Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 March

Category:Songs with music by Kenny Dorham (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I've been thinking for this a while and thought that it's better to bring this to a broader evaluation. This XfD started as what seemed to me as a completely noncontroversial rename: the category in question contains and will probably always contain exactly one article, the jazz instrumental Blue Bossa. Since an instrumental is not a song, I felt that renaming the category from Songs with music by Kenny Dorham to Compositions by Kenny Dorham was a relatively straightforward proposal.

However, the discussion took some sidetracks. For example, people were confused about "songs by artist" and "songs by composer" categories – note that the former ones are by conventions named "songs", even if the categories do contain instrumentals. So if there was a "by artist" category for Blue Bossa, it would be named Joe Henderson songs. I don't necessarily agree with the current convention, but that's not what was being discussed. Also note that "by composer" categories have always made a difference between "songs" and "compositions". A song is a composition, but an instrumental should not be categorized as a song if a more general category (ie. "compositions by X") exists.

Another confusion was the difference between "composition" and "songwriting", as well as the difference between "songs by songwriter" and "compositions by composer" categories. That sidetrack went so far as to suggest that all of the aforementioned categories be merged together, although that was very out of scope for that simple CfD discussion and although I had no intention of proposing a change to the convention. I was simply requesting a rename of one category to match the current convention.

All that aside, I'm aware that this is not CfD round 2. I'm just trying to clarify some confusion that might arise when reading the discussion. (Others are welcome to disagree with my assessment, of course.) Now, I'd like to discuss on whether a "no consensus" closure was warranted in the discussion. I contacted the closing editor about it, and they asked Richhoncho for further clarification before asserting again that there was no consensus to rename in that discussion. My request and Postdlf's response can be seen here (see also the section immediately below).

I'm of course biased, but I was expecting a "rename" closure, considering that my main point (that the category does not contain any songs) was not contested, and because the "instrumentals are usually categorized as songs" argument only applied to "by artist" categories. There was also precedent for this sort of renaming, as discussed in the CfD. I'd like to hear if others think the closure was appropriate, and what my options are for getting this (in my view) clear error corrected if no support is found here. Jafeluv (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse no consensus close. Without having any opinion on the merits of the proposed rename, the discussion at CFD consisted of two people who disagreed on the outcome. Hence no consensus. That said, a no consensus close doesn't mean you can't renominate it for renaming in the future; hopefully you'll get more people to join the discussion. --Kbdank71 13:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It is a big ask to close an XfD in favour of the nomination with only the nominator arguing for the renaming and at least one other contributor questioning the renaming. Like Kbdank71, I'd suggest just renominating it. I think it is quite proper to renominate a "no consensus" a month or so after the no consensus was closed, especially if the nominator considers in good faith that the reasons for objecting to the deletion were misguided. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. I think it's pretty hard to fault this close. I agree with what the others have said—that a re-nomination is appropriate when an initial discussion is closed as no consensus. As for the merits, I know little about all these variations of song and album categories, so I won't put forward an opinion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, thanks for your comments, everyone. I'm withdrawing this and will consider renominating after some time, to get consensus on the underlying issue. Jafeluv (talk) 08:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Global Bell Curve (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The article was two days old when deleted, and so was still just a stub article. The article was deleted without a prod, or any deletion request without prior discussion. Admin User talk:Jimfbleak deleted with the tag that it lacked notability. I discussed this with him and he declined to undelete it I believe. The day following that discussion, someone else must have undeleted the article and a BOT then deleted it. User talk:Chris G The problem is that when the article was created it had copyright issues. I resolved those for the editor who created it by removing all copyrighted material. The author of that book Richard Lynn has an article and is notable. The subject of the book The Bell Curve has an article, and another book discussing the topic The Bell Curve Debate also has an article. The topic of all of these Race and intelligence is controversial, but again, quite notable. Even if the book itself is not shown to be notable at some future time, the process of submitting the article for deletion and then comments should have been followed. I believe that the article topic is notable. Atom (talk) 18:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn speedy A7 specifically mentions that books don't fit under it. Also [1] shows two reasonable news sources. Gscholar gets 11 hits (some seem like reasonable sources). So not a speedy in any case and quite likely notable. Hobit (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. A pretty clear case. A7 did not apply. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speedy deletion. WP:CSD#A7 does not apply to books, and proposals to expand it (or A9) to cover books have not gained traction at WT:CSD. By the way, I'm not sure at all what Atomaton is talking about. So far as I can tell, Jimfbleak deleted the article once under A7, declined to undelete it (citing G10, a bit dubiously), and that's that. The deletion log does not show an undeletion occurring, much less a re-deletion by one of Chris G's bots. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Fairly sure they are referring to The global bell curve for the bot deletion. Tim Song (talk) 04:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, not eligible for A7 deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy overturn Books are simply not eligible for A7, and while the subject of this book has been controversial in the past it is also highly notable. Calling this a BLP is way out of line. Trout slap for the deleting admin, please. DES ^(talk) 19:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are all the pages relating to the Australian National University except the main one being proposed for deletion, and being merged into the ANU page? I think the ANU page and the university sections are significant enough to have separate sections for each school of the university, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.37.202 (talk) 12:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This was done by IP user 216.131.90.48. The edits are reverted, and the user has been blocked for disruptive editing. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 12:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Koini (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The page Koini was deleted. Unfortunately I do not have enough edits to speak with the administrator on their talk page. I believe that the page was deleted because I did not make clear the 'notability' of Koini. The site has been in development for two years, initially was the world's first finger print protected kids site, but was updated with different safety measures after sale of the technology. The site has come out of consultation with 'the Internet Task Force' and UNICRI for where one of the company's directors sits on the committee. We believed the page was reasonable to posts compared to others in the 'content-control' category such as 'Kidrex' which is just a Google custom search with no protections at all, whereas the Koini site is an extremely sophisticated social networking platform that is the first to verify every user, to provide protection to its members. I would be happy to elaborate on notability should the page be restored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OneLifeNoFear (talk • contribs) 02:12, March 30, 2010

• Who is the "we" in "We believed..."? What is generally going to be required is non-trivial coverage in reliable third party sources, rather than just your or my say so. Do those sources exist, if so then list some of them out here. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• What 82.7.40.7 said, basically; we don't accept "trust me" here, you've got to show us proof that it's notable. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse It was a reasonable speedy deletion. I've had a look for sources and the best I'm turning up are some (fairly good) blog sources and PRwire bits. Once the site sees coverage in the mainstream media (or something more than blogs) provide those sources and we'll be good to go. But at the moment, there just isn't anything that meets the requirements of WP:N. Hobit (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for the reply - I am afraid I was using the 'royal we' - forgive me! - I have supported the company from the outset as they are in a space that I am passionate about - hence I felt is was important to have some reference to them on wikipedia - I felt that as the company geared up its marketing and became more newsworthy I would add the references and citations to news articles and press. With the CEO on several safer Internet committees and the platform being the only social network for kids with the extensive parental controls it has in the platform, there will be press shortly. - Having said that I do take your point and perhaps I was premature in posting the page now and should have waited for those articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.74.229 (talk) 01:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse speedy deletion per WP:CSD#A7. This article met the criterion; the deleting admin made the correct decision. OneLifeNoFear, please wait until the company is actually notable (and you can back that up with evidence) before re-posting an article. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black Rock Shooter (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Was deleted because of lack of notability; new information given should offset this now. Only dead fish go with the flow. (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Which new information? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seiyuu information, specifically given on the Black Rock Shooter article itself, as well as the airing method. Only dead fish go with the flow. (talk) 01:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- This close was clearly appropriate. If you are referring to the sources found by Dream Focus, they were considered and found insufficient by the other participants of the AfD. If there are other sources, you're welcome to request the article be plopped in your user space so you can work on it there. Reyk _YO! 01:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main issues were that there was 1) insufficient information and 2) the projected project was too far in the future. The main website itself seems to have seiyuu listings as well as more information on who's behind the project, and clearly displays that they'll be revealing the basic plot soon. It's also quite clear this is going to be an anime that will actually be aired (albeit 50 min. online) rather than just a standpoint on the fictional figure. Also, it seems to be spring 2010 now. Only dead fish go with the flow. (talk) 01:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, note that the AFD discussion clearly envisioned recreation in the future, once the show aired and reliable coverage could be cited. Just write the article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but allow recreation assuming sources now exist per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I'd suggest you request userfication. Hobit (talk) 06:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure There was a solid consensus to delete. Unless you have a draft, there's really no need for this DRV – just request userfication. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Private series characters (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

None of the arguments for keeping this page address the fact that notability has not been established once in the two years since its creation. The main arguments given were that the page is in accordance with Summary Style, which does not change the fact that its content has been in violation of numerous policies for two years (WP:NOR, WP:PLOT), and has shown no sign of improvement during that time. This is merely a page where fans of the novels come to edit in what's stored in their memories. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. One commenter states that being in need of clean-up is not grounds for deletion, but I'd think that a lack of established notability for over two years is. James26 (talk) 11:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the consensus at the afd was that as this article has been spun out from the main Private (novel series) article (for length reasons) it was not required to demonstrate notability independent of that topic. It was explicitly stated that while the plot summary style, amoungst other issues, meant that the article was in need of cleanup, this was not reason to delete it. In other words the arguments made in the nomination were considered and rejected. Thryduulf (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Having re-reviewed the comments, I don't notice the argument you mention in your first sentence becoming a "consensus." I see one editor (Ed321) possibly alluding to your argument, but not stating so explicitly. If the article can't establish that the characters are notable apart from the book series, then there should be no separate page for them. For example, the book character Blair Waldorf, of the novel series Gossip Girl, has received coverage in The New Yorker (among other publications), which is cited as a source in her article. None of these Private series characters demonstrate any such independent notability. Respectfully, this was hardly "considered" in the nomination. -- James26 (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. The delete arguments were grounded in policy, but the keep arguments were bare assertions. Stifle (talk) 13:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse It certainly needs cleaning up, but I don't see how that could have been closed as delete. Hobit (talk) 13:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the primary issue is that it's not notable and shouldn't exist for cleaning up in the first place. I believe I created it in order to move an overabundance of original research out of the main article, which a persistent editor kept including. Looking back, this was a mistake; I should've just tagged its material as OR when it was in the main article. There have been no signs of it establishing notability in two years. That's more than enough time for it to be deleted. -- James26 (talk) 13:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The AfD didn't agree. I personally think that character lists are a good idea for longer series but that one needs a lot of work... Hobit (talk) 14:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The keep !voters towards the end of the AfD were obviously well aware of the reasons advanced for deleting the article and considered the article didn't warrant deletion. However, (a) I agree with all of the nominator's concerns; and (b) think that stubbifying the article to what can be verified is appropriate. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain- As the only delete voter other than the nominator, I obviously feel this "article" has no place on Wikipedia. But can I honestly say that the closing admin acted against consensus? I don't know. The question is whether consensus based upon weak arguments ungrounded in policy, as all the keep votes were, can be considered proper consensus at all. Probably the best thing to do is to take to the "article" with a big cruft-scraping tool and remove everything that's not verifiable, or is editors' opinions and editorializing- ie. 95% of the "article". Reyk _YO! 01:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse There was agreement at the afd that this sort of combination article is the way to handle to problem of character articles. And there is general consensus that character lists are appropriate. James, you said "the article can't establish that the characters are notable apart from the book series, then there should be no separate page for them" -- this would be true with respect to individual character pages, though it is disputed whether the GNG is the only way to show it , but this is a combination article, and not every thing mentioned in an article need be notable. WP:N does not apply to the contents of articles, just articles. . DGG ( talk ) 14:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus, which is a matter of semantics because the end result is the same. Like James and Reyk, I personally feel that arguments to delete were stronger, particularly because they were rooted in core Wikipedia policy. However, while AfD is not a vote...The relevant guideline is WP:PNSD, which is actually murkier than one might expect on the subject: "Polling forms an integral part of several processes, e.g. WP:AFD; in other processes, e.g. article editing, polls are generally not used. In both cases, consensus is an inherent part of a wiki process." This suggests that while the strength of arguments presented is the top priority, the closing admin should not override the majority unless the minority's reasoning is especially strong. WP:CONS implies that consensus cannot be truly reached if a majority of participants in a discussion strongly rejects a minority's arguments. Also, per WP:IAR, Wikipedia policies are not firm and can be ignored in specific cases if the community elects to do so. My conclusion, therefore, is that the participants in this discussion leaned towards rejecting the policy-based arguments for deletion in favor of reworking the article. However, consensus would have required a stronger agreement among the discussion's participants, and I don't think that was achieved here. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that's a fair reading of the debate actually and wouldn't object to an overturn to NC. Hobit (talk) 14:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to "no consensus". If, as appears to be the case here, policies are ignored and an article on a topic without secondary sources is kept, at least make it clear that is what happened. Abductive (reasoning) 05:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Box on the ear (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article was nominated for deletion because an editor believed it was a dictionary definition. I disagree. It was a stub and could have been expanded. Philly jawn (talk) 02:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Consensus at the AfD was unanimous and DRV is not AfD round 2. If you think that there should be an encyclopaedia article on the topic then feel free to write one. Do it as a userspace draft though if it will take you a while to get it beyond a stub. Thryduulf (talk) 10:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 13:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse There was no other way to close it. I too suspect this could be a good article. Try it in userspace. I assume most admins would be willing to userfy it for you. Hobit (talk) 13:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. A very obvious close. I can't see the original article, but I guess working on the article in your userspace would be fine if you think it can be expanded to demonstrate a notable subject. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Response It was a good stub article. It had a number of articles linking to it. It had an image from the commons. I think that the deletion was premature and the article should have been given more time to grow. How about restoring the article as a soft redirect, with its history, so the text that was there can be salvaged into a new draft. Philly jawn (talk) 01:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Just rewrite it in a somewhat fuller manner. DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure This AfD really could not have been closed any other way, although I too suspect that there was potential for expansion beyond a mere dictionary definition. This currently has an entry over at Wiktionary (wikt:box on the ear), but the situation is complicated by the fact that the good folks over there seem to be leaning towards deleting it themselves (see wikt:Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#box on the ear). So, if this doesn't belong in a dictionary and it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, where does that leave us? My view is that this should get another shot at expanding into a true encyclopedia article. We should send it to the incubator, redirect the mainspace title to Corporal punishment, and replace the redirect with the article when it's ready. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Habari (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

"no serious reason offered for nominating this article for deletion" said the closing admin and yet Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bluesnarfing (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City car were allowed to continue despite the nominator failing to provide a reason. either those afds were decided wrongly and bluesnarfing should be undeleted or this the closure of the Habari afd was wrongly decided and the closing admin should be disciplined. either way at least one afd was decided wrongly Misterdiscreet (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The failure advance a reason for deletion in a nomination is a ground for a speedy keep. It doesn't matter what did or didn't happen in other AfDs; this close was proper. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • so when in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lakeline Mall User:Edison said "These have generally been kept in previous AFDs for malls" his vote should have been strikken because what happens in one afd is not supposed to influence any other afd? Misterdiscreet (talk) 19:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Votes like those don't hold water but they shouldn't be stricken. --Explodicle (T/C) 20:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • To cite a specific other AFD is usually not helpful as per WP:WAX (but see the exceptions noted there); however to cite a consistent pattern of decisions in other AfDs is to suggest an effective consensus on an outcome, much like the effective consensus on the notability of secondary schools and inhabited towns and villages. In any case this is somewhat aside from the point of this DRV discussion. DES ^(talk) 02:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. In the other AfDs referenced, a procedural nom was made and someone promptly presented real, seriously intended reasons for deletion. That didn't happen here, as for WP:WAX a single AfD or existing article does not control another. However when there is a consistent pattern of actions, that may demonstrate general consensus. DES ^(talk) 23:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment so you are asking for the review of the third nomination from a year ago, not the fourth nom which you raised a few minutes after that one was closed? I don't know what you mean by bluesnarfing should be undeleted, since that discussion resulted in a keep outcome anyway... This all seems rather pointed --82.7.40.7 (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- No reason was offered by the nominator or by anyone else. If it bugs you that much not to be able to open an AFD, please feel free to sign up for an account, so you'll be able to open one yourself. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Um, the OP here was Misterdiscreet, who evidently has an account, but seems unhappy about some other recent AfD results, if I understand correctly. DES ^(talk) 02:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh. *facepalm* You're right. Consider that comment directed to the IP address who wanted to open the AFD. Umbralcorax (talk) 13:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, no valid reason for deletion advanced; if there's a real reason for deletion, please renominate it quoting that reason. Stifle (talk) 13:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ropeadope (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Requesting Userfication of deleted content. I'd like to be able to see the full history of the deleted article if possible. Thanks. Chubbles (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC) Chubbles (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Doxiedana (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Out-of-process speedy deletion. Was deleted with log entry "Sillyness" by User:DragonflySixtyseven. That is not one of the Speedy deletion criteria, nor does the page, as beat as I can determine, fit any of the criteria. In this edit I requested User:DragonflySixtyseven to undelete, and in this edit DF67 wrote "If Doxiedana comes back to Wikipedia and asks me to restore her userpage, I will consider it. Are you claiming Doxiedana as your alternate account?". In this later edit DF67 wrote"I let people get away with silliness on their userpages under a couple of conditions: first, that they've actually done something useful to the project, and second, that they not be trying to sneak unacceptable articles in the back door. This one failed on both counts." I take this to be a refusal to consider restoring the page. I will grant that the page is not encyclopedic, but then it is not in article space. It is IMO in no way disruptive or harmful, and less of a diversion than many examples of wiki-humor that have been kept at MfD. User:Doxiedana has made a couple of valid contributions to the project, and is a new user. It is my view that under WP:CSD and WP:DEL, admins are only empowered to delete without discussion pages falling strictly within the enumerated speedy deletion criteria, other deletions requiring discussion at the proper forum, in this case WP:MfD. It seems to me that to delete a user page without warning or notice, and without discussion, is to violate WP:BITE. I ask that the page be restored, and that if anyone then thinks it needs to be deleted, a proper MfD discussion be opened, where a community consensus can be formed. DES ^(talk) 18:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They weren't useful contributions, they were spamming her relatives onto disambiguation pages. And she's been gone for a month. Go find something better to do. DS (talk) 19:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It is of my opinion that DESiegel is looking for a witch to burn. There was another article that he has hounded DragonflySixtyseven over, Versicolorin reductase, which was a clear copyvio; that is, the person clearly took the mouse, highlighted all the text and other junk on the webpage itself, hit Ctrl+C, and then opened a blank page and hit Ctrl+V. It took me no more than ten seconds to find that out. Following procedure is one thing, but there is also exercising just a little common sense and using something else called a brain. But seriously, claiming BITE on someone who has been long gone? Give me a break. –MuZemike 20:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. My attention was drawn to DragonflySixtyseven over the speedy deletion of Studio 1 Photography, which deletion was overturned by a wide margin further down this page. DR67's comments on that page suggested to me an over-willingness to delete, and a willingness to speedy-delete pages that do not actually fall within the WP:CSD. I for one hold the view that the CSD should be strictly followed, and that deletions outside them should use Prod or a deletion discussion. Therefore I have reviewed a number of log entries and when I found deletions that seemed to me not in line with the CSDs, I took the matter up with DF67 as the merits seemed to me. In the case of Versicolorin reductase DF67 didn't mention the copy&paste issue in the deletion log reason, nor in the msg posted on my talk page. You did. I might add that IMO that wasn't strictly a copyvio, because the source is a pure list of facts not subject to copyright under Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service. However copy&paste is still discouraged, so i am not pursuing restoration in that case. As for "someone who has been long gone" User:Doxiedana has not edited in roughly a month. Many people have longer gaps than that between contributions, without having left the project for ever. There is no way to know when, or if, User:Doxiedana will return. as to "hounding" I don't see that a perfectly polite request to undelete a deleted page is hounding, the instructions on this page suggest such a course. I invite anyone to look over the exchanges at User talk:DragonflySixtyseven and User talk:DESiegel. I might also add that the majority of deletions i reviewed were perfectly fine, and while I wish DF67 notified article creators of speedy deletions as is strongly recommended on the WP:CSD page, this is not a policy or rule. But when I do find what seems to me an invalid speedy i normally raise the matter with the deleting admin, and bring things here if the response (or lack of response) seem to me to justify doing so. I have done this with pages that were deleted by many different admins, I am in no way "hounding" DragonflySixtyseven. DES ^(talk) 21:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Could someone point to a speedy criteria for this? The Google cache has nothing, so I don't know what was there. Hobit (talk) 23:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I have, temporarily, copied the content of the last revision to User:DESiegel/Snow Weasel. DES ^(talk) 01:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• This is such a pointless exercise. The existence or lack thereof of this page has absolutely zero effect on the encyclopedia whatsoever. Surely there must be some more productive use of time? Tim Song (talk) 02:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Volunteers work in mysterious ways. I saw this DRV, and decided to see if Doxiedana's contributions were worth anything. A bit of research, and I made Sachs Electric. Productive? --GRuban (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I don't understand the reason for the deletion. An admin shouldn't be deleting a userpage and yes, it is BITEY to do so. I don't see why being silly on a user page, even for a barely contributing user, is worthy of deletion or why the admin feels it is their job to delete it. I admit however I partly agree with Tim. If it weren't for the issue of being BITEY I'd say this was 100% silliness. Hobit (talk) 02:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Process is important (to a point). But in my view, process does not need to be reinforced by overturning an otherwise low impact and uncontested userspace deletion at DRV, just because it was out of process. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn As it met no speedy criterion. It is not helpful to delete harmless page of non-active editors-- if anything, the act of doing so adds slightly to the system overhead, while maintaining it costs absolutely zero--the space is not recycled. If they ever return, it sends a signal the reverse of what we should be sending, that they are welcome back if they want to contribute usefully. User contribution histories show that users--even users who do not make helpful contributions at first--often return, sometimes many months later, and start to make them. It is right to bring a Deletion Review, because admins should learn to act always in process. To the extent that a particular admin has deleted not in process , every out of process deletion that the admin does not revert themselves if asked should be brought to DR. If necessary to delete for some other reason or in some other process it can then be done. This is not process wonkery, but a proper insistence that people with arbitrary power follow the rules. For anyone to think they need not do so is not safe for the encyclopedia. The time we spend discussing a few here will be repaid by the many we will not have to discuss in the future. Even though the particular instance here may be trivial, the refusal to follow policy is anything but trivial. DGG ( talk ) 03:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly. You have stated my thoughts precisely. And this isn't an isolated instance. I find at least 9 pages deleted with this same log reason by this same admin within this month. Most are by users with no other contributions, or no useful ones, at least yet. Most do not seem to fit any of the CSD -- a couple might be deletable as vandalism. DES ^(talk) 15:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn this does not meet any of the speedy deletion criteria, and wouldn't do even if it were in the article space*, let alone userspace where we allow a far wider range of content. While the user might not have made any useful edits to the encyclopaedia, their edits were misinformed rather than disruptive. Deletion of their userpage (without notice or explanation) combined with a lack of being welcomed to the project is very bitey. If someone with this contribution history had been gone for a couple of years then it would be a moderately safe bet that they would be unlikley to come back again soon (it does happen though), but with only a month since their initial edits you cannot reliably infer anything about their future intentions. When pages do not clearly meet the CSD criteria, any deletion must be done only when there is consensus to do so at the appropriate XfD. In this case though I doubt that consensus to delete would have been reached at MfD. Thryduulf (talk) 10:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• It is surprising that Editor 1 bothered to create the trivial page in question, doubly surprising that Editor 2 does not have better things to do than delete harmless trivialities in user space, and triply surprising that Editor 3 is sufficiently concerned about this rampant triviality to bring it to drv. Occuli (talk) 10:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I started with the same opinion honestly. But I do wonder if treating someone's user page, no matter how rudimentary, as a triviality is the right approach. Hobit (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I concede that I would be disconcerted if my user-page were to be deleted summarily. I would also be irritated by edits like this one ... the only edits I have ever made to someone else's user-pages is to remove pages from category space eg Category:Nervous system neoplasms contains some such. DS aka DragonflySixtyseven does seem unduly concerned about user space. Occuli (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been on a tear through newly-created userpages recently -- removing spam, libel, and non-COPPA-compliant material. NOINDEX tags don't stop mirror sites from copying troublesome content all over the Net, and mirror sites don't bother with said tags. And would you seriously be irritated by someone correcting a spelling mistake? DS (talk) 11:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn per DES, DGG (and any other TLAs...). Deleting a person's userpage should only be done in circumstances of extreme offense. A paragraph about Snow Weasels is within the bounds we're granted to express our individuality. --GRuban (talk) 11:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. The criteria for speedy deletion specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus support to, at their discretion, bypass deletion discussion and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media. If this page needed speedy deletion, but no established criteria was sufficient, raise the case at WT:CSD. This is supposed to be a community managed project. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn- If you want to send to MFD, that's cool. But a speedy deletion, when it doesn't even come close to meeting any speedy criteria really isn't the way to go. I know we're all not a bureaucracy here, but there should still be some attempt at discussion before deleting things that aren't speediable. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. No valid basis for speedy deletion cited. G1 and G3 set a narrowerer standard than "silly"; for better or worse, the community decides, case by case, how much silliness will be tolerated. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy endorse. I consider that bringing this deletion to DRV, in the absence even of a concern expressed by the (former) user, borders on frivolous, and I am considering closing this discussion summarily. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the endorse, of course, but suggest that a summary closure of this may only escalate the trivial drama even more. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've found that sometimes when I do something summarily per IAR, anticipating a hostile reaction, people move on and the concern disappears. Other times, seemingly obvious actions (like the one under review) precipitate absurd overreactions. I wish I had a better talent for predicting which would be which. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Incidentally, as a general comment to the deleting administrator and others, merely blanking the page rather than deleting it might have been a better procedure and avoided some of the concerns expressed here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you give any reason why this userpage should be deleted? I think it would have made it as MfD as it was causing no harm and deleting it would be biting a newcomer. To close early against consensus here? Really? Hobit (talk) 03:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Speedy closing a DRV where multiple editors have favored overturning seems rather WP:POINTy, and clearly against consensus. I suppose it wouldn't justify arbitration, but it seems highly improper to me. It would surely justify unilaterally restoration of the page in question, as any admin is empowered to restore pages improperly speedy deleted without process. But the main issue here, IMO, is not the specific page -- it is the abuse of speedy deletion. It is not whether this particular user was offended, or even saw the deletion -- it is the high likelyhood that such practices will, in time, offend some new editors and lose potentially valuable contributors. That is why i think this is far from trivial, even though the specific page is not at all important. Newyorkbrad seems to me to miss this point, while DGG, Thryduulf, and others get it. DES ^(talk) 15:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Newyorkbrad, perhaps that inability to predict which IAR actions will gain subsequent approval is a good reason to make less use of IAR? I will guarantee that unilateral, undiscussed deletions, outside the narrow limits of WP:CSD will always cause me to object if i become aware of them. So anyone thinking that such deletions are uncontroversial should perhaps reconsider. DES ^(talk) 16:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is this "Newyorkbrad" who seems to think he knows better than the community and has the arbitrary right to summarily close a contested discussion? Does membership of the Arbitration Committee confer demiGodKing status? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was uncalled for. Brad is a long-standing and well-respected admin & arbitrator. Insulting him doesn't reflect well on you. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not only that, but Brad's generally had the reputation of being among the calmest and most deliberative arbitrators, which is why we all love him, and threats are quite out of character. Anyway, I chatted it over with him on his talk page, and it looks like what he actually wanted is to merely say "this is a waste of time", like Tim Song or Occuli. The threat to wave around the mop seems to have been unintentional. --GRuban (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per DGG. Outback the koala (talk) 04:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Doxiedana probably should have not have created such a silly page. DF67 probably should not have deleted the page. Fine. But bringing this to DRV was quite ridiculous in my opinion, regardless of the merits of the deletion. For all of the massive problems with articles on Wikipedia, we are still wasting our time with trivialities. I am somewhat disappointed with the number of comments that this DRV has gotten, and with myself for commenting here. If you are looking for important work to do, I could point you towards some. Do we really have to waste our time with this? NW (Talk) 05:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I feel that ensuring speedy deletions are done only in accordance with the criteria for speedy deletion and overturning actions that bite newcommers to be some of the most important work that can be done on Wikipedia. I feel this because it protects the encyclopaedia from the whims of individual administrators and stops valuable and potentially valuable contributors being driven away. Thryduulf (talk) 09:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • See my response above to Newyorkbrad. DES ^(talk) 16:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per Hobit and DGG. Note: I cannot see the page, so I reason entirely from arguments presented. Frankly, "I don't like it" as a reason for arbitrary and summary deletion goes to the heart of abuse of admin power, and is not a trivial matter. Ray^Talk 02:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The contents have been copied to User:DESiegel/Snow Weasel for the use of people commenting in this DRV. DES ^(talk) 14:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, DES. Looking it over, I see nothing inappropriate enough to justify a IAR deletion. I mean, c'mon. Yes, it's a fictitious entry, but it's on a user page. A user page is meant to give some sense of the user's personality, and there's nothing malicious or out-of-scope here. If somebody had wanted to delete this in a fit of overconcern over somebody else's userspace, MfD would've been the forum. Ray^Talk 18:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn: User pages have traditionally enjoyed some freedom and attract users to the encyclopaedia. They are not free, as I discovered when my own user page was edited in the past, but this was to avoid material deemed to risk conflicting with Wikipedia's aims - a much more serious situation, with a much more minor sanction. This deletion was disproportionate. Stephen B Streater (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and send to MFD. Process is important. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy journalism (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Original article was a stub with substantitive references in academia and mainstream press, as well as the lesser considered "fringe areas" of the internet. The identification and usage of the term appears to be universally accepted and agreed upon. The article was a good stub. The category appears to be relevant and not subject to WP:OR. Furthermore, there is some notability to the term and it is routinely referenced in sereious scholarly work as well as in common parlance. It should be allowed to stand for further review, development and reinforcement. In my opinion the strong opinions of one editor appeared to overwhelm the discussion. Jettparmer (talk) 02:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. There were not many participants in the AfD, but there was a thorough discussion of the sources, so more than enough material on which the closing admin could determine a consensus. With a 4-1 headcount to delete and all delete !votes providing policy-based reasoning (the "patent nonsense" jab aside), there was a clear consensus to delete.--Mkativerata (talk) 02:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I think I would have likely argued for weak keeping if I had seen this AfD but the consensus seems reasonable. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 09:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer - Did my comment below answer your question? Jettparmer (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No it did not. It's basic courtesy to discuss issues with a person with whom you disagree before pulling them through a process. In any case, endorse deletion as valid reflection of the consensus. Stifle (talk) 13:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctantly endorse. I suspect this topic is in fact notable, and i might well have favored keep had I looked at the AfD. But the consensus of the AfD was clear, and those who favored delete made policy-based arguments. What constitutes sufficient coverage is always a judgment call, save where no reasonable person could hold a particular view. However, there should be no bar to recreation with better sourcing, which would remove all relevant objections from the AfD. Indeed if the creator or anyone else indicates a serious intention to work on this, i would favor restoration and Incubation for that purpose. DES ^(talk) 18:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- I nominated the article for deletion. I do not oppose either userfication or incubation. Maurreen (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- I opted for deletion review as I felt there was insufficient commentary on this articel, nor did their seem to be any neutral analysis of the notability of the topic. Relevant and reliable sources were discounted (I could not find the original lecture by Ellick, and was preparing to contact him directly for source location). It would have seemed more in keeping with WP approach to edit out the "offending sources" and let the article grow as a stub. Jettparmer (talk) 00:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then create a userspace draft and add sources as you can find them. I'll gladly restore to your userspace or to the Incubator, preferably the latter, if you intend tro work on this. DES ^(talk) 01:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would appreciate restoration to the Incubator. Jettparmer (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse essentially per DES the admin did not do wrongly, though had I noticed the discussion, I would have argued to support instead of closing as delete. The solutiuon is hjust to write a slightly expanded article. No permission is needed to return a better article. DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Encourage userfication or Incubation and see if the article can be developmented or reinforced. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with Incubation as it seems like a good approach, consistent with the discussion Jettparmer (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RaRa (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

