Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 September 11

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

I would like to have this page put back up. It says that pro-wrestler Nick Mayberry is unferenced and unimportant, however, Mayberry is listed as the youngest pro-wrestling promoter in history, and is promoter of one the more prominent annual wrestling events in the US. ALSO, he [and his promotion] is referenced in numerous articles on Wikipedia, including articles on Soulman Alex G, Shark Boy, David Young and many other professional wrestlers. Wrestlepedia 21:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note - MastCell deleted "Nick Mayberry" ‎on 04:55, 3 September 2007, reasoning "Expired PROD, concern was: Non-notable and unreferenced." -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 02:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wittgenstein (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

Overturn non-admin closure - CFD was closed non-administratively by an editor who was heavily involved in the debate. This is unquestionably a conflict of interest regarding a contentious debate and this action should not stand. Otto4711 14:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure, but speifically do not endorse the method in which it was done. Otto4711 is right that a non-admin closure of a contentious issue by an involved editor is a big no-no but overturning a closure on a technicality which will inevitably be re-closed with the same result is not going to accomplish much. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 14:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure I don't mind re-closing it myself or letting any other admin close the debate but I don't think anyone can dispute that the end result (i.e. renaming the category to Category:Ludwig Wittgenstein) reflects the consensus that emerged in that debate. Otto's insistence is bordering on the disruptive: he recently tried to have Category:Ludwig Wittgenstein speedy deleted as a recreation. Pascal.Tesson 16:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• I would appreciate it in future if you would refrain from making these little false semi-accusations. I have acted in good faith at every step of this procedure so perhaps you should save your finger-wagging for the person who actually repeatedly disrupted the discussion by going outside of process at every stage of this action. Otto4711 19:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Just because one person in a dispute is doing things that are wrong does not mean that everyone else is acting in the right. When neutral parties, like Pascal, tell you that your action is getting to the borderline zone, you should listen. It isn't wrong to be passionate about things, even things like categorization that most of us agree is worth doing but are not passionate about. But when that passion leads uninvolved editors to start warning someone that their behavior is troubling, it is time to rein it in. GRBerry 19:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure - The closer interpreted the debate correctly. I place a warning on his talk page. This DRV and the talk page warning seem to address the issues of this matter and there is nothing else to be addressed. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 16:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Getting the right answer is more important than having the right person act. Now, it is clearly wrong that this particular non-admin closed the discussion, and the closer deserves a trout for that. But it was also the consensus decision illuminated by the discussion, so the outcome should stand. Endorse outcome. (Yes, I was involved in the discussion and ended at this position, my position having been formed by the discussion.) GRBerry 16:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse as a proper snowball closure. The consensus to keep and rename was nearly unanimous. That the closer participated in the AfD is just a trivial technicality -- any reasonable closer would have made the same decision. — xDanielx ^T/_C 01:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Concur in the result going through a new debate would probably not be worthwhile, but the manner in which this was accomplished should in no manner be condoned. The way I see it (as one of the few opining delete, but rename as second best) a cat is nominated for deletion, an editor depopulates it and creates a parallel replacement category while the debate is still on-going, then closes the now-mooted debate. That is not the model of behavior I want repeated - admin or not. I try to remain focused on result rather than procedure - others differ - apparently, Otto among them. I do not question his good faith. Carlossuarez46 01:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The article should be undeleted because it was a notable topic. The indicated deletion reasons aren't justified and there was no nomination or voting. The deletion reasons of the admin were "self-promo" and "does not establish notability".

First "self-promo":

• JkDefrag is open source software and is not comercially orientated.
• Other persons than the author itself worked on the article.
• Why are two similar software products Contig and Diskeeper notable and not self-promo?

Second "does not establish notability":

• There are many people who wants to read about it.
• In other 'wikipedia language areas' JkDefrag is notable.

Kandro 08:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion without prejudice against future creation of a properly cited article on the topic establishing its notability (assuming that's possible). Specific points: being open source has nothing to do with whether or not the article was promotional. According to ESR, most open source developers seek payment in accolades--that's still payment. The vast majority of open source is not notable (and I say this as someone who runs a 100% open source system and contributes to several open source projects and advocates open source in general). "Other people worked on the article" doesn't demonstrate notability. Other articles are other articles; they may or may not be notable, and if not they should probably be deleted as well. But they're irrelevant to any discussion of this article. The criteria for inclusion here is not "people want to read about it", but whether reliable sources have written substantial verifiable information about it. And other Wikipedias set their own standards for inclusion; you have to meet this Wikipedia's standards to be included in this Wikipedia. Xtifr _tälk 09:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Later: change to overturn and list per comments below. I was under the impression that this was a G11/spam deletion. But if others don't feel it was spammy, then I agree that it was not a candidate for an A7/non-notable speedy deletion. Xtifr _tälk 12:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and send to AfD This shouldn't have been speedied, if only because it's not a band, bio, company or web content. It was also edited by a number of editors: no that does not establish notability but that does establish that its deletion is most likely not a completely uncontroversial affair. Pascal.Tesson 16:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and list - "The first open source defragmenting project of its kind" gets it past WP:CSD#A7 important/significant. The article did not come across as WP:CSD#G11 blatant advertising and the speedy deleter stated only "self-promo". None of the other speedy delete criteria seems to apply. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 16:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• It is always so hard to assume good faith when a single-purpose account requests deletion review of the only article they've ever edited. Most of the edits were by by Donn Edwards, see his defrag shootout - in the end, I think we should overturn and list but it would be nice if every now and then a G11 was challenged by someone with an edit history outside of the article. Guy (Help!) 17:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion would not have survived afd - restoring the article would be just a procedural mechanism and while we're discussing procedure, isn't the DRV procedurally deficient for failure to notify the deleting admin. That minimal courtesy, I have now done. Carlossuarez46 01:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Not enough time given to improve content. I have given a full explanation at Talk:Subdreamer JamminBen 05:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

As the deleting admin, I researched it a bit more, and have found myself in the wrong. I am restoring the article to its previous state. Jmlk17 06:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! JamminBen 06:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Deleted in violation of our deletion policy. Policy-driven consensus in discussion was clearly to retain image. Both substantive arguments for deletion were dropped and/or rebutted:

• (A) It was claimed in a nonspecific fashion that the discussion in the article (Alfred Kinsey) of the magazine cover (illustrating a major article on the Wikipedia article's subject in America's leading newsmagazine) constituted "original research." Claimant was asked to specify exactly what in the article content he was challenging so it could be cited to his satisfaction. There was no response.
• (B) It was claimed that the image did not provide important encyclopedic information that could not provided by text. That claim was rebutted specifically and in detail. There was no response.

Closing admin ignored clear consensus of discussion, in contravention of deletion policy and guidelines—which call for undoubted consensus to delete in order to delete—and deleted per his own opinion of article content and image significance. One is saddened to learn that admin is currently finding it "boring at IfD." It is hoped that this will satisfy his need for distraction.—DCGeist 05:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, image was simply decorative if you ignore the original research concerns. The image failed WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8. --Coredesat 05:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Query Is this a good faith comment? You didn't participate in the deletion discussion; you never contributed to the article; you never contributed to the article's Talk page; and you never commented on the image's Talk page. In other words, there's no evidence you've ever seen the image...or, for that matter, the article. If you did, when did you? If you did, and felt as definitively as you seem to, why didn't you comment in the deletion discussion? Besides which, please see Wikipedia:Deletion review#Commenting in a deletion review:

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.

• You see? After all, your very belated expression of your remarkably strong opinion about this image's significance is not terribly pertinent. The matter under review here is the propriety of the image's deletion according to our deletion policy and guidelines. And—though it doesn't hurt—you don't need to have seen the image to judge from the IfD whether the deleting admin abided by the clear language of that policy and those guidelines or not.—DCGeist 06:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Assuming bad faith is...well, bad. WP:NFCC seemed to be the closer's reasoning for deleting the image, and it is grounded in policy (in fact, it is policy). Therefore, I see nothing wrong with the deletion. --Coredesat 07:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply Ahhh... I did not "assume bad faith." I asked if your comment was made in good faith and made very clear why such a question was in order. You have essentially confessed that you did not see the image, despite commenting very much as if you had. I'll leave it to you to say whether that sort of behavior constitutes good faith or bad. You have also ignored the clear language of our deletion policy, which calls upon the closing admin to act on the basis of the policy-driven consensus arrived at in discussion. Such ignorance doesn't even bear on the question of faith—it's just bliss, isn't it?—DCGeist 07:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn There were only two people in favor of delete. One stated their opinion that it wasn't necessary. First of all, appearing on the cover of TIME, is something that is huge, and his appearance on the cover is an important part of his life. This should be menioned in some depth, as is done here. His cover was described, and it is extremely helpful to have an illustration of said cover.

As for the original resource claim, all that's necessary is a link to the birds and the bees article. He was famous for his work with sex. Once you know the meaning of the birds and bees phrase, it is common sense. Why else would a man whose main work was sex, have birds and bees on his cover? Do we really need to find a source on this? It's common knowledge and common sense. Now, however, it is notable that this was not mentioned in the discussion. The voter who made the original research claim never actually mentioned it. He merely said that there was origial resource. That's not an arguement. That's nothing but a baseless claim. It is notable that when he was asked to explain what he meant by these claims, he did not make any response, despite the fact that it was nearly two days later that the discussion was closed. The case of the delete votes was paper thin, and there was no reason to delete based on the discussion.

Now, who did I get the information I based the above arguement on? I got it from the deleting admin. The deleting admin. He made his arguement in the deletion. First of all, he should have simply contributed in the arguement. Obviously, he didn't look at this with any kind of neutral point of view. How can an arguement of "I don't think this is important" and "There's original research... I won't tell you why, but it's there" get an image deleted, let along overturn consensus? I can understand if the things which Nv8200p mentioned were brought up in the discussion that there could be some glimmer of hope for this arguement. However, it wasn't. There was no case. What is definitely of note is that he could have helped his side of the discussion, but he didn't. He instead chose to close in favor of his side. Why? Did he have little faith in the image getting deleted unless he closed it himself?--Silent Wind of Doom 08:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is not common knowledge or common sense. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability. -Nv8200p talk 18:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• The deletion was correct; this cover is not iconic in itself, and there is general consensus that we only use magazine covers when the actual cover art is notable (As with Demi Moore on Vanity Fair). The closing admin properly followed the sitewide consensus about nonfree images (embodied in WP:NFCC) to delete this one.
    DCGeist may have brought this to DRV on the assumption that IFD is closed by counting votes, but it isn't. The closing admin is supposed to weigh the discussion against sitewide policy before making a decision. In this case, the close was perfectly in line with sitewide policy, and so the closing admin's discretion was perfectly proper. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn The image was encyclopedic and illustrative of the individual's biographical importance. For instance, the exact same thing is done in Mohammed Mosaddeq where Mossadeq's Time Man of the Year cover is prominently displayed in the article. --Strothra 13:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for pointing out Mosaddeq; I removed the cover image from the article. We can just say in text "He appeared on the cover of TIME", if the goal is to give evidence of his importance. We only need to show the cover art if the art itself, not just the fact that it exists, is verifiably significant. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion (From deleting admin) The sentence that attempts to discuss the cover, "His front-cover image featured depictions of flowers, birds, and a bumblebee; the flower is a reference to a book on flowers which sparked Kinsey's interest in life, and the birds and bees were a likely reference to "the birds and the bees", a euphemism for human sexuality," is supposition and unsupported original research. There is nothing verifiable in the article that makes the image significant to the article. -Nv8200p talk 14:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Even though it is completely obvious that the "birds and bees" on the cover are meant to represent sex, this doesn't make the cover art itself any more notable than other images using birds and bees. The part about Kinsey's interest in life being sparked by flowers is the OR part; I would suggest that flowers are symbolic of the female genitalia, which is why they were included on the cover. This is also an OR opinion that would need a reference to appear in the article.
       What is needed to keep the image in the article is a published source that claims the cover art itself was notable, independent of its subject matter. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Correction There is no requirement that there be "a published source that claims the cover art itself was notable." Please see our image policy: "if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, and if the cover does not have its own article, it it may be appropriate." Proper procedure here would have been to specify what element(s) of the discussion required explicit citation, rather than deleting in violation of consensus and policy.—DCGeist 19:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The cover itself is not the subject of commentary in the article - the article makes no claims that this cover art was iconic, a widely discussed on its own, or otherwise notable. Compare the cover art at Demi Moore, which is the subject of commentary in that article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion No error in procedure by the closing admin. The reasons given for deletion were in line with policy and the attempts to refute them were weakly argued and over-reliant on the editors' critical interpretation of the image. CIreland 15:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Response The claim that the refutations "were weakly argued" is not credible. If they were so weakly argued, they should have been mighty easy to rebut. As the evidence shows, there was a very clear failure to rebut.—DCGeist 16:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion per the above. It was deleted per policy, and not head counting. WP's processes aren't votes. Sasha Callahan 15:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Query "Head count"? "Vote"? Who has suggested deletion policy calls for a "head count" or "vote"? Scanning this entire discussion, I see only you have. Congratulations, you killed everyone's favorite straw man yet again!
• In fact, our deletion policy calls for closing admin to identify and apply the policy-driven consensus in discussion, which the evidence clearly shows he did not do here.—DCGeist 16:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. TIME covers can be used to illustrate the article about TIME magazine. Any other use is a violation of fair use. It seems like the discussion of the cover in the article was done specifically to get around the fair use policy and isn't really a discussion of the cover image. ifd discussions can't overrule policy. And no, I didn't participate in the previous discussions and have never edited the article, either, does that mean I'm not allowed to participate in this discussion? Corvus cornix 16:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Correction The statement that "TIME covers can be used to illustrate the article about TIME magazine. Any other use is a violation of fair use" is clearly incorrect. Please see our image policy: "if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, and if the cover does not have its own article, it it may be appropriate."—DCGeist 19:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Everyone, of course, is free to participate in the discussion. It's just not nice to do so in a way that strongly indicates that you've seen the image and seen it in the context of the article, when in fact you haven't. That situation happened to come up early in this review, that's all.—DCGeist 16:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• The Kinsey issue was mentioned and described in detail. If you wish, this can be further discussed, as getting the cover of TIME is a major event in a person's life and it should be discussed. Was the text added to save the image? Yes, it was. If you look at the IfD, the text was put in after the deletion was brought up. However, the text is still valid.--Silent Wind of Doom 17:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawn as moot (as nominator) Research shows the image is public domain (for resolution of similar matter, see Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_August_21#Image:Time-magazine-neville-chamberlain.jpg). Reuploaded with proper licensing information.—DCGeist 22:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)