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

This is a bit strange, but I'm opening a deletion review on my own deletion. A few hours ago, User:Lar came to me wondering what the heck happened with the articles True Blue and True Blue (producer). I had closed this AfD a few days ago with the close "revert to dab page". However, the pages are all such a mess that I'm not sure what happened. True Blue (producer) has been deleted and removed from the dab page, but I'd like review to make sure my close was correct, due to the tangled web of bad cut/paste moves, regular moves, disambiguation, and redirects over there. Thanks.Keilana^talk_(recall) 20:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• As we've discussed on your talk page and mine, I think you were handed a bit of a mess made by others, and after you'd straightened most of it out, just missed the last step. My read of consensus in that AfD was that the producer article fails notability pretty handily, that it certainly should not have been copy/paste moved to the main page for True Blue, and that needed to be undone so the main page became a dab again (that was the revert part of the close, I think) and that it should instead have been deleted (that was the delete part of the close). That's now the outcome, now that True Blue (producer) (the loose end in this) got deleted by you. Endorse Close, and full marks for deciding to DRV yourself just to be sure you and I interpreted consensus right. Thanks for your efforts at AfD, it's a thankless task. ++Lar: t/c 23:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Is this Lar making simple things complicated again?! :) I don't see any problems here: there's no deleted edits at True Blue which needs to be saved; True Blue is a dab page; True Blue (producer) - the article the AfD was actually about - is deleted and has no incoming links from mainspace. Unless I'm missing something (and Lar has me worried now too) I move to close. --kingboyk (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually it does look like True Blue has a less than complete edit history - it might have been a cut and paste job at some point. There's also a few unneccessary (reverted) revisions in there. I'll investigate further. --kingboyk (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guy has been deleted before, under a different name - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naufal Waffle. Some of his remix albums still have articles; we shouldn't have articles on albums by non-notable artists, so those might disappear shortly... However, I can't find the original edits for the dab page. The earliest I can find is a copy and paste followed by a copyvio warning. How about I delete that, rewrite the dab page myself, and we can close this review? There's a few incoming links to True Blue to be disambiguated, too. --kingboyk (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, finally I've nailed it. The old dab page edits are actually at True Blue (producer). So, it needs a history merge. Don't know how that happened tbh, probably because the dab page was a cut and paste and the producer article was written by a newbie over the top of the real dab page's history. Sh*t happens! --kingboyk (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I say at my talk page I think you've got the dab hand to sort this out, rather than I, so I'd urge you to do it! And I NEVER make simple things complicated. Well, hardly ever. ++Lar: t/c 00:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Dealt with. Thanks to Keilana for her honesty. Unless I'm missing something there's nothing to see here and this debate can be closed. --kingboyk (talk) 14:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Well known and useful technical word for a needed concept in nutrition which otherwise is nameless. Deleted db-prod while I was on vacation. Please restrore this and its TALK and allow me to improve/defend

SBHarris 20:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

DELETE_The page is political propaganda and written by the candidate or her supporters. For example, it has been cleaned, but she was calling herself an activist, when in reality the candidate is a lobbyist. Also, there is nothing notable about this candidate. She has never won a primary. Her website looks like a political flier and is poorly referenced. --Insidertracker (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is all my fault, I misinterpreted a second nomination for deletion to be just after the first was closed, and wanted to give a hint of what his options were, but it's almost a half year. I made a second AFD nomination on behalf of Insidertracker instead. I guess this request for a 'review' is redundant now. Greswik (talk) 20:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article was deleted by Marasmusine (seem to be very speedy and doing plenty of it). "Article about a company that doesn't assert significance" was reason. Even wiki have tree open links now. Company does have important role, and listed in Nasdaq. I think this is sufficient, atleast worth another look. Or should all text removed from wiki, concerning Sigma? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack007 (talk • contribs)

