Moviestar.ie (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

The subject of this article clearly satifies criterion #2 of the web notability guidelines. It has won a "well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization (a Golden Spider Award. The reason the admin gave for not reversing his decision to delete is that this is a "local" award. In fact these awards are national, and well known in Ireland and Europe. The equivalent services in the US, Netflix and Blockbuster, are included in the encyclopedia. 1-555-confide ( talk) 18:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. No non-PR news hits for the website or the award. If the assertion of notability is that they won a non-notable award, then is it really an assertion of notability? -- Smashville ^BONK! 18:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Undelete and send to AfD. Deletion is probably the right outcome, but without further research I can't be sure. However, the award looks to make A7 inappropriate. Eluchil404 ( talk) 04:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC) reply
• Undelete. A7 deletions should generally be free of personal judgments about non-notability. The fact of the matter is that an assertion of importance/significance was present in the article. Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 21:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Battery (software) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

The AfD was simply, Doesn't meet WP:N. Half a second of searching indicates otherwise. It is admittedly hard to sift through the large number of online store links and press release reproductions, but here, for instance is a fairly solid article. For full disclosure I work for the company that produces it, but have been active in WP music software articles since long before that was the case. Assuming the article is reinstated I'd be willing to write a sourced stub, but it'd be nice if someone could review the results to avoid WP:COI issues. Scott.wheeler ( talk) 07:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• It's impossible not to endorse deletion when the AfD was unanimous and the article didn't say anything to assert any notability. However, this is definitely notable software and we should allow re-creation. I remember it got a lengthy review in FutureMusic magazine, as well as others. There's lots of solid sourcing available. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Well, unanimous as in the one person that chimed in besides the nominator agreed.  :-) For the record I never saw the old article and it's not in Google's cache; I just took notice when the link was removed from another page that I watch. Scott.wheeler ( talk) 12:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Here's the text, if it'll help: "Battery is a drum sampling software created by Native Instruments. It is avaliable in both VST and RTAS forms." That's all there was, along with a link to the NI site and an infobox. I certainly can't fault anyone for deleting it, but of course it deserves a real article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Endorse Deletion Not sure I agree Andrew. I think it could probably be covered at the NI site. A lot of this is much of a muchness, so not clear it needs a standalone. Eusebeus ( talk) 15:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion. The topic in question does not meet WP:N. The topic does not have enough independent coverage in my opinion (tell me if I missed anything). Littleteddy ( roar!) 15:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Did you follow the links above? Again, I'm naturally biased, but I find that there's an overwhelming amount of independant coverage; even if a relatively small portion of the 350k Google hits are independant, well, that's still a lot. Sound on Sound (the article I linked) is kind of the definitive music tech (print) magazine. (I really don't mean to be contentious, I just thought this was kind of given.) Scott.wheeler ( talk) 16:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• • Battery 3 got a full review in ComputerMusic #108 (January 2007), among other magazines. There are plenty of [ reliable sources] on Google news as well. A number of other Native Instruments products have substantial articles, such as Reaktor and Kontakt. This is $300 software targeted toward professional and serious amateur musicians, so you're not going to find the mountain of coverage you would for, say, Microsoft Word, but there's definitely plenty there if one looks for it. This page shows a large summary of press coverage for the various versions. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Update I just peeked into our internal press archive folder and there are about 250 print articles in there about Battery. A lot of them are either short, or not in English, but there have been multi-page write ups in Beat Magazine, Future Music, Sound on Sound, Mac Addict, Computer Music, Sound & Recording, Virtual Instruments, ... Scott.wheeler ( talk) 16:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• The AfD result was fine (though I would have relisted a 2-person discussion to gather more input) and the article that was deleted was essentially nothing. Since it appears there are sources available it's perfectly reasonable to allow recreation; in fact, since the article is not protected against recreation or anything, the formality of a DRV isn't entirely necessary, especially if an experienced user is willing to create a decent stub. Go for it. — Scien tizzle 19:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• endorse deletion as proper determination of consensus, although I would have relisted it. And encourage others to write a proper article at the location because it is obviously notable. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 21:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• endorse, given the extremely sparse article, but permit re-creation -- I can see the point of a DRV to say this, for it protects against G4. DGG ( talk) 19:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn deletion as consensus was not clear with a nom+1. (I agree with Jerry that it should have been relisted and not closed). I also agree the article was entirely sparse, but the history (although admittedly minimal) should be restored per licensing and rebuilt/stubbed instead of recreated. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Talk:California State Route 57 (  | [[Talk:Talk:California State Route 57|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

accidental deletion NE2 04:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Mohammed Al Amin (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

I didn't realize this article had been deleted until I came across a red-link where there shouldn't have been a red-link. I requested userification of these articles yesterday. So I know the administrator didn't delete the article because someone else put a {{ prod}} tag on it. I think the admin should have simply raised their concern on the article's talk page, rather than exercising their power as an administrator to delete it without telling anyone. Decision-making on the wikipedia is supposed to be open and transparent. In the 24 hours since it was userified I have found some more references, like this one. I am not sure if I should remind participants that DRV is supposed to be about whether the proper procedure was followed, not about the merits, or lack thereof, of the article whose deletion is under review. Geo Swan ( talk) 00:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Before you accuse admins of acting unilaterally, it's best to make sure of the facts. It's less likely that Kingboyk simply deleted this series of articles out if spite, and more likely that someone tagged them for speedy deletion, which Kingboyk then deleted. Another admin would have to look at their history to find out. I also find it somewhat disturbing that you went straight to ANI with that claim, before finding out for certain if that was the case. -- Kesh ( talk) 01:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment The article (and it's history) was moved to User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/rescue/Mohammed Al Amin. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply

North Shore Women for Peace (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

Put back North Shore Women for Peace. I recall there was a New York Times article in it explaining its relveance, but who is to know now that you have destroyed the evidence. Jidanni ( talk) 01:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion and speedy close, no proof of notability given and bad faith nomination. Corvus cornix _talk 03:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion pretty unconvincing delrev request. No data to suggest closing was incorrect nor that undeletion would be proper. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion - Inconclusive info.-- WaltCip ( talk) 13:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion The NYTimes article referred to is here. It doesn't look to me like coverage about the group; I certainly couldn't write an encyclopedia article about the group using it. GRBerry 15:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• endorse deletion The NYT piece is a step in the right direction but barely. It barely discusses the group. Certainly we would need more independent, non-trivial, reliable sources before we could have a reasonable article on this topic. JoshuaZ ( talk) 18:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion - trivial sources just don't cut it. WP:V demands multiple non-trivial reliable sources. EJF ( talk) 22:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply

This image was just deleted under grounds of NFCC 2, which states, "Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." Before, it was also deleted on grounds of having no copyright info. I undid that deletion, as the copyright info was removed without an edit summary, and it didn't appear the deleting admin was aware of that. The current deletion is based on different grounds, a violation of NFCC 2.

I did not upload this particular image, but I do believe it is a valid fair use. In my opinion, while all fair use has implications on the original market role, this use did not replace it. The image was part of a 11-part TIME photo-essay, which was also linked to TIME articles. As far as I know, none of the other images are being used on Wikipedia. Thus, there is still considerable incentive to go the linked TIME site to see the full photo-essay (with associated commercial ads).

I also believe this image has a legitimate educational purpose. The protests were a one-time historic event for which no free images like this are available. This image is particularly valuable because it helps illustrate the political and cultural elements connected to the two articles where it was used. There is at least one free image of the protest ( Image:Bbbb.jpg), but it does not fulfill the same purpose as this one. It doesn't effectively illustrate any symbolism, and it is difficult to even make out any protestors.

Finally, the uploader was not warned that this was an NFCC 2 violation. The only warning was by an automatic bot, that it was allegedly a blatant copyvio. This was inaccurate, as there was already a rationale. Superm401 - Talk 08:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply

As I said elsewhere: Our use of this image is in direct factual competition to its use by the owners. They want to use it to attract people to their commercial website; if we use it, it loses its value for that purpose. See WP:NFC, examples of unacceptable uses: "A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. This applies mostly to contemporary press photos and not necessarily to historical archives of press photos". As clear a case as you can imagine. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Utterly clear-cut. I've just deleted some uploaded agency photos for the same reason. -- ChrisO ( talk) 08:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the office has made it clear here that we can not violate people's copyright with liberal use of fair use claims for media when it would commercially harm the copyright holder. I think they don't want to get sued or something. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 21:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - copyright infringement, replacable image. Fut.Perf. gets it spot on. In this case, NFCC2 forbids the use of this image, due to the commercial value of the photo. EJF ( talk) 22:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply