Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 September 30

Coven (short film) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

disruptive comments by user, seems to be carrying on feud with author of the article, also votes for keep outnumbered delete Wiccawikka 23:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Note - This film was by Arden Wohl and Arden Wohl has been the subject of ten deletions and restoration. Any AfD disruption may be a continuation of the issues over Arden Wohl. -- Jreferee t/c 17:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Please note that AFD is not a vote. The closing admin has to weigh all the arguments given in the discussion, and it is within the discretion of that admin to close the AFD against the will of the numerical majority. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The AfD was contaminated by a very vocal ed. (apparently a sockpuppet who insisted that "THIS APPEARS TO BE A GLORIFICATION OF WICCA!!!! Although I am not against various religions, Christianity is the main stream religion in North American!! Also upon watching the movie this is PAGONISTIC!!! please for the love of God delete this entry!" Another repeated argument for deletion was that the film-maker was merely a NY socialite. I have no opinion on the film, but the afd should probably be re-started. DGG (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment To be fair, that the director is a socialite (the word "merely" did not come into play) was only brought up once—by me—in the context that the articles cited were about her, and only contained trivial mentions of the film. Furthermore, it was the last comment before the AfD was closed so it can't have swayed anyone's (except, possibly, the closing admin) opinion. Precious Roy 13:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• KeepWiccawikka 03:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Received coverage in various mainstream magazines.Wiccawikka 03:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC) — Wiccawikka (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Jreferee t/c 18:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I will recuse myself from !voting since I was the nom for this AfD. The editor who attempted to disrupt the AfD (Gayunicorn—now indefinitely blocked), was in fact a sockpuppet of the article's creator, Tweety21 (also indefinitely blocked). Further, Wikkawicca, who initiated this DRV, is also suspected to be a sockpuppet of Tweety21 (waiting on checkuser results). (See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Tweety21 for more history.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Precious Roy (talk • contribs) 13:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment the only person suspecting of sock is Roy. An abuse report has been filed.Wiccawikka 16:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• comment: Precious Roy AGAIN being disruptive and accusing everybody involved in vote of being a "sock puppet". I was told by another user about the following abusive comment left by Precious Roy: he accuses people of being "socks" without conclusive proof, will see admin about this.

Hello m'dear!

"My pleasure. Music is the one area where I would dare claim advanced levels of expertise (20 years working in music, don'tcha know). Every once in a while I've gone behind an editor's back and created an article that had already been declined. In most cases I had to do a little extra work because references or content wasn't up to WP snuff (like today). I've been busy dealing with a sock whose user has been a thorn in my side for about a month now. It's my own fault for getting involved but it bums me out that I could've been doing actual helpful stuff around WP but instead spent most of the day dealing with nonsense. C'est la vie." author: Precious Roy 19:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Wiccawikka 15:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. While notability was not established, the disruptive AfD may have turned away users willing to make an argument because they didn't want to get drawn into the fight. Still probably isn't notable, but the massive disruption didn't give this one a fair shake. I don't think all disruptive AfDs should be overturned, but I think this one was to the point that an outsider (such as myself) wouldn't even attempt to make an argument because of the fight going on within the AfD. Smashville 16:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Sockpuppet update Both Wiccawikka and Buddahelps have been indefinitely blocked as sockpuppets of Tweety21. Precious Roy 00:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Too bad they were only blocked. If they were banned, we could have immediately closed this DRV. -- Jreferee t/c 16:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - The closer interpreted the AfD discussion correctly. -- Jreferee t/c 16:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, I see nothing wrong with the closure. --Coredesat 03:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Au mckinley.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|PuI)

I have a template this image appeared in watchlisted, and I noticed this morning it had been deleted. The nominator for deletion, Bleh999, apparently found a URL pointing to the same photo of American University's library online, probably by doing Google searches on image names. This seemed to indicate to him or her that Tebp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)'s release of the image into the public domain was invalid. However, following directories upward, I found the site on which the image appears to be maintained by a college librarian in California who was educated at American University. Looking at the uploader's ontribs, most of them seem to be on topics having to do with Californian college libraries and American University. The uploader may not respond to queries, as she has not made an edit in more than a month, but it seems safe to assume (unless we're assuming bad faith beyond all rationality) that the uploader and the person whose site it is on which the picture appears are the same.

