the reason all of my work has been deleted is due to my lack of experience, and not plagiarism. I have just received permission from wikipedia to use the content of my article on the website. However, I am still facing notability problems and I am not sure as to why. I am not writing an autobiogrpahical entry. I am currently a student at the University of Michigan who is majoring in Comminication Studies. The woman who I am writing this page about is indeed very notable. When looking at the notability guidelines, I see that she without question meets the requirements. In the Public Relations field she has great name recognition and is regarded as an important figure by the peers in the field. Even though she has neither invented any new technology or created a new drug like other people written about in wikipedia, in the field that she is in (the world of publicity and celebrity) she is extremely important. She is published by outside reliable sources, such as NY Magazine, listed as one of the "Who's Who of American Women," and works with extremely important people (such as Presidents, Heads of States, and celebrities). I am not using wikipedia to create importance for anyone nor am I writing an article about myself or doing any other unethical thing that is frowned upon by wikipedia. I am simply trying to write about a fascinating woman who I think is extremely important in the field of Public Relations. I do not know how to impress this upon the editors, but she is a notable woman who deserves an article written about her on wikipedia. Obviously as a first-time user I have made a lot of mistakes, but now that I have been working for a couple of days I have learned more and would really like the chance to finish my article. Jororo 15:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC) — Jororo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• So maybe you can fix the blatant copyright infringement. That would just leave conflict of interest, lack of apparent notability, the lack of independence of the sole source you used (the company website), and the fact that it appeared to be promoting rather than documenting the subject. Maybe it would help if you honed your Wikipedia skills by writing about some other subjects. Guy (Help!) 15:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - Gsearch shows that her corporation is not-notable: [5]. In fact, my mother has almost as many ghits as she does (and no, I'm not giving you her name to test it out). With all due respect, ma'am (sir?), I do not believe that she passes the notability guidelines. Who's who's lists are famous for being chalk full of non-important people. If you have any links to a site which speaks of her notability, please provide them, but as is, it's clearly non-notable. The Evil Spartan 18:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Be fair, knock the limited off and it gets nearly half as many hits as I do. Which is still hopeless. Guy (Help!) 20:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. First claimed to be Catherine Saxton herself, then an employeee of her company and now an unaffiliated student. As JzG said, this is either a copyright violation or a COI. —Ruud 11:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Suggestion Jororo you should put it on your user page at User:Jororo if you are in fact Catherine Saxton, but don't make it sound like a promotion! GB 10:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• KD per Guy. Eusebeus 16:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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

new article with reliable and verifiable sources and new information, not previously mentioned. If approved the article should appear under IM+ title. Pleave view additional discussion on User Talk: JonHarder Leanalove 09:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• And where can we see a copy of this? --pgk 11:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The copy of the article can be found here User talk: LeanaloveLeanalove 14:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who support the American Civil Liberties Union (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

"01:16, 15 June 2007 Picaroon9288 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Category:Wikipedians who support the American Civil Liberties Union" (divisive advocacy category of no encyclopedic purpose)". Surely the category could have been renamed (to members of the ACLU)? Notice he didn't call it "inflammatory" because it's not. Since it's not inflammatory, speedy deletion was inappropriate, and it should be sent to WP:UCFD. -N 11:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure of any newer CFD, but this was kept at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_19#Wikipedians_by_politics. -N 18:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - all these categories were just deleted. Anyhing in Category:Wikipedians by political issue was upheld in a DRV hardly a week ago. Unfortunately, these were all valuable categories, but it by no means seems right to me that we delete all those categories, then let this one, which obviously should have been in it, to stand. As it is, the community has (poorly) decided that all such categories go. The Evil Spartan 19:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

