July 20, 2007 Oakland Earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was deleted by User:Kurykh after an AfD discussion earlier this month. Kurykh made the decision to delete based on his opinion that this is news coverage and therefore doesn't belong, despite its meeting the notability standard. The discussion itself had an ambiguous result. I propose that, since the subject is notable, the article should be restored. Everyking 23:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, well-reasoned closing statement by closing admin. Notability is not incidental, and Wikipedia is not a news source; no arguments to the contrary were raised. As an aside, these sorts of events happen all the time, and there aren't articles on them since they don't have any lasting significance. --Coredesat 01:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article seems to have clearly met the notability standard. While I can't view it now, in the AfD it was mentioned that it had many reliable sources cited and that Google News was listing hundreds of articles about it. There is no argument that circumvents that. Everyking 02:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, there is. WP:NOT#NEWS states that something being in the news for some period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article on it. WP:NOT is policy; policy trumps WP:N. All the news stories used as references in the article say the exact same thing - it happened, and there was very minimal damage. Not to mention that the article was absolutely horrendous and self-contradictory to begin with. --Coredesat 03:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's another example of how BLP-based policies are used to cover other areas of content. What you cite justifies itself by pointing to "the harm our work might cause" and says that "the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately". Of course, it makes no sense whatsoever to apply that to an article on an earthquake. Everyking 04:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion - The effects of this earthquake was "knocking out power to 4,600 homes in Oakland, damaging some stores and snapping at least one gas line." - A thunderstorm is capable of doing such minimal damage. There is just no historic notability to this event. Corpx 03:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Historic notability is not necessary. In the sense of historic as most people understand it, only a small fraction of Wikipedia's content has historical significance. The encyclopedia has been built on a much broader understanding of notability, which is encapsulated in the requirement to have multiple, independent, non-trivial sources. I am just arguing that the same standard should be applied here. Everyking 03:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As Coredesat mentioned, historic notability is required. - "something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article". This sort of article is much more appropriate at wikinews Corpx 05:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • In your estimation, what sort of earthquake, or natural disaster of any kind, is historically notable? I can think of only a few earthquakes I would consider historically notable. What about hurricanes? Most of them drift harmlessly into cool water and dissipate, but our practice (quite rightly, in my opinion) is to have an article on every single one of them. Surely a hurricane that drifts harmlessly away from land is not historically notable? And back to earthquakes: what kind of damage or loss of life do you think needs to occur for historical notability to exist? I mean, if 100 people die, is that enough? 1,000? If a whole city is mostly or entirely destroyed, like Bam, Iran, should the quake have an article (I don't see one for the quake that levelled Bam)? Do a certain number of years, decades, or centuries need to pass so that we can ascertain historical notability? Everyking 05:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • This might be an earthquake, but it didnt cause any more damage than the storm that passed by my place last week. Do we really have articles about tropical storms that did not make landfall? Just like there is a difference between a thunderstorm and a tropical storm, there should be one for earthquakes (although I'm not qualified to say what that # might be) Corpx 07:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, we have many articles on storms that didn't make landfall, and some of them are even featured. But most hurricanes that do make landfall aren't historically notable, either, are they? It's a very poor standard to apply. You shouldn't look at an event and evaluate its notability based on how many people died or how much damage was done; you should evaluate it based on references confirming recognition of the subject and importance attached to it. If it has those multiple, independent, non-trivial sources, then we should keep it: that's the notability standard, and it's the only one that is consistent and reasonable. Everyking 08:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Everything that happens in the news will have significant coverage from independent sources. I dont think that means we should be writing about every story being covered by the press. I dont think an encyclopedia should be the documenter of current events with minimal long term notability Corpx 17:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • It sounds like Wikipedia is the wrong project for you. Click "random article" for a while and be horrified by all the non-historic information you see. Everyking 03:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Start AFD-ing them then :) Corpx 06:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion - where the boundary lies between news reporting and encyclopaedic recording is a matter of judgement but in my view a fair factor is how long the media coverage lasts. In this case, no long term reporting is cited nor are any consequential infrastructure changes. Finally, there was a good majority for deletion. TerriersFan 04:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion Fair closure. Conflates news with encyclopedic notability. Eusebeus 04:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. There may be a line between news and encyclopedic notability, but this isn't anywhere near it. --Calton | Talk 07:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Is the article somewhere on Wikinews? As the subject for a newspaper article, this would probably be appropriate, but I feel that an earthquake in the Bay Area which caused minimal property damage, and no injuries is about as notable as a storm during the monsoon season, and does not have a sufficiently lasting impact to make it notable. Closing rationale was otherwise appropriate. Sorry Everyking, but I think I'll need to endorse this deletion from Wikipedia. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm just going by the notability standard. One thing that would be useful to know is how long this article was. If there wasn't much content, perhaps it could be merged somewhere (probably the ideal solution, since I doubt there's very much to say about it), although I don't know where. Everyking 09:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I recall correctly, we can not transwiki to Wikinews due to license incompatability. This is unfortunate, as many articles that belong on Wikinews are started here. If there is a Wikinews article, it needs to be an independently written article. GRBerry 12:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sjakkalle, there isn't a Wikinews article that I can find. Nevertheless, GRBerry is correct that we cannot transwiki there as Wikinews uses Creative Commons licensing instead of GFDL. Everyking, the content in the Google cached version is about ten sentences referenced to two primary sources (USGS data) and one secondary source, a television station. Still, it wasn't deleted until five days after that snapshot. --Dhartung | Talk 03:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article has been continually speedy deleted without ever having an AfD discussion. She passes the WP:PORNBIO notability criteria by having won a FAME award. Epbr123 18:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Most of the versions appear to be the same, and the only source in any of them is the performer's MySpace. Feel free to write a proper article asserting notability, but there's nothing to undelete I think. Guy (Help!) 20:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There's a point that Epbr123 didn't address - it's salted, on Wikipedia:Protected_titles/March_2007, and he doesn't have the mop, so he can't write the article unless we move it off there. Personally I'm willing to do it, Epbr123 is an experienced editor, and, frankly, has been a noted scourge of pornographic performer articles of questionable notability :-) so this is something like Nixon going to China. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I should also point out that there is a recently created article on Brandy talore. If Brandy Talore gets unsalted, the content can be moved from there. Epbr123 20:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Seems like a good-faith request from somebody who knows what they're doing; I see no pressing need to keep it salted at this time. As JzG mentioned, there's probably nothing much to undelete. At the very least, we could run it through an AfD. I'd say unsalt, with XfD listing optional. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Unsalt for recreation. DRV nom asserts notability so it should be sent to AfD if the rewritten article doesn't address concerns. Eluchil404 23:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore & Move - Not sure why Brandy talore was deleted today, because the FAME award certainly made it pass WP:PORNBIO. Restore Brandy talore and move to Brandy Talore Corpx 07:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It doesn't meet Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, or Wikipedia:Notability, which are a lot more important than the ill-conceived WP:PORNBIO page. —Centrx→talk • 00:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The article meets Wikipedia:Notability as she has received significant coverage in a reliable source that is independent of the subject. This AVN.com article is reliable and independent, and is significant coverage as it mentions her winning a major award. Epbr123 11:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Which is not grounds for a speedy delete, but rather for referral to AfD. Undelete and Move. Evouga 07:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I stand by my deletion of this article. Keep deleted. JDoorjam JDiscourse 15:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Unsalt. Now notable per WP:PORNBIO. Tabercil 16:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rule_34 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

A number of references exist, for example http://kotaku.com/gaming/porn/doa-tomb-raider-interactive-sex-flicks-283675.php and a number of websites dedicated to the term, such as http://rule34.of-the-internet.com/ . It seems to be a long-lasting meme which has occurred in multiple places. I came to wikipedia looking to find an origin of the term.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrjeff (talk • contribs).

• Keep deleted, unless you have more reliable sources than a gaming blog. --Dhartung | Talk 19:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought the existance of a number of websites, even if each is not a completely trustworthy source, which discuss the same "Rule 34", would demonstrate such a term exists, and it's common definition?Mrjeff 22:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no additive property to sources such that two sources deemed half-reliable add up to one that is reliable. Please read WP:RS, a core policy. --Dhartung | Talk 06:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted as above. A quick mention on a blog is not the same thing as a reliable source. Besides, it's been speedied 7 times by different admins going back over a year. If it was restored, it wouldn't last more than a couple minutes at most. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted and protected, no evidence provided of WP:RS that would legitimize allowing the recreation of this much-deleted article. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 4chan as an apparently plausible search term. Protect the redirect if need be. --W.marsh 00:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted and protected either in its current state or as an indefinitely-protected redirect to 4chan (but why?), no evidence of any reliable sources. --Coredesat 01:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not redirect. --Coredesat 19:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Rule 34 is one of the oldest *chan memes, ever. Finding a source for its origin would probably be impossible; let alone a reliable one. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 01:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 4chan, but to be honest it is one of the most prominent internet memes... ugen64 03:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redierct as above, it's better than a redlink. >Radiant< 14:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not redirect. 4chan does not mention this. I don't care whether this is deleted or undeleted. --- RockMFR 15:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. I've yet to find Harry Potter/Anakin Skywalker slash necrophilia mpreg porn, so the rule in itself is a load of bullshit. Will ^(talk) 16:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"It will take magic to extend his light sabre again," he thought, examining the corpse... :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That hurt my brain. Well done. Keep deleted as quite likely unsourceable unless we make *chan boards reliable sources. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Has now rejoined a professional club (Rotherham United) [1] and also had a previous spell as a professional at Derby County. Also players like Andy Liversidge have articles although they have not played in a professional league. Kingjamie 16:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore, the AfD's notability concern is now addressed, as apparently the subject now plays in a fully professional league - but I might be wrong, since the other person, Andy Liversidge, apparently plays in the same club? Either they are both professionals, or neither is. Sandstein 17:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore per nom. Epbr123 19:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twilight War: After the Fall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The deletion of this wiki was due to misunderstanding and old information. Smiling Gator Productions has long since handed production of the game over to General Computers Inc. Although funding was not available a year and a half ago with SGP, GC has since taken up the project and is expected to not only have a closed beta start early August, 2007 (http://www.twilightwar.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=80) but also has an expected release date within 2007. To delete this wiki on the premise that it is a game that will not make it into production is highly illogical and simply incorrect. I would expect that the game wiki would be restored, if you have any doubt as to why you should restore the wiki, please let me know and I will resolve any issues you may have. Thanks. Extra Resources that may help in your research: http://www.twilightwar.com http://www.twilightwarhq.com BackhillAccess 05:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted, valid AFD and the sources provided by the nominator are not independent of the subject, nor do they address the concerns raised in the AFD. --Coredesat 10:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Valid AFD, no real sources, and let's face it: very few "in-production" games need articles: Halo 3, yes. This: no. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I made a note in the AFD that this game was still in production, although it was too late as no further votes were cast. This is a valid close. I wouldn't be against a restore, but the article would most probably have to be improved significantly to withstand another AFD. The game's about to go into beta, give it some time to pick up more players and sources and a recreation should be easy. - hahnchen 17:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore. There's a whole list of games that are in development on wikipedia, even games that won't be out for another year, how do you justify keeping all of those but deleting Twilight War? And the argument that this isn't as big as Halo 3 means it should be deleted is a matter of personal opinion only. There are many games listed that few people care about. Furthermore, if there's a problem with calling it an "XORG" that can be easily fixed by labeling it as a massive multiplayer online roleplaying game. - Daimos, 31 July 2007
• Restore. The article should be restored. Unless there is a policy that states at which point an upcoming game becomes worthy of an article then all these should be deleted too if the Twilight War article remains deleted. The game has been through a patchy time but is now coming to a beta stage, which means people are once again interested in learning about it. --Thinkharder 03:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion When it's released, an article can then be produced. Eusebeus 10:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. By that logic every article on every game that's not released yet should be deleted. I don't see how you can justly isolate one game. --Daimos

File:SacredHeartPioneers.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Was deleted as being an orphaned fair use image, but the image was clearly in use on this edit which was made a full eight days prior to the deletion date and was the current edit at the time of deletion. fuzzy510 03:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of American apartheid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

• Overturn - I question the qualification of ChrisO (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) to take an admin action because of his clearly one-sided activism on the page in question and in related discussions. Also, I don't see how the discussion and the vote at the AFD page warrant the deletion. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. My only edit in the article was a 2-line mention of a book Medical Apartheid. The Dark History of Medical Experimentation on Black Americans From Colonial Times to the Present. Why would this be a less scholarly & notable than, say, Jimmy Carter's opus on Israel/Palestine? For the record, I do support the proposal at Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid#Apartheid and invite others to participate at the discussion there. This would improve the climate at WP, because certain WP users insist on applying political epithets selectively. In particular, ChrisO's POV shines through in Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Apartheid and other related pages. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. - At the closing time, a clear majority of contributors had proposed the deletion of this article. Humus is of course wrong to claim "one-sided activism" given that I've never edited the article in question, nor did I take part in the deletion debate (unlike Humus, who has both edited and !voted). I've never even commented on the article prior to the AfD closure and I've only very rarely edited articles on US politics, which makes claims of "activism" all the more misplaced. The grounds for the decision are straightforward and based on well-understood policies. As I explained in my closing note ([2]), the notability of the subject was not sufficiently established and the article was an unnecessary fork from another article. Several editors, including Humus, made arguments on the lines of "you must keep this article if article X exists" ([3]). As I said in closing, WP:ALLORNOTHING and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are literally canonical examples of arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and should be avoided; to quote that page, "arguments based from side issues ... are not relevant to the issue of whether or not a page on Wikipedia should be deleted". A number of other editors expressed a preference to merge the article but gave no reasons why. To quote WP:AFD, "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." If no arguments are given, the closing admin is given no reasons to justify taking the course of action recommended by an editor. This is not a show of hands; we have to decide on the basis of arguments put forward, so if you don't put any arguments forward, you're not giving us anything to go on. -- ChrisO 23:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. Please, let's not resuscitate this nonsense. CJCurrie 23:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure Consensus was very clear.--Victor falk 23:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure consensus was clear. As a further note, only slightly off topic, it is also about time that we consider "apartheid" in the same vein as "cult" as a WP:WTA, even if a notable someone or lots of notable someones uses the term to describe the event, we don't need to adopt the alleger's words as a title in the article, unless we want to have articles such as this or Allegations that you-know-who is the worst president, Allegations that guess-who is the most overrated celebrity, etc., for which several notable people could be found to have made such accusations. Carlossuarez46 00:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus was not clear. Delete lost versus keeping or merging content. If consensus was clear, we live in different math dimensions. Thanks! --Cerejota 03:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I should point out that "allegations" is also already covered by WP:WTA, though this wasn't a factor in the closure decision. -- ChrisO 00:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, my ears are still ringing. :-) But it's not a vote: the arguments of keeping were weak in the extreme = consensus. Carlossuarez46 19:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. A series of invalid or non-existent arguments does not make a consensus. -- ChrisO 19:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure as properly taken. Further endorse Carlossuarez46's proposal that apartheid should be a taboo word on the order of cult or terrorism and used only in the context of specific attribution. The choice of word is clearly POV and intended to evoke particular images that may have no appropriate analog in context. --Dhartung | Talk 00:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. This was a terrible abuse of process on a couple of levels. First, User:ChrisO has been a highly involved editor in these articles, from the original Apartheid Arbitration case, in which he was admonished, to his more recent activism (e.g. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] ) on the Central apartheid discussion page, to his attempts to get similar articles deleted (e.g. [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] )to his arbitrary re-naming of Apartheid articles [20] and abuse of his admin tools in forcing articles to stay at the names he preferred.[21]. Second, in the actual discussion only 50% of the votes were "Delete". Even if ChrisO were an uninvolved editor (and he clearly is not), his decision was inconsistent with the discussion on the AfD page. Poorly done and abusive all round. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is little more than a paragraph of ad hominem. You of all people should know that AfD is not a vote (so why are you calling it one?) and operates on the basis of policy-based arguments. Policy-based arguments were advanced for deleting the article; many of the "keep" and "merge" recommendations gave no arguments at all. The decision was an objective one, based on a close reading of the debate. I remind you that DRV "should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome", per WP:DRV. -- ChrisO 07:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. Only 50% of the votes were to delete, and he is an involved editor as demonstrated above. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion and consider sanctions on the cliche that created these articles, violating WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND by creating them. When articles are admittedly created by a faction of pro-Israeli editors to antagonize others. This constitutes a user conduct pattern that should lead to blocks. That the battle continued in the AFD is even worse and possibly also sanctionable, ChrisO correctly read the policy based arguments for this discussion and deleted the article. Redirection to Racial segregation in the United States would have been reasonable, but I note that Jayjg wrongly reverted such a redirection with the edit summary of rvv (it was not vandalism), so that would clearly not have been a satisfactory conclusion to the pro-Israel faction. I have also added ((afd-anons)), as the history of discussions involving the pro/ant-Israel factions has been one with far too much canvassing. GRBerry 02:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As has been pointed out, Sefringle's "admission" is meaningless, since he neither created nor edited these articles. You, too, could "admit" that they had been created "to antagonize others", and it would be equally meaningless. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As anyone with a couple minutes to look can find out on their own, Sefringle has been part of the factional battle about these articles. He has many contributions to the centralized discussion and was the nominator for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (6th nomination). When we have a faction that acts as a faction that regularly communicates about how to handle a dispute, I am willing to believe that a member of that faction has adequate evidence for their statements about the reasons for a faction's behavior. GRBerry 02:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You keep going on about a "faction", as if it were something that actually existed. Sefringle is not part of any "faction" as far as I'm aware, he's an independent editor. Please avoid further factually false conspiracy mongering. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is actually a further problem in if I have pasred that that dif correctly it is a comment about how to make things NPOV across a collection of articles, not an attempt to antagonize editors. JoshuaZ 02:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn, close as no consensus In addition to the concerns raised by Jayjg, I note that Chris had not closed an AfD since July 4, almost a full month ago. I'd like to assume good faith here, but given the difs and other details provided by Jayjg as well as this seeming to be a close completely out of the blue, I'm having a lot of trouble assuming good faith here. At minimum, Chris should have realized how bad this would look. I might have closed it the same way given the structure of the discussion(I'm not sure, I would likely have closed it as no consensus if I were closing), but Chris should have realized how bad this would look. Admins must be careful not only to be impartial but to appear impartial and in this case I have trouble seeing Chris as having done either. All of that said, GRBerry makes some good points and I think that both pro and anti Israel editors do need to remember that Wikipedia is not a battleground but a collobrative attempt to build an encyclopedia. Heck, the fact that so many editors feel a need to think of themselves as pro or anti is part of the problem, and it would be helpful if people could do a better job of divorcing their prejudices from their Wikipedia editing. If not, please go edit other articles. JoshuaZ 02:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure This does look bad, as Chris has been involved in the other debates. He should not have closed, knowing how it would look. However, consensus was clearly for deletion in this case, by my estimation; his intention has no bearing on this. What was it that Jayjg said about appeals to motive in AfDs?--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fail to see how pointing out that Chriso was both heavily involved in the "apartheid" dispute and wrongly claimed that "no consensus" was actually a consensus to delete is an "appeal to motive". I haven't talked about his motives at all. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn as no consensus - I think JayJG is being overdramatic and borderline not asumign goof faith, however, the result is obviously no consensus. Delete 11, Keep 5, Keep or Merge 2, Delete or Merge 1, Merge 7.

All said and done, 14 for keeping content in some shape or form, 11 for complete delete, and one I split among the two (delete or merge). Clearly no consensus by any measure.

Not only no consensus but the admin action went against the spirit of the majority opinion (keeping content). How this was deemed a delete remains a puzzle.

Someone really should have thought things over before acting... One would thing that being on the receiving end of the Flaming Keyboard of Wikipedia would be enough deterrent to act sloppy, but apparently it isn't. Thanks! --Cerejota 02:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn per Humus sapiens and Jayjg. This was a clear abuse of administrative powers. Overturning the deletion should be only the first of the repercussions. 6SJ7 02:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please, let's focus on the matter at hand. If you have complaints about Chris, I suggest you take to them to RfC or ArbCom. This discussion is simply a review of the deletion. JoshuaZ 02:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The matter at hand is that the deletion is invalid due to misconduct. I'm not allowed to say so? 6SJ7 03:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now we are going to witchhunt? Please WP:AGF. There is a much more valid and central reason why this was a bad delete, and that is that there was clearly no consensus. As JoshuaZ correctly states, if you think ChrisO acted in bad faith and deserves some sort of punishment, you have places where to state this. Make this about content, not people. For making it about people, WP:DR process, or WP:AN. I think your attitude and that of other editors should be taken into account in such proceedings, but for this DRV, lets focus on content. Thanks!--Cerejota 03:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and censure User:ChrisO for acting way beyond his mandate as self-appointed demigod admin and in spite of a clear conflict of interest. In fact, this should simply be an administrative reversal, as ChrisO appears to have drawn his decision out of thin air. --Leifern 02:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as per Leifenr. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn ChrisO is clearly involved as an editor, so he should not have closed this. Also, the vote was clearly no consensus; the article should not have been deleted. This was improperly handled from start to finish. FeloniousMonk 03:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Given that these "apartheid" articles are involved in interrelated debates, it was very wrong of ChrisO, an active participant, to close this deletion debate. This was an abuse of tools and should not be permitted.--Mantanmoreland 03:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I count this as Merge 6, Keep 8, and Delete 12. Three people favored Merge as a second choice. Remembering that "merge" is a form of keep, not a form of delete, I do not see a consensus to delete here. This should IMO have been closed as "No consensus" although a "Keep" would not have been out of line. Before people yell at me that "this is not a vote" IMO the policy based arguments were equally strong (or weak) on each side, leaving this a judgment call where the numbers do rule, and where I think a "consensus to delete" means rather more than a bare majority, or in this case a 14-12 minority. I do not address the issue of the closer allegedly having been involved in related debates and on this issue generally, but involved closers are a very bad idea indeed, and if it is held that the closer was involved, that can be grounds to overturn and relist if any judgment call by the closer was needed (no reason to overturn say a 12-0 decision clearly in line with policy, even if the closer is not impartial). DES ^(talk) 04:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Yes, that is a good point. I voted to "merge." That meant moving the contents, not deleting them.--Mantanmoreland 14:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, I hardly ever edit this kind of stuff anymore (primarily due to the sort of actions that ChrisO has just taken) but this situation is just ridiculous. I find it hard to believe that so many people above have insisted that there was "consensus", give me a break, do they even know what "consensus" means? Also ChrisO not only has a long history of pov editing with regards to this subject but more troubling, he also has an equally long history of impropriety and the bending and outright breaking of wikipedia policy in order to get what he wants.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure, only 7 out of 28 people said "keep" the article in the original vote so undeleting it would be completly unacceptable and almost all the people who said "keep" made arguments that had nothing to do with the "American apartheid" article - the stated reasons for their votes were about a completely different article. "Allegations of American apartheid" is a ridiculous title and limiting the page only to references that describe modern American segregation as "apartheid" hurt its scope by not allowing the use of sources that talk about modern segregation without using the A word. American apartheid redirected to Racial segregation in the United States all along and that's where any material on modern segregation should be. -- LOTHAR

• So now we ignore those who propose merge or keep or merge? And you either pulled two people out of thin air, or I counted wrong. I saw 26 people making clear comments, 14 of which opposed delete, a clear majority. However, result should have been no consensus because the majority was thin and divided between merge and keep. Delete was the wrong call to make, by any math. Thanks!--Cerejota 06:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If (some of) those who proposed "merge" or "keep or merge" did so without advancing any reasons to do so, or offered invalid arguments such as WP:ALLORNOTHING or WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS then yes, their opinions don't carry any weight - per WP:AFD, "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." Deletion debates operate on the basis of policy-based arguments, not a show of hands. -- ChrisO 07:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We all understand this, however, what is your logic then? Based on the discussion, clearly there is no consensus either, a great number of the deletes meet the criteria for being ignored you set forward here... please provide clarity. I think you really acted in a wrong fashion here, and should revert. Thanks!--Cerejota 07:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, per GRBerry, wikipedia is not a battleground and does not need articles created to belabour a point. Catchpole 08:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and close as no consensus. I have no opinion on the merits of the content, and I did not (as far as I am aware) participate in any of the prior discussions, but – as pointed out by Cerejota above – there is no consensus here to delete the article, taking into account the number of people that would like to have the content kept or merged, and the fact that our closure guideline states that "when in doubt, do not delete". Also, if the closer was in fact involved in a partisan manner in prior discussions, his choice to close this one was a very bad one indeed. Sandstein 08:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak overturn. Given how Wikipedia is indeed a battleground, it is difficult to run a genuinely instructive AfD on any of the articles in the allegations-of-apartheid series. However this time, as usual, the battleground didn't produce a consensus to delete, and I think we should respect that. As for ChrisO's decision to be the closer of this AfD, I have pretty much the same opinion of this action that I did of Jayjg's decision to close the United States military aid to Israel AfD.[22] Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 08:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Having apartheid as a "word to avoid" might be a good idea--Victor falk 12:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)--Victor falk 12:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Closure - Unless someone can point out where the policy is that precludes an admin who is involved in a topic from taking administrative actions in said topic, this sounds like a bunch of sour grapes from those that support the article. Tarc 13:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you note my analysis (and that of several other people here) that the closure did not properly reflect the AfD discussion, regardless of the involvement, if any, of the admin? Did you note that I, at least, have never edited the article or any related article in any way? There is more here than just the cry of "involved admin". That said, the appearance of impartiality is important. If admin A has been passionately arguing for the deletion of "G in popular culture", "H in popular culture", "I in popular culture", "J in popular culture", and "K in popular culture"; it is quite unwise for admin A, at that same time, to close the AfD on "L in popular culture" as delete on an AfD that is far from clear-cut. There are plenty of other admins -- leave it to someone more obviously uninvolved. Policy explicitly forbids closing a debate in which one has commented -- this is a fairly obvious extension. Now i haven't examined the closer's edits in this case, so i have no opinion on how much he was, or was not, involved. But the complaint, if supported by the facts, is IMO legitimate. DES ^(talk) 16:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I did not !vote in the original AfD, but this is waaaayyyy out of process, both in terms of numbers, opinions offered, and, most importantly, because it was done by an admin who is deeply involved--indeed, who is a POV warrior on these subjects. I know this isn't necessarily the place for it, but a desysopping and/or topic ban for ChrisO is well past due. Enough is enough. IronDuke 16:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure - AFD != vote. Too OTHERSTUFFEXISTSy. Will ^(talk) 18:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. Seems like a perfectly reasonable close to me based on the comments in the AfD and by Chris in his close. As noted above, Wikipedia is not a battleground, or a soapbox. Good call. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I really don't understand the problem here. The most common suggestion in the original vote was to "merge with Allegations of apartheid". Looking at that article it looks like that's exactly what has happened so why are the same people who voted for that complaining since they got exactly what they asked for? Lothar of the Hill People 19:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure and a ratcheting-down of rhetoric all around. Will is right: AfD is not a vote, so quoting percentages and parsing merge/keep votes has at best a minor role here. That's why we have admins, rather than bots, close AfD's. On the merits of the AfD itself, Chris' close, while not the one I'd have chosen, is defensible as a reasonable interpretation of policy. The article itself is a POV fork of material which could be, or already is, contained in articles on racism and segregation in the U.S. It consisted mostly of quotes in which people had used the word "apartheid", but failed to establish the independent notability of these allegations as distinct from general writings about racism in the U.S. The AfD is not the place to point out that "other crap exists"; I agree that the entire series of "allegations of apartheid" articles should be scrapped as hopelessly divisive and POV, but the AfD is not the place to make that point, and creating a set of articles to prove that point experimentally (which at least one comment has alluded to) is highly WP:POINTy. ChrisO should not, however, have closed the AfD. Given his involvement in related discussions, he should have allowed a more uninvolved admin the "pleasure" of closing this hornet's nest. I view this as a error of judgement but not a desysopping or burning-at-the-stake offense; I don't think it's abuse per se, but admins, like Caesar's wife, should ideally be above suspicion. MastCell ^Talk 19:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure basically as per MastCell, to prevent this debate from escalating yet further. There are clearly some issues involved which might do with a recess--a long recess; I am very reluctant to delete articles as attracting spam/POV, but this might be an exception--and even with respect to the entire series. Apartheid is a loaded word, and probably best not used as a heading outside the original context. DGG (talk) 20:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure per MastCell and because policy trumps consensus. Unless you are reporting the work of significant and recognized scholars who have written about American apartheid, finding instances of the use of the word "apartheid" by random activists and compiling them into a Wikipedia article constitutes original research. Also agree with MastCell that someone else should have done the close. Thatcher131 20:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure The numbers support the decision, the arguments even more so, as not one Keep vote challenged the policy issues laid out in the nomination.--G-Dett 21:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. Once again, the United States gets special favourable treatment, for all the the obvious reasons. El_C 21:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment El C, the AfD wasn't about the aptness of the allegation but rather its notability. There are literally no sources discussing "allegations of American apartheid." Systemic racism would be another matter.--G-Dett 21:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, no obvious consensus (in policy or not) for deletion. I think Chris made an error of judgement here. Neil ╦ 21:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure - I see nothing problematic with the closing rationale, so no reason to second guess the closer. - Crockspot 21:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure, per MastCell and per Thatcher131. This isn't an article, it's a club being wielded in someone's battleground. --Calton | Talk 21:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. ChrisO should not have done this as he was involved, but I believe the rationale was sound policy. Censure the admin and move on. Cool Hand Luke 21:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn for misreading consensus, aggravated by conflict of interest. Merge or no consensus keep would have been the reasonable outcomes. Evouga 21:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn consensus was very unclear, and also whilst some of the Keep votes aren't convincing, equally some of the Delete votes throw around WP:POINT, WP:SYNTH and WP:POVFORK without really contextualising them. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 22:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Good, well argued close, arguments for deletion well presented by the supporters of deletion, material covered elsewhere. Effectively a POV fork. Some of the keep arguments were poor: 'Keep as for all other articles with similar titles "Allegations of [your favorite country] [your favorite issue]' (that is a direct quote from the afd). Some were had potential: "the article has sourced content from notable and relevant commentators, and has recently been improved, adding even more of these". In his close, Chris takes this into account: "the topic appears to duplicate existing articles (specifically Racial segregation in the United States, which already has a section on apartheid comparisons)." Thus deletion and merge were both possibilities, though due to the neutral point of view and original research problems a merge seemed unlikely to be useful. Well within the scope of administrator discretion. If the proponents of this article want to continue working on the subject, they could do worse than to recreate it as a redirect to Racial segregation in the United States and add neutral, well sourced information to the already-existing section, "Modern segregation and comparisons with apartheid". This does not require an overturn, or even a review. --Tony Sidaway 22:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - while I sympathise with some of the rationales for dealing with the Apartheid entries re: WTA, ChrisO should clearly not have taken administrative action in this case. Even if someone else had done it, there is still no way that 50% delete should be closed as a consensus for deletion. While I respect ChrisO, I would have hoped that he would be more careful with his tools after the last two occurrences of using them in similar, questionable circumstances. Tewfik^Talk 22:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Since WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ALLORNOTHING have been invoked here, I just thought I would point out that these are shortcuts to an essay -- not a policy or guideline. This essay contains advice, suggestions and opinions about what arguments should and shouldn't be used in deletion discussions. I think this essay provides good general advice, but sometimes there are articles that are truly similar and should be treated similarly, and the essay does not prohibit that. That's my opinion, but here is a fact: The "arguments to avoid" essay is not a policy or a guideline. The closing admin's comments above suggest that he disregarded comments that "violated" this essay. That is reason enough for the deletion to be overturned, regardless of anyone's motivation. 6SJ7 22:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you would suggest overturning any closure in which the admin used WP:ATA to help grade the value of comments, because it's only an essay? MastCell ^Talk 23:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not suggesting anything, except what I am actually saying. Actually I think admins should not have as much latitude as they currently do in deciding what comments to count and what not to count. They are all applying their own individual mix of policies, guidelines, essays and their own opinions, and it's pretty close to chaos. But I suspect I'm getting beyond the bounds of this particular DRV.  :) 6SJ7 04:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • 6SJ7's judgment that the "allegations" articles are "truly similar and should be treated similarly" is debatable, but the grounds on which the "American apartheid" article was nominated and deleted were notability and original research issue arising from its total lack of secondary sources. I haven't known anyone to suggest that the Israel article (the referent of the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments) suffered from this problem.--G-Dett 23:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then you should read further back in the talk archives for the Israel article. Both notability and OR problems with that article have been noted in the past. If you haven't seen them much recently it is because people get tired of repeating themselves. At present, notability probably is not much of an issue due to the strategy of Israel-haters to keep repeating this allegation until it becomes something one hears every day -- although I still have never heard of this subject outside Wikipedia and the articles cited in it. As for OR, the Israel article is a huge pile of OR. As far as I know there is one major secondary source, and it really belongs in an article on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not an article on its own. And actually the whole question of "sourcing" an opinion about what something should be called is problematic anyway. It's just one of the reasons I think that none of these articles should exist, but I also think that Israel should not be singled out. 6SJ7 04:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure per Thatcher and Tony Sidaway. The article is not an essay on a coherent topic (as it has to be) but a concordance of various unconnected uses of a phrase, designed to advance a particular view. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping back in to say that Tony's suggestion is rather quite brilliant, assuming the editors in question are interested in adding well-sourced non-POV material that respects Undue Weight, instead of just making a point. Thatcher131 00:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - conflict of interest on the part of ChrisO.--Urthogie 00:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. This is a very touchy/controversial subject, as can be seen by the AfD and this deletion review. Unfortunately, there is no single outcome that will make everyone happy (and this is complicated by the inter-relationship between all the allegations... articles). Being a relatively new admin, and easily intimidated (;p) by large, controversial discussions, I probably would have closed this as no consensus, or possibly closed as merge to keep the sourced content in already existing articles on these topics. But ChrisO seems to have done a careful examination of each and every comment. The arguments for deletion ARE more compelling (and valid in terms of policy) than the arguments for keep. As others have clearly stated, AfD is not a vote. Everyone will agree that an AfD for a non-notable internet meme that gets flooded by first time and anonymous voters (due to say a something awful post) is likely to have those "votes" ignored. While this situation is clearly more complex, ChrisO did weigh the validity of each vote, and came to the reasonable conclusion that the arguments for deletion are superior than the arguments for keeping. It isn't cut and dry, and people's opinion on this vary, as obviously shown from the above. The only other thing is that Jayjg makes a good argument that perhaps ChrisO should have recused from closure (as Jayjg most likely recused himself for similar reasons)-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure - I couldn't find a single policy-based argument to keep the article in the AFD debate. As for the "conflict of interest" - well I would have made the same decision and I've never seen that article before so... ugen64 02:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure per MastCell, Tony Sidaway, and Thatcher, though a merge may also work. None of the keep arguments leveled a single guideline, let alone policy, to support their assertions, while the side for delete uttered enough alphabet soup to feed every child for a day. Perhaps ChrisO should not have closed the discussion, but those who call for his blood should be flayed right beside him if he is so. To Cerejota: vote-counting is about the weakest arguments in DRV, as vote-counting produces a statistic, not a result. —Kurykh 03:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, consensus clearly did not exist. Everyking 06:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Editors who have commented here may be interested to know that another newly-created article, Allegations of Chinese apartheid, has been nominated for deletion - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid. -- ChrisO 08:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Newly created"? It's over two weeks old. Anyway, please don't even imagine that you can close that one. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, (1) AFD is not a vote count, and (2) an encyclopedia deals with facts, not allegations. >Radiant< 14:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Why am I reminded of a certain other AfD and review? Kwsn^(Ni!) 06:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. not that many votes were for deletion, and he is an involved editor. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and Keep. It was weird decision, no grounds to delete this article and no consencus unless all allegation apartheid articles are deleted obviously. Amoruso 11:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn While I have input on keeping or not, it is clear the closing admin should not have been one involved in the debate. This should have been also clear to the admin as an obvious COI issue. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Any admin off the street would have closed it the same... well, maybe not ANY admin, but most would. - Crockspot 20:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I count at least 6 current administrators, and at least 5 experienced editors who are not admins, commenting above, who wanted the decision overturned, at least in part because they said that the AfD consensus did not support the decision, and who either said or very clearly implied that they would have closed differently. Given the total number of editors commenting here that is not an insignificant fraction. If this group is at all representative, it is incorrect to say that "most" admins would have closed it as ChrisO did. DES ^(talk) 21:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn if only because this decision is automatically called into question by being closed by an involved admin. That sort of thing just makes folks suspicious and increases the conflict. FrozenPurpleCube 02:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - I agree that the AfD looks more like a No consensus than a Delete, but the Delete !voters had a much stronger argument; we don't need anything with a WP:POVFORKish title such as "Allegations of American apartheid". Any relevant content can be covered under racial segregation in the United States. Walton^One 14:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure. It's just a bad article written by a very bad bunch of contributors. The consensus was to delete it. I just hope that it would be the same for Allegations of French apartheid which is much less notorious than Allegations of American apartheid. Unfortunately, French are not much powerful on this wikipedia and apparently deserve to be treated worse than Americans. Sad. Poppypetty 22:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Nothing but original research. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure/deletion per Walton, ugen64, Crockpoint, among others. It's unfortunate that the nominator chose to make a bad faith accusation against ChrisO as the basis for this deletion review, rather than focusing on the content of the AfD in detail. I suspect that is because the content of the AfD discussion, as others have pointed here, fails to provide compelling, policy-based rationales for the retention of this article. It is easier to shoot the messenger, than examine the message. (Since it was raised however, I should mention that as someone who regularly edits on articles related to Palestine, Israel, etc., whose encountered ChrisO from time to time, I have to say that he has differed with me on proposed edits and views at least as often as he has with those of my supposed "adversaries". While I'm sure he has a POV - as we all do, even those not directly involved in these kinds of debates - it's not clearly "for" one side or the other and I don't think he had to recuse himself from this closure. He does not edit the apartheid series, and while he has contributed to the discussions at the centralized discussion page to move towards finding solution, that shouldn't disqualify him from rendering an opinion on an AfD outcome here.) Tiamat 11:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I nominate to undelete because it's more than a temporary come-and-go-again "meme," which was the reason it was deleted. I recently saw a TV documentary about it, even though this event happened years ago.  Chantessy  12:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reluctant endorse. I don't like the BLP rationale used by the delete side (and "not convicted?" neither was OJ) and would have been happy had this been decided the other way. Unfortunately, the result is not a violation of the discussion's consensus. Also, unless you can be more specific about what documentary you saw, we can't know if you saw a new documentary or a rerun. --Groggy Dice T | C 13:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suburban Secrets, 2007.  Chantessy  13:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• endorse per identical logic to that of Groggy Dice. If on the other hand sources can be produced indicating that the case was either discussed well after the matter was over or that the case had some form of long-term effects(say a new law passing or a substantial alteration to police procedures), then we will have grounds for overturning. JoshuaZ 14:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never done an undelete before, so what are you guys "endorsing" here?  Chantessy  17:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When someone says "endorse" they are endorsing the last decision made - in this case the decision to delete. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 17:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion per valid AfD. A common crime with one unusual feature--that the accused had a LiveJournal. At this point, seems unlikely to remain a part of either criminal history or internet history. While the fact that she wasn't convicted is not in itself compelling reason to delete this, it does add weight to the already-solid reasoning against this having its own article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist Deleted against policy. There were many more unusual features, as a start, it was hardly a "common" crime: she was accused of killing her mother. Unreasonable following of consensus as opposed to policy is a reason to overturn. DGG (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it's normal to follow consensus instead of policy, that's one of our most basic foundations (see Wikipedia:Five pillars). Besides, no policy states we *must* have an article on this anyway: murdering a family member is unfortunatly not all that rare, and in any case she was aquitted even of that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • the argument is often made the other way, as in the afd just above. Interestingly, it's almost always used as a reason to keep something deleted. but actually the relationship between consensus and policy should be that the closer is supposed to take into account the consensus of the best arguments. deWP is said to go by a poll--we do not. The closer is supposed to know enough policy to determine which arguments are policy based and which are not.

No policy states we *must* have an article on anything. There are very few matricides and parricides, and I'd argue they were always notable. The press response was based on the accusation, so it made her notable, and she doesn't lose it by what happens after that. DGG (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn there was really no consensus either way in the AFD... closer just based his close on a rather extreme interpretation of BLP, which I don't feel was called for. --W.marsh 00:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. If we count votes, which we don't, there was just enough to show a 2:1 preponderance in favor of deletion, so the closure was in line with nominal consensus. If we count arguments, there was more consistency of argument among the delete voters, so the closure was in line with strength of argument consensus as well. --Dhartung | Talk 00:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion Nobody brought up any points to say why this had "historic notability" per WP:NOT Corpx 02:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Routine biographies of living persons deletion. Nothing more to say. You want this shit on Wikipedia? Get a conviction! --Tony Sidaway 22:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or have her make a few edits to Wikipedia, because apparently that warrants an article. --W.marsh 15:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion Happy to agree with tony. Eusebeus 04:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, notable. Everyking 06:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, valid closure of AFD with BLP concerns in mind. --Coredesat 06:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak endorse. This is a good example of where the proposed guideline WP:HARM might come into play; WP:BLP, as it stands, is too vague in relation to cases like this, so it isn't clear exactly where we stand with policy. If the subject of the article had been convicted, there would be no valid BLP reason for deleting; however, an article on someone who is notable solely for a crime for which they were not convicted has the potential to become an unbalanced pseudo biography that may be very harmful to a person's life, even if properly sourced. Nonetheless, as WP:HARM and WP:PSEUDO are not currently policy, I can appreciate that there is no overriding policy-based argument for deletion. Walton^One 16:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think HARM would come into play. From the links, it is quite evident that the subject of the article wants the publicity for her case. DGG (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sufficient notability evidence exists (print articles) although was not cited in article. Speedy page deletion appears not to have been proposed by admin, so deletion review should be first port of call. Flumpaphone 11:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to nominator I don't quite understand your reasoning. The admin may not have proposed speedy deletion, but he carreid it out, and thereby approved it. The usual procedure is to attempt discussion with the deleting admin first -- it appears you didn't even notify the deleting admin. I have done so. I might add that I have found the particular deleting admin in this case to be receptive to discussing and reconsidering deletion decisions, although I have disagreed with him in at least some instances. DES ^(talk) 15:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mistake on my part - confused nominator with admin. Thanks for the correction. - Flumpaphone

• Overturn and list -- Speedy delete WP:CSD#A7 importance or significance of Moonpod established with the statement in the article that, "Their first release, Starscape, won the coveted Game Tunnel 'Independent Game of the Year' award 2003." The Moonpod article has been around since 18 February 2006. AfD might be a better option. I don't think it should survive AfD's since the topic's lack of independent reliable sources makes it not notable. The only thing I could find on Moonpod (company) was Nava, Ahmed Kamal. (April 21, 2003) New Straits Times. Escape from alien's world. Page 21. (discussing Moonpod's game Starscape). There is something called Neff's Moonpods (2002), which I believe is artwork. The hallucinogenic/lethal seeds of the night-blooming moonflower are called "moonpods." In any event, the article should be given a five day review at AfD. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 12:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Have partly maintained this article so have some vested interest. However believe should have time to respond to the 'significance' and 'notability' requirements with evidence that needs adding to the article before a permanent delete decision is reached. There is plenty of circumstantial (though outside WP notability guidelines) evidence available by googling 'Moonpod' and the general fact of the number of indie games companies on WP (reason which prompted article creation) - unless of course they are considered for deletion based on notability. Though there are plenty of 'hard copy' articles that fit wikipedia's guidlelines: Edge Magazine quoting company founder Mark Featherstone (sorry, cannot find issue yet), Mr. Robot featuring in PC Format 2007 awards. (relatively) high scores (8-9) of Moonpod's games in print publications. - Flumpaphone
• Overturn As Jreferee says, the award mention alone was clearly an assertion of significance sufficient that an A7 speedy deelte was improper. What might happen at an AfD and how the article might be edited during an AfD is hard to predict, and DRV shouldn't try. I don't understand why an admin speedy deleted this in this state. DES ^(talk) 15:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I will restore it, although the editor who brought it here never even bothered to notify me, so these further sources can be added, but (a) the "award" is a red-link (not apparently notable enough), and (b) how this meets WP:CORP was and is not discussed, such as ghits etc. of non WP:RSes, but this can happen at Afd just as easily. Carlossuarez46 19:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no idea if this awared is truly notable or not, but I cautuion that it is risky to asume that anything that is a redslink is therefore established to be non-notable. Lots of notable topics we haven't gotten to yet. DES ^(talk) 20:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed, but the awarding organization is red-linked, so an award from an unknown and not obvious bestower is hardly an assertion of notability. Carlossuarez46 00:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • My view ia that for A7 purposes, assertions must be accepted unless obviously or provably false or absurd. An assertion that might plausibly be true, and might persuade some reasonable editors on an AfD that it contributed measurably to notability, should IMO be enough to stop an A7. Or to put it another way, would you bet 1000-1 cash agaisnt notability being established via or partly via the claim? if not, don't speedy. Now not everyone will use exactly that standard, but the CSD text says "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject" It says nothign about how strong that assertion must be, nor about passing any of the various notability guidelines. And this is not an accident, but a record of a policy choice made via consensus. DES ^(talk) 04:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The assertion of having won a non-notable award is not an assertion of notability. Otherwise, you wouldn't speedy a bio where the sole claim to notability is on the order of: "He's way cool, he's won an award for coolness", "She's a cheerleader voted most likely to succeed", "He's the elected patrol leader in his scout troop", "She was selected as scholar of the week by the local newspaper", "She won a red ribbon for her pie at the county fair", or a company article consisting of "It makes widgets, it's important, it's notable, it's won awards". Taking all those to Afd would but an unnecessary burden on that system (where there are routinely over 100 articles per day). Carlossuarez46 19:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Who deermined that thsi award is "non-notable"? That is not somethign for a single admin to decide. This is not comperable to "He's way cool, he's won an award for coolness" it at least purports to be a significant award from a significnt source. Whehter those claims are valid is for an AfD, not speedy deletion. Any reasonably plausible claim should defeat an A7.DES ^(talk) 21:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • A7 requires an assertion of notability, saying you've won an award where there is no assertion that winning such an award makes one notable is not an assertion of notability. I disagree with "any reasonable plausible claim" defeats A7, unless the claim is of "notability" rather than winning some unknown award, like winning a red ribbon at the fair or winning some local popularity contest. The proponent of the article must assert the notability of the subject; failure to do so is A7 unless you want to remove all speedies and take thousands of more articles to Afd. Carlossuarez46 21:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • We do not make article writers jump through hoops by saying things like "X won the NOTASBLE award Y" or "X is notable because Z". Note that actually, A7 demands a claim of "significance or importance". This is often treated as just another word for notability, but I think there is a subtle difference. In any case, winning an award is generally an indication of importance, unless the award is trivial (such as "coolest kid on the block") If an award is obviously trivial, than an admin wiill rightly disregard it, but if there might be a doubt whether it is significant or not, then use prod or afd, not an A7. Simialrly, there are many things that are generally an indication of notability, but do not always establish notability. A statement in the article that the subject has done one of thsoe things, unless blatently flase or obviously trivial, should be trated as an assertion of significance or importance, and thus bar an A7. Look at the number of experienced editors who have commetned in this reveiw, and the trend of their comments. Perhaps you are a bit out of step here? That said, the article was/is soemwhat marginal, and I can understand whyu it might be mis-read as an A7. But I really don't think that similar articles should be hit with A7s in future. DES ^(talk) 22:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I nominated Moonpod for Speedy on the grounds that it was not notable. I did not nominate Starscape. Starscape won an award, Moodpod didn't. Starscape is barely notable because it won an award from a website that is somewhat notable (as they now publish a magazine). I would also put out that it is possibly a terrible WP:CoI for Flumpaphone to edit these pages as they appear (judging solely by edit history) to be an employee of Moonpod, or a very narrow-minded fan (please look carefully at Special:Contributions/Flumpaphone). Just because the game is notable does not mean that the publisher is, nor the creators, nor the other unreleased games there are now external links to (please see Wikipedia:Spam#External_link_spamming). If the game is not notable enough to create a page for, it is not notable enough to link to directly. But no matter what, the article gives no assertions to Moonpod's notability. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A completely fair point - I'm not an employee, but I am a fan of indie gaming in general and have pretty much made this and a few other articles the ones I try to maintain. I am more than open to their deletion given a sufficient explanation, but given that happening, there are a lot of indie games companies on WP that should be reviewed. This issue has come up several times with most of the indie games companies and I have been somewhat confused as to why the guidelines are not met. Please see the discussion Talk:Moonpod and let me know if these sources are metting the criteria. More detailed info (rather than a point to the guidlines which I have read several times) here would be greatly appreciated.
• Overturn. I strongly agree with David Siegel. "Does not assert the importance or significance of its subject" means "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." It does not mean "does not establish the importance or significance of its subject to a sysop's satisfaction."
  Indeed, the assumption that a red-linked subject is non-notable is the assumption that every notable subject in the world has an English Wikipedia article. (Of course, non-notability isn't a speedy deletion criterion, specifically because such a determination is so subjective.) —David Levy 06:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list: clearly there was an assertion of notability, so WP:CSD#A7 should not have been used. Whether that assertion was valid and sufficient is not really the question here; it is something should be addressed at AfD. Nor do I think this is a clear-cut enough case to justify ignoring the rules and deleting or keeping; I think it's borderline enough that AfD is the best choice. The right choice. Xtifr _tälk 13:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Remand to AfD. Any assertion of notability, even one considered by a particular admin to be questionable or spurious, is enough to disqualify an article from CSD A7. Notability is for community consensus, not one admin, to decide. Evouga 22:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn any claim to notability is enough. If it is thought to be inadequate, it needs to be discussed. An individual admin has no authority to decide if an award is notable, only the community does that. DGG (talk) 20:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then we should remove all speedy deletion criteria involving notability - because if someone bestows a "coolest" award, or a university degree, the community and no individual gets to say that's insufficient ground of notability. So all college graduates, high school graduates, driving school graduates are Afd delete only because those are awards whose notability hasn't been passed upon by anyone? It's an interesting notion that should be discussed at the CSD talk page. Carlossuarez46 23:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Either you are seriously misunderstanding what I, and the people who agree with me mean here, or you are perversely pretending to misunderstand. (I trust it is the former.) You are making a strawman argument. This has been discussed a good many times on WT:CSD, and while there is never total agreement, I think there is a good working consensus. Look through the archives. FYI, WP:CSD#A7 is the only CSD "involving notability" in any way. A7 is mostly intended for lame attempts at articles that either make no attempts at suggesting significance "Joe is an accountant" or make a claim that is obviously trivial "Carol is the cutest girl in my class" or blatantly false or implausible "Fred Jones was elected King of the World last Thursday." Statements that no reasonable editor could consider to indicate notability are not "assertions of importance": for example "Marcia Smith has a bachelor's degree". We know what a Bachelors degree is, and that it doesn't indicate notability. However, consider "Marcia Smith won a Vandenberg award from the Ebeneezer Foundation." We don't know what a Vandenberg is, it may be utterly trivial, it may be highly notable. So we don't guess, this isn't a speedy situation. or consider "Rocker X's album was produced by Grammy-winning producer Y" Y is clearly notable. Does Y's involvement make the album, and hence X, notable? Reasonable editors might differ over this, so it isn't a speedy. To put it another way "If there is any plausible way that a reasonable editor would consider that a statement establishes or significantly helps establish notability it is a claim of significance or importance barring A7, even if many other reasonable editors would disagree." DES ^(talk) 04:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Straight pride shirt.JPG (edit | [[Talk:Image:Straight pride shirt.JPG|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I uploaded an image and provided source, licensing information, and detailed fair use rationale. The reasons given for immediate deletion of the image were AP photos are blatant copyvio and AP photos are not fair-use. The article in which the image was used now is at AfD and the admin who deleted the image has participated significantly in that AfD. I do not believe that immediate deletion of the image was appropriate, particularly in view of the detailed fair use rationale provided for the image's use. I would like a review of this matter. Since the image may affect the AfD, I ask for a speedy restoration of the image while this DRV is going on if that is an appropriate action. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 11:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion and deny temp. restoration. While it isn't necessarily true that AP photos are always copyright violations, this photo should extremely easy to replace. Buy one of the t-shirts and take a picture of it. Of course, the photo of the student is less easy to replicate, but that is not the primary focus of the fair use claim for the deleted image. By focusing the fair use rationale primarily on a t-shirt, an inanimate object easily photographed, the up-loader made a mistake. The fact that the article is headed for deletion -- for reasons of sourcing, not lack of image -- doesn't help the request. Xoloz 13:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Although your !Vote does not support overturning the deletion, your reasoning supports my request that the fair use claim for the deleted image should be reviewed at IfD, not speedy deletion. Since the image is delete, it does not allow editors to verify your statement that the fair use rationale focused primarily on a t-shirt, which would not be a basis for speedy deletion even if true. The argument that a photo of the specific T-shirt and person wearing the T-shirt who both were the subject of the Federal lawsuit taken seven years ago at a time when the Federal law suit was ongoing is a replaceable image at seven years after the event is something that should be addressed at IfD, not through speedy deletion. Also, the deletion of the Straight pride article after a three day AfD and a one day review of the significant sourced changes to that article should not play into whether it was correct to speedy delete the image, especially since there are hundreds of reliable source material from which to develop the Straight pride article. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 20:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You have a point regarding the "straight pride" article -- you should definitely consider a DRV nomination for it. However, at this point, I don't see much of argument for restoring the image to satisfy process requirements. Any IfD on this image that begins within the next five days would be distracted by the question of whether the parent article should exist. Contrary to your final assertion, I see no reasonable encyclopedic use for this image outside of the "straight pride" context. The image's utility to WP depends on the article's existence. Xoloz 22:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse deletion per Xoloz. JoshuaZ 14:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. We absolutely should not be using agency photos. The agencies issue them under strict licensing conditions and have been heavily fining websites which use their images without permission. Not only is it a copyvio to upload such pictures here, it's an exceptionally risky copyvio for us. -- ChrisO 22:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:FU#Examples of unacceptable use #5 calls out AP photos that aren't themselves article subjects as something that we Should Not Be Doing. I'm fairly sure it would be a speedy deletion criterion if it weren't for the possibility of occasional exceptions, and I don't see the harm of immediately deleting something that represents a significant legal risk. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Textbook case. Maybe speedy wasn't the "proper" way to do it, but there's no way this would have survived IFD. howcheng {chat} 21:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Was deleted as a cross-namespace redirect. However, it contained early discussions of Wikipedia's policies, and Wikipedia:Ignore all rules linked to a version of it before it was deleted. I'd like to suggest it be restored and moved to the Wikipedia: namespace. Father Goose 21:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to restore and merge the history to Wikipedia:Rules to consider (now a redirect). The first version in that page's history was a move from this title, which somehow missed the oldest bits of the edit history. Xoloz 01:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finished. I won't close this DRV just yet. Although I believe I've done the best thing, there might be other suggestions out there. Xoloz 01:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Apologies to Father Goose, I did mean to get back around to dealing with this and it totally slipped my mind. Endorse Xoloz's solution - thanks. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I restored what appears to be the last version before it was abandoned and slapped a ((historical)) tag on it. I discovered a complicating factor, however: a similar page at Rules to consider. I can't tell if that page contains content not found in the history of the now-relocated Wikipedia:Rules to consider -- they're similar, but it looks like they forked at some point (take a look at the talk pages). I propose moving Wikipedia:Rules to consider over to Wikipedia:RulesToConsider, Rules to consider to Wikipedia:Rules to consider, and letting Wikihistorians sort out what the difference was between the two.--Father Goose 02:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy, is this complicated! :) First, remember that we don't have the full edit histories at any of these locations; edits from 2001-02 are only sporadically preserved, after previous database dumps, before Wikipedia became what it is today. Second, I'm afraid Father Goose's proposal won't work, because I've already merged "Rulestoconsider" to "Wikipedia:Rules to Consider" -- separating out those edit histories would be difficult, imprecise, and not fairly reflect the creation of the latter page. Thirdly, I'm unsure whether these pages should be left with content openly marketed historical, or redirected to "Policies and guidelines", as they have been for the last five years. "Policies and guidelines" began as "Rules to consider", so the redirect preserves a lineage, and helps keep any newbies from being confused. "Rules to consider" (without the "Wikipedia:" prefix) does need to be deleted, per CSD R2, so its content must be moved somewhere, but that is the only thing I know for certain. Xoloz 14:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we can't unmerge the histories, but I don't think that's a huge problem. I'd still move the merged histories over like I proposed, put a historical tag on each of w:r t c and w:RTC, plus a note that they have been superceded by WP:POL, and add a note to each about there being another fork of indeterminate origin. Oh, and also note what pages they were originally located at. That's about as transparent an approach as I can come up with. Maybe someone who knows the origins of each page can then lace them together better, or at least explain the divergence.

I'd do it myself, but I couldn't move Rules to consider over the redirect that would be formed by moving Wikipedia:Rules to consider. I'll do the rest, though, if you agree to it.--Father Goose 17:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There's Wikipedia:Archive which may be a good place to put any content which would otherwise be lost. --ais523 18:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

That's not a bad solution: Wikipedia:Archive/RulesToConsider and Wikipedia:Archive/Rules to consider, with the same tags and notes as above. I'll move them there in two days if no one objects.--Father Goose 19:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, done. The redirects that remain at Rules to consider and its talk page should be deleted.--Father Goose 06:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

At present there are at least 7 different Latin alphabets used by Tatars. IQTElif is one of them. The various alphabets are (there is only a difference of a few letters between most of them):

1. Janalif (there was also pre-Janalif, used for a few years)

2. Yanalif-2

3. Yanalif-3

4. IQTElif

5. Zamanalif

6. Inalif

7. Inalif-2

8. There is also another variant, which may or may not have a name.

9. People also frequently use mish-mash writing that has no system whatsoever.

Tatar alphabet has been abused for more than a century: in the interests of weakening the language it was forced thru real Arabic, made up Arabic, pre-Janalif, Janalif, and Cyrillic in the first half of 20th century. And switch to Latin alphabet has been forbidden for purely political, not linguistic reasons, which is all the more evident because it was done in Moscow.

Different people use different alphabets, and most of them don't mark the alphabet used. Each alphabet's name is irrelevant for individual users. IQTElif has only a couple of letters different from others. Some examples of such orthography are below:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tatar-l/message/10044

http://www.kultur.gov.tr/gaspirali/default.asp?lehce_ID=7&strDil=English transliterates Tatar Cyrillic to Tatar Latin.

http://www.kultur.gov.tr/tr/dosyagoster.aspx?dil=1&belgeanah=109902&dosyaisim=emirhaneniki.pdf

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/5295

Additions:

http://aton.ttu.edu/kirim_lyrics_tugtil.asp http://www.tatar.ro/articole/tukay_ve_tatarlik.php http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYv-4Xt9yN8 http://www.tatar.ro/video.php?video=KAZAN_TATAR_TURK_ALTINORDU_Abdullah_Tukay_Nogai_Bashkird&id=20 http://akidil.net/tatar/tatarsongs.htm http://www.turkfolkloru.com/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=75 http://www.tuqay.narod.ru/AbdullahTukay.pdf http://mtad.humanity.ankara.edu.tr/II-3_Eylul2005/oz2-32005/2-3oz_41fkilic.html http://ekitap.kulturturizm.gov.tr/dosyagoster.aspx?DIL=1&BELGEANAH=109902&DOSYAISIM=RavilFeyzullin.pdf http://www45.brinkster.com/karachaymalkar/tatarturklerininbuyuksairiabdullahtukay.htm

I'm also listing the references from the article:

Zaman Talebí. Şehri Qazan, 04/06/1994.

Tatarstan Republic Law No. 2352 of 09/15/99

Tahsin Banguğolu. Türkçenin Grameri. Türk Dil Kurumu. ISBN 975160268-8. (The Tatar vowels cube is inspired by a reference to a similar cube for Turkish language used by a famous European Turkologist, Jean Deny, and presented in this book as Deny'nin Kübü, i.e. Deny's Cube (e.g., see pages 36-37 in 3rd edition); Vowel represented by Ee is presented in this book at the intersection of the front and wide (open) edges (and é is also shown on the front edge itself), but is shown in Tatar vowels cube somewhat lower based on the IPA). The book also mentions that vowel represented by é is found in Old and Middle (time-wise) Turkish (Turkic), and is still encountered in the first syllable of some words in some Anatolian dialects, although it is not a part of the alphabet.)

If Zamanalif has a right to be on wikipedia, so does IQTElif. It is very sad to see Wikipedia acting as a censorship tool serving policies like Putin's prohibition of Latin alphabet.

Any attempt to delete this content on such an obviously disputed subject from wikipedia is politically motivated, is not in the spirit of wikipedia and is a disservice to Tatars and humanity. If this content is deleted, one could question a lot of other content attributed to Tatar language. What all this could lead to is a Cyrillic environment, which definintely doesn't represent use of Tatar language online.

There is no rationale for deleting this content. At best, it could be listed as debated, which i would agree with, given 7 alphabets in use.

This deletism is unsubstantiated. Ultranet 19:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Discussed and deleted at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/İQTElif, which was closed with a weak consensus to delete. If you'd like to challenge the closure here, that's fine, but DRV is not a second deletion discussion. Zetawoof_(ζ) 20:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I edited Afd section, but it was overwritten. How to i dispute this deletism? Some people know how to work the system. I'm lost about the discussion process. Wikipedia has not right to favor any of the at least 7 Latin alphabet versions, at a time when this debate still goes on, and a time when there is clear political interference into the process, and demonstrated by laws coming out of Moscow. --Ultranet 20:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure. This page is only for discussing procedural flaws, not to reiterate arguments for or against deletion. I can see no procedural flaws here. Sandstein 20:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered the questions raised in the discussion. Therefore, the deletion is unsubstantiated. If DRV is the wrong procedure to follow, what should be done to dispute this deletism? And how's wikipedia's pre-judging of a contested subject among Tatars not a procedural flaw?--Ultranet 20:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ultranet deserves fair treatment. Someone, please help Ultranet to discuss it properly according to Wikipedia policies. I am not too familiar with the intricacies of the procedure. Thanks in advance. --Amir E. Aharoni 20:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first step would be to stop and retract all prior frivolous accusations of bad faith and censorship, and to stop framing this debate as one regarding the nuances of the Tatar alphabet(s) and instead one that discusses whether the deletion was proper, with proper citations of deletion policy. --Kurykh 23:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Violations section below.--Ultranet 04:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. I proposed the original AfD. I believe that Ultranet has knowledge about the Tatar language and that he has good ideas about reform in the Tatar alphabet, but i have not seen any proof that İQTElif is not Ultranet's original research. As for Zamanalif - it has its place on Wikipedia, because people actually use it. For example, as far as i know, the Tatar Wikipedia and Tatar RFE/RL both use Zamanalif (but please correct me if i'm wrong.) --Amir E. Aharoni 20:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete. How can you be talking about original research. People used and use this orthography. All i did is put an article about it on wikipedia.

Tatar Wikipedia Somebody has started this project, and they chose to use Zamanalif. So if they chose to use IQTElif that would've been different? Is this is a time competition then?

Tatar RFE/RL uses what could be called Yanalif-3, not Zamanalif.--Ultranet 20:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time competition? Well, yes - something like that. If there is anyone that started a notable project and chose İQTElif, then there should be an article about it in Wikipedia, but is there such a project?

You can't list ultranet.tv as such a project, because it doesn't satisfy the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (web).

(I'm sorry if it's the wrong place for this discussion. If anyone can propose a better place for it, please tell us.) --Amir E. Aharoni 20:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not listing any single source as the project or the reference. I've given multiple examples. The argument on time competition is ludicrous: Tatar Wikipedia was started by somebody who made a judgment call on which alphabet to use. That does not give that chosen alphabet any advantage. Orthography represented by IQTElif was and is in use, and wikipedia needs to reflect that. If it doesn't, it would be a political stance on a disputed subject: read, censorship.--Ultranet 21:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Yahoo groups link and the Firefox link are related to you, so you can't give them as examples. And i can't understand the examples in Turkish. I'll appreciate if you could explain them.

Please stop misleading people: i've already mentioned in prior deleted discussions that you replied to that yahoo groups post is by Mr. Devlet, and not by me. One of the other links is an example of a story published in that orthography. Another one transliterates Tatar from Cyrillic to Latin. --Ultranet 22:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the groups.yahoo.com link the posting is written by Mr Devlet, but you replied to him. Can you show an example of usage which doesn't involve you?

You have got to be kidding me. The poster is Mr. Devlet, and it doesn't matter who replied to his post. Anyway, i added about 10 more above under Additions:. --Ultranet 04:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The transliteration link is quite suspicious too. For example, it calls the Turkmen spelling, which is standard in Turkmenistan "special spelling". (I am referring to the spelling which uses ý for Cyrillic й.)

I don't care what one calls an alphabet. What matters is that it's used.--Ultranet 04:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link which is hardest for me to contest is emirhaneniki.pdf. I understand that it is a an example of Tatar writing with translation to Turkish. But it is important to note that it doesn't mention İQTElif by name. Wikipedia cannot be the only place that uses this name. Who else is using it? --Amir E. Aharoni 05:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there weren't about 10 alphabets around, this alphabet wouldn't need a name at all. Most users don't care about marking what alphabet they use. This orthography was used by people before Zamanalif and Inalif. The only role the name has is to distinguish from other variants when it actually matters, and alas nowadays when talking about Tatar alphabet one can hardly avoid putting a name on an alphabet, because there are so many of them. Other than that, the name is insignificant.--Ultranet 04:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying that Zamanalif is in any way better then İQTElif. But someone made a decision and people joined him and started writing in that alphabet. Did anyone join you and started writing in İQTElif? You said that you handed out leaflets about İQTElif on a Worldwide Tatar Council; did anyone except you use those leaflets to write anything in Tatar? --21:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I've listed some examples of the usage. As i said, the alphabet was in use before me: all i did is express a preference for it out of close to 10 other alphabets. All the alphabets have something in common. IQTElif has 2 letters different from Yanalif-3, and 3 letters different from Zamanalif. Do you by the way know that delegates of the world congress were separated from people by police cordons on some occasions? You are talking about a place where there is little to no respect for human rights. The matter of Latin alphabet is debated, and wikipedia has no right or reason to censor on this subject.--Ultranet 22:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights situation in Russia is not perfect, but it has nothing to to with İQTElif.

You say the alphabet was in use before me - can you prove it?

See the links above.--Ultranet 04:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not debating the whole issue of Latin alphabet. I am debating the issue of İQTElif - a particular type of Latin alphabet which seems to be promoted by you and not used by anyone else. --Amir E. Aharoni 05:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the links above.--Ultranet 04:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Enough good reasons given above. DRV is not a 2nd AFD, DRV is for policy violations, etc. Q ^{T C} 20:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could somebody please give me a link to the procedure i have to follow to undelete? Am i supposed to follow this process: How_to_list_pages_for_deletion. Note, that i seek undeletion. --Ultranet 20:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's AfD, you want WP:DRV Q ^{T C} 02:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse The user who brought this DRV has since re-created the article at least 3 times demonstrating a disdain for the very procedure he invoked. Carlossuarez46 22:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn There appears to be enough sourcing to source it well, some of the sourcing does not appear to have been mentioned in the AfD(am I wrong here? If so, someone correct me please). This seems to give us enough ground to have an article on the matter. The fact that the user has been acting disruptive does not alter whether or not we should have the article. JoshuaZ 01:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What sources did you find? Please give examples. --Amir E. Aharoni 04:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The government websites in Turkish appear to be sources discussing the matter. I don't speak Turkish so we should get someone who does to confirm this. The nominator also mentioned a print source. JoshuaZ 15:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page shouldn't be cluttered with this discussion. I created a page in my user space for discussing this, where everyone can present their opinions: User talk:Amire80/İQTElif. Thanks for cooperation. --Amir E. Aharoni 09:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to honor your little sabotage page by providing feedback to it, but for objective folks here i have to say at least this: at the present time, the Tatar language has no standard alphabet, and i am well aware of that, and i don't try to show ANY alphabet as standard. The Cyrillic alphabet doesn't fit the language, but is imposed at gunpoint, and there are too many Latin alphabets, and various games going on in that area as well. On the contrary, when i first looked up the Tatar alphabet article, Zamanalif was presented as the standard, even official, alphabet, whereas it is neither. What i did, is provided clarification that there were several Latin alphabets proposed and used, and that the topic was contested, and provided references to what the Tatarstani law attempted to specify, what the Cabinet of Ministers attempted to specify, how parliament speaker mentioned that they might be making some modifications in the alphabet, and how the Russia's law forbade the whole process. Look it up in history if you wish. It is you who is trying to present one of a bunch of alphabets as standard; it is me who is saying that doesn't reflect reality.--Ultranet 04:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My page is not "sabotage" - i put it up to reduce the clutter. If you think that my claims are wrong, please explain why.

The new links that you added are only slightly more convincing. They seem like external sources, but none of them mentions İQTElif by name. The only thing that they clearly show is that Tatar language has a lot of different Latin spelling systems.

Are there any people except yourself that use the name İQTElif? You can't make up a name for X and write an article for it in Wikipedia, even if X itself is real. You can write in the article about Tatar alphabet that some Tatars write Ä, some Tatars write Ə and some others write E - i don't argue about that. But you can't make up a name for those that write E and use this name on Wikipedia unless you can prove that there are other people that use it.

Now, the links dissected one by one:

• http://aton.ttu.edu/kirim_lyrics_tugtil.asp
• http://www.tatar.ro/articole/tukay_ve_tatarlik.php
• http://www.tatar.ro/video.php?video=KAZAN_TATAR_TURK_ALTINORDU_Abdullah_Tukay_Nogai_Bashkird&id=20
• http://akidil.net/tatar/tatarsongs.htm
• http://www45.brinkster.com/karachaymalkar/tatarturklerininbuyuksairiabdullahtukay.htm

All these links show Tuqay's poem Tugan Til. Every page has it in a different spelling. So how does it prove anything about İQTElif?

You asked for examples of the orthography. The spelling is consistent other than circumstantial variations, like sh instead of s-cedilla.--Ultranet 05:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of inconsistencies in different versions of Tuqay's "Tugan Til":

• i tugan til vs. Iy tugan til vs. İy tugan til
• Donyada vs. Dönyada vs. Dünyada

And there are more.

Seems to me that these differences go way beyond differences between İQTElif and other systems, but correct me if i'm wrong.

(Putting the alphabet issue aside, i think that it is a beautiful poem.) --Amir E. Aharoni 06:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the 3rd link is spelled in a way that makes the spelling closer to Turkish (that covers your Dünyada example). As for the your other comments: Donyada is ASCII-1 (7-bit) spelling of Dönyada, to which i already alluded with my sh vs. s-cedilla example. Ditto for I vs. İ: what letter would you use to avoid encoding issues? Various forms of that are common all over, and trust me there is much worse spelling diversity that this around. As for i vs. iy, you can find variations like that even in Cyrillic sources, after almost 70 years. Plus, take a look at other alphabets around. I can show you examples involving proékt and proekt, etc. You have to realize that you are talking about an oppressed language with close to 10 alphabets.--Ultranet 04:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK - you proved to me that some people just set up their keyboard for Turkish, probably because it was too hard for them to set it up for typing Ä or Ə (that's an educated guess). I don't mind if you write this in the article about Tatar alphabet.

But if you want to call this "İQTElif", then you also need to prove that someone except yourself uses this name. --Amir E. Aharoni 06:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYv-4Xt9yN8

Can you please explain what is İQTElif there? This is just a nice clip of Tatar TV showing celebrations of 75 years Arça rayonı. Everything is Cyrillic there.

Just the title.--Ultranet 05:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• http://www.turkfolkloru.com/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=75

It looks like this page is written in Turkish. What does it have to do with İQTElif?

Tatar text is embedded in the text.--Ultranet 05:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• http://mtad.humanity.ankara.edu.tr/II-3_Eylul2005/oz2-32005/2-3oz_41fkilic.html

What does it have to do with İQTElif?

Not much: just the spelling of a name of an organization in Qırğızstan.--Ultranet 05:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• http://ekitap.kulturturizm.gov.tr/dosyagoster.aspx?DIL=1&BELGEANAH=109902&DOSYAISIM=RavilFeyzullin.pdf

It is possible that this document is written in İQTElif, but we need another expert to prove it. And it still doesn't mention the name İQTElif. --Amir E. Aharoni 08:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is an example of such orthography. The main role an alphabet name plays is to distinguish from other alphabets. The main thing IQTElif says is non-Janalif, non-Yanalif-2, non-Yanalif-3... It helps for an alphabet name to also be somewhat descriptive, but that is secondary. How do you think other alphabet names came about? There is a need to distinguish one alphabet from another. This is especially relevant for localization. Other than that, the names have almost no significance, and show some variance from one person to another, and are not set in stone. I was involved in a long discussion about variant name for one of the alphabets, and until the very end noone knew what the name was going to be due to various factors involved. --Ultranet 05:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that you need to use some name to distinguish one spelling system from another, but i could find the name İQTElif only on ultranet.tv, on mailing lists of Free Software such as KDE, GNOME, glibc, Mozilla, etc., and on Wikipedia - and all of them were written by yourself. This is a problem.

I would also like to point out, that i really appreciate your efforts in localizing Free Software for the Tatar language. If you can prove that "tt-RU-iqtelif" localization was accepted into a notable program and that this program is actually used by anyone except yourself, then you win. For example, you can try to present verifiable statistics of people that downloaded the iqtelif localization package for Mozilla. --Amir E. Aharoni 06:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedure I'd like to get some comments on how the speedy deletion was performed over the weekend. Twice i put hangon w/ a comment inviting to look at the talk page, and followed instructions on Afd page (which said it is not to be edited, and from which one of my comments was overwritten) to provide rationale on the talk page. I attempted to provide explanations on the talk page twice, and both times the article and the talk page were deleted within less that a half hour, without any feedback from an administrator, despite the fact that the Afd page said the admin would review the talk page. I remember that at least once the talk page was deleted by Carlossuarez46 w/ rationale of the article having been deleted (within minutes of each other). I think he also deleted the article itself once. I don't recall for sure, but think another admin also performed 1 or 2 deletions in the same manner. I haven't brought this to light yet, but this didn't appear to be a normal procedure to me. This also touches on somebody's earlier comment above.--Ultranet 05:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The hangon tag you placed and the explanation you gave were quite surely looked at by the deleting admin, but since the article was effectively a repost of the earlier article, the speedy deletion criterion WP:CSD#G4 applies. Hangon does not mean the article can't be deleted, merely that the creator wants to make sure they have the chance to say something. This is explained in the ((hangon)) tag itself. Mangojuice^talk 13:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would be shocked if what i experienced over several hours on Sunday is normal on wikipedia. If it is, i'd like to humbly suggest modifying this policy by requiring a written record for each delete action, speedy or slow, and/or a written response to the editor's hangon.--Ultranet 04:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - the debate attracted few comments but they were well-reasoned and detailed. I see no reason to overturn that result, considering that the only arguments for keeping were refuted quite well. Mangojuice^talk 13:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hangon. I haven't seen a refutal. What i've seen is refutile. I'm sensing an attempt to play part 2 in the same fashion as part 1. I am going to quote from the deletion policy now, as suggested by Kurykh. Apparently that is what i should emphasize.--Ultranet 03:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion policy violations The deleted content does not violate a copyright, is verifiable in a reliable source, and does not include negative content about living persons.--Ultranet 03:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What verifiable source uses the name "İQTElif"? --Amir E. Aharoni 06:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability: Quoting: 'The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.' Along with other references, anybody can refer to the following: Zaman Talebí. Şehri Qazan, 04/06/1994. When the topic warranted other sources were also referenced, and/or linked to. The references, including the first one, were there for months. Thus, the deleted material is verifiable, and should be undeleted. --Ultranet 03:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I severely doubt that i can find this book in a library in Jerusalem, so i'll assume good faith and take your word for it: Does that book use the name "İQTElif"? If it does, then i withdraw all my objections. If it does not, then it is not a verifiable source that justifies the use of the name "İQTElif" in Wikipedia.

If that book is the source for the phonological information in the article, then it is perfectly OK to put this information on other articles about the Tatar language. I already said in the AfD proposal that this phonological information looks fine. For that purpose i saved a copy of the page in my user space. --Amir E. Aharoni 06:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No original research: Quoting: 'Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories.' Because the material is verifiable in independent reliable sources, it satisfies No OR policy. All the major points in the deleted content trace back to published material. Therefore, the content should be undeleted.--Ultranet 03:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral point of view: Quoting: 'All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources).' The deleted content was written from a neutral point of view, mentioning existence of multiple alphabet variants, and providing comparisons. Please note that this was not the case before the deleted content, at which time Zamanalif was presented as the standard and official alphabet, which is not the case. Note also, that now that the disputed content is deleted the user is left with only the presentation of Zamanalif in the Tatar alphabet discussion. This indeed results in a biased situation, because it is equivalent to Wikipedia taking a position in a unequivocally disputed topic. Therefore, the deleted content, unlike some other content, satisfies the 'Neutral point of view' policy, and should be undeleted.--Ultranet 04:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article said: "It is the phonetically-and-pragmatically-optimal Latin-based alphabet for Idíl-Ural (Qazan) Tatar". Says who? There are two problems here:

• If you found out by yourself that it is optimal, then it is original research.
• If someone else thinks that his favorite system of spelling is more pragmatic, then it is not NPOV. --Amir E. Aharoni 06:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion: The content was deleted in violation of the deletion policy, and should be undeleted.--Ultranet 04:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments above. --Amir E. Aharoni 06:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morse code in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

(Note: I nominated the page for deletion) I strongly disagree with Ceyockey (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves)'s interpretation of consensus at the AfD. To me, it would appear that the consensus was strongly in favor of the belief that the entire article was trivia, and therefore unencyclopedic (per WP:FIVE). --Eyrian 17:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment As I closed the AFD in question, I will refrain from indicating endorse/relist/overturn. I interpreted the objections voiced by persons indicating 'delete' to mean they objected to the trivial content; I noted circumstances where such content might not be trivial in my closure statement, that being in cases where Morse code was used as a major plot element rather than as an incidental plot device (for literature-related works, two examples noted in my closure statement). For music, the case is more difficult - simply having a snippet of Morse code in the song would not count as a 'major thematic element', but there are instances of this as well, such as the song YYZ from Rush (a particular snip of code serves as a recurring song element and ties into the central theme of the song). I also indicated that reliable secondary sources should be provided for all remaining entries after pruning trivia (as defined above here and in my closure statement). I believe my decision boils down to bringing the article into compliance with Wikipedia content policies and exercising discretion in not "throwing the baby out with the bathwater". I will not object to the outcome of this Deletion Review. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I see this as the closer putting their own judgment of what counts as trivia over the overall opinion of the consensus. --Eyrian 19:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete. The closer interpreted the discussion as resulting in a consensus to delete most and keep some entries. However, no one suggested this in the discussion; the majority wanted to delete all and the minority wanted to keep all entries. Whatever one may think of the merits of the arguments by either side, the closing statement does not reflect the actual consensus, which was to delete the article. Sandstein 20:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Consensus is not merely choosing among the notions tossed out by the persons commenting. It is reaching a solution that is consistent with all input provided. Most people do a vote tally and act on that; I prefer not to take such a crude approach ... which is consistent with the instructions for WP:AFD. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete The consensus was for deletion. The idea that it can be kept "with major revision" is just pie in the sky thinking. This is what these "articles" are like. They are rubbish, and unlike other wikipedia content they have a built in tendency to get worse and worse as time goes by. They should all be killed off. Golfcam 21:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "They should all be killed off" is not consistent with considering each article on its own merits. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Just do a sourced rewrite, that's the dinkum way to do things. --SpiritDispenser300x3 22:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete - mistaken close. Eusebeus 23:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Delete or merge, but keep is definitely not one of the available options in this case. --Kurykh 23:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse close Well within admin discretion. If the article is not clean up later it can always be re-AfDed. JoshuaZ 01:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, delete and possibly userfy. I'm not sure how this decision was reached. Consensus on this seems clear, and for very good reasons. Nothing has been said to counter the claim that this article violates the policy against loosely associated facts. If someone can write a well sourced, detailed article about how Morse Code has influenced music (without lists of any kind, mind you), then I'd certainly support a decision to userfy and begin working on that article. Also, if the AfD's closure didn't appear to go so strongly against consensus. This is not about vote tallies, but about the discussion itself, which drives towards deletion. CaveatLector^Talk 04:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• ----- ...- . .-. - ..- .-. -. / .--. . .-. / .- -... ----- ...- . Will ^(talk) 14:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete. The entire page violates our five pillars, closure was out of line. Burntsauce 17:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete, consensus appears to have been misinterpreted in the closure. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 18:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete - Consensus to delete is clear and the closing admin substituted a "solution" that s/he invented out of whole cloth. Otto4711 18:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete - it pretty clear that the consensus was to delete; the solution given in the deletion summary does not appear to have any grounding in the discussion -- if anything, it's a "keep" argument, presented nowhere in the discussion added by the closing admin. If they were going to argue, then why not just comment in the discussion normally? --Haemo 05:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete, clear consensus to delete in the AFD, closure was inappropriate due to the lack of arguments or comments addressing the WP:NOT#IINFO-related concerns. --Coredesat 10:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The consensus may appear clear, but I think the closing admin was correct to put less weight on not particularly well argued comments like "trivia" and "Culturecruft, yet again" than on the well-reasoned keep arguments. JulesH 18:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete in popular culture. The way to deal with bloated popular culture sections in articles is to prune them, not to split them out into whole "articles" composed of nothing but loosely-associated (and often uncited) facts. Guy (Help!) 20:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete. I applaud Ceyockey for his/her optimism in the closing, but the consensus here was to delete the article. It is not the place of the closer to save articles that may or may not saveable: they are supposed to read the debate and interpret its outcome. Ceyockey is also a Wikipedia editor, though, and if he/she (or anyone, really) wants to try rewriting the article after its deletion to a form that those in the debate might find acceptable, there would be no problem with that. Mangojuice^talk 21:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete. The role of the closing admin is to weigh the discussion already provided, not add your own "keep" argument where the closing comment should go, and close the AFD to match it. Neil ╦ 13:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tuotu is a popular software many Chinese people compared with Thunder of the Xunlei. Its English version is the Rabbit. Search its English name(Tutuo) in the search engines there are many English pages and many more Chinese pages about it. Search its Chinese name there are more pages. Another user edits the page some minutes after the page is created, and after some minutes another user post speedy deletion, the article are deleted and the admin said he doesn't know Chinese. Is tuotu notable to the wikipedia?Fairness528ele 11:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete and list at AfD Too notable to be a speedy deletion. It'll still likely be deleted if sources can be found, but it's possible (indeed likely) that Chinese-language sources exist. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn the speedy to allow editors to establish notability, but with option to list at AfD. --Ginkgo100^talk 16:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, as deleting admin, to allow whatever process to take place. However, I don't think it will change the ultimate result. I was offered three English-language sources to back this up; they are either passing trivial mentions or forum posts. But I allow that there might be better sources in Chinese that are beyond my reading capability (I can recognize the two characters for China and that's about it). I would also note that the creator made no edits to the article for some time after placing ((hangon)) on it; that admonition that it's on the tag placer to show why the article shouldn't be speedied has to mean something. Daniel Case 21:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete and list at AfD view - since there is the potential for sourcing and possible notability the best way forward is to undelete and allow for a fuller discussion. Having said that, I agree with the deleting admin that significantly better sources need to be provided for this to have a realistic chance of surviving the AfD. Bridgeplayer 02:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The request for deletion was biased strongly biased, I've read the user page of user Pablo and it says the following:

I have come to find out that any group with the word truth in its name exists for the sole purpose of spreading lies.

How to find articles that should be deleted The best way to find an article that fails Wikipedia's policies on inclusion is to use an article's what links here page. Often, crappy articles link to more well-known articles within the same subject. Here are some what links here links that are especially helpful in finding bad articles: * Loose Change * 9/11 Truth Movement * Daily Kos More coming!

The reasons for deletion no longer apply. After reading the discussions on previous deletion, most arguments were concerning the fact that the movie was not well known, using a simple search on Google I found out the movie Terrorstorm has more hits than another movie which does have it's own article, America: freedom to fascism. Joehoe665 22:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion (actually redirection) If I remember correctly, the primary reasoning last time this came up with DRV was that we should have an article about this because somebody wore a t-shirt at a concert, which had to be just about the most laughably awful reasoning I've seen here to that point. This request, while less overtly silly, is based on Google hits vs another (similar?) thing supposedly with an article, and is similarly invalid. See also WP:BIGNUMBER and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion/maintain status quo of redirection. Pablo's deletion request is fully justified, since he requested speedy deletion for recreation of an article which was deleted by consensus. His biases are beside the point; any other editor could have made the same request. That said, this doesn't call for an article until, say, Newsweek does a full-length article on the movie. —C.Fred (talk) 00:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse DVD comes out next week, and the reviews should follow. There should be no article without good sources, reviews, and strong sales figures backing up notability. -Nard 00:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Process followed, deletion legit. --Tbeatty 16:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse deletion until we get reliable sources. We still don't have that. JoshuaZ 15:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - bias on the part of any editor is not important unless it appears to have caused them to misinterpret the closure of the debate. This does not appear to be the case. --Haemo 05:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fake Photograph as BuriedAlive.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|IfD)

The image was nominated for deletion and the IfD was subsequently closed by admin User:Nv8200p as "kept"[23], citing that the image is considered in the public domain until proven otherwise. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the burden of proof is actually the other way around, that an image claimed to be in the public domain would be deleted unless it is proven to actually be in the public domain. The image page actually provides no evidence to back up the claim that it is in the public domain. In light of that, I am listing the image here for deletion review, for reconsideration to delete the image. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The image was taken in 1937 or 1938. The Japanese Army was in control when the image was taken. I have found no publications of the image under the jurisdication of the Japanese government dated before 1957, so the image meets the public domain requirements of the image copyright tag. -Nv8200p talk 19:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually the image that was taken in 1937 or 1938 is this one - Image:BuriedAlive.jpg. The image in question here (Image:Fake Photograph as BuriedAlive.jpg) is a modified version, cropped and with a dotted line drawn in the middle, and so I believe it is a derivative work. In other words, this could be an image that someone produced just a few years ago, and copyrighted by the person. No evidence is offered on the page pertaining to the claim that it is in the public domain. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The original uploader, Hare-Yukai (talk · contribs), licensed his derivative work under ((PD-retouched-user)). A speedy close is in order. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Doesn't that count as original research, not to mention unencyclopedic. Plus he didn't just adjust the lighting or contrast in the picture. He mashed the picture horizontally and then produced a dotted line to accuse the original picture of being a fake. I don't really see any rationale or purpose for his fabricated picture to exist on wikipedia. It is not used in any article and there hasn't been any discussion (besides from the uploader) regarding either his faked picture or the original picture. If this picture has been used by massacre deniers as a "credible" evidence then I can see the reason to insert it into the corresponding article. But for this case I see absolutely no rationale. Blueshirts 23:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It was used in the talk page for Nanking massacre before you removed it. Anyway, what you are talking about is a content dispute, the initial IfD and this DRV were meant to address the copyright status and deletion. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The only way it was used was that it was aligned talk page as along with the original picture thumbnail peppered with engrish captions, with no further comments and follow up. Do you count that kind of shit as "discussion" in any sense of the word? Blueshirts 00:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't particularly care, in any sense of the word. The comment you replied to meant merely to point out the copyright status, nothing more. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - It was already discussed here. Please see the discussion. It should be depend on the decision of the Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 June 28#Image:BuriedAlive.jpg. What meaning is there to discuss it again? Hong Qi Gong and Blueshirts were concluded as being the thinker(s) of the Communist's side. --Hare-Yukai 15:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ps. or Are you Storker(s)?

Orphaned non-free image (Image:The baby setuped by Capra s staff.jpg)

Image:Fake Photograph as BuriedAlive.jpg

Image:Picture of smiling with army.jpg

Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 June 28#Image:BuriedAlive.jpg

Image:Fake Photograph as BuriedAlive.jpg listed for deletion

Image:Picture of smiling with army.jpg listed for deletion

Image:The baby setuped by Capra s staff.jpg listed for deletion

Image:Fake Photograph as BuriedAlive.jpg

Talk:Nanking Massacre

Talk:Nanking Massacre

Image:Picture of smiling with army.jpg

Talk:Nanking Massacre

--Hare-Yukai 20:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Still delete, see below. So the assertion is basically that this is outright fraud by one of our contributors? Wow. I'm tempted to speedily delete this, and indefinite block per WP:IAR. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak)

  Eh, what's the fraud? John Smith's 23:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Read what Blueshirts writes, then look at the two photos. It looks like one of our contributors someone took a historical photograph, retouched it, then drew a dotted line on it to draw attention to his retouching, and used that as evidence the historical photograph was retouched. That's just horrible. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 23:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Which picture is more horrible than? --Hare-Yukai 02:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Hahnchen says exactly what I wanted to say, more clearly, below. :-(. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm glad I resisted the temptation. On further evidence it looks like the original photograph uploaded as BuriedAlive.jpg was doctored, and this demonstrates the doctoring. However, the current photograph uploaded as BuriedAlive.jpg does not show this. Since the only purpose of Fake_Photograph_as_BuriedAlive.jpg is now unnecessary, we don't need it, and no fair use can be justified. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would ask the admins to please take a careful comparison of this picture in question and Image:BuriedAlive.jpg. Looking at where the dotted line would appear in the latter, you can see that the modification is clearly more than just a dotted line. Parts of the middle of the original image was chopped off and then the remaining pieced back together again. If User:Hare-Yukai really did create this work as he claimed, then he has uploaded this image for the sole purpose of making the image page of Image:BuriedAlive.jpg a battleground to push his POV. Take a look at the history for Image:BuriedAlive.jpg. Hare-Yukai is not trying to use this image he supposedly created for the purpose of discussion, which as we all know should take place in discussion pages - he has been inserting this image right in the image page of Image:BuriedAlive.jpg itself. If he did create this image, then he is inserting original research in the Image:BuriedAlive.jpg page, and it would be extremely helpful if an admin sternly warns him against doing so. On the other hand, if this is not original research - meaning if this image was actually created by a reliable source - then it is a possible copyright violation. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think that I would say that the IFD was closed correctly based on the narrow grounds under which it was opened. In the first IFD, HongQiGong argued that it was only used for discussion, which seems acceptable, thus not a rationale for deletion. In the second IFD, Blueshirts argued that it was not used in articles (same argument, same outcome) and that the uploader was attempting to discredit the original, which seems to violate WP:AGF while not being a rationale for deletion. In this technical sense I do not think the closing admins were incorrect. I am, however, concerned about the provenance of this image, and the opaque critique of Image:BuriedAlive.jpg that it presents. I'm particularly concerned that this image could somehow in the future be used in an article to present a case that its attribution does not support. I would like the uploader/creator to explain the image's creation in straightforward language, including his motivation for doing so, or to present the image's source in context. Is that appropriate here? I simply don't think, having read all of the linked materials, and I do mean all, that I have determined the intent or purpose of the image -- what it "shows" -- about the original. --Dhartung | Talk 08:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure but delete There is adequate reason to believe that the original is indeed in the public domain, and that this is a derivative work to falsely claim that the original was a fake. The creator of a derivative work can release their derivative work into the public domain. If this is indeed a derivative work by the Wikipedia editor, then its purpose is to attack the original image, so we should speedy delete it under G10. If it is not by the Wikipedia editor, then they aren't able to release the derivative into the public domain, so we have a false copyright status. Since it needs to be deleted whether the uploader is the one that modified it or not, we should delete it regardless of whether or not they modified it. GRBerry 13:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC) (New comment further down; I no longer stand by this logic, but it is important to the thread of the discussion. GRBerry 18:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Exactly, thank you for putting the issue in words much better than I did. If this is indeed User:Hare-Yukai's own work, then the image was uploaded simply as an attack. If this is actually not his own work, then it's a possible copyright violation. In either instances, deletion is called for. There are dozens of websites dedicated to questioning the authenticity of these images, many having their own little modifications with lines and arrows drawn on the originals to show what they believe are discrepancies in the photos. It's not absolutely impossible that this image was simply downloaded from a website. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but delete G10, I previously voted keep but I see now Wikipedia is not a place for Wikipedia:fringe theories. -Nard 14:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this case, the meaning is different from the meaning of G10 and this problem. --Hare-Yukai 02:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Uploading your own fake photograph to try and discredit another photograph, and citing it as conclusive evidence that the entire Nanjing Massacre was faked, is the most flat out worst thing I've seen on Wikipedia. I'm going to upload an image of King Kong smashing up the twin towers, and then claim it's conclusive proof that the whole thing was a conspiracy. - hahnchen 16:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that if I were an admin, I'd block this user. Although these rash rogue decisions, is probably why I'm not one. - hahnchen 16:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There. That's what I wanted to say. And I am an admin, and barely restrained myself. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 
  Real historic photograph, notice the normal face and torso of the man with his arm pointing towards the camera
• Faked photograph made by Hare-Yukai to discredit the real photograph. Notice the mashed face and torso of the same man, with the added dotted line.
  Faked photograph made by Hare-Yukai to discredit the real photograph. Notice the mashed face and torso of the same man, with the added dotted line.

• For a quick side by side comparison, see the thumbnails above. Blueshirts 20:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The modification is also obvious at the man's legs. In the original, we can see negative space between the man's legs. In the modified version, the man's legs are pressed together side-by-side, with no negative space between them. If this modification comes from User:Hare-Yukai himself, then it was original research uploaded as a form of attack. However, if this actually addresses a legitimate concern, meaning it comes from a reliable source, then the photo is a possible copyright violation. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You shouldn't say such a lie at least. An original image was changed once. You know its fact. If anyone is administrator, history can be seen, and it will be able to be found easily. --Hare-Yukai 00:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How can you explain this fact?

(del) (cur) 12:44, 14 July 2007 . . Nv8200p (Talk | contribs)

(del) (cur) 14:42, 5 June 2007 . . Hare-Yukai (Talk | contribs)

--Hare-Yukai 00:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to file history of the image:BuriedAlive.jpg.

14:47, 5 June 2007 Hare-Yukai (Talk | contribs) (199 bytes) (→Summary) (undo)

It is clear that at least another file existed before 5 June 2007. I up-loaded this file for the explanation of the currently file. Hong and Blue know its fact. What kind of reason do they say such lie for, and then they entrap me? They have the duty and have to explain its reason. --Hare-Yukai 02:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, you are not making any sense at all, aside from your atrocious English. Must feel pretty hot now, eh? You uploaded the faked photo with the dotted line to discredit the real historic photo uploaded by User:Johnnyboyca. So what's the deal about this "another file" that you're talking about? Care to show us any diffs that we can actually click, instead of some random timestamps? And what's with "entrapment"? You made this image trying to fool everyone, but unfortunately some of us have sharp eyes. Now, would you mind showing us the metadata or whatever that shows that you made the faked image, or perhaps give us a website where you grabbed it from? Your game's up and more confusing engrish from you isn't going to help you. Blueshirts 02:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need to make disparaging comments about his English. Hare-Yukai - your English is a little difficult to understand. If it helps, you can comment in Chinese and I'll translate. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Present image of the Image:BuriedAlive.jpg#File history were Up-loaded by Nv8200p. It should be revive the User:Johnnyboyca's up-loaded image. --Hare-Yukai 03:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as an admin viewing the deletion log, Hare-Yukai is right that until a few weeks ago, BuriedAlive.jpg was different, so we shouldn't accuse him of fraud. The Fake_Photograph is, however, now unnecessary. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have found three images on the Internet containing the same detail as Hare-Yukai's: [24][25][26]. I don't know why there are two photos around differing on that detail (possibly a problem with the photographic process?). Anyway, this could be a topic for (original) historical research, but I don't see how Image:Fake Photograph as BuriedAlive.jpg could be used in a place where original research is disallowed. Tizio 17:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks a lot. These images are known well and generally. The image file which was up-loaded by User:Johnnyboyca was the same as these images. Then, it was more high density image. The presented image Image:BuriedAlive.jpg(now) is extremely rare one. Where did they get it from? I think that it may be one of the precious historically record. --Hare-Yukai 18:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hare-Yaki: where did you find that photograph? You have to provide the source of image:Fake Photograph as BuriedAlive.jpg and a discussion of why it was faked that comes from WP:RS ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 18:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I got it from user:Johnnyboyca's up-loaded file. You can guess it from file history. --Hare-Yukai 18:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Never mind, I see that was clarified above. Weird. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 18:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • normal picture on bbc news [27] The doctored photo looks like it was folded along the entire vertical axis, with distortion not only including the man with extended hand, but also shortened back of the man with white shirt in the foreground. [28] Blueshirts 02:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It 5 is the secondary fake photograph. It is the photograph made at least after 1995. The first fake (montage) photograph 2 34 were made before 1943, and released by Chinese 國民党(National Party). --Hare-Yukai 09:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • And do you have any source for that claim? Blueshirts 15:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is kind of irrelevant. This photo with the dotted line was uploaded as a reaction to the original version of Image:BuriedAlive.jpg. Since Image:BuriedAlive.jpg has changed now and is not the same photo which the dotted photo indicates, this dotted photo is no longer necessary. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • It is described in detail there, the book of the "Nankin incident 'The verification of the Said Proof Photograph'", 東中野修道博士(Dr. Higashinanano Osamichi). 証拠写真「流れ圖」の概説(The summary of the Said Proof Photograph's "flow figure") in the 「証拠写真」の源流を辿る(The tracing of the source history of the "Said Proof Photograph") Depends on this description, it is certain that this photograph is a montage at least. It was already famous matter in Japan in about 1986. It is said that the many 'Said Proof Photograph' about the Nanjing Incident was released from the Nationalist Party bulletin in 1942. --Hare-Yukai 16:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yeah Hong's got a point. The simplest explanation is that the original photo got folded along the vertical axis in some first publications and was propagated subsequently. Otherwise, it wouldn't make sense to doctor the mashed photo to return to the original photo. Plus I don't trust a right wing revisionists book's take on this. It's like quoting "Did Six Million Really Die" on their take of some photos taken from the HolocaustBlueshirts 17:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • It is only an old image (Image:BuriedAlive.jpg up-loaded by user:Johnnyboyca ) that can be confirmed by this book. So it should be review old one and remove new one. --Hare-Yukai 23:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure, deleted as no longer needed With the explanation here, the uploader has acknowledged that we no longer need the image. We certainly aren't going to use it in an article. A summary and link to this discussion should be added to the Image Talk page for the original discussion, explaining why the original image wasn't reliable and then we can delete this image as having no remaining use in building the encyclopedia. GRBerry 18:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The old image (up-loaded by user:Johnnyboyca) should be revive. I will use it for many explanations (If Hong and Blue don't disturb it[29]). This contains a new problem. Hong and Blue removed many articles which I wrote. So I can not write any more. Does such condition correspond to the no longer need the image? Let's think about this problem well with all. Then, let's leave this arguments in the important record of the Wikipedia. --Hare-Yukai 23:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's the point of uploading another photo where there's already one that's not doctored. Blueshirts 03:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is because a present image (Image:BuriedAlive.jpg up-loaded by User:Nv8200p) can't withstand to the proof of the source history. It does not exist at least before 1995. So the old image (up-loaded by user:Johnnyboyca) should be revive. As for being more important, Blue and Hong well knows the background of this incident (problem), and you are participating in this argument, like to know nothing. --Hare-Yukai 05:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Look, stop pulling stuff from your ass and post it here, capice? You know very well that the photo with the artifact line was used by revisionists to deny the massacre and at the same time they conveniently ignored the original photo. Blueshirts 05:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yu-Gi-Oh! Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

It does not fail WP:NOT, and I found sources for WP:WEB:

• GameSpot review
• GameZone review
• GamerDad review

Also, it was distributed with Weekly Shonen Jump, so it is notable (WP:WEB, #3). VDZ 19:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You don't really need Deletion Review as there was no deletion. You can undo the merge and just improve the article. --W.marsh 19:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did, but Jauerback reverted it and told me to take it to deletion review...so I'm waiting for an admin to simply say "the article can be undeleted".VDZ 19:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse nothing above to overturn a unanimous consensus at AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as closing admin. This is technically not a matter for DRV, as no article was deleted, but I suppose one would need to produce a very substantial new consensus in order to overrule the AfD's merge consensus. Sandstein 06:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But why? There's nothing wrong with the article anymore, now is there? VDZ 09:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - I realized that this didn't technically belong in DRV when I told VDZ, but I also felt that simply letting the article get recreated with some minor changes wouldn't be appropriate, either. Jauerback 15:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn I don't understand. it appears to meet WP:WEB. what's the issue? JoshuaZ 01:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soul City FM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I have been working on this article for a while and believe it just about meets the required level? If not please can it be restored to my user page so that I can work on it further? P.S apologies if im going about this wrong, im a bit of a novice here, but I do like it! Video killed the radiostar 14:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC) xxx[reply]

• Are there any sources here? Did newspapers, magazines etc. write about this station? If not, undeletion might be a moot point. --W.marsh 15:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah just userfy per Starblind. --W.marsh 00:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted unless sources show up; the article never had any, nor did it assert any notability. --Coredesat 20:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, no problem with userfying. --Coredesat 07:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak overturn This was an A7 speedy deletion, and it could be argued that radio stations are always notable (note that I am not making that argument myself). At least it can go through a discussion at AfD. --Ginkgo100^talk 21:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore to userspace so nom can work on it. Sounds like a reasonable request. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• There are one or two more sources i have found on the net using wiki radio project which are related to the subject, i have also found some papers with information on which i would like to/try to upload. This station was unique in the area it served as the format was un like any other. It also was the main contender for the licence. Video killed the radiostar 10:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC) xxx[reply]

Mr. Lee (cat) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Ryulong deleted this page twice. It's a notable cat. These are the sources:

• http://www.mr-lee-catcam.de/pe_cc_s.htm (all sources recorded here)
• Your Cat Magazine, United Kingdom
• Blikk Newspaper, Hungary
• Geliebte Katze Magazin, Germany
• The Globe and Mail, Toronto, Canada
• Germanys biggest Newspaper FAZ - Frankfurter Sunday Newspaper, Germany
• Heute Newspaper, Zuerich, Switzerland
• Matin Plus, France
• Huge article in Westfaelische Rundschau, Germany
• Article in NRC Next Dutch Newspaper
• Article in Het Laatste Nieuws, the biggest Bruessels Newspapers
• Yahoo News
• Article in the "Westfaelische Nachrichten" newspaper
• Article in the "Leibziger Volkszeitung" newspaper

I didn't even get to build it? Fromage911 07:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my AFD thing I did after requested to show it was a valid article got deleted too by Ryulong because he said it was useless: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mr._Lee_(cat) Please let me know, and sorry Fromage911 07:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Even before the references were added the article asserted enough notability to not make it a speedy deletion by mentioning the international presscoverage. Agathoclea 07:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did it right? Ryu just said on my page it wouldn't survive AFD because it's not an historic cat? Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fromage911 Fromage911 07:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An AfD is a totally different matter again - this is about if this qualified for speedy deletion first of all - but people most likely will comment on the further use of the article - just sit back and wait a few days now. Agathoclea 07:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thank you. what about my deleted afd? Was that oK? Fromage911 07:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs whose title constitutes the entire lyrics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I'm not sure that the decision in the AFD was really right. removing the "Don't be so deletionist" and WP:INTERESTING comments, the headcount is at 8:3. The deletes did give reasons. Additionally, the two that !voted "Weak keep" were rather wary on how encyclopedic the article was. Will ^(talk) 06:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This should have been closed as delete since there is nothing encyclopaedic about songs whose title forms the entire lyrics, there is no properly authoritative source for most of them, and it's an entirely arbitrary selection criterion. Many similar lists have been deleted as random collections of information; this is no different. Just a list of songs matching an arbitrary criterion and selected in the main through original research. Guy (Help!) 06:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure this isn't round 2 of AFD, Guy. The closer seems to have been within discretion. --W.marsh 13:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse closure as reasonable. I note that I am not too happy with this article myself--I did not participate in the AfD as i was undecided. But I notice that the first listed delete !voter changed his mind to !keep in the course of the discussion, so it is reasonable to think there must have been some convincing arguments. DGG (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete. Given the number and weight of the arguments, I think that consensus (backed by policy and guidelines) is quite clear. Eluchil404 23:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete, per Guy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete - Keep arguments were "its encyclopedic", "interesting", and EliminatorJr didnt explain how the article was not in violation of "loosely associated items" Corpx 20:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Delete per Guy above. Eusebeus 22:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Delete view - There was a balance of views at the AfD and I can see that it was tempting to close as a n/c. However, though these lists are 'interesting' and have a 'cute' factor they really are not encyclopaedic and are essentially pointless. Bridgeplayer 03:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse close I would have closed this as delete but it looks within admin discretion to me. The users should feel free to start another AfD if necessary. JoshuaZ 15:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete, the concerns raised by those arguing for deletion were not addressed, particularly the loosely-associated items concern. --Coredesat 04:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete I'm not sure if anyone noticed but this is the 2nd DR on this. I put up the first here Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_July#11_July_2007. I'm glad I wasn't alone in seeing how this AfD had an unreasonable expectations from deletion arguments. Bulldog123 04:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's cool and interesting and that IS enough of a reason to keep it on Wikipedia. 72.231.19.104 14:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, delete and write a song about that. Trivia. >Radiant< 15:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Currenly the most popular video on youtube, and like it or not people want to know about it. If you really care about wikipedia, don't delete the chocolate rain entry. It informs those who read it (self-included, after I googled the cache), and harms no-one who doesn't.

If a group of vigilant wikipedians really wants to prevent other people from accessing this page and learning from it, they'll probably succeed. But before you go down that path, ask yourself- why? What purpose does it serve? If people are truly so uniformly convinced the topic doesn't matter, they simply won't request info on it/ask it in the first place.

Bottom line: Chocolate Rain is all over Youtube and has been featured on nationally syndicated radio shows, and thousands of people are coming to wikipedia for info on it. "Noteworthy" is of anything, a gauge of what people are interested in reading about. And regardless of what self-appointed tastemakers think, Chocolate Rain currently fits that criterion.

I restored this article because it had the info I wanted about this song. Wikipedia let me down for the first time in a long time by refusing to provide me with information about this widespread internet fad. I and countless thousands of others were relying on wikipedia to provide us with information on this admittedly stupid internet fad. I see no reason why the hard work of fellow contributors written to address this topic should be deleted by third parties that think they know what I, and thousands of others, should and shouldn't care about, and should or shouldn't deem "noteworthy"

I've seen the video, I know it sucks, and that it won't be "noteworthy" in 6 months. THATS NOT THE POINT. A main reason wikipedia has an advantage over regular encyclopedias is because it covers this type of thing, good or bad.

Work on wikipedia with the aim of providing information, not deleting other peoples work because it isnt "noteworthy" in YOUR opinion. -jjrsJeffjrstewart 13:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Internet Phenomenon as many in the original AFD suggested. It's not notable, regardless of the hoopla in AFD over it. If not redirect, delete. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 13:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Chocolate rain, some don't want and some say overturn. I'm the former. Don't recreate Will ^(talk) 15:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse unless here is some evidence that it has been recognized as important by reliable sources. There wasn't any in the afd. We're a filter on the internet. As Jimbo says, we make the Internet not suck. DGG (talk) 15:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If this song deserves a page, then let's give every song a page. Even the fourth song on the third album of "Goo Goo Dolls" - whatever that is. Niyant 15:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion and salt this article to prevent its re-creation yet again. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse decision, or alternately, redirect to Internet Phenomenon - there were a lot of merge suggestions in the AFD, and that would seem to make sense. Nothing to complain about in the AFD, though. (Oh, and Niyant: There You Are, which was their first single and hit #21 on the Modern Rock charts. No article - yet... though it's a redlink on the album's article.) Tony Fox (arf!) 15:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion and Salt Valid AFD, no good reason given to overturn. Fails WP:MUSIC by miles. Wikipedia obviously isn't going to have an article on every Youtube video, even the "popular" ones: that's more in the domain of a YouTube-specific wiki than a general-interest encyclopedia. No opion on a redirect to internet phenomena, but I suspect if it goes there it won't stay long. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion and Salt as a valid AFD, wikipedia isn't a youtube directory, the article of the singer of the song has been created and speedied over 10 times btw, so that helps the idea of salting. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Valid afd. --Kbdank71 19:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion and protect from recreation, valid AFD closure, no indication here or there that the subject meets WP:MUSIC or WP:WEB; WP:BIGNUMBER isn't an indicator of anything. --Coredesat 20:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, and please don't add it to Internet meme because that's about the phenomenon, not a list of examples. Don't add it to List of Internet phenomena either until it's sourced. Wikipedia is not the be-all and only resource in the world. If you want to learn about unsourced things there's always google, and if it's not notable enough to put here you can always blog about it or put it somewhere else. Wikidemo 01:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion and allow to fade away, as it surely will. Bridgeplayer 03:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Internet meme and protect. It's a somewhat reasonable thing to someone to search for, even if there's no article on it. But the AfD was closed properly (and I should add that Notability is not temporary). 17Drew 03:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn This is not AfD take 2! I would have voted "delete" myself in that AfD, but there was no consensus to delete at closure -- and in fact, closure was less than five full days after listing. --Ginkgo100^talk 21:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This was the main merge rationale: "It belongs in Internet Phenomenon" - Since that cannot stand as rationale alone, the deletion was based more on factual analysis than on consensus.--WaltCip 01:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Or get rid of "all your base" as well.

• You start, I'll endorse.--WaltCip 15:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore, there's plenty of other songs on wikipedia that are neither notable or have sources. This has both.

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

Admin closed the debate with the following rationale: 'However there is no information about how rare this coin is, where any samples are located, whether any can be photographed, etc. Because of this, the image can not be seen to pass NFCC #1. Further, there is no information on the source or copyright-holder of the photograph, so NFCC #10 fails as well. Sorry.' However, on the talk page itself is the answer to this very question: 'CBM (the nominator), for your information, most of the coins from the "Indo-Greek" series that you tagged are unique specimens, which are located at the Cabinet des Medailles, Paris, where it is not allowed for the general public to take photographs of them'. This is a request for review on procedural grounds. I feel as though the admin did not take into proper account the information within the discussion, and that the second guideline that s/he gives can be remedied rather than used as rationale for deletion. Therefore, please review this deletion, as well as the related coin image deletions. CaveatLector^Talk 05:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm the admin who closed the case and deleted the image. A few salient points. (1) There was no source for the photograph listed, and no information of who holds the copyright. (2) If there is only one surviving copy of this coin in existence, and if that copy is not available for photography, then I agree that the image is non-replaceable. But I have seen no evidence of this. (3) CaveatLector is a great contributor, and this image was useful and encyclopedic. I take no joy in deleting it -- I just don't think our policies allowed us to keep it. If we can determine where it is housed, I would be willing to write the museum and request that they release a photo under a free license, following this great advice. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and restore. The assumption that a rare historic coin is not available for photography is reasonable, I think. At any rate, a mere photographic reproduction of a coin (which by itself is of course much too old for copyright) is probably not even protected by copyright in many jurisdictions, for lack of originality. Sandstein 20:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Addendum. Of course, if the image is to be kept under fair use, it must have a source indication. If the source cannot be determined, it should stay deleted. Sandstein 20:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete per Sandstein above. I'm convinced by the argument that a coin is a two-dimensional public domain work of art and the photograph is faithful reproduction. But if this is not true, I agree that the lack of sourcing and the plausibility of taking another photograph both mean that the photograph cannot be kept. IronGargoyle 15:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to endorse deletion per discussion below. IronGargoyle 03:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion The relevant case-law establishing the uncopyrightable nature of photographs of images already in the public domain (a photograph of the Mona Lisa, for example) is [Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.], cited in WP's templates. This reasoning does not apply to three-dimensional objects, however. The museum might have a commercial interest in maintaining the copyright for valuable works it contains. Hence, given the lack of definitive sourcing information, I must sadly endorse the deletion. Xoloz 22:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. So a coin is "three-dimensional enough" then? I mean some paintings (particularly oil) have a textural topography of brushstrokes that is greater than some coins. Hmmm... IronGargoyle 23:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Judges don't like to parse microns. :) The "image" is "two-dimensional", even as the paint and canvas do exist in our universe, where everything (outside of an exotic physics lab, anyway) exists in three-dimensions. Coins, however, are minted in relief -- the third dimension is employed to help create the essential image. "3-D views" in paintings rely on the optical illusion of perspective; coins, not so. I'm trying to explain a distinct that strikes me as "common sense", so I'm not sure how clear I've been. (Mind you, I don't like the distinction the court drew -- I think it's dumb, but it is the best precedent we have on which to judge.) Xoloz 00:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know, there's a lot of gray area here. See this thread where Wikipedia's lawyer (Mike Godwin) says that photos of coins should be presumed copyrightable. (By the way, I think the court's intention in Bridgeman was to say that a reproduction is ineligible for copyright if it doesn't add any new information (lighting choices, angle choices, etc.), or if it can be shown that the reproducer intended to merely reproduce the original and all new information was unintentional. But some judges rule differently than others on this, and it's better to be safe than financially very, very sorry.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 00:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, if Godwin says it, Godwin's Law is good enough for me. Damn copyright Nazis... ;-) IronGargoyle 03:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad's Monsters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article was nominated for deletion (see discussion here) on the basis that it failed notability guidelines as it lacked non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. the arguments for "Keep" asserted that because the author- David Bukay (and other authors used by him within the book) was notable, a seperate article on one of his publications was thus also automatically notable. the discussion was later closed as no consensus (default to keep), though still i believe the fundamental lack of any substantial reliable source coverage cannot be ignored. i raised the issue with the closing administrator, but as he disagreed, i decided i ought to run this case by other experienced users. ITAQALLAH 02:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I summed it up in the comment I left for the nominator: It's not a "vote", so a 4-2 count isn't overly relevant. Similarly WP:BK is a guideline, not a command. Legitimate arguments were made in good faith on both sides by very established editors who with one exception (not a "keep" voice) have literally thousands of edits on Islamic topics - neither side of the debate's position was so overwhelming so as to demonstrate that the community's consensus was to delete or keep, hence "no consensus". Although not raised as in the debate there is a tendency to keep compilation works where the contributors include several notable people: when two or more notable musicians collaborate on a project/album/song or as here, a book with essays (chapters) by several independently notable contributors. Again, I could see no obvious consensus to either keep or delete.

• In short, I saw no consensus, but now we can have many more people see whether I ought to have seen one. Carlossuarez46 03:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and in which direction consensus pointed. Carlossuarez46 03:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • just to clarify: i don't believe AfD discussions are votes; i'm not too concerned about the numbers. there was no evidence of notability provided during the AfD, and i believe there is still no evidence of notability. ITAQALLAH 03:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • For what it's worth: I think I did manage to find the Haaretz article online here; at least I think it's the one. Carlossuarez46 06:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This should have been deleted anyhow, because there are no sources. "Default" should not be, let's violate policy until we have a superconsensus not to.Proabivouac 03:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What policy? What the WP:DELETE policy says regarding deletions based on no sources is: "Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources" and "All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed". If the mere fact of no cited sources permits deletion, I'd like to see that clarified here, because there are thousands of articles currently lacking sources: July, for one example. Other than Haaretz, mentioned by the nominator and Amazon.com are sufficiently reliable sources for the existence and identity of the authors of the book, which could be placed in a reference section. The question here really is whether there was consensus regarding notability. Carlossuarez46 04:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I, too, think it fails the notability requirements. --Aminz 08:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Article should be kept , this book contains the writings of very notable experts on the topic.--CltFn 11:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist there was no consensus, but there might have been with a longer argument. I !voted to delete, on the grounds that the book itself was unimportant. The !votes for keep were on the basis that the authors were individually notable. The relative importance of this was not addressed, and I do not want to decide it here. There is a valid question about the applicable policy. DGG (talk) 15:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As CltFn point out, the book is written by highly notable experts. The closing admin made the right decision. -- Karl Meier 17:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist - I am with DGG on this one - we need to have a fuller discussion as to whether notable contributors constitute a notable book. Bridgeplayer 03:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. The closure was defensible, but some more input should settle the matter. Relisting is usually the best thing to do in a no consensus situation with few contributions. Sandstein 20:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Meets WP Music,WP:N HarryHall86 00:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion Valid AfD, no new information given that would cause us to overturn. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: if some of the claims made at AfD were sourced (like the claim of reaching #19 on the charts in Serbia), then I would actually consider supporting undeletion. However, since the article was deleted at a proper AfD, and there were no obvious procedural errors, we need real evidence before we can reconsider this. WP:MUSIC is only a guideline; Wikipedia:Verifiability is absolute policy. Xtifr _tälk 12:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment:(http://www.sizzerb.com/news/IPS.xls) - reference to reaching #19 on Album charts in Serbia. (You may need to click open if it asks you to) 58.174.226.155 12:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We need independent, reliable sources; sizzerb.com is clearly not independent, and is unlikely to be considered a reliable source. Xtifr _tälk 13:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion AfD was closed properly with clear consensus to delete. --Ginkgo100^talk 23:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-canonical spells in Harry Potter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I just need it for a few weeks (at most, tomorrow I'll be out of town until--I don't know) so I can merge it into Spells in Harry Potter. If this doesn't work, could someone send me the codes for the page (Wiki style) to therequiembellishere@gmail.com? Many thanks. Therequiembellishere 18:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

That picture claimed to be necessary for showing an historical event that can not be reprodued in anyway and the debate was completely in favor of keeping it. Pejman47 21:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the original deletion discussion can be found here. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 21:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, which was per policy, not consensus - primarily WP:NFCC#8 (did not significantly increase the understanding of the reader in a way words cannot - simply saying "Saddam and Rumsfeld met and even shook hands" gets the point across equally well without a copyrighted image). Also, I think, had problems with WP:NFCC#10 - the copyright holder wasn't identified in the image description page or non-free use rationale. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 21:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. While I reasoned otherwise in the debate, I think the claim that the image is copyright under a non-existent government is pushing the limit. Note that CNN rebroadcast the image -- an implicit claim by a major news organization that the image is essentially public domain. In any case, this is an iconic image that is "all over the place" -- in other words, many other organizations believe that it is essentially free. I think we should take that into account when playing lawyer. Sdedeo (tips) 21:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you might misunderstand public domain - for example, CNN broadcasts clips from movies without claiming they're public domain. CNN presumably rebroadcast that image under fair use, and their fair use rules are less strict than Wikipedia's. I think really this argument hinges on WP:NFCC#8 - does it significantly increase the reader's understanding to have this non-free image? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 21:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • CNN was not rebroadcasting the image while reviewing the movie "Saddam Hussein's Iraq", so your example is not really to the point. I think you, and many others, are really pushing this too far. Sdedeo (tips) 21:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Generally speaking, rebroadcasting a news clip from one station on another is a classic case of fair use (in a normal context, not on Wikipedia). -Nard 21:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not at all. There was a controversy awhile ago about rebroadcast of the breakup of shuttle Columbia; in general doing that is considered OK under a "gentleman's agreement" among stations (when one has a live feed, but not others), but not otherwise. Bring on the wikilawyersing! Sdedeo (tips) 22:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please don't comment about the other editors, thanks. The term 'wikilawyers' is not helpful. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 22:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment What CNN did is of limited relevance, unless they actully discussed the copyright status. CNN might well have been claiming fair use, and our standards are more restrictivce than the law requires. For the matter of thst, CNN might have been mistaken. CNN might also have figured that the image was technically copyrighted but that the chance of being sued was very small. We would evaluate such a situation rather differently. DES ^(talk) 22:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse process seems to have been followed and close was within closer's discretion. I probably would have argued to keep though, technically you can describe any picture in words, if that's your standard, we'd have no fair use. Obviously some is allowable even by the strictest possible interpretation of current policy and standards. --W.marsh 22:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It passes NFCC#8 to show what a person looked like, since that can't adequately be conveyed in words. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The closing admin's argument (just as my argument as nominator) was not that the image must be deleted because it cat be described in words. You're (unintentionally, I'm sure) oversimplifying the matter. --Abu badali ^(talk) 22:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I'm not going to bicker semantics here, but his statement said 'the statement "Rumsfeld once met with Hussein" does not need an image to be understood' and I think my comment was consistent with responding to that. --W.marsh 22:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, sadly. It's copyrighted (apparently to Iraqi State Television, although I can't find any documentary evidence of that), and we can only use copyrighted material if it substantially aids the reader's understanding in a way words cannot. What does one learn about the event by seeing the image, that one would not know if one read the description "Donald Rumsfeld met with Saddam Hussein in 1980, and the two shook hands."? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does one learn looking at the photo Dewey Defeats Truman that a simple text description couldn't convey? Some images are just iconic, so even if what's going on is relatively simple to express, they're still worth including. I'd argue that this Rumsfeld image could be somewhere near that level. But I'm not sure current policy actually backs that up, and closers do get some discretion. --W.marsh 22:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not familiar with this image, but the article says it's "one of the more famous images from the 20th Century", what (it correct) makes the image iconic. No educational discussion about an image is complete without a representation of the image. That's the difference (mentioned above) between the concepts of "images that can be described by text" and "texts that need an image to be understood". --Abu badali ^(talk) 13:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I went over to Commons and looked at template:PD-Iraq. I was stunned. Audiovisual works that are not "artistic" (arguably applicable to this shot) are protected for only 5 years? -Nard 22:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that's the case, then great! I'm all for free content - can someone verify this? Good catch. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 22:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the other hand, we need to verify that the original source is Iraqi before this applies. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 22:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Check [30]. Sdedeo (tips) 22:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those "artistic/simple" dichotomies are not always that clear-cut. In most jurisdictions, there has to be some sort of threshold of originality (see also Commons:Template talk:PD-Italy). Usually (and I don't know anything about the specific case of Iraq), "simple" photographs are those that require absolutely no creative input -- no choice of angle, lighting, etc, which usually means stuff like images from security cameras and the like, where no human has any real say in how the photo is taken. howcheng {chat} 22:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to close image is now on Commons. -Nard 22:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not close. The image has been nominated for deletion on the Commons due to the public domain dispute. Let's finish this discussion here and not worry about Commons. --- RockMFR 22:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right. -Nard 22:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn most likely PD in Iraq, and qualifies as fair use. Future generations simply will not believe the change Iraq made from friend of the US to enemy in less than 10 years. -Nard 22:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's PD, then this whole exercise is moot, but we're operating under the assumption that the image is non-free. That being the case, you still don't need to see an image of Rumsfeld and Hussein shaking hands to get the point that the U.S. and Iraq used to be allies. We have an entire article called U.S. support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war which contains numerous sourced statements that prove this point far better than this image does. howcheng {chat} 23:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a bit up in the air though, and open to interpretation. You don't need the image Image:JFKmotorcade.jpg to describe the Kennedy Assassination, but it does add significantly to the article. The Saddam/Rumsfeld video is one of the most famous examples depicting this period of US support, and you could say it adds significant value to the article. Discussions to whether this qualifies as free use are taking place at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Saddam rumsfeld.jpg. - hahnchen 01:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If we don't need that image, then it shouldn't be there either, especially since this is a press agency photo and a perfect example of WP:NONFREE#Examples of unacceptable use #5. howcheng {chat} 17:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wouldn't call Iraqi state television a "press agency". -Nard 21:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • What would you call TASS, then? Just because an agency is state-controlled doesn't exclude it from being a "press agency". Heather 23:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• For the record, my understanding of this image is that it's fairly iconic. I don't have any flowery examples, including "Dewey defeats Truman!" or the JFK motorcade, as mentioned above, but I would personally submit a belief that the article is significantly improved by having this image. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  More than significantly improving some article (what's somewhat easy to achieve), a non-free images needs to make the article less intelligible when it's not present. I don't think it's the case here. --Abu badali ^(talk) 13:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd say a number of articles are quite significantly improved by having Image:Yalta Conference.jpg, an image showing the meeting of Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin in 1945 -- the Yalta image is public domain, yes, but it adds value is the point I'm getting at. Maybe not to the point of Tank Man, but I would actually say the article is lacking without this widely known image. This isn't just another album cover. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, iconic image, overwhelming consensus on the ifd on that subjective point, and most of the opposition is based on misunderstanding, like thinking of it as a screenshot of a television program instead of an iconic image in itself. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ifd closing, as Videmus Omnia explained above, was per policy, not consensus.
  • I also completely disagree with your description of "most of the opposition". --Abu badali ^(talk) 14:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "significance" is subjective. Most commenters agreed that it was a significant image. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • But did any of them agree it was required for understanding the text, which is the standard set in WP:NFCC #8? howcheng {chat} 17:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think it's required to have images in Dewey Defeats Truman or Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, but our understanding would be significantly impaired without them. Sure, we could just say "a photograph of the raid won a pulitzer prize and became an icon for the event" and would it really be necessary to have the picture on Elián González affair? All of them could just be described in text. But we'd lose something, like we're losing something by taking out the image that has become as much of an icon for relations between the US and Iraq during the 80s as any of those images have become an icon for those events. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • In those first two cases, NFCC #8 is fulfilled. The images significantly increase readers' understanding in a way that words alone cannot and their omission would be detrimental to that understanding. The Elian Gonzalez image won a Pulitzer Prize and so is significant in and of itself. This image, on the other hand, doesn't meet either of those standards. howcheng {chat} 18:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • But why? Everyone else says it's iconic. Why do two or three people who disagree without even presenting a reason overrule the many who say it is? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • "Without even presenting a reason"? Eh? Have I been talking to myself here this whole time? Because "Rumsfeld once shook hands with Saddam Hussein" is perfectly understandable without an image! Go read U.S. support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war#U.S. support for Iraq from which this image was removed after deletion. Can you honestly say that you can't understand what it's talking about without seeing the photo? Go and ask a co-worker or friend or family member who may not have a mental image of the photo and ask if they have any problem understanding this section and if a photo of Rumsfeld and Hussein shaking hands would make a difference. howcheng {chat} 18:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • "A man once stood in front of a tank" makes perfect sense without an image, yet I doubt I'd be alone saying we'd be mad, mad fools to get rid of that image without a truly compelling reason. When we say "this image is iconic," we essentially mean that the image has been displayed hundreds or thousands of times in association with a historic meeting -- it's ingrained in the public perception of the event, for many people. This is much more significant than "one time these two guys shook hands, lol." – Luna Santin (talk) 21:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Back up these kinds of statements with cited references in the article(s) and we can call this whole thing off. howcheng {chat} 21:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

                  Notice the difference:

                  From U.S. support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war:

                  "Donald Rumsfeld even met with Saddam several times, the first on December 19 – December 20, 1983. Rumsfeld visited again on March 24, 1984;"

                  From Tank Man:

                  "Franklin subsequently won a World Press Award for the photograph. It was featured in LIFE magazine's "100 Photos that Changed the World" in 2003."

                  Which of these makes the reader say "...But, where can I see it?" --Abu badali ^(talk) 22:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

                  • • (ec) That's a difficult call, and I hope you know it. ;) In an attempt to justify what I've said, I'll refer to (gasp!) the Google test. Now, if you search "rumsfeld saddam," the first 10 results will give you 4 pages showing this image, and another 3 that are primarily about this particular meeting, usually described as "Rumsfeld's handshake deal with Saddam" -- that's 70%, mind you. In the first 30 results, at least 7 pages show the image very prominently, and about 9 are primarily about this meeting -- the results get overwhelmed with current events stories, Rumsfeld talking about Saddam, and all sorts of Pentagon press releases, but even several decades later, this "handshake" makes a very prominent showing. Don't believe me? Take a peek at the image search. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Are those "google results" article talking about the image/footage or talking about the event captured? Can you note the difference? --Abu badali ^(talk) 22:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Both! :p Several, in fact, are only the image (or video). Way to demonstrate you didn't check. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • And to Abu, thanks for pointing out something I already admitted: yes, Tank Man is more iconic than the handshake. That doesn't mean, in and of itself, that the handshake has zero iconic value. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Oh... I guess you didn't understand the argument. What's relevant here is not that the "Tank man" image is more "iconic" (although it is), but that the article Tank man calls for the image, while U.S. support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, doesn't. --Abu badali ^(talk) 22:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn iconic image. It is furthermore in very low resolution, and also highly relevant to the article. A good case can also be made that it is out of copyright. It certainly is in the country is produced, and CNN did not acquire copyright by rebroadcasting an image which at the time belonged to someone else. They presumably broadcast it as fair use because of the news value. DGG (talk) 15:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody has said that CNN owns the copyright to this image. howcheng {chat} 16:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at the deletion request on commons, it looks like the image is going to be kept, as they seem to be of the opinion it is PD. This is becoming moot. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Send to Wiki's Legal Dept for an answer about whether it's in the public domain or not: are there those who seriously favor deletion if we were all sure that it's in the public domain? Carlossuarez46 00:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course not (or at least I hope not). The best result is if this is public domain. howcheng {chat} 01:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it comes out to be PD, I would favor the upload of the whole video. --Abu badali ^(talk) 06:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So why should we debate this and play lawyers at home when we can get a definitive answer and just keep or delete based on that? Carlossuarez46 20:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • My take on that: it seems to set an iffy precedent on two counts: first, that we should go bug Mark every time there's a copyright dispute; second, that the foundation should open itself to legal liability by taking a specific stance on everyday issues. Certainly there are issues and considerations we should be passing up the ladder, but that seems to be overkill in this case, unless we have a specific complaint from somebody claiming to hold the copyright on this image. Most of this particular discussion has been focused on WP:NFCC, anyway -- the legal/copyright side of the debate seems to be more on commons. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I can see that it'd be a burden, but since here copyright status appears the only issue in contention, I'd seriously consider making the exception; normally, there are so many other reasons for deletion we don't really need a definitive answer. Here, there may be sufficient fair use arguments that we again don't need the definitive answer, so perhaps I'm wrong there. Sorry. Carlossuarez46 23:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Nothing to be sorry about. :) It's a legitimate suggestion, obviously made in good faith. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and keep view - obviously not repeatable this is an image of huge historic importance. To say that the text 'Rumsfeld shakes hands with Saddam' is anything like comparable is simply, nonsense. This is an iconic image whose importance cannot be overestimated. Bridgeplayer 22:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I stated earlier, find evidence that documents the impact of this specific image, put it in the article, and voila, you have now built an ironclad case for using this non-free media. howcheng {chat} 05:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the BBC thought it significant enough to feature it here as one of just seven photos used to summarise Rumsfeld's career. Bridgeplayer 00:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes and I see they credit Getty. Copyfraud at its finest. -Nard 00:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle Against Bald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Battle Against Bald is a valuable resource for people seeking hair restoration. It shows informative videos and offers tons of information about hair loss. It's a blog, not a company trying to make money. Respond2 18:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - Valid deletion. DB-Spam material. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 18:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, if it's not spam, it's still a website without an assertion of notability, and websites fall under A7. --Coredesat 19:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Possibly spam, clearly A7, as User:Coredesat said. However, if soemone came to DRV with a non-spammy, well sourced draft in userspace, I'd be willing to consider unsalting. I won't hold my breath, waiting. DES ^(talk) 20:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion: Wikipedia does not exist to promote "valuable resources, whether commercial or not, so no valid reason for undeletion has been offered. Our general criteria for websites can be found at WP:WEB. Xtifr _tälk 11:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is a very old speedy deletion. While I endorse the original deletion, if a user wants to take a stab at creating again as a well-sourced article, I would not have a problem with that, although it would have to address the spam and notability issues to avoid re-deletion. --Ginkgo100^talk 23:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of Washington Police Department (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This deletion (well, the deletion vote turned into a redirect) was carried out a long time ago. It clearly passes the notability test, and there are now many other University Police departments with pages on wikipedia (see Category:United States school police departments). Besides, the people on the Norwegian wikipedia don't think it unimportant enough, (no:Universitetet_i_Washingtons_Politi). This article clearly should have not been turned into a redirect. I propose restoring it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the 2005 VfD decision to redirect to the original source of the content. I note that there is now only one small paragraph in the University of Washington article, and that neither that paragraph nor the 2005 version here nominated, nor the nomination has an assertion or evidence of encyclopedic significance. Absent evidence of such notability, an AfD decision these days would be to merge it to the university article. That it exists in the Norwegian wikipedia appears to be the result of a translation effort while it was a separate article here, never considered for whether it meets their standards, and in addition each Wikipedia maintains its own standards and theirs are not necessarily the same as ours. If evidence of notability (independent coverage about the police department, not primarily about incidents in which it was involved) is found later, expand the content in the University's article until it needs to be split, then get consensus on the University's talk page. GRBerry 14:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I think it's fine to create an article here if you think this can be expanded. It's an ancient deletion discussion, it was just a redirect decision anyway, you don't technically need DRV to overturn that. --W.marsh 15:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Just find some notable material--if it has been involved in matters where its role in the investigation was discussed in some significant way in RSs I think it would meet the requirement. 17:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Recreation, either as a section in University of Washington or as a separate article if notability is there, should not need DRV permisison. Since this was redirected rather than deleted, there is really nothing to reveiw. DES ^(talk) 20:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• You don't need a DRV to edit a redirect page unless it's actually been protected, but the resulting article still must meet the normal criteria (multiple substantial reliable independent sources, mainly). If it can meet that, edit away, if it can't, leave it merged. The existence of other university police articles would mean nothing to that, since inclusion doesn't indicate notability, and in any case some university police departments might be appropriate for standalone articles while others would be more appropriate to cover in the parent article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse deletion unless there is some evidence of notability. there are only a few articles on university police departments, and some of these are being challenged at this very time, as they don't show independent notability either/ (some do, such as Virginia Tech, where the actions of the police department specifically were they subject of significant discussion in the press.DGG (talk) 15:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - this should be a matter for normal organic article growth. If the section on the police in the main article becomes so big with sourced material that it unbalances the main article then, and only then, should it be split out. Bridgeplayer 04:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Recently, Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians and its subcategories were listed for deletion. The debate was balanced but inconclusive, disregarding some last-minute "me too" and "I don't like it" arguments. Especially in light of the recent decision to keep the entire Category:Wikipedians by religion user category, I think that After Midnight's decision to delete these user categories was misguided. I therefore request that the deleted categories be restored.   — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 09:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here follows some relevant information. If you've already decided how to vote, best to just skip it.

Stakes Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians and its subcategories Category:Cthulhu Cultist Wikipedians, Category:Discordian Wikipedians, Category:Flying Spaghetti Monsterist Wikipedians, Category:Invisible Pink Unicorn Wikipedians, and Category:SubGenius Wikipedians

Players

• Horologium nominated the categories for deletion in part "because no collaboration is possible". Horologium also voted to delete Wikipedians by religion, and all subcategories, specificaly because they were used for collaboration.
• After Midnight closed the discussion as delete. After Midnight also voted to delete Wikipedians by religion because categories are "divisive".
• Black Falcon voted delete here. Black Falcon previously nominated Wikipedians by religion for deletion, and ranted extensively in that discussion. Black Falcon deletes a lot of things.
• Octane has a gorgeous user page, but I digress. Octane voted to delete these categories, arguing on the premise that each subject only has one article. This premise is false. Some of those user categories have many associated articles; some have entire associated subject categories.
• I voted keep. I think my argument was reasonable, but then, I'm obviously biased in favor of my own arguments.
• WaltCip voted keep, on the grounds of avoiding discrimination.
• I think that WaltCip's argument is a good argument. (this is actually an incorrectly placed canvassed vote by Lighthead at 20:32, 26 July 2007 UTC - 1st ever deletion discussion)
• As previously mentioned, there were a couple other "me too" and "do not want" voters.

Events

• Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/June 2007#Category:Wikipedians by religion, the precedent discussion; closed as delete, but overturned as keep in review
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 25 (second entry on the page), the deletion review for Wikipedians by religion; conclusion was keep
• Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/July 2007#Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians, the discussion in review here

Discuss

• Note: The nominator, User:Bigwyrm, has canvassed for votes among former members of this category. --ST47Talk·Desk 11:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing whatsoever wrong with letting people know when there is a discussion in progress that affects them. To do otherwise invites accusations of cabalistic behavior.   — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 13:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suggest that you re-read WP:CANVAS#Votestacking --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • He also notified those opposed to him in the debate, such as User:After Midnight. So he was being non-partisan, the message was neutral, and he posted to less than 45 users (some of those links are article pages etc.). So doesn't this count as a friendly notice? DenisMoskowitz 19:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • False - He did not notify ANY of those opposed to him in the debate. He did notify me, but I did not oppose him. I was the closing admin and he was required to notify me that this was here per the process. In fact, he violated the very first principle of Deletion Review which is "1. Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first - courteously invite the admin to take a second look." He clearly failed to do this and simply brought the matter here without prior discussion. I've addressed your question about friendly notice below where you first asked it. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I apologize for misreading the situation. I'm not sure exactly why we have the canvassing policy we have, but this does violate it. DenisMoskowitz 22:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have since notified User:Horologium, User:Black Falcon, User:WaltCip, User:ESkog, User:Sawblade05, User:Octane, and User:^demon, who participated in the original debate. — The Storm Surfer 01:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Aren't the originators of the initial vote guilty of the same thing? As I mentioned below, users who were part of the categories in question were not even notified that there was an attempt be made to delete our religions. B.Mearns^*, KSC 12:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like to irrelevantly point out that at least one person who was notified by the canvas was not a member of the former category, but will agree that all those notified have probably expressed their opinion on the subject matter at some point. --Osho-Jabbe 05:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing admin - among the first group of editors to express an opinion on this matter you will note that I have marked that several of them were canvassed to do so. Please note that the fact that these marks do not continue down the page is not an indication that there are not additional canvased votes here, but rather that I got tired of looking them all up. I am certain that more canvassed votes are here, but I felt that there were better things that I could do rather than tag each one. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 04:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, as nom.   — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 09:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Process was followed. Consensus was clear. I see no reason to disregard the comments that you characterize as "me too". When someone sees what they believe to be a well written nomination and they say "per nom", it is perfectly valid. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 10:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse consensus to delete. --Kbdank71 10:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• (canvassed vote - 1st Wikipedia space contrib in 8 months) Overturn or add Category:Discordian Wikipedians and others to Category:Wikipedians by religion. I don't see why I and other Erisians should be excluded from categorization. --Storkk 11:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn until and unless Category:Wikipedians by religion is deleted. I consider all religion a joke, to be quite frank, but Discordianism and Pastafarianism has every bit as much right to expression as Christianity or Islam. Either get rid of 'em all (which is the solution I'd prefer) or allow 'em all, but in this case, there really is no in between. It's not our place or business to decide what's a "real" religion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• (canvassed vote - 1st Wikipedia space contrib in 2 months) Overturn per nom. There are people who can clearly identify theirselfs with for example Discordianism so I think all those religions should be merged into Category:Wikipedians by religion. --helohe (talk) 11:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Provisionally overturn -- as long as Category:Wikipedians by religion is available. There's no obvious reason to discriminate among religions according to their apparent silliness. I wouldn't be upset if Category:Wikipedians by religion (etc) went, though: I'm puzzled by the desire for userboxes. (My page does sport one, but I'll spare you the reason for it and anyway it's religion-irrelevant.) -- Hoary 11:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• (canvassed vote - 1st Wikipedia space contrib in 9 months) Overturn - Unless we're allowed to move these subcats straight to Category:Wikipedians by religion, which I'm not saying is neccessarily a good idea, I don't see how the deletion of this cat is anything but discrimination. Saying, for instance, that Discordianism is not a religion is no better than saying Wicca or Paganism are not religions. I realize not everyone was making that argument, but some were. I know there is issue in general with the polemic user cats, but I think it's useful for everyone to know what lens (or grid, if you will) authors are writing from so we can better understand various points of view expressed on both talk pages and article pages. If someone is editing the article about Historical Jesus, I for one would like to know whether they belong to Category:Born again Christian wikipedians, or Category:Wikipedians who worship IPU. Just an example, but I hope you see my point. I don't believe collaboration is the only purpose for these categories. B.Mearns^*, KSC 12:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - Those arguing that the first vote was sufficient should be aware that members of this category were not notified that such a vote was taking place. Seeing as how this was a discussion over a user cat, I think it was somewhat inappropriate to hold the discussion without notifying users who were in that category. B.Mearns^*, KSC 12:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• (canvassed vote - 1st Wikipedia space contrib in 11 months) Provisionally overturn unless "fictional" relgions such as Flying Spaghetti Monsterism and Discordianism are allowed into the "regular" Category:Wikipedians by religion — Xoder|✆ 13:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• (canvassed vote, fourth WP: edit in the last 2 months.)Overturn per nom. I personally don't see what all the fuss about "canvassing" is; some of us don't religiously follow User Categories for Discussion, and the first I knew of this was seeing my userpage modified by a bot. At any rate, I feel that the salient question here is, who gets to decide what is a "valid" religion which merits a category, and what is not? Obviously there's some level of "Making things up in school one day" but I feel that the groups in question here have outstripped that level and are long-standing groups with many members. And yes, before someone puts one of those little comments here, I was notified on my user page of this discussion ("canvassed", if you like, this is my first contribution to Wikipedia space in about 2 weeks) and I am a former member of the Discordian Wikipedians group. Fnord. Ryanjunk 14:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, being as the deletion followed process and policy better than this deletion review. The purpose of DRV is to correct procedural errors in deletion discussions and speedy deletions. Due to the votestacking in this DRV, I am inclined to believe that the deletion of this article through this DRV would be a greater evil than the alleged out of process closing. Pot, meet kettle. ----ST47Talk·Desk 14:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per nom, and per arguments by Seraphimblade and B. Mearns.--Alf ^melmac 14:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• (canvassed vote - 1st Wikipedia space contrib in 2 months) Overturn. Many of the arguments made in the deletion rested on falsities, such as "However, since the "religions" are satirical in nature, one cannot honestly claim them to be a philosophical view." Is Horologium the expert in what people have the ability to believe and believe in? These religions are satirical, but they are not only satirical. In addition, the phrase "no collaboration is possible" is demonstrably false - a number of Discordians came together to work on the Discordian Works article, for instance. DenisMoskowitz 14:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • AfterMidnight, please try responding to my arguments rather than marking me as "canvassed". Or do only those who obsess about category deletions etc. count in this discussion? As far as I'm concerned, what Bigwyrm did was "Friendly Notice", which is acceptable according to WP:CANVAS. DenisMoskowitz 19:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Friendly notice specifies a limited number of users, which 40+ certainly exceeds. This is certainly not acceptable. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • All this crap about "first contrib to such and such a space in such and such a time" is bullshit. I don't know if it's wikipedia policy (because no, I haven't memorized all 67 thousand articles discussing wikipedia policy), but if it is, it needs to be addressed. If a bunch of accounts were created simply for the sake of engaging in the debate/vote, then that's obviously an issue, but the fact that I've lately been too busy with real life to edit the wikipedia namespace is irrelevant to the discussion, and placing it there implies that my contribution is somehow less important or otherwise skewed. It's crap. The fact is, we were invited to join the conversation because it directly impacts us, and we should get a say in it, something we missed out on the first time around due to negligence on the part of the vote originators to properly inform those who would be affected. If you truly believe this vote is currently unbalanced, the simple solution is to notify all those who voted the first time so they can rejoin the debate, instead of hiding behind bureaucratic policies to avoid addressing the actual issue under review. B.Mearns^*, KSC 12:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I am not sure the title of the category is a wise choice, but I do not see how we can possibly decide what counts as a real religion. DGG (talk) 17:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per nom, and per Seraphimblade. wikipediatrix 17:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment notifying members in a user category is in my opinion not canvassing--it is simply notifying the people who are likely to be interested in the discussion--they will not necessarily all support it--some may think it not worth continuing now that it has been called to their attention--or if none of them do defend it after notification, that certainly indicates a plausible reason to delete. DGG (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Response If what you assert is true, then why does WP:CANVAS#Votestacking state "Votestacking is sending mass talk messages only to editors who are on the record with a specific opinion (such as via a userbox or other user categorization) and informing them of a current or upcoming vote."? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I do think that contacting the members of the category was borderline votestacking, but on the other hand, failure to notify the same members during the original AfD was equally questionable. Evouga 17:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, but they should not be canvassed in either circumstance. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, despite consensus to delete. Given the existence of Category:Wikipedians by religion, barring some Wikipedians from expressing their religious views would harm the encyclopedia - not only is attacking another's religion extremely divisive and uncivil, but is is also not possible for the community to decide which religions are "serious" without invoking systemic bias, the avoidance of which is one of Wikipedia's highest policies. Moreover, as a user category, this category is not cluttering up main Wikipedia articles. For these reasons I see keeping this category as doing less harm to the project than deleting it. Evouga 17:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - As long as Category:Wikipedians by religion exists. I really have no opinion on the various categories under discussion. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 20:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn as per several others above, i see no valid argument for failing to treat this in the same way as Category:Wikipedians by religion, and failing to acknowledge the precedent-basied argument is in a way a process violation. That said, i hope this would be renamed if kept, to soemthing like Category:Wikipedians with non-traditional religions, or perhaps better just merge the various subcats into Category:Wikipedians by religion, so no distinction is made. But that is an argument for a different time and forum. DES ^(talk) 21:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have a few things to say about this. 1) WP:CCC 2) It is reasonable for people to feel one way about a hierarchically superior category and differently about its subordinates. For example, my friend loves dogs, but hates chihuahuas, and comments that they look like rats. 3) If someone closes a discussion based merely upon precedent and ignoring consensus, don't those items also come to DRV to be overturned? We can't have our cake and eat it too. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 2) No it is not when you are trying to construct an NPOV encyclopedia. Creating a "dogs" category but excluding Chihuahuas, because "they look like rats," would be exceedingly biased. Evouga 22:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 3) NPOV policy has always trumped consensus. Though I do not advocate frequently ignoring it, in this case I do not feel this category can be deleted on its own without introducing unacceptable bias. You're right that consensus can change, and if Category:Wikipedians by religion is deleted I have no objections to this category being deleted at that time as well. Evouga 22:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - I concede that I am a bit new to the community, but I have seen a number of articles and categories deleted without any discussion or reasonable consideration. I would support eliminating “Speedy deletions.” It seems safer to err on the side of being too informative, rather than not informative enough. I have noticed a general trend toward keeping any article (however poorly referenced) that fits within the dominant media culture, rather than any of the more diverse subcultures in this global community. Meanwhile, well-referenced articles are deleted, without discussion, simply because one administrator decides it is not notable (even when Wikipedia's criteria is met). The catchall phrase seems to be notability. So Paris Hilton’s drunk driving is notable, while a political movement, the symbol attached to a planet, or a less-known religion is not. As a realm of scholarly reference, Wikipedia needs to be more inclusive of fringe information (so long as sources are cited, referenced or linked).