Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 10

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

Content was posted by copyright holders for information purposes, not vanity as inferred by the deleting Admin. Request that article be reviewed by a different Admin. BeSinRadio 19:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• I deleted the article as a grand mix of vanity, copyright violation, and/or CSD A7. Take your pick with this one. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • You deleted the article for those reasons yes, what you didn't do is give a chance for the article to be fully revised to remove the violations before you protected the article to the point where, if the issues were fixed, the article would be able to be reposted. Can we work with you at all to get this taken care of, submit the article to you for approval and consideration, and once it satisfies your requirements, have it unlocked so that as changes occur the article can be updated appropriately? Obviously reasonable requests are at the discretion of the person being asked, but if you deem this not a reasonable request I would still respectfully request that another admin review the situation to help get this issue resolved. BeSinRadio 20:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    • You say that this is not a copyright violation because the material was posted by the original copyright holders. That means the authors of the band's MySpace page and the owner of the record label (Aeternum). If so, you're correct that it's not a copyvio but that confirms that the edits were made with a serious conflict of interest. If you think your band is notable, you are far better off letting someone else write the article. The article itself must be based on independent sources - self-published sources may not be the sole basis for an article. Lastly, the band has to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for musicians. Please carefully review that page and the page about autobiographies.
      Until and unless there is an independent rewrite from scratch, I am forced to endorse the speedy-deletion. (I think the page-protection can probably come off at the end of this discussion, though.) Rossami (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion vanity, copyright violation, and/or CSD A7 ← I take all three. ~ trialsanderrors 19:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, this was a PR blurb not an encyclopaedia article. Please see neutrality and [[WP:ATT|attribution] policies. Also see notability and conflict of interest guidelines. Valid speedy under WP:CSD#G11 and WP:CSD#A7. Guy (Help!) 15:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per reasons given above. The nominator says more time was needed for the article to be fully revised and that is fine - the article should be unprotected to allow the full rewrite but since it's a full rewrite there's no sense in undeleting the speedied content. Arkyan 17:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

NRD Studios (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Deleted Based on a view from admin that our company is not notable, when our website is currently going under maintainence. from this our article was deleted and we see this as unfair, all the infomation we provied on our wiki profile was freely editable, the infomation was what we have on our website, just as it is un accessable people only have Wikipedia to access infomation relating to our projects and buisness, despite this we would like NRD Studios article restored or if not we want the history of this page so we may start another thread for people to start with and edit once the launch of NRD Studios website is up, NRD Studios will go through a Launch Party Process once this is finished. Robertjmizen 14:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. This appears not to meet out notability guidelines for companies. If you can provide evidence that this company does (preferably by showing mentions of it in independent sources) then there may be cause to reconsider. Trebor 17:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. If Wikipedia is the only place people could find information on your company, then there are certainly no reliable sources, so we can't have an article. -Amarkov moo! 17:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion wikipedia is not a free web host --pgk 20:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Point Taken, i can understand the view of wikipedia not having something to link us to, is it possible to retain the NRD Studio profile in archieve until we have relauched our website, and we will all so provide a link, i can promise we exist just as the site is down there is no external source to prove a web based existance, i would of liked it if the admin who firstly was concerned talked to us about this issue and we may have been able to resovle this by launching site early. please expect a summer launch and we will add a artcile then, so people may edit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robertjmizen (talk • contribs).

Simply existing is not reason enough to have a Wikipedia article. I don't doubt that your company exists or that you will get your website running. When that happens, you still do not automatically get to have a Wikipedia article. The requirements are that there are multiple, third-party (completely independent of you) reliable sources for us to use to write an attributable and verifiable article from. I doubt that reliable sources will cover your start-up so soon. It may be years before Wikipedia can include your company, if ever. — coelacan — 22:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe so, as long as we have 3rd party sources to back us up it matters not how long, due to the nature of our market i will assume this will be achieved very quickly. Robertjmizen

• Endorse deletion. When and if the company in question achieves notability and can be included under Wikipedia standards the article can be rewritten. Until then it's a rather moot point, the deletion was quite valid. Arkyan 17:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Image provided with clear fair-use rationale; speedy deleted by Angr. Objection made at his talk page, requesting undelete and procedural IfD.-- Leflyman^Talk 22:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

To be specific, a fair-use image of a living person who is not in prison and not a recluse. The image was thus in violation of Wikipedia's fair-use policy. —Angr 22:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• There's no requirement for fair use rationale to be applicable only for those in prison or reclusive. As I pointed out to the speedy-deleting admin, the individual is notable, but non-public figure, so there would be no reasonable means to replace the image. As provided at WP:FU "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information." The image used was of a one-time press conference held in Nassau, Bahamas so there is no way to replace it. --Leflyman^Talk 22:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The image wasn't being used in critical commentary about the press conference, though, it was being used only to show what he looks like, in violation of counterexample 8. —Angr 23:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• As a note, since it is unavailable, here is the source of the image from the Bahama Journal: [1], the caption for which was "Ford Shelley, G. Ben Thompson, and attorney Emerick Knowles discuss the status of the disputed mansion at the British Colonial Hilton Hotel, Nassau, Bahamas on November 2, 2006". That's directly referenced in the content of the article, and not merely "only to show what he looks like".--Leflyman^Talk 23:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I nominated the article on Gaither Ben Thompson for deletion. ~ trialsanderrors 23:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 02:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn if the article survives AfD. Otherwise, the discussion is rather moot - Lefly's rationale is sound. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion critical commentary on the image is just that - on the image not on the subject of the image. The discussion in the article is about the event, not the image there are no doubt numerous other images which would fit without any changing of the text thus you can't say it had critical commentary on the image. --pgk 10:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Angr. The existence, or not, of the article is quite distinct from the absence of a valid fair use rationale per WP:FU for this image. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Baptist women in ministry (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

The following is a copy of the messages between me and admin Veinor: CME GBM 02:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE SEE NEW ARTICLE TEXT. ALMOST COMPLETELY NEW. Please note that it previously gave the incorrect impression that it was related to today's Anabaptists. I hope this new material is OK with User:Afaprof01, the originator of the article. CME GBM 20:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure how to proceed from here. I believe the consensus was to add the information that the old version had regarding "detriments" to Anabaptist. But I agree, it seems like Baptist or Southern Baptist Convention or something else seems like a better place. I honestly have no idea what to do with this; I'm new to being an admin. I'd suggest bringing it up at WP:DRV and saying that the closing admin has no idea what to do now :-P. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Huh? What?!? Someone care to explain the background rather than just dump this here? ~ trialsanderrors 03:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It appears he's challenging the merge decision. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    • It looks like s/he wrote a new article after the merge decision, that would an be edit conflict if anyone ever executed the proposed merger. Endorse decision, merge = not delete, whatever happens afterwards is editorial decision. ~ trialsanderrors 05:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse whatever happened here, once the AFD's over, whatever happens after that is an editorial decision. --Coredesat 08:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Whatever. No deletion to review, as far as I can tell. Guy (Help!) 10:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Clean it up, the article stinks. But I'm not sure what's supposed to be reviewed here, nothing seems to have happened. -Amarkov moo! 17:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)