Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 11

Category:Category:Strictly Come Dancing participants (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Despite the fact that no one had voted to delete, the category was deleted after this discussion. The reason given was "precedent", although no precedent was stated in the nomination and reasons why this cat was an exception to the rule "no performers by performance" were mentioned in the discussion. A few days later in this discussion the US equivalent of the category (Category:Dancing with the Stars (US TV series) participants) was kept, and the admin who closed the discussion wrote "reality shows have their own rules in our categorization scheme". Why is it one rule for the UK version and another for the US? Either both should be kept or both should be deleted, I favour keeping them as some participants in these categories are known more for dancing in SCD or DWTS than what they did before. Philip Stevens 22:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I see mention of customary exceptions being made for reality show contestants. I don't see any mention of the reality show exception at WP:OCAT. I believe that reality show participants should be included in the "performers by performance" overcategorization guidelines. However, if there has been CfDs to the contrary, it might be worthwhile to discuss the topic in more depth. I'd like to see some links to any precedents pro and con. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 23:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Closer's rationale: I closed the Dancing with the Stars discussion by the logic that there are many categories of this type, and it made no sense to delete this one by itself. Specifically, these shows are a lot closer to sports than they are to dramatic fictional series, and so their contestants are categorized more like athletes than actors. That was my rationale, anyway; your mileage may vary.--Mike Selinker 06:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The argument sounds reasonable and there are many other reality based tv shows with similar lists, don't see why this one should be removed. I say restore -- UKPhoenix79 10:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I should also say that I too support an overturn and relist result. There certainly was no intention to favor a US show over a UK one.--Mike Selinker 15:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Mike, I hope you don't feel that is being suggested here. I certainly don't believe that to be the case. Regan123 00:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist the US and UK together to obtain a better consensus. I happen to think both should be deleted, but we need to gain a wider perspective. Regan123 13:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist US and UK categories together - for reasons identical to those given by Regan123. I also think they both should be deleted.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist - along with Category:The X Factor contestants, Category:Pop Idol contestants, Category:Fame Academy participants, Category:Dancing on Ice participants, Category:Celebrity Fit Club participants, Category:Big Brother UK contestants and Category:The Apprentice (UK) candidates, all deleted "per precedent" by the same closing admin on the same day. The huge number of categories for participants in reality shows means that the entire categorization structure ought to be considered as a whole, not picked at around the edges. Otto4711 04:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and do not relist. Not a single delete vote. Stifle (talk) 12:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Television series considered the greatest ever (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

(AFD discussion | Last version of the deleted article)
I think the reasoning behind deleting this article is flawed, and its deletion is not in the best interests of the project. The article is not original research. It listed instances where TV shows were cited as being the best. There may have been a few bad or missing citations, but that is not a fatal flaw. The article did not reach any conclusion about which shows are the best, it did not try to quantify the citations for which shows have been called the best. It just listed them. I've spent the last 3 years looking after Films considered the greatest ever and find this and many similar AFDs very disheartening. The beauty of a wiki is that someone can create a flawed list or article, and over time it can get better. The Films article went through two AFDs and was kept. People do study which films and TV shows are acclaimed. A wiki is a great way to collect this information. Collectively it may be original research to have some shows mentioned and others ignored, but this criticism can be made about virtually every article in Wikipedia. As long as an article does not present itself as being comprehensive, it must be able to exist in an incomplete, partially formed state. To delete articles and lists because they are not yet comprehensive is like throwing the baby out, not with the bathwater, but because it doesn't yet know how to walk. The original closer has stated that it was deleted because "the article comprised original research because it is predicated on the idea that these sources or criteria equate to these shows being considered the greatest ever, and I think that is a flawed premise that goes against policy." However the article is not about which show IS the best ever, only listing those which have been selected or considered at one time or another to be the best. If this is not clear in reading it, it can be made clearer. I think the article is very clear that these shows are "considered" the greatest by some measure, and the measures are clearly stated and cited. So what make this OR? There is a long precedent for citing other's opinions as long as the opinion is cited and not misrepresented. What is wrong with Wikipedia reporting which TV shows (or films -- which is why I'm here advocating reversal) have been selected in a poll, are the longest running, have the most awards, etc...? What makes any work "great" is certainly of interest and studied by many people. I see no reason why this information shouldn't be in Wikipedia. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 21:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn in an AFD like this the close should interpret consensus... this close doesn't mention consensus and perhaps the closer should have just made a comment in the AFD if he had such a strong opinion on the article. --W.marsh 22:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

  I'm assuming you mean this as "Overturn. In an AFD like this the closer should interpret consensus"? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 23:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

  Yeah... I guess I add a full-stop after bolded words. --W.marsh 23:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment by closing admin, just to be clear, I have no strong opinion on the article, other than in regards to the fact that I think it pretty clearly goes against policy, which I stated in my closing notes. I closed based on policy, strength of argument, and consensus in that order.--Isotope23 ^talk 23:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I would suggest that feeling that an article "pretty clearly goes against policy" is a strong feeling about it - this is fine, and you have two choices: (i) participate in the AfD or (ii) analyse the debate carefully to show why the keep arguments based on refs to policy are mis-founded. You can't just arbitrarily waft in at closure time and have your way, except in the few cases where all the participants have missed the key point(s). Splash - tk 00:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't call that a "strong feeling", I would call that an assessment of the article based on policy. Just because I didn't post a point by point rebuttal of the arguments in my closing notes made doesn't mean I didn't read and consider all the arguments made. Personally I don't see this as "having my way"... I have no personal opinion on whether or not there should be an article on this topic.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Relist I think he fairest thing to do overall is to have a renewed and wider discussion. DGG (talk) 00:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I see little value in relisting, since we've a good-sized debate in front of us and a meaningful article that it is based on. We can evaluate the debate and the article without pointlessly rerunning it and that is the purpose of DRV. Splash - tk 00:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

DRV is for evaluating whether a debate should be held, not for debating the merits. The original debate was confused, ad a new start might clarify matters.DGG (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Dismiss close. A debate of that size cannot be validly closed without some analysis in the closure notes of the substance of the debate. Splash - tk 00:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Extended rationale: The closing admin did not reference the debate and its arguments at all, either in their closing or in the comment above here (we are still left in mystery as to the evaluations of the 3 items Isotope23 mentions). My analysis of the debate would have to centre on whether it is established that the original research claim stands, as that's a powerful reason to delete. I would be inclined to dismiss POV arguments and also unreformed "subjectivity" arguments since the keepers do explain clearly what the non-subjective criteria are (cf Jayron32's comment for example). By way of dimissing some further low-grade comments, I would do away with: DBZRocks (unintelligible) and Burntsauce (yawn) and partially Yury (also yawn at the redlinks).
  • So, among the remaining coherent opinions, are the OR claims justified and irreparable? I think that the more subtle suggestions that the basis for the list is in other lists that are riggable, overly-granular and open to producing most any result the (magazine) editor wishes is very valid and passes undiminished through the debate. I also note that DGG's point about wanting to develop meta-criteria for what constitutes a meaningful "greatest ever" compilation is one that bears investigating, and that Guy's suggestion of refactoring is also worthy of pursuit. These points are not successfully challenged in my opinion - they merely are asked valid, investigatable questions - meaning that the article may be repairable.
  • I find on reading the debate again that the charges of "is OR" versus "is not OR" reach no clear conclusion: on the one hand, it reports other peoples' original research in a way that appears to have little discrimination before synthesis but on the other, it is not original to Wikipedia and cites its sources. I do not think that the debate reaches a clear conclusion on whether this is beneath the OR standard, and I do not think the debate demonstrates that the problems with the article are irreparable. Thus I do not think there is a rough consensus to delete it.
  • In summary, close as no consensus at the present time, with warning to the editors that improvements are expected or a much tougher AfD experience is likely to follow. Splash - tk 00:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• As an aside by way of dispensing some advice: Guy's comment is a useful one: the titles of these articles are amongst their greatest problems for being woefully indescriptive. Splash - tk 00:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Incidentally, the fluff about "longest running" is totally out of place. Get rid of it; it has nothing to do with "greatest ever" and weakens your case. Splash - tk 00:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The closer made a proper interpretation of the debate in line with our long-established non-acceptance of original research. --krimpet⟲ 08:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

What do you think makes it original research? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 10:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - just because a source says in passing that something is great neither makes it so, nor makes the opinion noteworthy. This is subjective subtrivia and offends against core policies WP:NOR WP:NPOV - as much as people may want it here, it is unfit for an encyclopedia. Delete all subjective lists.--Doc^g 11:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - correctly deleted morass of synthesis with a weasel title. Neil ☎ 14:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

  This is not accurate. The article does not synthesize the information. It is an incomplete list of citations. To remove all lists of subjective opinion would remove all mention of literary criticism, awards, polls, etc... There is nothing wrong with discussing opinion if it is third party mention of the opinion. This article (and those similar) are policed by editors who remove uncited opinion. There is possibly a case for saying that the longest running shows should not be in this list. Whether they are or are not included, should not be relevant to whether the article should kept or deleted. If someone finds a third party citation that discusses a connection between greatness and longevity, I think they could be kept. This is an editorial decision that can be discussed on the talk page. The same thing happened at Films considered the greatest ever, related to box office results, and the decission was to remove the information. The term "considered" is an attempt to make it clear that this is an article about opinions, and that that it is not an attempt to synthesize the information or reach any conclusions as to which shows are the best. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 22:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse this deletion decision considered the greatest ever. Guy (Help!) 16:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Both User:Burntsauce and User:JohnE.McClure, who contributed delete !votes to the afd, have since been banned as, respectively, a meatpuppet and a sockpuppet. DGG (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. According to our deletion policy, pages are deleted "if there is consensus to do so", not "if the page violates policy in the administrator's opinion". The closing admin states that his close was "based on policy, strength of argument, and consensus in that order," but this is not proper. Policy and strength of argument are tools in determining consensus, not for overriding it. Policy may represent a wider consensus if a prior wider discussion has shown a consensus agreeing with a particular interpretation of policy. Strong arguments may represent a wider consensus if those arguments have been shown to sway consensus in other discussions. But in this case, the closing admin did not appear to make any attempt to actually determine consensus; instead, it appears he deleted based on his own personal interpretation of policy. There was clearly no consensus reached in the discussion that the article was original research, or that it violated any other policy, and it should have been closed that way, i.e. no consensus, defaulting to keep. DHowell 01:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, per WP:DGFA, policy trumps consensus. "A closing admin must determine whether any article violates policy, and where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, it must be respected above individual opinions." --Smashville^BONK! 04:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I interpret that to mean an admin can ignore opinions like "I don't care if its original research, it's useful!", but that doesn't mean admins should ignore opinions on whether a page violates policy. To do so would be placing the individual opinion of the admin above policy and consensus. To the extent that the wording in WP:DGFA is unclear and contrary to how policy is normally backed by consensus (with specific exceptions determined e.g. by Jimbo or the Foundation), rather than by administrative fiat, that wording ought to be changed. I also don't believe it has been demonstrated that it is "very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy", even if we were to presume that the article as it existed did breach policy. DHowell 05:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per DHowell. The OR claim is in my opinion rather dubious; in any case shouldn't have been used to delete without consensus. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 02:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - closing admin correctly interpreted the debate and gave appropriate weight to the arguments on both sides. Those wanting the list kept did not overcome the policy and guideline-based objections and the suggestions for renaming and repurposing crashed on those same policy and guideline rocks. Otto4711 04:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per DHowell and Daniel - OR claim is highly dubious, and going against consensus with such a claim is also highly dubious, and the decision deserves to be reversed. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 06:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - First, I was swayed by the DRV's nomination statement "People do study which films and TV shows are acclaimed" as to the issues that this is valid topic. However, I was more swayed by the AfD closer's statement: "Some of these entries are being touted as "greatest ever" based on time aired, some on determination in various magazines. At this point there isn't even anything worth merging or refactoring in this article but if I had to give any recommendation it would be better to do fresh lists that were source specific (i.e. Best Television shows according to "Reliable Source X") and tie them together with a master list." That is good reasoning, but it did not reflect the AfD consensus as noted above by the closer. The close of an AfD needs to be tied more to the discussion. -- Jreferee t/c 07:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - this article is the oposite of Wikipedia: this article should work in theory but in practice...doesn't. I'm all for referencing. And I can't fathom how people argue that the article is original research, because it just isn't. What it is, though, is a "list or repository of loosely associated topics", something that Wikipedia is not. It appears to have a unifying theme, great TV shows according to reputable sources. But in reality, the premise of the article is wrong: "These are great shows". Even though the editors try to back it up with references, at the end of the day, a reader can just say a big fat "says who?" I know opinions abound at Wikipedia, but this is never (or should never) be the basis of an article -- to spout opinions. We should still be looking for notable topics (bands, discoveries, people, nations, ideologies) and then presenting a general summary of that topic's significance. The same criteria belongs to lists. List should always serve a notable topic. For example, discographies serve a notable artist's page, or someone earlier mentioned Nixon's Enemies List. But would we make an article called "people who have been on an enemy list - with references"? Of course not. In the case of this article, the only substantial info is the sources, since the opinions are a dime a dozen. As a reader, I found myself saying things like "Who on earth is Newtype USA" or "the Radio Times Guide to TV Comedy actually thinks The Phil Silvers Show is the best sitcom...ever? Weirdos." These opinions are transient, date quickly and really only as good as the reader trusts the source. I just want to cut it at the quick before the authors invest anymore time in it. I think the deleter made a good call.--Esprit15d(۝ • ۞ • ▲) 19:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse garbage topic, unencyclopedic, POV-fraught with an inevitable English-language bias. Good close. Eusebeus 01:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strongest Possible Endorse. This is utter unencyclopedic garbage. I am shocked - yes, shocked - that anyone would vote to overturn (or to keep) it. It's a bunch of unrelated things lumped together into a made up list. I cannot overemphasize how bad that overturning this kind of garbage would be for the project. --Smashville^BONK! 04:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is is unencyclopedic to discuss things that are considered great? There are two common meanings of "encyclopedic". One meaning is "found in an encyclopedia, like the EB", the other is "pertaining to all fields of knowledge". What makes it garbage? Certainly, it could be much better, but the way to make it much better isn't by deleting it. They entries in this list are not unrelated. Each entry relates to the topic. Some reasons behind your shock and outrage would help move the discussion forward. As for the damage to the project, I believe it is being greatly harmed by removing lists such as this. The biggest loss is by demoralizing those that contribute to them, and those that appreciated finding them here. The down-side of being more "low-brow" is small in comparison. Instead of removing these community generated lists, they should be labeled to make their deficiencies transparent to the reader. Every article at Wikipedia is flawed. Over time, if given the chance, they improve. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 08:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse, unencyclopedic listcruft. Right result. Stifle (talk) 12:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse unencyclopedic opinonlistcruft. Carlossuarez46 23:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Out of process. See User_talk:Spryde#DON.27T_MISUSE_speedies*. I HEREBY REQUEST a temporary restore of the article and its FULL history (Further back than 7 June 2006, including Upfront Rewards), as it's needed for the discussion. Historical versions contain claims of notability, as well as references. Elvey 19:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Content inlined here for the multitude apparently unwilling to follow the link.

