Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 September 15

Bob's Discount Furniture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Improved, referenced version of article created at User:GregRM/Bob's Discount Furniture draft. Feel free to edit the article or provide comments/suggestions. I realize that the reference numbers are sometimes out of order...I will try to work on this soon. When the article is restored to main article space, please also restore original history. Original deletion review is available at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 September 9.--GregRM 20:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Restore - I have no idea how the deleted version of the article looked, but if I had something like the one in your userspace lined up then I'd just upload it without pandering to process. It might not be listed on the Dow, but there's a reasonable amount of different sources, and I'm sure anyone in the US furniture business will know who they are. Wikipedia's reach in the business space is desperately lacking, take a look at the gaps we have in the FTSE 250 Index for example. Well sourced articles in the business space are encouraged, and if they're on the whole neutral then I don't care whether it was paid for or not. - hahnchen 00:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

  The only reference was the corporate website. Picaroon (t) 02:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• That's a well-written and well-sourced replacement, GregRM, and I don't think you need a deletion review for this move. In my opinion, it can be moved any time. Would you like me to move it there and restore the history of the deleted article now? Picaroon (t) 02:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, you can move it. Thank you very much.--GregRM 02:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The Low Spark of High Heeled Boys (song) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD) Search - (wp gwp g | eb 1911 co en gct sw)

This is the first time I've encountered this issue; I hope you'll bear with me. This article is relatively short and contains much information which is duplicated from it's parent album's page. So I merged the information back to the parent page, in its own section & left a "prod"" on the page. There was an objection & removal, as you will see, from an IP address which was used for about an hour earlier today to do a bunch of minor edits. This is why I did not leave a note on the editor's talk page, it might be dynamic & so doing so would probably be a waste of time. I am prevented from replacing the "prod" under WP:Delete, which is why I've placed it here. My opion, FWIW is that anyone searching for it is going to type (to abbreviate) TLSOHHB. not TLSOHHB (song); if they search for the title, they will be taken to the album, where the comment about that title now resides. ALso, the IP's editor's reason for the removal of "prod" is not necessarily valid in the track's country of origin, the UK. There are now vanishingly few radio stations playing this type of music. Also, the IP editor hasn't reverted the parent page, so we now have duplicated info, which is both a resources and a maintainability issue. Comments? --Rodhullandemu 18:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - After removal of a PROD, the next step is to list the article at AfD if you think it needs deleting. I just listed the article at AfD. See The Low Spark of High Heeled Boys AfD. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 19:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The Smiths – Cover artwork (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD) Search - (wp gwp g | eb 1911 co en gct sw)

I started the article The Smiths – Cover artwork some weeks ago. There are many articles about albums and singles by The Smiths. This article describes the motifs. It was deleted by Majorly. There was no deletion request and no information on my discussion page as author. Please see the discussion on Majorly's discussion page. I can not see the problem with using the cover pictures as they are used for illustration of the band's and its records' articles, too. Beside this the article goes much further than the introducing sentence because it is a collection of information about each record. Even without pictures it would legitimate a table containing the list and information. -- Simplicius 13:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)(please excuse, English is not my mother language)