• I can't see the article, since I'm not an admin. Did you provide reliable, third party, neutral sources as to the company's notability? Corvus cornix_talk 19:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, the article had very very little content (just said "Sigma Designs develops and markets high-performance, highly-integrated System-on-a-Chip (SoC) semiconductors for the following key markets:" and then a list of a few types of electronics), but it had an infobox which referred to it's NASDAQ listing: SIGM. imho being a publically listed company with a ~$US1.5 billion market cap is an assertion of notability. --Stormie (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops - previous content was a straight up cut'n'paste copyvio from [1], and thus obviously cannot be undeleted. Just needs a new article written. --Stormie (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse speedy-deletion both on copyvio grounds and for a failure to assert notability. Merely being a publicly listed company has been considered and rejected as an inclusion criterion. That's not to say that an article can never be written on this company - only that it needs to be more than this trivial directory listing and that it needs to be based upon reliable, independent sources which provide some other evidence of notability. Rossami (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article on a chess journalist was deleted on AFD, and a new version was deleted as a recreation. However, I think the status of the subject has changed since the AFD, and that this one deserves at least another discussion. First, during the AFD, Greengard had not yet won any award for his work, merely been nominated for one. He has now won the Chess Journalists of America award. During the AFD there were no adequately reliable sources to cover this person, but now the United States Chess Federation has a more serious interview with the Greengard. [2]. I voted to delete during the last AFD, but I am no longer sure that I would do so. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and restore all history provided a good new article can be written. -Nard 14:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speedy, the newer version of the article is not substantially identical to that which was deleted per AfD, and it certainly appears to address the reasons why it was deleted (lack of notability, lack of independent coverage). --Stormie (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I don't have access to the deleted pages but Greengard certainly has enough notability for a page. In addition to the sources mentioned above there is also some bio information that can be incorporated here. He is also the editor of the Other Russia website here. He was the ghostwriter for Gary Kasparov on a book here and here. There is an interview with Vladimir Kramnik here. BlueValour (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and restore (I closed the original AfD.) The draft deleted as a "recreation" had superior sourcing, and made a claim of notability outside chess for the political collaboration with Kasparov. Certainly not speediable, and I think now outright notable. I have taken the liberty of restoring the content, so that all commenters may see. Xoloz (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, non-trivial coverage now exists in reliable published sources. I voted "weak delete" first time because it didn't, then. <eleland/talkedits> 22:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and restore. My thanks to Xoloz for making the page available. This should not have been deleted as a G4 since the new version had additional claims of notability backed up by a substantial source. BlueValour (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn, restore and relist the delete comments were mainly put in before the nomination for chess journalist of the year came to light, the following comments were mainly to keep, with all the facts in place at the start an informed discussion would be in order Fasach Nua (talk) 13:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per BlueValour Voorlandt (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist As Sjakalle and Fasach Nua explained, after the previous AfD was closed, Mig Greengard won the price of "Chess journalist of America". As far as I understand, the Deletion Review Policy states that "the presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist", so a Relist sounds like the proper action for that case. SyG (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak overturn & relist The article has a strange genesis. I received an email from Greengard noting numerous factual errors in the original article. An earlier editor and Greengard do not have cordial relations (further disclosure: I am currently involved in litigation with the unnnamed party). Although I made substantial versions to the article, I don't feel strongly one way or the other. Billbrock (talk) 20:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Edited to correct reference to third party. Billbrock (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - If User:Billbrock knows of factual inaccuracies then it would help if he spells them out so we don't repeat them. As an insignificant UK chess fan I don't get these emails! I have rewritten the article sourcing everything that matters. In his aborted second AfD here User:SyG stated "nor any significant improvement on the causes that made the article deleted six months ago". Well this is the AfD deleted version here. Since then Greengard has got the Journalist of the Year award, and the page has added his The Other Russia role, his film part, his role as editor of Kasparov's website and online chess site and ghost-writing Kasparov's important book. This seems significant to me. BlueValour (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks fine to me, User:BlueValour; better than I left it. Billbrock (talk) 18:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1400s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Speedy deletion of a page which, given similar pages like 1300s, 1390s, 1410s