  As you admit, this category was NOT in the set that was reviewed a week ago. -N 20:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse own deletion per consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 4. No need to do the same thing all over again, since all I did was clean up the categories that Dmcdevit missed. Picaroon (Talk) 03:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per Picaroon9288. This will be deleted, no need for extra bureaucracy. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse' as per Picaroon. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Tobias Conradi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The MfD on this page was closed as 'blank the content' despite a clear consensus to keep... nine people, including several admins, said that the page should be kept and/or that the MfD itself was improper while five said that the page should be deleted or blanked. No, 'we don't count', but it is just ridiculous to pretend there is a 'consensus' for something when people are 2 to 1 against it. The blanked content can be seen here. Essentially, the user has complaints about Wikipedia and some users have decided that they should not be allowed to post them on their user page. Since the page was blanked rather than deleted it doesn't really belong on DRV, but people are edit warring to keep it blanked so this is as good a place as any for deciding whether Wikipedia has adopted a policy of suppressing criticism. I hope this is 'overturned' (not that it was ever really endorsed in the first place) because we have always claimed that Wikipedia is open to criticism and doesn't suppress people just for saying things we might not agree with. IMO we shouldn't be bullying and blocking users simply for criticizing some aspect of the project. It's shameful and embarrassing. We used to allow this sort of thing. CBD 11:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I just don't understand the reasoning. If the content is incivil, and it's against ArbCom, how does keeping the history around help anyone? I'm beginning to seriously question the common-sense of closing editors. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Procedural close Since nothing was deleted, deletion review is hardly the forum for this. Take it to mediation or rfc instead, or better yet, leave the user a note on his talk page. He can decide if/when he returns to Wikipedia. -N 11:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

  It's here because the users blanking the page are using the MfD as 'justification' and insisting that the MfD close result stands unless overturned by a DRV. We could edit war over it... but I'd rather just declare the MfD close/blanking invalid. --CBD 11:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

  The MfD close is supposed to be a reflection of community consensus and should be hard to overturn. I'm saying DRV is not the place to take non-deletions unless the page retention was against community consensus. Neither of those results is true here (instead the result was to edit the page, which is a result DRV does not review). Try WP:RFC, WP:MEDIATION, or wait for User:Tobias Conradi to edit his page to whatever he pleases instead. -N 11:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

  We review MfD decisions at DRV. An MfD closed against consensus is usually pretty easy to review. I think you are saying that because this MfD was also closed with a result that was non-standard it's not a valid MfD to be reviewed at DRV... it is more of a 'keep' result combined with a group of editors trying to enforce their view in a content dispute and should be handled through dispute resolution. Yes? It's a bit overly bureaucratic for my tastes, but that still amounts to no 'official mandate' for this repeated blanking of the user's page against their wishes. For the record, you suggest waiting for the user to edit his page... he did, and then it was blanked again. --CBD 12:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

  For debates which end in a merge and someone brings it here, they normally get told to go away as merge is an editorial decision, the xFD decision was to keep. That said we have had various MFDs (Esperanza etc.) which have gone away from the simple cases and are being used to demonstrate some form of community consensus, I wouldn't be happy with this one doing that since it hasn't necessarily had the breadth of community input something like Esperanza did. In this case I'd be tempted just to ask arbcom to clarify if the page as was, was ok within the terms of their decision (Something I don't understand why none of the delete/remove proponents did, if they are that sure it falls outside of the decision it'll be a no-brainer and save any doubt) --pgk 14:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

  Request for clarification was posted at RFARB in the middle of the debate, but ignored. I'll see if I can gather some more attention. --Iamunknown 16:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Move to close this is squarely under the jurisdiction of the arbitration committee and is a content dispute in any case. -N 16:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Second the motion to close, nothing to see here; this is also an edit war (and no, I don't consider user pages "content dispute" for obvious reasons). - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 17:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse my decision, while the consensus was to keep (the history), I blanked the page because it seemed to violate the ArbCom ruling against Tobias Conradi, and it was suggested by several editors. This should be brought to their attention, not here. --Coredesat 22:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• I see no reason to second guess the arbitration committee. Any editor, Tobias Conradi or anyone else, can petition the Committee for clarification if he thinks their ruling has been misinterpreted. --Tony Sidaway 01:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

