Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 September 6

Image:ALE-Uniform-BAL.PNG (edit|[[Talk::Image:ALE-Uniform-BAL.PNG|talk]]|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|IfD)

Consensus was to keep 4-3 (4-2 if nomination is not counted). Full reason was given why the image did not violate WP:NFCC #1, as original poster claimed. These things were disregarded by user Nv8200p, who deleted it anyway, claiming NFCC #1. Either the deleting admin did not read the discussion, or he simply did not care. Silent Wind of Doom 02:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note - IfD was here. — xDanielx ^T/_C 04:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn - again, unorthodox closure contra consensus. WP:NFCC#1 objection was answered in the IfD, IMO rather decisively. "[T]he copyright holder is not known for sure," which was not brought up in the IfD, also has no relevance to the fair use rationale that was defended. — xDanielx ^T/_C 04:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• (From deleting admin) Free images of a uniform's colors can be created and the copyrighted logo of the team does not need to be shown to demonstrate the colors. The main argument seemed to be that having images this good was a matter of pride, so baseball articles could be better then soccer articles and that anything less would be an insult. To circumvent the process, the copyrighted image Image:BaltimoreOriolesUniforms.jpg was uploaded and used. This image should be deleted also. -Nv8200p talk 15:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • As was mentioned many times in the discussion, the uniform is more than colors. The logos and insignias are a large part of the uniform. Displaying the uniform without these features would be inclusion of false information on this encyclopedia. Might I remind you of what is said in NFCC #1?

"No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. If non-free content can be transformed into free material, this is done instead of using a fair-use defense. Non-free content is always replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available. "Acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, ask yourself: "Can this image be replaced by a different one, while still having the same effect?" If the answer is yes, then the image probably does not meet this criterion.)"

Would drawings made from scratch on MSPaint that lack half of the information "have the same effect"? Absolutely not.--Silent Wind of Doom 16:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, also, the other image was not uploaded to circumvent the deletion process. It was used because of the importance of these images to the project. You deleted suddenly, and we were left with a red link so someone fixed it. The image also was not a copy. It was a different image. --Silent Wind of Doom 16:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

A different image that was very, very close to the image that was deleted. -Nv8200p talk 02:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn Image was deleted in clear contravention of our deletion policy. The important issue of NFCC#1 was addressed by multiple participants. There were several detailed explanations of why the information required to illustrate team uniforms in a proper encyclopedic manner could not be conveyed by original free-use substitutes. Insofar as discussion achieved a consensus, it was evidently in accord with this position.

Deleting admin's claim that "The main argument seemed to be that having images this good was a matter of pride, so baseball articles could be better then soccer articles and that anything less would be an insult" is disingenuous in the extreme and unfortunately raises essential questions of competence and good faith, compounding the evident failure to abide by policy in this instance. There were in fact multiple detailed cases made that this image and comparable ones are far more accurate than the ones in the soccer articles, which fail this fundamental test of encyclopedic appropriateness. There was absolutely no refutation of those detailed arguments. Rather than determining a rough consensus based on policy-driven weight of argument in discussion, as our deletion policy and guidelines require, deleting admin clearly imposed his own unvetted opinion.—DCGeist 17:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I Googled for the "fundamental test of encyclopedic appropriateness" and I could not find it. Can you provide a source for that? -Nv8200p talk 02:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

A source for you not understanding how accuracy is essential to an encyclopedia and bears on our image policy? I'd say you've sourced that excruciatingly well yourself.—DCGeist 02:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• These images are clearly replaceable - just go to a few games and take pictures of the players in uniform. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Carl, please see above 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.

• —DCGeist 17:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps I was too brief. These images are clearly replaceable; therefore the closing admin was correct to delete them per WP:NFCC#1. In other words, the application of policy by the closing admin was correct. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn on procedural grounds - the closing admin apparently ignored the discussion and closed based on his own opinion. You need a good reason to override consensus; "I disagree with consensus" is not grounds for ignoring consensus. Guettarda 18:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Principle 10 in this ARBCOM case states that "Policies such as Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria or foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy, if they apply to particular content, cannot be overruled by consensus." -Nv8200p talk 21:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
    • You are taking things far out of context. The proceeding sentence was "However, the question of whether particular content is in violation of policy may be freely discussed and decisions reached." No one in the AfD was arguing that Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria or foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy should be overruled; the keep arguments very specifically (and IMO, rather decisively) disputed the claims of violation. Wonder the straw men are still standing, after all these beatings! :) — xDanielx ^T/_C 00:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, the keep arguments in the original ifd discussion were all of the WP:USEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT variety, and don't address the policy standards as indicated by Nv8200p above. Go take a photograph. Corvus cornix 23:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Images exist on Wikipedia because they are useful. WP:NFCC#1 discusses "quality," "encyclopedic" value, etc. -- slightly more specific variation of "useful." Even WP:ATA notes that "There are some times when 'usefulness' can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers." WP:ATA suggests that arguments regarding usefulness should be codified with more specific policies. This is debatable, and WP:ATA couches it with "[t]ry to exercise common sense" and what not. But regardless of whether we agree with the essay or not, it really doesn't matter because each of the keep !votes in the AfD offered very specific reasons for why the image did meet the criteria of WP:NFCC#1, which is essentially a variation of usefulness combined with a "no similarly useful alternatives" requirement. You really do not summarize the AfD arguments fairly -- did you read them? — xDanielx ^T/_C 00:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion and ignore overturns based on process. As stated by Nv8200p above, from the Abu Badali RFAR: "Policies such as Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria or foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy, if they apply to particular content, cannot be overruled by consensus." These rules apply to this content, as they are clearly replaceable, and no one has thus far meaningfully contested that (or, if they have, I missed the contest). --Iamunknown 00:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think any one of the four keep !votes neglected to contest the violation. Each one of them gave specific reasons for why free alternatives were not suitable per the spirit of WP:NFCC#1. They didn't explicitly link to the policy page, but it seems clear IMO that they understood the claimed violation and disputed it on the grounds that there was no suitable alternative. — xDanielx ^T/_C 00:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per Iamunknown. ElinorD (talk) 01:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note to all those who have voted endorse because consensus doesn't overturn violation. The IfD conversation clearly shows that the NFCC #1 arguement is completely invalid. The uniforms contain logos and insignias that are inherently copyrighted, and therefore a free alternative does not exist. If I take a picture of a copyrighted image, can I put it on this encyclopedia? No. It would be deleted in a heartbeat, and please, tell me if this statement is not true, because I would love to get around NFC restrictions by taking pictures of copyrighted pictures. If I can't do that, then please, tell me why taking a picture of a uniform, which contains copyrighted materials, is any different? Also, remember, our own policy at WP:NFCC#1 states that the free equivalent must be of acceptable quality. A loose confederation of distant, fuzzy pictures of players does not "have the same effect" as the current system. They will not show nearly as much detail, and we can only expect arguements over what players to use to represent their team. There is no valid arguement for NFCC#1.--Silent Wind of Doom 02:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion Free images may include logos and insignias as minor photographic details, otherwise most sports photographs used on Wikipedia would have to have sections blurred out. Further, Wikipedia use of these images violated NFCC#2, in that Wikipedia was infringing on the BHoF's right to commercially use these images. The closing was in line with policy. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but there is a problem here. Minor photographic details? The uniform, in all its logo'ey glory, is the point of the images. If the point of the image is to illustrate these things, when it is not a minor detail. It's the whole reason. It's a very major point. Secondly, how is this infringing on the right to commercially use these images? You gave no reasoning.--Silent Wind of Doom 16:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Take Image:Bobby kielty2002.jpg for instance, it is a simple photograph of a player in uniform released under a free license.
    • The Baseball Hall of Fame hired an artist to create these illustrations, they constitute intellectual property and are meant for commercial distribution. A Wikipedia user comes along and claims fair use on the illustration, deeming it necessary as the only way to identify and illustrate uniforms. But wait, isn't this precisely why the image was created? So that the Baseball Hall of Fame can sell or license such images to commercial publications or for internal use. Wikipedia use, on the other hand, directly replaces the original market role of the original copyrighted media, thereby significantly weakening (if not outright negating) any fair use claim under copyright law and coming in direct conflict with WP:NFCC#2. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 16:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
      • You mentioned that free images could include logos as "minor photographic details". However, this is subjective, depending on the use. If I take a picture of a woman in a wedding dress walking a poodle, then what's major and what's minor. If I use it in an article about wedding dresses, then the dress is the main focus, and the woman and dog are minor details. If I put it in the poodle article, then the poodle is the main focus, and the woman and dress are negligible. If I put it in the article about the woman, then her dress and dog avery minor. If I take a picture of Jeter at the game, wearing the same uniform he wears about half of the season, and put it in the Jeter article, then who cares? The uniform is a minor detail. If I take a picture of Jeter and used it to illustrate the uniform, then what's the focus? It doesn't matter who's in the uniform. It's a minor detail. However, the uniform is the main focus, and the logos are very major details.

And this is not about commercial distribution. 1)The images were created so that they could be displayed in an on-line database. There is no hint that there is an outside use. 2)Wikipedia's use is actually different. Here, we use one uniform image in the infobox, maybe a few more in a section describing the uniform, and one in each season page. However, what the Hall of Fame site gives you, is every uniform from enfranchisement until today, one after the other, with 9-24 per page. We do not supply that anywhere here, and it people want that, which is much more easily navigable if you want to look at trends or differences in the uniform over the years, they will have to visit the Hall of Fame site.--Silent Wind of Doom 13:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Hold on, are you saying that you can copyright a poodle? ...You claimed that there were no free license alternatives that could depict the uniform, insignia and all. I'm saying that there are already dozens of such images at our disposal, take a gander at Commons:Category:Baseball players from the United States. There are a few photographs particularly well suited to the purpose of illustrating uniforms and more could be created.
• Wikipedia use of these illustrations is outside use, it is not sanctioned or licensed by the Hall of Fame. Sure, they are useful and tastefully made, but the point is that you are suggesting usage which could potentially interfere with the commercial viability of a piece of property. Fair use is a blessing, especially to Wikipedia, but policies prescribe it as the last possible course of action. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Wow. Sorry. Apparently that went waaaaaay over your head. The point was that what constitutes a major detail and what constitutes a minor detail depends on the usage of the image. In the context of a baseball player's page, these are minor details. In the context of demonstrating the look of the uniforms, they are not minor details. Your reasoning was that logos were minor details. If the image was used in the context of showing the look of the uniform, these would be key details. If I used that image to say "This is what the Twins' second alternate uniform looks like, that bit print name on the front of the jersey would be a very prominant feature and key detail of the picture. This is, of course, copyrighted by the Minnesota Twins. If this makes the ideas I was trying to convey more understandable, and relatable, how about an image of Kenny Lofton with picture of a giant Indians logo painted on the wall or partition behind him. If I used this picture in Kenny Lofton's artcle to illustrate Kenny Lofton, that would be fine. The logo would be a minor detail in the background. If I used the image to show what the Indians logo looks like, then it would be the main focus, and, as it was copyrighted, I could not use it that way and claim its free. The point of this discussion is to decide whether or not Nv8200p's decision to delete on claim of NFCC#1 was valid or not. Your reasoning on pictures of players being free for this use is incorrect. There is no free alternative.--Silent Wind of Doom 23:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the condescension. The copyright status of a photograph would not be compromised by selective cropping unless a copyrighted element takes up the totality of the cropped image (see also advice from Wikimedia's legal counsel). Maybe I should not have used the phrase "minor photographic details", you appear to dissect the qualifiers in an attempt to draw this out into a tedious circular argument. In short, the Baseball Hall of Fame uniform illustrations are replaceable in the context of Wikipedia policy regardless of your rigmarole. If you'd like, I'd be glad to assist you in selecting and cropping free license photographs to replace them. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, I just thought by your copyrighted poodle comment that you didn't understand the illustration. Anyway, thank you for this new information. I figured that your prominent use of the phrase minor photographic details, that it was some official policy, sans that whole explanation you sent me a link for, so I worked off of that. I'm not trying to draw things out. I firmly stand by the importance of these images to the project, and I believe that the other discussion was unfairly closed to further an agenda, and I'm going to fight for what I believe. That being said, let us read the text of NFCC#1.

No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. If non-free content can be transformed into free material, this is done instead of using a fair-use defense. Non-free content is always replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available. "Acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, ask yourself: "Can this image be replaced by a different one, while still having the same effect?" If the answer is yes, then the image probably does not meet this criterion.)

First of all, that image is not of the same quality as the one we have now. It's still pretty good, but the rareness of getting that image is very problematic. Most pictures are from a much farther distance, and of worse quality. How many of us get that close to take a picture of that quality? For something to be encyclopedic quality, it should be detailed and accurate. Unless an image is head-on and close up, there will be missing detail, and we're looking for as much detail as we can get here. Not to mention the fact that it will take quite a time to amass pictures of every uniform, especially when the end of the season is fast approaching. As mentioned before, there is the argument that will likely arise over which players will be depicted, and if a player gets traded, then people will want to change the image.

And what about the old uniforms? What about uniforms that aren't in use anymore? Is anyone going to go out and take a picture of those? There are definitely no free equivalents for the 1901 Baltimore Orioles uniform.--Silent Wind of Doom 04:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Acquiring photographs of an acceptable quality for all teams will take a while, the current Commons selection will not provide all if the necessary illustrations. Then again, Wikipedia is nothing if not a work in progress and the need for more photographs is far from insurmountable. The question of what player to use is moot, as photographs will be judged by their merit in identifying a uniform, they could also be edited to exclude the identifying marks of any particular individual. Historic uniforms and photographs are another issue and should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. If they are notable on their own or discussed in detail in the article, claiming fair use is not outside of the realm of possibility. Even so, there may be opportunities to create free alternatives. Some illustrations, like the one you mentioned from 1901, are likely to be in the public domain by now and could be used without any restriction. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Delete arguments were vastyl stronger, closer correctly noted that policy says we don't use unfree images in this way. Instead of arguing, someone should go down to the game with a camera and put up a free image. Guy (Help!) 11:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• "Delete arguments were vastyl stronger"? Honestly? The fact is, the only case for deletion that bears being called an "argument" is that the image could be replaced by a free, original, presumably MS Paint image like those used in the soccer articles. Here, for example, was my response to that (Sword of Doom and Baseball Bugs made detailed rebuttals of their own):

I've looked at a couple other such cases now and this seems determinitive to me: the baseball articles are of markedly superior encyclopedic quality to the soccer articles in this regard. Compare: Baseball: Baltimore Orioles / what uniforms actually look like; Soccer: D.C. United / what uniforms actually look like. Claims that the image presently in question can be replaced by a free one ignore what should be the obvious fact: the image proposed for deletion here cannot be replaced by a free image of comparable quality and accuracy while maintaining encyclopedic consistency across this important series of articles.

• • Could you please direct me to the "vastyl stronger" rebuttal of that? Could you please direct me to any rebuttal of that? I seem to have missed it. And if the delete arguments were so "vastyl stronger," don't you find it funny that you have to introduce an entirely new argument: "go down to the game with a camera and put up a free image"? —DCGeist 15:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • It is of note that every point made by the delete votes, was answered. Let's truly look into the discussion and sum it all up, points and rebuttals:

(D)Abu badali-Non-free images not used to convey team colors.

(K)This is not simply team colors. This is a complete image of the team uniform, along with logos, which are inherently copyrighted.

(D)Videmus Omnia-Soccer images prove that copyrighted uniform images can be replaced by free alternatives.

(K)Copyrighted logos on the uniform mean that any image in which the uniform is the object in question, will be inherently copyrighted.

(K)Football hemlets, which there are no arguements about, are copyrighted as well.

(D)Videmus Omnia-Football helmets are inherently copyrighted. Of course they stay.

(D)Videmus Omnia-Soccer images are free. The fact that they look worse is a tradeoff.

(K)They are also inaccurate, and are missing logos, which are a key part of the uniform. If these were included they would, of course, be copyrighted like the image in question. Without the logos, they are inaccurate, and false information is not a tradeoff for free.

(D)Quadell-Delete, as this can be replaced by a free image.

(K)No. As mentioned before, there is no free-equivalent, as anything where the uniform is the image's focus will be copyrighted.

These were the arguements, and responses. Every arguement made by the Delete voters, was answered in full, and it was thouroughly proved that the claims of NFCC#1 were not valid. The arguements for keep were vastly stronger than those for delete.--Silent Wind of Doom 16:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn Uniform images are important to the baseball project. No free image of acceptable quality exists. The Hall of Fame did not pay for the creation of these images and is not using them in a "for profit" manner. The same images are also on multiple other websites. Using them on wikipedia in a not-for-profit manner definitely does not infringe on anyones rights. Spanneraol 17:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Carellcolbert ds.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Consensus was to keep 3-0 not counting the nomination to delete. The image was of a very important part of Mr. Carell's career, and it was really his big break. The overwhelming consensus was disregarded by user Nv8200p, who deleted it anyway. Silent Wind of Doom 02:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• For reference, the IfD is here. — xDanielx ^T/_C 04:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn since consensus was to keep the image. WP:NFCC#8 was addressed, particularly by DCGeist. — xDanielx ^T/_C 04:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• (From deleting admin) The text in the article meant to accompany the image was "In 1999, he became a correspondent on The Daily Show, appearing in recurring sketches like "Even Stevphen" (opposite Stephen Colbert) and "Produce Pete with Steve Carell". He remained a regular on the show until 2004." This text does not say anything about The Daily Show being important or significant to Carell's career. The caption of the image was "Carell (right) with Stephen Colbert on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" providing no information of the image's importance either. Therefore, the "keep" arguments have no basis. If sourced commentary is provided that can validate the importance of the image, and the text and caption are reworked to capture that, the image could stay, otherwise the deletion should stand. -Nv8200p talk 15:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Do we really need citation to show that a 6-year run in a show that was the first successful project he was a major part of was a big part of his career?--Silent Wind of Doom 16:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes -71.42.237.122 17:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn on procedural grounds - the closing admin apparently ignored the discussion and closed based on his own opinion. You need a good reason to override consensus; "I disagree with consensus" is not grounds for ignoring consensus. The IfD was a unanimous "Keep", for God's sake. Guettarda 18:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Principle 10 in this ARBCOM case states that "Policies such as Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria or foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy, if they apply to particular content, cannot be overruled by consensus." -Nv8200p talk 21:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I suggest reading the proceeding sentence which you omitted. Combine that with WP:CONSENSUS and the proper procedure seems clear IMO. — xDanielx ^T/_C 01:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
      • What doesd IMO stand for? -Nv8200p talk 02:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
        • The proceeding part is "However, the question of whether particular content is in violation of policy may be freely discussed and decisions reached. Such decisions are subject to the dispute resolution procedures; decisions which are believed to violate policy can be appealed." -Nv8200p talk 02:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. No way does this even come close to qualifying. This debate, along with the original IfD are thus irrelevant, since content rules are simply not subject to the caprice of individual editor opinions and no admin familiar with licensing policy will allow recreation. Eusebeus 21:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - This was very specifically disputed on the AfD. DCGeist's comment is perhaps the most explanatory: "Text description cannot adequately convey the sort of performance persona Carrell was already fashioning at this point. As the image, and its inclusion of Colbert help us understand, participants in The Daily Show tend to appear as characters who are not fully fictional, but not quite "themselves" either, even though they do retain their own names." — xDanielx ^T/_C 01:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Yea, well good luck with that argument. As I say, you can chant to keep this until you are blue in the face. No admin with even an inkling of the license policy will let this remain since it so clearly fails to comply with the standard, which was the point about the initial deletion. I am sure from a drooling fan perspective, the image seems very very very important; but in the real world, it is simply a policy violation. Eusebeus 03:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Your speculation seems ill-founded in my opinion. Of course this shouldn't be relevant, but FYI two admins have already expressed support for inclusion of this image: User:WilyD in the AfD and User:Guettarda in the DRV. Your interpretation of policy is somewhat unique, but what I find exceptional is your interpretation of "deletion review." — xDanielx ^T/_C 04:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Esuebeus, and point to the Abu Badali RFAR: "Policies such as Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria or foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy, if they apply to particular content, cannot be overruled by consensus." ElinorD (talk) 01:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion The fact of these repeated, programmatic references to a selected principle from a specific ARBCOM rather than to the clear language of the applicable and generally available policy is very revealing. This hand-picked principle does not overrule Wikipedia's plainly stated deletion policy and guidelines. The repeated claim is also completely disingenuous in its specific application to this case. The consensus in discussion was not in the slightest based on arguments to "overrule" NFCC policy; rather it was based on arguments demonstrating how the image was in adherence with that policy. If Nv8200p had a different opinion, he was free at any time to participate in the discussion. He chose not to. Rather, he arbitrarily stepped in and closed discussion, deleting the image in willful ignorance of the policy-driven consensus and thus in clear violation of Wikipedia's deletion policy.—DCGeist 02:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The deletion process guideline specifically states "People should not close discussions in which they have been involved." This was upheld is the Image:Bjlata1.jpg deletion review in which DCGeist argued "Having actively participated in the discussion and, indeed, cast a vote to delete, why did you not recuse yourself from closing the discussion and deleting the page, as guidelines clearly suggest?—DCGeist 19:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)". Now he is complaining that I closed the discussion without participating. -Nv8200p talk 02:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Try to think this through, sport. I hardly suggested that it would have been advisable for you to participate in the discussion and then close it. If you felt so strongly that the clear, policy-driven consensus in discussion was so completely misguided, you could have participated in the discussion, then let an unbiased admin close it. Think on it, my friend.—DCGeist 02:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Heh. Geist got in while I was writing this edit, but I'll leave it anyway. This is a distinct case. If you had said something, then you could have just had someone else delete. The point here, is that you, in effect, cast the vote to delete and then closed with no chance for anyone to react. Rather than deleting because you didn't agree, you should have said you didn't agree, and cast a dissenting vote. Aside from the nomination, no vote or arguement in favor of delete was made. If you were in favor of delete, you should have said it in the discussion rather than just deleting. --Silent Wind of Doom 02:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• The deleting admin applied the nonfree image policy correctly here; the article has no claims that his appearance on the show is particularly notable or different from his ordinary appearance, and no claims that the show was an historic event. The image just shows him wearing a plain suit, which can be described quite well by text. Claims that the "person" and "character" are distinct, or that the image demonstrates some sort of performance, are unconvincing after looking at the picture. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• You or I may agree or disagree with the closing admin's interpretation of image policy, but that's hardly the point. The policy-driven consensus in discussion was to keep the image. According to our deletion policy, an admin is obliged to identify, respect, and apply the policy-based consensus. If he disagrees with it, he can participate in discussion. If he disagrees with our deletion policy itself, he can look to change it. But he does not have the right to overrule policy-based consensus simply because his interpretation of image policy happens to be different. According to our policy, when an image enters IfD, adherence to or violation of image policy is determined by discussion, not by the opinion of whatever admin chooses to close discussion. If you find that policy unwise, or just too darn restrictive, look to change the policy, but don't pretend it doesn't exist.
• In addition, the comment above consists exclusively of opinions about the image. Editors should know that's not the appropriate way to participate here: "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."—DCGeist 14:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • In my opinion there was no error of process. The closing admin correctly applied our sitewide policy to this image; sitewide policy cannot be overruled by a small number of editors at a deletion discussion unless those editors can present a compelling argument as to why the sitewide consensus doesn't apply. As I said, the claims made at the IFD in favor of keeping the image are unconvincing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Again, this argument is based on the pretense that Wikipedia's deletion policy does not exist. According to that policy--which does exist--when an image enters IfD, the discussants determine whether the image adheres to or violates our sitewide image policy. According to our deletion policy and guidelines, the closing admin plays...wait for it...an administrative role--identifying and applying the policy-driven consensus. Any admin who would rather play an argumentative role is perfectly free to participate in the debate. Please burn your little strawman--"sitewide policy cannot be overruled by a small number of editors." No one who supported keeping the image argued that policy should be overruled; they all described how it adhered to policy. Anyone, including Nv8200p, was free to counter their arguments in discussion. Did you notice that no one did? The only proper action for a closing admin here was to keep the image, per our policy. I'm sorry you don't seem to like our policy, but that's what it is.—DCGeist 17:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Admins closing a deletion debate must pay attention both to the comments of the debate and to the sitewite policies. If the comments at the debate disagree with sitewide policies, or are not convincing to the closing admin, the admin is free to explain this and close the discussion in a way that disagrees with the comments at the discussion. This is implicit in the fact that a deletion discussion is not a vote - the closing admin is expected to weigh the strength of the arguments presented. At the deletion review, we discuss whether the closing admin was correct in assessing the discussion. Narrow, bureaucratic interpretations of the deletion process disagree with our practice and the intent of our deletion process. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
    • The question was whether or not the image violated the policy. Three editors unanimously agreed that it did not. The closer, who held a dissenting opinion, closed the discussion against consensus as a supposed WP:NFCC violation, while ignoring the arguments which denied the WP:NFCC violation. The appropriate action would be to cast a dissenting !vote, not to close against consensus. If there were some outstanding reason why the closer's interpretation of the policy issues is superior to those of the AfD participants, then closing against consensus might have been defensible. This is very clearly not such a case: no attempts were made to engage the arguments supported by the consensus, let alone convincingly deny them. — xDanielx ^T/_C 02:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Of course the closing admin is meant to use his or her understanding of policy in evaluating the close. We don't promote admins to mindlessly close discussions - we want them to evaluate the policy issues and close accordingly. There is no reason that even a discussion with only "keep"arguments must always result in a close of keep. Anyone familiar with the deletion process knows it is inappropriate for an admin to comment in a discussion and then close it, but there is no requirement that they can only close the discussion if they agree with the majority of editors who expressed opinions. The role of DRV is to review the discretion administrators apply. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
        • I didn't say that admins should mindlessly close discussions. I didn't say that IfD pages with only keep !votes should invariably be closed as keep, though I would certainly agree that the exceptions are few. I agree with your definition of the DRV forum, and I didn't say anything inconsistent with that.
        • To respond to the point you made which does relate to what I said, it is certainly acceptable for an admin to "use his or her understanding of policy" to close a discussion if there is some outstanding reason for his or her judgment to be regarded as superior to that of the other participants. Clearly this isn't the case. User:DCGeist is a well-established editor with plenty of IfD experience. User:WilyD is a well-established administrator who has deleted numerous images himself. User:DocKino, while he doesn't have a lot of edits, also has a reasonable amount of experience around IfD and the relevant policies. The closer, User:Nv8200p, is also a well-established and constructive admin, though he has a long history of controversial image deletions, documented in his talk page history. I'm not seeing a compelling reason to give User:Nv8200p's opinion ~6 times the weight of the other participants. — xDanielx ^T/_C 04:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
          • In the end, to argue that the deletion was incorrect, this DRV will have to show not that he use discretion, which is fine, but that he used discretion to get a result that disagrees with sitewide consensus here. As far as I can see, this close is in agreement with WP:NFCC and thus with sitewide consensus. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
            • But that is contingent on the premise that WP:NFCC was violated, which the rough consensus in the IfD judged not to be the case. — xDanielx ^T/_C 20:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry to repeat myself here, but the points above are not relevant. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. There is simply no way a reasonable case can be made for the inclusion of this image given the policy stated above and the closer got it right. This DRV should be closed as clear-cut. Eusebeus 23:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• And I'm just as sorry to have to repeat myself, but it's your point that is not relevant. If you wanted to argue that "There is simply no way a reasonable case can be made for the inclusion of this image," you had the perfect opportunity to do so in the deletion discussion. You didn't. Three presumptively reasonable editors did participate in that discussion and...guess what!...there simply are ways to reasonably make a case for the inclusion of the image according to policy. And the only thing "clear-cut" here is that the deleting admin violated our deletion policy in valuing his own opinion over the relevant consensus and over the relevant rules.—DCGeist 23:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

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

There are extensive articles on Paul Addis both on his recent burning of the Burning Man effigy and past works in CNN, Reuters, AP, WIRED, NPR, etc. etc. Past discussions failed to take this into account. If you are going to delete something and then protect the page. Please list who you are and your reasoning so that I can contact you for further discussion.

Please give the article more than 5 hours before it is deleted. Many others have expressed interest in contributing but could not do it quickly enough. My previous understanding was that an article has 5 days not not 5 hours before deletion. Please respond and unprotect the page. I certainly wish to contest this and request full information on how to proceed with that process.

--Natevoodoo 20:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, no new arguments presented to overturn the consensus AfD. Corvus cornix 20:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment

This is a repost with permission of comments by User "Monamongoose" on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:John_Reaves

I believe you deleted the Paul Addis Talk page

While I was in the middle of adding this thought:

Hello,

I am a newbie as far as 'contributing' to the Wiki machine - although I consult it several times a day. I have perused THIS talk page - as well as "The Original Discussion" on the deletion (cited above.) This deletion discussion is somewhat akin to "Through The Looking Glass" in its use of logic. The New York Times has spent more space discussing the person "Paul Addis" in its "The Lede" column/blog than your "editorial board" did in deciding to delete his entry.

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/burning-man/

Now I will be up front with you folks. I know Paul Addis, and while not exactly a 'friend' I like the guy. I don't like what he did for several reasons. I believe he has some serious problems; emotional, and now legal. Nevertheless, the truth of what he did, and some of the arguments he makes are newsworthy. He is not a petty criminal - although he obviously may have committed serious crimes. What I observe on these 2 Wiki pages is something I see everyday throughout the main stream media; lazyness. Lazyness to collect the facts, or to confront and challenge the assumptions. I can understand an editor's reluctance to have to deal with this issue - the amount of time that could possibly be used elsewhere; ie: on polishing the entry for the "Coriolis Effect" (which I looked up last night) but this series of events was more than just arson of a woodpile due to be burned anyway. Paul's drama (the story OF Paul, not the story BY Paul) has lessons that might benefit us all. Lessons on mental illness and art are two that immediately come to mind.

If you allow a 'discussion' (that's the word I would use to describe the creation of a Wiki entry) to continue on a Paul Addis entry you have a very good chance of releasing a whole lot of information on art and illness. Heck, Paul and others might actually benefit from the exchange of information. I can guarantee you that a lot of ideas (and some emotions) will flow - but that's what being human is all about.

And, you can always kill it later - but at least kill it for a good reason.

If you choose the courtesy of replying, my address is: mona AT aracnet DOT com

Monamongoose 20:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

--Natevoodoo 21:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment

As stated in talk section of Paul Addis before it was irrevocably deleted and protected:

I believe that the original discussion was extremely limited: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_August_30#Paul_Addis

The fact that Paul Addis' notability is not universal is not grounds for deletion. See arguments stating this at the following two locations:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Fame_in_x

"Conversely, very few things are well known everywhere. For instance, Pepe may not be well-known in London, but that does not by itself mean he is not notable."

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#I_have_never_heard_of_it

"Some subjects' notability may be limited to a particular country, region, or culture. However, arguments that state that because a subject is unknown or not well known among English readers it should not have an article encourage a systemic bias on Wikipedia. To avoid this systemic bias, Wikipedia should include all notable topics, even if the subject is not notable within the English speaking population or within more populous or Internet-connected nations. Likewise, arguments that state that because a subject is lesser known or even completely unknown outside a given locality does not mean the subject is not notable."

See Systemic Bias: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemic_bias

Also the original discussion refuted the reliability and extensiveness of media coverage of Paul Addis himself. I provided several links disproving this claim from CNN, Reuters, API, NPR, WIRED, All Bay Area, CA Papers, Reno Gazette. There are many more with a large readership basis that need not be mentioned here. An exhaustive list would be even more time consuming but can be provided.

Please see the following page if you have any question about whether those news websites are reliable sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#What_is_a_reliable_source.3F

The previous discussion also claimed he has done nothing previous that has been noted: Again I cannot complete an exhaustive list of articles on Paul Addis in such a limited timeframe as your system provides for. But here goes: Currently on National tour for a play about Hunter Thompson. Many interviews in print and radio. Long time contributer to Bay Area art scene. Many interviews in print and radio. Has been on NPR and other radio shows. Pranked the Burning Man effigy in 1997.

All of this can be cited. However it can't happen overnight. It take personal time and effort. Could someone explain to me why this process is so fast. What is the rush? Please consider the statements above and comment before voting.

