|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
file deleted as "(F7: Violates non-free use policy)"; however, commercial photographer, not " from a commercial source (e.g., Associated Press, Getty)"; previously published at non-profit website; small resolution; one use in infobox. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 17:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This article was wrongly flagged for speedy deletion on the grounds it was an attack page. This page should not be deleted because the subject in question has been written about in the US by a variety of scholarly sources. I have made appropriate edits to the current article in my sandbox, added more reliable sources, and got rid of areas of concern. The page still needs improvement but again, should not be flagged for speedy deletion. -- GroundRisk ( talk • contribs) 17:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Deb ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) speedy deleted the article Beautiful Store (see original version in sandbox at User:GaHee Park/sandbox, disregard some junk at the top) under " G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion". G11 states: "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic". I think it is clear it does not fall under G11 (it is not "Unambiguous advertising or promotion", but at best, a poor grammar article about a notable organization with promotional tone). While quite possibly the article in question is a valid target for being tagged with {{ Advert}} (and {{ Cleanup-english}} or {{ Grammar}}), neither of those make it a valid target for speedy deletion. Let's also take a look at {{ Template:Db-g11}}. It states that the target article in its "current form serves only to promote an entity, person or product". Well, this article was doing more then just promoting it, it was informing about it (for example the first lead sentence is quite clear and non-promotional "Beautiful Store(아름다운 가게) was launched in 2002 as an example to the Oxfam shop, is a not-for-profit organizations and social enterprises."). Ev To quote further from G11 template: "Nor does this criterion apply where substantial encyclopedic content would remain after removing the promotional material; in this case please remove the promotional material yourself, or add the {{ advert}} tag to alert others to do so.". And again, this article has many parts that are clearly non-promotional, and would remain a valid stub/start class article even after removing problematic sentences. (Even if only the quoted sentence was all that remained, it would be a valid stub, but I think that most if not all of the article is valid, as well - again, suffering primarily from poor grammar, not promotional tone). I ask that this article is restored, with no prejudice to being tagged with the templates mentioned above (I will likely do so myself when it is restored and they are not there the next time I review it). PS. Disclaimer: the user who created the article is a student in a course I am an instructor/ambassador for. {{ Advert}} and Category:Articles with a promotional tone are not candidates for speedy. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Also see this AN thread for background.
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Listing the discussion for review on the grounds of WP:DRVPURPOSE#1 - the closer didn't correctly interpret the discussions' consensus. Two animated gifs illustrating the "Cinematic Soccer" gameplay ( File:Captaintsubasa5.gif and File:Captain tsubasa 5 cutscenes.gif) were deleted under the subjective criterion WP:NFCC#8, lack of contextual significance. User:B closed the talk as "general agreement that this is not appropriate fair use", which disregards the editors expressing the need to keep at least one of the images, and the various suggestions on how to improve both the article's text to provide more clear significance, and the images to reduce the amount of non-free content used. I contacted the closer here for a more thorough explanation, confirming that deletion was based exclusively on WP:NFCC#8's interpretation of context (although there were some concerns about minimal usage but also some arguments on how to fix it). Discussion was still ongoing; under these circumstances, the closing prevented the possibility to achieve a thorough consensus on how to best use the non-free content to improve the article. Wikipedia:Non-free content review instructs administrators to close as no consensus when there's no clear outcome, which B should have done in this case. Diego ( talk) 07:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Anyway, I just read everything about those two gifs and my opinion is: sometimes these so-called "administrators" can be amusing. They think they can do everything (deleting this and that) just because they have the "power". They don't care at all about other ppl's "work"/opinion. Sometimes (I said sometimes, I am not generalizing) they are like... the Hitler, Mao Tse Tung or Mussolini from Wikipedia. About the article, yes, it can be improved. But the reason I didn't add more text was because... I didn't want the article to look like a game guide or something like it. But in this particular case, removing one of those gif images would be reasonable, but removing the two gifs..?!? I'm not sure if the images can be restored, however I still have them (because I knew that sooner or later some random Wikipedian would make a complaint), so IF you want to re-add one of those images you can e-mail me: rickenn yahoo com . P.S. don't bother blocking this IP or something, I use hundreds of different IPs and have been editing Wikipedia anonymously, in different countries, so it's fine. Cheers everyone and keep up the good (or not so good) work. -- 89.214.149.123 ( talk) 09:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
