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 [1]. 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).

That being said, I would support moving this category to a page with a different title. “Pseudo-religion” implies something phony or inauthentic. This is presumptuous for a subject matter where the buzzword is “Faith” rather than “Fact.” One person’s absolute truth is another person’s pseudo religion. The faithful have all kinds of pejoratives for those who differ in their beliefs: heathen, goyum, infidel, gentile, gray-face, damned, condemned, and so on. The bottom line is that alternative religion, or subculture, or minority world-view would be more descriptive.--Libertyguy 23:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will agree with those who've stated that to be truly NPOV, we need to allow for the same categorization extended to those who are involved in mainstream religions and those who are in lesser knowns, such as Pastafarianism. And I'd like to see the opposition from the original VFD speak to this point, as this seems to me to be the clincher. Bo-Lingua 23:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, in order to avoid being tagged, I'll mention that Bigwyrm posted a message to my talk page as well. I will also note that this is my first Wikipedia space contribution in two days (so clearly I'm not an active member of the community and my opinion is useless?). I will also note that I discovered the original deletion debate as it was being closed and so was unable to participate in it. I can only speak for Category:Discordian Wikipedians myself, because I'm not really familiar with the others.

The only argument given for deletion that I cannot thoroughly dismiss is Sawblade05's “Does not belong here,” to which I can only say “Yes, it does.” (Or perhaps “WP:IDONTLIKEIT.”)

The nominator's assertion that the religions do not exist I personally find extremely insulting. Discordianism obviously exists, and I don't think we'd have an article about it if it didn't.

The assertion that no collaboration is possible is also false. As DenisMoskowitz pointed out above, Discordians have collaborated before.

The assertion that “they are parodies or satirical religions” is an opinion that may be true, but is not relevant. It says right in his own sentence that they are religions, and I can personally assure you that there is at least one adherent of Discordianism. I see obvious elements of parody and satire in Satanism, but Category:Satanist Wikipedians seems to be free from being deleted for this reason.

The assertion that “People who wish to express their disbelief in deities are welcome to add themselves to Category:Atheist Wikipedians or any of its subcats” is about as relevant to Discordianism as it is to Islam. After all, don't Muslims express their disbelief in thousands of deities in Tawḥīd? Discordianism, FSMism, and IPUism are even named after deities!

Black Falcon's assertion that “There is no collaborative value to these categories” has already been done away with by showing that there is. His point that “Identifying with a given religious philosophy (especially philosophies that parody other beliefs) does not imply an ability or desire to contribute encyclopedic content about them. ” is a very good one, but again DenisMoskowitz has shown that the ability and desire is there.

^demon's assertion that “There is absolutely no collaborative potential for these, and any such would be original research” is incomprehensible to me. It has of course been shown that there is collaborative potential, but the original research comment is just plain strange. Discordianism, like most Wikipedia articles, is not as well cited as it should be, but is it all original research? Sufism “is primarily concerned with direct personal experience” (according to its article); is that article therefore original research as well?

Octane asserts that “The nominated categories cover one article each”, but Category:Discordianism currently has 35 pages and three subcategories.

Any other reasons for deletion I have either overlooked (if I have please correct me!) or have not yet been voiced.

I'm not really sure if there are any obvious procedural violations in the original discussion (just poor reasoning), but I think this counts as “significant new information” per DRV purpose statement 3 (even though that is guided at articles).

In summary, I believe that at the least the deletion of Category:Discordian Wikipedians should be overturned. I cannot personally provide much information as to what should be done with the others. — The Storm Surfer 00:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Discordianism comment well-noted, but my point still stands for the rest, unless I'm looking at the wrong parent cat (Category:New religious movements doesn't have a category for any others mentioned here, aside from discordianism). :/ Octane ^{[improve me]} 27.07.07 0139 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion. Obviously, since I was the one who nominated all of these, I support the decision. There are a few misconceptions that need to be addressed above.

First off, Bigwyrm notes that I endorsed the deletion of all the religion cats, but rather egregiously misrepresents my position on the issue. I specifically stated (at first) that I did not endorse the mass deletion, but when I was informed that the categories were being used to canvass (like what was done here), I supported the deletion proposal. I didn't participate in the DRV, because I really didn't feel THAT strongly about it. Seraphimblade takes me to task for targeting certain "religions" (yes, the scare quotes are appropriate in this case). Four of the five main articles for the categories state that they are parody religions, which means they are not real. I repeat, they are not real. This is the crux of the issue. See Discordianism, Invisible Pink Unicorn, and Flying Spaghetti Monster, all of which specifically state that they are parody or satirical religions; Church of the SubGenius notes that it is an offshoot of Discordianism, and later notes that it mocks Scientology and New Age religion. Cthulhu notes that the deity was created by H. P. Lovecraft as a plot device for his series of books.

I am of the belief that the "religion" category should be reserved for real religions, or the lack thereof. There are several categories that are appropriate for non-believers (Category:Atheist Wikipedians and its subcategories, or perhaps Category:Bright Wikipedians, which is a subcat of Category:Nontheistic Wikipedians. Any religion that states in its introduction that it is a parody does not qualify as a religious belief in and of itself, and is more appropriate for some type of humor category. We go to great lengths to avoid offending people with the octopus-like scope of WP:BLP, which now covers dead people as well; why should we allow categories which openly mock traditional religions to exist?