Regards

--Natevoodoo 22:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion - Nothing has changed since the original AFD. Additionally the new article, if it can be called an article is simply one line of text with several links to news reports, all of which only refer to Addis in passing. They are predominately about the festival and the pre-emptive burning, not about the man himself. It's not in doubt that he did it and that he was arrested for it. So what? Do we allow an article for every arsonist? The event is covered in the Burning Man article. Addis is a nobody beyond the ability to use a box of matches. Given certain admissions by the nominator there now appears to be some WP:COI going on now too. Perhaps this can also be evidenced by the "bulldog" attempts to get this article resurrected. --WebHamster 02:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment

I'm not sure that it's true that nothing has changed since the orginal article. I don't have a copy of the original article. If you can produce it for me I will verify that and consider it. I know that given more than a day's time the article will grow to WikiStandards. While I may have some conflicts, I am also trying to create a page that anyone can contribute to and work on. Everyone has conflicts. I spent a lot of time yesterday working on not just putting sources/links together but also learning the archaic system of wikipedia and trying to defend myself. I'm sorry that this came off as a bulldog to you WebHamster in our discussion. It felt like my hard work was deleted and I didn't have a backup.

Please get the original article and our discussion from the other day and post it on my user page and I will put together a piece by piece policy defense for why it should meet the new page should meet wiki standards over the old page which was deleted by consensus. My page was just fast tracked for deletion.

Thanks for clearly stating your reasoning yet again. I will try to do the same.

--Natevoodoo 19:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, WP:NOT tabloid journalism. Guy (Help!) 10:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment

I think you can do a bit better than that. I don't understand why you think this is tabloid journalism. Perhaps you think CNN, NPR, WIRED, Reuters, AP are all tabloids for printing this story. Journalism can be sensationalist to sell papers! Shocking sir. shocking. Anyways just be more clear if you feel that this is really the case. --Natevoodoo 19:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Natevoodoo has a "close relationship" as defined by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:COI#Editors_who_may_have_a_conflict_of_interest, as do many other people lobbying for this article. Ask these lobbyists to confirm whether they've been in a hot tub for hours and done drugs at smaller real-world events with Paul listening to his egomaniacal rants. That the fact that they all have doesn't *negate* their ability to contribute to the article, but the Wikipedia policy (discussed on that page) for them to defer to more unbiased people seems to apply here.

That wikipedia policy says "Any situation where strong relationships can develop may trigger a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal. It is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon, a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization. Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias. Be guided by the advice of other editors. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, try to identify and minimize your biases, and consider withdrawing from editing the article. "

Doing otherwise would seem to be a violation of Wikipedia policy.

-- anonymous 18:42, 7 September 2007 71.202.85.115 [1]

• Comment Signing anonymous seems to be a sign that whoever wrote this wishes to hide their involvement to Paul or conflict with Burning Man issues. If I'm in conflict then so are they.

--Natevoodoo 19:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment

Please see the Paul Addis page improvements on my user page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Natevoodoo/Paul_Addis

There are many more reliable sources linked if you compare it to the original that was deleted in the history (added by Anetode=thx) The interview w/ Wired Magazine and 10zenmonkeys.com if you listen to it will show you his notability. I still need to write a summarizing paragraph of course.

--Natevoodoo 19:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - You seem to be under the misassumption that the more links you cram into the article the greater the notability whilst conveniently forgetting the fact that the article itself is a mere one line of text. I'm afraid you are attempting the unenviable task of polishing a turd, it just can't be done. If you discount the links to sites begging for money to pay his bail (yeah right!) the news links just cover the event, not the man, which is already covered in the Burning Man article. The rest is pure self-promotion for an obvious narcissistic extrovert. This is not the making of an encyclopaedic article, even a bad one. --WebHamster 20:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Ha! Why so much anger Hammie? Where's the love?

I am not, nor have I ever been, Paul Addis. Look there's an entire paragraph now on the temp page. And someone has added personal thought below. And a picture and better info for the links. My how my garden is growing. The news articles do say Paul Addis and talk about him. Why do you feel they don't? I'm really stumped on this one. --Natevoodoo 20:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• • What anger? I'm debating and putting my side forward. I've seen the article and the comments below it. The comments are not part of the article. The article remains a grand total of one sentence. I know the links don't talk about Addis in any meaningful or detailed way because I've read them. Incidentally I don't think you are Addis, I never did. Frankly I couldn't care less if you were. My comments are related purely to the article in relation to WP. My crystal ball shows me that the article you are so hellbent on creating will never reach the article main space. The guy simply hasn't achieved anything of note other than attempting to spoil other people's fun, getting arrested and then bleating about how much the bail cost him. Even you, a self-confessed buddy, can't find anything to write about him that fills more than a sentence. If it wasn't for the WP mantra "assume good faith" I'd be thinking that all this mither you are causing is your attempt to gain some attention (albeit limited) from this debacle just like your mate. But I won't think that because I'm assuming good faith --WebHamster 21:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

All the articles I've posted to talk about Paul Addis. If this is incorrect please be specific and explain why you think so. Your comments appear to not be part of the debate. Just flaming. And you are showing some contempt for the person in question which makes you anything but impartial judge of his notability. Even if you don't like him that doesn't make him unnotable. Leave your crystal ball predictions for your blog. And keep assuming good faith if you want to get your point across. --Natevoodoo 22:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• • • • None of the articles I read (and I read all of the ones in your article) give a substantial or in-depth report on Addis himself. If you don't agree to that, then point me/us at the one article you think covers him most substantially and in-depth and I'll give my response to it.

As regards flaming, well this is where the guidelines regarding conflict of interest are a good guide to why people involved with the subject of articles shouldn't write them. What you consider to be flaming I consider to be saying it as it is. I have no COI, I'm 6000 miles away and I have no idea what he's like. I can only give an opinion based on what I see reported and the contents of the article, i.e. I have a neutral point of view. Are you denying that he spoiled the enjoyment of other people to gain pleasure or attention for himself? Are you denying that he's bleating and moaning about how much the bail has cost him? Are you denying that he's an attention seeker? I'd be grateful what you consider my flaming to be.

I don't know the guy so how can I like or dislike him personally? I don't like what he did, I don't deny that. All of which is immaterial to my viewpoint, which is that however many ways you cut it he is not a noteworthy person, he is a person without note, his note is defunct, it has ceased to be. His notability has shuffled off it's mortal coil and gone to join the choir invisible. It's an ex-note.

On a lighter note, I don't have a blog, unlike some people associated with this debate. I feel they are a total waste of time and are an extension of someone's vanity. Why the hell anyone would want to read a nobody's (myself included in that) thoughts is beyond me. --WebHamster 23:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for being more clear on what you were looking for. 10zenmonkeys and the WIRED are the most biographical. It's certainly debatable as to whether he's biographical enough based on those sources, but before now you've been saying there was no mention of Mr. Addis at all. So I assumed you hadn't read anything. Thanks for your time and interest in this.

Please re-read what I wrote. I said they only mentioned him in passing, and that the coverage of him wasn't substantial. As regards the Wired interview. That was hardly biographical, more a venue for Addis' rhetoric. The Burning the Man With Hunter S. Thompson interview was again hardly biographical, more a puff piece to advertise Addis' one man show, as I think was the Burning Man escapade. As I previously stated he is an attention seeker. --WebHamster 12:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I do think your tone is clearly more than a bit intentionally nasty. And if you think it's all just pure factual opinion on your part, you are the one who needs some perspective. If you think a blog is a waste of time, what do you call this? Do you feel you are saving the general public from hearing more about someone you find reprehensible? --Natevoodoo 05:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

My tone is simply one of stating facts straight up and undiluted. This is not a blog, this is a debate on whether the Paul Addis article should be revived. I still feel that it shouldn't as nothing has changed since the original AFD. Other than the fact that it is becoming clear that you, as a friend of Addis' is attempting to garner more attention for Addis, possibly to help his show, possibly just to help him get what he wants. Either way there is COI here and nothing has changed about his notability. My only intention is to maintain the rules and standards of Wikipedia. And recreating this article would serve neither. There are far more reprehensible people with articles in Wikipedia so it's a bit of a straw man (careful with the matches} argument to suggest it. --WebHamster 12:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. All the "delete" arguments at the AFD were spot-on, and attempting to bury this DRV in nasty verbiage ain't going to help. If he wants attention that badly, he needs to find somewhere else to get it. --Calton | Talk 14:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Do what you like. I am not a friend of Addis' nor do I care how his career moves. I just found information that I found interesting and thought it had a place here. I feelings on the matter are definitely less strong than Hamster. And I don't want to be known for this. It's just an interesting and notable story to both me and many news sources. Your judgement may differ. I wish you could actually debate your point of view. Saying that you have a neutral point of view shows a misunderstanding of the concept and the content on that page. The concept is that pages should be written with a neutral point of view, which my single sentence is written in. Its just states the act of arson he was accused of. It does not mean that those who live farther away from a notable person/event are more neutral. In fact that page clearly states that everyone has bias. Everyone. Your bias appears to be that you don't like him and don't want him to get attention. That ain't neutral so read it again. The fact that I've heard of Addis does not create any inherent conflict that I'm aware of, I've simply noted him. The use of straw man is a clever allusion to burning man but it doesn't actually apply to what I did either. I did not misrepresent your point of view that you dislike Paul Addis. You admit to this. You reinforce my point by stating that there are unlikable people are noted throughout wikipedia. But unless you had a personal hand in keeping those pages in place, you are not refuting my point that your motivation for deleting this page has something to do with your dislike for Paul Addis. You are biased, get used to it.

Some have made good and unspiteful arguments for what the current page is lacking in proving the WP:BIO standards have been met. I'd rather spend my time improving the page then responding to Hammie anymore. When you're done being clever you can consider this a lesson in rhetoric and reading comprehension.

--Natevoodoo 16:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Considering that you couldn't be bothered -- or were unable to -- come up with more than the single sentence of your "new and improved" bio and yet were able to crank out 2000+ words of bad faith, insults, handwaving, psychological projection, pure fantasy, and question-begging on this page alone, I not only stand by what I wrote, but will also make explicit what I didn't say but which you have projected onto my words:

When you say that you don't know the guy and are only interested in making a biographical article of a "notable person": I don't believe you. Your entire contribution history revolves around this guy, and your over-the-top bad faith, insults, handwaving, etc, to any opposition is telling.

When this DRV is finished, I'm going to move that your subpage be deleted, speedily if possible. Two thousand words of whinging about the bio and yet you can't come up with TWO sentences for it? --Calton | Talk 02:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. (1) no procedural or substantive problem with the AfD, which showed a clear consensus; (2) this is a minor and ephemeral news story, deserving at most a few lines in the Burning Man article; (3) neither the deleted article nor the proposed new draft are remotely encyclopedic in nature. --MCB 18:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletionThat's extremely well stated MCB. Thanks for reading over all the infighting and being concise. I endorse the deletion too in its current form by your reasoning, but people are still contributing to a temporary user page version and I will resubmit that at a later date if I feel it reaches the WP:BIO standards. Don't want to waste anyone's time if it doesn't need to be.

End of Debate Right? --Natevoodoo 18:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

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

There is new information on this subject... he's been in several prominent press articles in the past few days and is a well-known columnist and pundit. See Congressional Quarterly, Time Magazine, and Foxnews for starters. He's contributed to several books, speaks at conferences and is well known for his information security as well. I believe a review of the AfD debates will show bad faith. The first nomination failed, the second one wasn't even done correctly and the entire process since smacks of vote stacking and huge PoV because the subject has been critical of gay marriage. The criteria for notability is clear and this subject more than meets it 130.126.137.181 16:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy close, no new information, the links above provide nothing substantive to write an article from. He filed a complaint with the FEC, and lost. Big deal. Corvus cornix 17:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted The new coverage is not significant.--Chaser - T 19:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Perennial nominaton. No substantial sourcing offered. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 21 for the last review, which I speedy closed due to BLP violating attacks on the subject. GRBerry 19:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

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

There was no clear consensus to delete and even the admin who enforced the deletion did not seem to be sure if there was a clear consensus to delete. I would ask that the page be undeleted. Purserj 13:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Confusing... here's the AFD in question: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Home Unix Machine Brisbane User Group (2nd nomination) --W.marsh 13:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, there does seem to be sufficient policy-based consensus here to endorse the deletion. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 14:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. When the only keep arguments are variations on "I like it" and "other stuff exists"... Mackensen (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment from closer I closed this based on what I believed was consensus. The various keep arguments consisted of variations of "I like it" and "other stuff exists", while those in favour of deleting pulled strong arguments, including the fact that the article remained unreferenced with reliable sources and that it failed WP:ORG. Therefore, I deleted. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Okay see this is where I have the problem. In the deletion discussion many references were shown to support the claims. There was one complaint about the person supplying the references being "too close" however that did not detract from the relevance of the sources. The other issue I have is that this is the second attempt to delete this page, and while it could have used a cleanup, it was certainly no worse than other entries in the Linux User Groups area such as this one [2] or this one [3]. Purserj 22:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, but link an off-wiki page about HUMBUG to your user page, unless you find reliable sources (or a decent quantity of independent references to HUMBUG), in which case you might post the page again. — Rickyrab | Talk 01:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Notability seems to have been overlooked since there wasn't a glaring New York Times-type reference -- unfortunately that's inevitable with most tech-savy topics. Subject is a prominent Linux User Group which hosts the Aussie ISP and hosted the third (officially "second") linux.conf.au conference (reference). There wasn't really a numerical consensus, and the closure, while not absurd by any means, didn't seem to account for the points of notability which were raised. — xDanielx ^T/_C 21:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn as per xDanielx. I'm declaring my involvement with HUMBUG: I started the club in 1995. It is worth noting that I originally supported deletion in the original AfD in 2005 until I reviewed notability of articles for similar clubs (particularly in the US) and formed the opinion that HUMBUG was being dealt with unfairly. Robert Brockway 02:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • This is turning into a replay of the AFD. Please note WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the link. I really see deletions such as this one as a symptom of a larger problem - the threshold to deletion is too low IMHO. I think it comes down to where we see WP going in the future. The current tendency is to put the threshold quite low but there are many dissenting voices as we see on the foundation lists, en.WP lists and in external web sites. Robert Brockway 06:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
      • The threshold for deletion is the threshold set by some of Wikipedia's most integral policies, such as WP:NOT, among others. That policy is the structure for many activities and areas within Wikipedia, and many of these areas include those related to deletion, much of the time. So this "problem" you have identified, is, most likely, essentially a problem that you see in Wikipedia policy. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

John Smeaton (baggage handler) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Provided for convenience are the first and second AfDs for this article. The first was controversial as lots of new users and anon-IPs were voting based on personal feelings rather than on Wikipedia policies, just as the man had become famous. These people did not show up for the second nomination, where more established Wikipedians tended to support a merge to 2007 Glasgow International Airport Attack, which was what happened. Some others in the second voted keep, others voted delete. For those who haven't heard about him, he's a baggage handler at Glasgow Airport who became famous for helping to thwart the terrorist attack on the airport's entrance at the start of July, and who was interviewed on TV and became known for his personality and quotations in the popular media, including a front page article in The Wall Street Journal. Many Wikipedians at the time saw it as hype and his fifteen minutes of fame, but since then he has been back in the media. I don't think he qualifies for WP:BLP1E anymore because as of today, he has a weekly column in the Scottish Sun. Also, since his initial moment of fame he's been invited to Ground Zero this coming September 11th for a memorial service, appeared at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival, met prime minister Gordon Brown, appeared at Ibrox Stadium and had a tribute website set up in his name, and he donated the money he'd been given to charity. While WP:NOT#NEWS and he's got his old job as a baggage handler back, he has inarguably become a minor celebrity in Scotland. Also, there's plenty of verifiable information from reliable sources about him so that a reasonably sized article would be perfectly possible. Not only that, his inclusion as having been merged to 2007 Glasgow International Airport Attack seems to have clogged up that article, which should be primarily about what happened in the attack, yet currently includes a bio on John Smeaton. What we should do is have a seperate bio for John Smeaton, clean it up a little, and give a link to his biography in the "public reaction" short section in the article about the attack. Seems like the most logical way to handle this in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Having merged John Smeaton there seems to have given undue weight to this folk hero. And who knows - WP:NOT#CRYSTAL, Smeaton may well continue to do yet more notable things in his life. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Uh... I hate to say this after you obviously put a lot of time into that nomination, but this is deletion review, not merge review. If you want to undo a merge, the place to go is the article's talk page. Merging or undoing a merge is an article-level decision that doesn't really require a process like DRV or AFD. --W.marsh 12:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• There have been no new comments on John Smeaton on that talk page since the merge, which makes it seem more appropriate to bring here.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, I'm noticing now that the 2nd nomination was closed by the admin with the words "The result was merge to 2007 Glasgow International Airport Attack, with no prejudice against recreation if he gains further notability. A redirect is being formed. I will leave it up to interested editors to figure out precise merge details." Could have just been WP:BOLD and done it myself, but I'd have seen people get angry with me for changing from the consensus to merge.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Allow recreation. A quick Google News search confirms that there is more than enough information on this person for an article, and no doubt it will push the limits of 2007 Glasgow International Airport Attack too far to try to include it all there. Mangojuice^talk 13:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Recreate As he seems to have attained further notability. Lurker (said · done) 17:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Recreate' and it need not have come here, for ai consider the "without prejudice" wording in the clos as meaning wahhat it says, permission to re-create with additional content. 23:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• No opinion, but I did recently see this fellow mentioned on CNN as part of their "Heroes" series. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I really do think that a recreation of his biography is the most appropriate option, and I can clean it up to Wikipedia standards in my own time - possibly even attempt to get it to good article status. There's so much information about him now that this merge just seems to have worked out badly.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Henchman 2000/Sandbox (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|MfD)

The articles can be improved on and people were willing to participate and had found sources. I couldn't do much because I was busy doing other things. Now that they are finished I would like to start improving the articles. Henchman 2000 08:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'd hate to say this but you said the same about half a year ago. I don't see a good reason here to overturn the unanimous MFD. Endorse. >Radiant< 10:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I was busy recently and had no time. Now that I do, I am going to start working on them. Henchman 2000 17:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

*CSD 1, So...close already — Rickyrab | Talk 17:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

What's that supposed to mean? Henchman 2000 17:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

::That means that the deletion satisfies the first criterion for speedy deletion of user pages, namely, that the user page's user requested the deletion. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong overturn, I wasn't thinking clearly; user was actually doing the opposite of what I thought he was doing. He was requesting the undeletion of his own project page. I apologize. In the spirit of CSD 1, but in reverse, I hereby request that the deletion be overturned. — Rickyrab | Talk 01:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

U1 doesn't work in reverse. — Malcolm (talk) 19:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Strong overturn in light of Henchman's intention to work on the articles. MfD participants evidently thought that it was a vacant sandbox, which isn't the case. No reason to deny Henchman a simple convenience in his own unobtrusive user space. — xDanielx ^T/_C 00:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Radiant!. AFD was unanimous, U1 doesn't work in reverse, and Wikipedia is not a free webhost and deleted pages cannot be kept in userspace indefinitely; the user has claimed he would work on them in the past, that didn't happen. --Coredesat 04:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Meh, overturn and if he doesn't work on them in a sufficient amount of time, G4 or re-MFD them. --Coredesat 04:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak overturn for now per Coredesat. To be honest, I don't think the articles could be improved enough to return to the article space (I think the topic itself is unencyclopedic). My biases aside, though, Henchman should be given a certain amount of time to improve them to article quality (say, a month). If he doesn't, re-MfD and keep deleted. — Malcolm (talk) 19:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)