file deleted as "(F7: Violates non-free use policy)"; however, commercial photographer, not " from a commercial source (e.g., Associated Press, Getty)"; previously published at non-profit website; small resolution; one use in infobox. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 17:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This article was wrongly flagged for speedy deletion on the grounds it was an attack page. This page should not be deleted because the subject in question has been written about in the US by a variety of scholarly sources. I have made appropriate edits to the current article in my sandbox, added more reliable sources, and got rid of areas of concern. The page still needs improvement but again, should not be flagged for speedy deletion. -- GroundRisk ( talk • contribs) 17:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Deb ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) speedy deleted the article Beautiful Store (see original version in sandbox at User:GaHee Park/sandbox, disregard some junk at the top) under " G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion". G11 states: "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic". I think it is clear it does not fall under G11 (it is not "Unambiguous advertising or promotion", but at best, a poor grammar article about a notable organization with promotional tone). While quite possibly the article in question is a valid target for being tagged with {{ Advert}} (and {{ Cleanup-english}} or {{ Grammar}}), neither of those make it a valid target for speedy deletion. Let's also take a look at {{ Template:Db-g11}}. It states that the target article in its "current form serves only to promote an entity, person or product". Well, this article was doing more then just promoting it, it was informing about it (for example the first lead sentence is quite clear and non-promotional "Beautiful Store(아름다운 가게) was launched in 2002 as an example to the Oxfam shop, is a not-for-profit organizations and social enterprises."). Ev To quote further from G11 template: "Nor does this criterion apply where substantial encyclopedic content would remain after removing the promotional material; in this case please remove the promotional material yourself, or add the {{ advert}} tag to alert others to do so.". And again, this article has many parts that are clearly non-promotional, and would remain a valid stub/start class article even after removing problematic sentences. (Even if only the quoted sentence was all that remained, it would be a valid stub, but I think that most if not all of the article is valid, as well - again, suffering primarily from poor grammar, not promotional tone). I ask that this article is restored, with no prejudice to being tagged with the templates mentioned above (I will likely do so myself when it is restored and they are not there the next time I review it). PS. Disclaimer: the user who created the article is a student in a course I am an instructor/ambassador for. {{ Advert}} and Category:Articles with a promotional tone are not candidates for speedy. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Also see this AN thread for background.
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Listing the discussion for review on the grounds of WP:DRVPURPOSE#1 - the closer didn't correctly interpret the discussions' consensus. Two animated gifs illustrating the "Cinematic Soccer" gameplay ( File:Captaintsubasa5.gif and File:Captain tsubasa 5 cutscenes.gif) were deleted under the subjective criterion WP:NFCC#8, lack of contextual significance. User:B closed the talk as "general agreement that this is not appropriate fair use", which disregards the editors expressing the need to keep at least one of the images, and the various suggestions on how to improve both the article's text to provide more clear significance, and the images to reduce the amount of non-free content used. I contacted the closer here for a more thorough explanation, confirming that deletion was based exclusively on WP:NFCC#8's interpretation of context (although there were some concerns about minimal usage but also some arguments on how to fix it). Discussion was still ongoing; under these circumstances, the closing prevented the possibility to achieve a thorough consensus on how to best use the non-free content to improve the article. Wikipedia:Non-free content review instructs administrators to close as no consensus when there's no clear outcome, which B should have done in this case. Diego ( talk) 07:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Anyway, I just read everything about those two gifs and my opinion is: sometimes these so-called "administrators" can be amusing. They think they can do everything (deleting this and that) just because they have the "power". They don't care at all about other ppl's "work"/opinion. Sometimes (I said sometimes, I am not generalizing) they are like... the Hitler, Mao Tse Tung or Mussolini from Wikipedia. About the article, yes, it can be improved. But the reason I didn't add more text was because... I didn't want the article to look like a game guide or something like it. But in this particular case, removing one of those gif images would be reasonable, but removing the two gifs..?!? I'm not sure if the images can be restored, however I still have them (because I knew that sooner or later some random Wikipedian would make a complaint), so IF you want to re-add one of those images you can e-mail me: rickenn yahoo com . P.S. don't bother blocking this IP or something, I use hundreds of different IPs and have been editing Wikipedia anonymously, in different countries, so it's fine. Cheers everyone and keep up the good (or not so good) work. -- 89.214.149.123 ( talk) 09:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |