Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 22

Image:Adnan Oktar August 3, 2007.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I deleted the page as a copyrighted image. User:White_Cat had tagged the page with the rationale, "Source says: "Harun Yahya International © 2008. All rights reserved. Our materials may be copied, printed and distributed, by referring to this site.". Does not grant derivative works, does not grant commercial use." I agreed. However at least two others disagreed with its deletion, arguing that having the image here was allowed. I submit it for review. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 22:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I disagreed with the deletion, and still do. I feel that as use is permitted, providing the site is referred to, commercial use is allowed. Why should commercial use be any different? It blatantly says 'material can be copied', so why are we adding rules to what has already been stated? As for derivative works, again, the website owner explicitly states that the work can be reused, only with the limitation that the website must be credited. This doesn't say that deriv works are not allowed, so why should we believe they are, or even believe there is a chance they are? To be utterly ridiculous about it, this website does not explicitly state that someone wearing black socks can reuse the work. I'm wearing black socks- am I allowed to reuse? I understand that material is not free unless it is explicitly stated to be so, but expicit permission to reuse with only the one limitation has been given in this case. A lot of people disagree with me, but I have failed to be convinced as of yet. J Milburn (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted "Harun Yahya International © 2008. All rights reserved." is pretty clear. Assumption is the root of all f*** ups... -- Cat ^chi? 22:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment; no, it's not clear at all. It's basically meaningless; it says that someone owns a copyright on it (like most of the stuff on Wikipedia) and that they are conservative enough that they put the All rights reserved that was required to prevent the copyright from going into the public domain somewhere in the world for just about all of the 20th century.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, not only is it a copyrighted image, but it's available for non-commercial use only. Not allowed here as it would be speedied under I3 if it hadn't been under I9. --Coredesat 23:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - copyvios aren't negotiable. Copyright requires positive permission - you can't do something unless you're permitted to, rather than the other way around. Stifle (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment It looks like permission is granted in this case (may be copied, printed, etc.). I'm sure I'm missing something important here, but I don't see it. Hobit (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
    • That's exactly how I feel. J Milburn (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
      • The problem is, even if permission is granted, that permission is for non-commercial use only, which is unacceptable for use on Wikipedia. If you want to debate changing I3, do it at WT:CSD, but this isn't the place to try to reword policy. --Coredesat 21:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

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

I speedy deleted this article as CSD A7, but one of the main contributors has appealed this on my talk page, citing [1] and [2] as evidence they meet WP:MUSIC. I'm not sure they constitute evidence of notability so I'm placing my deletion for review. Pegasus «C¦T» 04:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse both speedy deletions as A7. No claim of notability, absolutely standard WP:SPA band article, the purported sources do not meet WP:RS. Guy (Help!) 17:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion Cannot see any assertions of significance in the deleted version and the two sources quoted above do not appear to be reliable secondary sources. Davewild (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid A7, "sources" given aren't reliable secondary sources. --Coredesat 23:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

List of religious wars (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Temporary review only. This list still appears as a red link on the page List of wars. Deleting admin has been inactive for many months and I'm sure Rama's Arrow had good faith reasons for the deletion, but it appears deletion was speedy (or at least I don't see any archived deletion discussion for the date deleted). I'm researching the possibility of a new portal about Civil wars, and I was wondering if I could see the list to determine whether a more general deletion review process might be appropriate. I can see some reasons why this might not best be open for full-viewing, so if this is approved, I'd like to see it pasted into User:BusterD/portal#List_of_religious_wars_.28for_temporary_examination.29. Second choice would be email. A fuller look at page history and talk history might be helpful as well, however. BusterD (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion and allow userfication per nom. The article consisted of a list, organized by religion, with entries like the following:

Christianity vs. Zoroastrianism, Roman-Persian Wars, Mespotamia and Modern Turkey, 502-562 CE

Typically each war would be listed twice so as to appear in the section for both religions involved:

Zoroastrianism vs. Christianity, Roman-Persian Wars, Mespotamia and Modern Turkey, 502-562 CE

Allowing userfication so that BusterD can (hopefully) improve the article with sources, reorganization, etc., would be reasonable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)