Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 1-15

Talk:Brian Peppers (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Brian Peppers|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

We can live without this until 21 February 2007, and if anyone still cares by then, we can discuss it.— Jimbo Wales. On that day, the day that Jimbo randomly declared it all right to edit, discuss and improve... well, wait a second. If you study what he said closely, he doesn't even say that's what's going to happen. All he says is we may discuss it again. And well the article wasn't undeleted, but...... the talk page should be restored so we can discuss it again. SakotGrimshine 22:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The article was restored, and got deleted again, so the talk is not required to discuss the article, if you disagree with the original deletion, start a DRV for the article not the talk page. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

The discussion at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:Wikipedians by language was speedy-kept "per this being a WP:POINT nomination" when discussion had barely begun. In fact, several people had also mentioned WP:POINT, although no one ever said exactly what point they thought I was disrupting Wikipedia to make. As it happens, I wasn't. The Babel categories (Category:Wikipedians by language and its subcategories, however long-standing they may be, are unencyclopedic. They do not help the project in any way. The few people who did manage to say something before the discussion was closed claimed these categories are used to help in translation, but in fact they aren't. Category:Available translators in Wikipedia does that. Not everyone who is competent in a given language is able to translate it, and certainly not everyone who is capable of translating a given language is willing to do so. Once the red herring of translation assistance has been removed from these categories, there's nothing left for them to do except contribute to the MySpacification of Wikipedia. Therefore I request that the speedy-keep be overturned, and the UCFD discussion allowed to run its course. —Angr 21:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse There is a great shake-up in UCfD's right now. Let this one have a breather before starting in on it. Also re-opening this would promote wheel-warring. -N 21:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I closed this once, it was closed a second time by User:Ryan Postlethwaite. Seems to have little chance of being deleted; I suggested that a discussion on the village pump would be appropriate for these before the CfD. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course it has little chance of being deleted if the discussion keeps getting cut off before it has a chance to get underway. And the village pump is not the place to discuss the removal of unencyclopedic content; XfD is. —Angr 22:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Great candidate for speedy keep. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 22:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? —Angr 22:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and recommend this deletion review be speedy-closed as a patent violation of WP:POINT. Babel categories, beyond being a tool that may help localize possible translators (in which it is not a unique tool) also help in determining one's possible interest in articles that are of specific interest in a culture. Myself, I am a French-speaking Canadian, but through my understanding of French, I will have a keener interest in articles about French, Quebec or any other kind of frnacophone culture. Seeing Babel categories as just a potential source of translators is gravely underestimating the usefulness of these categories.--Ramdrake 23:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said above, the Babel categories are not a potential source of translators anyway, because not everyone included in these categories is ready, willing, or able to translate the language whose category they're in. Your interest in articles pertaining to French does not mean you have to be included in a category of Wikipedians who have some knowledge of French. And the next time someone accuses me of violating WP:POINT without bothering to explain why they think that, I shall scream. I have explained in detail both in the original CFD and again here why these categories are unencyclopedic, and no one has given one single coherent reason to think they aren't, let alone a single reason why the issue shouldn't even be discussed. Instead, they just keep squawking "WP:POINT! WP:POINT! WP:POINT!" without stopping to consider the fact that a category of Wikipedians who speak French is no more helpful to encyclopedia-building than a category of Wikipedians who like bananas, and that a category of Wikipedians who speak a politically charged language like, say, Kurdish, may be as harmful to encyclopedia-building as any other category of Wikipedians based on their political beliefs. —Angr 00:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Angr, many people are multilingual and it is inaccurate to state that their linguistic knowledge is an indication of their political beliefs. It is also inappropriate to state that expressing knowledge of a certain language involves any sort of political expression. For instance, nothing precludes a militant Turkish nationalist from being able to speak Kurdish. Also, Kurdish (like many others) is a politically charged language only in specific contexts; in many others it is just a language. The same is true of English. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know that not all speakers of any given language share the same political beliefs. But the perception that it may be the case makes these categories politically dangerous and potentially "inflammatory and divisive". Nor did I mean to imply Kurdish was unique or even unusual in this regard; I picked it as a particularly salient example, but virtually any other language could have served the purpose. The point is, these categories are just as susceptible to vote-stacking as the more explicitly political categories (even though the risk of people one expected to be on one's side voting against one's position is also just as high as with the political categories). —Angr 00:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do you mean to say that you regard Babel language categories as potential statements of political affiliations? If that's the case I'm afraid you're dead wrong. That's merely prejudice, and it is this attitude, and not the reverse which is potentially harmful to Wikipedia. How can stating the languages one speaks be a divisive element on Wikipedia? The fact is, most speakers of any given language usually represent a whole spectrum of political beliefs, not a narrow range as you seem to be erroneously implying.--Ramdrake 00:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm saying the Babel language categories have the potential to be misused that way (making them potentially harmful), and that they have no actual benefit to the encyclopedia. The fact that, say (again, this is just an example) Irish republicans may not have tremendous success finding sympathizers in Category:User ga-N doesn't mean they won't try. If that category were actually good for something related to encyclopedia-building, we would keep it anyway. But it isn't. These categories do no good, and could do harm, so we should delete them. —Angr 01:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. This was a valid keep per WP:SNOW, though I am unconvinced of the accuracy of the WP:POINT allegations. Perhaps only the closing decision should be modified. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - I cringe to call for an endorse of a speedy close of anything, as I've been burned on this one. However, let me explain:

• 1. The categories are most certainly useful. Nothing my-space-y about them: in fact, I've been able to use them in the past.
• 2. This really is a case where WP:SNOW applies, as even if it's not a WP:POINTy opening, there's little doubt as to the outcome. I fully support speedy closures where the result is already foreknown. The Evil Spartan 00:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Instantly keep-able. I can't stand the Babel system, and still I find this an unsupportable argument.--Mike Selinker 01:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly endorse keep. Re the commentary by the editor requesting the overturn: on the contrary, the cat is eminently useful. I use it all the time in order to locate Wikipedians who have a specialization in a particular language or script, when such expertise is needed on a page I am working to improve. Such groundless assertions that this category is useless, coupled with attempts to remove it entirely from Wikipedia, are entirely unhelpful to our project and must cease. Badagnani 06:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And you have actually successfully found people who know something about the language in question in the category? If so, then congratulations! I used to try to use these categories to find people knowledgeable about various languages, but it never worked. Knowledge of one's native language is entirely subconscious, so it can't be accessed in a way where others can use it. (Try asking native English speakers when to say he and when to say him. I bet 90% of them can't tell you, even though they always get it right themselves.) And even if finding native and fluent speakers were beneficial to the encyclopedia, what use are the xx-1 and xx-2 categories? How does it help the project to know that someone has only a beginner's knowledge or intermediate knowledge of a language?? —Angr 07:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Angr, you seem to be mixing up knowing the language and being an expert on the grammar for a given language. Most people who speak a language learn its grammar, apply it and then tend to forget the rules on a conscious level (unless they work with them every day, such as a language teacher). That doesn't mean the category is useless. It means you are likely to need to ask several people in a given category before you can find one who can answer your question. Sounds like you may be expecting too much of a category.--Ramdrake 12:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not mixing the two up, but I think the people who claim these categories benefit the encyclopedia are. Precisely because being a speaker of a language does NOT entail consciously knowing anything about the language (and vice versa--I know a lot about Irish, but I don't speak it well at all), these categories cannot be used to locate people who know something about the languages. What I expect of a category of Wikipedians is that it be useful for building the encyclopedia, and these aren't. —Angr 13:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. Just passing through Badagnani's contributions and saw this discussion. I fulfilled a language request for this editor - so perhaps the categories are useful for something. Cheers, Paxse 03:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The arguments presented for deleting are too weak. The userspace does not have to be encyclopedic, and this categorisation is a popular way for users to identify themsleves. Templates for users should be more about what users want to say about themselves or identify, than what is really useful. GB 09:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This keep rationale is almost entirely incorrect about user categories, which must be encyclopedic and are not in user space. They are not a form of free expression and are regularly deleted if they don't serve the purpose of building an encyclopedia. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are right, but I think it's been amply proven in this discussion that Babel categories indeed do have a definite use, even though it might not be as straightforward as some editors would like it to be.--Ramdrake 14:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please see my comment near the very top of this discussion. I should have pointed that out just above. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sokker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Sokker Manager, a web-based soccer simulation, has grown to over 47,000 users worldwide since it was first deleted in March 2006. Similar browser games like Hattrick, Battrick, Managerzone, Championship Manager Online, and Football Dot Manager all have active Wikipeida pages, yet Sokker keeps having its page deleted based on a debate that occurred well over a year ago. Reasons for deletion then were that it was an advertisement for the game, but various Sokker users want to make it into a guide/interesting article like the other similar game pages; however, the page is not allowed to stay it cannot be completed to reach the desired article point. Sokker has a page in other Wikipedia languages including Spanish, Dutch, and Italian (and maybe a few more). Why not English? Can we have another debate or will somebody please restore this page so it can be fine-tuned and finished. After all, with 47,000+ users spanning across six different continents, it is rather notable. WildManKY 20:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• When you say "users want to make it into a guide" that instantly rings alarm bells, per what wikipedia is not. Are there multiple non-trivial sources written by independant third parties in reliable sources for this. If so can you point us to two or three? (Note inclusion on other wikipedia is irrelevant, each one has differing inclusion standards, nor does similar articles here per WP:INN --pgk 20:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I say make it into a guide, I mean make it into an article very similar to the other ones. Talks of a parent company and developers, user interaction, game history and features, etc. It also belongs in various article categories that Wikipedia has. These are all attributes that the other English articles have, nothing less. If that's not good enough for an article, then what's with double standard?WildManKY 21:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you read WP:INN? We still need those reliable sources --pgk 21:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please show me the reliable sources that Championship Manager Online and Football Dot Manager both hold on to for dear life, and then tell me that you're not holding Sokker to a double standard. We can provide game reviews and external help web sites that the game uses, which is also what the other articles have. People obviously want to establish this page and to maintain it with factual information. I would understand if we actually owned Sokker and stood to gain monetarily from people knowing about it, but we don't. This is not proactive advertising and deserves a article page simply based on the amount of people that play the game. Games like these help to bridge international gaps in communities and people should have the right to know about them. WildManKY 22:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That would be WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Try addressing the actual question, please. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Users wanting to make a guide was what got it deleted in the first place. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Still waiting for those multiple independent reliable sources. Corvus cornix 07:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Admiral insignia.gif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

One of many United States Navy officer rank insignia uploaded in 2005. Deleted by User:Majorly as having no source. I noticed this when Majorly began to orphan the commons image showing through. I believe we should WP:AGF these are indeed public domain images (works of the U.S. Navy) until shown otherwise. -N 19:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Close debate - I believe you want to handle this at the commons, not here. The Evil Spartan 19:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I care not how commons closes the deletion discussion. I believe the local version should be restored, so the tag {{PD-USGov-Military-Badge}} can be added, since apparently it was missing. This image was tagless when the generic {{military-insignia}} was deprecated. Either that, or list any of the other dozen or so images from the same set by the same uploader for deletion. I tried to retag them all when military insignia was deprecated but it looks like I missed this one -N 19:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You mean that "[You] believe we should assume these are indeed public domain images...", right? AGF has nothing to do with this, because no one is assuming that the uploaders of these images were acting in bad faith. That said, I am kind of frustrated that someone interested in the images has not yet found out the copyright status of these images; they have been around for at least two years, you'd think if they were public domain we would have found out by now. --Iamunknown 19:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually it was a single person, User:Mbr7975. -N 19:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are others who uploaded many images (not of these insignia though), notably (due to a lengthy arbitration case, disputes with a prominent then-admin) User:Husnock. The underlying problem is that we simply do not know with assurety that these images are indeed in the public domain. I have read assertions by some editors knowledge in copyright law that they must be in the public domain due to the Geneva convention's requirements that all countries may reproduce military insignia, but (IMO) asserting that (1) because the Geneva conventions requirements (2) military insignia is in the public domain is a logical fallacy; all it says is that the Geneva convention permits other countries to reproduce military insignia, it says nothing of derivative works, commercial reuse, etc. That said, I am not sure how this will be resolved (and so I guess I can understand why editors, even those interested in these images, have yet not resolved them), because I am not aware of any case law or legal opinions of intellectual property lawyers that deal with these types of works. At this point I simply feel I am spilling ink, and that DRV is the inappropriate venue to resolve these issues. The image as deleted or undeleted will not change that fact; it will only change the fact that we will be able to use it. --Iamunknown 20:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not talking about non US images. That debate is not for DRV, I agree. This uploader uploaded US Navy images and marked them as PD. There is no proof the images by this uploader are not {{PD-USGov-Military-Badge}}. The rest of the images in this set by this uploader have been maintained. This particular image just failed to get a proper new tag when {{military-insignia}} was deprecated. -N 20:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The long version: Sorry about misinterpreting your points. A lingering doubt I have is that the image (I am examining the Answers.com mirror) appears to be more than a simple graphical representation and is instead a photograph. If this image was indeed a photograph instead of an illustration, we need to know whose work it is (or if it is a work of the United States government / State Department / Military) in order to verify its copyright status. (But we only need to do that if we feel that there was original authorship in creating the photograph - if it is indeed a photograph. That is debatable; it is my opinion that we should not extend the slavish-reproduction rule of Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. to anything other than its original scope - paintings, but I understand that others disagree.) Indeed, no evidence has been provided to show that the images are not PD by virtue of being property of the United States military (or by virtue of being slavish reproductions of such works), but neither has any evidence shown that they are PD by the same virtue.
        • The short version: I left a note on the uploader's — User talk:Mbr7975 — talk page and requested comment here. He or she was active as of last month, so maybe we will soon hear comment!
        • My opinion: maintain status quo (deleted) until we learn of the source or the uploader's comment. --Iamunknown 20:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The problem with many of the insignia images is that they are tagged with a PD tag and no source and this has been the state of those images for some time. Even with non-US insignia, that is a problem I faced here and the Commons (where I started a deletion debate about insignia on there). Anyways, I endorse the deletion of the image. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ok, right after I said that, I found the source of the image: DefenseLink, the official website of the US DoD. I am still looking for a copyright notice. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • And http://www.defenselink.mil/multimedia/about.html says the images are public domain unless otherwise denoted. So, the image is PD, so restore the images. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Main page here. Sometimes it's only after being forced to get off our asses do we actually fix this shit. I suppose the wisest thing would be to upload them all to Commons with correct sourcing and licensing and then delete local copies. I'll do that now. -N 22:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • It wasn't that hard, maybe a minute or two on Google fixed it. Anyways, yeah, upload them to the Commons (as a Commons admin, I suggest maybe saving them as PNG files). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The quality on them went to crap after I converted them. Withdrawing nomination. -N 23:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I'll see what I can do this weekend. It may be warranted simply to make svgs of the images and upload them. The next uninvolved editor who sees this, feel free to close the DRV. --Iamunknown 23:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ball piston engine (Wolfhart engine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This engine fits 100% in the “proposed engine designs” [[1]] and has merit. Some criticized things can be changed.