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

see also the IFD Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion not supported by evidence; bias of closing admin Jenolen ^{speak it!} 10:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Closing admin User:Angr is a long-time advocate of the elimination of fair use on Wikipedia, and a curious choice to be making fair use-related decisions. His reasons for deletion: Well, there are of course the points that Abu badali and Howcheng made; in addition, it violates non-free content criteria 1 (the cast could also be illustrated with a gallery of free images of the actors), 2 (our use of the image competes directly with startrek.com's use of it), 8 (it does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot"), and possibly 5 as well (although 5 is worded so vaguely it's difficult to tell). It also conflicts with Wikimedia Foundation's licensing policy, which requires that nonfree content be used only "to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works" (this image did none of that), and with Kat Walsh's statement on licensing policies, which says "There are some works, primarily historically important photographs and significant modern artworks, that we can not realistically expect to be released under a free content license, but that are hard to discuss in an educational context without including the media itself. Because the inability to include these works limits scholarship and criticism, in many jurisdictions people may use such works under limited conditions without having license or permission." This photograph was not historically important or a significant modern artwork; the topic of the article where it was used is not hard to discuss without including the photograph; and excluding this photograph does not limit scholarship and criticism relating to the topic of the article.

Almost all of these points are indisputable wrong.

• The cast could also be illustrated with a gallery of free images of the actors makes little sense; the article could also be illustrated with free images of turnips, or ponies, or rainbows; the article (the main article about the TV series Star Trek: Enterprise, in which this image was claimed as fair use) was, at the time of this images deletion, being illustrated by one and exactly one image of the main cast (certainly a minimal use). This image of the cast of the show, many of them in unique make-up and costumes, certainly can not be replaced with free images. (Contrary to fanboy wishes, Jolene Blalock does not go around dressed as T'Pol all the time..) And as this is a contemporary copyrighted work, no free image can exist or be created.
• our use of the image competes directly with startrek.com's use of it False. This is a promotional picture of the crew of the show, distributed to any number of media outlets. Startrek.com's use of it is by no means exclusive. The nominator (and admin) would have you believe there's a difference between cast promotional pictures that are used on show-related websites, and cast promotional pictures released to the media. There's not. (This is not unlike the "Ugly Betty" photo situation, where the nominator of this image incorrectly claimed a separate promtional photo could never be from a website; this was proven to be wrong; the photo was, in fact, distributed widely by ABC and used on many websites.)
• it does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot I am at a loss to explain the logic behind this. A picture (and remember, we're talking about one, reduced resolution picture) of the main cast of a TV show certainly seems likely to significantly increase understanding of that show.
• The closing admin believes that this image conflicts with Wikimedia Foundation's licensing policy, which requires that nonfree content be used only "to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. One, reduced resolution cast photo doesn't fit the "narrow limits" for copyrighted contemporary works? How much more narrow can those limits get?
• Kat Walsh's statement on licensing policies, while a fine piece of administrative writing, is not, as of this moment, Wikipedia policy. Nor Wikipedia guideline. The appropriate policy is WP:NONFREE, not WP:KATWALSH.

I also find it curious that this image was recently reduced in size by the closing admin, who, at that time, apparently had no problem with image being used in the article; why reduce in resolution an image you believe to be being used outside of policy?

In short, this administrator's bias against the fair use, within policy, of copyrighted material makes the entire process suspect. Rather than rehashing the whole "fair use on Wikipedia" debate, I would hope this would be a true deletion review, reviewing the deletion of this image.