DON'T MISUSE speedies On a related note: Universal Savings Bank was tagged improperly by User:spryde; there were links in the speedied article to several pieces of significant news coverage. These are a prima facie evidence of importance/significance. --Elvey 17:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Elvey, I read through the article and I did not see anything that claimed notability. I therefore tagged it as such. It looked like any other piece of advert that tries to get put onto Wikipedia on a daily basis. spryde | talk 16:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The sentence I bolded, above, is obviously untrue. The version you marked for speedy deletion was, if anything, overly critical. Again, your speedy tag was improper and careless. --Elvey 19:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Well the most recent deletion of Universal Savings Bank was clearly reasonable, there was no assertion of importance or significance there. Having looked at the older versions of the article, and of Upfront Rewards, I really think you'd be better off starting from scratch, after having a good read of WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Stormie 21:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant, even if it were true, and based my recollection it isn't, for reasons already given. You're not commenting on the deletion in question. Let's stick to the topic. I can't respond as I can't see what you see. I had about 2 HOURS TO RESPOND TO THE SPEEDY. Plus, telling me to start from scratch is rude, given I've already responded to that suggestion, as you should know if you did what you say you did. What part of "Out of process. See User_talk:Spryde#DON.27T_MISUSE_speedies." did you not read, not understand, find lacking, or not agree with? --Elvey 22:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, my comment on the deletion in question: the article made no assertion of importance or significance, it merely asserted that Universal Savings Bank "is a US thrift institution that is in the consumer credit business", then went on to provide some links regarding the president's murky past. A perfectly valid CSD A7 deletion, the fact that a company is run by someone who was fired from some other company is hardly an assertion of notability. Upfront Rewards, on the other hand, was deleted entirely within process after a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Upfront Rewards where every contributor other than yourself called for deletion. On what grounds do you believe these deletions were out of process? --Stormie 05:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Already asked and answered. I have said before -that is NOT all the articles contained. What part of "Out of process. See User_talk:Spryde#DON.27T_MISUSE_speedies." did you not read, not understand, find lacking, or not agree with? Samuel Blanning also deleted Upfront Rewards out of process: the "Always explain your reasoning." part was blatantly violated.--Elvey 05:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Could you please explain how this deletion was out of process? Incorrect, perhaps, but out of process? Secondly, there is nothing substantial in the article's history, everything has been moved to User:Elvey/Universal Savings Bank-NeedsRestoredContentKeepHist back in April. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Is the answer at User_talk:Spryde#DON.27T_MISUSE_speedies unclear? WP:CSD#A7? Not! Re.'Secondly": There are substantial references in Upfront Rewards, as I said. That is NOT at User:Elvey/Universal Savings Bank-NeedsRestoredContentKeepHist. Correct your statement or I'll do it for you. I said before: "I HEREBY REQUEST a temporary restore of the article and its FULL history (Further back than 7 June 2006, including Upfront Rewards), as it's needed for the discussion. Historical versions contain claims of notability, as well as references." A restore to userspace is fine.--Elvey 01:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Rewrite the article first I can think of several reasons for rapid deletion, besides A7, such as attack page. A really unfair and uncited article. Maybe a fair and documented one would end up giving readers the same conclusion, but it would be better all-around t you were to write one in user space first.DGG (talk) 00:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Wrong order. The article has been deleted out of process. The deleted version in question is quite different in tone from what's at User:Elvey/Universal Savings Bank-NeedsRestoredContentKeepHist!!! That version an attack page? No way! It was nuked as being a company ad for crying out loud! And uncited? Nonsense! The full pages histories have a shitload of cites; that's what I'm insisting be restored; that's stated clearly in recent versions of the page too. --Elvey 02:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Gimme a friggin userspace temporary restore, people. Is that too much to ask??? Is asking you not to re-ask questions already answered too much to ask? What part of "Out of process. See User_talk:Spryde#DON.27T_MISUSE_speedies." did you not read, not understand, find lacking, or not agree with? --Elvey 02:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Reverse PROD.