The deleting admin wanted more proof that the image's appearance elsewhere wasn't indicative of a copyright violation, but it's hard to prove a negative. Try this for a thought experiment: You upload a photo you've taken to Wikipedia and release it into the public domain. Anyone can use it for any purpose. Someone takes the image that anyone can use for any purpose, and puts it on his or her faculty page at the community college where he or she works, which is allowable under the photo's permissive licensing. Then suppose someone at Wikipedia discovers the photo on that faculty page and decides that, because the image exists somewhere else, it must hav been there first, and thus the uploader must have lied about the copyright status of the image when it was uploaded, and so the image should be deleted. That's a much more far-fetched scenario than to simply assume that the person on whose web page the image in question appears is also the uploader at Wikipedia, but by its logic, the deletion would still probably be invalid.

Merely demonstrating that a free image exists outside Wikipedia should not be sufficient cause to delete it. --Dynaflow babble 22:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment from deleting admin - Image was deleted after being listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 August 23. Garion96 (talk) 22:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The sole comment appearing under its heading there was, this url has same image [1] Bleh999 01:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC) --Dynaflow babble 23:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't know what is considered forensically definitive in these cases, but the Internet Archive may at least tell us something.

• There is one and only one archive instance of the image on Wikipedia, on June 29, 2007 (later instances may have been archived by Alexa but are not released to the Archive immediately).
• The apparently identical image appears on the West Valley College website (faculty page for Maryanne Mills) as early as October 2004 and in December 2006.

This does seem to prove that the image existed on the indicated website for some time prior to upload, but more proof of ownership may be needed, or a formal inquiry regarding rights. --Dhartung | Talk 23:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

What I'm saying, though, is that an application of Occam's razor tells me that the uploader appears to be this Maryanne Mills person, judging by a combination of the biographical information on the faculty site, the implicit joint claim on copyright for that photo, the areas of interest indicated by the user's contribs, and the general nature and format of the user's other uploaded photos. In any case, things released into the public domain are supposed to appear freely on the Internet and elsewhere, and nothing says that the initial point of release has to be an upload to Wikipedia. --Dynaflow babble 00:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I've sent an e-mail to Maryanne Mills asking for her take on this. Stay tuned. --Dynaflow babble 00:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that ideally WP:PUI would be the first place to take this sort of thing, but the outcome would have to be the same -- WP:COPYREQ. If an editor is MIA what else can we do besides contact whatever outside contact? --Dhartung | Talk 22:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that PUI would have been the best first stop. However, in this case, it seems the deletion was right, if not totally correct per process. I received an e-mail back from Maryanne Mills, and she says that she is actually using that picture by permission of American University on her website. She was not the uploader after all, and I'm thinking that, whoever the uploader was, his or her other "releases into the public domain" should be carefully audited, if anyone feels up to te task. I rescind my objections to the deletion and request a speedy close. --Dynaflow babble 04:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Would have been? PUI was the first stop, after which the image was deleted. So it was a totally correct deletion per process too. Garion96 (talk) 06:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

So it was. I was trying to get more at the issue of how such things are resolved. I suspect it's pretty much the way it is over at AFD -- "Here's a problem X, anybody motivated to save it?" And nobody was, given the legwork requirement, and now we have our answer, thanks do Dynaflow following through with that legwork. In short I am not now objecting to the closure (not that I ever was explicitly). Repeat call for close of DRV. --Dhartung | Talk 12:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The article was speedy deleted per NawlinWiki cause he said is advertising per a person, company, etc. Hi, I am an interactive Spanish journalist. I work in the most important magazine from Advertising in Spain in paper and online (control.es, estrategias.com and interactivadigital.com). NawlinWiki deleted 2 pages we wrote (we are updating and writing the pages belong to advertising and interactive advertising in spain). He said this pages are advertising to people, companies, etc. We can prove they are not, the issue is this people are all live, and not dead, and cause this mister don’t know Spanish Advertising people he delete it. Here are the references belong to this page: (1) interactivadigital.com 1, (2) interactivadigital.com 2, (3) search. (4) joanbaez.com, (5) fbgservices.com, (6) search 2, (7) search 3, (8) search 4, (9) interactivadigital.com 3. This person have more than 40 awards belong to advertising world, personality, etc. We want to understand what wiki think what is a relevant personality in advertising. Thanks for resolve it (I am not sure if this texts comes here, if not, really sorry). -- Interactive agency (talk • contribs • logs) 21:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Article seems to have been moved to User:Interactive agency/Sandbox. -- Aecis^Brievenbus 23:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and list at AfD - CSD G11 (Blatant advertisement masquerading as an article) did not apply to the deleted version and CSD A7 does not apply since reasonable assertion of importance/significance. The artice did not meet WP:SPEEDY requirements. The speedy deletion should be overturned and the article listed at AfD, particularly since the references likely are in Spanish and AfD provides a five day window for others to locate such references. -- Jreferee t/c 17:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse userfication. A few more weeks work on the article should substantially improve it so that it can survive AfD. I don;t think that moving it back to projectspace right away is a good idea because it is still no quite ready for prime time and might well be deleted even if further research would show that it is an appropriate topic. Eluchil404 04:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

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

This article was tagged as a speedy deletion candidate by User:Tasco 0 as a non-notable artist who doesn't meet WP:MUSIC and subsequently deleted by User:NCurse. I attempted to contact NCurse yesterday, but he hasn't responded yet and his EN Wikipedia editing is kinda sporadic, so I thought I'd just bring this here. Anyways, this musical artist clearly meets WP:MUSIC, as there were five reviews cited in the article from IGN, Collective BBC, two from AMG AMG AMG and one from the online music mag Resident Advisor. I don't know how both the original tagger and admin both missed this. Wickethewok 17:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Restore - Notability established by the reviews cited; certainly shouldn't have been speedied, at any rate. I will note that User:Tasco 0 has tagged other articles for speedy deletion inappropriately; I recently dealt with him regarding Lil iROCC Williams, and he seemed to have a poor grip on deletion criteria. Chubbles 17:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't see how having some reviews of any kind makes it notable.--Tasc0 19:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • See WP:N... reviews are a good way to satisfy the criteria of non-trivial coverage by multiple sources. --W.marsh 19:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Tasc0 - The first criterion of WP:MUSIC is It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. Independent reviews by reliable sources would fall under this. Wickethewok 05:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn clear claims of importance (released records on notable labels). Does not meet any criteria for speedy deletion, and probably meets WP:MUSIC. --W.marsh 19:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn I agree with W.marsh--and with the wording of WP:CSD and Deletion policy in general: any good faith assertion is enough to pass A7. It is not necessary to show its notable, just to claim it is, to avoid speedy. Disputed notability is tested at AfD. Whether it actually is notable or not is something I do not comment on in this subject area, but that is not the question here. DGG (talk) 00:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment will need to be restored as Ils (producer). Chubbles 21:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. NCurse _work 06:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• As above, the deleting admin restored it. I went ahead and fixed the page history. Wickethewok 06:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Meets notability requirements Pumpkin 17:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• How does it meet notability guidelines exactly? Wickethewok 17:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn (adding new references asserting the notability):

• National tour : [2]
• Album certified double gold record : [3]
• Song used as a central element in "Je vais bien, ne t'en fais pas", movie having an article in wikipedia
• more than 1.000.000 streamings on YouTube [4]
• Press articles in mainstream french newspapers (Le Monde, L'Express, Le Parisien) [5]

Pumpkin 17:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Unsalt per gold record certification, which passes WP:MUSIC with flying colors. Chubbles 17:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The article name is protected to prevent creation, though... Pumpkin 17:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse own deletion, no citations provided at any stage. Stifle (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Citations have now been provided above. Chubbles 18:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn A7 deletion... deleted versions claimed importance. Lack of citations is not a criteria for speedy deletion. --W.marsh 19:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn I agree with W.marsh--and with the wording of WP:CSD and Deletion policy in general: any good faith assertion is enough to pass A7. It is not necessary to show its notable, just to claim it is, to avoid speedy. Disputed notability is tested at AfD. DGG (talk) 21:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse the deletion, per absence of references, but allow the creation of a new article, since the subject is clearly notable. On second thought, overturn. There was an assertion of notability in the article, enough to avoid speedy deletion. Per WP:CSD#A7: "If controversial, list the article at Articles for deletion instead." Aecis^Brievenbus 00:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete - Disputable notability. Appears to be notable based on editors' comments, though I don't know French to be able to read the sources themselves. Can still be AFD'd if people still want to debate whether they meet WP:MUSIC, WP:RS, WP:V, or whatever. The article itself wasn't great, but an unsalt is at least in order so that a better one can be written. Wickethewok 05:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• OK, I'm going to restore and AFD it. Stifle (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

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

A7/G11'd 3 times and salted. Not sure why it was salted (three's not a ton), but she's got a three paragraph long Allmusic entry, which should more than quell any notability concerns. Deleting admin apparently retired. I would like to have this title unsalted. Chubbles 06:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Unsalt - Salt doesn't mean you can't write the article. It only means no admin has to keep deleting a recreated Nikki Hornsby article. Here's what I found. You're welcome to it:

  In the early 1990s, Nikki Hornsby routinely sang at the Alpine Village in Torrance, California.^[1] In August 1991, country singer Nikki Hornsby and The Rangers band drew the largest crowd of the summer at Redondo Beach's summer Concert in the Park series.^[2] Nikki Hornsby and The Rangers again played at the Redondo Beach's summer Concert in the Park series in August 1993.^[3] In August 2001, Nikki Hornsby sang at the Cliffie Stone Memorial Jamboree in Santa Clarita, California as an emerging local talent.^[4]

  There is some info at Google books. If you follow the Google images, you might find more text material for the article. There is a collection of new items here. She has a good internet presence, so you might find some good information through those links. Good luck. -- Jreferee t/c 07:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy unsalt reasonable argument given that there's sufficient sources for an article. No reason to prevent re-creation, and deleting admin is inactive as far as I know. --W.marsh 13:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Protected titles/Specific Admin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|MfD)

This MfD debate was speedy closed a few minutes after being opened by After Midnight (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights), apparently under the impression that I was requesting a change in policy regarding private saltpages. I actually don't want a change in policy, as I stated in the MfD, my position is that the pages listed are in violation of existing policy - WP:PROTECT and WP:OWN. Request relisting. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist - this is a valid discussion the community needed to have. Shutting the discussion within 18 minutes simply because an admin has an opinion on the outcome is not valid. While I realize administrators are given more leeway over use of speedy closes, WP:CSK makes it pretty clear that this shouldn't have happened. Finally, after all the brouhaha on ANI, I can't believe I'm the first to comment here. The Evil Spartan 02:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• It should be very clear to even the casual observer that I am making no opinion on the outcome of the discussion. My rationale for closure was that MFD was the incorrect forum. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Strong endorse - Instead of repeating myself yet again, I will direct interested persons to my comments at these linked threads at my talk page and at ANI --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Absolute Endorse This is not the right way to do this. Navou ^banter 02:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Mild endorse. Videmus Omnia has a point, but these particular pages are not the question, and so a deletion debate is not useful. The question is does the implicit protection policy give the WP:PT superstructure some special role, or is it merely a centralized listing of individual admin decisions. The problem is that, since PT was originally just something David Levy cooked up one day, and became policy (as everything should) by the gradual acclimation and endorsement of the community rather than by proclamation, its role has never been that clear. But the issue Videmus raises is about the relationship between protection policy and individual cascading pages, not those pages themselves. Chick Bowen 02:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse as there's no need for an MFD to go through this. If the community wants to discuss how these pages are to be dealt with, then there are talk pages to discuss how policy can be changed. If there needs to be something in WP:PROTECT that specifically mentions that administrators cannot keep a personal list of cascading protected pages, then that would need to be decided at WT:PROTECT, not at an MFD that is particularly directed at only a handful of pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I understand where you're coming from, but in fact these specific pages are the question here. I don't think we need instruction creep about private saltpages; they already fall under the umbrella of WP:PROTECT and have to comply with that policy. There are many valid uses of private saltpages; for example Riana keeps one dealing with sensitive BLP issues. However, individual private saltpages should be deleted or modified individually on a case-by-case basis if they violate WP:PROTECT or WP:OWN, as would be done with any other userspace material that violates a policy. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• To have a user subpage deleted because it contains contain inappropriate protection, you first need to have a decision on whether that protection is inappropraite. Decisions over whether a particular protection is appropriate is a Wikipedia:Requests for page protection issue, not a not a user page issue. MfD is not the place to determine whether one or more protections are appropriate. -- Jreferee t/c 14:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm a little lost on your MfD request. You ask to delete Ryulong's user subpages. What may I have on my user page? states "You can use your user page to help you to use Wikipedia more effectively" which is what he apparently is doing. How do Ryulong's user subpages violate WP:PROTECT and WP:OWN? You don't seem to object to the actual list contained on these subpages, but you object to the cascade-protected against creation by specific admins. Does maintaining a list cause cascade-protected against creation of things on that list? If not, then the close was correct and MfD was the improper venue and the speedy close would be justified. -- Jreferee t/c 03:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • That would be an argument to address in the MfD; this DRV is just about the speedy close. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I reread your MfD request. Basically, it appears you are saying that if WP:DRV agreed to permit recreation of an article but that title was on Ryulong's list, editors would still have to get Ryulong's approval to create that article so long as Ryulong's lists exist. But once we delete Ryulong's user subpages, Ryulong's will no longer hold power over WP:DRV. There are better ways to start a discussion about cascade-protection against creation by specific admins. There is a discussion on the very topic at Are admin specific protected title lists appropriate? -- Jreferee t/c 03:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually that is an old discussion which resulted in the creation of the page proposed for deletion. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• semi-neutral. I don't see why we shouldn't be using MfD for this. For one, we have other methods of protecting titles, if protection is needed. At the same time, I can understand Chick Bowen's point above, and take this as a starting point to look at the situation over-all. Deleting the actual documents or not really isn't the main objective. There might not be any issue here, and I doubt anyone is acting in bad faith, but it's worth looking into. -- Ned Scott 03:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - Per After Midnight's coments below. MfD is not the place to address how Wikipedia:Protection policy and Wikipedia:Protected titles should deal with cascade-protection against creation by specific admins. And if you want to challenge any one of the entries on Ryulong's private saltpages, the place for that is Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, not MfD. -- Jreferee t/c 14:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC) Overturn - I think what is throwing everyone was Videmus Omnia MfD nomination. It was not clear. On thinking about it, MfD is the place to address his request. Videmus Omnia desires not only to delete certain user pages but end the practice of privately cascade-protected against creation. The only place that this can be done is MfD. For example, the pages of WP:BJAODN were deleted and BJAODN was ended as an ongoing project. Ending BJAODN as an ongoing project was done at MfD. There are other examples (but none come to mind at the moment). In any event, the suggested venues by the Wikipedia:Protected titles/Specific Admin MfD closer will not end the practice of privately cascade-protected against creation as the result of a consensus discussion. If you read over Are admin specific protected title lists appropriate?, you will see that there are at least two sides to the issue held by respected editors. This justifies Videmus Omnia's MfD request. Videmus Omnia desires that to be discussed towards ending the practice of privately cascade-protected against creation and MfD is the place take such action. The speedy close should be overturned, the MfD reopened, and perhaps reworded to clarify the purpose of the MfD (e.g. The purpose of this MfD is to delete all private lists of cascade-protected against creation (where ever they may be located) (or merge them into WP:PT) and to end the practice of admins privately protecting pages against recreation). You might disagree that such action should be taken, but, as Videmus Omnia pointed out above, such discussion should take place at MfD. -- Jreferee t/c 05:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Jreferee, I do not think that you are characterizing VO's argument correcty, he is looking for selective deletion, not to end the practice entirely"

  I understand where you're coming from, but in fact these specific pages are the question here. I don't think we need instruction creep about private saltpages; they already fall under the umbrella of WP:PROTECT and have to comply with that policy. There are many valid uses of private saltpages; for example Riana keeps one dealing with sensitive BLP issues. However, individual private saltpages should be deleted or modified individually on a case-by-case basis if they violate WP:PROTECT or WP:OWN, as would be done with any other userspace material that violates a policy. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

  -- After Midnight 11:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and reopen. MFD seems to be the best place for this discussion to happen. In any case, the close was not particularly appropriate. Stifle (talk) 11:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

MFD is the proper place for large policy discussion? Navou ^banter 19:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn per Stifle. Should have been discussed. --W.marsh 12:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

What exactly, should have been discussed at MFD? Navou ^banter 19:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Whether this is appropriate or should have been deleted? --W.marsh 19:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why 4 pages have been selected for deletion and not the others. Seems like "MFD setting a precedent" where a wider policy discussion should take place, no? Navou ^banter 21:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Well... if I nominate one non-notable band article for deletion, must I nominate them all or risk having my nomination closed early as invalid? I don't think your argument exactly fits with basic XFD logic. But if this does set a precedent of sorts, why not? The MFD can be linked to from the places mentioned... it's probably a better place to discuss a set of pages than any of those other areas. --W.marsh 21:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the set of pages were necessarily the subject of discussion, I think the point of the nomination was to get the opinion on personal saltlists in general, which in this case, a policy discussion may garner wider community input. So I ask, out of respect to the community, that the requester withdraw the nomination, and participate in the polciy discussion DGG linked below. Navou ^banter 21:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Counter-proposal - perhaps we can relist the userpages from the nom, while leaving Wikipedia:Protected titles/Specific Admin out pending the outcome of the policy discussion? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• now under general discussion at [6] DGG (talk) 21:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment it's probably a debate worth having, whether Mfd is the correct forum or whether the protection policy talk page (as linked by DGG) is the better is now moot because one is closed and the other is now open. I would say this DRV is moot, but if someone needs a !vote from me, I'd prefer the open debate to remain so to the exclusion of the now closed one without prejudice to bringing these up for delete if consensus at the talk page is not to have these sorts of protections - in which case there would likely be a strong case for merging these with the normal protected pages schema rather than delete outright from which chaos may result. Carlossuarez46 17:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse status quo and defer to the discussion at WT:PROTECT before deciding whether to take these through the deletion process. --Coredesat 01:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

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

This is a notable subject -- I did a Wikipedia search for 'axxo' because I heard the term and didn't know what it meant; some Google research turned up the answer in short order, and I decided to write an article about it only to find it locked. Axxo has over 4 million google hits.

If and when the article is unlocked, please let me know on my talk page; I don't intend to keep following up on this request, but I've already started on a new article. Xiaphias 00:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse speedy deletion and continue cascading protection. None of the versions already deleted contain anything establishing notability or verifiability. I've looked around for possible reliable sources and found none. There's a plumbing supply company called Axxo that gets some reliable coverage, but not the movie pirater under discussion. Chick Bowen 01:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy deletion - The only possible axxo topics that would meet WP:N are AXXO Biopharmaceuticals and axxo design. There is no reliable source material for the distributor of video files on the Internet named aXXo. The 4 million GHits mostly may be of AXXO Biopharmaceuticals and items such as Axxora, Axxos, Axxon, Axxonis, Axxom, Axxor, and Axxoxxica. You can always develop a draft article in your user space and use that in a WP:DRV request to restore the aXXo file. -- Jreferee t/c 02:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, I've looked at the deleted content and it's definitely a non-starter. Stifle (talk) 11:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Speedy was appropriate based on the article contents, and clearly the subject is not yet sufficiently notable. -- Satori Son 05:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Calques from German (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

Urgent need to un-delete due to irresponsible deletion despite highly obvious non-consensus -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 19:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - There is a Category:Russian loanwords which contains words borrowed from Russian, which appear in English-language dictionaries. -- Jreferee t/c 02:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • There's also a Category:German loanwords parallel to that category. I believe this was the only actual calque category. Chick Bowen 03:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It's hard to judge how useful this was without seeing the articles which were in the category. Loanwords can be easily defined and referenced, because almost any dictionary says which English words are of German origin. While interesting, calques may be harder to define. If there is a relatively small number, then perhaps they belong in a stand-alone list. —Michael Z. 2007-09-30 06:04 Z
• Comment - From loanword, a loanword (or loan word) is a word directly taken into one language from another with little or no translation. By contrast, a calque or loan translation is a related concept whereby it is the meaning or idiom that is borrowed rather than the lexical item itself. -- Jreferee t/c 06:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - Took me a while to figure this one out. This is nothing more than the old debate of whether to use a category or list. The deleted category contained words and phrases which have been calqued from German into English. The article Calque contains a list of words and phrases which have been calqued from German into English. An example might help. The English word dollar calques from the German word Thaler. The dollar article addresses this fact through prose. See Dollar#History. There is no additional need to have a category at the bottom of the dollar article that says dollar claques from a German word. And the only information you could obtain from the category was that dollar calqued from a German word. The category would not tell you that the English word dollar calques from the German word Thaler. (As the nominator put it, "does not document how they qualify for inclusion"). The Calque list has all the information needed, is not vague like the category, and keeps the information centralized rather than spread out at the bottom of an article and in a category list. The keep argument at the MfD never addressed the delete's reasoning. The delete's reasoning was sound and unchallenged. The closer interpreted the rough consensus correctly. -- Jreferee t/c 06:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse as closing admin. I couldn't say it any better than Jreferee. --Kbdank71 14:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I do not see any benefits from keeping this category which are not already provided by the list mentioned by Jreferee above.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Jreferee said it so well and I agree with his comments here which are similar to (but more eloquent than) my comments at the original CFD debate. Carlossuarez46 19:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_ROMacedonia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|MfD)

Background: WP ROMacedonia nominated for deletion by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights), and then deleted following discussion. I believe the WP and the need for the WP are still valid (i.e., why not have a Macedonian WP?), and that the WP is salvageable through modification of user conduct. Cheers AWN AWN2 04:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - process was followed exactly and nothing new is stated here; the only people advocating keep were the supposed POV pushers to begin with. Strong Keep and follow up on the disciplinary action against Fut.Perf. who has been abusing his administrator standing to impose 'his way' of looking at things says it all - for daring to put something up for deletion! Everything I've seen in this shows that this page was severely misguided - from comparing this to the Greek Wikiproject, to kicking someone off a wikiproject for refusing to toe the party line. The Evil Spartan 05:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: it should be clarified that the above criticism can certainly not be directed against AWN2, the original creator of the project and instigator of this review. I, for one, have the fullest respect for his efforts both in creating and defending the project. Also, I'll be the first to support the re-creation of the project as soon as there's a realistic prospect of constructive contributions from new members. When that happens, we can easily undelete most of the old pages to make the startover easier, so they won't be gone to waste. (Do we need to formally confirm this? I guess it was implied in the MfD outcome.) But for the time being, I still think we should give the project a period of rest. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong endorse deletion - A Wikiproject to coordinate POV-pushing edit wars? A Wikiproject telling an editor to goose step in line with those in power of the Wikiproject? The only place such effort was headed was arbcom. The closer interpreted the discussion correctly. -- Jreferee t/c 06:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per above. If a slightly calmer WikiProject can be created to replace it, then let them off. Stifle (talk) 11:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per above. _{El Greco}^(talk) 13:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly endorse deletion per Jreferee, possibly speedily close this DRV. WikiProjects to promote POV pushing are simply not allowed. This is absolutely not what a WikiProject is for; if it can be determined that scope exists for a project on a related neutral topic, then do that, but not this. --Coredesat 01:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)