Jenolen ^{speak it!} 10:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse. Unless the image was really released in promotional advertising, such as on a movie poster, a posed picture of the cast does indeed fail the WP:NFCC. If you insist on a non-free picture of the crew (understandable because they'd all be in uniform and on the set) it would be much more in line with the NFCC if you were to get an appropriate low-res screen cap. -N 11:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It was, though. It was a high-res press photo that had been reduced in resolution to the minimum necessary. It showed them all better than a screenshot of the show could and there isn't really any difference under our criteria. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 11:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
    • So...is the picture decorative? It shows them better, you say. But could a screen shot do the same job? As I understand it we need to use the least infringing media possible, so a posed photo would be higher up on the chain than a screen shot. It appears at first blush this is gratuitious use of fair use media. As an aside, is there anybody who doesn't know what Star Trek characters look like? -N 13:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Why on earth would a screen shot be "less infringing" than a posed photo? And of course there are plenty of people who don't know that those characters look like. Haukur 16:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Please see WP:NFCC#2 of which this image fails in 2 ways. 1) respect for commercial opportunity: presumably the image may be used on posters/other collectibles. If they aren't selling them now they may do so in the future. 2) minimal use:A screen shot is a minute percentage of the total work of a 40 minute (without commercials) long program. Usage of this entire image is 100% of the work, and thus less minimal of a use. Therefore this image is replaceable with a less infringing sample of work. -N 21:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Perhaps there's something to that, if the photo is not actually from a press kit. Haukur 00:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Also, "commercial opportunity" is not only about selling collectibles. Having the most informative statrek site is a commercial opportunity. The copyright holder spends money in producing images and text to improve it's site (startrek.com) and if we build a different site by copying the part of their contents that we see fit, we're not respecting their commercial opportunities. --Abu badali ^(talk) 14:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Clear consensus to delete on IFD and in accordance with policy. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Three arguing for deletion, two against is a "clear consensus"? Who knew? What's 4-1? (Overwhelming consenssus?) 5-0? (Word of Jimbo?) Oh, but voting is evil... sorry. :) Jenolen ^{speak it!} 14:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Consensus is a discussion measured against policy not by numbers. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

  Sure. For instance, an argument/vote saying this image should be kept because it's "clearly promotional" is void when all licensing information we have says the image distribution is strictly forbidden. --Abu badali ^(talk) 14:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn as per nom. Ifd discussion was not a consensus, and alleged policy-based reasons all fail. DES ^(talk) 01:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• To answer Jenolen's points: (1) The cast could also be illustrated with a gallery of free images of the actors makes perfect sense. There is no reason the actors have to be in make-up and costume; they're the same actors without that. (2) Startrek.com's use of it is by no means exclusive. Startrek.com was listed as the source (i.e. copyright holder) of the image. If that is not the case, the image had bogus source information, which is yet another reason to delete it. (3) A picture (and remember, we're talking about one, reduced resolution picture) of the main cast of a TV show certainly seems likely to significantly increase understanding of that show. How? How can one, reduced resolution picture of a show's cast significantly increase understanding about an entire series? If a reader knows nothing at all about the show, what will he learn from looking at this picture? Bupkes, that's what. (4) Kat Walsh's statement is regarding Foundation policy, which trumps English Wikipedia's local policy. —Angr 01:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn as per nom. This is a promotional photo and, as such, may be used in this context. Further, discussion was not a consensus and closing admin shows strong bias. This does not engender any confidence in the fairness of our procedures. Badagnani 04:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

  What do you mean by "promotional photo"? What makes you believe we're welcome to distribute this image? --Abu badali ^(talk) 14:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

  • What Badagnani means is exactly what he says; this is a promotional photo. We know who the copyright holder is (it was properly identified), we know where the photo comes from (it was properly sourced); how hard is this for you to understand? This is a fair use of a copyrighted material -- where we KNOW who the copyright holder is, and where the photo came from. That's what Badagnani means... I think! And we're not distributing it, we're fairly using a reduced resolution version of it, properly, in an article about the TV show Star Trek: Enterprise, properly... Or at least, we were. :) Jenolen ^{speak it!} 00:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

    If that's what he meant, then his argument is broken, as this is not a promotional image. You're right that it was properly sourced, but that doesn't make it automatically promotional. The source was startrek.com, and the site makes it clear that its images are not to be used by others (so... not promotional).

    "And we're not distributing it"... What? You don't consider publishing on the web "distribution"? --Abu badali ^(talk) 13:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Yes, of course. What I meant is that this is a promotional photo, and, as such, may be used on Wikipedia in the context described. Badagnani 00:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

  A promotional photo is a photo known to have come from a press kit or similar source for the purpose for reuse by the media. This photo came from startrek.com, and the site explains their images are not to be reused by the media (nor anyone). --Abu badali ^(talk) 13:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• This is EXACTLY why your whole argument is wrong. I'll try one last time: There is no "their images" of Startrek.com, or if there is, this isn't one of them. This image is NOT copyrighted to Startrek.com. The "terms of use" you keep quoting DO NOT APPLY to this COPYRIGHTED material where WE KNOW WHO THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER IS. The exact same photo can be found on other websites, not sourced to Startrek.com. The copyright holder of this image is CBS/Paramount, NOT Startrek.com, and to hold this image to the wrong standards suggests very clearly that you are deliberately ignoring reality in order to pursue this image's deletion. Please come back to reality! The photo is USED by Startrek.com, but it is not COPYRIGHTED by Startrek.com and certainly not subject to Startrek.com's terms of use. But even if was, we'd STILL be okay, because we are FAIRLY USING - in accordance with both U.S. law and the much more restrictive WP:NFCC - a reduced resolution version of it. Nothing in Startrek.com's terms of use should be read to supersede U.S. copyright law. But, as stated, this is a moot point, because Startrek.com is NOT the copyright holder. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 16:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• And I'll also try one last time: If Startrek.com is not the copyright holder of the image, then the source information on the image was bogus, which is by itself good enough reason to delete, even if all the other reasons I mentioned on my talk page (violation of criteria 1, 8, and maybe 5) didn't hold (and they do!). —Angr 17:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

FFS, do you seriously believe Paramount would allow someone else to hold the name startrek.com when US courts and ICANN have been handing usurped names back to corporations left and right? Startrek.com is the official Star Trek website of Paramount. -N 17:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

<--- indent

About "This image is NOT copyrighted to Startrek.com", let use clarify this bit:

And about "...we are FAIRLY USING...", no we're not. We can't say we're not competing with the material's original market role without knowing the original market role intended for this material. And the info "copyrighted to CBS" doesn't give us any information about the original market role. --Abu badali ^(talk) 17:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

But your casual mention of 1,8, and maybe 5 shows how wrong this deletion was from the start. 1 - "No free equivalent" - you appear to be the only one who believes there's a "free equivalent" available to a photo of the cast of a TV show, in costume, on a set from the show, and with two of the actors wearing significantly appearance-altering makeup. All Star Trek images are going to be copyrighted by CBS/Paramount; I still disagree with your premise a "free equivalent" exists. There are free images of the actors individually, sure, but no image that is in any way a "free equivalent" to this one. 8 - Significance - Well, the TV show was about people. This was the only image of them on the page about the TV show. Are you seriously arguing an image of the characters in a TV show is not "significant" to the encyclopedia entry about that show? That argument is ridiculous on its face. And 5 - Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content requirements and is encyclopedic - Well, as stated, it was the only image of the characters of a TV show on the encyclopedia entry page for that show. Encyclopedic? Check. Resolution reduced so as to meet "general Wikipedia content requirements"? Check -- by you, I should add. Why did you reduce the resolution of this image if you felt it was being improperly used? What changed in your thinking about it? But since your arguments about WP:NFCC 1,8, and 5 aren't sound, it's apparently only the sourcing issue you have a real beef with. And you'd rather delete than fix. Fine; can I assume you'd support re-uploading this image with proper sourcing? Jenolen ^{speak it!} 17:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Who says they have to be in costume, or on the set, or wearing their appearance-altering makeup? Of course it's virtually impossible to get a free equivalent of that, but none of that is necessary to illustrate the cast of the show. Free images of the actors are a more than adequate substitute. Criterion 8 does not say that the image must be significant to the topic, it says the image must "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic", and frankly, a photograph of the cast of a TV show doesn't increase anyone's understanding of the show. I personally have never watched Star Trek: Enterprise and know nothing about it. How much did looking at that photograph increase my understanding of it? Not one bit. I looked at that photo and I still didn't know what the premise of the show was, or what the main plot lines were, or who the good guys and the bad guys were. The image was not informative at all; it was purely decorative. As for the resolution reduction, I did because the original was too large; doing so is not an endorsement of Wikipedia's use of the image. I very frequently upload lower-resolution versions of fair use images, but that doesn't mean I actually believe they meet all ten criteria. In spite of that, I don't tag all of them for deletion on sight; it would be too time-consuming and too stressful. This may be difficult for you to believe, since this is the only capacity you've ever encountered me in, but I do have other things I like to do in my Wikipedia time than fight against fair-use images and delete them. —Angr 21:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• If they're not in costume, they're actors. If they're in costume they're the characters for the show. Thus we should be using the latter for our article, to have the best, most encyclopedic article possible. Your arguments don't make any sense. Badagnani 21:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• No, if they're in costume, they're actors in costume. The characters do not exist in the real world, so photographs of the characters can never be taken in the real world. And no image at all, free or otherwise, is needed for the article to be the best and most encyclopedic possible. —Angr 22:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• You're simply wrong. If the actors are in costume and posed, as they are in this photograph, they are portraying the characters described in our article. Thus no substitute, showing the various individual actors in street clothes, is possible. Your comments just don't make any sense. Badagnani 22:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• "Thus no substitute, showing the various individual actors in street clothes, is possible." Why not? This was intended as a photograph of the cast (i.e. a group of actors), not a photograph of costumes. A free image of an actor, not in costume, is always an acceptable illustration for an article about a movie or TV show, as I have done at Rosalie Goes Shopping, which needs no further image than the free one it currently has. —Angr 23:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Do you have a photo of the whole cast, posed together in street clothes? Even if one existed, it would be most unsatisfactory and unencyclopedic for the purposes of this article, for the aforementioned reasons. The actors in costume are "in character" and the photo under discussion is the appropriate one for the article. The hypothetical photo you are proposing is inappropriate and thus your argument continues not to make any logical sense. Badagnani 23:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse - Replying to Jenolen's points...

...when you say "certainly a minimal use", you're misunderstanding the meaning of minimal use. Minimal use does't mean we should use few copyrighted works. It means that we should use as feel as possible of a given copyrigthed work. In this case, the copyrighted work is a photograph (and not the tv-series, as it's commmonly misunderstood), and we were using a lower resolution version of the whole image. That would be ok to be used in an article about the photograph itself (the copyrighted work) or about that photoshooting, or about tv-series photoshootings, or about statrek.com. But not about the tv-series, as this image is not part of the the tv-series. A screenshot, for instance, would be a minimal part of the tv-series, and would fit the meaning of "minimal use".

About the "ugly betty photo", it's only on your account what you say the "nominator" (me) claimed and what was "proved wrong". I don't see that happening at all in the conversation you linked.

And as someone else pointed out, as this image's source information was startrek.com, we can only take startrek.com's terms of use, and they are clear in that their images are everything but promotional. I'm not allowed even to use their images as my desktop's wallpaper, let alone to upload it to Wikimedia's servers.

Our use of the image clearly competes with statrek.com' use. Once you read a cool startrek article with the best "available" photos on Wikipedia, you has fewer reasons to go to startrek.com.

"One, reduced resolution cast photo doesn't fit the "narrow limits" for copyrighted contemporary works? " - Yes, it does! But keep in mind that the copyrighted contemporary work in question is the cast photo itself, and unless you're writing an article about it, your use is not fair. It's like using an album cover with a rose to illustrate an article about roses (just that the "rose" itself is copyrighted this time).

And please, whatever long is your reply, don't insist this is a promotional picture unless you have verifiable information to backup that.

As a side note, please, remeber to drop a note to the original ifd nominator when listing an image at deletion review. Thanks! --Abu badali ^(talk) 13:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review, I thought, was meant to be a review of the deletion? And since you didn't delete it... why do you care?

You talk, here and other places, about the original market role for the original copyrighted work. Abu, you know the original market role for this particular copyrighted work is to promote the show, "Star Trek: Enterprise"? You are under this WHOLLY MISTAKEN assumption that this image was some kind of work done FOR Startrek.com, when you have, so far, shown absolutely no proof whatsoever that this image is anything other than what the original uploader claims it is (and I've tried to explain to you) - a media kit-style promotional photo, made available through a variety of means, and used in multiple places on the Internet including Startrek.com. You can see similar examples here and (especially) here.

On another page, you state that knowing the source is crucial to determining whether a fair use claim is valid, because it's important to know who the copyright holder of the image is. Well, in this case, there is no debate about who the copyright holder is - we know that CBS/Paramount is the copyrighted holder of this image; how is the "source" information, whether it's Startrek.com, another TV reviewing website, or my aunt Matilda relevent in cases such as this? We're going to be fairly using a copyrighted work - and we know who the copyright holder is. What more information could you possibly want? We've reduced the resolution of the image. We've credited the sources from which it came. We're using one and exactly one image of the characters on the page about a TV show which is about these characters, not about the actors. I mean, really... how many hoops do you want us to jump through, other than that big one over there that says "No fair use images of copyrighted material", because, my friend, that hoop ain't policy, no matter how much the deleting admin in this case wishes it were. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 17:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not only about who the copyright holder is, but also about how did he uses this work (so that we know our use doesn't replaces his use).

The copyright holder choose to use this image to increase the value of their website (startrek.com). By having exclusive content, the site has an advantage over its competition (for pagehits) with unofficial sites. When we copy their images to our sites, we're unfairly undermining their advantage.

The uploaded didn't lied. He/She just mistakenly believe the images from startrek.com to be promotional material.

The fact that this image is used in other places on the web doesn't make a difference here. The first website you linked, for instance, says "All photos are copyright their respective owners and are used under license or with permission". We don't have an acceptable license nor permission. And the second link is just a fansite, that are not famous for respecting copyright.

Read the quotations on a comment above and you will understand why your aunt Matilda can't have these images on her site. --Abu badali ^(talk) 18:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Just so we're clear - who do you believe to be the copyright holder of this image? Jenolen ^{speak it!} 18:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

CBS Interactive Inc., its parent, subsidiaries, affiliates, or its licensors. --Abu badali ^(talk) 21:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I see why you would be confused. CBS Interactive Inc. is NOT NOW nor EVER HAS BEEN the copyright holder for Star Trek, in any form. You are so completely wrong on this, you could not be more wrong if you were perhaps trying to enter some kind of "Most Wrong" contest. One simple example: CBS's "Two and a Half Men." The show is prominently featured on CBS.com, but CBS IS NOT THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER. Gasp! It's actually Warner Bros. Television, a separate company altogether! Using your logic, the appearance of "Two and a Half Men" content on CBS.com makes it copyrighted content of CBS Interactive Inc. But it's not. In these cases, CBS Interactive is a REUSER of the same sort of content released to media outlets worldwide. Your entire objection to this image has been thoroughly discredited on a number of fronts... Why do you persist in repeating untruths and misinformation? Please... for your own sake, stop! Jenolen ^{speak it!} 07:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Which part of "its parent, subsidiaries, affiliates, or its licensors" don't you understand? --Abu badali ^(talk) 07:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment if used to illustrate the cast of Star Trek Enterprise, it's clearly not fair use. Alternatively, it could be used to illustrate the crew of the Starship Enterprise, in which case you have a much stronger fair use rationale. Cheers, WilyD 13:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, it was the only image of actual people on the entry for the TV show "Star Trek: Enterprise" - and the show wasn't about the ship... The fair use claim rationale was entirely valid. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 17:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn This is clearly within the WP:FAIRUSE guidelines, so I don't see the relevance of any arguments about whether or not Paramount have authorised redistribution of the image. It doesn't matter. We wouldn't accept their authorisation anyway, as it wouldn't be under a free license. JulesH 23:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Would you mind explaining why this clearly meets the fairuse criteria as the preceeding argument suggests anything but clearity. Thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Jules, it's true that the image still wouldn't be freely licensed if Paramount had authorized redistribution of the image. However, the fact that they didn't means that this image was never intended as a promotional image in the first place, and that our use of it directly competed with their use of it (in violation of fair use criterion 2. —Angr 06:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• this image was never intended as a promotional image in the first place - Yes, it was a just happened upon snapshot. Where everyone happened to be looking at the camera. And posing. In costume. On the bridge. You know, nothing promotional about this image at all... Your failure to grasp the simple promotional nature of this image should not be inflicted upon the rest of the Wikipedia community. And while you have repeatedly stated that you learned nothing about the show from looking at this image, I think it's unfair to say that others therefore will never find informational value in the same image. Perhaps you're not looking at it hard enough? Or with a critical enough eye? Regardless, it is extremely unfair to impose your limitations upon the rest of the community. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 07:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Jenolen, the world of photography is not divided into only two categories, promotional photos and snapshots. Read Wikipedia:Publicity photos (mislabeled as an "essay"; in fact, it's an extended definition): "Since such photos are distributed for reuse by the media, there may be an implicit license for their use in discussing the subject that is being promoted." The "since" clause of that sentence presupposes that promotional photos are distributed for reuse by the media. Such photos do not come with great big warnings attached to them saying "The ... distribution, redistribution, ... or publication by you, directly or indirectly, of the Content ... is strictly prohibited". Promotional photos are supposed to be distributed; since this image is not supposed to be distributed, it's not a promotional photo. From Wikipedia:Publicity photos again: "Publicity photos come from a very narrow range of sources, and are made available for distribution by promotional agencies, whereas many images that may appear promotional in nature are intended for commercial use by the image's copyright holder." This image clearly falls into that second category: it was not made available for distribution; rather, although it may appear promotional in nature, in fact it was intended for commercial use by its copyright holder. Since we were using for the exact same purpose as the copyright holder was (to show the cast of this show), our use competes with theirs, making it a violation of criterion 2. —Angr 19:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

List of songs about suicide (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The nominator for this article (created in 2004) basically said it should be deleted because it is a list, saying it is a "list of..." article and therefore should be deleted. Almost every list is going to start with "list of." The nominator said to refer to this AfD for more reasons, which he/she also nominated for deletion, but that nomination told us nothing more. Most of the delete votes gave the reason "per nom" (or "just a list" or "too many lists on Wikipedia"). The others gave the reason that it should be deleted because it would be too hard to maintain, one saying too many songs from non-notable red-linked bands would appear. This was never a problem and if it became one I'm sure it would not be too hard to remove non-notable songs that users add. Another user gave an example "Don't Fear the Reaper" that is very easily interpreted to be about suicide, although it is never mentioned explicitly in the lyrics. The article had a whole section for this, List of songs about suicide#Misinterpreted, where it was introduced as "[s]ongs either misinterpreted as songs about suicide, or where a reference to suicide cannot be ruled out." One user voted keep saying "songs about suicide have generated a lot of notice and litigation in the US" and giving some examples. Another user made a comment that these would serve better in a separate article (not a list) and convinced that user to strike out the keep vote. But that article they described was deleted here. They were told about Suicide song's AfD but no reply was made. Tim Q. Wells 07:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse. "[s]ongs either misinterpreted as songs about suicide, or where a reference to suicide cannot be ruled out" sounds like original research and the list as a whole could be hard to maintain, per Elkman's delete !vote. -N 11:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - OR. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, consensus was clear on this one. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse by nom. The definition of the list is definitely WP:OR, and the list may be difficult to maintain. Fails WP:NOT as well. Consensus is clear. Sr13 17:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. That the nomination was not a good one (as it essentially seemed to amount to: delete because this is a list) does not mean the close was improper. There was clear consensus that the list constituted original research and should be deleted. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I said nothing of the sort. If the list constituted original research then we can find more references to support the claims. This certainly should not justify the article's deletion. The rest of the reasons on the AfD I listed were not good ones. Tim Q. Wells 21:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

True, but if you want to undelete the article, you have to establish the reliable sources now, during the review. Original research isn't the only reason this should be kept deleted, by the way. Sr13 22:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse, reasonable close, verifiability here is dubious at best. Moreschi ^Talk 12:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep I thought it was an interesting article. --Jmbranum 00:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep I be an Inclusionist. You folks need to wake up and see that Wikipedia's unique strength is its ability to be a Compendium of Everything (what I call "a CoE"). Instead of all this acrimony created by the Deletionists, we should work toward having User Prefs that include a setting called something like "Level of Detail". Setting 1 shows the user absolutely all material no matter how trivial, and provides search hits to the same; Setting (say) 12 shows the user (and gives search hits to) only traditionally Encyclopedic material. This is so obviously the way to go. -- JDG 19:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. There's no evidence that the AFD or its closure violated process. The original reason for deletion may have been flimsy, but after putting it under the spotlight of AFD, general consensus was that the list was unreferenced and unverifiable, and that it fell under WP:NOT. The keep arguments seemed to fall along the lines of WP:ILIKEIT. Either way, there's no indication that process fell apart to the degree that the deletion should be overturned. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)