Illegitimate G10 deletion. This was not an attack page, all content (that I can see via google cache) is verifiable and the relevant sources can be easily added, please see my referencing at de:Revolutionaire Anti-Racistische Actie and dutch sources at nl:Revolutionaire Anti-Racistische Actie. Additional source see here. Meisterkoch (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rather premature, don't you think, considering the active discussion on my talk page? You certainly have the right to request deletion review, but it's a far simpler process to convince me to reverse my deletion. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, DRV should have happened only after pinging Jclemens and receiving no satisfaction after extended discussion with Jclemens. –xeno^talk 20:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• @Xeno, that's what I have already done. I have discussed everything on his talk page that I had to say on this topic. If he doesn't see that he is in breach with the guidelines, he doesn't leave me any other options then to go here and see what other people think about it.--Meisterkoch (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Apologies I didn't see that the thing higher up the page was related. Still, it could've been a lengthier discussion. –xeno^talk 20:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Um, I just asked you (User:Meisterkoch) a question on my talk page to which you have yet to reply. AGF'ing that you didn't see it, feel free to respond there. Jclemens (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Excellent call by Jclemens. Falls squarely within G10 as an article about an organisation (including named individuals) that contains only negative unsourced material. For negative pages, a general source cited at the bottom of the page is not good enough. There is no way of verifying that the negative factual claims in the article are true. G10 extends to entities as well as people. In my view that is for two good reasons: (a) an attack on an organisation by extension attacks its members and officers; and (b) many jurisdictions allow organisations, not just individuals, to sue for defamation. Negative material about organisations or persons should be sourced from the moment it is placed on the mainspace. I would not support restoration of this without a properly sourced userspace draft. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, keep this stuff deleted, this is way to stupid to discuss, I will stick to de:WP where people can actually admit when they have done a mistake, after they have read a source. Bye en:WP --Meisterkoch (talk) 20:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sigh. en:WP has some more strict expectations than other 'pedias, but that doesn't mean this discussion is over. You'll note that I didn't issue any warnings or blocks, nor did I salt the article against recreation. There is still a way to work forward on this, but when it's such an article talking about crimes and people and whatnot, we delete it until it can be shown to be supported and neutral. I realize this might be frustrating for you, but there's no reason to abandon en.wiki entirely yet. Jclemens (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is a well-known terrorist organization in the Netherlands. The Dutch article references three national papers and a book by a BVD employee (Dutch equivalent of the NSA), among other sources. I don't know what the English article looked like, but sources are available. Remco47 (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete. This was a good-faith G10 deletion. However, it seems that it should not be difficult to find and ad WP:RS to the article. The organization is notable and was (apparently) covered by national press. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 21:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No it was not good-faith deletion, Jclemens had the same source as you guys have here for 10 days on his talk page and then he decided out of the blue to delete the article. And now I should go down on bended knees and beg for mercy/undelete to be able to add these sources? This is pure bullying and really pisses me off.--Meisterkoch (talk) 21:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You appear not to have noticed that I was out of the country for that time. Jclemens (talk) 22:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, but without prejudice to recreation as the article stood when deleted it was clearly a negative article about a specific group, accusing them of violent crimes. In the article a single source was cited, a book, with no page references or inline cites to indicate which claims it supported. Talk page discussion has stated that there was a criminal conviction. If so, there must have been news coverage, although that may not be online. Under the circumstances, better in-article sourcing is needed for any such article. Specific inline citations, preferably with relevant quotes (translated, if not in English) from any off-line sources, should be provided to multiple reliable sources to clearly establish the accuracy and fairness of the article. That said, if the statements made in the deleted version are in fact supported by RSs, this group is notable and a proper article can be written, and there should be no bar to a properly sourced version in future. DES ^(talk) 22:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google news returns some 20 hits on "Revolutionaire Anti-Racistische Actie" but none appear to be in English. Non-english sources are fine, as stated in WP:RS, but this means that I can not personally evaluate them or add them to the article. Someone who reads the relevant language could and should consider doing this. Note that {{cite news}} provides the trans_title parameter for translated titles, and Wikipedia:Citing sources#Non-English sources says "When quoting a source in a different language, please provide both the original-language quotation and an English translation, in the text, in a footnote, or on the talk page as appropriate." DES ^(talk) 23:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Google news search on "Revolutionary Anti-Racist Action" returns some 11 hits, which may be enough to source such an article. DES ^(talk) 23:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my user draft linked below. DES ^(talk) 07:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G10 due to the undersourced nature of the decidedly negative article at the time. I'll vote to restore the article, but only if someone is going to rigorously source the facts within it. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Userspace draft created. I have created a draft at User:DESiegel/Revolutionary Anti-Racist Action. I think it is sufficiently sourced, with some 16 different sources (all but two in the English language) and 44 inline citations. Sources are newspapers, journals, and books. Note that I started with the text of the deleted article, so if this is accepted that would have to be undeleted and this applied over it, or my draft moved and a history merge done, to preserve the attributions for the text from the original article. i dropped any statements not supported by sources, most statements are supported by multiple sources. There are probably additional sources out there in English, plus the 20 Google news hits not in English, so this could no doubt be improved further. But I now ask that this draft be permitted into mainspace, with appropriate history undeletions for attribution. DES ^(talk) 07:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Superb. I'd note, however, that there's nothing in a G10 which prevents anyone from taking such action, nor was any DRV intervention needed for such an outcome. Thanks for doing the grunt work to create a more neutral and specifically-cited article. Jclemens (talk) 07:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Granted. But given that a DRV discussion has been started and that it is still open, I felt it better to present the matter here than to unilaterally use admin tools to undelete and edit. Use of admin tools would be required for GFDL/CC attributions, so this isn't just a matter of creating a new article by an old name. Besides there is WP:PI. DES ^(talk) 07:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also note, it isn't much more neutral -- 90% of the text is straight from the deleted version. Mostly what I did was add cites, adn remove the few statements I couldn't cite, and add details found in the refs cited. All refs came from Google searches, BTW. DES ^(talk) 07:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore DESiegel's superb userdraft. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, permit recreation from the draft or otherwise. Stifle (talk) 12:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Studio 1 Photography (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This was deleted by User:DragonflySixtyseven with the log entry "notability not asserted". I presume this is intended to be WP:CSD#A7, although that does not actually match the A7 rule. The deleted page included the text "This is the same company that was featured as Utah's best wedding photographer on a budget." and included three inline references to three different news stories. Now this might not have been enough to establish notability at an AfD, But I think it is well over the bar for an A7. I asked the deleting admin to reconsider in this edit but got no response. Overturn this as an improper speedy deletion, please. DES ^(talk) 16:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that the deleting admin did not notify the page creator, nor was the page tagged by any other editor. DES ^(talk) 17:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn per nominator. --GRuban (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Definitely over the bar for A7 - can be sent to AfD if someone still feels strongly. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speedy deletion, send to AFD; failure to assert notability isn't grounds for speedy deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn the speedy per nom. If afd is deemed required do so for editors' views.WildHorsesPulled (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per nom. This appears to be a situation for an AfD, not for a speedy. Hobit (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no point in notifying someone of a deletion once they've been gone for a month. This was a single-purpose account, whose purpose was to promote this business. Furthermore, notifying someone that an article they wrote is going to be deleted... that's a courtesy, not an obligation. I do try to be courteous, but I'm not obligated to be.

About those three different news sources? They were about a competitor's bankruptcy, and briefly mentioned Studio 1. There was also one article about Studio 1 itself, calling it "Utah's Best etc etc", although a) I strongly disagree with that being an assertion of notability, and b) the site claiming it appears to have been down for quite a while - archive.org only has versions until mid-2008.

Of course the page hadn't been tagged by another editor. I don't need to wait for people to tag pages for speedy deletion; I can assess them myself and then delete them -- and I do that all the time, because it's more efficient.

I don't bother using the CSD codes because they're too damn cryptic. I know what they mean, and I use their meaning.

If you want to argue process enough to take this article to AfD, I will gladly restore the page; however, if I do that, then I expect at least one of you will implement a proper AfD within the next 24 hours. DS (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. The article made a credible claim to significance or importance. I'd be happy to send it to AfD. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Goatse.fr homepage.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deleting administrator opened a thread at ANI to announce his decision. The discussion became contentious.[2] Most of what's been discussed there would be better suited to DRV. Opening this request procedurally with no opinion about its outcome. Durova⁴¹² 02:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: [3] << for those not familiar with this image, here it is. Which was once found on this webpage: Goatse.cx. Okip 02:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and restore, regrettably because I have a great deal of sympathy at a personal level for Prodego's actions here. However, there was no consensus to delete this image, so deletion was out of process. This went through an FfD as a keep, was subject to an open MedCab case, and no speedy deletion criteria applied. Invoking WP:IAR in this case is not appropriate as many editors (not me) would dispute that the invocation of IAR "improved the encyclopaedia". But I would like to see this brought back to FfD where editors can give proper consideration to WP:NOTCENSORED and whether this image adds anything to the encyclopaedia. In my view, genuine consensus has not been reached on this yet. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note if this turns into a super-FFD discusion, as seems likely, I would !vote delete. I would !vote that way not for the reason that a fair use claim is invalid, but because of the reason Prodego deleted it: that its inclusion does more harm to the project than good. Just because an image can be displayed on wikipedia does not mean that it should. But that is an on-balance judgement on which reasonable minds may differ: such judgements should be made by consensus, not unilateral fiat. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The photo is not compatible with our mission to build a free encyclopedia. It is neither free nor encyclopedic. The only reason we don't have a specific policy "Wikipedia is not a shocksite" is that this is such a rare case. Wikipedia is not censored. Liberties are best preserved by (1) making use of them extensively, and (2) not abusing them. Hans Adler 02:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And just to give a formal reason for the process wonks: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." (NFCC) Any encyclopedic purpose of this picture is far overshadowed by its primary purpose of shocking whoever stumbles over it. The reader of an article illustrated in this way will either be thrilled that Wikipedia breaks taboos so shamelessly, or will be shocked and somewhat disturbed. Neither is an encyclopedic purpose, and in either case the reader will be distracted from the article. Hans Adler 11:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't part of our goal as an encyclopedia to provide historical insight into what cultures find offensive? –xeno^talk 12:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. But our contribution shouldn't consist in demonstrating that finding photos of stretched anuses in an encyclopedia article extremely offensive is a feature shared by all cultures worldwide. It's not our primary purpose to do such research, and especially when the result is so predictable. Hans Adler 13:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then we should also remove visual depictions of Muhammad, as it also facilitates such in-house "research" as to how many Wikipedia-using Muslims find it offensive? –xeno^talk 16:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact we should remove some of them, but not all. One picture of Muhammad being tortured in hell, another of him trampling on a globe, a cross and the Ten Commandments. In addition no less than four other images outside the section "Muslim veneration", which is the only section where such images convey information as opposed to being purely illustrative. This is serious overkill. In quantitative terms it's not quite as bad as the severe over-illustratedness of Jesus and Buddha, but it's still bad enough and the fact that every single of these pictures gives offence to a significant portion of our readers either (1) directly, or (2) by showing them that we want to offend the more extreme of their faith, gives this more weight. Hans Adler 08:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted. We have deletion polices for a reason: to ensure that our contents benefit the encyclopedia, and to ensure that deletions are performed only if they benefit the encyclopedia. We also have the important WP:IAR policy, specifically in order to ensure that anyone can take actions that benefit the encyclopedia, even if they can't find some specific sentence in our many policies that specifically says they may do so. In the long run, because we are an encyclopedia and not a shock site, it plainly benefits our encyclopedic purpose - and therefore is the right action - to cut through all the debate and just remove the image, and to delete the image in order to prevent the removal from becoming an endless edit war. Unless there is some reason why the image is actually required by our encyclopedic purpose, and not replaceable by a link to the site depicted in the image, there is no issue here. In particular, bureaucratic arguments about what "should have happened" are of no importance; only what "should happen" is important. What should happen is for the image to stay out of the article on the grounds that we are not a shock site - and we are not required to be one merely in order to provide encyclopedic coverage of shock images. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think Hesperian summarized this excellently: "A picture conveys more than text. If you subtract what the text conveys from what the picture conveys, you're left with the marginal benefit of displaying the picture. I'm pretty sure the marginal benefit of displaying the Mona Lisa is substantial and educational. I'm pretty sure the marginal benefit of displaying the goatse.cx image is nothing but shock value." This image is intended only to be "offensive, disgusting or/and disturbing to its viewers"^[1]. It is not an image that is useful in an encyclopedia, and its inclusion is far more harmful to the project than any marginal benefit gained by readers from viewing it. Prodego ^talk 03:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn: horrible abuse of process, no two-ways about it. As has been emphasised a million times, DRV is not IFD, it examines process issues in deletions. As there is no procedural reason at all to delete, and at least three to overturn...:
  1. Not eligible for deletion under any speedy criterion;
  2. Image has already survived IfD, so it can't be speedied for the given reason anyway;
  3. It's currently a matter of contention at mediation so it's inappropriate to take action during the mediation process.
• ...thus, the image should be undeleted. There is also very flimsy justification for ignoring all rules because there are solid arguments that unilateral deletion is a detriment to the encyclopedia; remember, IAR is not carte blanche. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per Hesperian. :-) Hesperian 03:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn / Undelete - While I agree that goatse is rather a nasty website, the image IS encyclopaedic on the grounds that it is essentially the subject of an article. Furthermore, there is an ongoing dispute as to whether the image should be included, and that should have been allowed to conclude before such unilateral action is taken. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about the website, not this single image. Risker (talk) 04:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsensical argument, as in this case the website is the image. And let me ask you this: If they never published that image on that site, would we have grounds for an article at all? Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 17:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's particularly nonsensical given that the image was only presented within a screenshot of the website's front page. postdlf (talk) 18:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. The image fails NFCC criterion #1, in that it is easily described in words and can be linked to at an external site. In fact, it *is* described in words in the opening sentence of the article. The image itself is not encyclopedic or educational, nor is it free. Risker (talk) 03:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Overturn / Undelete - its a nasty picture, but the process for deletion was fatally flawed (community process subverted). Without the pic, the article is kinda pointless. Maybe its a good AFD candidate, but this was not the way to do it. Bevinbell 03:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Community discussions do not override fundamental policy. WP:NFCC overrides consensus just as WP:COPYVIO does; we don't keep copyvios around even if there is a consensus discussion to keep them. Otherwise, we'd still have dozens of album cover images in discography articles. Risker (talk) 04:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus determines whether WP:NFCC is satisfied by interpreting it and applying it. It is not self-executing, especially where it asks us to make editorial judgments like determining an image's encyclopedic purpose and informational value. If a consensus of editors have determined that the image is not replaceable, then it is not replaceable, and no admin is empowered to enact his own opinion as if it were policy. postdlf (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. This was a deletion in the middle of a content dispute, and counter to another administrator's actions. At Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-01-12/Goatse.cx, it has already been established that the image does not fail NFCC. Whether the image should remain in the article is purely a question of value versus offensiveness. Therefore, a deletion out of process is not warranted. Remco47 (talk) 03:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete: I've stumbled across this over at ANI, and while I make no comment on the file in question, this deletion was disgusting. There is ongoing discussion about the image, and no legal situation justifying a speedy deletion. The IAR justification being batted around is not, in my opinion, very convincing, as there are many people who do not think that this deletion benefits the encyclopedia. I think Sceptre sums it up nicely. Some responses here seem to endorse keeping deleted because they feel the picture is not appropriate. I make no comment on their rationales, but I think that that discussion should be held elsewhere (like IFD). Buddy431 (talk) 03:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Per Risker. This is an unfree image that does not add any encyclopedic value to the article. The description in the article is accurate and succinct; the link is on the article page. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 04:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn/undelete - I've actually been arguing for removal of the image at MedCab, but this deletion was way out of line as consensus seems to currently lean in the other direction. IAR means "Ignore All Rules", not "Ignore All People". It's fine to ignore a rule if everyone agrees that the rule is holding up progress, but it's not okay to ignore everyone else in favor of your own opinion -- especially when we're talking about administrative action. At most, Prodego should've taken the matter to DRV himself following the failed IfD if he thought the closure was improper. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:04, 22 Mar 2010 (UTC)

• Overturn and discard every insipid "not a shock site" argument from consideration. This is not round 2 of an IfD to discuss the merits of the image; we are here strictly to discuss the breach of trust and authority that Prodego displayed by ignoring the community and using admin tools to support a personal opinion. There was no valid policy-based reason for up and deleting this image. None. We just had an Arbcom motion that dealt with another admin who invoked WP:IAR in this manner. Apparently some lessons have not been learned yet. Tarc (talk) 04:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have outlined the policy-based reason for this image to be deleted above. Please explain why this image passes NFCC #1. It is already well-described in words, although if one wished to expand the description one could do so. Risker (talk) 04:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that a shock image can be as well-described with words as it can be by seeing the image itself is charmingly naïve. The subject matter itself is the image, and no amount of textual descriptors can adequately convey what the image itself can. Why don't we simply describe Mona Lisa's smile, sans portrait, while we're at it. Tarc (talk) 04:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the article? The subject is the website, not simply that single image. And the Mona Lisa is not an appropriate comparator, being in the public domain. One gaping anus looks pretty much like another. Risker (talk) 04:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, feel free to snap a pic of your own gaping anus, head on over to 4chan with it, and see if you can get the kiddies to make it into a meme too. Until then, we have an iconic image here that would be the height of absurdity to not have a copy of on its own article. There is nothing you have said here so far that wasn't shot down in flames back at the Virgin Killer IfDs. Tarc (talk) 04:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I've read it. The main (well, only) attraction on the site is the image. All the history, details, and tangential stories derive from that image. None of that would exist or be of interest without it. If you don't like the Mona Lisa as a comparison, you can compare it to any controversial figure in history whose portrait we include, controversial incident whose images we include, or controversial art that we include. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:54, 22 Mar 2010 (UTC)

• Keep deleted: I think I filed one of these IFDs. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean one of the IFDs that failed? If so, why do you cite that as a reason to keep deleted? Are you saying that since you filed an IFD on this, it should stay deleted? Not following your logic here. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:58, 22 Mar 2010 (UTC)
    • It was partially to disclose the fact that I'd been previously involved in this debate and partially so that I wouldn't have to write out another rationale for why this image should be deleted, having done so previously. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, that would be the deletion discussion where the closer thought it would probably fail NFCC#1 but he would "be damned if I'll waste my time trying to write the replacement text". Well, the replacement text is there now. Risker (talk) 05:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, it isn't here. You can't just change the goalposts like that. The deleting admin did not delete it on NFCC grounds, not in the slightest. From the AN/I post; "However, the image seems to me to be so egregiously unencyclopedic, that I deleted it despite both of those discussions.", i.e. a specific invocation of WP:IAR, not a delete based on non-free policy. Tarc (talk) 05:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't undelete copyvios or images that fail NFCC because the deletion process was less than optimal, goalposts or no goalposts. In fact, I think your "desysop" argument earlier might be more effective with respect to an admin who failed to delete an image that violated NFCC. Risker (talk) 05:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We do, however, undelete images if the deletion process wasn't followed at all. There is no debate here: the deletion policy was violated by the unilateral deletion of an image ineligible for speedy deletion, contrary to a recent consensus at an appropriate forum, and contrary to our guidelines of retaining the status quo during disputes. That is fact. You can wikilawyer all you want on this, but the image should not have been deleted in the way it was. And endorsing deletion endorses abuse of the deletion policy and of our content policies and encourages administrators to violate our policies. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleting a non-free image that does not meet NFCC isn't just a violation of Wikipedia policy, it is a violation of WMF policy, and that is an even more serious matter. Risker (talk) 05:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I realised that, so I refactored my reply to encompass all images. But the point is: without following the deletion process, we have no way of showing a violation of the NFCC. Additionally, no-one has demonstrated that the image fails any part of the NFCC: neither the parts which you can speedy delete for (4, 7, 9, 10) or the parts that require discussion to ascertain violation (1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8). And don't pretend this is NFCC enforcement; this is prudishness, plain and simple. As far as fair-use images go, this was one of the more exemplary images on the article in terms of NFCC compliance, save maybe for the fact the image displayed a bodily orifice. Sceptre ^(talk) 06:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, a prude would never have found this page or this image in the first place. If you're suggesting that I'm a prude, you might want to keep in mind that I probably spend more time addressing far more offensive stuff than this image on an average evening of editing than I have spent on this discussion; my tolerance for shock is considerably higher than that of most Wikipedians, let alone the average member of the reading public. I also strongly disagree that this is an exemplary image in terms of NFCC compliance, as it is one of the simplest ones to describe with words, and there is a solid external link to the image itself, unlike the Virgin Killers example above. Risker (talk) 06:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Virgin Killer cover: "A naked pre-pubescent girl, with a cracked glass effect obscuring her genitalia". Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima: "six American soldiers raise an American flag on a hilltop". Bingo, that image fails NFCC#1, or at least the version given in this DRV. However, the criteria has another part: an image fails it if the free media serves the same encyclopedic purpose. In this case, drawing on the multiple visual identification and notable image precedents, I believe that a free replacement would not serve the same purpose, as I have argued at the MedCab case several times. But I'm straying off-topic, here. My argument is that failure of NFCC#1 is not a valid criterion for speedy deletion, as it doesn't pass CSD's requirements that said criteria must be objective. And setting asside the NFCC#1 question (as any image can be easily argued to fail the commonly recited version, as I've just shown), this image is indeed exemplary among the thousands of "this shows an important thing that we barely touch on in the article" rationales for usage. Sceptre ^(talk) 06:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - I usually tend to agree with Tarc, but in this case, I think Risker is in the right. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Honest question - If Mr. Goatse himself was tracked down and agreed to release his image to the public domain, would all objections to its inclusion be dropped? Tarc (talk) 05:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's far from an honest question, but it is a fair point. The rights arguments should probably be put on hold if they don't matter anyway. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:18, 22 Mar 2010 (UTC)
  • Mr. Goatse would have to prove that he is indeed Mr. Goatse, and that he owns the rights to that image, which is going to be nigh-on impossible at this stage. The article itself refers to a Snopes article about one of the parodies which has been claimed by multiple individuals as the "rightful owner". Risker (talk) 05:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The question was largely hypothetical. Ignore the wouldas and couldas and address the what if... aspect, if you would. Tarc (talk) 13:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - Mostly per Risker. I happened to stumble upon this from the ANI thread. Killiondude (talk) 05:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Risker. The image does fail NFCC#1. AniMate 06:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I feel I should ask, as there seems to be a misunderstanding on what NFCC#1 is: is there a plausible free equivalent that could be located or created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose? Sceptre ^(talk) 06:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all? From the article Its front page featured a picture, hello.jpg, showing a naked man stretching his anus to a large size with both hands, with the inside of his rectum clearly visible. Is there anything else we need to know about the picture? AniMate 07:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima can be adequately conveyed by the text "six American soldiers raise an American flag on a hilltop". That doesn't mean that it serves the same encyclopedic purpose; see my reply to Risker above that there is clear precedent that lends to supporting using the image. Sceptre ^(talk) 07:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  You are technically correct. "Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima" can be conveyed by text. However, we're comparing one of the most important moments of World War II to a man showing his gaping asshole. Sorry to be blunt, but... really? AniMate 08:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Sounds like your objection to the image is based more on its content than the non-free content criteria. Jafeluv (talk) 10:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed. This is the core issue we're examining in the MedCab case: whether we can find a policy-based reason that a) would not delete similarly offensive images which otherwise would be acceptable for use, and b) would not delete any famous images such as Iwo Jima. So far, I've yet to see an argument that, with a minimal amount of tinkering, couldn't be used to delete the Virgin Killer cover or the Iwo Jima cover. The worth of the image by itself to society shouldn't matter when we decide whether to use an image or not; what should matter is the worth of the image to the article we wish to include it on. And I believe there to be to some worth, based on precedents of website screenshots and famous images. For the record, I'm not a big fan of the image, but I nevertheless believe there to be a valid fair use claim for this image and my distaste for censoring material just because it's offensive is larger than my distaste for the image. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and send for another IfD. I think the image is obnoxious, and wish it had never existed, but I do not see what this has to do with the matter. I refuse to decide issues of Wikipedia procedure and policy on such a basis, and I think that attempting to twist the copyright policy to keep it out are using sophistry to ignore the fundamental principles. The community cannot ignore copyright, but the community did not ignore copyright , and I do not think it ever will, for the community very strongly believes in respecting copyright and endorses the enWP copyright policy, as is shown in hundreds of unchallenged decisions every day. Admins rely on their own judgement, but only when the matter is unquestionable, because when it is, they trust that the community will endorse it. If in a decision of theirs the community were not to, the community would be right and the admin would be wrong as far as dealing with the problem goes--for those who cannot accept this, Wikipedia would not be a suitable place to work, and they should find some place where they could get their own way always. This of course goes much more strongly when they know in advance that their view has been rejected.,) If the community decides not to follow the view of an admin or anyone else. the person can seek to have the individual issue reviewed, or to try to change consensus to change the policy. In this case, the normal way would be to bring another IfD or go to deletion review, in each case to get a broader consensus. Whether this image passes NFCC must be decided by the community, and the community decision followed. No admin has the right to say the community is wrong and is right over the interpretation of this or anything.. He has the right to use IAR in the absence of a community decision, but only to the extent the community will back him., certainly not when he knows the community will oppose him. The only people who can override the community is the office, on legal grounds, for we like everyone else, follows legal advice on what we can and cannot do. But here again it is actually consensus: if the foundation thinks the law is clear, the community has agreed in advance to follow their view, for no responsible person would do otherwise. I see no need to consider now whether I think it meets NFCC1. The material must be restored, and then the deleting admin can open a deletion review, or try another IfD, It is now three months, and an acceptable time for another if this was the first IfD on the file. DGG ( talk ) 07:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong overturn there has been explicit consensus at the FFD to keep the article based on WP:NOTCENSORED, there is explicit consensus at the talk page and an RFC that the image is encyclopaedic. No speedy deletion criteria therefore applies. WP:IAR should only be used when there is consensus that the rules are wrong, in this case there is consensus that the rules are right, and thus IAR is not helping the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 07:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Hans Adler, Risker and Hesperian. Best to remember the purpose of this encyclopedia from time to time instead of getting caught up in red tape. Mathsci (talk) 07:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. NFCC#1 calls for an editorial judgment as to whether a textual description would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the image. Apart from it being a post hoc rationale, this is not an appropriate ground for speedy deletion, but rather a matter to be discussed on an article's talk page in the first instance, and failing resolution there at FFD. An FFD was conducted, and the result was to keep it. At most, it should be relisted there given the complaints about the minimal participation in the last go-round; I doubt there would be another low turnout after this debacle. Further, "Wikipedia is not a shock site" is not an argument. Wikipedia is always about subjects deemed notable and in the process describes and illustrates those subjects even though it is not itself those subjects. That one of those subjects happens to be a shock site doesn't change the equation in any other way, at least where there does not seem to be any question of illegal content. Likewise, the claim that the article is about the website, not the image, misses the point that the website is notable only because of the image and was defined by that image. So there are no clear and objective grounds for speedy deleting this image. postdlf (talk) 07:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and restore - The image is undoubtedly offensive, but we've never made that a deletion criterion in the past. The Goatse meme and images are unfortunately significant on the net, and it's hard to demonstrate just how they were without being able to illustrate it. Those arguing for deletion are creating a new policy argument to do so - a variation on IREALLYREALLYDONTLIKEIT. If you want to change policy to remove all seriously shocking content from Wikipedia that's fine, but this is not the legitimate way to do so within our policy or process. The image needs to come back until and unless our policy is redefined to actually prohibit it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and take to FfD for fresh consensus. Clearly, based from the ANI and DRV discussions, there is not a clear consensus to keep this. I am no NFCC expert though, so I am unsure if this is a valid concern. However, I do sympathise with the deletion motives, but it may not be a suitable speedy candidate, thus the best thing to do would be to hold another FfD in line with process and let a wider group discuss this as it has now gained the attention of the community. --Taelus (talk) 08:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and re-list at FfD. DRV does not exist in order to determine the appropriateness of the deleted subject for Wikipedia; it exists to determine whether the deletion process (where we do determine the appropriateness) was properly followed. No one is disputing that the deletion was out of process; therefor it must be overturned. However, consensus is unclear as to the appropriateness of the image itself; therefor the image should be listed at FfD, the proper venue for such a discussion. Rami R 08:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn because deletion process was not followed. Whether the image is unencyclopedic or fails NFCC must be determined through the deletion process. Deleting images out of process because the anticipated result of the process does not correspond with one's own opinion is an abuse of administrator tools. I have no opinion about the merits of (and no desire to see) the image itself.  Sandstein  08:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as clearly deleted out of process in a highly controversial way. Given the ongoing dispute around the image, and the previous "keep" FfD discussion, this unexpected deletion really feels to me like using admin tools to win a content dispute. ~ mazca ^talk 09:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete (there is nothing to "overturn" here but one admins unwise act). The concept is notable if offensive to some. However, many things are offensive to some. If we stop covering them, Wikipedia loses every usefulness. The image is an extremely effective illustration of the concept. Mere text cannot convey the effect of the image. Thus, the image is a valuable addition to Wikipedia. Trout Prodego, restore the image. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, par WP:NOTCENSORED. We have pages of about every sexual organ on Wikipedia, and these pages all include images. The images might be highly offensive to some people (For example, my vandalism patrol left combating censor attempts at Cock ring just yesterday), but they describe the subject in a way that words cannot. A similar problem arises atDepictions of Muhammad, which is again highly offensive to a group of people, yet again we keep images citing the uncensored rule. I think that we can therefor conclude that we don't remove images on the basis of perceived grossness and not liking it.

This leaves us with the issue if the image actually adds anything to the article, or if it has any encyclopedic value. I would argue that any press coverage generated for Goatse.cx is due to this particular image. Hence, the only reason why we cover the subject altogether is because it received press coverage due to that specific image. I would therefor argue that the image has value for the article - gross as the image might be. As argued before we can of course just link it, but couldn't we do the same on every other questionable page? As for scaring our userbase: The images on the Gangrene page are in my eyes even more nauseating then this image, but we keep those visible as well. So yes, we already present out users with quite a bit of.... questionable content.

Apart from the image matters we have policies to deal with these kind of situations. The image was kept at an IFD procedure, and as the medcab case signifies deletion without discussion is controversial. This is NOT a case where WP:IAR / WP:SNOW should be applied, nor a matter of red tape. Overriding policy should only be done if there is clear consensus, or if certain actions are not controversial, and that is not the case here. We wrote our policies, and if we wish to change our policy we can do so as well. Discuss this, and if the discussion warrant it change the policy, and acts on its new content - but not the other way around. How long do you think it would take for me to be banned if i create a new account and start CSD'ing a bunch of pages for WP:NOT criteria, stating WP:IAR? In my eyes this is entire issue is just a big WP:IDONTLIKEIT topic, were people vote on personal opinions. See also the Encyclopedia Dramatica AFD's, where lots of editors argued it should be removed due to personal offense, and not due to it breaking the rules. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 09:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn let the currect MedCab run its course and then maybe argue again afterwards. There's no point in having the same discussion on a hundred different forums. I think it should be considered lucky that there's a MedCab at all. At any rate, this was a serious abuse of admin 'powers'. raseaC^{talk to me} 10:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and undelete per DGG's arguments. It's a revolting image and I'm unconvinced we need an article on it at all (to all extents and purposes, the website is the image, so the "this article is about the website not the image" arguments are meaningless). However, as long as the article does exist, it's clearly fair use to illustrate it. It's not the job of a Wikipedia admin to unilaterally decide what the dividing line between "art" and "pornography" is and to demand that everyone else on the site follow their particular prejudice. – iridescent 10:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, obviously. Being an admin doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want against consensus. Even if you think an image is "egregiously unencyclopedic", you still need to use the proper channels like everyone else. Jafeluv (talk) 10:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Hans Adler, Risker and Hesperian. Seems to me like a classic case of red tape getting in the way of common sense - one of the other WP:NOTs is that WP is not a bureaucracy. Orderinchaos 11:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn & undelete I don't think that the IAR policy was meant to be used in this way. From reading all of this as an outsider, it seems that an administrator ignored the community and acted on his/her own opinions which is not acceptable at all. Let the discussions continue, but return the image first. Administrators are not supposed to have more or less of an opinion than any other editor, lets show this by reversing the action taken. I have seen this image somewhere, don't remember where, and yes it's gross to me. I have uploaded some medical images that are also seen to some as being gross too, yet the images are still in the articles like they should be. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as strictly out of process. An admin executing summary judgment while the image is under good-faith dispute resolution is not appropriate and prejudges the outcome of that process. –xeno^talk 12:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, gratuitous or decorative use of non-free content. Failure to include this does not in any measurable way degrade the project. Guy (Help!) 13:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete, unambiguously out of process deletion. That said I'd be just as happy for Jimmy or the foundation to make explicitly clear that this isn't part of the proejct's mandate. This is a non-free image that we don't need. Christopher Parham (talk) 13:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, as so many write, "while I make no comment on the file in question, this deletion was disgusting"; "unambiguously out of process deletion"; "an administrator ignored the community and acted on his/her own opinions which is not acceptable at all", and so forth. A WP:TROUT is called for. --GRuban (talk) 13:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn due to process issues. Hobit (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse unfree image that does not add any encyclopedic value. Restoring bad images for "process reasons" is simply disruption to prove a point.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  On the contrary - leaving this image deleted endorses (and encourages) cowboy adminship (which simply exacerbates the situation). If the image is to be deleted, it should be done through the appropriate procedures already in place - not a bold unilateral action. –xeno^talk 15:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn on purely procedural grounds, no prejudice against relisting on IFD. I have no comment on whether or not the image is helpful or suitable for the encyclopedia, but it should not have been deleted while there is an active mediation going on. Disclosure: I'm the mediator. The Wordsmith^Communicate 14:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted.--M4gnum0n (talk) 15:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. We need room for editorial judgment in extreme situations such as this; otherwise, we will never be able to maintain any concept of quality of the encyclopedia. I don't see this as a unilateral action--I see it as an action based on a long-running feeling among reasonable people in the community that this image is not necessary, a feeling that was absolutely right. Chick Bowen 16:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and restore the image. This was not an emergency, so there was no call for deleting it while discussion was ongoing. For the same reason, this is not the time for de novo review at DRV. ReverendWayne (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse delete: un-encyclopedic addition which merely replicates the shock site in wikipedia space.--Ludwigs2 16:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn by all means have a discussion over whether or not to delete. Can't see what's changed since last time, although I suppose there is more input from other users now. As this page clearly shows, there is dissagreement between users including sysops. Users are given sysop tools so they can use them for the best of the encyclopedia, which is decided on by the community, not to mention an ongoing mediation cabal. If Progego thinks it should be removed that doesn't mean it's what should happen. A decision like this should be a community one, whether or not people want the image deleted. We can't have a proper discussion about the image if there's no file page on it. Jolly Ω Janner 16:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Like most image deletion discussions, this one has unfortunately been rather binary; should the image be kept or deleted. There are always ways to use a non-free image while minimizing that use, and consequently its visual impact--such as by reducing it in size or making it black and white--that do not remove relevant information. A thumbnail size b&w copy of this image (noting in the caption that the original was in color) could communicate all relevant information while significantly reducing its shock value. postdlf (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I personally feel that desaturation would be rather a poor measure, as if we can't use the right image, there's really no point using an image at all. Also, to respond to people saying we should just take a photo of our own backsides - we're not going to use, oh, let's say a picture of George W Bush just because we couldn't get a picture of Obama, and what the hell, they're both presidents so it's close enough, right? -mattbuck (Talk) 17:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No disagreement on the substitute picture argument. But regarding desaturation, it's a sure way to both strengthen compliance with NFCC#3 (not to mention the underlying legal fair use claim) by using less of the original work and its creative elements, if the color is not important information; the same would go for reducing an image to the minimum resolution that it is still informationally useful, or cropping an image down to just the relevant part. A prime example of an appropriate desaturation would be a non-free image used to depict a deceased person. By contrast, most uses of non-free art images could not be desaturated without losing important information. I guess it could be argued here (at the risk of sounding crass) that the redness of the orifice is central to this image's "information." But that's a matter for discussion, and it's at least worth considering these alternatives. postdlf (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong overturn as per WP:NOT#Censored. This image has been discussed before and the consensus was clearly to keep. It is precisely this image that made the site notable, and the reader must see the image to fully understand the controversy over the site. it is therefor highly encyclopedic. Deletion was completely out of process. DES ^(talk) 16:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• One more comment. A major problem I'm seeing with this DRV is that many participants are treating it as a de novo deletion discussion. The sole issue that should be discussed here is whether the speedy deletion was appropriate. If it was not, then the file should be restored and anyone can then list it at FFD for a full discussion. This is the only proper scope and subject matter of this review, because while FFD requires a consensus to delete an image, DRV requires a consensus to undelete an image. If this is then treated just as a garden variety deletion discussion rather than a review of the deletion that occurred, then the unilateral actions of one admin would have shifted the burden of consensus, effectively deciding the issue by weighting the result in favor of deletion, such that a no consensus result would default to keep deleted rather than keep. Throwing the odds like that seems an invitation for speedy deletion of all sorts of objectionable material rather than going through the process of XFDs. postdlf (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Risker, unofficial, informal mediation for disputes on Wikipedia doesn't overrule NFCC. Q ^{T C} 16:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The deletion was not carried out on NFCC grounds but asserted to be because it was an "inappropriate, unencyclopedic image". If informal mediation had stalled, formal mediation or arbitration was the next step, not unilateral action. If NFCC is truly a concern apart from the odious nature of the image, list at FFD. –xeno^talk 16:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Yay for process wank? End result is the same -> deleted picture. it's gone now, Process complete. Q ^{T C} 17:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  How can you be so sure the image will be (would have been) deleted at FFD? –xeno^talk 17:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Yay for anarchy? End result would be unknown -> No certain outcome. Besides, NFCC lists a total of 10 points. Mind enlightening me which it fails in your opinion? I see point 8 has been claimed and refuted several times for example, so deleting it as WP:IAR is nonsensical. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 17:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  In your opinion it might pass 8, but it mine it doesn't. There is nothing in that picture that helps explain anything more then is already in the article. Q ^{T C} 18:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn restore, continue in-process discussion. Out of process, and this forum isn't for debating the merits of the image, only of the process.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oveturn. As this discussion is solely about the process followed in the deletion, really the only relevant policy here is WP:IAR. Some editors are mentioning NFCC#1 and no doubt that is relevant to a discussion about the fate of the image, but that is not why the image was deleted, rather WP:IAR was the (implicit) rationale. There was nothing abusive in that actually, and I understand why Prodego decided to go that route. However (and unfortunately many folks don't recognize this) IAR must always be paired with WP:CONSENSUS. That is, when any editor ignores a rule in order to improve the project it must either: A) Be so trivial or non-controversial that no one even bothers to discuss it, i.e. a tacit endorsement from the community; B) Garner a rough consensus in agreement with the action after the fact, i.e. much of the community thinks it was a good application of IAR and says so. It's obvious that without pairing WP:IAR with WP:CON we would have chaos, with anyone able to ignore any rule at any time. So the deleting admin was perfectly within their right to be bold and take an out of process action which seemed in the best interests of the encyclopedia, but afterward invoking WP:IAR the ignorer-of-rules must let the chips fall where the may. This discussion seems to show a pretty strong consensus that this particular application of WP:IAR was not appropriate, and as such the deletion rationale would seem to be invalid (which, oddly, we can really only determine after the fact when IAR is invoked—had the current consensus here been that this was a righteous action then I would be arguing to endorse on the same grounds described above). Please note that this comment is most certainly not an effort to be wonkish or to limit the utility of WP:IAR. I think WP:IAR is still one of the most important policies we have and it can be incredibly useful, but it simply cannot be separated from the "consensus based" decision making process that we generally use around here. Finally like others I would encourage a return to FfD (and/or a continuation of the MedCab case) which would surely receive more eyes and comments given this discussion. I would hope some kind of compromise can be worked out, or a consensus arrived at that an external link to the image is more than sufficient for our purposes (that's how I feel). If the deletion kick-started a discussion that results in a consensus-based decision then it was useful. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Out-of-process deletion with no support by policy. Woogee (talk) 18:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore, I don't like the image either, but it's what the page made famous, so it should definitely be in the article. Wikipedia isn't censored and there are other disguisting images here on Wikipedia as well. If you don't want to see them, install Adblock Plus and block the images. --The Evil IP address (talk) 18:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Prodego and Hesperian. There is no reason why this can't just be substituted with text. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn & restore I'll add to the other arguments in favor of restoring this image that the appropriateness of this image has a long, contentious history to it; ISTR a thread on the ENWikipedia-l mailing list about it when I still followed it (i.e. before 2006). Invoking WP:IAR in this instance only serves to prolong the discussion & drive the opposing views apart, not resolve the conflict. That said, I'd like to state on the record that Prodego was undoubtedly acting in good faith, & that AFAIK no one is voting "keep" because they enjoy looking at the image. -- llywrch (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, per Sceptre.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - copyvio, non-encyclopedic, and - well - please --Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - While process may have been a bit atypical, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. The image is non-free, fails NFCC, and this is a perfectly valid application of WP:IAR. I see no benefit to a restoration. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 00:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, with comment After reviewing this a bit more, I realize that the situation was much more controversial than I originally understood, and thus I don't think WP:IAR is appropriate. IAR and consensus go hand-in-hand. That being said, I see no encyclopedic gain from this image and wholly endorse deletion on the grounds that it has been deleted and I don't see a good reason to bring it back, however I redact my endorsement above on the grounds that IAR should not have been applied here and going to IFD would have been more appropriately. This does not, however, mean that I agree with overturning, because I see no gain to that except adherence to red tape, which is wholly in violation of WP:BURO. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 01:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Just because we can (by NOTCENSORED), does not mean we should. My main reason for wanting the image removed is to avoid exciting some editors who interpret pictures like this as an invitation to add other shock stuff to other articles. Removing this picture does not set a precedent that other shock stuff should be removed (we always debate each case on its merits), but it does set a precedent that the community can choose to remove a shock image if that is judged appropriate for the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 00:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you suggesting we "make an example" out of this image, even if it might be encyclopedic? –xeno^talk 00:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  No. For brevity I failed to explain that I agree with those who have stated that the picture is not encyclopedic (it might have some encyclopedic value in an article on anus elasticity or whatever, if presented with other verified anatomical information). Johnuniq (talk) 01:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for clarifying. I understand where you are coming from. I just had a frightening flash-forward to Wikipedia 2020 where we were debating whether the out-of-process deletion of the 2girls1cup video excerpt was appropriate. –xeno^talk 01:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:BEANS, xeno... Equazcion ^(talk) 04:30, 23 Mar 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse - It's deleted now, for better or for worse. Restoring it at this point means endorsing copyvio. Whether it was a justifiable delete or not is immaterial at this point, because it's gone now. If it is going to be restored there needs to be some justification for using an image that fails NFCCThere Is No Cabal (talk) 00:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  — There Is No Cabal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  — actually, I've edited and commented several times under my IP address. The new account was unrelated to the current issue. With that said, how does that reflect on anything? I'm pretty sure everyone knows Goatse, and I've been following the article for some time. There Is No Cabal (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

If this is your first account, then allow me to welcome you to Wikipedia. The tag is applied whenever a user's first edits are to a community discussion. It is for the convenience of the closing admin. Do you agree that Goatse is perhaps (as of the Internet age) the world's "most notable anus"? If so, does that warrant a Wikipedia article? If so, isn't an image not the clearest way to convey information about this topic? The fair use claims may demand examination at the proper venue, but DRV ain't it. "Copyvio" has yet to be determined, and a fair-use claim here seems to satisfy all 10 criteria. –xeno^talk 01:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and send to FfD. I can accept a good faith IAR decision to delete, but it's clearly contested now by a range of editors, reasons presented for deletion above are clearly contested as well, so it needs a consensus (and that was actually to be expected). In an FfD, I can see myself following Mkativerata argument that Wikipedia is a better place without it, even though the NFC would certainly allow it. Nonetheless, this is not the place to find such consensus. Amalthea 01:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist at FfD. I cast this vote with reluctance, as I firmly agree that this image should be deleted on the grounds that Wikipedia is not a shock site, and that this non-free image does not significantly enhance reader understanding of the topic. The text of the Goatse.cx article conveys what the image shows perfectly well, so we really ought not include this just for the sake of including it.

  However, Prodego deleted this image out of process, when (a) no speedy deletion criteria applied, (b) there was no consensus for deletion established, and (c) the image's inclusion was the subject of hot debate in a MedCab case. WP:IAR should not have been invoked in such controversial circumstances, even if the MedCab case had stalled out for a week or more. While I agree with Prodego's motives and respect his boldness in approaching the problem, it was unacceptable for him to delete under those circumstances without consensus at FfD. (Indeed, the image has been kept at past FfDs, making this deletion even less proper. Is the image a copyvio? That's not a matter for DRV, but a discussion elsewhere can establish consensus on that question.)

  I propose, therefore, to overturn the deletion and immediately relist at FfD. Due to the size of this controversy, it would be best to have a high-participation FfD to consider questions of WP:NFCC compliance and other issues. This FfD should be advertised on the article talk page, at WP:VPM, WT:WikiProject Internet culture, WT:WikiProject Pornography, and WT:WikiProject Websites. If the image is kept at FfD, I encourage those involved in the MedCab case to revive their discussion. if the image is deleted, perhaps that case should be closed. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict × 5)Weak/Procedural Overturn Quite honestly, although I agree with the deletion (from what I've seen/heard) there isn't adequate concensus that this was the correct move. Suggest image be undeleted, then immediately be sent to FFD. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs/^Vote! 01:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn You can't ignore previous consensus through IAR without extremely valid justification. The issues with this image were already debated and there was no consensus to delete the image. A relisting at FfD would be the proper way to delete this image. ThemFromSpace 01:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - While I have sympathy with those who prefer that objectionable images should be used with great discretion, and my own concerns about opening the floodgates to those kinds of photos, I believe in this case, because of the internet actions connected with the image, it should be restored, and use of it controlled through the restriction list. The deletion was clearly out of process, which is hardly even disputed (higher standards being claimed to justify the action), so there is plenty of reason to overturn. I think we cause more damage to ourselves by these disputes, then we will suffer by having the image in stock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as failing requirements for fair use. Risker explained it well; and may I add, the article is about goatse.cx, while this image is of goatse.fr, a semi-mirror which isn't even exactly the same as the original, making the fair use justification even more dubious. Fran Rogers❇ 03:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  This is an argument I would give due consideration to at FFD, but this was not the reason for the original deletion. As such, your vote really ought read "Keep deleted on other grounds" rather than Endorse (and this goes for a good deal of the endorsers above) - because Prodego did not delete on invalid fair-use grounds. –xeno^talk 13:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, when the image is restored, I believe the main article should be renamed simply "goatse", as the subject matter and notoriety thereof centers around the image, not on the literal website. Tarc (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  If the .fr mirror is not good enough, we can always use the Internet Archive as a source for the screenshot. Remco47 (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• overturn This is not the venue for arguing whether or not this is acceptable fair use. The community was not convinced of that argument at the last in process deletion discussion. If necessary, IfD it again. There's no compelling policy reason for Prodego's action. Nor is there any compelling policy reason to keep the image deleted. We have policies for a reason. One major one is that so we can amicably resolve disputes or major disagreements in the community. Out of process deletions just further fan flames. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as Risker states, this would seem to run afoul of NFCC#1. Also, while I agree there's NOTCENSORED to consider, I don't think is really a censorship issue. If someone were to go to vulva for instance, one would assume that the viewer wouldn't be surprised by finding pictures of vulvas there. The same doesn't necessarily hold here, since I would think the average reader would want to know "why is this site shocking?". That's a question that can be answered with words and links, without a need for non-free images. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 17:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would someone think that Vulva had pictures of a gaping vulva? Also: any question can be answered with words and links. That does not mean every non-free image fails NFCC #1. Remco47 (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The image was not deleted per NFCC.1; as DRV deals with procedure, the fact that it may or may not fail NFCC.1 is irrelevant to overturning Prodego's deletion. Sometimes it is okay to use DRV to circumvent a future XfD, such as when the result of such an XfD is a foregone conclusion, but I think to do so in this case is not acceptable. It ought to be restored and sent to FfD if someone wishes, so that the NFCC.1 issue may be discussed at FfD, where it should be, rather than at DRV. (As a side note about NFCC.1, this is one of the few cases in which the image itself is iconic; as such, it is not replaceable by text.) ÷seresin 18:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and restore. Deleted while discussion was on going. Also, unless its determined that this image's Fair use rationale is invalid there is no reason do delete it. Acer (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Deleted against consensus. Take it to IfD if you want to reexamine consensus. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn and restore It had survived a IfD, we don't delete images just because they are offensive. The application of NCFF#1 is argueable and many are opposing it (there was even a RfC on removing the image that included discussion of NFCC#1. You couldn't use NFCC#1 as a speedy deletion rationale because it's not a clear-cut case and if had been argued in the RfC and the IfD, and in both cases the image had stayed. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Notcensored doesn't have to mean needlessly disgusting for the same of arguing that we are not censored. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • But I do think it does mean that "disgusting" shouldn't be the main reason to delete. I think we all would agree that we wouldn't be having this debate if it weren't disgusting--the arguments to keep it are pretty strong (the iconic image of a notable website). It NOTCENSORED doesn't protect this (assuming we agree it is an otherwise ligit image), what does it protect? Hobit (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The phrase I used was needlessly disgusting. NOTCENSORED should be an argument for retaining encyclopaedic content not being vile for the sake of being vile. Last time I looked, our aim was to be educational and I think there has to be a compelling educational argument for the use of an image like this. Some things can only be demonstrated by an image but this isn't one of them and retaining this is really nothing more then doing it because we can, not because we have to use this non-free and improperly licensed image to demonstrate something that words alone cannot convey. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The image is non-free, but not improperly licensed. Fair use is easily satisfied in a case of an iconic image. Remco47 (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm using licensed in the wrong way. What I mean is that we don't actually know who the license belongs to and what the proper license actually should be. I hope this clarification is useful. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • In case you were confused, Deletion Review is not XfD Round Two. This is purely a discussion on the propriety of an administrator ignoring both a prior XfD and an ongoing mediation case, summarily deleting an image not because of non-free policy, but because of personal opinion that it was "egregiously unencyclopedic". Tarc (talk) 19:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you so much for explaining the purpose of DRV to me. I must confess after being a regular here since before BDJ quit that the purpose of this page and the rules of engagement had completely escaped me. Or maybe not, and you just disgaree with the view that I chose to express. I'm clearly too stupid to understand what I'm supposed to say here so you decide what it is. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Apparently they have escaped you, and several others, as we see some arguing about why the image should be kept or deleted, and not about reviewing the deleting administrator's actions. But hey, it's your time to waste. Tarc (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • "NOTCENSORED should be an argument for retaining encyclopaedic content ... there has to be a compelling educational argument for the use of an image like this." At least two prior discussions (an FFD discussion and an RfC) came to the conclusion that the use of this image in the context of the article was encyclopaedic and thus educational. There was an ongoing mediation over whether the use of the image was appropriate. Yet despite this one administrator took it upon themselves to speedy delete the image outside of process because they personally didn't think it encyclopaedic (despite consensus saying it is). Thryduulf (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is there a reason I am being badgered so firmly here? Perhaps its just because its the last vote. I'm entitled to express my view whether you agree with it or not. The closing admin will, I'm sure do a bit better then counting heads and will be more then capable of evaluating the weight they choose to give my argument. But then I could be wrong because I clearly have no understanding of how DRV works, am making the wrong argument and wasting my time. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry, I'm the one that started it, and yeah I suspect that !voting after a day of quiet set this off. Hobit (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment <ec> Assuming, for the moment, that this image would be kept were it not disgusting, should it be deleted because it is disgusting? I claim that NOTCENSORED says "no". The bar for keeping this image should be no higher or lower because it is (highly) disgusting. Hobit (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with that. Whether the image is "disgusting" (a highly subjective quality) or not should be completely irrelevant in determining it's encyclopaedicness. Thryduulf (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I never said disgusting. I said needlessly disgusting. There is a big difference and if you are to challenge what I say, at least do me the courtesy of actually responding to what I said. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I intentionally de-indented and reworded after the edit conflict in an attempt to address what I saw as the basic reason Risker et al were arguing to delete. Further, I'm saying that if it weren't gross we'd keep it then we should keep it--gross or disgusting whatever shouldn't matter at all. I claim that's exactly what WP:NOTCENSORED says. Hobit (talk) 13:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to close for the sake of expedience / convenience break

• Overturn It's quite clear that the deleting admin had personal objections to the image as well as some other problems with it. However, IFD already returned a keep and in deleting it, this action seems as if the admin did not like what the community returned, so he deleted it himself as if he were superior in judgement, a bad case of adminitis. Regardless of the picture's merits, this deletion was clearly out of line for such a decidedly not noncontroversial issue. I would like to motion for an uninvolved admin to bring this to a close and restore the image.--Ipatrol (talk) 02:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I would like to second this motion to close. It's obvious this needs to go to WP:FFD, because any attempt at a final decision here is going to be hotly challenged anyway. No point standing around continuing to kick dirt on eachother. Someone restore the image, and let's get on with it. For those who like counting heads, it's 48-24 in favour of overturning/undeleting with a good number of the endorsers admitting that the deletion was at least somewhat out of process. –xeno^talk 05:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree this can be closed now - the activity on this DRV has died and there's a clear consensus to overturn. I must say though that "no consensus default to no anus" has some appeal! --Mkativerata (talk) 06:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Spartaz has quite rightly pointed out that DRVs should remain open for seven days. I didn't know that. Those of us who argue process should have been followed here can't turn around and ask for an early closure of this hotly contested DRV. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The DRV never should have occured in the first place, the deletion being so clearly out of process. Swift consensus to overturn should have been obtained at ANI, the image restored, and sent on to FFD. For whatever reason, Durova felt the need to stifle closed the ANI discussion and bring it here where the result was a foregone conclusion from the start. This image should be discussed on its merits (or lack thereof), and untangled from the discussion of Prodego's unilateral act. –xeno^talk 13:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  For the record I raised this motion at AN and it was declined by User:Shereth [4]. –xeno^talk 14:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Xeno has no excuse for presuming to speak on my behalf in any way. Please do not put words in my mouth again. Durova⁴¹² 22:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. Durova⁴¹² 23:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the result - Wikipedia shouldn't aspire to be 4chan. No, the proper deletion process was not followed, but the other processes in play right now seem to have stalled. This isn't the best way of breaking the deadlock, but I approve of the end result. It shouldn't be this hard to get images of distended anuses removed from mainspace. I blame Obama. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • They've stalled because they lack consensus. On the hopefully off-chance that this DrV gets closed as "endorse" do you seriously believe that bypassing consensus like this will have been a net win for this encyclopedia? Should admins take action when they don't have consensus in the hope that DrV will endorse that action? I'd think that way would lie chaos. I don't see a good reason not to follow process and let this be discussed at FfD rather than DrV when we all agree process was not followed (which is what DrV is supposed to be figuring out). Hobit (talk) 05:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • They lack consensus to either keep or remove the image, with no end in sight. Same discussions, over and over. In the event of a split decision, it's my personal belief that Wikipedia should generally default to "no anuses". Speaking strictly of the deletion action itself, I don't agree with it and it's hopefully not an example to be followed, but I think it serves this particular situation. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your default plan amused me. :-) That said, we only delete things if there is consensus to do so. Lacking that... Hobit (talk) 06:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sometimes, I find doing the right thing in the wrong way is the only way to get anything done. Fundamentally policies, guidelines, and processes are established ways of doing things to help the project. They aren't perfect, and they don't always work. If there is a way to have a net positive impact, don't let process stand in your way. You shouldn't ignore process for no reason - but when you can see that has become bogged down with little hope of a productive outcome, then perhaps just doing something is a better way to resolve the problem. I try only to take those sorts of actions when I believe I am Right™. I've been around a fair amount of time, and usually I'm correct. Sometimes I'm not. But either way something more is accomplished than if we had endlessly argued about it. I respect the opinion to endorse the deletion, and I respect the opinion that the deletion was out of process (it was) and that the image should stay. I do not respect the opinion the image should be deleted, but that it should be restored for an IfD. Process is a tool for getting something done, either the image should be deleted, or not, it doesn't matter how it happened. Prodego ^talk 06:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I find that doing the right thing(tm) in the wrong way leads to a bad place. At best you piss people off because you ignore process and trample on them (actual people who don't think you are so right that you get to be special) to get that right thing done. At the worst you really screw it up. There is no need for this discussion to be here rather than at FfD, where it belongs. In any case, at the end of the day, all this does is prolong the discussion, not shorten it. Hobit (talk) 06:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's very sad if with so many participants we can't even get a clear consensus here that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I am aware that this is not only because so many believe that, yes, Wikipedia is a shock site, but mostly because of the large number of people who believe that Wikipedia is a bureaucracy. Still, it's very sad.