etcetera has already existed over 5 years. Might this be a case where a vandalized page has been deleted without checking prevandalized versions? If so, undeletion is called for. But even if it were basically empty, a page this old and within a structured set of pages surely deserves to go through AfD for deletion rather than to be speedied. - Andre Engels (talk) 07:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, it was speedily deleted for being completely empty of content - which is correct: it never had any useful or correct content in it - and then recreated as a redirect to 15th century, which is not correct, as the article title refers to the decade 1400-1409, not the whole century. I have created a fresh article at User:Stormie/1400s with various details culled from the individual articles and categories for the years 1400-1409. If this is pleasing to the eye it should be moved over the top of the incorrect redirect. --Stormie (talk) 09:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Great job, Stormie! Yes, that copy should overwrite the redirect. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 10:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, I deleted this as having no content. There is no need for a deletion review if there is new content, just go ahead and recreate it. 1 != 2 16:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have undeleted the history of this article in anticipation of the addition of the Stormie's content. 1 != 2 16:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Incidentally, we may want to reconsider the way these articles are named. Glancing at the incoming links of 1400s it would seem that most uses are not referring to a specific decade but to the century. This is probably similar for all the analogous articles. I would prefer to leave this redirect in place, or disambiguate, and upload the new article at 1400s (decade). Christopher Parham (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greenwood, SC μSA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Reason given for deletion was "CSD R3: Recent redirect from implausible typo, link or misnomer: It is a recently-created redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).)". But it's not an "implausible typo", it's an abbreviation for "Micropolitan Statistical Area", and appears in several tables of US Census Bureau Statistical Areas. Next time, check "What links here" before deleting. And March 26 was not "recently-created", either. -- J. Randall Owens | (talk) 06:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn speedy-deletion as neither implausible nor recent. Send it to RfD if you think it's a bad redirect. Rossami (talk) 06:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speedy deletion per above. Hut 8.5 07:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Every user who commented favoured deletion, save the original uploader (and, not coincidentally, subject of the photo). Discussion on the relevant article talk pages rejected the inclusion of the image on those pages. The summary given on the image page itself states that "consensus was to keep," when that was not the case. Consensus was to delete; the deciding admin made the decision to keep apparently alone and against consensus --Exploding Boy (talk) 04:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: in case you can't guess from the image name, this image is most definitely Not Safe For Work. --Stormie (talk) 04:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete. The consensus in the IFD discussion seems quite clear with unrebutted evidence presented that the image is being used in deliberately disruptive ways. This seems beyond the discretion granted to admins to override a closure. Rossami (talk) 06:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was no evidence provided that the image was used in deliberately disruptive ways. Can you provide any evidence of this? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 10:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was referring to the assertions made by two separate editors in the IfD discussion who say that they reviewed the contributor's edit history and determined it to be unhelpful. Rossami (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse keep Closing admin gave valid reasons, plus if the image is used to disrupt it can always be put on the image blacklist. Garion96 (talk) 09:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (as deleter) - My statement when closing the debate was "Kept, since it's clearly encyclopedic (since we have articles on the topic). No arguments have been made that show any policies this image violates (other than stating that it's unencyclopedic, which seems false on its face). I can't find any reason to delete this free image." This image has been used in the past in Bareback (sex) and Sexual intercourse, encyclopedic topics which it illustrates. The three commenters who supported deletion had not commented on any other deletion debates that I can see, and seemed to not fully understand our deletion criteria: for instance, one commented that the image was "unencyclopaedic", but he had himself removed the image from an encyclopedic article it has illustrated saying it was "vandalism". (The nom has also done this.) If this were any other activity, a free image of that activity would be included in the relevant article, but buttsex is quite a taboo, and some will claim that a free image of an encyclopedic activity (not otherwise illustrated) is unencyclopedic, merely because they are uncomfortable with the content. This is censorship through the back door, if you'll pardon the expression. This was not an out-of-process deletion. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 10:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Tho of course such detailed images should not be prohibited, this does strike me as perhaps a needlessly provocative image. I think the upper portion might be acceptable in bareback, which presently has no image. The current image for anal sex in Sexual intercourse seems quite satisfactory.DGG (talk) 12:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, FWIW. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This and similar images have been largely rejected in favour of drawings in most sex-related articles. It was agreed in discussion about this image that it wasn't needed to illustrate the concept, unlike, for example, auto fellatio, where it was agreed that a photograph was needed to illustrate the concept. The creator of the image has used it in inappropriate ways, such as inserting it repeatedly into articles against/without consensus. The fact remains that the image was not kept because consensus was to keep, and use of this image in article space is controversial at best and against consensus. And just a point of correction: I (the original nominator) have never removed the image as "vandalism" as suggested above. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this edit you removed the image using the rollback feature, tagged as a minor edit. See help:Reverting, where it says "Rollbacks should be used with caution and restraint, in part because they do not allow adding an explanation to the automatic edit summary. Reverting a good-faith edit may therefore send the message that 'I think your edit was no better than vandalism and doesn't deserve even the courtesy of an explanation.' It is a slap in the face to a good-faith editor. If you use the rollback feature for anything other than vandalism or for reverting yourself, it's polite to leave an explanation on the article talk page, or on the talk page of the user whose edit(s) you reverted."
• Overturn and delete Unless there is an editorial consensus that this image actually needs to be used in an article then the arguments that it is encyclopedic are correct. As it is there are no articles using this image, so I don't think it fair to disregard the delete arguments. And per trialsanderrors. 1 != 2 20:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet the bareback (sex) article does not have an image. This image has been added to that article numerous times, but a few users (including the nom and at least one delete voter) keeps removing it from that article, apparently reasoning that it would be better to not have an image in that article than have a free image that accurate shows the activity. On Talk:Bareback (sex), the reasons given are "Drawings would be preferable" (although no drawings exist), "this article doesn't need any image" (why is that?), "Wikipedia is not censored, but it's also not porn" (which is why the image should only be used in an applicable article), "Wikipedia is uncensored, but Wikipedia avoids profanity" (which completely misunderstands the Wikipedia:Profanity guideline), plus gratuitous references to "shock value", calling the image "quite pornographic", and instructing the uploader to "stop trolling!", etc. It's obvious that no one would object to the handshake article having an image, as it does, and many Iranian residents would say that the bikini article "doesn't need an image" like Image:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at Columbia 2 by David Shankbone.jpg since "Wikipedia is not porn". But judged on the merits, this images is as encyclopedic as Image:High-five.jpg. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As to why the bareback article doesn't need an image, one would have thought that was self-evident. Unlike the auto fellatio article, which it was widely agreed needed both an illustration and, preferably, a photograph (due to the unusual nature of the act, the likelihood that few people would have seen it in real life, and the potential difficulties in imagining it), nobody needs an image to illustrate sex without a condom. The use of that particular image in that article does nothing to enhance the text or the reader's understanding of it. The profanity guideline (and it is only a guideline) states that Wikipedia articles may contain profanity—but only for good reason. You may also wish to review WP:PORN which, while only an essay and not a policy, provides a useful overview of how such issues have been dealt with in the past. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • As for the image's necessity, I still wonder why you don't feel the need to remove images from Handshake and High Five. As for censorship, WP:PORN is an essay, WP:PROFANITY is a guideline, and WP:CENSOR is a policy. The policy says that "articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the articles about the penis and pornography)". Since we don't feel it necessary to remove images from Handshake and High Five ("nobody needs an image to illustrate. . ."), our policy doesn't allow us to remove this either, just because some find it disgusting. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 23:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • When you say WP:CENSOR "doesn't allow ...", you are misstating the policy a bit. WP:CENSOR does not prohibit the community from removing content deemed unhelpful. What WP:CENSOR says is that we aren't compelled to remove content just because someone deems it inappropriate. I can support free speech without being obligated to wallpaper my house with it. The fact that Handshake has an image does not create a requirement that every other article have an image. Rossami (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like I said, editorial consensus has not shown it needed. As in a talk page discussion agreeing on it, not reverting the image in and out. There is a clear consensus that it be deleted in the IfD, and no consensus coming close to as strong for its use in an article. 