Note - Majorly speedy deleted The Smiths – Cover artwork at 16:02, 24 August 2007, giving the reason "WP:NOT a gallery of non free images, and without said images this article fails many requirements." -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete the article seems to have been at The Smiths – Cover artwork, and as far as I can tell meets no speedy deletion criteria. Their rather strange cover artwork, with black-and-white photos of people from Elvis to Charles Hawtrey, is one of the things the Smiths are most recognised for, and certainly should be discussed somewhere. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• I'm inclined, based on the description of the article, to endorse as being a gallery of non-free images per Majorly. Otto4711 14:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete per Simplicius; it sounds like it should have been a discussion rather than a speedy. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. Policy violations are not subject to consensus, a speedy is perfectly appropriate. This article was clearly a gallery of non-free images and should not be recreated. --JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 15:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete more than a gallery. In addition to the illustrations, there is descriptive text. Possibly not really enough to justify repeating the illustrations yet, so the article should be expanded. And if necessary it can be done as Simplicius suggested, a table without the illustrations--just links to the WP articles on the albums. DGG (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and list at AfD - Neither WP:CSD#A1 no context nor WP:CSD#A3 no content really apply. The blurb at the top of the deleted article gets it past WP:CSD#A7 (no assertion of importance/significance). There might be a basis for WP:CSD#G12 (Blatant copyright infringement), but the problem is non-free images, not text, and there are different procedure for non-free images. This isn't a fair use galleries in user space per WP:CSD#U3 usper page speedy delete. Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion doesn't seem to apply, but the article is ripe for WP:AfD. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete without pictures (at least initially). This is an encyclopedic topic, and the deletion rationale is a catch-22. Speedy deletion is only appropriate when an article fits one of the speedy deletion criteria.P4k 22:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and list There needs to be a discussion about this and consensus of sort reached in this case. Deus Ex Machina 23:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

About copyright violation: I am quoting the pictures directly. They are all used elsewhere, too. In other articles about the records they are used as illustration mainly, in the article about the band just as decoration. I cannot see a conflict with the policy, just the problems of fair use in general - but not here in particular. -- Simplicius 12:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

These two well-written articles with a lot o references and very adequate contents has been deleted numerous times ny tje user "cryptic". He doesn't seem do respond, and he has no talk-page. I'm very unexperienced with Wikipedia and all my research has now been deleted. I would like reinstall the page of L Lidstömer and Fammge (he deleted both). I'd like to protect them also. If someone wants to delete them again, I can present a lot of evidences!!!! PLEASE HELP ME!!! NGL 07:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nike George (talk • contribs)

User:Cryptic has a talk page, which you have vandalized. L Lidströmer was an article about Louise Lidströmer. An earlier article about her was deleted as a result of Articles for deletion/Louise Lidströmer. Please explain persuasively and concisely how that earlier decision was wrong; in particular, cite some credible links. -- Hoary 08:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the damage to Cryptic's talk page was accidental; accidental or not, Nike George has since apologized to Cryptic for it. -- Hoary 10:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion under WP:CSD#G4, reposting of content deleted through a discussion. As of 12/06, the consensus was there was not enough material. You seem to have commented there, so this is not news to you, and you have tried to name the article something else, so you seem aware of the status. There's a possibility of notability here but without sources, substantial error in the prior AFD, or substantial new information, our help here is limited to helping you understand our biographical article policies. --Dhartung | Talk 08:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, reposts at much better titles are still reposts. Nobody else other than Nike George (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)seems to be interested in these subjects, and by common consent at the deletion debate notability was not established. No more end-runs around deletion policy, please. Guy (Help!) 12:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion unanimous AfD, no reason given to overturn. Edits like this one (replacing Cryptic's whole talk page) makes it hard to assume good faith on the nominator's part, and their reference to the subject as "my family" strongly suggest a WP:COI case as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• Stop deletion, my persuasive defense speech:

• Permit re-creation Endorse deletion - under WP:CSD#G4 per Hoary's fine reasoning -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC) -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 06:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
• Permit re-creation of the Lindstromer article. There certainly does seem to be substantially more material. Probably it warrants another discussion at AfD. I hope we can resurrect Nike George as well.As for femmage, that might possibly make an article, but not if nobody else has used the trm, and the article here was a duplicate. DGG (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• Permit re-creation of Louise Lidströmer, because a long list of what are purported to be disinterested references have been produced. This permission should not be taken to preclude a second AfD if the re-editors of the article do not credibly indicate just which assertion about LL is backed up by precisely which authoritative source. (The sources cited may be in Swedish or any other language, but they must be specified precisely.) ¶ "Femmage" seems to be a neologism of little significance; if Louise Lidströmer is restored, then Femmage may be re-created as a redirect to it. ¶ Toward the end of his long message shortly above, and therefore perhaps inconspicuously, Nike George comments on the speedy deletion of another article by him, Sigrid Lidströmer. This article is rather problematic in some ways, but I too disagree that it was speedy material and am about to contact the admin who deleted it. -- Hoary 22:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• Further comment: the AfD was not one of WP's finest. Of the first five contributions, four are "delete" quasi-votes; however, three of these say or imply that they'd change to "keep" if sources were forthcoming, and the fourth doesn't take the obvious opportunity to disagree. This was followed by two announcements that sources had been found, and a relisting. The very first contribution after the relisting was a disinterested and informative description of substantive sources. None of the people who'd previously (and more or less provisionally) said "delete" then returned (whether out of laziness or because they hadn't been notified of the discovery of evidence), and there was a single delete quasi-vote that completely ignored the matter of evidence. Yes the edit history shows "COI", grounds to view the article with great suspicion -- but not grounds to dismiss the 2 December comment by Bonadea. -- Hoary 00:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• A little note from me. I wrote an article after the Louise-article, called only "L Lidströmer", that contained more references including books with ISBN-number (as it should be I guess). Regarding the "femmage" (which is a neologism) I also had a book reference there (with ISBN). When it comes to Sigrid, I aggree it is not the easiest article, but I saw some challenge to find more here. When learning more about Wikipedia it is more fun, and I hope I can contribute with articles outside these mentioned subjects, which may seem small.--NGL 08:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nike George (talk • contribs)

• Release of a page please look at my draft with 84 new references (you may also look at my talk page where Hoary has helped me alot) Link; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nike_George/Draft Tomorrow I will reconstruct the Sigrid-page. I would also like to reconstruct the femmage-page - could someone, a kind person, send me the final version of the femmage-page, so I could add references and notes? NGL 18:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I have done this. -- Hoary 10:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Yet more comments. I've written above that the "Louise Lidströmer" AfD was unsatisfactory in certain ways. The article that it rightly or wrongly deleted was most unsatisfactory too. The article that was later created as L Lidströmer was also unsatisfactory; however, it was not a simple re-creation of the earlier article, it was instead an improvement, with sources. Speedying it seems iffy. Both the earlier article and the later one are about a member of the author's own family, immediately raising worries about COI. But as I read this guideline, while it warns people away from writing about members of their own family, it does not rule it out; and (from "in a nutshell"): editors with a potential conflict of interest may edit with appropriate care and discussion. What Nike George is now working on asserts notability, provides references (at this moment, too many of them), and seems to show an honest (if not yet fully successful) attempt at appropriate care. -- Hoary 10:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Good enough? I think it may be completed now. Now I think the article is complete with the references presented in the correct and formal way, sources to pictures, I have taken away many references also because I had too many. I am open to all opinions, if you think I should correct, add or take away something.NGL 18:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Single File (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Hi, it's me again. I first came across this article in my days of yore, when I first started spending a lot of time hanging around at AfD. I saw this band's article come up for deletion (under the name Single File, which now redirects, as it should, to a disambig), and spent a fair bit of time trying to save the article, without success. Ah, the mistakes we make when we are young. And, as one of the articles cited notes, what a difference a year makes! Since the article was deleted, the group scored a slot opening for Colorado compatriots The Fray and got signed to Reprise Records, who released an EP of theirs that hit the Billboard Heatseekers chart. Oh, and the page Single File (band) was A7'd four more times and protected. In light of this rewrite of the old article (which should now establish notability under WP:MUSIC bullets 1, 2, & 4), can I have this unsalted and restored? Chubbles 04:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• You certainly don't want the old one back: it was vapid promotion obviously copied from another site. Notability per the rewrite is dubious, they appear not to have released a full-length album since being signed and you've not included multiple non-trivial independent coverage of which they have been the primary focus. Looks like a "one day, not yet" candidate to me. Guy (Help!) 12:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion at least for now. One major-label EP and no albums wouldn't pass WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment It may be just an EP, but it still charted, which passes WP:MUSIC and is generally indicative of major exposure. Chubbles 20:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I seem to be losing this case. While I regard all of the arguments so far put forth as specious (both nontrivial coverage and WP:MUSIC have been provided), it seems the main contention is that the band has yet to release a full-length album, so I will return when they do so. Chubbles 20:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:WikiCabal MTG Card.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

No discussion -- nobody except the nominator posted on it, and I don't think it was a copyright infringement as the nominator claimed. (If it was, it will be fairly simple to fix once undeleted.) NeonMerlin 00:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, IFD does not explicitly require discussion, images get deleted at the end of the five days if there is no objection to the deletion. As for this particular case, I believe Wizards of the Coast owns the copyright to the design of Magic: the Gathering cards, so I could see how this would be a copyright infringement. --Coredesat 01:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - derivative of copyrighted work, can't be used on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 11:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse WotC/Hasbro unquestionably owns the card design elements. No objection to the image being privately emailed to someone who wants to replaced the copyrighted parts with something that merely looks similar but doesn't violate copyright. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

List of Fillmore! episodes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Deleted out of process. We have articles with lists of episodes for other shows, why not this? Illintea 21:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think a fuller explanation of the basis for the appeal is needed, since otherjunkexists is no reason for an appeal. The article was deleted with the comment:‎ (Episode summaries are copied. This is a copyright violation.) -- I've notified the deleting admin of this discussion--The copyvio tag was by an anon, who had very recently been indef blocked for disruptive edits, & was back on trial.. The actual article is, indeed, an episode list like other episode lists--I copy below the first one of the 26

{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%;" |- bgcolor="#CCCCCC" ! #!!Title !! US Airdate !! Pro. Code |- {{Episode list |EpisodeNumber=1 |Title=[[To Mar a Stall]] |OriginalAirDate= [[September 14]], [[2002]] |ProdCode=101 |ShortSummary=X Middle School's bathroom renovation project teeters on the brink of disaster as the new tagger "STAINLESS" strikes at will. Out of leads, Fillmore and Ingrid turn to Randall Julian, the former vandal "FLAVA SAVA," currently in solitary detention. His help puts them back on the trail, but Randall escapes, forcing Fillmore and Ingrid to hunt down both "STAINLESS" and "FLAVA SAVA" before they strike again. }}

I think there is no consensus whatsoever that such material is a copyright violation, and the admin deleted it on the basis of his private view , without reference to established policy and guidelines. I note that the individual episode articles are present, and I think that this sort of combination article is generally considered a much better way to do it. DGG (talk) 01:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment It looks like the article was deleted due to copyright problems. According to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 August 14/Articles, the content of the article matched the episode guide at TV.com. You may also wish to contact the administrator who deleted the article if you haven't done so already, particularly if the content of the page was not copied from tv.com and you can provide evidence for this. According to the Wikipedia article on TV.com, their episode guides are submitted by volunteers...does anyone know if they keep a history of the date when information was submitted? (I tried to look on the page and didn't see anything, but it may be possible to view it if you are logged in as a member.)--GregRM 01:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep. My carelessness in not looking first, I forgot to check it and the contents is identical for at least the first two episodes. The individual episode article and this one were started on the same days, Feb 7 & 8, 2007. I've notified the ed. involved. DGG (talk) 02:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment by deleting admin What I looked at during copyright review before deleting:

• The tv.com terms of use are on [1]. The terms of use clearly do not allow copying by third parties.
• The actual guide is on [2].
• No source was cited in the article for the episode summaries.
• All of season 1 was entered on Wikipedia over a 40-minute period by a single user (User:Chirchona).

While deleting, I did not look for articles on individual episodes; the backlog on Wikipedia:Copyright violations is such that I rarely search for more things to check. --Alvestrand 06:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC) (deleting admin).

• Comment: I've recreated the list with the numbering I have in my folder of Fillmore episodes, but the page is very bare and I urge people to fill it with uncopyvio summaries. Will ^(talk) 16:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)