I went to place a link from the mention of "DCC" on q:Mark Shuttleworth to the DCC Alliance Wikipedia article. This article was removed within the last 48 hours following a PROD (and apparently) no discussion. I have had no previous involvement with the article in question. I do believe this article may have a place, along with the United Linux article (again no involvement). Both articles document (now defunct) alliances and attempts at consolidation with in the Linux industry. —Sladen 18:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:NREAGANKISSCASKET1.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|IfD)

This image (if you are unable to view it,here is a similar image) was brought to WP:IMD (see entry here), and concensus was wrongly tallied. I voted to keep the image, as well as User:Cumulus Clouds and the only opposition was from User:RG2; I uploaded it, provided the source, a fair use rationale, and the reasons to show why the picture is valuable. It is iconic within itself, representing, aruguably, the most famous image of President Ronald Reagan's funeral. Happyme22 (talk) 09:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Prior deleted uploads by Happyme22:

• Image:NRCASKET.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Image:NReaganKiss.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Overturn - irreplaceable, and no consensus for deleting it. It isn't strictly necessary to the article, but that's true of virtually all images, and consensus does not favor eliminating fair use images. — xDanielx ^T/_C 13:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Its not irreplacable if there are several versions of the image. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
    • But it is unlikely that any of them are released under a free license. (And if one is, then none of us are aware of it, in which case it isn't doing much good.) — xDanielx ^T/_C 19:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Relist at IMD, for a better discussion. As far as I can see, there was no clear consensus. Rudget _zŋ 14:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Tentative Endorse. Consensus is determined by arguments against policy and the only arguments for keeping under policy were addressed in the discussion. IFD/IMD rarely has extensive discussions and there is no reason to relist and we won't see any more contributions then we already had. Has anyone contacted the deleting admin yet? Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC). I see the closing admin has been informed of this discussion - shame about the failure to discuss the deletion with them before bringing this here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse Overturn, no consensus was reached to delete this image. Also fair use rationale was provided, and I have to agree with Happyme22 that this image is iconic and should not have been deleted. TonyBallioni 00:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist - The nominating reason "Press photos are not to be used on Wikipedia unless particularly iconic themselves" seems like a personal opinion rather than per policy/guideline consensus. The nominator's "are not"/"unless" language scheme turned the Images for Deletion process into an Images for Retention process, which is wrong. The relevant guideline that needed to be discussed was Unacceptable images criterion #6: "A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. This applies mostly to contemporary press photos and not necessarily to historical archives of press photos." That was not discussed and the image needs to be sent back to IfD with the specific request that Unacceptable images criterion #6 be discussed. The license failed to provide a detailed non-free use rationale as required by Template:Non-free fair use in. That would be enough reason to delete the image. Because this is a valuable press photo and likely worth significant reproduction money to the copyright owner, I do not see this image overcoming the fair use factor "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." However, that is for IfD to decide, not DRV. Happyme22 tagged the image with Template:Withpermission. Because this is a valuable press photo and likely worth significant reproduction money to the copyright owner, the validity of that template should have been vigorously pursued. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are more than sufficient to address this image. We just need to use them. -- Jreferee t/c 06:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Let me run full circle on my above post. An iconic event may overcome the fair use factor of "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." The iconic event issue was discussed at AfD. After all is said and done, perhaps that was the only real issue regarding this image. Perhaps the statement "Press photos are not to be used on Wikipedia unless particularly iconic themselves" really is saying a press photo with clear, significant market value is an unacceptable image unless it is an image with iconic status or historical importance. The IMD closing actions did implement the debate correctly by deleting the image. If the closer of this DRV thinks what should have been discussed in that IMD was discussed, then my position would be endorse deletion.-- Jreferee t/c 14:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. In the course of his comment above (supporting overturn), Jreferee has actually made a case that supports deletion fairly conclusively. I understand his view that this case is best heard at IfD, and he's right, it is best heard at IfD: under the circumstances, though, restoring this image seems futile, since it is reasonable to question the truthfulness of terms of the license. I cannot support the restoration of an image where it appears more likely than not that the license is false, perhaps intentionally so. Xoloz 13:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• The false license thing bothered me, too. It is a big deal if it was intentional. Happyme22's image uploading and licensing probably should be looked at. -- Jreferee t/c 14:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Happyme22's initial February 2007 image uploading was based on if an image does not explicitly carry with it a copyright statement, the image was in the public domain. RP88 gave Happyme22 some detailed copyright advise in March 2007[1] In August 2007, Happyme22 uploaded Image:REAGANSKISS2000.jpg, which he said he BOUGHT at time.com, "which also granted me rights to use this on Wikipedia, provided there is no copying, distributing, and/or plagerizing of this image." The Image:REAGANSKISS2000.jpg was deleted as being taken from img.timeinc.net. I only looked at the kiss images. Many of Happyme22's images are being deleted at present. I'm not sure if this is a case innocent ignorance in a string of copyright areas or, as Xoloz mentions, intentional. -- Jreferee t/c 14:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Default pantheon of Dungeons & Dragons (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

List of Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 Edition supplements ("Complete") (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

List of Forgotten Realms source books (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

These were deleted citing CSD A3, but are needed so that the proposals for inbound mergers can each be gathered in one place and discussed on one talk page. NeonMerlin 04:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse. Content of the first title was {{Mergefrom-multiple|Olidammara|Garl Glittergold|Hextor|Pelor}}; the other two were identical, except for naming different articles. Having a page in mainspace consisting solely of a merge notice is actively harmful to the encyclopedia. Just put the merge notices on the source pages and direct the discussion links to all point at the same talk page (using subst if necessary). Alternately, go ahead and do the merge to begin with, and temporarily omit the final step of redirecting the source articles; with a good, comprehensive article in place to show people the quality of the end result vis-a-vis the separate articles, the merge discussion will be much better informed. —Cryptic 12:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - be bold and merge to begin with. Rudget _zŋ 14:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)