By the way: The same German article survived just a deletion attempt. [2]

The Wolfhart Engine is even honored in the portal of Wikipedia: [3]

--Wolfhart Willimczik - Physicist & Inventor 18:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inventor (talk • contribs)

• Endorse per unanimous AfD and obvious COI, without prejudice to re-creation if better article can be written. -N 18:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as it is still not notable. GB 09:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion AfD decided unanimously that notability and WP:COI concerns made deletion proper. Even if the first concern is addressed, the second is still problematic and reasonable here. No compelling reason given to overturn. Xoloz 17:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category People from Ealing by district (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The whole discussion was incomplete with outstanding issues unadressed and yet this has been closed and the categories removed. Also this now leaves one borough with people categorised incorrectly as being from Ealing when they may be from somewhere very different which just happens to be in the Borough of that name. Finally this now puts Ealing out of sync with the rest of the London categories, which no consideration has to be given to. The original deletion debate was at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 8#Category:People from Ealing by district and please note the sub cats also deleted with this. Regan123 17:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree the categories should be restored. The retrospective application of contemporary units to people who were born hundreds of years before their creation is highly problematic. The individual settlement categories were categorised into groups by current units (i.e. People from Ealing by district) and by the historic divisions to avoid anachronistic use. The individual settlements people are from are 100% verifiable through documentary evidence; I do know of any source which documents people retrospectively by current districts. MRSC • Talk 18:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as reasonable, and adequately discussed, since many of the considerations were also previously discussed at analogous deletions. As I understand it, all smaller regions were merged into boroughs as possible, so I ask for further elucidatation of "out of sync." The problems involving change of name over time are common to many cities. If one knows England well enough to look for people in one of the previous smaller towns, wouldn't one know they are now in Ealing? There are only 42 people at present in the combined category.DGG 18:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome. --Kbdank71 18:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a case of simply I don't like it, but I think that all the issues were not fully discussed. Regan123 23:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why did you close the original debate with so little input? MRSC • Talk 18:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • CFD doesn't always get the amount of input that other xFDs do. Sometimes you need to make do with what you're given. --Kbdank71 18:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse merge/deletion - For a debate at WP:CFD, this debate had a reasonable amount of discussion. Moreover, the proposal was also discussed at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject London with a fair amount of support (although Regan123 and MRSC dissented). The deletion/merge really seemed appropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 20:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Looking at Regan123's comments further, I can comment that it may be appropriate to propose upmerging other "People from borough by district" categories into "People from borough" categories. This also does seem to have some support at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject London, and it would eliminate the "out of sync" problem cited by Regan123. (Regan123 even requested at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject London that further merge proposals should wait pending the outcome of the debate here.) Dr. Submillimeter 20:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would object to any upmerging. This is an England wide system not just for London and has been used to try and avoid historic/new county edit wars as well as confusion. My contention here is that the structure should be restored and a full discussion across the whole of England and/or the whole UK is structured to gain a consensus for the way forward. Regan123 23:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A community decision needs to be made as this affects all the UK, not just Ealing or London. There is resentment at the use of local government districts and this is an emotive issue with some (more pronounced outside London). Following this idea nationwide would produce arguments similar to the one going on at the moment over the naming of Category:Oldham. It would not be so bad if we were only dealing with people born after 1965/1974, but we are not. Although to my mind the greater concern is that we are introducing innacuracies, and this concern has not been properly addressed other than to say it is a rationalisation exercise. A rationalisation exercise which introduces errors should be halted and reversed. If there is genuine desire to expand this, we need to take the decision at a much higher level with much wider input. MRSC • Talk 05:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, valid CFD. >Radiant< 11:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Research Video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

A notable footage library that owns the rights to many shows from the '50s, '60s and '70s. BlueLotas 16:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Overturn deleted as a speedy for importance not asserted (A7)--but the article asserted "extensive collection" If people keep marking A7s for articles like this, and admins keep deleting them, perhaps we need a much narrow definition of A7, such as as "shows nothing to indicate any possible importance"--which does happen--there was one yesterday where the contents was "I'm alive."DGG 18:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - 1) a library does not qualify for a7. 2) I do not have access to the old page, however, I am willing to believe asserts notability. The Evil Spartan 19:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • • • • Strong overturn - after seeing, it surely doesn't qualify as pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group, service, or person and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic (g11). Why was this deleted in the first place? In any case, the spirit of a7 does not apply. The Evil Spartan 19:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment- The article was marked originally for G11 (blatant advertising), not A7. Sr13 05:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment since there's nothing in the google cache, could we get the history restored behind a screen. DGG makes a good case that A7 doesn't apply here but one really needs to see the content to judge a G11. Eluchil404 17:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. --Coredesat 18:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. I do not believe that it is so spammy as to qualify for G11 and thus should be relisted. The sources in particular should be fully evaluated at AfD. Eluchil404 18:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This was a speedy deletion. There was no original AfD, so it could hardly be relisted. -N 18:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Their Imdb page: [4] BlueLotas 22:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Not a spammy tone at all, except "vary from" can be reworded to "include". –Pomte 08:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine_Saxton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Hi, I am looking to restore my page to wikipedia. I have been working very hard to create my first wikipedia page. Seeing as I have never done this before, I have made a couple of mistakes on the copyright information about my uploaded photos and text in my article. I have all the copyrights to everything I have put up on my article; yet, due to improper citing I have been accused of plagiarsm. I would really like to fix this misunderstanding, but my page keeps getting deleted before I get a chance to and now I see it is protected so I can not even start it again correctly. I have worked very hard to try to get my page up, and it is very frustrating that the reason all of my work has been deleted is due to my lack of experience, and not plagiarism. I have just received permission from wikipedia to use the content of my article on the website. However, I am still facing notability problems and I am not sure as to why. I am not writing an autobiogrpahical entry. I am currently a student at the University of Michigan who is majoring in Comminication Studies. The woman who I am writing this page about is indeed very notable. When looking at the notability guidelines, I see that she without question meets the requirements. In the Public Relations field she has great name recognition and is regarded as an important figure by the peers in the field. Even though she has neither invented any new technology or created a new drug like other people written about in wikipedia, in the field that she is in (the world of publicity and celebrity) she is extremely important. She is published by outside reliable sources, such as NY Magazine, listed as one of the "Who's Who of American Women," and works with extremely important people (such as Presidents, Heads of States, and celebrities). I am not using wikipedia to create importance for anyone nor am I writing an article about myself or doing any other unethical thing that is frowned upon by wikipedia. I am simply trying to write about a fascinating woman who I think is extremely important in the field of Public Relations. I do not know how to impress this upon the editors, but she is a notable woman who deserves an article written about her on wikipedia. Obviously as a first-time user I have made a lot of mistakes, but now that I have been working for a couple of days I have learned more and would really like the chance to finish my article. Jororo 15:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC) — Jororo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• So maybe you can fix the blatant copyright infringement. That would just leave conflict of interest, lack of apparent notability, the lack of independence of the sole source you used (the company website), and the fact that it appeared to be promoting rather than documenting the subject. Maybe it would help if you honed your Wikipedia skills by writing about some other subjects. Guy (Help!) 15:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted - Gsearch shows that her corporation is not-notable: [5]. In fact, my mother has almost as many ghits as she does (and no, I'm not giving you her name to test it out). With all due respect, ma'am (sir?), I do not believe that she passes the notability guidelines. Who's who's lists are famous for being chalk full of non-important people. If you have any links to a site which speaks of her notability, please provide them, but as is, it's clearly non-notable. The Evil Spartan 18:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Be fair, knock the limited off and it gets nearly half as many hits as I do. Which is still hopeless. Guy (Help!) 20:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted. First claimed to be Catherine Saxton herself, then an employeee of her company and now an unaffiliated student. As JzG said, this is either a copyright violation or a COI. —Ruud 11:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggestion Jororo you should put it on your user page at User:Jororo if you are in fact Catherine Saxton, but don't make it sound like a promotion! GB 10:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KD per Guy. Eusebeus 16:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IM+ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

new article with reliable and verifiable sources and new information, not previously mentioned. If approved the article should appear under IM+ title. Pleave view additional discussion on User Talk: JonHarder Leanalove 09:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• And where can we see a copy of this? --pgk 11:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The copy of the article can be found here User talk: LeanaloveLeanalove 14:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who support the American Civil Liberties Union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

"01:16, 15 June 2007 Picaroon9288 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Category:Wikipedians who support the American Civil Liberties Union" (divisive advocacy category of no encyclopedic purpose)". Surely the category could have been renamed (to members of the ACLU)? Notice he didn't call it "inflammatory" because it's not. Since it's not inflammatory, speedy deletion was inappropriate, and it should be sent to WP:UCFD. -N 11:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure of any newer CFD, but this was kept at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_19#Wikipedians_by_politics. -N 18:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted - all these categories were just deleted. Anyhing in Category:Wikipedians by political issue was upheld in a DRV hardly a week ago. Unfortunately, these were all valuable categories, but it by no means seems right to me that we delete all those categories, then let this one, which obviously should have been in it, to stand. As it is, the community has (poorly) decided that all such categories go. The Evil Spartan 19:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  As you admit, this category was NOT in the set that was reviewed a week ago. -N 20:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse own deletion per consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 4. No need to do the same thing all over again, since all I did was clean up the categories that Dmcdevit missed. Picaroon (Talk) 03:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Picaroon9288. This will be deleted, no need for extra bureaucracy. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse' as per Picaroon. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tobias Conradi (edit | [[Talk:User:Tobias Conradi|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The MfD on this page was closed as 'blank the content' despite a clear consensus to keep... nine people, including several admins, said that the page should be kept and/or that the MfD itself was improper while five said that the page should be deleted or blanked. No, 'we don't count', but it is just ridiculous to pretend there is a 'consensus' for something when people are 2 to 1 against it. The blanked content can be seen here. Essentially, the user has complaints about Wikipedia and some users have decided that they should not be allowed to post them on their user page. Since the page was blanked rather than deleted it doesn't really belong on DRV, but people are edit warring to keep it blanked so this is as good a place as any for deciding whether Wikipedia has adopted a policy of suppressing criticism. I hope this is 'overturned' (not that it was ever really endorsed in the first place) because we have always claimed that Wikipedia is open to criticism and doesn't suppress people just for saying things we might not agree with. IMO we shouldn't be bullying and blocking users simply for criticizing some aspect of the project. It's shameful and embarrassing. We used to allow this sort of thing. CBD 11:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't understand the reasoning. If the content is incivil, and it's against ArbCom, how does keeping the history around help anyone? I'm beginning to seriously question the common-sense of closing editors. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural close Since nothing was deleted, deletion review is hardly the forum for this. Take it to mediation or rfc instead, or better yet, leave the user a note on his talk page. He can decide if/when he returns to Wikipedia. -N 11:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  It's here because the users blanking the page are using the MfD as 'justification' and insisting that the MfD close result stands unless overturned by a DRV. We could edit war over it... but I'd rather just declare the MfD close/blanking invalid. --CBD 11:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The MfD close is supposed to be a reflection of community consensus and should be hard to overturn. I'm saying DRV is not the place to take non-deletions unless the page retention was against community consensus. Neither of those results is true here (instead the result was to edit the page, which is a result DRV does not review). Try WP:RFC, WP:MEDIATION, or wait for User:Tobias Conradi to edit his page to whatever he pleases instead. -N 11:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  We review MfD decisions at DRV. An MfD closed against consensus is usually pretty easy to review. I think you are saying that because this MfD was also closed with a result that was non-standard it's not a valid MfD to be reviewed at DRV... it is more of a 'keep' result combined with a group of editors trying to enforce their view in a content dispute and should be handled through dispute resolution. Yes? It's a bit overly bureaucratic for my tastes, but that still amounts to no 'official mandate' for this repeated blanking of the user's page against their wishes. For the record, you suggest waiting for the user to edit his page... he did, and then it was blanked again. --CBD 12:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  For debates which end in a merge and someone brings it here, they normally get told to go away as merge is an editorial decision, the xFD decision was to keep. That said we have had various MFDs (Esperanza etc.) which have gone away from the simple cases and are being used to demonstrate some form of community consensus, I wouldn't be happy with this one doing that since it hasn't necessarily had the breadth of community input something like Esperanza did. In this case I'd be tempted just to ask arbcom to clarify if the page as was, was ok within the terms of their decision (Something I don't understand why none of the delete/remove proponents did, if they are that sure it falls outside of the decision it'll be a no-brainer and save any doubt) --pgk 14:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Request for clarification was posted at RFARB in the middle of the debate, but ignored. I'll see if I can gather some more attention. --Iamunknown 16:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to close this is squarely under the jurisdiction of the arbitration committee and is a content dispute in any case. -N 16:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Second the motion to close, nothing to see here; this is also an edit war (and no, I don't consider user pages "content dispute" for obvious reasons). - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 17:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse my decision, while the consensus was to keep (the history), I blanked the page because it seemed to violate the ArbCom ruling against Tobias Conradi, and it was suggested by several editors. This should be brought to their attention, not here. --Coredesat 22:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I see no reason to second guess the arbitration committee. Any editor, Tobias Conradi or anyone else, can petition the Committee for clarification if he thinks their ruling has been misinterpreted. --Tony Sidaway 01:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:StarTrekEnterprise Cast.jpg (edit | [[Talk:Image:StarTrekEnterprise Cast.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

see also the IFD Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion not supported by evidence; bias of closing admin Jenolen ^{speak it!} 10:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin User:Angr is a long-time advocate of the elimination of fair use on Wikipedia, and a curious choice to be making fair use-related decisions. His reasons for deletion: Well, there are of course the points that Abu badali and Howcheng made; in addition, it violates non-free content criteria 1 (the cast could also be illustrated with a gallery of free images of the actors), 2 (our use of the image competes directly with startrek.com's use of it), 8 (it does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot"), and possibly 5 as well (although 5 is worded so vaguely it's difficult to tell). It also conflicts with Wikimedia Foundation's licensing policy, which requires that nonfree content be used only "to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works" (this image did none of that), and with Kat Walsh's statement on licensing policies, which says "There are some works, primarily historically important photographs and significant modern artworks, that we can not realistically expect to be released under a free content license, but that are hard to discuss in an educational context without including the media itself. Because the inability to include these works limits scholarship and criticism, in many jurisdictions people may use such works under limited conditions without having license or permission." This photograph was not historically important or a significant modern artwork; the topic of the article where it was used is not hard to discuss without including the photograph; and excluding this photograph does not limit scholarship and criticism relating to the topic of the article.

Almost all of these points are indisputable wrong.

• The cast could also be illustrated with a gallery of free images of the actors makes little sense; the article could also be illustrated with free images of turnips, or ponies, or rainbows; the article (the main article about the TV series Star Trek: Enterprise, in which this image was claimed as fair use) was, at the time of this images deletion, being illustrated by one and exactly one image of the main cast (certainly a minimal use). This image of the cast of the show, many of them in unique make-up and costumes, certainly can not be replaced with free images. (Contrary to fanboy wishes, Jolene Blalock does not go around dressed as T'Pol all the time..) And as this is a contemporary copyrighted work, no free image can exist or be created.
• our use of the image competes directly with startrek.com's use of it False. This is a promotional picture of the crew of the show, distributed to any number of media outlets. Startrek.com's use of it is by no means exclusive. The nominator (and admin) would have you believe there's a difference between cast promotional pictures that are used on show-related websites, and cast promotional pictures released to the media. There's not. (This is not unlike the "Ugly Betty" photo situation, where the nominator of this image incorrectly claimed a separate promtional photo could never be from a website; this was proven to be wrong; the photo was, in fact, distributed widely by ABC and used on many websites.)
• it does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot I am at a loss to explain the logic behind this. A picture (and remember, we're talking about one, reduced resolution picture) of the main cast of a TV show certainly seems likely to significantly increase understanding of that show.
• The closing admin believes that this image conflicts with Wikimedia Foundation's licensing policy, which requires that nonfree content be used only "to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. One, reduced resolution cast photo doesn't fit the "narrow limits" for copyrighted contemporary works? How much more narrow can those limits get?
• Kat Walsh's statement on licensing policies, while a fine piece of administrative writing, is not, as of this moment, Wikipedia policy. Nor Wikipedia guideline. The appropriate policy is WP:NONFREE, not WP:KATWALSH.

I also find it curious that this image was recently reduced in size by the closing admin, who, at that time, apparently had no problem with image being used in the article; why reduce in resolution an image you believe to be being used outside of policy?

In short, this administrator's bias against the fair use, within policy, of copyrighted material makes the entire process suspect. Rather than rehashing the whole "fair use on Wikipedia" debate, I would hope this would be a true deletion review, reviewing the deletion of this image.

Jenolen ^{speak it!} 10:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Unless the image was really released in promotional advertising, such as on a movie poster, a posed picture of the cast does indeed fail the WP:NFCC. If you insist on a non-free picture of the crew (understandable because they'd all be in uniform and on the set) it would be much more in line with the NFCC if you were to get an appropriate low-res screen cap. -N 11:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was, though. It was a high-res press photo that had been reduced in resolution to the minimum necessary. It showed them all better than a screenshot of the show could and there isn't really any difference under our criteria. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 11:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So...is the picture decorative? It shows them better, you say. But could a screen shot do the same job? As I understand it we need to use the least infringing media possible, so a posed photo would be higher up on the chain than a screen shot. It appears at first blush this is gratuitious use of fair use media. As an aside, is there anybody who doesn't know what Star Trek characters look like? -N 13:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why on earth would a screen shot be "less infringing" than a posed photo? And of course there are plenty of people who don't know that those characters look like. Haukur 16:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please see WP:NFCC#2 of which this image fails in 2 ways. 1) respect for commercial opportunity: presumably the image may be used on posters/other collectibles. If they aren't selling them now they may do so in the future. 2) minimal use:A screen shot is a minute percentage of the total work of a 40 minute (without commercials) long program. Usage of this entire image is 100% of the work, and thus less minimal of a use. Therefore this image is replaceable with a less infringing sample of work. -N 21:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Perhaps there's something to that, if the photo is not actually from a press kit. Haukur 00:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Also, "commercial opportunity" is not only about selling collectibles. Having the most informative statrek site is a commercial opportunity. The copyright holder spends money in producing images and text to improve it's site (startrek.com) and if we build a different site by copying the part of their contents that we see fit, we're not respecting their commercial opportunities. --Abu badali ^(talk) 14:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Clear consensus to delete on IFD and in accordance with policy. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three arguing for deletion, two against is a "clear consensus"? Who knew? What's 4-1? (Overwhelming consenssus?) 5-0? (Word of Jimbo?) Oh, but voting is evil... sorry. :) Jenolen ^{speak it!} 14:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Consensus is a discussion measured against policy not by numbers. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure. For instance, an argument/vote saying this image should be kept because it's "clearly promotional" is void when all licensing information we have says the image distribution is strictly forbidden. --Abu badali ^(talk) 14:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn as per nom. Ifd discussion was not a consensus, and alleged policy-based reasons all fail. DES ^(talk) 01:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• To answer Jenolen's points: (1) The cast could also be illustrated with a gallery of free images of the actors makes perfect sense. There is no reason the actors have to be in make-up and costume; they're the same actors without that. (2) Startrek.com's use of it is by no means exclusive. Startrek.com was listed as the source (i.e. copyright holder) of the image. If that is not the case, the image had bogus source information, which is yet another reason to delete it. (3) A picture (and remember, we're talking about one, reduced resolution picture) of the main cast of a TV show certainly seems likely to significantly increase understanding of that show. How? How can one, reduced resolution picture of a show's cast significantly increase understanding about an entire series? If a reader knows nothing at all about the show, what will he learn from looking at this picture? Bupkes, that's what. (4) Kat Walsh's statement is regarding Foundation policy, which trumps English Wikipedia's local policy. —Angr 01:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as per nom. This is a promotional photo and, as such, may be used in this context. Further, discussion was not a consensus and closing admin shows strong bias. This does not engender any confidence in the fairness of our procedures. Badagnani 04:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  What do you mean by "promotional photo"? What makes you believe we're welcome to distribute this image? --Abu badali ^(talk) 14:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • What Badagnani means is exactly what he says; this is a promotional photo. We know who the copyright holder is (it was properly identified), we know where the photo comes from (it was properly sourced); how hard is this for you to understand? This is a fair use of a copyrighted material -- where we KNOW who the copyright holder is, and where the photo came from. That's what Badagnani means... I think! And we're not distributing it, we're fairly using a reduced resolution version of it, properly, in an article about the TV show Star Trek: Enterprise, properly... Or at least, we were. :) Jenolen ^{speak it!} 00:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If that's what he meant, then his argument is broken, as this is not a promotional image. You're right that it was properly sourced, but that doesn't make it automatically promotional. The source was startrek.com, and the site makes it clear that its images are not to be used by others (so... not promotional).