I wonder if there is any way to get rid of the bureaucrats and 4chaners and just restart the project with the encyclopedists. With flagged revisions, of course, so that we don't need the silly warrior caste. But obviously this would require Foundation action, so it's not going to happen before the problem gets even more pressing. Hans Adler 07:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• DRVs get closed after 7 days unless there is a compelling reasons and I'm not seeing a compelling anything here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I think (well, I hope) we all agree it's an encyclopedia. Some of us just want broader coverage. Others want to recreate the World Book Encyclopedia. I don't understand why, given all we can be, that people are so interested in recreating something you can buy for a few hundred dollars, but people do odd things. :-) Hobit (talk) 08:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur with deletion. We should not be hosting sexually explicit images without the model's consent. While I guess that the subject consented to have that image displayed on a shock site, I am not so convinced he would consent to have it displayed on one of the most widely viewed websites on the internet. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, per WP:IAR. --Conti|✉ 10:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't close this early even though in the face of such blatant misuse of administrator tools it should be closed and the image restored now. But early closes just cause histrionics and hissy fits all around, so there'll be less overall eDrama if we just let this linger til the 29th. Tarc (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience break 2

• Comment: Whether or not this image passes NFCC#1 (which it pretty clearly does not, in my opinion), there has been a long, consensus-backed history for excluding this particular image from Wikipedia. In 2005, a vote was held on the article talk page that overwhelmingly supported using an external link to the image rather than including it inline. Subsequent uploads of the image were generally treated as CSD G4 (re-uploads of deleted content) or CSD G3 (vandalism), for example File:G4tv.jpg, File:Goatse.jpg, File:Hello.jpg, and File:Goatse.png. The system administrators went as far as to ban this particular image from being uploaded at the server level (grep "UploadBlacklist" here). Until very recently, it has been unequivocal that this image was not appropriate for Wikipedia. Past deletion discussions and deletion reviews, such as Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 15, have strongly supported not including this image on Wikipedia. In that particular case, the Community was faced with a nearly identical situation (a speedy deletion followed by a Deletion review) and the Deletion review strongly upheld the speedy deletion. Even joke depictions of Goatse, like File:Goatse.gif, File:Times goatse.JPG, and File:Goatse.JPG have all been deleted. Any administrator who deletes this image (speedily or not) does so with consensus on their side. While consensus can change, there's been no evidence to suggest that it has. The past discussions have all pointed in the same direction. I don't see any reason for this discussion to point elsewhere. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Hm -interesting. How did it sneak back in? –xeno^talk 15:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The current consensus seems to be no consensus. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  It seems that many of those past versions of this image were uploaded purely for vandalism uses. I think that the discussion of the usage of this image in this specific article should be left untainted (pun mildly unintended) by past transgressions. Tarc (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  A three-week discussion on the talk page last July came to the result that the image could be used in the context as a screenshot of a website, hidden by default using the excuse of it being standard practice on other website articles. The image was unhidden for the same reason (as most website articles had unhidden screenshots) last October. Between July and October, there were no objections on the talk page to its use in the article (as it was hide-on-default); most of the objections have come since it was unhidden. When it was deleted by Master of Puppets (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) last October for fair-use concerns, he undeleted as he recognized that there was a consensus for use in some way. The addition of the image also reflects a recent willingness to apply NOTCENSORED to the fringey sex articles, most notably Autofellatio. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This DRV seems in favour of the image (atleast on the grounds of it being deleted wrongly in the first place) 2-to-1. raseaC^{talk to me} 15:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Endorse Deletion_{and salt the sonofabitch while your at it !}: This image is not free and is cannot be licensed as there's no proper attribution, a lot of sites say they own that image. That criteria alone excludes it from wikipedia. Second, it's not encyclopedic by any means. I heartily endorse deletion based on WP:IAR. _{by the way, to the guy that suggested taking a picture of yer own ass: I'd do it, but the lens on my camera is no where near wide enough for that :P} KoshVorlonNaluboutes,Aeria Gloris 16:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Attribution is clear - goatse.cx via goatse.fr. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Just a note - I have found and sent a message to the person whose anus we all know and love, seeing if he would be willing to license the image under a compatible license, to eliminate the NFCC concerns. The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I'm now completely confused as to what the intent of this Deletion Review is. I have already called to overturn the decision based on procedural grounds, but now it seems that the discussion has officially moved to matters of content. So now I will call to overturn again, but now on the basis of content:

Argument 1: I believe the image passes NFCC, because it has an extensive and precise fair use rationale, and it is an iconic screenshot related to the subject.

Argument 2: The image has value, exactly because it is an iconic image. It tells you in a microsecond exactly what the nature and extent of the phenomenon is.

Argument 3: I don't believe the issue of offensiveness should have any effect on our decisions.

Conclusion: These three arguments combined constitute for me an undeniable reason for the image to be reinstated. It does not fail NFCC, it does have value, and offensiveness should not enter into it. Remco47 (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some folks are trying to turn this into a de novo review of the image. The closing administrator will surely dismiss these positions as malplaced. –xeno^talk 18:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A reply to the edit summaries (see history, for those who have now lost all comprehension of this DRV):

• Since this page tries to tackle two issues at once, I think all should have the opportunity to state their stance on each of the issues. Some administrators have already expressed the view that in light of WP:IAR, apparent consensus around content should be taken into account. This is biased towards deletion, since most of the overturn arguments are based around procedure, while literally every endorse argument is based on the content. Remco47 (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would not rely on anyone's any preconceptions about what an IfD would decide on this--my own is that it would end as non-consensus. S But there's essentially complete consensus here that this particular way of doing it was wrong. But the opinion of an admin on whether it ought ultimately to be deleted is worth no more than anybody else's. DGG ( talk ) 22:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, it certainly is worth the time to discuss whether the image is worthy of inclusion. if we decide the image should be deleted anyway, there is no sense in resurrecting it. --Ludwigs2 23:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree on that, actually. As can be seen here, what we have is some editors arguing that circles are better than squares, and others arguing that zebras are tastier than llamas. In other words, people thing they're on opposing "sides" when in reality they're discussing two completely unrelated things. So, we're better off keeping DRV about process and XFD about appropriateness. The Wordsmith^Communicate 23:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm... that smacks of a 'foot in the door' argument - i.e. "We had the image in, and there's a serious chance we might not be able to get the image back in if we allow it to be deleted, so we must find some technical grounds to prevent it from being deleted." Great tactic if you're selling encyclopedias, not so good if you're writing them. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, so please don't try to justify content decisions with a "them's the rules" argument. --Ludwigs2 03:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree that this DRV consists of two separate discussions?

Do you agree that many editors have participated in one discussion but not the other, and vice versa?

Do you agree that this makes it very difficult to establish consensus for either of these discussions at all?

Do you agree that splitting these discussions up according to procedures, would make it easier to establish consensus for both discussions? Remco47 (talk) 03:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. The two are inextricably interlinked. The quantity of discussion on the procedural issue is prompted by the content of the image (an image which seems to have obsessed Wikipedians one way or another for some five years); and the breach of procedure was prompted by the impossibility of gaining consensus on the content. Endorse by the way, because only children (or perhaps very sheltered adults) would need to see the image to understand the article: the motivation for supporting inclusion of the image seems to be an abstract insistence that Wikipedia censor nothing, no matter how offensive; its value is an icon for that argument, but it has no value to the article or encyclopedic value at all.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

yes KD, you're right. and reinstating the image on procedural grounds is going to do nothing to solve the problem implicit in the image itself, so we might as well ignore the procedural issue and get down to the real debate. --Ludwigs2 02:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree that 'the real debate' is not happening right now, and that the procedural debate is distracting from it? In that case, do you see the problem of having two discussions at once? There is a 2:1 ratio of people who want to overturn. But we don't know whether it is on procedural grounds, or on content grounds, or both. We can not predict how the consensus would turn out if we would start the real debate. Remco47 (talk) 13:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remco: I've been stuck in mediation over this for a long time now, so I've lost all sympathy with procedural arguments. The fact is, as long as this image is on wikipedia, advocates for it's inclusion will not discuss the matter, and they will not listen to any argument about removing it. The will simply turn to NOT#CENSORED and IDONTLIKEIT and other procedural grounds to wiki-lawyer all arguments away. That is what they have done for the entire time that I've been trying to discuss the issue, and (as I understand it) for a very long time before. screw that. the image is deleted: they now have an incentive to engage in discussion and to make some argument about how it he image improves wikipedia as an encyclopedia. If they do so convincingly, so that there is a consensus that the image is needed, then (and only then) should the deletion be overturned. otherwise we will just be back to the same old wiki-lawyering advocacy that that this image has always had. --Ludwigs2 13:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem at this point, is that there is no idea what the next step would be if this action was endorsed. There is no venue for discussion of an image that doesn't exist yet. There is no "Image for Upload". In case of of an "endorse" outcome, the only thing you could do is just be bold and upload the image again, and then everything that happened before, will happen again. So, that's probably why the overturners find procedure to be important: there is no next step. If this action is overturned, then you can be sure there will be an IfD immediately following that. And that will definitely have the same participation as this DRV has had, hopefully without the procedural noise. Remco47 (talk) 13:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not correct at all. The next step (if proponents choose to make it) would be to go back to the article talk page and start a new thread (or an RfC, if they like) saying that they want to include such-and-such an image on the page, and presenting a set of reasons why they think the image would be useful. Then we could examine their reasons for wanting to use the image, discuss the matter, and if the consensus is that we do want to use the image, it can be re-uploaded with an explanation that consensus has been reached on its use. read wp:BURO - policy exists to supplement consensus; policy is not there to supplant consensus. --Ludwigs2 13:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, seems reasonable. So, this DRV will decide whether we'll go to IfD or Talk to continue the debate. Remco47 (talk) 14:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Whoops, missed this one. For reference, endorse deletion, per the above (endorsements). Ale_Jrb^talk 00:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn adding my name to the 2 to 1 already who want this overturned. I hate this image, but I believe that wikipedia is not censored more. Okip 02:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bellingham Bells (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Poor NAC closure based on the quality of the argument and appropriateness of using AFD for discussing a redirect (versus deletion). The argument of "there are no delete !votes" is specious, since it was only open for under four hours. tedder (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I was the non-admin who closed the discussion. I believe that the nominator made a poor decision in bringing the article to AfD. They preferred a redirect as opposed to deletion, but had failed to start a dialogue on the articles talkpage (the article had no talkpage at the time of closing) to explore this outcome and find a consensus. Discussions on talkpages are better because they give more chance for interested parties to comment rather than the 7 days of an AfD. With all this in mind, and with nobody else advocating deletion, I closed the debate as speedy keep. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing it early, rather than commenting on the talkpage decision, is a pretty pointy thing to do, especially for a non-admin closure. Further, the first criteria of WP:SK#Applicability was not fully met. Finally, redirection is a proper outcome for an AFD, not just by !voters, but also by the nominator. tedder (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It surprises me that an admin did not choose to follow process properly and open up a talkpage or use mergeto/mergefrom tags, but thats moot. No more to say from me really, it's all in my first comment. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Living anarchists (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

In general "Living xyz" categories are useless however most people who are important enough to anarchist thought to have a page are dead. It serves a real purpose to be able to locate people who can actually comment on current affairs. The last discussion was also closed by a sock puppet account. 66.21.143.7 (talk) 04:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Category:Living Anarchists was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G7 with the comment? "one author who has requested deletion or blanked the page". Category:Living anarchists (lowercase "a") was deleted in in May 2009 following discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_May_9#Category:Living_anarchists. I presume it is the latter that this DRV request is about. Thryduulf (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the deletion discussion was unanimous that this category should be deleted. It is true that user:Erik9 (who closed the discussion) has since been blocked as a sockpuppet, that does not automatically mean that everything they did is wrong. Thryduulf (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I've fixed the DRV links accordingly. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. There was a clear consensus to delete. I'm convinced to relist. This is not solely for the reason that the closer was a sock: I don't think it is prudent to undo administrative actions for the sole reason that they are performed by a sock. There is nothing to suggest improper motives here by the nominator or the (sock)closer. However, the sock's involvement, combined with the improper non-admin closure and subsequent deletion by the nominator were so far outside proper practice that we ought to render the close invalid. This is particularly given the thinness of the discussion at the CfD. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There wasn't that much of a discussion on it, all that was said was "we don't create living xx categories" without much discussion of whether or not, in this specific case, one is actually useful and noncluttering (which is the only motivation I can think of to oppose the creation of the category). As far as my mentioning of the socket puppet, it was only to bring up the fact that we had two comments going back and forth exchanging generic statements and then the category was deleted by someone who obviously didn't care to follow any reasonable process. --66.21.143.78 (talk) 03:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist because of involvement by the sockpuppet--better to dissuss it at CfD than here. DGG ( talk ) 08:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• comment As far as I can tell, none of the other users who commented in the discussion were sockpuppets, there were no procedural errors, the debate wasn't closed early and the closure was not against consensus. Why is more discussion needed? Thryduulf (talk) 11:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• comment More discussion would be productive because the category was treated as a usual case scenario, and usually, "Living xyz" categories are useless categorizations. However, "living anarchists" is different since most of the people important enough to anarchism to have a wikipedia page are dead. So "Living Anarchists" serves a valuable end-user purpose. "Dead Anarchists" would be an example of the kind of category that I think the consensus was originally decided on. The discussion seems (to me at least) editors going through "the motions" of a deletion. --66.21.143.78 (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It sounds to me like you would probably find Wikipedia:CatScan a useful tool, this will allow you (AIUI) find articles about living anarchists by looking for articles in Category:Living people and (a sub-category of) Category:Anarchists. Wikipedia:Category intersection may also be of interest to you. Thryduulf (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – as the cfd was a unanimous delete it is difficult to fault the close. (And it is the case that we don't divide any people categories into living/dead. Anarchists in particular should object to being organised in any way.) Occuli (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist for further discussion at CfD. I see three problems here. First, the discussion was closed by a non-admin, Erik9, even though the close would require administrator action. This runs directly counter to the advice at WP:NAC#Inappropriate closures. Second, Erik9 turned out to be a sockpuppet of banned user, John254. Wikipedia banning policy says that this renders his actions invalid: "Users are only site-banned as a last resort, usually for extreme or very persistent problems that have not been resolved by lesser sanctions and that often resulted in considerable disruption or stress to other users. A ban is not merely a request to avoid editing 'unless they behave'." Third and finally, the actual deletion was performed by Good Ol'factory, the CfD nominator, who certainly was not uninvolved. Even if the debate could not have been closed any other way, these three issues make the deletion seem rather improper.

  As far as the debate goes, it consisted of Good Ol'factory's nomination (by the way, I agree with his reasoning) and two WP:PERNOM votes. Surely it cannot hurt to relist for a more thorough discussion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I deleted it pursuant to the close, so by that time my status as nominator was irrelevant. Since the closer was a non-admin, he couldn't delete it. I'm not positive that the closer asked me to do it, but he may have. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist closed by a banned sockpuppet and deleted by the nominator - don't really see that there's much more to say. Guest9999 (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That it was the nominator who did the deletion is irrelevant, given that they did it after it had been determined after a proper discussion that consensus was to delete the image. Thryduulf (talk) 07:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Before deleting a page an admin should fully consider all the different factors involved. If there has been a deletion discussion then they should be able to objectively and neutrally consider its content. I assume that the nominator/deleter in question did not just blindly follow the close made by someone who had not been given the community's authority to make it without at least glancing at the discussion itself - something they could not have done with complete impartiality. Guest9999 (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The discussion was unanimous' - what possible bias could anybody impart on that? Also, the deletion happened 7 and a half hours after the discussion was closed. During that 7 hour period other discussions on the page were closed individually, producing lots of hits on watchlists. All the other users and administrators who viewed that page during those 7.5 hours had ample opportunity to dispute the close before the page was deleted. Nobody did so, by implication agreeing that a discussion that was unanimously in favour of deletion was correctly closed as "delete". Equally, it has taken over 10 months since the close, and just under 5 months since Erik9 was blocked (that anniversary is today) for anyone to raise this issue here. None of this is indicative of any great problem with the outcome of the deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Would you agree that there are probably good reasons behind the following general practises:

1. Non-admins should not close discussions when admin tools are required to carry out the result.
2. Sockpuppets of banned users should not close deletion discussions.
3. Pages should not be deleted by the user who nominated them for deletion.

