Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 4

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

Unfair Deletion SSMatt 21:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Most of the information as to why this deletion was unfair is here:

User_talk:Wickethewok#Bob_Ricci

It seems that the only criteria that matters to admins on WP:BAND is having a reliable source. The page was deleted and the only reason given by each vote was "No reliable sources". The text on WP:BAND clearly states: "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any ONE of the following criteria". None of the other criteria, for which I provided a LOT of information towards, were considered. This wasted a lot of my time, since after reading WP:BAND, I was led to believe that my article met some of the criteria where only one was needed, yet it was deleted because it only didn't meet 1 criteria. SSMatt 21:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Notability is subject to verification. If there are not sources we can't verify the information and the article becomes original research which we are supposed to avoid like the plague. Does this help? Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion for now. If reliable sources are provided, I might change my mind. Corvus cornix 22:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This is exactly the problem. I provided sources to verify that he had met OTHER criteria. I provided plenty of it. It seems like nobody's reading or responding to any of the data that I DID provide, and immediately respond endorsing the deletion because it doesn't meet ONE criteria. Let me put it this way, why does WP:BAND say that only ONE of those criteria needs to be met, when in actuality, apparently only the first one matters to any of you? SSMatt 22:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorese perfectly valid afd result. Viridae^Talk 22:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I just want to ask that people who vote on this actually take the time to read through the info I provided. Some of you are asking me to cite sources for the criteria other than third party articles, and I've done that if you click the links I provided. Why do you keep telling me to provide sources for the notability guidelines that Bob Ricci meets when that's all I've been doing in the talk page link I provided? Nobody's commented or told me why the information I've provided is not valid for meeting the guidelines. I don't even think anybody's reading it. If all the admins here are like-minded and have their own rules for AFD then fine, but at least update your guidelines to match your rules. Don't post guidelines that don't matter. Bob Ricci currently meets your WP:BAND requirements since it's stated on the page that notability can be established by meeting ANY of the criteria, and I've provided plenty of sources and links to verify his meeting some of the criteria. I just don't have number 1, but that's not a requirement. Why doesn't anybody seem to understand this, or tell me why my info provided isn't valid? At least edit your WP:BAND page to coincide with this. Maybe make a note: "Number 1 is really the only one that matters even though it says you can meet any of these". That would suffice. I'm just very frustrated that you all say the same thing and it contradicts what you posted on that page.
• Endorse Deletion I can't see any sources at all on the article cache and the discussion referred to above clearly shows that they have not been provided. If you have sources please post direct (i.e. not google) links to them so we can verify them. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This is the problem I have with all the subject specific notability guidelines; they encourage people to think that anything which meets them should be included, when that isn't the case. Things which meet WP:BAND must still meet WP:V, which means reliable sources with significant content. I've seen no evidence of that. -Amarkov moo! 04:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oh please. Autobiographical article, undelete requested by single purpose account with eight or nine months' history of promoting only this subject. Nothing new is added to the deletion debate, and no credible reason is advanced for overturning deletion. Guy (Help!) 06:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - I was the article nominator. When this user left a message on my talk page regarding what he could do to prevent deletion, the first thing I told him was: You need to add reliable sources that show the subject meets WP:BAND. Check out WP:RS for a better definition of a reliable source. So I don't know why he claims that he didn't know he needed to give sources. Anyways, unanimous AFD with valid close. Wickethewok 18:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion until we see an explicit presentation of reliable sources sufficient to establish notability. I agree that this is a bit of a borderline case, but the comments about how this is "unfair" strongly suggest that the motivation here is to promote the subject, rather than to benefit Wikipedia. There seem to be some misunderstandings here. First of all, the first criterion at WP:BAND is multiple, non-trivial independent published sources, not "reliable sources". All of the criteria require reliable sources because of WP:V, which is policy. Second, WP:BAND is a guideline, not policy. It is generally accepted as a mechanism to guide decisions, but some parts of it are more accepted than others. It's a work in progress, subject to change without notice (unless you track the discussions on the talk page) and in general, it guides; it doesn't rule. A decision that goes against it may simply indicate that it needs further refinement. Anyway, the conflict of interest issue was apparently too great to ignore, and the AfD was unanimous. Suggest subject find other means for self-promotion, and leave any decision to recreate up to established, experienced editors. Xtifr _tälk 22:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• I looked at a couple of the deleted versions, including the last version by SSMatt and I saw no sources at all in those versions, for anything at all, other than a link to Bobricci.com. That, by definition, is not a reliable source for an article aobut Bob Ricci. So I don't get what SSMatt is talking about regarding sources, he didn't add any that I could see. If SSMatt wants to pursue this further, I'd be happy to undelete and userify so he can add the sources into a copy of the article, and if those sources pass my smell test, and establish notability, I'd be happy to move the article back to article space for him. But for now, endorse delete ++Lar: t/c 15:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

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

I believe the article was deleted in error, no categories of [WP:CSD] apply, and the game in question is referenced in many places. Davémon 20:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Was there ever an article with this name? It doesn't show up in the Logs when I look for it in the history. Of course, I'm not an admin, so I can't read the deletion history. Corvus cornix 20:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Actual title appears to have been Sorcerers cave, which was deleted by Ocatecir under WP:CSD#A7. It's a board game though, so A7 doesn't technically apply. It appears to be published by reputable companies and has a boardgamegeek entry [1] so I think should be undeleted and perhaps discussed further. --W.marsh 20:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

There was no assertion of notability and the dungeons and dragon mention made it seem that a club A7 would be the closest fit. Rereading the article I still don't see the notability, but I wouldn't be opposed to restoring it and having an AFD. —Ocatecir ^Talk 21:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Apologies - the article title was indeed "Sorcerers cave", the board game. I've attempted to rectify the links above, perhaps if the article is restored the admin would be kind enough to fix the title to be Sorcerer's Cave. --Davémon 21:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the links, it would really help to have some formal review in addition, if there is one. DGG 22:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

SimCity 5 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Page was salted after last deletion. There is a preview of SimCity 5 in the July issue of Games For Windows magazine which confirms the title's existence. Noclip 19:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• See also http://www.simcitycentral.net/2007/02/16/simcity-5-this-year/ and http://www.gamespot.com/news/6160951.html (from Talk:SimCity 5. --Iamunknown 19:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy unsalt. Sources exist now. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Unsalt - sources exist, not crystalballery for sure. The Evil Spartan 19:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Wait - those two links you gave us didn't help at all really. Unless you can give something better, I say keep deleted. The Evil Spartan 18:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • • Again, changed. Unsalt and allow recreation - there seems to be a fair amount of newsworthiness: [2]. The Evil Spartan 18:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, I gave those two links, not Noclip ... but I didn't comment on whether the page should be unprotected ;) And now that I consider it, I agree that it should not be unprotected and should be kept deleted until non-trivial non-speculative sources appear. --Iamunknown 00:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Is this ignoring the fact that there is an article in a major magazine? Are they just making it up? Noclip 01:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Can you provide any proof its in this major magazine? A link, something? As of yet
      • Is this question ignoring the fact that the article provided almost no non-trivial information? --Iamunknown 18:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• I speedy deleted and salted it based on the fact that it was a short, unsourced article recreated very shortly after an AfD debate that was closed as "delete." Anyway, if we can write a well-sourced article now, then unsalt it and off with my head. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 19:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Off with his head! The Evil Spartan 00:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Unsalt but keep deleted and write a new article with the sources. --Coredesat 01:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Unsalt but don't bother undeleting the obsolete page, just write a new one from scratch using reliable sources. *** Crotalus *** 04:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse for now. Speculative articles on as-yet unreleased games are a plague, they almost without exception violate WP:NOR. And of course WP:EXISTS is not an inclusion criterion. Wait until there are multiple non-trivial sources which describe the game and document its significance. And then merge the whole lot into one article on SimCity. Guy (Help!) 14:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Are you seriously claiming that individual SimCity games should not have their own articles? You're way out in left field on this one. *** Crotalus *** 18:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't know how substantial the magazine article is, but I can say that I was excited when clicking on the links above but disappointed when I found they had almost no information on SC5. Based solely on those I would say keep deleted, but like I said, I don't know whats in the mag piece. Wickethewok 18:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• EA just confirmed the game's existence. It will be called SimCity Societies though. I'd suggest a redirect to SimCity Societies. Noclip 12:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• "Redirect' sounds like a good idea. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Unsalt - Reliable sources confirm the existance of it. I agree it should be written based on sources. --Oakshade 21:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• See [3]

This is clearly another example of an out of process deletion - no categories of WP:CSD apply. While this is perhaps a discussion that the community should have, it is exactly that: not something that one administrator, however well respected he is, should take upon himself without community consensus. We should not allow one rouge administrator to hijack the process of community consensus. The Evil Spartan 18:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This nomination is ridiculous. You could, perhaps, make an attempt at discussion first before simply listing "Whole lot of categories deleted by User:Dmcdevit" here. If you disagreed with a deletion of mine, you should have told me, and we could have talked about it. I gave a reasoning in the deletion log; "out of process" is not an inherently bad thing, or a reason for undeletion. Rather, you should actually give an argument for why you want something to be undeleted based on its merits when making a nomination. At this point, you haven't actually given any such reason for undeletion at all, and seem to just be making a nomination out of some misguided legal application of process. Dmcdevit·t 18:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this should have been started as a talk page discussion (and there is currently one atm). The question isn't whether the categories should be deleted, it's whether the process Dmcdevit used was appropriate. Please see User talk:Dmcdevit#Reasons for more information. - jc37 19:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion, I see nothing out of line here. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

  At the risk of upping the ante, this appears to be WP:ITANNOYSME. If there's nothing out of line, could you please explain why? The Evil Spartan 18:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

  Isn't it obvious? Templates that can only be used to damage Wikipedia and have no use for building an encyclopedia, correctly deleted by an established admin with good judgement. Good riddance. --Tony Sidaway 04:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  Exactly. And along with what Tony said below, this isn't MySpace and it's about damn time we clean up more of this unencyclopedic garbage. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 10:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment it seems within the spirit of CSD T1 (inflammatory and divisive templates can be deleted on sight), although I agree that this was not the proper way to do it. (should have had a UCFD discussion first, especially in case he picked up some non-polemical ones) Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Looking closer, it seems to be very clean. All of the deleted categories professed a particular position on an issue, rather than an interest. Categories of Pro-choice and anti-abortion don't help with building a neutral encyclopedia. Still, UCFD preferable. If anyone can make a case for these, sure, give them a chance, but if not, it's just uncontroversial housekeeping (G6) 18:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Night Gyr (talk • contribs)

  Absolutely. Because community consensus has agreed that talk pages may contain information about the individual, even when political or polemical. Please look to Hit bull, win steak - the community decided this user ought to be able to have the said picture on his(her?) page. I do not believe this is a valid deletion, any more than deleting these pictures would be. If that would be so, we should delete every potential userbox out there, whether it be User Republican, User Democrat, User Labor, User Pro-Marijuana, etc., as they are all illegal. And please, I realize that this may seem like WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but it's not: I'm referring to other valid uses of the userspace. The Evil Spartan 18:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

  BTW, this has nothing to do with pro-choice, etc. It has to do with many different userboxes.

• Endorse deletion - product over process, please. If it is right that junk gets deleted, doesn't matter how it goes. Moreschi ^Talk 18:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

  I must say, at the risk of sounding whiny, that I am very disheartened to often see administrators who have the ability to do things that regular users can't review talk about product over process when it is something that regular users like myself cannot challenge. I actually agree with this statement usually in principle, but when one person decides that something's junk, against what the rest of community has decided in similar circumstances, this is not at all necessarily product over process. The Evil Spartan 18:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - This acttion looks to have had support in a UCFD nomination a while back but nothing was ever done. All these support/oppose categories should have been deleted long ago, and renamed to "Wikipedians interested in x". User categories should help the encyclopedia, not advocate a position. VegaDark (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• So, wait a minute, the reason to review these deletions is simply because they were deleted out of process? Nope. Endorse deletion and ask Dmcdevit first about any individual categories you are concerned about; if he is unwilling to work something out, then bring them here. --Iamunknown 18:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

  It is not simply about process, though it is about that. I believe this is a bad deletion for the reasons I explained above. In any case, I'm not sure about what precedent you refer to in needing to ask deleters first before bringing to deletion review or else the deletion review should be considered invalid. The Evil Spartan 18:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Dmcdevit gives as reasons for deletion: "Divisive POV-advocacy user categorizations: please refer to WP:SOAP, WP:NOT#WEBSPACE, and especially WP:ENC; this promotes no encyclopedic purpose.)" And by golly he's right! I endorse this deletion wholeheartedly. --Tony Sidaway 19:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong overturn If we delete everything out of mainspace that is POV, we'd delete all userboxes and at least 50% of the user pages. POV user categories are completely fine, and they are also long-standing. Never delete a hugely populated category. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 19:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

  Delete all userboxes and abused userpages? Yes please! This isn't myspace. --Tony Sidaway 19:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

  I bet at least 50% of the Wikipedians will disagree with your statement on userpages. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 20:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

  WP:NOT has a pretty strong consensus Wooyi. ^(H) 20:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

  Yes it does, but according to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Non-criteria it's not a valid speedy deletion criteria. - jc37 20:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

  WP:CSD is not definitive. It has long been community practice to delete obvious and damaging rubbish on sight. --Tony Sidaway 22:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

  A myspacer who thinks the URL of myspace is en.wikipedia.org is still a myspacer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Sidaway (talk • contribs) 20:03, June 4, 2007

  You are saying all users with userboxes are myspacers? Think about recant that statement, because more than half active Wikipedians do have political userboxes. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 20:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

  Insofar as they use stupid templates, they are myspacers. My opinion on this matter is well known and I'm in no mood to recant for fear of annoying some timewasters who abuse Wikipedia to promote their personal political and religious views. --Tony Sidaway 22:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

  Your comment above is divisive and inflammatory, as it insults half of the users on Wikipedia, and must be striken... Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 00:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deleteion Looks like a constructive move to me. ^(H) 19:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletions due to a lack of any substantive reason not to.--Doc^g 20:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Overthrow We should not delete Categories in the spirit of a rule about Templates; certainly we should not speedy who masses of them without any justification in the rules. With respect to arguments of product over process --first of all I totally disagree-process is designed to reach the right results & if it doesn't work that way, the remedy is to revise the process. (IAR exists, but its for emergencies, and using anything like it to justify this will discredit it for even its true use.). Second, that principle doesn't work: have any of the people saying this individually considered each of the categories?

  I can't think of a mass deletion in the last 6 months or so which hasn't done injustice (except where the things were essentially identical, such as alphabetic divisions of something, or where it's changing a series of identically formed categories. The suggestion of delete them all, and then argue about the ones you want has things backwards--DR isnt for the arguments over individual deletions; it resembles the sort of justice that throws everyone in prison and then releases a few after long appeals. In recent use of that there was at least the conviction--however misguided--that the safety of the country was at stake--and this is not quite as consequential, even to the safety of WP.

  We justified unilateral process to prevent copyright violation and direct harm to individuals. But just in order to clean up the encyclopedia, especially when there is no agreement over the cleanup. we have CfD to discuss these things, and we should use it. Reverse, and I think this is so out of process as to threaten the stability of WP decision making. It could be seen as vandalism--deleting without discussion or consensus. A speedy deletion of WPedians who support public transit? Overuse of speedy can be detected by the absurdities it produces. DGG 22:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep it dead - user categories that aren't directly useful to building an encyclopedia aren't just background noise, they have been used for attempted vote-stacking to POV-push before - this was the issue that caused the big userbox war in late 2005/early 2006. The relevant policy for their speedy death is that they are proven incitement to NPOV violation. These things need to be killed and kept killed - David Gerard 22:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• These and undoubtedly would be deleted as not useful for collaboration in UCfD, so I can't really say to undelete. But do people not realize the terrible precedent it sets when admins can go through and delete hundreds of pages at a time for a reason no more substantial than "unencyclopedic"? That reminds me, time to go check what log entries have accumulated in Category:Wikipedians born in 1992... -Amarkov moo! 00:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  I think they fail to realize the awful WP:CABAL effect it has on some of us who don't happen to be so fortunate as to be administrators. It's really quite sad that no one seems to see that using their an interpretation of WP:IAR to ignore process every time it suits them is an awful turn off. And I had to tone down this statement for fear of being uncivil. The Evil Spartan 00:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Acceptable. --MichaelLinnear 00:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  WP:JUSTAVOTE, WP:ILIKEIT?. The Evil Spartan 00:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  Acceptable removal of divisive nonconstructive material, it's not like these were articles. --MichaelLinnear 00:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per Tony Sidaway, these deletions look sound to me. This is an encyclopedia; divisive political user categories such as these do not help build it or the community. --Coredesat 01:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - I just started creating/editing user categories in the last couple of weeks and what a hornet nest it can be. I'm learning a lot about how WP works, though. In general, I agree with the concerns and sentiments of The Evil Spartan though I'm not so sure the issue is being an administrator as much as it is knowing the ropes. In any case, I think the deletes should be rolled back with the categories added to UCfD if they really are a problem. This, IMO, would be more consistent with Wikiquette. It seems to me that jc37's strongest argument in favor of deletion of these categories is WP:SOAP but is creating or being listed in a category of "Wikipedians who oppose the death penalty," for example, really a form of "Propaganda or advocacy"? I don't think so. And, really, just how are such categories divisive? Have they spawned edits wars or what? --DieWeisseRose 03:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. One of the chief reasons for WP:CSD#T1 in the first place was the abusive use of these kinds of categories. This deletion was very much within the spirit of T1. Chick Bowen 04:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - Speedy deletion criteria should be construed narrowly and should never be used to override consensus or short-circuit a discussion that is taking place. No evidence of disruption, no evidence of consensus to delete. Plenty of evidence from past history that trying to delete these kind of pages or categories is far more trouble than it's worth. Legitimate Wikipedia contributors (as opposed to people whose only edits are to their user pages) deserve a fairly wide degree of latitude in their user space. *** Crotalus *** 04:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse While I prefer to see consensus formed before (rather than after) these kind of actions, deletion, IMO, is clearly the correct result so overturing would be a bad idea. Unlike userboxes which are a way of communicating via userpages these categories have no encyclopedic purpose as far as I can see. Lists of users who express a certain opinion are useful for social networking or votestacking but niether of those are appropriate activities on Wikipedia. I would also urge the nominator and anyone else interested in contesting these deletions to make a list of which categories precisely they want restored. A bare link to the Dmcdevit's deletion log isn't enough to determin the scope of a DRV. In addition, some of the categories are presumably more defensible than others and it may well be that some of them should be restored/sent to UCFD when considered individually. Eluchil404 06:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Zero encyclopedic purpose whatsoever. We aren't a place to express your political opinion. MER-C 06:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. There were maybe one or two categories that I would have left alone, but whatever. The question is not "Why did Dmcdevit delete these categories?", but rather, "Why were they created in the first place?" Placeholder account 07:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, this would be backed by at least the intent of CSD #T1 (no divisive templates) and C3 (no categories based on deleted templates). >Radiant< 08:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Ah, but didn't you know it is perfectly acceptable to have POV-advocacy userboxes, as long as we transclude them from a different namespace and cling to as literal an interpretation of the rules as we can muster? Dmcdevit·t 19:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Yep. I'd suggest using /dev/null as the most appropriate namespace :) >Radiant< 09:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, most of the deleted categories were the sort of utter garbage we delete one by one at WP:UCFD every day, the ones that only gather keep votes from the people that are in them. While having categories for major worldview issues is imo acceptable, trivial views and fetishes do not need categories. --tjstrf talk 09:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletions - Whether its user boxes, categories, or just plain ol text on the page, none of this garbage serves any purpose other than to thumb one's nose at others. Tarc 14:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorese deletions. The phrase "at last" springs unbidden to mind; MySpace is thataway----> Guy (Help!) 14:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overthrow some. Review seperately. There are categories of different natures all lumped together in this one section, and can't all be considered in a single review. Some of them were deleted in a blatant affront to community consensus, as they had recent keep decisions in previous discussions, and should be restored until a proper discussion deletes them. Regardless of personal opinions of the worthyness of the categories, community consensus needs to be considered. Bushytails 16:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Many of the opinions expressed here are about the content of the items deleted, not if they were properly deleted. To remind people of the start of this page, "Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate." Bushytails 16:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and suggest The Evil Spartan become more familiar with Wikipedia before he starts this kind of thing. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion No reason for the community to further debate the obviously unencyclopedic categories. FloNight 18:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - as to the question of "We should not delete Categories in the spirit of a rule about Templates"; please see WP:CSD#C3, which states "If a category is solely populated from a template and the template is deleted per deletion policy, the category can also be deleted without further discussion." --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • 0Comment First of all, I am on the fence about whether or not these categories should be deleted. After all, they DO show some background into the User, which may be helpful. However, they are not purely encyclopedic in nature. No matter what, they should all be treated the same. You admins should not be running around deleting and restoring articles. You NEED to get a consensus on what should be done, and either keep ALL the categories or delete ALL of them. littlebum2002 12:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak overturn: I realize the categories were pretty pointless and the Wiki isn't much poorer for the lack of them, but I also didn't see that they were doing any harm. Yeah, they were superfluous, but so are userboxes and babelboxes and whole scads of other things. My feeling is, unless something is actively detrimental to the functioning or credibility of the Wiki, it should be left in peace. My main concern, however, is that these mass deletions appear to have taken place without any discussion beforehand. K. Lásztocska 16:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletions — I don't care how the shit gets flushed, I just don't want it overflowing back out of my septic tank. --Cyde Weys 01:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment As I understand it, the deletion removed items which did have unquestionably correct copyright, mixed in among all the others which may have been technical violations. Removing items without adequate justification is vandalism, and there is no better word for it. Saying that one item is a copyvio--no matter how clear that may be--does not give a right to delete other associated items which are not copyvios. I think this should be treated as we would in the case of any anonymous figure who came here for the first time and started removing content. That it was deleted it instead of just blanked made it even worse. No ordinary non-admin bent on destroying content could have done that. I don't want to wade through content I personally dislike, but if anyone is prepared to identify content with clear copyright, they should consider proceeding accordingly. DGG 02:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 August)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 September)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 November)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 22
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 25
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 25
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 27
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 3
• Deletion log: Special:Undelete/Jeffree_Star

Ah, Jeffree Star. An article created numerous times, AfD'd a few times, and the subject of numerous deletion reviews that hadn't gone anywhere due to lack of source material. This is most certainly not the case now. Star has now uneqivocally met our standards for sourcing, and the article should be undeleted and allow for editing to continue. Please note, the subject has yet to go through an entire AfD. badlydrawnjeff talk 14:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Since some editors need to be spoonfed: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8].

• Can you provide some reliable sources instead of a just Google searches? ^(H) 14:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The reliable sources are within the Google searches. There are many, which is why it's easier and more substantial to provide the wealth of evidence as opposed to cherry-picking. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Umm as the person seeking to include the information the burden of doing the research is on you. ^(H) 14:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Yup. Research is done, thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Care to share it with use? Failing that Keep deleted, no further reliable sources showing notability have been presented. ^(H) 14:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Please see the links provided, as reliable sources are presented en masse there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
            • Like I said, please give links to the specific sources. Google is not a reliable source, and the burden of research is on those seeking to include the information. And please don't make it so each sentence I add is deeper indented, I use the indentation I first used in a thread. ^(H)
              • The sources are within the two links provided. Instead of spamming 30 links here, I placed two that show the numerous reliable sources available. Unless you want to click on 30 links and simply make life for everyone harder just to make some sort of point. I'm fixing the threading of the conversation so it can be read by people, please allow for a proper discussion format. Thank you. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Well if your not going to make the effort to post the new citations then things should just stay as they are. ^(H) 15:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, I have. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted & snowball close this nomination, no evidence given to overturn any of the seven debates on the topic listed here. "Oh look, it has google hits" is not an argument. >Radiant< 15:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • You may want to actually inspect the links. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • He did, that is how he knew they were just google hits. ^(H) 15:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Apparently not. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
        • This is the 7th drv? Come on. ^(H) 15:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
          • And that matters because...? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Any reason not to just unprotect this and let a proper article be written? It does appear that sourcing won't be difficult. Is deletion review the right place to request unprotection now? Friday (talk) 15:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Mainly because there are versions that act as excellent starting points, the one that was deleted last night at (singer) being the one I'm thinking of. I made a suggestion to simply move that version into the proper place and incorporate the links, but it was apparently ignored. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Apart from all the previous dleeitons and reviews, and rampant astroturfing, you mean? ;-) Guy (Help!) 16:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for spoon feeding me, Jeff. Now, let's see: 1 is an opinion column, not news. 2 is an opinion column, not news. 3 is a press release. 4 is a copy of the same press release. 5 is broken. Corvus cornix 17:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. This person is, by all accounts, an extremely active self-publicist, so the number of news hits is trivial given their supposed importance. Given the enormous past history of astroturfing of this subject I am going to hold out for non-trivial independent sources such as profiles of this individual in reasonably sober publications, not just mentions in the scandal sheets. Guy (Help!) 16:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Astroturfing? I haven't seen much evidence of that (not that I've actively been looking for it). But, according to your holdouts, you already have them - The Arizona Daily Star, the New York Daily News and Los Angeles Weekly aren't really "scandal sheets," after all. Besides, past astroturfing doesn't really make a lick of difference here, unless you think I'm part of that machine. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Yup, astroturfing. See this little lot. Guy (Help!) 16:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• I just see a lot of deletion reviews. Just because our notability standards fail to match reality doesn't mean there's some sort of sinister astroturfing campaign. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Actually I think it's reality that fails to reflect Star's self-image, but there you go. Guy (Help!) 16:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Interesting view of reality, I suppose. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. Opening for Cyndi Lauper, having a reality series developed around him... dubious certifications of notability, yes, but it's close enough that it'll be healthier for the Wiki to let the article exist than it will to keep rehashing its deletion. (Yes, I know persistence of editors is not a criterion for inclusion, but this case looks to be right on the border; the article's inclusion poses no apparent harm whereas its absence might.) Powers ^T 16:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Google hits != notability. Sean William @ 16:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Are you not examining the links on purpose? There's at least three non-trivial sources linked directly up there, and the Google News links (not strict Google hits) simply show dozens of other mentions. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I read all of the links, and I am still unconvinced. Sean William @ 17:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Unconvinced of what? His notability? If so, what standard do you use, because he meets WP:BIO with ease. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
        • That is just a guideline, it guides consensus, but consensus decides in the end. ^(H) 17:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Yes, and WP:BIO has wide consensus. He meets it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete All of this is going on momentum from the original speedy deletion almost two years ago. Sure he didn't meet standards then but by now he's definitely been covered in the media enough for an article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, I'm confused. None of those links go to Google. The first three seems to assert notability, but the last two... one links to "'Borat' Signs Book Deal" and the second is broken.--Rayc 17:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The first two links prior to the spoonfeeding were Google news links. The second set of links are highlgihts. The "Borat signs book deal" is a series of smaller bits noting that Star is getting a reality show, and the last link works for me, but may be a cache issue - the "caught in the web" links in the Google News Archive is the same across the board. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete Jeffree Star (singer). No reason for it to have been speedied. A guy who once was not a suitable topic for an article can become a suitable topic given enough sources. Why isn't this obvious? Friday (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - You can tell when comments such as "Google hits != notability" are being made that this has turned into a blind AFD. If the links had been followed, you'd see multiple reliable sources upon which to draw an suitable article from. But then again, it is literally the shittest music ever. - hahnchen 18:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, where did anyone say "Google hits != notability"? Corvus cornix 20:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Right here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I said it above. Sean William @ 20:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, I apologize for having missed that. Corvus cornix 20:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete - Bleh myspace, but there are sources for it. Thank you for "spoonfeeding" us the sources, jeff... Wickethewok 19:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • What sources? Press releases are not sources. Personal opinion are not sources. Corvus cornix 20:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • What press releases? What personal opinions? We have two pieces - one a straight interview, another an interview-type piece about Star, and another piece discussing popularity on the web. I've linked to 0 press releases and 0 "personal opinion" pieces. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Both 3 and 4, which you linked to above, are duplicate press releases. Columns and interviews are personal opinions. Where are the news articles? Corvus cornix 22:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
        • You're right, I didn't catch that on 3 and 4, my bad. As for the "news articles," we don't need news articles, we eed press coverage. We have that, clearly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Allow recreation - it looks like there's enough to create an article with from what's been presented here. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Allow recreation Now that the nominator has provided sources, it does look like there is the making of a good article. ^(H) 20:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I had provided sources before. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• No, before you provided links to a google search. ^(H) 20:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• So you didn't bother to check where the Google searches led because the nominator didn't follow your process? Next time, instead of all this friendly banter, it'd be quicker just to make more clicks. - hahnchen 22:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• If I may, I believe the issue is that, when presented with a Google search, one doesn't know which articles may be wheat and which are chaff. It may be "spoonfeeding" to provide specific links, but the alternative wastes the time of people who want to evaluate the sources. Powers ^T 00:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Of the specific links, I accept #2 as substantial, and possible #1. I don't see why feature articles are not as good as news articles for the purpose--if anything, I'd think they'd be better. DGG 23:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete Allow recreation. As a side note, I find it incredibly funny that some people shift their opinion between "OMG U NOT FOLLOW GUIDELINE" and "OMG CONSENSUS >>> GUIDELINE" depending on what their opinion happens to be on a specific article. Actually, "most" is the better word, both inclusionists and deletionists... -Amarkov moo! 00:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Allow recreation but do not undelete. Write a new article on the subject using sources; there seems to be enough for an article now. The previous articles (the ones whose deletion I endorsed in most of the previous DRVs) are garbage and would contribute absolutely nothing to a new article (most of them are random stuff written by the subject's fans), so keep them deleted. --Coredesat 01:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Meep, Cordesat is right. No real point in undeleting the terrible articles which have been created before. -Amarkov moo! 04:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Agree on starting fresh with sourced information. ^(H) 06:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note Jeffree Star (singer) has been recreated. Powers ^T 12:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • And it should be speedy deleted for having no claims of notability and absolutely zero references. Corvus cornix 15:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Deleted, recreated (badly), deleted, recreated (badly again)... maybe somewhere along here someone will actually use the references pointed out here to write it, huh? Tony Fox (arf!) 16:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Technical and informative description of a major software, Bindows www.bindows.net is a market leader in the field of Ajax framework. Bindows is in use by 91 of the Fortune 100 companies). Here are some links about Bindows: http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/11/27/48FEajax_1.html http://mb.bindows.net/news/MBT_Accessibility_PR_6-12-06.pdf http://web2journal.com/read/187444.htm http://www.devsource.com/article2/0,1895,2008931,00.asp http://www.fcw.com/article94879-06-13-06-Web http://solutions.journaldunet.com http://www.bindows.jp http://www.bindows.ru http://www.bindows.net.cn http://www.bindows.fr http://skypoetsworld.blogspot.com/index.html http://blogs.jetbrains.com/idea/2007/05/bindows/ A simple google search will show more than 450,000 results for Bindows... Ronm4321 13:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep deleted. There was a later AfD than the one linked above: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bindows (third nomination). This article has been repeatedly recreated, often as spam. Mangojuice^talk 14:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:WWII_Poland_Invasion_1939-09-01.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Image deleted by nominator despite no consensus at IFD discussion. Image fair use rationale used to state: This is a unique historical photo usually used to illustrate the outbreak of World War II. Its use adds significantly to the article about World War II as well as articles about Invasion of Poland (1939) and History of Poland (1939–1945). This image cannot be replaced by a free photography, as no free photos could have been taken of this historical event. Claims of that this was not a photo of 1st September but propaganda event staged a few days later were not verified by any source, the original source - Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs - gives the date as September 1st, 1939. This is confirmed by another source, which also notes that the photo is held by The Archive of Audio Visual Records in Warsaw, Unit IKP. The date is again mentioned at (BBC), (Spiegel), [9], [10]. Republished in many books in Poland in the past decades, as photographer is unknown it may also be eglible for {{PolandPD}}. Further, Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs encourages redistribution of the photo (see licence at [11]), although its license has been recently judged non-free (see Template talk:PolandGov) and thus forced us to switch from it to fair use - but as the Ministry gave us permission to use their photos before, we can be certain that they will not sue Wikipedia for using this photo under any license (and certainly not fair use...). In conclusion, this is a possibly free photo, certainly highly notable, increases the readers understanding of the event, is impossible to replace with a free photo, is not infringing upon (unknown) copyright holder, and should certainly be allowed to use under fair use in related articles on Wikipedia.  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• I know DRV isn't the place for further argumentation about deletion, but I'd like to comment that (1) per Wikipedia:Non-free content, we need to know the copyright holder to use non-free content (this is necessary so that we can assess what, if any, consequence our use of such content has upon their exclusive right to republish or authorize republishing of an image) and (2) I doubt that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Republic of Poland is the copyright holder of the image unless the photographer transferred rights (which would require documentation). It is indeed a notable image (given the sources you've provided) and, as such, I would think that someone would know the original photographer and or copyright holder. These should be provided if it is to be undeleted. --Iamunknown 21:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Note - the Spiegel link offers the credit "AP" for the photo; maybe we contact the AP and ask about further source and copyright holder information? --Iamunknown 21:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I am not sure what 'AP' stands for, I have send an email to The Archive of Audio Visual Records in Warsaw asking them about copyright status and photographer. What do we do if photographer is presumed unknown?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
      • AP = Associated Press, a prolific distributor of stock imagery and photographs --Iamunknown 23:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Emailed question to them too. What is our policy if there are no replies and the author remains unknown?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Polish archives replied quite quickly. The only thing they know about the source is that the photo has a stamp 'Sonnke Foto Gdansk'; they obtained it from a defunct Polish archive, 'Wydawnictwo Prasowe Kraków-Warszawa'. They are not interesterd in using free licences (despite being a governmental institution...), and avoid addressing the issue whether they are a copyright holder for the photo.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• The IFD discussion noted this is a staged reproduction...is that a reference to the common practice back in the day of recreating news events for pre-movie newsreels? -N 21:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd not be suprised, however since all our sources give the date 1st Sept and don't mention it was a reproduction of any kind, this claims sounds ORish to me.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment from closer: Image was deleted by me, not the nominator (User:Abu badali, who is not an administrator). I don't see how this image increases reader understanding of the event. It's just a bunch of soldiers pulling down a barrier. How are the words, "German soldiers tore down the barrier, thus signaling the start of the invasion" any less effective? The Foundation's licensing policy makes it clear that non-free material should only be used when absolutely necessary. This image is a nice-to-have, but is not critical to the reader's understanding. howcheng {chat} 21:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment from nominator: One thing is a notable event. A completely different thing is a notable picture of this event. The fall of Berlin to the Red Army was a notable event, but not all pictures taken that day in Berlin became automatically notable. Some of them are notable and famous, but not all of them. Keep Deleted unless it's discovered to be PD. --Abu badali ^(talk) 21:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • And who are you to tell us the photo is not notable? The photo is reproduced in many Polish books, some international ones, ditto for websites. It is highly notable.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Corvus cornix 23:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I am quite civil and assuming good faith, and my question stands: how can a photo, used by BBC, Der Spiegel, Yad Vashem and Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs - to just name 4 online parties - be considered 'not notable'? What is the notability criteria for images? I am sorry but I even assuming all good faith in the world I will value the opinions of those for organizations more than that of any Wikipedian.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Just having had the image used is not notable in and of itself. What matters is what sort of literature exists regarding that image -- that's what makes a notable image. Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima is a notable image -- heck there's been a book and a film made about it. The Falling Man had a magazine article and a documentary film about it. Image:Reichstag flag.jpg is specifically discussed in this BBC article and probably other works that I don't have time to research. Even if they depict notable events, it's the pictures themselves that are the subject of commentary. You want to keep the image? Prove that this is the same case and discuss it in the relevant article(s) (cited, naturally). Otherwise, it's just decorative. howcheng {chat} 05:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Small noticed. This deletion review has been advertised in Portal:Poland's noticeboard. Expect some noise here, but of course, good arguments will always be welcomed. --Abu badali ^(talk) 22:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Another possible source of the image, sans watermark is from Yad Vashem http://www.aish.com/holocaust/overview/he05n14.htm. I know the Associated Press, the AP, was around during the war, but from the searches that I have done, I have no idea who would be the exact copyright holder. I am working with the DRV nominator on finding the copyright holder. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I emailed them too :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Got a reply from them today. Briefly, the state that the photo exists in many copies and they just have one of them. They make no claim (in the email) of owning the copyright nor do they answer what licence they are using, despite my specific question about it (nor do they say anything about the author).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or Restore the image. I won't rehearse the excesses of the Deletionists here. Just add my voice to those who think the image enhances the article and that this trumped-up fear of Phantom Lawsuits is downright childish. JDG 20:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It's a little ridiculous to paint those who are interested in following the Foundation's licensing policy as "deletionists". I've uploaded non-free images of my own and I've ruled on IFD nominations for keeping non-free images as well. One of the prime goals of the Foundation and the encyclopedia is freedom -- the freedom for anyone to do anything they want with the content. Obviously we can't get rid of all non-free images, but we can keep that number down to only those that are absolutely necessary for readers to understand the article. As you state, this image enhances the article -- but it's not critical. It thus fails WP:NFCC #8, which is why it can't stay. howcheng {chat} 23:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I can't go into the dozens of reasons I find current Foundation policy on retention of images to be painfully misguided and damaging to the project, but it's clear that even by the standards of those in agreement with the policy the deletion of this particular image was wrong. I can only explain it as an act of cultural elitism in which the elites (Western European/American) have cut the non-elites (Eastern European) off at the knees, and proceeded to execute their will while the non-elites tried to rear themselves up on their stumps to continue the lost battle. Dramatic language, yes-- but tossing out a historically important image on grounds of "non-relevance" is also dramatic, and dramatically insensitive... One factor hurting the image is its very small dimensions. The viewer can hardly see who is doing what. But that was also an appeasement to the Deletionists, so it gets into a bad cycle. And yes, I will continue to use the acid, derisive term "Deletionists" because I am quite upset to see this... Thing I've been working on since 2002 suffer such damage from them. Sadly, Jimbo is among them. If reproducibility (usually by dubious website operators looking to make a quick buck with Google ads) is such a sacrosanct goal, tools should be developed allowing re-users to spin off imageless or strictly-licensed or moderately-licensed versions with a few clicks. Instead, Jimbo and the Deletionists strive to turn Wikipedia into a wretchedly illustrated compendium, all due to fear of lawsuits that never happen and never were going to happen to Wikimedia itself. JDG 12:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
      • You are reading far far too much into this -- this is a question of licensing and image policy and nothing more. There is no bias on my part against Eastern European subjects. If you look at the deletion discussion immediately following the one in question here I was the one who did the research to find out that was a public domain image. The same applies to the two following that one. This is also not the venue to fight the Foundation's image policy. howcheng {chat} 17:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Srikeit 06:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• What the...? You were the one who spearheaded the drive to delete the thing, and also the one to actually delete it despite having no actual votes to do so. I was thrashing about, trying to find a reason, when I speculated it may have been due to an unconscious cultural elitism-- if you have saved other Eastern-themed images from deletion, then I apologize for my speculation. Yet it remains that you had a choice between esoteric policy notions and the sincere wishes of a number of valuable Eastern European Wikipedians, and chose the former in this case. This is another reason Jimbo's sudden, excessive fear of copyright troubles has created far more trouble than it can hope to avoid-- it drives a wedge between editors who don't share Jimbo's paranoia and those who share it and implement it. JDG 07:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC) [edited 13:15 after re-reading howcheng's response]

• • • • If you don't like the foundation's policy on unfree content, you should probably find another project. Just look at the rhetoric above - Jimbo and the deletionists? Great name for a band, but get over yourself why don't you? Wikipedia's mission is a free content encyclopaedia, and that means we keep use of unfree images to a minimum, especially when we can't even find a source for them. Guy (Help!) 06:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Er, what? This was deleted on commons, according to the image description. Guy (Help!) 16:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It was deleted at Commons in April 2006, and somehow still needed to be purged. (?:-\) This DRV does relate to the recent deletion on en.WP. I don't know, however, why this was relisted: we still don't know who the copyright holder is, and I would expect that we should know considering all of the folks saying how notable this image is... --Iamunknown 18:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Two major organizations that own a copy (Polish Archives and YW) don't claim to have an exclusive copyright, nor do they know who the author is. Isn't it enough to draw a conclusion the image can be safely declared PD, or at the very least, an unsuable FU?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Suggestion If the photo is a unique historical photo, write an article specifically about the photo. In spite of the statement on Non-free content, there is no absolute requirement to know the copyright holder--this is not one of the considerations in the US law, since not all 4 of the conditions have to be met, The use is non profit, the material is factual, but it is the whole photo. If there is no evidence that copies are sold commercially, and evidence that they are freely available elsewhere, there is little possible economic consequence, & I think it meets the test on the whole. But has AP replied? their having but a copyright label on it does not mean that they actually own the rights. DGG 23:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

  There is no absolute legal requirement for much of wikipedia policy (unless you know of laws which outlaw original research and the like), can we then ignore those policies also? --pgk 06:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  Note that both the Polish archvies and the YW sell the photo commercially, but claim no exlusive copyright, nor do they appear to even know the original source... -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I didn't expect the Polish archives or TW claim to copyright; it is bizarre, however, they don't know the original source and yet continue to sell the photo commercially. I would expect that they would at least know the estate of the photographer and be indebted to them. I wish that we could find out who the photographer is; I'm sure that someone knows — a World War II historian, an agency, someone. In the meantime, however, I think that it is probably safe to use the image and give a detailed explanation on the image description page that: (1) the identity of the original photographer could not be discovered after contacting the agencies (2) those agencies sell the photo commercially without knowing the photographer or the photographer's estate; but with the caveat that we leave a note on the image description page with a link to the Wikimedia Foundation's designated agent for claimed infringement of copyright.
  • Regarding the e-mails, I assume they are in Polish, no? If the image is undeleted, it might be good (regardless the language) to forward them to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org; though they are not permission to use the image under a free license, they are evidence that we tried to figure out who the copyright holder is. In the meantime, I saw overturn deletion. --Iamunknown 19:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)