    "And we're not distributing it"... What? You don't consider publishing on the web "distribution"? --Abu badali ^(talk) 13:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Yes, of course. What I meant is that this is a promotional photo, and, as such, may be used on Wikipedia in the context described. Badagnani 00:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  A promotional photo is a photo known to have come from a press kit or similar source for the purpose for reuse by the media. This photo came from startrek.com, and the site explains their images are not to be reused by the media (nor anyone). --Abu badali ^(talk) 13:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This is EXACTLY why your whole argument is wrong. I'll try one last time: There is no "their images" of Startrek.com, or if there is, this isn't one of them. This image is NOT copyrighted to Startrek.com. The "terms of use" you keep quoting DO NOT APPLY to this COPYRIGHTED material where WE KNOW WHO THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER IS. The exact same photo can be found on other websites, not sourced to Startrek.com. The copyright holder of this image is CBS/Paramount, NOT Startrek.com, and to hold this image to the wrong standards suggests very clearly that you are deliberately ignoring reality in order to pursue this image's deletion. Please come back to reality! The photo is USED by Startrek.com, but it is not COPYRIGHTED by Startrek.com and certainly not subject to Startrek.com's terms of use. But even if was, we'd STILL be okay, because we are FAIRLY USING - in accordance with both U.S. law and the much more restrictive WP:NFCC - a reduced resolution version of it. Nothing in Startrek.com's terms of use should be read to supersede U.S. copyright law. But, as stated, this is a moot point, because Startrek.com is NOT the copyright holder. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 16:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• And I'll also try one last time: If Startrek.com is not the copyright holder of the image, then the source information on the image was bogus, which is by itself good enough reason to delete, even if all the other reasons I mentioned on my talk page (violation of criteria 1, 8, and maybe 5) didn't hold (and they do!). —Angr 17:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FFS, do you seriously believe Paramount would allow someone else to hold the name startrek.com when US courts and ICANN have been handing usurped names back to corporations left and right? Startrek.com is the official Star Trek website of Paramount. -N 17:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<--- indent

About "This image is NOT copyrighted to Startrek.com", let use clarify this bit:

And about "...we are FAIRLY USING...", no we're not. We can't say we're not competing with the material's original market role without knowing the original market role intended for this material. And the info "copyrighted to CBS" doesn't give us any information about the original market role. --Abu badali ^(talk) 17:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But your casual mention of 1,8, and maybe 5 shows how wrong this deletion was from the start. 1 - "No free equivalent" - you appear to be the only one who believes there's a "free equivalent" available to a photo of the cast of a TV show, in costume, on a set from the show, and with two of the actors wearing significantly appearance-altering makeup. All Star Trek images are going to be copyrighted by CBS/Paramount; I still disagree with your premise a "free equivalent" exists. There are free images of the actors individually, sure, but no image that is in any way a "free equivalent" to this one. 8 - Significance - Well, the TV show was about people. This was the only image of them on the page about the TV show. Are you seriously arguing an image of the characters in a TV show is not "significant" to the encyclopedia entry about that show? That argument is ridiculous on its face. And 5 - Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content requirements and is encyclopedic - Well, as stated, it was the only image of the characters of a TV show on the encyclopedia entry page for that show. Encyclopedic? Check. Resolution reduced so as to meet "general Wikipedia content requirements"? Check -- by you, I should add. Why did you reduce the resolution of this image if you felt it was being improperly used? What changed in your thinking about it? But since your arguments about WP:NFCC 1,8, and 5 aren't sound, it's apparently only the sourcing issue you have a real beef with. And you'd rather delete than fix. Fine; can I assume you'd support re-uploading this image with proper sourcing? Jenolen ^{speak it!} 17:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Who says they have to be in costume, or on the set, or wearing their appearance-altering makeup? Of course it's virtually impossible to get a free equivalent of that, but none of that is necessary to illustrate the cast of the show. Free images of the actors are a more than adequate substitute. Criterion 8 does not say that the image must be significant to the topic, it says the image must "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic", and frankly, a photograph of the cast of a TV show doesn't increase anyone's understanding of the show. I personally have never watched Star Trek: Enterprise and know nothing about it. How much did looking at that photograph increase my understanding of it? Not one bit. I looked at that photo and I still didn't know what the premise of the show was, or what the main plot lines were, or who the good guys and the bad guys were. The image was not informative at all; it was purely decorative. As for the resolution reduction, I did because the original was too large; doing so is not an endorsement of Wikipedia's use of the image. I very frequently upload lower-resolution versions of fair use images, but that doesn't mean I actually believe they meet all ten criteria. In spite of that, I don't tag all of them for deletion on sight; it would be too time-consuming and too stressful. This may be difficult for you to believe, since this is the only capacity you've ever encountered me in, but I do have other things I like to do in my Wikipedia time than fight against fair-use images and delete them. —Angr 21:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If they're not in costume, they're actors. If they're in costume they're the characters for the show. Thus we should be using the latter for our article, to have the best, most encyclopedic article possible. Your arguments don't make any sense. Badagnani 21:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No, if they're in costume, they're actors in costume. The characters do not exist in the real world, so photographs of the characters can never be taken in the real world. And no image at all, free or otherwise, is needed for the article to be the best and most encyclopedic possible. —Angr 22:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You're simply wrong. If the actors are in costume and posed, as they are in this photograph, they are portraying the characters described in our article. Thus no substitute, showing the various individual actors in street clothes, is possible. Your comments just don't make any sense. Badagnani 22:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Thus no substitute, showing the various individual actors in street clothes, is possible." Why not? This was intended as a photograph of the cast (i.e. a group of actors), not a photograph of costumes. A free image of an actor, not in costume, is always an acceptable illustration for an article about a movie or TV show, as I have done at Rosalie Goes Shopping, which needs no further image than the free one it currently has. —Angr 23:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you have a photo of the whole cast, posed together in street clothes? Even if one existed, it would be most unsatisfactory and unencyclopedic for the purposes of this article, for the aforementioned reasons. The actors in costume are "in character" and the photo under discussion is the appropriate one for the article. The hypothetical photo you are proposing is inappropriate and thus your argument continues not to make any logical sense. Badagnani 23:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - Replying to Jenolen's points...

...when you say "certainly a minimal use", you're misunderstanding the meaning of minimal use. Minimal use does't mean we should use few copyrighted works. It means that we should use as feel as possible of a given copyrigthed work. In this case, the copyrighted work is a photograph (and not the tv-series, as it's commmonly misunderstood), and we were using a lower resolution version of the whole image. That would be ok to be used in an article about the photograph itself (the copyrighted work) or about that photoshooting, or about tv-series photoshootings, or about statrek.com. But not about the tv-series, as this image is not part of the the tv-series. A screenshot, for instance, would be a minimal part of the tv-series, and would fit the meaning of "minimal use".

About the "ugly betty photo", it's only on your account what you say the "nominator" (me) claimed and what was "proved wrong". I don't see that happening at all in the conversation you linked.

And as someone else pointed out, as this image's source information was startrek.com, we can only take startrek.com's terms of use, and they are clear in that their images are everything but promotional. I'm not allowed even to use their images as my desktop's wallpaper, let alone to upload it to Wikimedia's servers.

Our use of the image clearly competes with statrek.com' use. Once you read a cool startrek article with the best "available" photos on Wikipedia, you has fewer reasons to go to startrek.com.

"One, reduced resolution cast photo doesn't fit the "narrow limits" for copyrighted contemporary works? " - Yes, it does! But keep in mind that the copyrighted contemporary work in question is the cast photo itself, and unless you're writing an article about it, your use is not fair. It's like using an album cover with a rose to illustrate an article about roses (just that the "rose" itself is copyrighted this time).

And please, whatever long is your reply, don't insist this is a promotional picture unless you have verifiable information to backup that.

As a side note, please, remeber to drop a note to the original ifd nominator when listing an image at deletion review. Thanks! --Abu badali ^(talk) 13:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review, I thought, was meant to be a review of the deletion? And since you didn't delete it... why do you care?

You talk, here and other places, about the original market role for the original copyrighted work. Abu, you know the original market role for this particular copyrighted work is to promote the show, "Star Trek: Enterprise"? You are under this WHOLLY MISTAKEN assumption that this image was some kind of work done FOR Startrek.com, when you have, so far, shown absolutely no proof whatsoever that this image is anything other than what the original uploader claims it is (and I've tried to explain to you) - a media kit-style promotional photo, made available through a variety of means, and used in multiple places on the Internet including Startrek.com. You can see similar examples here and (especially) here.

On another page, you state that knowing the source is crucial to determining whether a fair use claim is valid, because it's important to know who the copyright holder of the image is. Well, in this case, there is no debate about who the copyright holder is - we know that CBS/Paramount is the copyrighted holder of this image; how is the "source" information, whether it's Startrek.com, another TV reviewing website, or my aunt Matilda relevent in cases such as this? We're going to be fairly using a copyrighted work - and we know who the copyright holder is. What more information could you possibly want? We've reduced the resolution of the image. We've credited the sources from which it came. We're using one and exactly one image of the characters on the page about a TV show which is about these characters, not about the actors. I mean, really... how many hoops do you want us to jump through, other than that big one over there that says "No fair use images of copyrighted material", because, my friend, that hoop ain't policy, no matter how much the deleting admin in this case wishes it were. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 17:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not only about who the copyright holder is, but also about how did he uses this work (so that we know our use doesn't replaces his use).

The copyright holder choose to use this image to increase the value of their website (startrek.com). By having exclusive content, the site has an advantage over its competition (for pagehits) with unofficial sites. When we copy their images to our sites, we're unfairly undermining their advantage.

The uploaded didn't lied. He/She just mistakenly believe the images from startrek.com to be promotional material.

The fact that this image is used in other places on the web doesn't make a difference here. The first website you linked, for instance, says "All photos are copyright their respective owners and are used under license or with permission". We don't have an acceptable license nor permission. And the second link is just a fansite, that are not famous for respecting copyright.

Read the quotations on a comment above and you will understand why your aunt Matilda can't have these images on her site. --Abu badali ^(talk) 18:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we're clear - who do you believe to be the copyright holder of this image? Jenolen ^{speak it!} 18:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CBS Interactive Inc., its parent, subsidiaries, affiliates, or its licensors. --Abu badali ^(talk) 21:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see why you would be confused. CBS Interactive Inc. is NOT NOW nor EVER HAS BEEN the copyright holder for Star Trek, in any form. You are so completely wrong on this, you could not be more wrong if you were perhaps trying to enter some kind of "Most Wrong" contest. One simple example: CBS's "Two and a Half Men." The show is prominently featured on CBS.com, but CBS IS NOT THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER. Gasp! It's actually Warner Bros. Television, a separate company altogether! Using your logic, the appearance of "Two and a Half Men" content on CBS.com makes it copyrighted content of CBS Interactive Inc. But it's not. In these cases, CBS Interactive is a REUSER of the same sort of content released to media outlets worldwide. Your entire objection to this image has been thoroughly discredited on a number of fronts... Why do you persist in repeating untruths and misinformation? Please... for your own sake, stop! Jenolen ^{speak it!} 07:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of "its parent, subsidiaries, affiliates, or its licensors" don't you understand? --Abu badali ^(talk) 07:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment if used to illustrate the cast of Star Trek Enterprise, it's clearly not fair use. Alternatively, it could be used to illustrate the crew of the Starship Enterprise, in which case you have a much stronger fair use rationale. Cheers, WilyD 13:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it was the only image of actual people on the entry for the TV show "Star Trek: Enterprise" - and the show wasn't about the ship... The fair use claim rationale was entirely valid. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 17:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn This is clearly within the WP:FAIRUSE guidelines, so I don't see the relevance of any arguments about whether or not Paramount have authorised redistribution of the image. It doesn't matter. We wouldn't accept their authorisation anyway, as it wouldn't be under a free license. JulesH 23:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Would you mind explaining why this clearly meets the fairuse criteria as the preceeding argument suggests anything but clearity. Thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Jules, it's true that the image still wouldn't be freely licensed if Paramount had authorized redistribution of the image. However, the fact that they didn't means that this image was never intended as a promotional image in the first place, and that our use of it directly competed with their use of it (in violation of fair use criterion 2. —Angr 06:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• this image was never intended as a promotional image in the first place - Yes, it was a just happened upon snapshot. Where everyone happened to be looking at the camera. And posing. In costume. On the bridge. You know, nothing promotional about this image at all... Your failure to grasp the simple promotional nature of this image should not be inflicted upon the rest of the Wikipedia community. And while you have repeatedly stated that you learned nothing about the show from looking at this image, I think it's unfair to say that others therefore will never find informational value in the same image. Perhaps you're not looking at it hard enough? Or with a critical enough eye? Regardless, it is extremely unfair to impose your limitations upon the rest of the community. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 07:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Jenolen, the world of photography is not divided into only two categories, promotional photos and snapshots. Read Wikipedia:Publicity photos (mislabeled as an "essay"; in fact, it's an extended definition): "Since such photos are distributed for reuse by the media, there may be an implicit license for their use in discussing the subject that is being promoted." The "since" clause of that sentence presupposes that promotional photos are distributed for reuse by the media. Such photos do not come with great big warnings attached to them saying "The ... distribution, redistribution, ... or publication by you, directly or indirectly, of the Content ... is strictly prohibited". Promotional photos are supposed to be distributed; since this image is not supposed to be distributed, it's not a promotional photo. From Wikipedia:Publicity photos again: "Publicity photos come from a very narrow range of sources, and are made available for distribution by promotional agencies, whereas many images that may appear promotional in nature are intended for commercial use by the image's copyright holder." This image clearly falls into that second category: it was not made available for distribution; rather, although it may appear promotional in nature, in fact it was intended for commercial use by its copyright holder. Since we were using for the exact same purpose as the copyright holder was (to show the cast of this show), our use competes with theirs, making it a violation of criterion 2. —Angr 19:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about suicide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The nominator for this article (created in 2004) basically said it should be deleted because it is a list, saying it is a "list of..." article and therefore should be deleted. Almost every list is going to start with "list of." The nominator said to refer to this AfD for more reasons, which he/she also nominated for deletion, but that nomination told us nothing more. Most of the delete votes gave the reason "per nom" (or "just a list" or "too many lists on Wikipedia"). The others gave the reason that it should be deleted because it would be too hard to maintain, one saying too many songs from non-notable red-linked bands would appear. This was never a problem and if it became one I'm sure it would not be too hard to remove non-notable songs that users add. Another user gave an example "Don't Fear the Reaper" that is very easily interpreted to be about suicide, although it is never mentioned explicitly in the lyrics. The article had a whole section for this, List of songs about suicide#Misinterpreted, where it was introduced as "[s]ongs either misinterpreted as songs about suicide, or where a reference to suicide cannot be ruled out." One user voted keep saying "songs about suicide have generated a lot of notice and litigation in the US" and giving some examples. Another user made a comment that these would serve better in a separate article (not a list) and convinced that user to strike out the keep vote. But that article they described was deleted here. They were told about Suicide song's AfD but no reply was made. Tim Q. Wells 07:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. "[s]ongs either misinterpreted as songs about suicide, or where a reference to suicide cannot be ruled out" sounds like original research and the list as a whole could be hard to maintain, per Elkman's delete !vote. -N 11:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - OR. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, consensus was clear on this one. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse by nom. The definition of the list is definitely WP:OR, and the list may be difficult to maintain. Fails WP:NOT as well. Consensus is clear. Sr13 17:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. That the nomination was not a good one (as it essentially seemed to amount to: delete because this is a list) does not mean the close was improper. There was clear consensus that the list constituted original research and should be deleted. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said nothing of the sort. If the list constituted original research then we can find more references to support the claims. This certainly should not justify the article's deletion. The rest of the reasons on the AfD I listed were not good ones. Tim Q. Wells 21:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but if you want to undelete the article, you have to establish the reliable sources now, during the review. Original research isn't the only reason this should be kept deleted, by the way. Sr13 22:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, reasonable close, verifiability here is dubious at best. Moreschi ^Talk 12:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and keep I thought it was an interesting article. --Jmbranum 00:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and keep I be an Inclusionist. You folks need to wake up and see that Wikipedia's unique strength is its ability to be a Compendium of Everything (what I call "a CoE"). Instead of all this acrimony created by the Deletionists, we should work toward having User Prefs that include a setting called something like "Level of Detail". Setting 1 shows the user absolutely all material no matter how trivial, and provides search hits to the same; Setting (say) 12 shows the user (and gives search hits to) only traditionally Encyclopedic material. This is so obviously the way to go. -- JDG 19:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. There's no evidence that the AFD or its closure violated process. The original reason for deletion may have been flimsy, but after putting it under the spotlight of AFD, general consensus was that the list was unreferenced and unverifiable, and that it fell under WP:NOT. The keep arguments seemed to fall along the lines of WP:ILIKEIT. Either way, there's no indication that process fell apart to the degree that the deletion should be overturned. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of celebrities who were obese in childhood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This should not have been deleted, as it's not "listcruft" (what a wacked-out term that is!) and it doesn't violate Biographies of living persons either. It wasn't original research, and it should be undeleted because there ARE sources that assert the fact the people listed were obese in childhood. This article should be undeleted, relisted and sent to a wider forum for discussion - it's not remotely controversial, let alone a violation of any policy. Gleggsord 19:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as just plain wrong. I could see a category such as "Formerly Obese Celebrities" or something (assuming the claims were sourced) but a list as an encyclopedic article seems to violate WP:NOT and WP:BLP. -N 19:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Even if the BLP speedy deletion may be questionable (and I don't have the article history to examine this), it is beyond question that the subject of the article is a bad idea. Some users raised WP:V and WP:OR in the discussion, and I would add WP:NOT#INFO. YechielMan 20:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Per what defines "celebrity". Also, pointless. Kwsn^(Ni!) 21:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:NOT#INFO. This is canonical listcruft. When policy and consensus are this clear waiting 5 days to delete is pointless (and potetially detrimental). Eluchil404 21:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse how do we define obese? Let alone, how do we define fat? Anyways, my point is along the same lines as Kwsn. Plus, it is a hornets nest for BLP violations. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, what would be the encyclopedic merit of such an article, even (and I'm not at all convinced this is even possible) if it were written without writing WP:NOR, WP:BLP, and WP:V all at a shot? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• List of lists that should be kept deleted --BigDT 04:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly endorse deletion per all above, completely useless and unencyclopedic, plus "celebrity" is a subjective term. Inherently brings up WP:BLP issues. --Coredesat 05:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong endorse, inherent BLP landmine. Will ^(talk) 05:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per N, really - it is just wrong. Guy (Help!) 06:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per the many reasons given above - BLP concerns, trivial information, OR problems, but hey, this is DRV, so it's sufficient to say "consensus was clear, no procedural problems with this deletion". Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:QueenSky.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|IfD)