1 != 2 03:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, delete per consensus Closing argument is a dissenting opinion, which goes to the bottom of the discussion. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 23:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with caveats — this should be added to the bad image list and restricted to use only on articles where there is consensus to include it. If there is no consensus to include it on any articles, then it should be deleted. *** Crotalus *** 01:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete According to one opinion by Jimbo Wales, there may be potential legal concerns with this issue. See this deletion log, where Jimbo deleted a sexually explicit image on the grounds that it might violate the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act since we don't have records that the participants were over age 18. I think that law is probably unconstitutionally broad (because it has the potential to chill protected speech, like legitimate use in this encyclopedia), but I doubt the Foundation wants to be the test case on the issue. We have no way of knowing the age of the participants in this act. *** Crotalus *** 01:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, that's a good point, and not one that's been brought up before. IOn the one hand, Wikipedia has to comply with the law, regardless of what our policies are. On the other hand, to quote the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act article, "On October 23, 2007, the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the record keeping requirements were facially invalid because they imposed an overbroad burden on legitimate, constitutionally protected speech." I don't believe that this image violates our Wikipedia policies, but I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know the legal ramifications. I have e-mailed Mike Godwin, the Wikimedia Foundation's general council, asking him for comment. If he replies to my e-mail, I'll let you know what he says. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 03:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete, not useful for any articles, potential legal concerns per Crotalus. WP:NOT#CENSORED doesn't apply here. There was also a clear consensus to delete the image; usefulness doesn't override consensus, which was nearly unanimous for deletion. --Coredesat 04:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete. Consensus was that this image is without redeeming encyclopedic value. Title of the image ("Meandmybf") indicates that the purpose of the image is not to illustrate, but to shock. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist Closing statement should have been the sixth view in the discussion, not the deciding factor. While consensus at the time was delete, new issues have been brought up here that should be addressed more fully at a new IfD. –Pomte 13:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete, but, unless the legal concerns noted by Crotalus turn out to be valid (in which case we have a bigger issue on our hands), permit reupload under a less misleading title (preferably to Commons) and add to the bad image list. Yes, I realize that this is a complex and distinctly nonstandard suggestion, but I'd like to try offering something that would actually be a reasonable solution to the issue at hand, taking into account both the prior IfD debate, common sense, technical limitations of MediaWiki image handling and the letter and spirit of Wikipedia policies, rather than simply the closest standard DRV poll answer. For simplicity, unless the particular course of action I'm suggesting above gathers additional support, you may count it simply as "neutral" or perhaps "weak keep pending resolution of legal issues" when closing. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a good idea, accept that there is no consensus that it is of encyclopedic value to any article and plenty of consensus that it is not of encyclopedic value. Editorial consensus has not accepted this image into any article. 1 != 2 16:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and delete. The overriding concern for me is the image title, which suggests inappropriately provocative, if not vandalistic, intent. I could support, editorially, the inclusion of an identical image with a different title on several sexuality pages; but, WP should not encourage puerile sexual "humor". Xoloz (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and strong delete. My Lord, that picture is explicit. There is a difference between having a useful image depicting a sexual position, and a picture that Hustler would pay 20 bucks for. The consensus was overwhelmingly for a delete. There are other ways to demonstrate sex that do not involve a camera 2 inches from the genitals during the act. I think common sense here says this picture doesn't belong on Wikipedia, and if it weren't for the fact that everyone is so worried about "censoring people", there wouldn't even be a discussion. At the very least, this should be on the bad image list.--UsaSatsui (talk) 09:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete Poor close - consensus was clearly to delete on grounds that have been reiterated here. This is gratuitous. Eusebeus (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]