File:Robert M. Isaac.jpg ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)

Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Colorado_Springs_mayor_Robert_M._Isaac, please restore. This image was offhandedly deleted under the assumption that photos of this deceased politician were readily available. They are not, and I am 5000 miles away. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) ( talk) 21:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• Restore WP:NFCC#1 states, "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." Robert M. Isaac is deceased, so no free image can be created now. However, there is a question of whether one can be obtained. Given the good-faith (unsuccessful) efforts to find a free image, it is perhaps unreasonable to keep deleted under WP:NFCC#1 when finding a free image proves so difficult. The closing admin weighed the arguments correctly back in December, so in that sense I endorse, but now that it's February I would not object to restoring the image, albeit in very close compliance with WP:F and WP:IUP. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 02:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• Peripitus makes a compelling argument that the image might fail WP:NFCC#2 as well; however, I think the image should be restored and relisted so a more thorough consensus can be achieved at FfD regarding the image's NFCC compliance, or lack thereof. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 01:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - as the deleting administrator - based on the weight of the arguments presented I still think this was the correct closure. The reason I don't agree with A Stop at Willoughby's restoration note is that the image was sourced from a news site (see here) and it is strongly arguable that the image use here fails NFCC#2. Restoring this and rerunning FfD is, I think, going to see the image deleted on NFCC#2 grounds alone - Peripitus (Talk) 03:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply

That section reads "Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." How would that image's use here, in a single article, at reduced size, replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media? -- Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) ( talk) 13:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply

A search here in Japan yields a second image here. Would this image, trimmed down to the mayor himself, (and this one including all of his head and so on), be acceptable? I don't care which image is used, but the biography should have a photo. -- Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) ( talk) 13:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• Restore per A Stop at Willoughby, except that I voice no opinion on the close itself, an issue that is unnecessary to the resolution of the matter at hand. The NFCC#2 question is not unambiguously added, 03:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC) raised in the original FfD, and should be addressed by a new FfD if necessary on restoration. Tim Song ( talk) 17:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC) reply

not quite correct - see the nominators statement "apparently copied from a news source" - this is also a matter I took into account on the closure - Peripitus (Talk) 02:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• Restore per A Stop at Willoughby and Tim Song. No objection if someone relists due to NFCC#2, though I personally think that's a stretch. Also a WP:FISH for the rudeness of the FfD nom. Hobit ( talk) 03:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC) reply

NFCC#2 a stretch ? We have an image taken from a commercial news site, and image that we are using at a resolution that is for sale (such res images are often licenced for web use)...That seems a casebook example of being "used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media". News photos are sold for exactly the use this image was put to - illustrating an article on the subject - Peripitus (Talk) 05:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC) reply

File:Once Upon A Midnight publicity photo 2.jpg ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)

This is not a non-free image as recorded in wiki guidelines 129.96.113.84 ( talk) 02:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Apologies if this is incorrect as I am not a member. The production image was deleted from Once Upon a Midnight on the grounds that it was a non-free image and/or that it could be replaced. See: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 January 24#File:Once Upon A Midnight publicity photo 2.jpg. Both statements are false as the image is not under copyright and has appeared in conjunction with the production's publicity. For proof, this image accompanied all the articles listed on the bottom of the wiki page and is publically available. It cannot be replaced as cameras and video cameras are not permitted in theatrical performances. It is relevent to the article as it conveys the costume, style and Mise-en-scène of this unique Japanese/Australian performance, which is unlikely to be repeated. Other articles on musical theatre include a production image. See [ [1]], [ [2]], and[ [3]] please advise ( 129.96.113.84 ( talk) 02:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)) reply

• Endorse closure of the FfD as "delete." During the debate, the copyrighted status of the image was not contested by any of the participants. As such, WP:NFCC was the primary policy being considered. The nominator put forth a strong argument – that the image might be replaceable by a free image, thus failing WP:NFCC#1. The other participant in the discussion was unsure of whether the image was replaceable; however, both participants expressed an opinion that the image was not needed to enhance reader understanding of the text, thus failing WP:NFCC#8. The only reason to overturn this FfD result would be the revelation that the image was, in fact, in the public domain. However, I do not see any evidence that this is the case. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 02:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, copyright is presumed unless shown otherwise. Tim Song ( talk) 17:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC) reply
• week endorse not really happy with the closing admin !voting (in effect) and closing, but the final result seems correct and proper. Hobit ( talk) 16:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

VK Bosna ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

VK Bosna is a sports team that is part of the USD Bosna sports society. I ask that the waterpolo club article be brought back. There was everything there that was necessary. There were references - the official team's website. There was another website. If more is needed, I can provide more. What really bothers me is that there are many other sport team/club articles that had significantly less content - yet they are not deleted. I can give a a list of a number of such articles if you guys want. The bottom line is that this is the best waterpolo club in the entire country, it is an established club in a recently formed new league, and there really is no reason why it should be deleted. LAz17 ( talk) 03:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Also, do check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarajevo#Sports , as you guys can see it is missing a link among the sport clubs in the city. ( LAz17 ( talk) 03:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)). reply

Comment, can someone please make it possible for me to see the AfD on this, as well as the article itself as was before deletion? Thanks. Turqoise127 ( talk) 20:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• comment It was deleted directly via speedy deletion, under "Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion as an article about a group or club that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject" tice, by two different administrators, User:Tbsdy lives , and User:Sandahl. Looking at the article, I see it did not have any references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party sources, just a link to its own web page, facebook page, web site, and the web page for the university sports association. DGG ( talk ) 20:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC) reply
  • I was in the process of building and expanding the page. Yet I do not get this opportunity. This page for example, HK Spartak Subotica has less information yet it is not deleted. The website itself of this mighty organization should be enough reason for it to stay, but I can and will provide third party sources documenting their existence, their success, and their happenings. ( LAz17 ( talk) 22:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)). reply
    • Let's see them then. Stifle ( talk) 15:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Done, they're listed towards the bottom - as of right now. ( LAz17 ( talk) 18:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)). reply

• Endorse speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7. This article met A7 because it was about an organization and it did not assert that organization's notability adequately. Describing it as "the strongest" club in its league is not an adequate assertion of notability, particularly when that league does not appear to be notable itself. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 02:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply
  • League is the problem? Bosnia and Herzegovina Waterpolo League - perhaps you would be interested or even thrilled in deleting the league's wikipedia page. ( LAz17 ( talk) 05:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)). reply

we will often keep an article on a league, but not the individual teams, just as we will often keep an article on a team, but not the individual players. DGG ( talk ) 16:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Sure, DGG, we have the NBA, but no Chicago Bulls or Michael Jordan. Turqoise127 ( talk) 16:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply

DGG, if you want an obscure league, one where you can destroy/delete all the teams from - no better place to start than here... Bosnia and Herzegovina Hockey League. Three teams, all ready to be whipped off. Let me know if you need any more articles that could be great candidates for slaughtering. What is going on is institutionalizing vandalism on wikipedia. ( LAz17 ( talk) 18:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)). reply

LAz17, DGG is an inclusionist, an intelligent man and pretty fair. Feel free to disagree with him but please do not be agressive or mean. Turqoise127 ( talk) 18:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply

LAz17, you're correct about the league. I saw that Bosnia-Herzegovina Waterpolo League was a redlink and mistakenly assumed that the article did not exist; I certainly don't have any feelings one way or another about deleting it. However, like DGG said, the notability of the league does not guarantee the notability of the team. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 01:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• Perhaps userfication or incubation would be appropriate here. Stifle ( talk) 15:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• Overturn speedy deletion. I do not know how I would vote at an AfD of this article, but I believe it deserves community opinion.

This is a newly formed waterpolo league in the city of Sarajevo. It is a "canton" league (meaning something like regional, a canton is a small administrative division of a country). This is due to the fact that Bosnia as a country is still greatly influenced from the war that is long over, life is centralized into large cities. This is as close as it gets to a national league, and the effort should be applauded. Instead of speedy deleting articles they know nothing about, editors should first do a little research, and if unfamiliar with the language, seek help. LAz17, please find additional sources on the team, anything on the internet that is a reputable reliable source (e.g. newspaper websites, news, etc.), so that you may appease the nay sayers (being nice here, I would have rather said the uninformed ignorants who nevertheless stick noses in where they know nothing about). Turqoise127 ( talk) 16:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Well, here is what I can find...

The official site - http://www.vkbosna.ba/loc/

News from the society's website - http://www.usdbosna.org/content.php?fid=e2a66d19ddadb5fbe9bbe0186fac90eb

News article - http://www.nezavisne.com/sport/ostali/32910/Vaterpolo-klub-Bosna-danas-pocinje-sa-radom.html

Club organizing a recent international tournament - http://www.olimpijskibazensarajevo.ba/pocetna/133-vk-primorac-pobjednik-turnira-sarajevo-champions-challenge2009.html

Another news article - http://www.centar.ba/?jezik=bos&n=821

Another article about sarajevo city's support for the club and the big achievements that the club has attained in a very short time... http://www.sarajevo.ba/ba/stream.php?sta=3&pid=6062&kat=2

( LAz17 ( talk) 18:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)). reply

Excellent pint about uninformed ignorants. The best example is here, [4] HS Olimpija Ljubljana. They wanted to delete that page too! And the VK Bosna page had much more than what this hockey team page has. ( LAz17 ( talk) 18:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)). reply

• Comment, I believe the sources listed above here by LAz17 are sufficient to establish notability via reliable verifiable sources. If some disagree, please address why the sources are not sufficient. Please restore and keep the article. Turqoise127 ( talk) 18:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and list at AfD. I see only one reliable source [5] in the pile above, but if my memory of the contents of the cached article is correct, the A7 was very borderline already. Coupled with the source (and I admit I'm no Bosnia expert), I think there's enough here to require a discussion. Tim Song ( talk) 17:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC) reply
• Restore and send to AfD exactly per Tim Song. More sources will be needed that contribute to WP:N. But not a speedy candidate at this point. Other option is to recreate the article from scratch with the source (which should make it immune to any speedy) which will result in even more time wasted. Hobit ( talk) 03:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC) reply
• So what now? It's still deleted. ( LAz17 ( talk) 17:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)). reply
  • In general there will be a 7 day discussion. So we wait until then unless it's really clear (see WP:SNOW) what the outcome will be. My best guess is that at that time it will get restored and then sent to AfD where it will be discussed for yet another 7 day period. And unless sourcing improves in that time (and it may, that's part of why we spend 7 days on it) it will likely get deleted for not meeting WP:N. Yes, it's a long process, and sometimes needlessly so (I'd favor snowing this and moving on). But it helps to insure that when we do delete something it was a good and reasonable thing to do. See WP:DEL for yet more details. Hobit ( talk) 18:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply
• List at AFD or Incubate in the light of the newly-presented sources. Stifle ( talk) 09:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC) reply