Book cover, with notable photo, used in article covering author's being fired for publication of said photo and subsequent writing of book (the title of the book, Queen of Sky is a redirect to the author's bio). Since book covers are considered quasi-automatic fair use when discussing the book, and the cover photo itself is also mentioned in the article I fail to see how this fails fair use. -N 18:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Question If the book "article" redirects to the author article, and the article substantially discusses the book, is there precedent that we don't consider that sufficient fair use? Does the position of the photo matter, i.e. if it were in a section about the book instead of at the top? If a book article with an image were merged with the author article does the cover become automatically unfair? Or was this simply a case failing to have a well-argued rationale? --Dhartung | Talk 18:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well... the article is mostly about the events that lead up to the writing of the book. Talking about the book itself would be duplicative of this material (the book is basically her story or in other words the story of the writing of the book, if you get my drift). I'm not sure if the article could be re-written to give more weight to the book itself. I'm not sure about the rationale, I suppose I should have looked at that better *before* the deletion. -N 18:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, fair use book cover can't be used on article about author. Unless she's dead, somebody could, some day, get a photo of her, and that could be used on her article. Corvus cornix 18:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I've said, the author's biography is basically the story of the book. You cannot separate the two. The picture is not being used to show what she looks like, it a) shows the book she wrote and b) shows the photo Delta fired her for. -N 18:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The article the image supports is basically about how the subject got fired from her workplace, Delta airlines, for blogging and for photos placed on her blog; E.S. is famous for that; that is why there is an article about her. After being fired, she wrote the book (this image is the book cover) based on her blog. The image shows her on an airplane, one of the photos that got her fired, the title of her blog, and the book that resulted from the blog. The title of the book is also the title of her blog. In short, the image is a many-purpose illustration for the article, and it seems to me to be an ideal illustration. I can't say I understand the nuances of wikipedia image policy, but to me the deletion of this image seems quite strange. Far better to keep the image, but perhaps add a caption that tells what is going on with the image. Bdushaw 00:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse image deletion. The subject's primary notability is not from the book. It is from the larger issues about employer rights over employee blog content. — Athaenara ✉ 06:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Image was not being used for critical commentary of the book. The same picture, without the book cover, would probably pass FU, and is available on the same blog. Guy (Help!) 09:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  That hurts my brain, especially in regard to WP:NFCC#2. Someone (possibly her) gets revenue from blog hits. Taking the original image and putting it on Wikipedia can be seen to damage the commercial opportunities in that respect. Using the book cover, on the other hand, does less damage to commercial opportunities, since, the book cover is "out there" because it may incite someone to buy the book. -N 11:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as closing admin. The book's title (as seen in this footnote) is Diary of a Dysfunctional Flight Attendant: The Queen of Sky Blog. It does not appear to be redirected in any way to her article. According to the article, Queen of Sky (which does redirect) is her nom de plume. The entire content of her article discussing the book appears to me to be in the last sentence which reads (without footnotes), "Simonetti has written articles for the news media including The New York Times and CNET, adapted her blog to a published book, and now works in real estate." Mentioning the book in the article is not enough to establish fair use. The image had no rationale for it's usage in the article, although it was uploaded in April 2007. Since Simonetti works in real estate, it should not be overly difficult to obtain a free image or to request that she release one under terms that would allow it's use without fair use justification. ~ BigrTex 16:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for taking the time to state the reasons for the deletion. I think I see what the issue is now; ya learn something new everyday on wikipedia! Bdushaw 00:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zelda Classic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

New links to address deletion issues were provided in the page recreation, but page was "speedy deleted" as spam, possibly due to the time frame from the original deletion and the recreation. DarkNation AG 14:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:America album.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Deleted because no fair-use rationale was given. Since it's an album cover that does have a proper fair-use rationale, and since I'm not able to find a suitable quality image to use, I'll gladly provide said rationale. fuzzy510 03:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted so that you can write said rationale. I suggest you be quick about it, and remember that we need a source for the image as well, which appears to be missing on first glance. -- nae'blis 03:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, now that rationale has been provided. Fair use seems to be adequately stated; this is an album cover, and a fairly well-known one at that. It would be absurd to claim that reproducing the album cover in an article about the album would hurt the label's ability to sell the album. Heather 15:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2

Xiaxue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Whilst the original article contained some POV statements, there was enough encyclopedic content to form the basis for an NPOV article such as the one for Dawn_Yang, a former online rival and fellow Singaporean blogger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by January2007 (talk • contribs)

• Endorse this sounds like a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. -N 00:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since both are notable for their blogging activities and the Dawn Yang article is more encyclopedic in nature, a more encyclopedic entry can be written about Xiaxue that is not based mostly on POV. However, please note that the reason that lead to deletion, "it is unencyclopedic" is also listed on the "arguments to avoid" page. Therefore, the article's deletion is questionable. - January2007

Another admin, Vague Rant, undeleted the article per my request on IRC. Having won several prestigious blogging awards and been frequently mentioned in the Singaporean press, Xiaxue's clearly notable. A post on her blog, dated 11 June, indicates that she is unhappy with the deletion. I e-mailed her to notify her that the article has been undeleted; she replied requesting I help her rewrite the article. All I need is someone with Newslink who will e-mail me lots of Straits Times/New Paper articles on her, and I can start rewriting the article based on information found in the newspaper articles. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 01:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Recommend close article is already undeleted and AfD is already underway. -N 13:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dragon Ball special abilities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

AFD proposal was only in place for four days before a decision was made — Preceding unsigned comment added by January2007 (talk • contribs)

• Endorse. Second AfD. Article was listed for just a few hours short of the full 5 days, and somehow I doubt 3 extra voters would have appeared in that time to swing the numbers. This endorsement is, of course, without prejudice should someone find any reliable third party coverage of the topic. -N 00:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • AFD proposals are not opinion polls. Voting is irrelevent. At any rate, "third party coverage" is, in this case, synonomous with "fan coverage". Thus it is impossible to use as a source.--Marhawkman 03:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I said "reliable". -N 19:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Based on that argument, there's not cause to overturn.--Chaser - T 03:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main reason for the creation of the list page was so that the information could be moved out of the character pages. See: http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Dragon_Ball_special_abilities for a more detailed explanation.

• The article's primary source is the Dragon Ball/Z/GT manga and anime. Which, as far as I know, is considered a reliable source.--Marhawkman 03:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Per WP:NOT#INFO. Kwsn^(Ni!) 05:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So how does that apply?--Marhawkman 06:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's probably the reason it was deleted, and the reason it should stay deleted. Kwsn^(Ni!) 16:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, sound closing judgment, problems identified with the article were real and not addressed either here or in the AfD. Guy (Help!) 11:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak overturn IFF the list's material is to be merged elsewhere. If I'm misunderstanding Marhawkman's comments above, (which I did, on first read) then endorse as there will be no GFDL violation. -- nae'blis 13:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, if the article's only source is the manga and anime, but no third-party reliable sources have covered the subject, we shouldn't have a full article as that would be original research. Fan Wikias tend to allow that type of thing, such an article would probably be a better bet there. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. It's silly to suggest that the closure was improper because it didn't wait exactly 5 days. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the consensus demonstrated by the AfD. Process is the servant of consnsus not vice versa. Eluchil404 16:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse it was closed after 4 days instead of 5. But only one person had posted a keep rationale by then, & it wasn't a very strong one--it amounted to keep because this stuff is so little known that this is the only source, & I've done a lot of work on it. No reason to think anything more would have appeared--a trivial violation not affecting the result. But the closer should learn not to close early, because waiting another day would have avoided all this fuss. DGG 17:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I really think a reasonable article on this should be possible, but I wholeheartedly dismiss the undeletion reasoning presented by the nominator: the AFD being closed a day early matters not a whit. We aren't a beaurocracy, and we don't override consensus because of a matter of hours. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't post an undeletion reasoning. I should have, but I was in a hurry. It's going to be a long one....

Wikipedia:Reliable sources Wikipedia:No original research The article fulfills the criteria of both of those.

How? Reliable sources DO NOT need to be third party. Sourcing the anime and manga is permissable by Wikipedia policy.

Original research is defined as: An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following:

It introduces a theory or method of solution; It introduces original ideas; It defines new terms; It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms; It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position; It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source; It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.

None of those applies to the deleted article as a whole.

Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information

That got thrown around as the primary reason for deletion both times, and yet has nothing to do with the article.

Why? There are ten things listed in there and this isn't one of them.

Wikipedia:Fancruft That got thrown around a lot in both AFD, but is at best slander.

Why? Well it basically states that the article violates one of the above mentioned policies.--Marhawkman 19:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse WP:NOT#IINFO applies, and to have this kind of an article, you not only need primary sources, but reliable secondary sources as well. See WP:RS. (→zelzany - is one angry user) 20:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you explain why you think WP:NOT#IINFO applies? I read it. I don't see any reason at all. Also WP:RS does NOT say anything about a requirement of secondary sources.--Marhawkman 21:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps WP:N is the best link. People often throw around policy links for the general principles they stand for rather than their exact wording. As a general rule details about fictional worlds only verifiable from the fiction itself and not covered in reliable third party sources are deleted. This may or may not be clearly written down in any specific policy or guideline page (they are editable by anyone too) but is firmly established practice. Eluchil404 21:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "This page in a nutshell: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." The subject HAS fulfilled that requirement. However the information the article is composed of cannot be derived from those sources. As far as I know there is no rule that requires this.--Marhawkman 22:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The relevant topic isn't Dragon Ball in general but rather this specific article. If the information the article is composed of cannot be derived from reliable sources it will be deleted per WP:N or WP:OR. Eluchil404 23:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Um, Notability requires secondary sources. However Reliable sources are not necessarily secondary. the article is composed of information that would be considered derived from a Primary source.--Marhawkman 23:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Generally, looking at a primary source and interpreting it oneself is original research, which is prohibited. If secondary sources are not available to which such interpretations can be attributed, we should not have the article. That's why sources independent of the article's subject are required. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• there's a fine line between research and original research. "Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. " Note Where it says "unpublished". That's the distinction between research and original research. This was just a collation of things published and organized for easy reference.--Marhawkman 01:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per all reasons said above. Lord Sesshomaru
• Endorse. Just because the debate didn't last five days doesn't mean it should be overturned. One 04:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per User:N. --Iamunknown 05:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naqshbandi Haqqani Sufi Order (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I know this is silly... I prodded this article. Request undeletion to merge any applicable info to Shaykh Nazim al-Qubrusi -N 23:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: You don't need an undeletion for that, just extract all needed information from Google's cache of the page. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice 05:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes you do - maintaining the history of the contributions is a requirement for the information to remain GFDL compliant. Obvious support but this will be restored as soon as an admin passes by. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh, I forgot about the edit history. Changing vote to overturn.*

‎Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg (edit | [[Talk:‎Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I would like to use this .ogg file within the Harvest article's main text. There is a reference to this song within the text. I would like to use it in a similar way in which "Image:MariahCareyBoyzIIMenOneSweetDay.ogg" is used within the Mariah Carey article. I will need to revise the fair use justification as it will no longer be within the Harvest article's discography Jamie L. 19:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• To use a single sample for purposes of critical commentary is fine. The one-per-track sample gallery was nuked for failing fair use criteria. As long as you can write a proper fair-use rationale, you can just upload it again. Guy (Help!) 19:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smoky Hill High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

WP:SOAP and WP:SPAM Steely 340 19:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close, looks like this is supposed to be at AfD and not here. Arkyan • ^(talk) 19:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our discussion is being held at User talk:SkyIsFalling Steely 340 19:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close, an article has to have been deleted to be listed here, Smoky Hill High School is alive and well. --Holderca1 19:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

County Road 702 (Palm Beach County, Florida) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

There are ongoing discussions at WT:N/HWY to establish a notability guideline for roads. This article was deleted without any regard to the discussion, and the fact that being unsourced and possibly non-notable is not part of CSD. (→zelzany - uses a new sig) 16:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn per above and per the fact that this article was {{prod}}ed, but the tag got removed, indicating that this is not a speedy deletion candidate. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 16:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: removing a prod does not prevent the article to be speedied if it fits a criteria. However, I don't think speedy deletion was a good idea here. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Even if the article is deemed non-notable by consensus (and that is debatable), notability is not a criterion for speedy deletion. At a minimum, it should have gone to AFD for discussion. --Polaron | Talk 16:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Contested prod; also, as stated above, notability is not a CSD. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 16:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and possibly list at AfD. Doesn't seem to meet any of the CSD criteria. If there are concerns about notability or sourcing then a centralized discussion on AfD is appropriate. Arkyan • ^(talk) 17:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Doesn't meet CSD criteria. Also as a former Florida state road, would likely be kept at AfD based on previous outcomes. --Holderca1 17:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, improper use of CSD A7. —Scott5114↗ 18:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, doesn't meet CSD guidelines. Inproper deletion. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, as a CSD was unnecessary here, this also smells of WP:POINT • master_son^{Talk - Edits} 22:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of French genocide against Algerians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

this article was just recently deleted without any AFD vote by Philip Baird Shearer, he used the excuse that Algerian Genocide was deleted with an AFD vote and that he thinks this is similar however the old deleted article had a POV name (not a recognized genocide) whereas Accusations of French genocide against Algerians examined the accusations and included opposing viewpoints, it was well sourced and this is wholly inappropriate for an admin (who was previously involved in edit disputes in this article and about the issue of the Algerian 'genocide'[6]) to delete it with no AFD vote Bleh999 13:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and list on AfD. Process ought not be circumvented like this. --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(Profile|PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 13:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse there's no way this can be anything other than a list of accusations in the media - the effect is to circumvent any NPOV discussion relating both sides of French attitudes to Algeria. We don't need an afd to tell us this violates our neutrality policy. If the nominator can come up with a merge, or suggest a rename to something like French attitudes to Algeria, then it might be worth discussing.--Doc^g 14:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could say the Iraqi government gassing some Kurds is a list of accusations in the media and therefore it should be expunged from this encyclopedia, that's just one example to show your reasoning is flawed. The title is not necessarily indicative of the content of the article and it doesn't appear you ever read it or know much about the subject at all. The issue of French atrocities in Algeria is not a hoax and has been discussed in France and elsewhere.Bleh999 14:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a very good example. There was a court case over the Iraqi gasing of Kurds and it was found to be a genocide (See Genocide#Netherlands) --Philip Baird Shearer 08:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Dutch court ruling about supplying chemicals doesn't prove international recognition by any means, I don't want to argue about unrelated subjects, but the definition of which incidents constitute a genocide as you know is not set in stone, you didn't have any right to delete the article and entire content because you personally disagreed with the title, what happened to reaching consensus? Had you reached consensus on the talk page, a page move would have sufficed.Bleh999 23:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have an article on the alleged facts, not on the alleged label. An article on massacres can record that some have called these 'genocide' - but simply listing every media source that's used the words and leaving the reader to draw the conclusions led to them is not NPOV. Focus on the incidents and not on the name calling.--Doc^g 16:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think French atrocities in Algeria would be a better title, but I didn't create the article, as per your own admission you haven't read the article and you don't know anything about the subject. Very few countries recognized the Herero genocide or the Armenian genocide 30 years ago, does that mean it was unencyclopedic to discuss them back then? It's censorship to delete things you don't agree with, and it seems like thats your only excuse, you even resort to bashing the media, what does that have to with deleting the article without an AFD? Bleh999 16:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? Please read WP:NPOV. We do facts not opinions. So 'things I don't agree with' and 'things I do agree with' don't belong here. This is POV crap - take it away.--Doc^g 22:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should read the NPOV policy yourself because I wasn't involved in editing disputes in that article and therefore I can't be accused of POV in that regard, on the other hand you never edited this article yet you seem to have a point of view with very little knowledge of the subject in question, so why don't you read what lucasbfr said since he did edit the article, and he is not being accused of being POV or having a pro Algerian bias. The name of the article alone is not a criteria for deleting the entire content of the article. You seem to have a neutrality problem if you use disparaging remarks like calling articles 'crap', and you bash the media? that is counterproductive and not what you would expect from people editing an encyclopedia. It's funny that you are so against an AFD for this, I wonder why must be just 'things you don't agree with' like you said, lets just do away with the AFD all together and give power to you to delete articles as you see fit with no oversight. Bleh999 23:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[7] I see you have been implicated in improper article deletions, not a personal attack, but just commenting on its relevancy to your opinions regarding other admins power to delete with no AfDBleh999 23:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and list at AfD, this isn't a biography, so WP:BLP issues are minimal. The cache shows the article had 15 sources, most from reputable news journals. -N 16:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list to AfD if you want. This article was well sourced, and got previously restored in April after being deleted under G4. I am very confident it doesn't share the same issues the previous one had, since I spent a lot of time rewriting it. SG4 is not a free ticket to delete an article about a similar subject that an article that was deleted more than a year ago without any process. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Please read Talk:Accusations of French genocide against Algerians#Article for Deletion. See the creation edit Accusations of French genocide against Algerians from 02:06, 20 May 2006, this title is not an NPOV title and it is an attempt to circumvent a previous AFD. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Normally we have a vote on moving the article to a different name, you don't just delete an article and it's entire content because you disagree with the title, that is a bogus reason, also see comments by Lucasbfr above, he says it doesn't have the problems of the previous article Bleh999 16:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(conflict)I assume you are meaning that a 6 500 characters long sourced article a re-creation of a a 1 500 char unsourced one? IMO, the article was speediable in its first version, in 2006 (which was at the original title before someone moved it to lessen the POV), but not in its current state. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put a speedy delete template on the article on 27 November 2006 and it was deleted on 28 November 2006

• 15:26, 28 November 2006 Kungfuadam (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Accusations of French genocide against Algerians" (csd g4) (Restore)

It was undeleted:

• 11:20, 25 April 2007 Kungfuadam (Talk | contribs | block) restored "Accusations of French genocide against Algerians" (66 revisions restored: the redirect was a repost, not this one)

I was not informed that it had been resotred in April and I only found out it was deleted today so I redeletd it becuase the original reason for its creation and existance has not changed.

• 11:30, 13 June 2007 Philip Baird Shearer (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Accusations of French genocide against Algerians" (content was: 'npov A page with similar content was previously deleted as a result of an articles for deletion (or another XfD) discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Algerian Genocide) (Restore)

-- Philip Baird Shearer

What's your point exactly? In November 2006 it was a re direct (if I'm reading correctly...), according to lucasbfr the article was expanded significantly in recent months, it did not meet the criteria for speedy deletion when you recently deleted it, doesn't matter if it did in November 2006 Bleh999 17:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I contacted User:Kungfuadam last April and asked him to review his November 2006 deletion. As he wrote in his edit summary "the redirect was a repost, not this one". The repost tag was put back just after the deletion and I discussed with the person that put the tag on his talk page and he agreed that speedy was not a good idea. -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I put the page up for a speedy delete in November 2006 it was not a redirect. (See 27 November 2006 --Philip Baird Shearer 17:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Bleh999 I did not ask for the article to be deleted because of a page name move. I asked for it to be deleted because its creation circumvented an AFD. I put the page up for speedy delete in the usual way and it was deleted because it was a circumvention of an AFD. My recent deletion was because I still think that it is a attempt to get around the original AFD. Was there a debate to restore the article in April after its speedy delete in November? If so I was not informed of that debate in which I would have argued against its restoration because it is an attempt to circumvent a previous AFD. By saying "wholly inappropriate for an admin to delete it with no AFD vote" is I think a move away from a presumption of good faith and if I did not think you were acting in good faith a disingenuous argument. In disputes like this there is no right and wrong. If I had been informed that the article was restored in April I would have argued against its recreation then. I do not think that the article has changed enough since its deleteion, but perhapse Kungfuadam' can explain how (s)he came to restor it. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We discussed it on someone's else's talk page, after I requested him to review the deletion (the first step before a WP:DRV when the deletion is speedy) there. By the way, I don't see the redirection in the edit you linked, I see the whole article. Am I seeing the wrong thing? If you want the article to be deleted, you should really consider an AfD. -- lucasbfr ^talk 18:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this title is not an NPOV title and it is an attempt to circumvent a previous AFD That is your quote from above, so part of your reasoning for deletion (as stated by you) is the neutrality of the title, normally such issues can be settled by renaming the article rather than deletion of all content. As for the circumventing the previous AFD, I don't know about that, I wasn't involved in editing the article back then, but when I looked at it yesterday it wasn't a candidate for speedy deletion. According to lucasbfr the article is significantly longer and much changed than the earlier creation, even deleted articles are not banned forever from wikipedia if it is created again with different content and a more neutral viewpoint, it should be judged on its current merits not those of a previous article.Bleh999 18:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This is different POV crap from the POV crap deleted by the AfD, so if everybody wants to duke it out yet again then good luck to them. I vote delete, because it's still POV crap, but whatever. Guy (Help!) 19:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV 'crap' because you don't like it, sounds very POV in itself. If it's really so POV why not undelete and list for AFD?Bleh999 20:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because I am not a process wonk. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Process is important. The way I read it, JzG, you're trying to say that it ought not be relisted simply because you don't like it. Allow me to remind you that your biases aren't important here, we're trying to evolve a consensus, not work on someone's whims. If this article is to be deleted, it should be through a valid AfD. --The Raven's Apprentice 05:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, The Raven's Apprentice, I agree process is important that is why when an article has been up for an AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Algerian Genocide 29 April 2006) and been deleted the author should not wait a month and then recreate it under a different name. In this case the original author created a new page with similar content to the original during the AFD (see Algerian Genocide Claims from 10:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)) that was deleted along with the original (see Algerian Genocide from 11:19, 25 April 2006 . -- BTW user:Bleh999 the last editor of Algerian Genocide before it was deleted was user:Ligulem-- This page was a recreation of the second page that was created during the original AFD and the next edit after "Algerian Genocide Claims" was deleted was at "08:30, 22 October 2006. David Falcon (Redirecting to Accusations of French genocide against Algerians)" which I think is more evidence that this article is an attempt to circumvent an AFD. The current page we are debating was created with the name Genocide Against Algerian Identiy, on 02:06, 20 May 2006 by David Falcon , (about a month after the original was deleted) it was moved "18:16, 14 June 2006 . . Deodar (moved Genocide Against Algerian Identiy to Genocide Against Algerian Identity" and moved again "02:19, 27 September 2006 . and again: Dmcdevit (moved Genocide Against Algerian Identity to Accusations of French genocide against Algerians: neutral title at least, not sure if this is salvageable.." See above that it was deleted in November 2006 with a speedy deleted and remain deleted for half a year until undeleted in April this year. So the process has been followed, this article is an attempt to work around an AFD and I think it makes a mockery of the AFD system if it is allowed to remain. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be repeating yourself an awful lot, I think we can understand that the original article (Algerian Genocide) was deleted with an AfD, and I acknowledged that in my first post here. You are comparing an article with a different name and content deleted over a year ago to a different article with a much expanded and unique content, lucasbfr spent a lot of time writing that article and I notice he left a message on your talk page commenting on how you must have known this is a much changed article [8]. Funny how we have articles that get deleted and recreated and go through multiple AfD votes (based on the merits of their current content) but you seem to believe you have the right to delete (without an AfD) any article with a similar subject just because there was an AfD on a different article over a year ago. I'm not sure who is making a mockery of the process here. Bleh999 10:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW you do realize no one can see your links except wikipedia administrators? We can't see deleted content, so I fail to see why you keep posting them. Bleh999 10:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did not know that you could not see them. ("If you could see her as I do") --Philip Baird Shearer 11:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To reply to one of your suggestions, I don't think we can delete the revisions that directly fall under G4 (that would break the GFDL). But if someone thinks that's best, we can delete all revisions prior to September 2006. Honestly, I think we got screwed in May 2006 but, 1 year later, we should probably sit on it and try to comment on the content and not the way it arrived here. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Deleted per DocG, who's points no one seems to have properly refuted. This is POV pushing under this title. Using DR policy to circumvent NPOV policy is Not On. Eusebeus 16:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have two issues with that kind of reasoning, first of all this page is about process, not about content. Therefore we should discuss whether or not the page was deletable under G4 (A page with similar content was previously deleted as a result of an articles for deletion (or another XfD) discussion), not whether or not the content of the page is NPOV or not (we have AfD for that kind of debate, and honestly I wouldn't mind at all having this article deleted, or even (let's dream) rewritten after an AfD). This is not the place to play WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Secondly, the title is not the original title, but a title chosen by User:Dmcdevit in September 2006 (prior to rewrital) with a reason "Neutral title at least, not sure if this is salvageable". If you don't like the title, why not propose the article to be renamed? I am French, I disagree with some of the content of the article, but as a very dead guy said "I don't agree with your ideas, but I'll fight for your right to express them". Wikipedia is of course not a repository of original thoughts, and I don't think this article is WP:OR. There will be good and bad articles in this encyclopedia, there are some crappy stuff I wouldn't mind to see deleted, but let's not play with our own processes and speedy delete it when no one is looking. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The article Human rights in the Soviet Union started life as Soviet genocide which was moved to Soviet persecutions before moving to its current name (see Talk:Human rights in the Soviet Union#Page name). A section called "French Aligeria" in the article human rights in Algeria might be a solution to this problem. It would allow the accusations against the French to be set in an historical context of all periods of Algerian history including the post colonial period. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The templates proposed for undeletion are:

• Template:PokeArt
• Template:PokeCard
• Template:PokeCover
• Template:PokeFilm-screenshot
• Template:PokeGame-screenshot
• Template:PokeTv-screenshot
• Template:Pokeimage

(Listed in above format as {{Newdelrev}} permits the inclusion of only one page)

The concerned WikiProject was not notified of the TfD nomination, and thus the people who have an interest in seing the templates remain never got a chance to comment.

The TfD was closed with the sole argument of "over specialization" of the templates. However, these are groundless considering the fact that these templates added subcategories to Category:Screenshots of television which has 33,000+ images in it and Category:Screenshots of films which has 15,500+ images. Both of these categories (along with the game-related categories) recommend users place an image in a subcategory if the present category is already very large. The second reason is that categories, unlike articles, may be kept for internal reasons. a category of Pokémon images facilitates maintenance of those images. While the closing Admin was mindful of keeping Game Covers, Lead Images, and Pokémon Maps - the deletions have depopulated every single other subcategory. The Raven's Apprentice^{(Profile|PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 07:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. There was a clear consensus (indeed unanimity) that these should be deleted among those who participated in the discussion and no requirement that Wikiproject be informed when templates they might be interested in are nominated for deletion. The generic templates are quite sufficient and there is absolutely no need for every TV series etc. to have its own subcategories of screenshot templates. Right outcome, right assessment of the discussion. WjBscribe 07:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:I'm afraid you're countering straw man arguments here, WJB. I'm not questioning the admin's interpretation of the debate. However, WP:DRV says that a deletion may be questioned if new info is available a the time of the review. I'm interpreting "new information" to mean "new arguments", and the grounds I state for undeletion were definitely not mentioned in the TfD. Neither do I seek undeletion simply because the WikiProject was not informed, that is simply the reason why these arguments were not stated in the TfD in the first place, nothing more. To refute my actual arguments (Categorization) you have only said, "there is absolutely no need for every TV series etc. to have its own subcategories of screenshot templates". I assume you meant "screenshots", but I have already stated why these subcategories are desirable (overpopulation of the parent category). --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(Profile|PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 11:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn deletion and relist templates also served an important purpose in helping the images meet the WP:NFCC, by identifying the copyright owner of the images. note I have a small COI with this nom, I had to convince the closing admin to re-tag the images as generic {{fairuse}} rather than just leave hundreds (possibly thousands, I didn't count them) of images tagless. -N 10:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overrule and Relist. The arguments made in the TfD were at the least misinformed. The templates, while at first glance looking so, are not redundant with current templates for nonfree media, as the deleted templates also identify the copyright holder within their texts w/o adding extra - AFAIK, many of the other templates dealing with such don't. Further, as Raven pointed out, the main reason for these to be applied was to alleviate the problem of maintaining gargantuan categories. They are not "overspecialized" any more than {{Template:D&D Books}} is overspecialized. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 13:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overrule and Relist per above. Bleh999 14:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, there are no new arguments here in the nomination, only claims of ownership by the WikiProject. The process ran the proper length of time, if you can't be bothered to keep track of the templates you claim to own, then it's nobody's problem but your own. There is nothing more to be seen here. The TfD discussion was unanimous, and absolutely correctly so. Corvus cornix 16:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, DRV is not "XfD round 2" and the closure was 100% within guidelines, no procedural problems. The complaint that the Wikiproject was not notified is not grounds for overturning a valid deletion, either. Arkyan • ^(talk) 17:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except that it would then possibly not have been deleted. It's only fair to let both sides of an argument present their cases. It's another thing to let just one side say "Delete!" while the other side sits, twiddling their thumbs ignorantly. If Wikipedia is built on consensus, then everyone has the right to participate in a discussion. Overturn deletion and relist. --Brandon Dilbeck 17:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "What if" is also not a reason to overturn a perfectly valid reason. Are you implying that everyone who participated in the discussion is on a "side" that opposes the Pokemon wikiproject? If anything I would take their opinion as uninvolved editors to be more neutral and unbiased than a project with a vested interest in the topic. Again, there is nothing here that has violated deletion policy or procedures and thus no grounds to overturn it on. Arkyan • ^(talk) 18:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not what he's implying, Ark. He's implying that the point of view from the WikiProject wasn't even heard from because nobody there knew what the frag was going on. He's not implying that only one side was heard, he's implying that one side wasn't heard. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 18:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is not anybody else's problem. It was a unanimous discussion by those involved, it ran the proper length of time. Nothing more to be said. Corvus cornix 18:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion The WikiProject does not need to be notified of this. The comments over at the TFD were perfectly valid deletes, and the templates were deleted. If you want the WikiProject's side to be heard, they should've hunted for that TFD themselves. (→zelzany - uses a new sig) 18:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's like asking Harry Potter to search for a Whaziflubbit, even though there's a possibility that they don't exist! --Brandon Dilbeck 18:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. This is not about the Pokémon project not being informed: there was no requirement for them to be. As above, this is about the fact that new arguments have come to light, and thus the decision for deletion was not made taking everything into account. As the page itself says: "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion". In this case, it has, so the templates should be relisted. Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 19:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you (and the others) may be misinterpreting the point about "new information". New arguments != new information, and that is why DRV != XfD2. For example, let's say an article about Some Guy was deleted as it lacked sources to establish notability. Now let's say I have found a number of news articles that can establish this notability, so I bring it to DRV as new information that was not available during the AfD. That is what is meant by "new information". What we have here is not new information that was not available during the TfD, but rather, new arguments that were not made during the TfD. So again, new arguments are not the same thing as new information, and are not grounds for overturning a decision. Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 20:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse The deletion process ran the proper length and had overwhelming consensus to delete. Lack of notification of a WikiProject is not a reason to overturn a TfD and restore the templates. --Farix (Talk) 23:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't it evident from reading this discussion that there currently isn't an overall overwhelming consensus to delete? A sample of seven or eight people who somehow stumbled upon that TfD discussion over the course of a week is obviously not representative of a collaborative encyclopedia. --Brandon Dilbeck 23:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not XfD 2.0. What "protests" are brought up now are irrelevant to the original TfD. --Farix (Talk) 01:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse; the generic {{non-free character}} suffices for at least the several hundred images that I retagged this morning and earlier this evening. Other templates will also suffice.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except that they give no information about who actually owns the copyright. The fact that it's Pokémon USA must be added manually, which is not the case for the deleted templates. And you still haven't commented on the category size. --The Raven's Apprentice 03:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. Saying "too bad, you didn't get your arguments in fast enough, now consensus can't change" is silly. And substantial new arguments are certainly grounds for relisting. -Amarkov moo! 02:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But there are no substantial new arguments. Corvus cornix 18:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • These templates add categorization (what do we need {{flagimage}} for? It duplicates other fair use templates. One thing it does though is categorize the pages it's on) and aid the images it's tagged with to meet the WP:NFCC by identifying the copyright holder. Those are *2* new arguments. -N 18:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: To those endorsing, I have a few things to say. For the "the WikiProject does not need to be notified": Perhaps there is no convention for doing so, but it should, ought to and usually is done by application of sheer common sense as opposed to WP policy. For "this is not TfD round 2": The original TfD was not nearly valid, whatever policy may state. A warning template is added to subjects being considered for deletion for precisely this purpose, to notify editors who may be interested in the discussion. In ths case, the subjects are templates which are used only on image pages, which is why no one ever knew about this discussion except those that were hanging around the TfD page. And "no one" includes the WikiProject which created these templates in the first place, and which might therefore have very good reasons for keeping them.When only one side is ever given the opportunity to speak when another, sizeable, side exists, the debate obviously becomes farce. Whether Wikipedia policy states it or not, this is a case for ignoring all rules and renewing the debate. And its not as if we have no new information at all. These templates are maintained for subcategorizing image categories like category:screenshots of television and category:screenshots of films, which encourage the creation of subcategories if the existing category is very large. These categories currently have 33,000+ and 15,500+ images respectively, which would be considered "large" by any standard. That is information which was not mentioned in the TfD, i.e. it's "new information" for wikilawyers. That is the argument that was originally presented, and none of the "Endorse" crowd has said anything to counter it. The only argument for endorsing seems to be along the lines of, "The TfD was valid, you aren't allowed to say anything now, so run off and play with your toys." not anything constructive to the ongoing debate. Thank you. The Raven's Apprentice 03:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion: no valid arguments for overturning have been presented. In fact, the bulk of the argument seems to be addressed towards some categories which do not need a template to be used! This overspecialized and frequently misguided Wikiproject seems to be constantly amazed that its whims and WP:OWNership claims are not automatically accepted by the rest of Wikipedia, and seems oblivious to opinions about bad precedent. Project membership does not trump consensus! Similar templates have been discussed before (e.g. at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 29#Template:PokeImageNR), with similar results. And the claims here that the TfD was not valid because some random wikiproject which may or may not have had an interest in the matter was not notified are beyond preposterous! Say it with me again: "project membership does not trump consensus". And frankly, the more specialized the project, the less likely (in my experience) that it will be able to muster unbiased arguments, and the less appropriate for it to create hordes of overspecialized templates and categories. I could see having templates and categories for cartoons in general, but having separate templates and categories for each and every cartoon series in existence is a horrific idea! I strongly suggest that this project work together with other related projects to come up with a few (one or two) general-purpose templates which can take arguments to specialize them, similar to {{WPBiography}}. Xtifr _tälk 21:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hear, hear. WikiProject ownership of articles/templates/whatever is a very serious problem. Corvus cornix 02:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Categories that do not need templates"? What I have been saying is about depopulating general categories, not populating specific ones. {{Film screenshot}} adds ad page to the overpopulated Category:Screenshots of films and {{Tv screenshot}} adds it to the overpopulated Category:Screenshots of television. Neither does the Project claim ownership of the templates, but seeing as templates are not used by Wikipedia readers but rather by a section of editors, seeing as it is only the Project which uses or needs to use this template and it is the Project that will be incovenienced by their deletion, I think the Project would earn a right to outrage. And as for "each and every" cartoon having its own image category, I'd like to remind you that Pokémon is not any other cartoon, it is a fad that has lasted for a decade and still going strong. Notability aside, what matters is the numbers: Category:Pokémon lead images has around 500 images. I'm estimating around 1500 images for all the categories put together. 1500 images, in short, which use the template.
      And as N (who, for the Endorse crowd, is not a member of the WikiProject) pointed out, the templates contain the information that the copyright is owned by Pokémon USA, which must be put on the image page to make it comply under WP:NFCC. Without these templates, this information must be manually added to an estimated 1500+ pages. I suppose it could be done, but I doubt any of those currently yelling "Endorse" would like to do it themselves. And even as we speak, several images that were tagged with the deleted templates have been tagged as lacking a tag by the deleting Admin's bot, and are under direct threat from OrphanBot. If the discussion closes on "Endorse", they shall be deleted exactly a day after it. And as it was only the Template which added them to the categories, their respective categories have been blanked now and it's impossible to identify them and prevent this unless one goes through all the 1000+ Pokémon-related articles on the Wiki. Again, that is work that none of the Endorsers would be keen on doing.EDIT: That problem won't be solved even if the decision is "Overturn". The WikiProject is expected to do all the dirty work, as usual, and if we complain we're "claiming ownership". --The Raven's Apprentice 03:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm confused what Xtifr means exactly by "Project membership does not trump consensus." Consensus of what? --Brandon Dilbeck 03:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • He's basically trying to say that just because the WikiProject members say the templates should stay doesn't mean they should, and that agreement of the WikiProject members is not an all-Wikipedia consensus. --The Raven's Apprentice 03:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. I thought at first that people honestly did think that there were strong arguments not considered, but recent events on WT:PCP have demonstrated that it's really more of a "we weren't told so it's wrong!" thing. -Amarkov moo! 19:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. I suggest for the Pokemon folks to prevent this in the future, have someone just watch TFD for you. All I am seeing here is that a project wasn't notified, so that should cancel the vote. I don't buy that at all. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Endorse I have seen 3 arguments in this DRV to undelete the templates. I have listed them and why they don't make these templates necessary.