Note also that this does not affect the userboxen associated with the categories; while I think they are pointless, I would oppose any attempt to delete the userboxen in question. I wasn't around for the great userbox purge, but I would have been there swinging against the deletionists in that case. A userbox is appropriate for noting the affiliation.

If there is a consensus that the categories should be restored, I really think that they need to be moved out of the religion (or philosophy) categories into a category of their own. (Somewhere in Category:Wikipedians by interest would be appropriate.)

I begin my vacation tomorrow, so my internet access will be spotty to non-existent. If I don't respond, it's not because I don't have a response to whatever you say, it's because I cannot log on or am actually doing something more important than Wikipedia. Horologium t-c 01:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: The assertion that parody means "not real" is understandable, but none-the-less false. Saturday Night Live is primarily parody, it's real. Further, it is a very genuine belief by some that parody is a very important and very useful tool. While this may not qualify as religous on it's own, you can not merely dismiss something just because it is parody.

As far as the articles themselves claiming they are parody: a) that may indicate the articles need editing since, as is often the case, these religions have all taken on a life of their own far beyond what their originators may have initially intended, so even if the religion began as nothing but a joke or literary device, that does not mean that is the limits of it today. b) In Discordianism, at any rate, the only reference I found in that article for "parody" or "satire" is in the second line where it specifically says it is "regarded" as a parody religion. That doesn't mean it is. There are those who consider Christianity a religion that parodies Goddess worshipping (or reality for that matter). That doesn't mean members of that religion necessarily see themselves that way. If they do, refer to my point above.

As for Lovecraft's invention of Cthulhu as a literary device: a) I would just like to point out that the originator of the Church of Scientology, was a science fiction writer. I'll leave conclusions to you. b) Many of the ancient Greek gods/deities were invented through mythology, i.e., they were a literary device. Would anyone argue that the Ancient Greeks did not have religion?

This is not the first time in this pair of discussions, and certainly not in wikipedia at large, that these religions have been clumped together with Atheism, but that's not at all appropriate in all cases. I too, cannot speak for anything but Discordianism, but as a Discordian, I do not in any way consider myself an athiest, nor do I consider any part of Discordianism as expressing anti-theistic beliefs. We worship a goddess, The Goddess. Her Name is Eris. Just as Christians worship Jesus and Protestants worship an old man in white robes. For myself and many other Discordians, this is not merely a funny tool for talking to Born Again take-yer-picks, it's a genuine spiritual belief, and to try to tell me or any one else that they don't really believe in Her is no different then telling a Muslim that they don't really believe in Ala. So to imply that our religion is not a real religion when we, it's members, are telling you straight up it is, is nothing short of close mindedness and institutionalized discrimination.

There was a comment about not allowing religions that mock other religions. Many religions, particularly western religions, in one way or another mock or offend other religions, notably by saying or implying that other religions are wrong, and their followers will burn in hell (just as an example).

B.Mearns^*, KSC 13:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not sure Wikipedia is a good source for information to be used in deletion debates, I believe you are misrepresenting the contents of the Discordianism article, which begins (after many edits): “Discordianism is a modern, chaos-centered religion founded circa 1958–1959 by Malaclypse the Younger with the publication of its principal text, the Principia Discordia.” The key word here being religion. It goes on to state that “It is widely regarded as a parody religion.” The key word there being regarded; in other words this stance is but one supportable opinion that many have taken (and others, significantly, have not). It happens to be your position that these are not real religions, but please do not represent it as some sort of indisputable fact upon which we should take action.

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons doesn't seem to apply to dead people (I'm guessing this from the number of times the phrase living person appears on that page versus the number of times the word dead does). In any case, BLP is not about offending people, it is about protecting the foundation from legal attacks and bad publicity. If it was about preventing offense, it might include such principles as only saying nice things about people, not putting up naked pictures of them, and not discussing politics, religion, or sexuality. Wikipedia contains content that offends some people. Some of it is in articles like Profanity, Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, or Roman Catholic Church. Some of it is outside the article space, like when you say Discordianism is not a real religion. — The Storm Surfer 02:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Deletion Freedom of religion here people, we have categories for everything else. Just my humble !vote. --BsayUSD [Talk] [contribs] 02:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion as being within process and proper. No one here has provided any reasonable arguments as to how these categories have collaborative potential outside the bounds of original research, which was one of the central arguments that led to the deletion. If this leads us to be inconsistent with respect to some other categories, we should examine those as well, but cries of religious discrimination are, frankly, ridiculous. (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what more you'd want me to say to support that “these categories have collaborative potential outside the bounds of original research”, or what was unreasonable about my argument to that effect. — The Storm Surfer 03:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the deletion was fine. I find Seraphimblade's argument not compelling - we certainly can apply our editorial judgment to distinguish between any significant established religion and spaghetti-monsterism. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I admit that I am here because of a message on my talk page. But is there a reason that Christianity and Islam should be given precedence over the above? (seriously, if there is, say so). It seems bias to allow categories for some belief systems but not others. The most "fair" thing to do is to either delete Category:Wikipedians by religion completely or keep it altogether. The fact that certain belief categories are allowed but others are not doesn't seem very neutral. Anyway, the bottom line is that I don't mind if people add their POV to their userpage, but as long as they don't add their POV to Wikipedia articles, it should be fine. Spellcast 03:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• What the hell? Pastafarianism isn't real. Go home, kids. You're worse than the bunch of people who insist the Zombie Survival Guide be labelled "non-fiction." If any of these are serious religions, undelete those and list in Wikipedians by religion. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I disagree, Pastafarianiam is real in the sense that it exists. It's not entirely serious and various points within its' 'mythology' confirm this. But it makes as much sense as any set of beliefs, and it is entirely possible that someone holds these as their belief. It should be included based on this and not whether anyone regards these as the 'valid' or 'true' belief. I am of the opinion that the Wikipedians by Religion Category is not useful to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia but if you're going to keep some of it, keep all of it; otherwise delete it all. --Osho-Jabbe 08:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not entirely sure if Wikipedians by religion is a useful category, either -- but that doesn't appear to be the matter at hand. The rest, we'll have to respectfully disagree on. If I saw somebody on the street preaching about Pastafarianism as the one true religion, I'd laugh along and encourage them. If I saw somebody persistently editing the Wikipedia article to present it as anything but a parody religion, I'd warn eventually block them for disruption and vandalism. You seem to have proposed that there's no difference between, say, Roman Catholicism and Pastafarianism. There's a shockingly obvious and very, very simple distinction: one is a parody, the other is not. That's clearly the basis on which one group of categories was kept when another group was deleted. You could argue whether that's a valid basis, but it is an objective and logically sound basis, and to pretend or suppose otherwise is, I suspect, mere tomfoolery. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. These weren't useful. I'm sorry your vanity categories were deleted. They're just as useful as they ever were as a redlink. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable categories - endorse in general -- "pastafarianian" is non notable, a few may be notable. Neither delete all automatically, nor keep all automatically. Feel free to create a category "other". Do WP:WEIGHT, WP:N and the one about making a point, apply to such categories? What about BJAODN? I think they might profitably do so. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment discovering that user categories can be deleted without notification of those in them has moved me to start watching all categories I am in. This seems kind of broken - surely those in a category should have some chance to see that it is being deleted, just as if they were watching a page - but for now, we'll have to defend ourselves manually. DenisMoskowitz 14:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment as I see it, Notification is permitted even under existing policy if everyone interested is notified--it cannot be assumed that those in a category will support it if it is challenged so it is not votestacking. It can be a valid way of determining if there is still interest in a category. Further, some of the people, seeing the arguments, may decide that it is not a valid category--and such an opinion would cary weight.

I agree with Denis that it should in fact be required and automatic and will propose such a change to the UCfD rules if it seems there is support. UCfD is a very obscure process and can easily be seen as unfair. DGG (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I specifically do not support this. Let's take an extreme example, someone wants to propose deletion of Category:American Wikipedians and it's subcategories in good faith. Is it proper to leave messages of the talk pages of thousands (tens/hundreds of thousands) of users in those categories? I don't think so. Let's extrapolate this into the article space. Right now, Category:California porn stars is listed at CFD. The category contains 27 articles. Should the talk pages of all 27 or those articles be posted as to the discussion? Should all the editors of those 27 articles be spammed with a notice of the discussion? Once again, I think not. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with adding the categories you're in to your watchlist? I'm with AM. Required notification will do nothing but clog up talk pages for no reason. If you are interested in something, why would you rely on someone else to make sure you know about it? I certainly wouldn't. --Kbdank71 19:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: while Pastafarianism and the IPU are clearly the real-world equivalents of WP:POINT, Discordianism and the Subgenii are another matter entirely. Both of the latter have strong ties to the Neopagan movement, and, while they have definite tongue-in-cheek elements, they also have definite "ha-ha, only serious" elements. If you're going to exclude something from being called a religion because it has nonsensical elements, you'll have to exclude Zen Buddhism as well. Frankly, I think the parent category is borderline offensive, and think it should remain deleted, but its former children, or at least some of them, should be reinstated and reparented in a more appropriate category. (Whether a by-religion or a by-philosophy category, I don't really care.) As for the general usefulness of Wikipedians-by-religion/philosophy categories, I don't see any broad consensus on that. But it is certainly a non-neutral point of view to claim that these particular categories are any less useful than other religious/philosophical categories. Xtifr _tälk 20:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Better put than I had. To hopefully be clear, my comments were directed at the FSM and IPU categories in particular; several of the others, I'm unfortunately not as familiar with as I would like, and I can't make a judgement call on something I don't know. It may be worth splitting those off from this discussion for separate consideration, as there seems to be a bit of a crossfire going on. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly Endorse Closure, there was nothing out of process. Saying "we have other religions, why delete these" is no reason to overturn a valid UCFD discussion. In addition, I'm not to sure about the legitimacy of this DRV, as it seems like a "I don't like the outcome" and "I don't like the people who voted/closed/nominated." (see top about the different people, and the attempts to cast them as poor decision makers). ^demon^{[omg plz]} 23:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But once again, the issue here is not whether or not there was a violation of procedure per se, but whether or not the vote included all the appropriate parties. B.Mearns^*, KSC 12:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was listed on UCFD, are we supposed to notify every single member of every category? That's senseless, as it would only perpetuate a stream of ILIKEITs. Imagine if we did that for Category:Wikipedians by musician (which is currently on UCFD), which contains many thousands of users. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. I agree with DenisMoskowitz who says that "These religions are satirical, but they are not only satirical," and notes that the assertion that "no collaboration is possible" is false for at least some of the religions in question. Scientology, for example, is no less "made-up" than Discordiansim; nevertheless, some folks are sincere Scientologists, just as some of us are sincere Discordians. As long as Category:Wikipedians by religion exists, religions shouldn't be discriminated against because their adherents make skepticism about organized religion a central part of their belief system. I can't speak to all members of this subcategory, but Discordiansim and the Church of the SubGenius are certainly long-standing communities where collaboration is possible on Wikipedia content. Szarka 04:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds like you favor a partial overturn, in that case? That may be the way to go -- this discussion is getting fragmented because we have such a mix of categories. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise (not to highlight my opinion, but because we need another section break)

• Compromise as follows(and it represents a change of my earlier views, based upon some of the arguments, particular those directly above)

1. WP has no basis whatever for classifying religions as true or false, not what counts as a "pseudo"-religion. This is especially true considering it probable that some beliefs originally put forth a a joke have been seriously adopted by others. I recall Gibbon's famous line in chapter 13 of Decline and Fall “The various modes of worship, which prevailed in the Roman world, were all considered by the people, as equally true; by the philosopher, as equally false; and by the magistrate, as equally useful. And thus toleration produced not only mutual indulgence, but even religious concord."

I have pretty definite personal views on the likeliness of various religions, but I have no intention of saying what they are here at WP. Personally I follow what has been said about my profession: But I can see that some people might want to self-identify as a sign of faith, or as a sign of background, or as a joke. I do not see that it hurts the encyclopedia--some of the most objectively neutral editors here on religious topics identify strongly and openly with particular religions. Sp my inclination is to let them do so. But if anyone may do so, everyone may. If any religion may be asserted as a matter of personal concern, all must be allowed, regardless of anyone's opinion about them. Nor can we possibly decide who among them are the genuine believers.

So each individual category is valid, and must stay, or else we lose the core principle of NOTCENSORED, and the even more important general principle of allowing freedom of religious expression in private and in public in all non-sectarian contexts.

But what about the super-category--this category is opinion, pure and simple. I think a few of these categories are pseudo- in every sense of the word, and many or all of the individuals involved would share it. I can see how those of other religious beliefs might think it wrong to admit some of them to the supercategory religion, and how to deal with that is another matter--perhaps by renaming it religious and spiritual beliefs.

I accept there is a category of pseudoscience, because there are objective standards--but I am not happy with it. Personally I think there is pseudo-social science as well, but there would certainly not be general agreements about what would fall under it. But pseudo-religion? No human can safely say that. I think we must remove it. As a compromise, I can see renaming it: spiritual beliefs. That at least they certainly are. DGG (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree with several of the points you raise, because (in the case of the IPU the FSM, and Cthulhu) there is no assertion that anyone follows the "beliefs" of the two religions, which are (as noted above by a couple of editors) rather POINTy. The other two are a little more believable, but still essentially joke religions. If someone who belongs to either "religion" has managed to get the IRS to grant them a tax-free status as a result of their affiliation, I'd be much more inclined to agree that they are real, but (AFIAK, IANAL) that is not the case. I rather strongly feel that any retained categories should be moved into a "Wikipedians by interest" category, rather than into the philosophy or especially the religion categories. For those who want to show their "affiliation" with the category as a joke, there are a variety of userboxen (well-designed and otherwise) to use to display such an affiliation. But (especially in the case of the IPU and FSM, and less so for the Discordians, the CotSG, and Cthulhu) there is little or no use to retaining them as categories. As an aside, I find it interesting (and really, rather ironic) that most of the coordinated actions on contesting this deletion are coming from the Discordians. (!) Isn't that sacrilegious for them, or something? Horologium t-c 04:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Nothing is sacrilegious for a Discordian unless they want to comment sacrilege for some reason. Episcopisian Discordians believe that the dichotomy between order/chaos is false (and that people who believe in order for order's sake are Greyfaces), and that the dichotomy that matters is creative/destructive. That said, Discordianism is somewhat of a roll-your-own-religion anyway. (I still think that these categories are useless, but whatever.) - Pope AMIB II 05:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the IRS classifies religions for tax purposes according to its own set of rules, and I don's ewe that that has anything to do with what WPedians choose to say they affiliate with.DGG (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main thing to remember is that since all religions are false, there is no justification for saying some are falser than others. As for some being jokes: Scientology is a joke, the result of a bar bet between L. Ron Hubbard and Robert Heinlein. Would you honestly say that no one believe it? Kww 18:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I primarily oppose restoration of the IPU and FSM categories as obvious and undeniable parodies. It seems quite unlikely that those two in particular have any collaborative use that a quick glance at the relevant article's history page wouldn't already provide. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may call them parodies, but they are religions nonetheless, valid, and with a cult popularity. Religion is defined by faith, and without faith it is nothing. Therefore, if these are deleted, so too must be Category:Wikipedians by religion.--WaltCip 01:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not. From Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monster:

From time to time, editors argue that FSM is a real religion. This has been suggested several times, and consensus has always been to call FSM a parody. If you disagree, please read the archives and use this Talk page, before editing the article.

And from Invisible Pink Unicorn:

It is accepted that there are no actual believers in this mock goddess, but it has become popular, especially on atheist web sites and on-line discussion forums, to feign belief in her both for the sake of humor and as a form of critique or satire of theistic belief. These professions of faith intend to demonstrate the difficulty of refuting avowals of belief in phenomena outside human perception.^[1][2]

There are no worshipers of these "religions"; they are parodies. What is so hard to understand about this rather elementary concept? Horologium t-c 02:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And how is Buddhism not a parody of Hinduism?--WaltCip 04:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're seriously equating the Invisible Pink Unicorn with Buddha? Classy. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly equating; not all religions are equal, though they are very similar. Is it wrong for a religion of the Invisible Pink Unicorn to be created by a man with a big idea just as Buddhism was created (this time by a big man with an idea)?

"I'm not equating them, but here, let me equate them again." We're not here to indulge vanity. To turn around the Saturday Night Live example used several times above, while yes, SNL is real in the sense that it exists; no, we don't categorize it as a documentary or drama series, because it isn't either of those things. By the apparent argument of many of you here, we could categorize SNL in Category:Crime television series because a skit, at some point, mentioned criminals. That obviously doesn't add up. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I agree with the sentiments that Discordianism and The Church of the Subgenius have grown into groups in their own right, and think that they should be categories in the Wikipedians by Religion because of this and because collaboration is possible within those two groups. However, Pastafarianism and the IPU aren't good for inclusion in Wikipedians by religion. Pastifarianism is too new to have grown much beyond the original purpose of its creator as a parody and probably shouldn't be included until more people have used as more than a POINT arguement and a joke, and actively hold it as a true belief. With the IPU I don't think anyone uses it as anymore than a POINT argument and as it is unlikely to ever grow beyond this it shouldn't be included. I've not had enough experience with Cthulu to comment on it. Those that probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia by Religion could be put into a subcategory of Wikipedians by interest called Wikipedians interested in Parody Religions, with sub-subcategories addressing them specifically, and the Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians can be left deleted. --Osho-Jabbe 23:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think the consensus I see is this: Nobody wants Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians recreated, most everybody wants the Discordians and Subgenii recreated, and there's still widespread disagreement about Cthulhu, IPU, and Pastafarianism. Is that accurate? DenisMoskowitz 13:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to throw it out there.... I've seen several "if you have Category:Wikipedians by religion you need to have these..." comments. Is there perhaps consensus that Category:Wikipedians by religion should be renominated and that the whole lot should be removed? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That would be fine by me; I only oppose removing these religions while keeping those at Category:Wikipedians by religion. Evouga 09:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Deletion: I don't think any amount of talk would justify keeping these vanity categories. .V. _[Talk|Email] 21:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I invoke Wikpedia's prime directive: Wikipedia is a project to build a high quality encyclopedia. Stupid crap has no place in that vision. It must die, and this crap was killed righteously. Let's not waste any more time arguing over the corpse. --Tony Sidaway 02:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That argument is frivolous because the alleged "crap" is in user space, and not part of the encyclopedia proper. Evouga 07:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, it's in the category space. (; Octane ^{[improve me]} 31.07.07 0819 (UTC)
      • That some editors feel they have a right to colonise category-space and template-space with their own crap does not make it any less useless and, in the end, distracting from the mission in that it inculcates an entirely false view of Wikipedia: to wit, that it is a community-building exercise for its own sake. Crap must die. And yes, crap must also die when it's in userspace and not of benefit to the mission of building an enyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 14:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Girls by the pool.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This file was deleted by User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson for the reason of "18 USC Section 2257". I'm unaware of which speedy deletion criteria that falls under. That law requires producers of porn to maintain records verifying the identities of models used. Since the image was produced outside the US and is not porn but simple nudity, which is exempted from that law, I can't really see how it would apply here. In addition, I don't think that would make this a proper speedy deletion even if it did apply. -Nard 08:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is unencyclopedic, unremarkable, and may be agianst the law. There is no benefit to keeping the image, especially if the subjects are minors (a distinct possibility), and if they didn't know they were photographed (also a possibility). I stand by this deletion. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 08:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reasoning that doesn't involve citing a law I've demonstrated doesn't apply? -Nard 08:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn unless there is any speedy deletion criteria than can be demonstrated does apply. Viridae^Talk 11:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment 18 USC Section 2257 is fairly specific in that it applies to actual sexually explicit conduct, further defined in 2256. As this is simple (public) nudity and not sexual conduct of any kind, 2257 really does not apply. EFF FAQ. I am not a lawyer, but I don't see the legal justification here. --Dhartung | Talk 13:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• If it isn't porn, why is it linked on Portal:Pornography/Gallery2? Was it in use in any actual encylopedia content? If not, we should keep it deleted as the encyclopedia has no use for it. Legal risks without encyclopedic rewards are not worth taking. GRBerry 13:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was in use in the article toplessness. -Nard 14:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also in nudity. --Dhartung | Talk 15:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • These lists of supposed porn should perhaps be deleted... if you present something as porn, law enforcement just might agree with you that it is. I agree that the image was not "sexually explicit", but if we're labeling it as such... --W.marsh 15:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing links to that page named Gallery2 (except this DRV and MediaWiki:Bad image list). It appears to be some kind of attempt at sorting created in one fell swoop last week.--Dhartung | Talk 15:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That gallery also contains images of breastfeeding, an anatomical drawing of a breast, etc., etc. Suggest <s> your comment; it really doesn't apply. Jouster  (whisper) 05:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn since per nom and Dhartung there is no real legal concern. We should also consider an MfD for Galllery2. JoshuaZ 15:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Since the gallery has no incoming links from content (article/portal) or content talk spaces, and is a cut and paste copy of another page, I've gone ahead and created the MFD nomination. GRBerry 16:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn per nom. Paranoia about mere nudity is getting out of hand here. Being naked is not in itself sexually explicit. That's not just my opinion, it's the law. Although the image should be restored, it had no business being in Portal:Pornography. wikipediatrix 17:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Endorse. Ordinarily I am strongly opposed to any speedy deletions which do not fall under a specific CSD criterion. However, I think the need to comply with legal requirements outweighs that. And as to the other point - i.e. that simple nudity is not necessarily viewed legally as pornographic - I think we should be careful on that point. I don't personally know anything much about pornography (I'm proud to say), but better to over-interpret the law than risk inviting legal trouble, IMO. Walton^One 18:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list on IFD, no speedy criteria apply here, and the image is not sexualized (and is technically not pornography). It would take a lawyer to decide whether this image actually violates federal law. --Coredesat 19:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly - so, for the sake of caution, we should assume that it does violate the law unless we are informed otherwise by a lawyer. Walton^One 09:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per Coredesat, it can be listed on IfD if necessary. Not a speedy-able image. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 20:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. We have other images on Wikipedia significantly more sexually explicit. This is just a bunch of young women walking in public, wearing bikini bottoms and no tops. More explicit pictures are in any Victoria's Secret catalog. Whether it fills an encyclopedic purpose can be determined elsewhere, the deletion reason is blatantly invalid. The law in this matter is clear, and there are multiple cases on point. I can cite several popular accounts off-hand, and can find legal citations in fairly short order if anyone really wants them. Yes laws can be complex, and I am not a lawyer, but in this case the relevant US Supreme court decision specified that the law had to make it plain to ordinary non-lawyers just what was and was not prohibited, or else it was unconstitutional. See The Brethren by Woodward for the judicial side, and The End of Obscenity for the lawyer's side, just to name a couple of respected sources that go into some detail on this issue. DES ^(talk) 21:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Overturn. Completely out of process. With all due respect to the nominator, determining what is or is not legal is a job for a professional lawyer, of which the Foundation has several, and not one particular editor. Evouga 22:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very true, I shouldn't have said I "demonstrated" a meaning of the law. More like "it is apparent from my reading that I appear to have interpreted the meaning in a way contrary to yours." -Nard 23:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list on IFD per Coredesat's excellent reasoning. Heather 00:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn obviously misguided albeit presumably well-intentioned deletion. Conflating nudity (and especially partial nudity) with sexuality is borderline offensive, although I'm sure there was no intent to offend here. I see no reason to bother listing, but won't object. I might object if anyone tries to insist that I wear pants while editing Wikipedia, though. :) Xtifr _tälk 01:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - Wiki-lawyering + censorship == bad speedy. Tarc 12:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per all of the above, and Immediate Overturn per WP:SNOW. Jouster  (whisper) 23:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per nom and Dhartung; not a valid speedy. And I agree with JoshuaZ regarding that portal. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted for reasons completely unrelated to pornography - did anyone actually bother to look at the deleted history? Umm ... this image has no source. The first revision [2] is GFDL-no-disclaimers ... no GFDL-self ... no claim of authorship ... just GFDL-no-disclaimers. The second revision is Orphanbot tagging it as unsourced. The third revision is an IP tagging it as GFDL-self several days later. The IP has no other edits and the original uploader has no edits other than to add the tag. The image is 353x480, which is not a size commonly associated with user-created images. In short, there is no warrant for believing this to be a free image. If restored, it should immediately be re-deleted as having no source. --B 06:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. As said above, it's unsourced and as such should be taken down. It clearly did not show anything sexually explicit, but breaks Wiki rules nonetheless. If it is re-submitted with a clear source and permission to use, though, I see no reason it shouldn't be left alone. --Safe-Keeper 07:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. Although I did not agree that the legal argument was justified, I find B and Safe-Keeper's arguments about sourcing persuasive. --Dhartung | Talk 16:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Boobs don't equal porn. This image is clearly non-sexual, and therefore no CSD criterion applies. --Ginkgo100^talk 00:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about I4? The image has no source. We delete images that have no source. I'm mildly amused that in two days of indignation and showing how open-minded we are, none of the admins commenting on this felt it worth looking at the thing they wanted to undelete. --B 00:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was tagged gfdl-self. That implies that the source is the uploader, who took or otherwise owns the image. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The uploader did not tag it as GFDL-self. Look at the deleted history - the uploader tagged it as GFDL-no-disclaimers. An IP user, using our "make up a tag to stop Orphanbot" program, tagged it as GFDL-self. --B 17:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it is GFDL. Even if it did not have a source listed, speedy deletion process would require it to be restored so it could be placed in the category of unsourced images for seven days. However, I would support a listing at IfD per comments here. --Ginkgo100^talk 16:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Orphanbot properly tagged the image as having no source and notified the uploader (see the uploader's talk page). The fact that an IP user removed the warning and invented a false tag does not reset the week. The week expired in November of 2006 and thus if the image is restored, it should be redeleted forthwith. --B 17:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, there is no indication that the persons photographed have given permission to be photographed, or have given permission to the uploading of the picture. In that case, I think we should err on the side of caution and protect the privacy of these girls. Aecis^Brievenbus 11:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted per the research by B as to the lack of adequate evidence of copyright status allowing us to use it. GRBerry 13:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn: It does not seem to fall under the purview of that law. .V. _[Talk|Email] 21:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per B and Aecis. We don't need this. --Tony Sidaway 02:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2the Max (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The company and its product is notable. Its motherboard and power supply is very notable in Hong Kong and China. Its motherboard is one of a few major brand comparing to Intel and ASUSTek[3]. It has 17500 entries in Google. It is unreasonable that the article was deleted within a few hours after its creation, without notifying any major authors and I have no chance to put a hang-on tag. — HenryLi (Talk) 03:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Please read our speedy deletion guidelines - an assertion of notability is required for articles about corporations, or else they may be speedily deleted. The "hangon" tag is just a courtesy - admins are not obligated to allow users time to contest the speedy deletions (that is what DRV is for after all). In fact, admins can speedy delete articles even if they are not tagged for deletion, based on their own judgment. ugen64 10:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Notability guideline,

If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself,6 or:

Ask the article's creator for advice on where to look for sources. Put the ((notability)) tag on the article to alert other editors. To place a dated tag, put a ((subst:dated|notability)) tag.

If the article is about a specialized field, use the ((expert-subject)) tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online.

When something is about notability, it should be handled according to notability guideline (WP:N). If speedy deletion criteria can override the WP:N on notability, what the purpose of WP:N ? There are no actions has been done according to procedure in WP:N. What I want to have is to get the article undeleted and improve it. I have already give the Google count above.

— HenryLi (Talk) 16:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• overturn To be deltable under A7 it must have no claim to notability. The articles asserted " Its products include [[motherboard]], [[display card]], [[power supply]], [[peripherals]] and [[surveillance]]. Its products are marketed in [[Europe]], [[United States]], [[Australia]], [[South Korea]], [[China]] and Hong Kong. . I consider that a claim to notability enough to prevent A7. That said, I would advise the ed. to improve the article--if notable, there will be some reviews of it in RSs for the subject. DGG (talk) 17:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn per DGG. JoshuaZ 19:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn selling products in diverse markets is a weak claim of importance (anyone can sell, does anyone actually buy them?) but I guess it's enough. Appears to be some sources on this company [4] but might not be enough. Still, probably should have gone to AFD. --W.marsh 20:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• -Overturn as per DDG and W.Marsh. However, unless better sources are added, I woudn't expect this to survive AfD. To HenryLi the bar to avoid speedy deletion is intentionally lower than the one to survive an AfD, so the notability guidelines are generally not relevant when considering an A7 speedy. There is, IMO good reason for this double standard -- to give a chance for arguably notable topics to properly establish and source their notability, even though the price is that non-notable or marginally notable articles soemtimes sit around for a few days. DES ^(talk) 21:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• comment this has been recreated, by User:HenryLi at 2the Max. DES ^(talk) 04:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My error, the deleting admin undeleted to allow notability to be asserted. I'm not sure he was aware that a review had already been started. DES ^(talk) 04:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Er, that's she, not he. I was not aware, so thank you for notifying me. --Ginkgo100^talk 20:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. I'm the guy that originally put the speedy tag on this thing, not an admin, so I'm not sure if I'm allowed to vote. "We sell stuff" cannot be a claim to notability, not even a weak one. When I go through the list of new articles and mark the spam and non-notables, the vast majority of them are people that sell stuff. To allow "we sell stuff" to become a claim to notability would force a lot of articles to go through the full AfD cycle instead of just cleaning them out quickly. What really mystifies me is the author's reaction: if this company is notable, why didn't he just recreate the article with some external sourcing? Why is it so important for this article to be recreated in its original weak form instead of correcting it and putting it up then? There's no rule against recreating an article that went through speedy delete after you correct the reason for the speedy deletion. Kww 05:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Contributor is not anonymous and surely can be asked for improvement. It should not be hard for one do one more step. If one is questioning about notability, read the notability guideline. The initial article is not one line spam article, but with source and projects corresponding to. What really mystifies me is the reviewers never check the content, references and contributors, and never do a simple Google search, and conclude rudely it's not notable, and ask for speedy deletion. Before deletion, if we carefully examine the deletion policy, it has stated that "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. A variety of tags can be added to articles to note the problem". The reviewers never think of improvement and disregard the deletion policy. Putting a ((notability)) template is as easy as putting a speedy deletion template. Kww, I cannot agree with you that an article can be deleted because it can be re-created later. Wikipedia ought treat contribution seriously. I suggest you read the notability and deletion guidelines rather putting deletion template for fun. — HenryLi (Talk) 19:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. It was not necessary to ask you for an improvement. I did not "disregard the deletion policy." I followed a process, even if it is one you disagree with. I manually review 2000 articles a day to find nonsense, spam, and non-notables, and I tag somewhere around 25 articles a day for deletion. All of my taggings are reviewed by admins, and they override one every two or three days. The purpose of the speedy tag is to rapidly and efficiently get rid of new articles that do not meet minimum standards. In my view, yours didn't, and still doesn't. If you had simply fixed your article and recreated it, it would have been faster and simpler for both of us. If you need to whine more about me, please take it to my talk page ... you know where it is.Kww 21:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. How can you reviewed 2000 articles a day? It is exactly what the problem is. Just skimming and and put a deletion tag. Is it a competition for number rather than the quality of review. I have no doubt in the value of review and remove spam and non-sense, and non-notable. But it must be taken seriously according to Deletion and Notability guideline. You are relying on admin for review instead of review carefully yourself. If one admin failed to follow the guideline, a mistake will happen. Here the article is deleted in about 2 hours, not 2 or 3 days. Please do it carefully and do what is stated in the guidelines . It is not a number competition. — HenryLi (Talk) 00:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, article contained no assertion of notability, proper A7, and I don't see much hope it can be done. I only see one pretty thin source on W. Marsh's Google News search, the rest are about totally different subjects where "2 the Max" happened to be used, not about this particular company. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Although it is not well-written, I've found source about the company and its product from ACCA, AMD, Microsoft and others. — HenryLi (Talk) 18:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Notability was asserted so not a valid speedy deletion reason. Catchpole 12:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from the deleting admin -- I had no idea until just now that this was on DRV. I restored it when the author asked me to. I'm rather nonplussed to find it was listed here before I was contacted, but at any rate it's a moot point. --Ginkgo100^talk 01:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment I just visited the article for the first time since I restored it, and I would not speedily delete it now, as it claims notability in the form of an award. I make no comment, positive or negative, as to whether an AfD discussion is appropriate. --Ginkgo100^talk 20:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list at AfD, article isn't notable enough for inclusion and should be deleted via AfD, but it's not speedyable. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Game is notable - online numbers claims can be verified

This makes no sense, the article was apparenty flagged as needing references since February which was brought to my attention today. References were added today along with links to external reviews and an entire DMOZ category for the MUD, and suddenly the page is deleted. Meanwhile many of the muds on the list of MUDs in "borderline" status cite reviews on Topmudsites and/or The Mud Connector with a note that they will probably be OK based on the reviews - Aardwolf had many of both. After spending several hours today trying to fix our page this is a slap in the face with zero feedback - would appreciate some transparency here please. Part of the contention appeared to be the claim of being one of the "most popular" - we have notified the administrator that we were working on this, but were not given time to complete. The game is notable and online numbers can be verified at any time simply by logging in and looking. If it takes a third party to verify our numbers that can be done too, but just deleting the page right after we start dialog seems unreasonable. Please reconsider. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aardlasher (talk • contribs).

• Endorse deletion - the AFD showed a consensus to delete, as long as there were no reliable sources to back up the claim of notability. I don't think there were any in the article when it was deleted. As for other, similarly not-notable MUDs still having articles - well WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a good argument for non-deletion :) ugen64 03:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[[User:Aardlasher|aardlasher] 26 July 2007:: So you are deciding the references at the two top ranked non-wikipedia sites for 'Mud' and 'Muds', dating back to 1996, are not reliable? DMOZ review of the site and granting it's own category is not noteable? If you decide MUDs in general aren't notable fair enough, but to arbitrarily decide one of the largest MUDs around isn't notable? Why the deletion *today* of all days when the article has been flagged for months? The day we contact you for help and confirm intent to provide those references? Sorry, but this just looks like someone wanted us gone quick before we came back with the necessary info.

• Endorse deletion as closing admin. It's my job to determine consensus with what I have. It's your problem that you didn't say anything in the discussion, and now you complain to me because you kept your mouth shut? Are you actually going to say that it's our fault because we rightfully deleted an article, coincidentally on a day you just came? Your rationale for deletion review is absurd beyond logic. —Kurykh 04:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[[User:Aardlasher|aardlasher] 26 July 2007:: There was a lot said on the articles 'talk' page today. Apparently this was in the wrong place and should have been on the delete discussion, my bad for not knowing the inner workings of Wikipedia. Please read the 'talk' page from the article before it was deleted and the exchanges with Martijn.

The best thing I can do now is put it up in your user space and let you work on it. How about that? —Kurykh 04:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

""Sounds good, thanks! Can you include a link to info on the process to move from user space back to an article? Appreciate your help with this.[[User:Aardlasher|aardlasher] 04:38 26 July 2007 (UTC)