Personally I think that there are and when a discussion goes against all three I think it is worth going to the relatively minor inconvenience of relisting it in order to retain the integrity of the process itself. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy but I think that in this case the process was so abused and misused that now it has been brought up for review it cannot be endorsed however rational the outcome might seem. Guest9999 (talk) 16:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. In the case of unanimous and other blatantly obvious results (as for example this case), then no I don't agree. Judgement in cases where the result is not blatantly obvious either way should be left to administrators, but that isn't relevant to this case.
2. Banned users should not be editing Wikipedia. However, when they do this does not mean that every edit they make is bad, and closing a discussion unanimously in favour of deletion as "delete" is hardly (a) controversial or (b) incorrect. The only extra thing that needs to be said about sockpuppets (leigtamte or otherwise and regardless of who the sockpuppeteer is) is that they must not be used to make more than one recommendation in a deletion discussion (which in this case they did not), nor should they be used to close a discussion in which another member of the family has commented (which in this case they did not). In this case therefore, it is not relevant that the user was banned - the decision was the only possible one. Remember that it was not known that Erik9 was a sockpuppet for another 5 months, so we cannot expect anyone around at the time to be aware he was banned.
3. As for point 3, once a deletion discussion has been closed as delete, and a reasonable time has been allowed for others to do it or the closure to be reverted (I consider 7.5 hours more than reasonable in this regard), then it really doesn't matter who pushes the button. Thryduulf (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The discussion was unanimous to delete. Had I been around that day, I'd have closed it the same way. In fact, if people are upset because Erik9 closed it, I'd be happy to sign my name on the close. --Kbdank71 00:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I too would be happy to attach my name to that close, and the subsequent deletion, if it would make others happy. Thryduulf (talk) 07:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I. Endorse as the outcome was clear, indeed inevitable given the general reaction to "Category:Living foos". "Living foos" / "Dead foos" is not a category set that has historically found any support at CFD except in the rarest of cases, which would explain why the debate itself attracted little participation. So, what's to stop this? The criticisms of the process of closure are points of technicality rather than ones with actual merit here. The category would have been deleted correctly whoever closed the discussion and whoever thereafter pushed the button. Relisting would be a triumph for process over results. Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy, after all. Bencherlite^Talk 08:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist There are enough issues to make one believe that another discussion might be useful. Hobit (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only issues are completely irrelevant ones - the discussion was unanimous, based on sound reasoning and could not have been closed any other way, regardless of who closed it. When a discussion is closed in favour of deleting the page under discussion, it really doesn't matter two hoots who pushes the button. Thryduulf (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm perhaps too big of a fan of policy, but I think Guest9999 has it right, when the process has been bent this badly it's worth the relatively small amount of time to do it right. Hobit (talk) 17:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm a big fan of policy too, but not to the extent of pointlessly rehashing something where the outcome is obvious. See my response above for the reasons why I feel that in this case that the wrong people doing the right thing is not really doesn't matter too much. Thryduulf (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Probably not, and if no one had raised the issue I'd favor just leaving it be. But someone does care and process was really quite broken, so in the interest of fairness I see no reason not to allow a new discussion. It's a reasonable request. Hobit (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Process for process' sake is unhelpful. I would sign my name to that close if someone wished. NW (Talk) 10:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. In the abstract, the discussion was closed properly, even though it was closed by a user who we wished hadn't closed it. Relisting would be empty formalism. It is quite normal for consensus to agree that categories that subdivide people into explicitly living and dead categories should be deleted, so I doubt consensus would change even if it were relisted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manzie Johnson (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Illegitimate A7 deletion. Article plainly stated that this jazz musician played with a host of luminaries, easily meeting notability guidelines; a reliable source was cited; the artist appears on WP:MET (indicating he has an article in the New Grove Encyclopedia of Jazz); and he's been dead for over thirty years. Please Restore. Chubbles (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Chubbles (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and restore. I can't see the page history from this so I'm not sure that the 27 February 2010 cache version is the same as the 19 March 2010 deleted version. But based on the cached version, there is a credible claim to significance or importance in the article arising from the subject's associations with notable artists. WP:MUSICBIO has no place in an A7 judgement. That is a matter for AfD. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, restore. Obviously meets musicbio criterion 6. One of the worst speedies I've seen so far; article included multiple assertions of significance. This one's going to WP:SNOW. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn notability/importance clearly asserted by all the name-dropping and the presence of interwiki links. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Claims of association with numerous notable musicians qualifies as a claim of significance, and linking to a bio on a reputable third-party website makes the claim quite credible. So A7 definitely doesn't apply, and I would hesitate even to put it to AFD. --RL0919 (talk) 06:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, per all of the above. This isn't even borderline. —David Levy 06:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Not an A7, would almost certainly pass an AFD, and Chubbles definitely knows their stuff on music topics. I trust Chubbles completely. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn There are hundreds of references for this topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Otheruses3 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) (TfD) (RfD)

The typing of Otheruses3 will actually confuse people. The redirect is also confusing. 174.3.98.20 (talk) 14:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm not sure if this DRV is meant to appeal the RFD for the redirect, or the TFD that led to it being redirected, or both. If it concerns the TFD, which I closed, I would point out that redirection was endorsed as either the preference or the acceptable second choice of all the editors who commented (other than the nom). It was also supported with sound arguments. With both numbers and argumentative weight, the consensus seemed very clear. If it concerns the RFD, which another admin closed, given that the RFD was opened just two days after the TFD was closed, a speedy keep at RFD seems entirely justified. And for what it is worth, the admin who closed the RFD has correctly interpreted the meaning of my close of the TFD. --RL0919 (talk) 05:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I speedily closed the RfD listing, which amounted to forum shopping—a second attempt to achieve the deletion that was decided against at TfD (with clear consensus to redirect). It also was based upon a misinterpretation of the TfD closer's statement (as confirmed by RL0919 above).
  Like RL0919, I don't know which closure 174.3.98.20 is contesting. His/her rationale refers to neither and appears to be based entirely upon the opinion that the redirect should be deleted (without any explanation of how it's "confusing"). —David Levy 06:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I disagree that it was forum shopping. I think the main idea of the TfD was "we don't need this template. Don't delete now because it's not orphan and probably some editors still use it". My experience says that otheruses3 is not actually used and names like that (with numbers) are confussing. Since, we both side are assuming based on own experiences, the best strategy is to wait and see who's gonna use it in the short future. I still believe there was no reason for speedy keep, we could wait 7 days to see what the people who proposed "delete or redirect" would say and that was a reason that I sent it for RfD. PS Just in case: I am not related iwth the anonoymous IP above. Personally, after the speedy close I was planning to sent it to RfD in some weeks after we have more data to judge. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The consensus was to create a redirect instead of deleting. You then went to another forum almost immediately and proposed that the redirect be deleted, in part because you misinterpreted the closer's statement (regarding the likelihood that editors will continue to use the template) as a reference to the revision history. You made no mention of the TfD discussion that had just concluded. You noted that the redirect was an orphan in the article namespace, and you didn't disclose that this was because you'd just orphaned it with a bot.
  And to what end? Neither you nor 174.3.98.20 has explained how the redirect is "confusing." You've claimed that such redirects usually are deleted, which simply isn't accurate. When longstanding, widely used templates have their functionality merged into other templates (often enabled by code that didn't exist when the templates were created), the standard procedure is to redirect. You haven't explained what harm you believe this causes.
  You say that your "experience says that otheruses3 is not actually used," but you know perfectly well that it was used on more than 2,000 pages until you deployed a bot to orphan it (despite explicit feedback at TfD that this should not be done, along with a closure that rendered it inappropriate). You then listed the redirect at RfD without waiting to see whether it remained in use (though I personally consider this largely irrelevant, as the redirect is harmless and helpful if even one person uses it at some point in the distant future). —David Levy 15:37/15:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse TfD and RfD. I too am not entirely sure what this DRV is requesting, but I endorse both closures. Had I seen the answer to my clarification request before the RfD was speedily closed I would have recommended keeping it (I wasn't aware of the preceding TfD), both for the "non-trivial" edit history and for the fact that the otherusesN templates were around for a very long time before they were mostly tidied up (AIUI the advanced template syntax now used didn't exist when they were originally created). Over the years I've done a lot of tidying of hatnotes, and so I learned which otherusesN template I needed in various scenarios, and I would be surprised if I am alone in that. An outcome of redirect was clearly supported by consensus at the TfD and so nominating the resultant redirect for deletion a handful of days later is not really abiding by the spirit of that outcome. I've got no prejudice against a repeat nomination at RfD in a few months time when we can judge how much use the redirected template is getting and whether the edit history is worth keeping in some form or not, but 3 days is much too soon. Thryduulf (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse the TfD too but for the RfD instead of speedy close David Levy could just oppose my RfD writing the things he write abive instead of speedy closing. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the issue was that the listing itself was inappropriate (for the reasons cited above). —David Levy 18:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse both the TfD and RfD closures. During the TfD multiple editors specifically recommended against using a bot to orphan this, but it seems that one was run anyway. Bots are supposed to be used for tasks that are non-controversial or have consensus, this case doesn't seem to fit that description. DES ^(talk) 01:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Waruch (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I request userification. The conclusion of the {{afd}} was "The result of the debate was merge to Edward L. Richmond (Pfc) then delete." Well, the target of the merge was just nominated for deletion itself. One of the suggestions there is an article on the incident. I'd like to review the revision history of Jeffrey Waruch in order to have a more fully informed discussion of an article about "the incident". I request the full revision history be userified to User:Geo Swan/look/Jeffrey Waruch. Geo Swan (talk) 07:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps I should have noted -- I didn't ask the concluding administrator to userify this article because they haven't participated on the wikipedia since 2007. Geo Swan (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy as requested. I would do it myself, but since I am the nominator at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward L. Richmond Jr., it could be considered a COI. --RL0919 (talk) 06:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfied. I've restored the content to User:Geo Swan/look/Jeffrey Waruch per your request. Thryduulf (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tham Fook Cheong (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hey there =) First of all, I would like to thank you all for all your sincere contributions to wikipedia. About the deletation of Master Tham Fook Cheong, I hope you can re-investigate his information. I am from Malaysia and I had heard about Master Tham for a very long time. He was really famous and had received a Medal of honor by the Sultan of Perak (King Azlan Shah) for his contributions. He deserves to be in wikipedia to be recognize as he had fulfilled the Requirements of WP:BIO. By the way, i had read the deletation log's discussion and found out that there are some wrong researches. i just searched through Master Tham's website and there are a lot of facts and he did not sell snake oil as described by Philip. I think he mixed up Master Stanley tham frm Singapore with Master Stanley Tham Fook Cheong from Malaysia. Master Stanley Tham Fook Cheong frm Malaysia had a lot of proven records and testimonials. there are also a lot of news that had proven he is famous in Malaysia. That's a support to the first point-Notable People In Malaysia and is the reason he qualifies for a page in Wikipedia like other notable people. I had also read about the Purpose of advertsing. He was already famous and had appeared in numerous interviews and television programmes and it don't seemed as he tried to advertise here. I really hope you can revive Master Tham's page. Thank You for your kind attention 60.48.245.64 (talk) 15:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse unless significant new sources can be put forward (preferably in a userspace draft). The last proper AfD for this was in 2008. There was a reasonably fulsome discussion of the subject's coverage in sources there, the consensus being that the coverage was insufficient. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse unless new sources are found and provided, as per Mkativerata. If the OP really thinks that a proper articel can be written to show notability, I strongly urge creating a userspace draft, and asking for feedback when it is ready. Published reliable sources will surely be needed tio make a valid article. DES ^(talk) 01:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse The nomination is basically by assertion and a decent userspace draft backed up by multiple reliable sources is the way forward with this article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Limb salvage surgery (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Gregorian mass (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Mass card (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Hello, about 6 months ago I made 2 pages and improved 1, all of these pages I accidently copied and pasted copyrighted information. When I went to create and improve the pages I didn't really give much thought to using the copyrighted data. I've fixed the pages as much the best I could without violating or using any of the copyrighted information. I tried replacing the copyrighted information with information that I already knew. I think that since the articles have very little value, I think it would be best if you could please delete them. User:BennyK95 March 18, 2010, 19:39 (UTC)

This is the wrong venue. You need to go to WP:AFD. DRV is used when someone is challenging the results of a deltion discussion and since that is not the case here there is nothing that can be done here.--76.66.189.193 (talk) 02:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. To the extent this is request for G7 deletion I am minded to decline it with regard to Gregorian mass which was reworked by another editor and to revert Mass card back to the redirect it was before User:BennyK95 expanded it. Limb salvage surgery has fairly extensive history before User:BennyK95 added content and can be reverted also. I'll leave this up for a while to see if anyone objects before implementing those changes. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Eluchil404 about Mass card and have redirected the article. Also, I agree regarding Gregorian mass, which has been substantially reworked. However, the Limb salvage surgery was started by BennyK95, and still could be a copyright infringement, and should be tagged as such. PhilKnight (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I used some copyrighted information (without thinking) on Gregorian mass and Limb salvage. Since Limb salvage has no encyclopedic value (if you try looking them up in a search engine there isn't much information regarding it) I believe since this article contains copyrighted information, please delete it or have someone revise it with information from a different source.

With regards to Gregorian Mass: I think since Wikipedia is not a Catholic encyclopedia and some of the information that I tried to make it look better is still copyrighted, maybe delete the article. I could revise Gregorian mass and get permission to use the information on the page. I think for the mean-time I will put an under-construction template so people will come back later when we have decided what to do.User:BennyK95 March 19 16:19 2010 (UTC)

• I've deleted Limb Salvage surgery as Benny was the original author, and he expressed concerns about it being a copyright violation of multiple sources. PhilKnight (talk) 16:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best thing to do with Gregorian mass might be to delete it. If people are looking for information regarding this, I think the best place to look would be on the internet.

- BennyK95 - Talk 17:06 March 19 2010 (UTC)

• Keep Gregorian mass this seems a notable topic and reliable sources are available this version does not appear to include any copyvio text, insofar as I can tell. The article has since that version been redirected, but i think I will revert the redirection and expand with content from other sources. That should also deal with any copyvio issues. DES ^(talk) 16:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• comment Mass card currently redirects to Holy card. If these are in fact the same thing, having a single article would be better, but the info on the Irish controversy (rewritten to avoid copyvio) should probably be merged. DES ^(talk) 16:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gregorian mass does have on line that is considered copyvio. So if I can remove that one line then you can restore it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BennyK95 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:JJAudubon.JPG (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Hi! I am reviewing this image at Commons, where it lacks information about source. It only says "{PD-old} from en wiki John James Audubon" [5]. FTR, deletion log here says

• 23:34, 12 November 2007 Maxim (talk | contribs) deleted "File:JJAudubon.JPG" ‎ (Deleted because "CSD I8 - Image has the same name on Wikimedia Commons".

I don't need to restore the en: page, what I ask for is that you tell me if there were more information on the en: page than there is currently on commons: one, in order to complete the latter.

Thanks for your help. --ArséniureDeGallium (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Upload log on en: would be valuable information. --ArséniureDeGallium (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The image was uploaded by User:Infrogmation on 09:23, November 5, 2002. The info given was portrait of John James Audubon from 19th century book when queried about the source he elaborated Scanned by me from US published 19th century book in my own collection. There is no other relevant info in the history as far as I can tell. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much. --ArséniureDeGallium (talk) 11:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of sovereign-state flags (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

EVERY !vote was based upon WP:ILIKEIT or "Others do it" (but ""commons crashes computers!"" was a cute reason too). WP is not the place for a Pretty Picture Gallery, Commons is. Just because WP can do it, does not mean it should. WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 23:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. A clear, near unanimous, consensus to keep. Just about all the keep !voters were well aware of WP:NOTREPOSITORY and made considered arguments to keep. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Forgive me, "aware of WP:NOTREPOSITORY and made considered arguments" ??? One person said that the caption "Flagg of XXXXX" was enough encyclopedic content, and another said NOTREPOSITORY needed to be rewritten? Not very weighty arguments to keep IMO. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 06:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - The consensus was clear in this case. The nominator made a credible claim based on the image use policy, but a significant number of editors weighed in to disagree based on the strong precedent of encyclopedias having this type of content. Moreover, as to the nominator's argument that the content belongs on Commons, the images themselves are hosted there already. The only policy referenced by those in favor of keeping was WP:IAR, and although it was only referred to by a single editor, there appears to have been strong consensus to keep the article on those grounds alone. IAR specifically exists to allow us to set aside rules when we agree (achieve consensus) that the policies are preventing us from building an encyclopedia, and in this case the gallery of flags very closely mirrors the practice in paper encyclopedias, a fact with which virtually all participating editors agreed.--~TPW 23:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually it would be intresting to have a count of the number of soft redirs to commons and which have the Pretty Pictures all on WP to see how true "virtually all participating editors agreed" is. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 23:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. What is all this "review" business about? As I understand this is simply the most prominent page from Category:Lists of flags - which is just one of many "lists" families we have. All lists help to organize information, and sometimes also provide some additional information about items listed. E.g. List of largest power stations in the world has links to Wikipedia articles about various stations, and also gives their location and capacity info; I suppose one could also add a photo of each station to each entry. A List of premiers of China lists, indeed, premiers, with their term in office dates, and gives a picture, whenever available. Now, the set of all current flags of de facto sovereign states is as natural list as any, and, compared to many other lists, has the advantage of being close-ended (only 200 or so states, and new ones don't appear often). And of course once we have a list like this, the most natural piece of information it ought to contain along with each link is the picture of the flag! Now, I am not saying that the list can't be improved by adding other info (e.g., since what year the flag is in effect, the aspect ratio, etc.), but deciding on what details of info should go into the list is an entirely different business from deciding to delete the list.
  Now, it is true that a list like this should exist on Commons as well (it does). But I think the gallery on commons should be modified so that each link there goes to to the appropriate Category on commons, rather than to an article in English (or any other language's) Wikipedia. Vmenkov (talk) 03:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think a list with some context can help. I remember seeing on the Russian Wikipedia a page where they list the flag ratios for each national flag. We could do that here, along with adding a date of adoption. We should still link to each page here (each article has a Commons cat link). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be acceptable. But this page is not that, and has no intention of becomming that. It is a Gallery, not a List. It has no Encylopedic content. The argument that "Flag of XXXXXX" is encyclopedic content was put forth, but, IMO, does not wash. List of flags of Norway actually does have Prose and links to Articles other than "The Flag of <Insert Country>". A "Gallery of Flags", by its very topic, will never have Prose. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 05:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So the argument is, "since it does not have any prose (beyond the links to flag articles and country articles), it is not a proper list?" While this is logical, and while I fully agree that some additional information on each flag, if concise enough (i.e., not hurting the layout), would be useful, I don't think it's an argument for deletion. First of all, I don't think that lists even have to have some "prose" at each item - there certainly are some that don't (e.g. Index of Eastern Christianity-related articles, List of people from Rome), or have very little (List of Biblical names, List of New Testament stories). Second, what is the most important information one would want to have for each flag in a list of flags? Why, it is of course the appearance of the flag! While is can be described in words, this information is certainly better conveyed by a picture (sometimes pretty, sometimes ugly, sometimes ho-hum - that depends on the flag designers...); so really, in this case - due to the specific nature of the matter being discussed - the pictures (and the "gallery" format) really serve as the information conveyance medium, just as prose would do in most other lists. This is not exceptional either, whenever Wikipedia discusses other visual of "spatial" topics. Besides the flag galleries, images play a core role in lists elsewhere; see e.g., such articles as List of U.S. state fish, List of U.S. state butterflies, List of uniform polyhedra, or list sections in such articles as Uniform polytope, Kepler–Poinsot polyhedron, Platonic solid, Lattice system. I believe that our time is best spent not by train to constrain information into preconceived forms, but by finding most suitable presentation form for each particular topic, or a group of topics. Different types of information call for different presentation formats, and for this particular subject area - international flags, or Flags of the U.S. states - the gallery format appears quite suitable. Vmenkov (talk) 10:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. OP, I understand that you don't like the fact that this article is a Gallery and not a List, but I think it would be more productive to propose renaming the article (perhaps to List of sovereign-state flags or Flags of sovereign states). I think you'd have a good argument for that, since one glance at Category:Lists of flags shows that these articles do need a consistent naming scheme. And perhaps once the name is changed, the editors of the article will be willing to also add text content, to remain consistent with the other Lists of flags. Indeterminate (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I am all for a soft redirect to Commons, seeing as it is already there and this is a duplication of what Commons presents. That was even suggested by the Original AFD Nominator. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 23:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Consensus for retention was rather clear. Alansohn (talk) 04:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse-Even when discounting several of the more questionable keep comments, this would be, at the worst, a no consensus closure, and personally, I don't even think it was that. Consensus to delete definitely does not exist. DRV is not AfD round two.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• How can a consensus built upon ILIKEIT and "others do it" be the right thing to do, when the properly designed infrastructure already exists to host this near exact page elsewhere? Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 23:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Consensus was overwhelming. Wikipedia is governed by consensus in such matters, and unless there are clear indicators that the AFD discussion strayed very far from the general sense of the community, the consensus formed at AFD is controlling over existing policy, guidelines, etc. I see no such indicators here. Ray^Talk 02:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse because 2 people is not a full consensus. Keep had many arguments. 2 transwiki arguments, 0 delete. I concur with closing Admin. Perhaps close here per WP:SNOW? Hamtechperson 17:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Although both the nomination and the DRV are understandable based on WP:NOTREPOSITORY, the "keep" consensus in the AFD was based on a very reasonable comparison to paper encyclopedias. This is an unusual case where the general wording of the WP:NOT policy conflicts with more specific traditions of what is considered encyclopedic content, and the consensus on how to resolve that conflict seems clear. --RL0919 (talk) 06:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure There was an overwhelming consensus, both numerically and in terms of strength of argument, to keep this article. Participants in the discussion were clearly aware of WP:NOTREPOSITORY, but they firmly rejected the argument. This is an instance where strong consensus is established to ignore a policy for the benefit of the encyclopedia. In addition, please note the first of the five pillars, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia," which states: "It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." In this AfD, the community reasonably gave this principle precedence in deciding to keep the article, as described by others above. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse it seems the nomination is more a case of idontlikeit (the result that is) but this is clearly a case of encyclopedic material and if its good enough for a paper encyclopedia its surely good enough for us. I remember looking at the flags and country articles in Britannica at school and letting my imagination run wild. Surely this deserves a place here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of dependent territory flags (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

EVERY !vote was based upon WP:ILIKEIT or "Others do it". WP is not the place for a Pretty Picture Gallery, Commons is. Just because WP can do it, does not mean it should. WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 23:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. A clear, near unanimous, consensus to keep. Just about all the keep !voters were well aware of WP:NOTREPOSITORY and made considered arguments to keep. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Forgive me, "aware of WP:NOTREPOSITORY and made considered arguments" ??? One person said that the caption "Flagg of XXXXX" was enough encyclopedic content, and another said NOTREPOSITORY needed to be rewritten? Not very weighty arguments to keep IMO. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 05:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - The consensus was clear in this case. The nominator made a credible claim based on the image use policy, but a significant number of editors weighed in to disagree based on the strong precedent of encyclopedias having this type of content. Moreover, as to the nominator's argument that the content belongs on Commons, the images themselves are hosted there already. The only policy referenced by those in favor of keeping was WP:IAR, and although it was only referred to by a single editor, there appears to have been strong consensus to keep the article on those grounds alone. IAR specifically exists to allow us to set aside rules when we agree (achieve consensus) that the policies are preventing us from building an encyclopedia, and in this case the gallery of flags very closely mirrors the practice in paper encyclopedias, a fact with which virtually all participating editors agreed.--~TPW 23:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "the strong precedent of encyclopedias having this type of content" ... other encyclopedias do not have Commons. Just as the spirit of WP:NOTPAPER shows us, we are not constraind by the limits of paper or what Other 'pedias do. Just because it can be done does not mean it should be done. Consensus may be clear, but, Consensus can be wrong, esp. when the only basis for that Consensus is WP:IAR ! Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 05:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think my reasons for endorsement were not clear. I don't buy the NOTREPOSITORY argument because the images are actually hosted on Commons. My interpretation of the consensus at the AfD (and that's really all we can discuss here, whether or not consensus was judged properly) is that the IAR was properly used as a policy argument. When the vast majority of editors who participate in the debate feel it is encyclopedic despite other policies, IAR is properly invoked, and since it's policy that makes it the stronger argument. It wasn't that the only basis for consensus was a desire to simply ignore rules; it was that the overwhelming consensus in this debate was to keep the page as a useful part of the encyclopedia. When consensus is backed up by policy, proving it "wrong" is a tough row to hoe.--~TPW 12:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Commons is the place for a Gallery. A consensus of ILIKEIT and "others do it" has no traction to duplicate the same page on WP, when you consider that the proper infrastructure has been set up elsewhere to host a near exact copy of this Gallery. A soft redirect would be perfectly acceptable, as was suggested by the original Nom. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 23:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Consensus for retention was well within the scope of reasonableness. Alansohn (talk) 04:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Reasoning the same as the above DRV discussion. Ray^Talk 02:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure per my reasoning in the above DRV. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse per a stop at willoughby (except I'm referring to my argument above not theirs). Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

St. Anthony's Senior Secondary School Udaipur (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Inappropriate no consensus close. Virtually all of the keep !votes included the astonishing claim that "there must be sources out there somewhere". Since when did "there must be sources" become an appropriate source for anything? Woogee (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing admin - No effort was made to discuss this with me prior to the DRV. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This is true, and if I was supposed to do that, I apologize, but what would the result of that discussion have been? I did notify Juliancolton that I had added this discussion here. Woogee (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As noted in the big, orange box atop the DRV instructions, contacting the closing administrator can often resolve the matter faster.--~TPW 20:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - The essay upon which the keep arguments were all based can be frustrating, because I think it encourages editors not to bother doing the hard work of actually sourcing high school articles. However, 3 out of 5 editors felt confident that this was one of the vast majority of secondary schools which are notable. Two other editors felt that no, there is not enough information in this particular case to demonstrate notability. Since it is most likely that any sources won't be found online, the argument for keep is just as reasonable as the one for delete, and even if you go just by the numbers I don't see how an admin could have closed this as "delete" despite the nominator's instruction to do so.--~TPW 19:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete. After initially thinking "no consensus" was open to be made here, I can't but form the conclusion that none of the keep !votes were consistent with policy (for the reasons articulated by Atama in the debate). They should be discounted for that reason. Additionally, the keep !votes were specifically refuted by Atama. Notability requires verifiable objective evidence, not guesses. That is a core wikipedia guideline. This was not a debate where some keep !voters argued sources were significant or reliable and delete !voters disagreed. This was a clear case where no coverage of the subject was presented at all. This DRV is an appropriate vehicle to re-inforce that (a) high-schools must be held to the same standards of notability as every other article; and (b) notability requires verifiable objective evidence. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, I won't let my views on schools stand in the way of consensus here. While I firmly believe there is no reason to hold schools to any different standard to other organisations, it would have been too much to ask of JulianColton or any closer to discount the keeps on that basis. There is at least an informal consensus of sorts that I know has been used as a precedent in AfDs for a long time. I'd encourage those who believe that schools can be held to a different standard to try to achieve a genuine consensus for that. I firmly disagree with the position, but will oppose that position in AfDs (sensibly of course: most schools are notable, it's just these small exceptions) rather than try to make a point at a DRV. To be honest a "delete" close would have been controversial and I can't genuinely fault the "no consensus". --Mkativerata (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- JulianColton got it exactly right. While the keep arguments weren't strong, there was absolutely no consensus to delete. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse Our guidelines are applied as the community chooses to apply them (N is just a guideline in the first place, & admits all sorts of exceptions) It is consensus that for a secondary school, wp:V is enough, not because there are necessarily sources, but because there are so overwhelmingly likely to be sources that it is not worth arguing about them. Better a few % of non-notable HS among the HS articles, than thousands of discussions over them. ` DGG ( talk ) 19:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where does one find the "consensus that WP:V is enough" for schools? --Mkativerata (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

right here, and at the afd, and all previous secondary school afds for the last 2 years. If all discussions lead to the same decision, there's consensus. DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well in my view community-wide consensus about notability standards can't be achieved by a run of AfDs. If there's genuine community consensus about schools, it needs to be reflected by amendment to WP:ORG. Indeed reading through the talk page there, it appears that attempts to get such consensus have failed. Each AfD should be treated on its merits. Indeed, WP:OUTCOMES, which is often invoked in support of following AfD precedents, itself states "Notability always requires verifiable evidence, and all articles on all subjects are kept or deleted on the basis of their sources". That statement has particular resonance for this AfD, which threw up zero secondary sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse: Close was fully within admin discretion, there was no consensus to delete.--Milowent (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close - other than the nominator not liking the keep arguments, no grounds for overturning have been specified. We only amend a close if it is clearly wrong and that is not the case, here. TerriersFan (talk) 20:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Then we should revise WP:RS to say "Don't bother looking for sources, they're sure to be out there somewhere". Woogee (talk) 06:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "...and it doesn't matter if no-one ever bothers to find them." --Mkativerata (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Clearly within the closer's discretion. In light of the well-established consensus that secondary schools are generally notable, and the clearly established existence of this school, something more than weak sourcing needs to be shown to overcome the presumption of notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Appropriate and correct reading of the state of the discussion. Wikipedia is governed by consensus in such matters, and unless there are clear indicators that the AFD discussion strayed very far from the general sense of the community, the consensus formed at AFD is controlling over existing policy, guidelines, etc. I see no such indicators here. Ray^Talk 02:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I was one of those who favored Keep on the AfD. Wikipedia has a systemic bias toward Western European and North American topics, and toward topics that can be easily researched online. To counter this, where there is evidence that a a subject exists (sources demonstrating this are already cited), that it would be notable if covered in sources (particularly likely for a secondary school), and that it is not controversial, insistence on sources beyond those proving bare existence when such sources are highly likely to exist offline but ate not online should, in my view, by bypassed. In any case the AfD consensus was clear, and what is notable is a matter for case-by-case consensus, WP:N establishes guidelines but says itself that "...it is important to consider not only whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be. Remember that all Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article can be notable if such sources exist even if they have not been added at present." DES ^(talk) 16:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure The closing admin made the right decision here, as no consensus was reached in the discussion. The argument that there is a presumption of notability for high schools is a fairly strong argument; however, problems with WP:V are a major issue and a solid argument for deletion. At this time, it appears that the content of the stub that remains post-AfD is verifiable. Therefore, I believe the actions taken by Juliancolton, Atama, and Terriersfan were the correct ones. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse stupid as it may seem there is a meta agreement that secondary schools are all notable whatever the state of the sourcing. Its utter bollocks of course but its a long standing compromise that ended a wiki civil war so I guess we are stuck with it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse no consensus close; that was the status of the debate. I personally think it should be deleted, but this particular procedure is not where one goes to get that to happen. I think if these people who voted keep on "sourcing may exist" don't find suitable sources in 3-4 months, another nomination would have a higher chance of success. Orderinchaos 11:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Daniel (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There were actually more votes to keep than delete and many improvements were made to the subject so that he was mentioned in more than one independent source which was the reason for nomination and deletion. The closing admin stated "Being mentioned in multiple places is not enough to ensure that someone meets the notability criteria for Wikipedia. The research done persuades me that there is nothing at this time to indicate notability" which is incorrect because the sources clearly demonstrates notability and the arguments of the nominator were comprehensively shown for their weakness as more sources were continually being added to the article. BintAmeen (talk) 06:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Note for transparency I participated in this debate and !voted delete. This was a good close. Consensus is not determined by headcount. The strength of the arguments were overwhelmingly on the delete side, were grounded in policy, and lead to the inevitable conclusion that there was not significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. I read the closing admin's comment about "multiple mentions of the subject" being insufficient as being nothing more than an (entirely correct) reference to the notability guidelines that require significant (as opposed to minor, trivial or incidental) coverage in reliable sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Putting aside the fact that a number of "keep" votes appear to have been lodged by SPAs emerging from Kuwait, this is a perfect example of why consensus finding is not a mechanical vote counting exercise. I think those in favour of deletion correctly interpreted the standards in this case. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment At the request of BintAmeen I have restored the article to their userspace and it can be viewed at User:BintAmeen/Mohammed Daniel. something lame from CBW 07:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment.'Significant coverage' is quite nebulous as there are many articles that make it through an afd that have far less sources and coverage.What Mkativerata would be significant coverage to you? As it definitely is not the same for all admin based on many afds I have seen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BintAmeen (talk • contribs) 08:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I was posting the following while the page was archived and am posting it here perhaps for future reference. I have gone through each reference and have illustrated that in spite of the new references the article's contributors have added nothing has changed. Many of the references were simply deceptive, different pages announcing the same lecture, for example was used as a source four times and is simply not a reference to begin with. There are now three reliable sources two of which describe two of MD's lectures and another presents his views about Niqab. These three are mixed in with dead links, repeated links to the same lecture announcement. Here is a listing of the sources and a brief summary of their contents:

1. http://209.85.135.132/search?q=cache:eXDkeYj2wtYJ:www.islam.gov.kw/thaqafa/news/sections_details.php%3Fcat_id%3D2%26start%3D50%26page%3D6+mohammed+daniel&cd=5&hl=ar&ct=clnk&gl=kw&client=firefox-a Mentions that MD attended a cultural conference with no further mention

1. http://www.muslimleadersoftomorrow.org/about/search_mlts/c2a724520e788b193085c9ac9bd1c9ab This website mentions MD's name as an attendee of conference with no text other the caption underneath the picture

1. http://www.cordobaacademy.com/faculty.html Significant coverage from an unreliable source

1. http://kuwaittimes.net/read_news.php?newsid=NjgzOTc5MzIx An article written by MD about kindness to animals

1. http://kuwaittimes.net/read_news.php?newsid=MTA4ODk2NjcxMQ== An article written by MD

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ch8JB-GXnNI Youtube footage of MD

1. http://www.asmasociety.org/emails/mlt/june_09.html leads to: http://www.asmasociety.org/emails/mlt/images/scan-imam_daniel.jpg which is an interview with Unique Magazine which is no longer online—this ref was entered as a separate one and then labled dead link

1. http://www.chillnite.com/course-the-sublime-character-of-the-prophet-pbuh is a post on a networking site announcing a lecture by MD

1. http://www.arabtimesonline.com/NewsDetails/tabid/96/smid/414/ArticleID/150340/reftab/36/Default.aspx Is yet another announcement for a lecture by MD

1. http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache%3ASlrBcNWVc74J%3Awww.arabtimesonline.com%2FPortals%2F0%2FPDF_Files%2Fpdf09%2Fdec%2F23%2F28.pdf+arab+times+mohammed+daniel&hl=ar&gl=kw&sig=AHIEtbQSQBl95XsEO0_8tfyW5AIJSe3Clw&pli=1 is an announcement for the same lecture as the above

1. http://www.asmasociety.org/emails/mlt/images/scan-imam_daniel.jpg is a dead link as has preceded

1. http://www2.alwatan.com.kw/Default.aspx?MgDid=723048&pageId=473 This is the al-Watan article that mentions MD as having attended a conference

1. http://www.thecedarnetwork.com/?page=fullmembership/ is not found

1. http://www2.alwatan.com.kw/Default.aspx?MgDid=723048&pageId=473 This link was mentioned two links ago—same thing

1. http://www.qatar-conferences.org/dialogue2009/english/English1.pdf This link yielded a malware warning so I did not go past—if someone else is feeling brave...

1. http://www.asmasociety.org/emails/mlt/20100129_jan.html#daniel Has MD's picture and his attendance at a conference

1. http://www.kuwaitagenda.com/en/calendar/view/1075/2.html Is an announcement to the same lecture mentioned twice previously

1. http://jesr.alwatan.com.kw/Default.aspx?MgDid=735332&pageId=163 The fourth announcement for the same lecture

1. http://www2.alwatan.com.kw/Default.aspx?MgDid=774205&pageId=473 Mentioned his views on the niqab during the course of an article

1. http://www2.alwatan.com.kw/Default.aspx?MgDid=667319&pageId=163 Details a lecture given by MD

I think the results of this reference review shows the desperation with which the efforts to keep this article is based upon.--Supertouch (talk) 11:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the close was good, even if I opposed the deletion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow/speedy endorse. Per all the above. Other than Bint Ameen, no other commentator above is of the view that the close should not be endorsed.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. As noted by others, consensus is not a head count. The strength of the arguments were in deletion's favor. --~TPW 19:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Dear esteemed colleagues, as I am the subject of the article (Mohammed Daniel) would it be possible that I request the removal of the article. I do not believe that my lowly-self warrants an encyclopedic entry and am not of those who seek the limelight. I also apologise for any inconvenience or upset caused to you by those who deem me worthy of such.Imam MD (talk) 07:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no Wikipedia article at present, so nothing to delete, and the absence of an article does not diminish the subject. What it means in this case is that few others have written about the topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Good close, within allowed admin discretion. Ray^Talk 02:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure Those arguing to keep the article mostly asserted that the subject was notable without providing verifiable evidence. Therefore, those arguing for deletion had the stronger argument and the closing admin took the correct action. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse someone please put this DRV out of its misery. I think we know where this is going. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]