  • Wikiproject not notified - People from Wikiproject Pokemon should pay more attention to Xfds.
  • Categorization - Make a new template to subst into images with the necessary categories and text saying "Copyrighted by *copyright owner*".
  • Compliance with fair use policy - See Categorization. Funpika 02:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pascal DeMaria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

A google search of this man's name yields his accomplishments and relevance as a film maker and director of music videos. The article lacked citations, however I would be more than willing to add them if the article was un-deleted, and clean up the silliness of some parts of it, e.g. "Titles: King of the San Fernando Valley". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.86.97 (talk • contribs)

Google search results have very little meaning, can you provide some non-trivial coverage in reliable third party sources ? --pgk 06:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Unless this person has been the subject of multiple non-trivial mentions in reliable sources, he does not meet our inclusion criteria. WjBscribe 08:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse valid afd - no new evidence is being presented here yet. However, please note that WP:BIO is NOT part of the deletion policy, it is merely a distillation of what the community tends to do. Thus meeting WP:BIO isn't a prerequisite for overturning a deletion. Meeting WP:V is.--Doc^g 08:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, but allow for recreation if the nominator wants to rewrite the article with reliable sources. Corvus cornix 16:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, unless you can find some reliable sources that wrote about this person's work. -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. This one has vanispamcruftisement written all over it - a resume going back to student days, crediting the subject as webmaster of his own site, created as the sole edit of Nklepper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and all subsequent edits by a couple of anons in the same geographical location. Guy (Help!) 19:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. The google results make no claim of notability and neither do the pages it links to, this discussion itself takes up over 5% of the results! GB 09:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corrado Giannantoni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Relevant to aother articles and an important figure in providing mathematical foundations of emergy concept Sholto Maud 05:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oz_Enterprise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was deleted in the past, largely because it had few sources outside its own websites. However, the revised article has two external sources. The reason given at the time was notability, but I feel that the subject has been proven notable. Some of the votes for deletion included "Yawn. Another Linux distro" and other reasons that in my opinion were insubstantial. Thomasmallen 02:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse notability still not established. From what I can see the two outside websites metioned are [9] and [10], neither of which can be considered a reliable source, the first is a sourceforge like project the second is a wiki. --pgk 06:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Relatively short debate in the AFD but the claims to notability were addressed and there seems to be no procedural errors here. DRV shouldn't be a place to rerun AFD discussions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but permit re-creation if there ever does get some real outside third party references from software reviews and the likeDGG
• Endorse deletion. The only "keep" arguments at the AfD amounted to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and failed to cite anything even resembling a reliable source. Delete arguments cited policies and guidelines. There is no question which argument should have prevailed, and closer made absolutely no mistakes. I've used nothing but Linux for nearly a decade now, but I see nothing to establish the notability of this distribution. It isn't even in the top 100 at distrowatch. In fact, it doesn't seem to be listed there at all! That's pretty non-notable! Note that the fact that distrowatch has a top 100 list helps explain the "Yawn. Another Linux distro" comment. As does the fact that they reportedly receive "an average of 2 - 3 requests per week to include a new distribution". I didn't bother to count all their distros, but they have over forty starting with the letter 'A' alone! Anyway, if you can't meet their standards for inclusion (basically, has existed for at least 90 days), you're certainly far short of meeting Wikipedia's. Xtifr _tälk 02:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lolcode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The situation has changed since the AfD-debate about six weeks ago. The main arguments were that the programming language was not notable and lacked a clear definition. Now, a Google-search yields about 750,000 results (compare with for example Malbolge which is an accepted article, yet receives only 20,000 results), and a defined Lolcode version 1.0 has been established. Because of this, I think a new debate is appropriate. Hymyly^T@C 20:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There do seem to be some reliable sources now at [11]. But when genuinely new information or sources emerge, it's usually okay to just recreate the article. I'm sure most admins would userfy this for you so you can work on it. --W.marsh 21:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The debate closed one week ago, not six weeks ago. --- RockMFR 22:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right. Sorry, I must have misread somehow... Hymyly^T@C 14:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Can someone at least explain what the arguments for deletion were? Someone's deleted the discussion page for it. As far as I can tell, its a community project that has been mentioned on Linux.com and several other notable websites, returns nearly 750,000 Google results, and has a large and active community. It deserves at least a stub- there are plenty of less worthy articles out there. Patch86 00:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• "There are plenty of less worthy articles out there" = WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS = non sequitur.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I understand WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS correctly, they say that inclusion is not an indicator of notability, and that you cannot use just any existing article as evidence because "Plenty of articles exist that probably shouldn't". In this case, Malbolge is a long article that has existed since 2003, and so WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not apply here. Am I right? Hymyly^T@C 15:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Especially look at the standards exercised in other articles about esoteric programming languages, with respect to what sort of sourcing is used: mostly self-published sources with one or two external mentions. I'm talking here about content, not existence. The scope of Wikipedia articles is generally defined by WP:N, but that's only a setup to help editors decide if our core values (WP:5P+WP:NOT), and more importance issues of scope, are met.
    • It's pretty clear that we should leave this a protected redirect, not an article (not notable enough for its own article, but noted by a reliable source in connection with lolcats), and then replaced with an article if a draft can be approved. Gracenotes^T § 19:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discussion page is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lolcode --W.marsh 01:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. If you think there are reliable sources for this, please list them here. Counting google hits doesn't really help. The google news search pointed to above has one article from a blog, one that only contains a link to a website (with nothing written about it in the actual article), and one article about the meme, with a short mention of the programming language. With just those, it's not possible to write a decent, sourced article. A mention of this at the article about the meme would probably be appropriate, but it's not independently notable. - Bobet 11:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you conclude that it's "not possible to write a decent, sourced article" based on notability? If those articles are enough to establish its _existence_, why can't the "decent, sourced article" come from other sources, such as the official LOLCode site? I wouldn't expect any other language's page to get all its details from news articles.-- Arachnid
• Keep deleted. I would have wanted to keep the article but I think that Wikipedia doesn't revolve around me. The deletion discussion was validly closed. JIP | Talk 14:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• OK, heres a question: what criteria are we willing to wait for it to meet before it becomes a viable article? The deletion discussion seems to have 2 recurring arguments: firstly, that it is too new to warrant inclusion. Secondly, that it has not been mentioned by a verifiable source. The first is clearly something that is extremely POV- what is too new? Is it ok to rewrite in a week? A month? A year? A decade? At which point does an topic become "article worthy"? The second point is covered by the recent article on Linux.com- a more reputable source of open-source news you'd be hard pushed to find. Lets decide on the criteria we want it to meet, and then we can see if it ever meets it. Patch86 17:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse Please consider coming up with a new article in your userspace and addressing the concerns on reliable sourcing. Once you have something to go on you can either move it into main space or bring it back here is there are any outstanding doubts about it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• By the way, I have voted to keep Lolcode a protected redirect above. Gracenotes^T § 04:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - As I pointed out in the AfD, a majority of the article was simply copy & pasted from the website, thus a copyvio. Further, there is no notability. Google hits are not a reliable source, and there are no articles published about this. It's a small project that a few people find entertaining. That's it. We can't cite the LOLcode site any more than we could MySpace or another self-published site. If someone can find multiple reliable sources, as required, I'd reconsider. -- Kesh 02:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have any objections to it being a protected redirect? Gracenotes^T § 04:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HHO gas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The AfD mentioned above has now run its course. It was closed as "delete", and I fail to see how this can possibly reflect community consensus. Related discussion:

• WP:AN#Omegatron
• User talk:Omegatron#HHO/Brown's Gas
• User talk:Kurykh#HHO and Brown's gas deletions

If I counted correctly, 13-15 people in the AfD recommended to delete, 18-20 to keep (plus minus a few leaning/conditional/merge on each side). Yes, as Kurykh contends, AfD is not a vote. But even considering the rough history of these articles, and allowing for individual judgement of the arguments about the reliability of the sources — this AfD does not reflect a consensus for deletion, not even a rough one, and the policy is clear enough that this defaults to a "keep".

WP:AN: Kurykh's rationale for deletion and for disregarding opinions at the AfD—many of which explicitly state that the articles do not violate WP:RS—is that the articles violate WP:RS. I find this unilateral decision not acceptable and in violation of proper deletion procedure. Femto 11:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion of both HHO gas and related Brown's gas, and a speedy close of this DRV. Please note the AfD involved HHO gas and Brown's gas. Not sure if nominator intended to discuss both articles. Just to be sure, this is the neverending story of editors having a total disregard for normal procedure and as such refusing to abide by policy: i.e. AfD and DRV. For details on why this is repeatedly deleted and there is no reason to recreate yet again see:

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HHO gas (4th nomination)
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HHO gas (3rd nomination)
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HHO gas (2nd nomination)
4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HHO gas
5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denny Klein
6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brown's gas (2nd nomination)
7. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brown's gas
8. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aquygen (2nd nomination)
9. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aquygen
10. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magnecular bond
11. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common Ducted Electrolysis

One would think that after this many deletions, for what essentially is the same article, having yet another DRV looks more like WP:POINT and should be speedy closed. As to WP:RS, nominator is free to supply any reputable scientific source stating this is either about real science or it is a hoax. Since after all those AfD's it is still impossible to provide such a source the rationale to delete stands, and coincidentally is every time the same: violation of WP:RS and WP:NOR.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• And also, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 14 and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 7. >Radiant< 13:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Unclosed. Please let process proceed. Georgewilliamherbert 18:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that George is an involved user with respect to this issue, so he really shouldn't be throwing accusations of abuse around. >Radiant< 19:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My involvement starts with the last AFD closure - I have no preexisting conflict of interest. Any admin can review the actions of another... Georgewilliamherbert 19:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • For the record, Radiant, you voted about this issue in the March 14 review for "endorse deletion", yourself. Femto 12:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletions and close review - AfD is not a vote, and I am quite satisfied with the decision to delete. The case for keeping these articles was based on claims that short local news stories confer notability if the station or newspaper is notable, or that conference proceedings act as reliable scientific publications. Neither is the case. After one throws out the opinions to keep based on notability and the opinions to delete based on its being a hoax, one is left with articles that lack reliable sourcing and is therefore are subject to deletion for much the same reasons as in previous times. Please keep these topics deleted and salted until and unless they attain some real notability. --EMS | Talk 20:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Nomen Nescio: Yes, you may assume the review extends to any pages that are deleted citing this AfD.

The previous AfDs are irrelevant to the current issue at hand. That you list them, intermingling Brown's gas with HHO gas yet again, only shows your need to distract from the fact that you have no point about the actual subject of this review.

It was not the purpose of the AfD to supply sources for the article, but to determine whether the existing sources are adequate enough. Individual opinions notwithstanding, I maintain, the consensus of this deletion debate, and the outcome of this AfD per Wikipedia's deletion policy, is that there is no justification for deletion. Femto 20:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete both as redirects to Oxyhydrogen - and mention both historical Brown's gas and the HHO pseudoscience or hoax stuff there. We both need to cover that these are real phenomena and not give credibility to the kooks that the sources do not support. This was proposed in AFDs as a middle ground and rejected in favor of extremes, which don't serve the encyclopedia well. If I can google either term and get hundreds of hits, we should list these somehow, even if they are listings of a minor industrial use and a pseudoscience / hoax phenomena. Georgewilliamherbert 20:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - This is tenable, but I would like to see what the Oxyhydrogen article would be changed to in advance, including what sourcing there is for any statements made there. --EMS | Talk 21:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh for God's sake. How often do we have to go round this loop? Endorse, come back when there is something in a reputable pee-reviewed paper. This is just like Aetherometry; while it would be great to be the Internet's leading debunker of scams, it almost always violates our policies. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you disbelieve that there are a small number of Brown's gas welders out there? Tsk tsk. Georgewilliamherbert 22:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sigh. I was really hoping that the last AfD would produce some productive results - ie. some kind of compromise that would make for a satisfactory conclusion to this back-and-forth. Unfortunately at this time the sourcing to create a valid article (about the hoax) still doesn't quite exist. I did like the suggestion to redirect them to Oxyhydrogen and feel that it was a better middle-ground solution, particularly in the face of the lack of consensus generated. I don't feel there was sufficient consensus in the AfD to really close it as a delete but I'm not going to cry about that - I would like to see them redirected somewhere. Alas. Arkyan • ^(talk) 22:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn both - clear violation of Deletion policy
  1. I count 19 keep votes vs 15 delete votes. Do you count differently? It's pretty outlandish to claim that this constitutes a rough consensus for deletion, don't you think? AfD is not a headcount, but a deletion in spite of consensus to keep should only be done in special cases (copyright violations, meatpuppets, etc.)
  2. Even if the situation were reversed, and there was a slight majority for deletion, Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy, and this would still not constitute a rough consensus for deletion. In the case of no consensus, as I'm sure you're aware, the default action is to keep:
     • "These processes are not decided through a head count, so people are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy. The discussion lasts at least five days; afterwards, pages are deleted if there is consensus to do so. If there is no consensus, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging or redirecting as appropriate." — Deletion policy
     • "The result of the debate was No Consensus, article kept." — {{Afd no consensus}}
     • "When in doubt, don't delete." — Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators
  3. Several of the delete votes were solely for HHO gas, not Brown's gas. The articles are quite different (and should never have been lumped into a single AfD).
  4. Radiant's mention of "thirteen" debates (where did he get that number?) and the repeated "recreation of deleted content" criticism is irrelevant. It is well-defined in policy that a re-created article is acceptable if it takes into account the problems with the deleted version. In addition, the previous deletion review explicitly stated that the articles could be recreated. The latest versions of the articles were very different from the previously deleted versions, written entirely from scratch with verifiable, reliable sources.
  5. If Kurykh personally believes that the articles did not have reliable sources or were not notable, he should have voted delete like the rest of us and left the closure for a neutral admin. Those claiming that the articles don't have reliable sources probably haven't actually read them, and are just making assumptions based on past deletions. See Talk:Brown's gas#References and Talk:HHO gas#References for a few. The articles certainly need work and more sources, but that's not a criteria for deletion.

  Do you really think that 19 editors (including seven administrators) are all incompetent to interpret our policies, and can legitimately be overruled by one admin's personal opinion?

  The people who promote these gases claim that they are similar to oxyhydrogen, but contain other anomalous compounds and properties, which is why these unique claims are separated from the oxyhydrogen article. If you want to discuss merging or renaming, go right ahead, but the articles are kept by default, and that discussion takes place on the articles' talk pages, not on AfD. This unilateral deletion and attempts to prevent deletion review are completely unacceptable. — Omegatron 00:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - I would love to know why you are so adamant about these topics needing coverage, to the point that you are willing to grasp at any straw to assert notability. As I see it, you did a wonderful job of pushing a falacious theory of notability. IMO Kurykh did a fine job of seeing that theory for what it was, as so disregarded the keep votes based on it and quite properly deleted the article. Even now, you are arguing that by votes there was no consensus even as you quote that "These processes are not decided through a head count"! IMO, it is time for you to stop this strange campaign to give these scams coverage and notice that they do not deserve. --EMS | Talk 04:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  And you are again insinuating that Omegatron is somehow trying to promote these things. Can't you see? It can't possibly hurt us to have articles debuking these well-documented fraudulent claims. At least Brown's gas is notable, so much so that some people think it is the correct name for oxyhydrogen. The way, the truth, and the light 06:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The bias itself is obvious but I will apologize to Omegatron for not assuming good faith before in terms of my speculation on its source. I agree that notable hoaxes deserve articles. As for "debunking" them I refer you to WP:NPOV, which hopefully does not get in the way of that. Beyond that, oxyhydrogen is obviously notable, and if Brown's gas is really that common of a term then there should be no problem establishing its notability based on reliable sources in my mind. So far, that has no been done. OTOH, what I have seen would justify a section at oxyhydrogen and a redirect from Brown's gas to that article. --EMS | Talk 13:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I've already explained my rationale a bazillion times. Go read it on the AfD or the articles' talk pages. Please stick to discussion of the actual deletion process. — Omegatron 13:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I stand by my decision. May I refer everyone to my post here and ask that Omegatron reread all of our policies and get accustomed to Wikipedia norms before making any further erroneous comments. —Kurykh 03:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. As the last DRV said, we ought to have this information in Wikipedia somewhere. The way, the truth, and the light 06:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Although Omegatron and you try and articulate that numerous AfD's should be ignored you also fail to undertand the principal argument in this case: the articles were deleted for violation of WP:RS and WP:NOR. So, what exactly does that mean?

1. The articles said X gas exists.
2. The articles said X gas has special properties.
3. The articles said X gas is a hoax.

None of these statements can be sourced to scientific articles. Not even an adequate and non-promotional journalistic valid news report exists. What we are left with are three statements for which no sources can be found. This is considered to be a -wait a minute, it is amazing! oops, it can't be, yes,- a violation of WP:RS and WP:NOR. Exactly the reason they were deleted.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 07:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse keep this garbage deleted. extraordinary new scientific claims must be peer reviewed before we accept them, per WP:RS and Wikipedia:Fringe_theories. -N 10:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Closing admin seems to have ignored the discussion and instead closed based on his personal take on the article. That oversteps admin discretion for what should have been a no consensus close. --JJay 15:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • More argumentum ad populum arguments. —Kurykh 16:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was no consensus for closing as delete. The sources were widely discussed during the debate, yet a majority wanted the article kept. It is not your role to state that the sources are inadequate. Instead, you ignored the discussion and made an innapropriate block threat. When I pointed to the 2006 article from the International journal of hydrogen energy[12], the response I received was: "I'd love to know how this stuff gets past a peer review, but for the less prominant journals the publication of alternate views may be a way of filling page space".[13] That is an inadequate response. The sources + media attention were considered during this debate and there was no consensus to delete. --JJay 16:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • JJay -
        1. I am the one who complained about the peer review, not Kurykh.
        2. Lacking any trail of articles that refer to the one you cited, it fails WP:SCIENCE anyway, and so confers no notability on the topic.
        3. AfD is not decided by counting votes anyway. Kurykh had to decide if the keep opinions were based on an acceptable case for notability, and decided (correctly IMO) that they were not. That is not an abuse of his discression as an admin.

        Please see WP:N. Notability is not confered by primary sources alone, but that is all that you and the others are able to offer on this sorry topic. --EMS | Talk 17:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • "Many people say keep" is, as I have said ad nauseam, an argumentum ad populum argument. Sorry for the plethora of Latin here, but you are only rehashing an already refuted argument. —Kurykh 21:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whatever language you use, your disdain for the people who participated in the debate doesn't need translation. --JJay 22:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • And your poisonous words and disdain for policy need no translation either. I appreciate it. —Kurykh 23:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the previous thirteen debates on the issue. How often must this discussion be repeated? I certainly agree to a redirect anywhere that would resolve the issue. >Radiant< 16:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• endorseI simply can't see a valid encyclopedic article coming out of the ashes of this lot. We are better off without it - wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a repository for "The Truth"^TM Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a deletion review. It's for discussion about the deletion process itself, not about the article. The arguments for deletion were already made in the AfD, and rejected by a majority. — Omegatron 13:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the talk page is undeleted, and has been tagged for speedy deletion at least twice now. I added a warning there. - Nabla 18:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine with me. —Kurykh 21:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion These are promotional hoaxes trying to profit at the expense of Wikipedia's credibility. --Tbeatty 18:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. (user voted twice) Article was deleted in process and with consensus. salt it if necessary. --Tbeatty 14:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please explain how a roughly 19:15 majority for keeping the article, with competent editors on both sides, is a "rough consensus for deletion". This defies all logic. — Omegatron 12:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Contrary to your comment, this is not a vote. Are you familiar with the process? --Tbeatty 21:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may not be a vote, but you still only get to endorse once. Please strike out your second vote endorsement. --JJay 22:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion AfD is not a vote and there was nothing worth keeping in the articles as they stood. Articles on hoaxes and fringe theories are hard to write well. These weren't it. --John 23:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion on the grounds that there has been no violation of deletion policy and the closing admin did not err in reading consensus. The purpose of an AfD, as people have said, is not a vote, but a discussion. The earlier 12 debates and the lack of policy grounds used by Keep voters would undoubtedly have been key in the decision - it wasn't even just a lack of formal citation, on reading the debate, but a series of "it should have an article" arguments. Orderinchaos 01:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Brown's gas article has plenty of citations and sources, and "it should have an article" is absolutely a reason to keep it in an AFD debate. You cannot simply say "those AFD opinions don't matter"; they are valid, and claiming they didn't count towards consensus is illegitimate. Georgewilliamherbert 20:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "It should have an article" = WP:ILIKEIT, as so is not a valid argument for keeping an article. This is part of the policies that are being followed here. The bottom line is that Wikipedia is not a democracy. --EMS | Talk 22:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you are going to cite policy, cite actual policy. WP:ILIKEIT is an essay. WP:SCIENCE is not policy or guideline. Neither should ever be cited as policy--JJay 22:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, "It should have an article" = "This topic comes up repeatedly in questions. There are real products in the real world named this and in at least moderate use. There is an associated pseudoscientific hoax that people are asking about a lot, and the verifyable debunking of which is notable and a useful topic". There are plenty of WP core goal, policy, and guideline compliant reasons for keeping the article. There are verifyable sources as to the patents, low-volume usage in industry of Brown's gas welding equipment, and to the HHO hoax/pseudoscience stuff. Since these exist, there is no valid reason to delete the articles. Don't cover up the sources and arguments on the keep side to make false claims of tidy deletability. ILIKEIT's companion is IDONTLIKEIT, and that's equally bogus. Georgewilliamherbert 22:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, "it exists" is not a valid reason to keep either. -- Kesh 02:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, if there is a source provide one. People keep saying there are sources so show us a scientific article that substantiates or debunks the existence of whatever you want to call this miracle gas. Or, at least a real and sceptical and (investigative) journalistic valid news report.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 08:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, an encyclopedia utilizes third party sources to cite statements made in articles/academic publications/news (in accordance with WP:CITE and WP:RS. All academic publications, in good faith, must be considered as such unless there is peer review that says the contrary. Absence of peer review cannot, by default, establish breach of the WP:RS policy, especially if an article has already been published in a known academic journal. If third party sources exist that can be cited according to WP:CITE, then there is justification for statements to be made in an article that utilize proper citation. I move that this debate become focused on establishing what sources are consistent with WP:RS rather than "should such articles exist"; The existence of a single source that meets WP:RS is grounds for the existence of an article that utilizes said source for proper citation. Essentially this debate should become about policy, and the application of WP:RS. Noah Seidman 23:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be advised this user has a commercial interest (see bottom of page) in propagating this fantasy.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 08:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion review is about Wikipedia policy of which I have no commercial interest. A deletion review debate, according to Wikipedia policy, pertains to the conclusion of a AfD debate, not the content of the article in question, therefore conflict of interest in this particular debate is irrelevant. Mention of "fantasy" brings the content of the article in question into this debate, which is not consistent with Wikipedia's policy regarding the purpose of a deletion review; Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} has officially breached the policy of the deletion review process. Noah Seidman 13:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that I have not contributed to the article in question, showing good faith that I believe a third party article can be created, I would like to refer the closing administrator to the following talk page; dealing with an conflict of interest on the part of Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton}: Talk:Medical literature Noah Seidman 14:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you refrain from turning this into a personal matter? My edits on whatever article is irrelevant to the fact that you have a COI with these articles. Since there is no reason to derail this DRV I sincerely ask you to remove the inappropriate comment.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This example of conflict of interest goes direct toward your credibility in this deletion review; the example you cited regarding me is directly comparable to your profile page; the statement clearly says "my medical site". Noah Seidman 14:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How interesting: WP:RS says nothing about a single reliable source establishing that an article in encyclopedic. Also, when I look at WP:N and WP:V, the request in for "reliable sources". Note that this is plural, not singular. --EMS | Talk 02:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:N exactly how many sources is required to be encyclopedic? Two [2] would be plural. Noah Seidman 02:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does a source require a reliable source to be determined unreliable, or can un-reliability be determined by the general consensus/opinions of a debate?

If general consensus is used to determine an article should be deleted, and general consensus does not require a majority [>50%], can a general consensus be used to substantiate recreation of an article?

Given the specific ratio of votes, in the relevant deletion review debate, does this establish a baseline for what general consensus is, or is general consensus determined on an AfD by AfD basis? Noah Seidman 03:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a bunch of wikilawyering, and I see no need to respond further to it. --EMS | Talk 15:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - DRV is not AfD. Please discuss the deletion process and not the merits of the article itself. But if you're going to make claims that the article inherently violates WP:RS and WP:NOR, to the point that this overrules a clear consensus against deletion, you need to back up those claims. Reliable sources were included for the claims made by proponents. Criticisms and debunking were included for a neutral point of view. The criticisms and debunking were not invented by Wikipedians; they were attributed to the prominent notable critics who made them, and reliable sources were cited for their criticisms. Please actually read the deleted articles and talk pages before jumping to conclusions based on past deletion nominations or Nomen's baseless claims. — Omegatron 13:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• So, feel free to provide any reputable scientific source stating miracle gas exists or that it is a hoax. Claiming Randi is a valid source for criticism is ludicrous. Do we use him to point out Intelligent Design is bogus? Or that those claiming HIV is not related to AIDS are misinforming us? Clearly it is a scientific claim therefore we need scientists to refute it otherwise we are violating WP:NOR.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore them; then either temporarily fully protect them or temporarily block their spammers, so that their spammers cannot edit them back to the spam while any admins that know about the science involved eliminate the spam and sort the matter into these topics:-
  • With Brown's gas, oxygen and hydrogen having no unusual properties but staying mixed all the way from the electrolyser to the torch. If this is real-world technology, keep this matter in a section of its own.
  • Unreal claims for properties of oxyhydrogen mixtures (in both pages) made by particular alleged processes. Summarise, eliminate spam, make it clear that this matter is hoax. If this hoax is widely heard of among welders etc, then it is noteworthy as a hoax and the public needs to be warned that it is hoax.
  • Water-fuelled car: perhaps insert a section distinguishing the nonexistent water-fuelled car from a car run on hydrogen which was made earlier by electrolyzing water; but neither of these is really a use of oxyhydrogen.
  • The section Brown's gas#Atomic welding may to refer to "monatomic hydrogen" (which gets 9290 ghits) or "atomic hydrogen": see Atomic hydrogen welding.

  If this gets the total matter reasonably short, merge into Oxyhydrogen. Let HHO gas and Brown's gas redirect to appropriate sections of Oxyhydrogen. Anthony Appleyard 14:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  'Atomic hydrogen' and 'monatomic hydrogen' are the same thing, actually. The way, the truth, and the light 17:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• overturn deletion and run separate AfDs for the two different articles. I always say that bundled nominations of several articles into one is blatant arms twisting and a room for abuse or misunderstanding both by voters and the closing admin. As one of admins put it: 383 revisions restored: AFD was for HHO, not Brown's Gas. Conflating the two and deleting this one was in error. HHO is the hoax, Brown's Gas has long and notable scientific/industrial history). `'юзырь:mikka 17:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it was reasonable to bundle the two together. They are very similar hoax concepts, and involve the same issues - though as I have said Brown's gas is somewhat more notable. The way, the truth, and the light 17:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn deletion and re-nominate each with a cogent argument for deletion. The AfD process was deficient from the start. I'm really sick of these throw it against the wall and see if it sticks nominations, and this a good example of why we need to really rethink the deletion process as it is currently practiced. The deletion process is supposed to produce a rough consensus for deletion. But when the nomination is not specific, as in this case, the discussion goes all over the place, as in this case, and no clear consensus can be discerned from the process, as in this case. We really need to insist that the nominations are specific as to why an article should be deleted, and then focus on that. The idea that deletion can be a moving target, and that the article and the discussion can change during the process, and still produce a result that reflects consensus is ridiculous. Dhaluza 20:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't see this as a "throw it against the wall and see if it sticks" situation - this article and its associated ones (see above) have been deleted every time they've been debated. EliminatorJR ^Talk 08:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  As I wrote above, the information in page Brown's gas has 2 components:-

  1. Unseparated oxygen-hydrogen mixture going from the electrolyser to the torch. Sounds unsafe but likely.
  2. Strange claims for that mixture's properties, similarly to HHO gas.

  I suppose that it could be that with the gases mixed all through instead of them having to take time mixing in the torch, that may make the flame a bit hotter; but not all the fancy HHO-gas-type claims. Anthony Appleyard 20:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This is a most difficult one. It would be fine to have a decent and informative article about Hydrogen quackery, but I'm not sure whether this is only difficult or impossible. The now-deleted article versions were noticably better than the older ones, but not to the extent to fully convince me. But the worst point is, that we don't have reliable sources to debunk this nonsense and with the fundamentalist handling of WP:V and WP:NOR these policies have turned against their creators. WP:NOR was invented to show the physics cranks the door, now it is used by them to eliminate any counter argument from their articles. Have a look at the mess at Water fuel cell. Without a new policy Wikipedia:This encyclopedia obeys the laws of physics I'm unclear how to counter this crap. Summary: I'm clueless how to proceed. Compare als my last AfD statement [14]. --Pjacobi
• How long has the WP:NOR rule been in effect? (Page Wikipedia:No original research was created at 15:15 on 21 December 2003.) It is hard to see how the dispute re these two pages, and queries about the page Water fuel cell, can be finally solved without allowing some simple provable proof or disproof based on simple known laws of physics and chemistry (rather than advanced complicated new scientific theories). In "WP:NOR was invented to show the physics cranks the door", who were the "physics cranks"? Were they people who thought they knew the laws of physics but did not and were talking rubbish? Or were they people making valid scientific reasoning and were the people complaining about them non-scientists who could not understand the scientific reasoning? And, if (for example), there are three items of information X and Y and Z, and an editor has external references for X and Y but not for Z, and in Wikipedia he says correctly that Z can be proved from X and Y, how obvious must the line of reasoning be before the WP:NOR rule does not apply or can be bent? (See "De minimis non curat lex"). If the WP:NOR rule should be revised, then it must be revised. I and likely many other Wikipedia editors have been handcuffed various times by the WP:NOR rule not letting the editor mention how one or two basic scientific points affect the topic of the page being edited. Anthony Appleyard 04:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Can someone please explain how this violates WP:RS and WP:NOR? Still these accusations are coming in, even though a majority of competent users voted that the article was acceptable as written. For instance:

  • Ruggero Santilli claims that this gas burns at a very high temperature because it sublimates tungsten.[Santilli's journal article] Don Lancaster points out that this is actually not sublimation, but oxidation, since it's carried out in air.[Lancaster's magazine article]
    • How is this original research? We're not inventing our own explanation for the effect; we're attributing and citing a notable critic.
    • How are these sources not reliable? Both are verifiable sources for the claims made by either party. Both have gone through third-party editorial review and are not self-published.
    • How is this not neutral? It presents a somewhat dubious claim made by the proponent, and then debunks it with a clear explanation of what's actually happening in this situation.
  • News programs claim that this company has produced a water-fuelled car.[Cite news sources themselves] Notable pseudoscience debunker James Randi points out that this is an old hoax, and explains why it doesn't make sense.[James Randi's newsletter] Dr. Ali T-Raissi (Hydrogen Research Director of the Florida Solar Energy Center), and Sieglinde Kinne (Energy Efficiency Engineer for the Kentucky Pollution Prevention Center) also explain how this couldn't work, due to the efficiencies of the chemical processes involved.[Cite this to the newspaper articles that reported on these scientists' explanations]
    • How is this original research? We're not debunking the water-fuelled car based on our own theories; we're attributing and citing a notable critic and two reputable scientists.
    • How are these sources not reliable? The news sources for both the claims and rebuttals are verifiable, not self-published, and have gone through third-party editorial review. The source for Randi's claim is self-published, but is a reliable source with which one can verify that he actually criticized them in the way that we say he said.
    • How is this not neutral? It presents a completely bogus claim made by the reporters, and then debunks it with a clear explanation of how this isn't possible according to normal physics, and a criticism from a notable debunker that this is a common hoax used to get money from gullible investors.

  Please explain what's wrong with an article written in this fashion. I can't fathom how this violates any policies. Please actually read the articles and talk pages before jumping to conclusions about its merits. — Omegatron 14:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Given that the article got removed on notability grounds, this is just a bunch of irrelevant wikilawyering.
    Omegatron has consistently shown himself to have an exteme bias in favor of this stuff. This is just one more example of the lengths he is willing to go to to have an articke on it in Wikipedia. IMO, he cares not at all about policy, even as he cites it. --EMS | Talk 16:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article was deleted by Kurykh, with a reference to reliable sources and recreation, not notability. You're the one claiming that it's not notable, but several people in the AfD have shown you that it is.
  • Several people continue to claim on this page that the article is original research or has no reliable sources, so I am asking them to demonstrate why. This is not even close to "WikiLawyering".
  • Yes, I want an article on this stuff, while you would prefer to delete most of our articles on pseudoscientific topics. I think everyone is already quite aware of this. You don't need to point out the obvious. When people disagree like this, we hold an AfD, a majority votes to keep the article, and the article is kept. — Omegatron 19:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has already been mentioned to you that Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_discussion explicitly states that "[t]hese processes are not decided through a head count". The issue is whether the keep opinions were properly disregarded, and repeating the head count says nothing about that. What you are trying to do is proof by assertion and that is another example of wikilawyering and your trying every trick in the book to have an article on this topic. --EMS | Talk 02:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (in response to Pjacobi just above) - It is my suggestion that we adjourn back to WP:SCIENCE and see about getting it functional. The goal of the proposed policy IMO is to establish that an topic which has not been adequately enough vetted in either the scientific or popular press enough so that there is (or can be) a case against it is not eligible to be part of Wikipedia. The lack of attention and critical analysis that this has gotten in the literature really are the issue for the AfD. --EMS | Talk 17:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn based on Femto's concerns about the AfD process. I think the basic points in favor of overturning have all been made above and I will not repeat them here. --A. B. ^(talk) 22:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per Omegatron and Femto. ATren 03:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn particularly in the case of Brown's gas which was not debated in the Afd but which was deleted anyway. If the opinions were recounted there were more in support of Brown's gas than there were for HHO gas. Deleting the content will not help the recommended merge of information into the other articles mentioned. Also many editors seem to be confused about whether the article is supporting a hoax or is indicating the article is about the hoax controversy. GB 08:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion of HHO gas or at the very least redirect to oxyhydrogen and keep the salt. Otherwise, we are just going to be back here in a few months. And though it pains me, Overturn Brown's Gas and send back to AfD so it can have its own debate, as it appears to have a fraction more validity. EliminatorJR ^Talk 08:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you explain why you think this should be deleted when the AfD showed no consensus for deletion?

  This is DRV, not AfD. Please comment on the deletion process, not your personal opinion of the validity of the article. — Omegatron 23:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Because I believe the majority of Keep votes did not show that HHO was sufficiently and reliably sourced. The discussion on Brown's Gas was not as in-depth which is why I suggest it should re-run at AfD. EliminatorJR ^Talk 09:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simple, the article was deleted for lack of sources. Guess what, there are no sources, therefore the process was totally valid and no violation can be detected. Of course, you are free to provide a scientific source detailing the technology or the hoax. We both know you can't. Not even a neutral non-promotional news item exists.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 00:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That statement is factually incorrect. There were numerous sources attesting to there being such things as "Brown's Gas", and HHO proponents, etc. They exist. They also fail any reasonable reliability guide for scientific statements. If the articles were fawningly repeating the hoax info, then they'd be deletable. They were not, particularly the Brown's gas article. It was sourced. There exist small numbers of Brown's gas electrolyzer welding units in the world, which are not noticably better than other source or mix-on-site oxyhydrogen welders. But they're real, and the reality is reliably sourced. Deleting "for lack of sources" is misrepresenting the record and grounds to reinstate the articles, period. Georgewilliamherbert 00:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, "it exists" is not a reason to have an article, either. EliminatorJR ^Talk 09:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When the primary reason given to delete was that it didn't, was a fake/fraud etc, then "it exists" is a reasonably solid counterargument. It's even hard to argue that it's not notable given all the annoyed attention that it gets. Georgewilliamherbert 18:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While it's fairly obvious that HHO gas does not exist, the hoax/scam certainly does (it wouldn't attract such attention otherwise). To be honest, the primary reason for delete was not only this, but also that there were so many POV-pushing editors continually editing the article to make it appear that this was reputable, that it would be better for Wikipedia if there wasn't an article at all. After all, it's only a hoax. I think Brown's Gas is somewhat different as it does appear to have some real-world presence. EliminatorJR ^Talk 20:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be perfectly happy to sprotect and watch any articles coming out of this to ensure that HHO hoaxers don't re-insert unverifyable info. Brown's gas does have enough verifyable real use to qualify for some coverage somewhere. It's reasonable to say "we've had a hoaxer problem with these articles", but unreasonable to delete all reference as a fix for that. Georgewilliamherbert 20:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Hence my !vote to overturn Brown's Gas. I still think it'd be better that if HHO has to have an article, it should be at HHO gas hoax or similar, though. EliminatorJR ^Talk 21:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree with that. Georgewilliamherbert 23:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't agree to that. First of all "HHO gas hoax" is a POV title. More importantly, I don't see the case for notability. HHO and Brown's gas are not unknown, but neither are they widely known or otherwise notable. If they are to be covered at all (and I really do not advise that), then let in be in the oxyhydrogen article, where their claims can be put into a proper context. To the extent that "Brown's gas" has become a synonym for oxyhydrogen instead of referencing Brown's claims for a different gas, this IMO justifies a (protected) redirect to oxyhydrogen instead of an independent article. --EMS | Talk 03:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian_Crecente (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

No clear consensus and questionable nomination for AfD.

The article on "Brian Crecente" was deleted without clear consensus. Additionally the nominator of the AfD isn't a user. How was an AfD created without having to be a user? Per Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion:

"Note that if you are editing under an IP address because you have not yet created a user account, you will not be able to complete the AfD process (emphasis added), as anonymous contributors are currently unable to create new pages (as required by step 2 of "How to list pages for deletion," below). If this is the case, consider creating a user account before listing an article on AfD."

I feel that the decision should instead be "no consensus" on this article. Outside of the "voting" itself there are questionable motives behind the AfD.

Since the "delete" decision the AfD nominator has stated "I am the nominator and I too was a bit surprised on its speedy deletion. I was expecting more of a debate/consensus to keep it. Although I did nominate it, I would have thought we could have done a major revision or atleast try to make it notable in the first place, as by make, I mean finding real information on the man. If anything I would like it to be fair than biased, so lets see if we can get that debate back up then?"

The AfD discussion shows (4) Delete, (2) Keep & (1) Weak Keep. This includes the non-user that nominated the AfD.

Drew30319 16:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Second nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Crecente (2nd nomination). Neither AfD was a "speedy", but ran longer than the required five days. Endorse redirection, no new arguments other than that the original nominator was an IP address, but that doesn't address the merits of the subject matter. Corvus cornix
  • The deletion review page states: "This page is about process, not about content, although in some cases it may involve reviewing content." My issue is about the decision to delete while it appeared that there was no consensus. This is the first time I've done a deletion review so I don't claim to know what I'm doing, but that's my understanding based on what I've read. Feel free to give me some guidance. Drew30319 01:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist - discussion was heading towards changing people's minds. While it's not a vote - unfortunately, the closing nominator gave no reason to explain why he chose to delete instead of keep, especially in light of the fact that the keep proponents gave good arguments, while none of the deletion arguments provided much basis for deleting:

• Resume-esque 69.158.170.135

• Argument fails to account for notability. If it's resume-esque, it should be fixed, not deleted so as to never exist again.

• Delete, maybe speedy G4. I'm suspicious because an anon IP had posted the AfD, but the article doesn't show much notability here. G4 because of the first nomination - though it's probably a bit far out for that kind of a speedy. --Dennis The Tiger

• No specific reason stated, except G4 - yet it wasn't speedy material. WP:JNN - just not notable.

• Delete: Non-notable person. PRs and some articles do not assert notability Seicer

• WP:JNN - same problem.

• Delete per Tony and hmwith

• WP:PERNOMINATOR - nothing added.

In all, the keep arguments were stronger than the deletion arguments, unquestionably. The Evil Spartan 18:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist. Closer was not out of line with the close but it may be more helpful to look for more consensus on these types of nominations. Attempts by the DRV nom to dismiss the AfD on procedural grounds because of "non-editors" is a little distasteful, though. IP editors are every bit as useful to the project as anyone else, and these kinds of arguments are a little bite-y. Arkyan • ^(talk) 18:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm willing to assume good faith in editor's part. He has relatively few edits, and I think what he means is anonymous editors - he just didn't know the right word. The Evil Spartan 00:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• If I'm the "editor" being referred to (I guess that "DRV nom" means the person that entered this for deletion review, right?) then yes, I absolutely mean anonymous editors. The issue (to me) is that it appears that one person using a handful of IP addresses was making changes to the article in question and then proposed the AfD. I still don't understand how a non-user could propose an AfD because according to WP:AfD that isn't possible. I believe that the anonymous editor is probably better versed in all things Wiki than I am (at least to pull of the AfD without registering!). However, that to me is a side-issue. The real issue that I have is that there did not appear to be consensus to delete. Drew30319 01:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment as closer (note, I've fixed the AFD link at the top of this review). I thought it was close but given the presence of only one reliable source, with contributors unable to provide a second, it was on the whole a delete. Neil ╦ 13:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the issue is that there is "only one reliable source" then here are a few:
    • New York Times
    • New York Times
    • ABC News
    • Fox News

(note: Google is insufficient for many of the major media sites and require searching within the website itself.) Drew30319 14:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Srikeit 01:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The fact that the AfD process was started by an anonymous IP address should not be relevant in this case. IP address accounts do not have the ability to create the AfD page such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian_Crecente (2nd nomination). However, User:Uncle G apparently saw that the IP user had attempted to start the deletion process and chose to complete the process by creating the AfD page with the IP user's comments as the first deletion reason. This can be seen in the AfD page's history. --Metropolitan90 06:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Two delete AfDs and currently a redirect to an appropriate article. I endorse that. Guy (Help!) 06:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, wild allegations of wrongful process are not grounds for overturning anything. >Radiant< 10:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse because it was a reasonable outcome. That the nom was anonymous does not bother me. That it was a spa does. However, I interpret Uncle G's completion of the nom as endorsement of it, and obviously, any anon or spa could have called the attention of any editor to a dubious article, and if the ed. thought it was dubious, the ed. could nominate it just the same as if the ed. had come upon the article without the suggestion. I've looked at articles at the request of other people who wanted my opinion--a great many of us have. However, the potential for abuse here is very real & has to be kept in mind. We have a system where the process works in a way that makes it is much easier to delete articles than to keep them . DGG 19:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete & Relist The AFD debate had few participants and several voting to keep showed evidence of carefully considering the relevent policies. I'd be inclined to relist this with caution that the sourcing of the article and verifiability must be addressed if this is to survive the rerun AFD. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete and give time for people to rewrite it. The article was significantly edited while the AfD was running, and the later comments tend towards "keep". Anthony Appleyard 04:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. I'm too lazy to make up an(other) NYT account right now, but the other two new sources provided here seem to be passing mentions, not actual coverage of the person, and I suspect from the comments that the NYT sources are similar. But the article did have at least one arguable passable source—not enough to establish notability, but considerable better than none. If more non-trivial sources show up (or even just a whole bunch more trivial ones sufficient to count as "broad coverage") I'd definitely be wiling to reconsider. Xtifr _tälk 02:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Hitler Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Legitimate game played at a number of UK universities. Morevisit 23:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from the deleting admin: This article was deleted per WP:NFT, WP:WEB, WP:N WP:CSD#A7 and WP:V. There was not a single assertion of notability of this game in the article, there was no indication that it exists in the first place. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. Article starts out "a game for several players played mainly by students and people with far too much free time, involving the use of Wikipedia" Come on, this had no chance of surviving an AFD. --W.marsh 23:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per W.marsh. We don't waste time maundering on about stuff that would be deleted anyway. --Tony Sidaway 00:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse del - Obvious nonsense/OR. Wickethewok 02:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Even if it doesn't fit a specific CSD, this doesn't deserve our time in a deletion debate. It's clearly a game made up for Wikipedia.--Chaser - T 06:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, obviously made up in school one day. Guy (Help!) 06:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Basically "We were bored one day and made up this game in school and here are the rules [blah blah blah]...". Note that it was deleted within 5 minutes of being created, and if undeleted wouldn't last 5 more. Would never in a bazillion trillion years pass an AfD vote. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, no assertion of notability. the wub "?!" 14:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. None of the comments above address the issue here, and should be weighted as such - we do not speedy games for a number of significant reasons, and the multiple abusive deletions were completely invalid. This is not the forum to decide whether the game is "notable," or "original research," or whether it would be deleted anyway. The deletion was improper, period. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I beg your pardon? I have no problem with you disagreeing with the deletions, and I have no problem if you believe the article should have gone through AFD. That's all fine with me. But I would really appreciate it if you wouldn't call the deletions abusive, and I would most definitely appreciate it if you were to retract that word. Aecis^Brievenbus 16:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As it's a blatant abuse of your tools to speedy things that consensus believes should not be, I think the word is entirely proper. Sorry if that offends you, but it is what it is. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • For the sake of civility and my blood pressure, I will not dignify this with a response. Aecis^Brievenbus 18:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps that's best. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Speedying obvious crap is never 'invalid' - and even if it were, we don't punish the admin by re-inserting the crap into the encyclopedia as a response. Deliberately re-inserting known crap into the encyclopedia is by definition disruption for a point, if not downright vandalism, we don't do that to spite ourselves.--Doc^g 16:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And you, along with anyone else, are perfectly welcome to attempt to change the CSD criterion to include this in the future. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]