Dave Elitch ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

I believe that Dave Elitch is notable as he is well known for being the replacement of Thomas Pridgen and for touring with Mars Volta, and for other reasons I am willing to bring up if necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iminrainbows ( talk • contribs) 01:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Please could you list the sources you propose to use for your article?— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 08:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse for now. Our Thomas Prigden article states, "In late 2009 rumours of Thomas Pridgen parting ways with The Mars Volta circulated the internet. As of December 2009 the band has still made no official statement, however, in their most recent shows they have been performing with drummer Dave Elitch. Whether this is permanent or not has yet to be confirmed." There is absolutely no harm in waiting until it's actually known if he's a member of the band or just filling in for a show or two. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply

The Thomas Pridgen article is not up to date. Since then Pridgen has said that he has left and Dave Elitch has said that he has joined. My sources will be:

• http://www.myspace.com/davidelitch
• http://www.antiquiet.com/news/2009/11/mars-volta-new-drummer/
• http://thebrokengstring.wordpress.com/2009/12/03/rumors-confirmed-dave-elitch-is-tmvs-new-drummer/

Iminrainbows ( talk) 17:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply

None of those are acceptable sources. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC) reply

I'd say David Elitch's personal website is a reasonable primary source. Hobit ( talk) 07:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment. This doesn't need to come to DRV; the speedy doesn't prevent creation of a new article with a sufficient claim of significance. Just do it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 17:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC) reply

  Agreed, though a restoration of the article would probably be helpful (I can't see it as the cached article I'm seeing is of the band). userfy for now. I think we need to wait until an independent reliable source covers that he's now in the band. No objection to recreation as him being in the band (even for a short while) would be a reasonable claim of notability and not allow an A7 deletion, but it's probably easier to wait and get the closing admin to restore once notability is established. Also, question for an admin: Did the article deleted on Dec 29th claim he was in the band? Hobit ( talk) 07:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply

  Yes and no. It indicated that he "is currently" a member of the band, but also noted that he "will replace" Pridgen on one leg of a particular tour. – BLACK FALCON ^{( TALK)} 00:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply

  I concur with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz- a speedy deletion doesn't prevent creation of an acceptable article- if you have the sources, write it. An admin may provide you with a copy of the old article, or even put it in your userspace at their discretion. The new article will be subject to our normal deletion policies, but as the article was not deleted after discussion, speedy deletion criteria G4 would not apply. Bradjamesbrown ( talk) 10:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply

  Would saying that he is well known for being rumored to be in The Mars Volta be a significant claim of notability, even if there is no solid source saying that he is in the band? Because I think he's become pretty well known for these rumors, even if it turns out that in fact he isn't an official member. Iminrainbows ( talk) 19:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply

• Endorse speedy deletion under criterion A7. An article does not need to prove the notability of its subject in order to avoid speedy deletion, but it does need to indicate the significance of its subject, which is a much lower threshold. Being rumoured to be a member of a notable musical group is not really an assertion of significance as anyone can spread any rumour about anyone. I suggest waiting for confirmation of the rumour in a reliable source before recreating the article. – BLACK FALCON ^{( TALK)} 00:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn not a valid A7 as importance of the subject was asserted in the article (per Black Falcon's comments). It's not up to the admin doing A7 to verify if the facts are true. Just that importance was asserted. A claim to be in a notable band is an assertion of importance. Hobit ( talk) 13:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply

File:HMS Ambuscade (F172).jpg ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| restore)

Was speedily deleted by User:SchuminWeb on the basis of (F7: Violates non-free use policy: Not different enough that the idea could not be conveyed by a current free image). The criteria has not been correctly applied in this case as it is no longer possible to create a free image of the vessel in its Royal Navy form. The vessel was sold to the Pakistan Navy and has been extensively modified by that service. The Pakistan Navy uses a different colour scheme, the quadruple Exocet launcher in B position was removed, a Harpoon launcher replaces it, the Sea Cat launcher has been removed and the hangar modified to take a larger helicopter. It is not possible to replace the none free image with a free equivalent. Justin talk 22:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Endorse - Because the ship looks different is not a good enough reason to toss the decision aside. — The Hand That Feeds You ^Bite 04:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply

What? The image cannot be recreated so we should ignore the free use justification and use some utterly unrelated image just 'cos its free. Sorry that argument is utterly illogical. Justin talk 13:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Except that, as you point out in the nom, it's not "an unrlated image," it's the same ship with modifications. We can use a free image of the current version of the ship. You said it was sold to the Pakistan Navy and has been extensively modified by that service. So it is the same ship, it just looks different. Your argument is akin to saying we can't use a modern picture of an actress because now she's 80 and had three face-lifts, so she doesn't look the same as her Oscar-award winning performance 60 years ago. — The Hand That Feeds You: ^Bite 16:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Err no, the article is about HMS Ambuscade in Royal Navy service, on ship articles where ships have seen service in several navies, each service has its own article. e.g. ARA General Belgrano and USS Phoenix (CL-46). So your analogy doesn't reflect the situation here. Hence, my comment about the logic in your argument; it doesn't reflect the situation here. Justin talk

Just because it's got articles on each separate service doesn't invalidate our image rules. The boat still exists, so a free image can be made. — The Hand That Feeds You: ^Bite 21:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC) reply

It is not a question of invalidating image rules, it is perfectly permissible within the image rules. And no a free image is not possible in this case and your suggestion that an unrelated image will do is utterly specious. Justin talk 22:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC) reply

I have never said "an unrelated image will do," so I don't know where you're getting off calling my argument "specious."If your argument is that the boat currently doesn't look like it did when it was designated HMS Ambuscade, I don't think you'll satisfy the image rules. The ship still exists. We can still make a free image of it. Therefore, a non-free image is not necessary. The fact that it has been modified doesn't change that. — The Hand That Feeds You: ^Bite 21:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Its specious because it is an unrelated image. The article is about HMS Ambuscade, the image is to illustrate her in the service of the Royal Navy. There cannot be a free image as HMS Ambuscade no longer exists. To shove in an image of the ship in Pakistan Navy service is to use an unrelated image. A non-free image is impossible because HMS Ambuscade no longer exists. Justin talk 22:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Relist - If you'll look through the admin's talk pages, there are quite a few similar instances - quick skim through his contributions over the last few weeks there's several "oops I was too quicksI over stepped" - itchy delete finger? -- 71.54.72.13 ( talk) 09:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Overturn - As the lister says, no free image can now be made, so it's explicitly allowed under the non-free content guideline, just like a person who is dead or a hermit, or a band that no longer exists. The closing admin's suggestion of using a picture of some other ship is ludicrous; if we adopted that line of reasoning we could get rid of all free-use pictures of people by using a free picture of somebody else! -- Zsero ( talk) 13:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Overturn, list at FFD. Closer's summary ("not different enough") and Justin's argument indicate enough of a substantial content issue is involved to require community discussion rather than summary action. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 15:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and list at FfD. Not clear-cut enough for a speedy. Timotheus Canens ( talk) 15:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• overturn Not a speedy case as it isn't clearly replaceable. Hobit ( talk) 16:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• overturn - whatever else may be decided, this was an inappropriate speedy delete Thparkth ( talk) 17:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn speedy deletion and list at FfD if desired. WP:CSD states that "administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." This is clearly not an obvious case, given the strong contention that no free equivalent can be created. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 18:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Clearly it was and is replaceable by other (non-free) images such as File:HMS Amazon (F169).jpg. Why waste anyone's time at FFD? Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply

  Huh? How can it be replaced by a picture of a different ship?! Would you also say that a picture of a deceased person may be replaced by that of somebody else of the same sex, age, race, and general build? -- Zsero ( talk) 23:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply

  No, but ships aren't people. These ships were all built to one plan and - so far as I can recall - all underwent the same visible changes. Apart from the pennant number, which is all but illegible in these shots, they were visibly identical. Only a total anorak could possibly tell the difference and anyone that obsessive should have pictures of these which they took at some Navy Day which they can release under a free license. We can't lose. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC) reply

  So if a famous dead person had an identical twin who was still alive, and someone wanted to upload a photo for fair use, you would suggest taking a photo of the twin instead, on the grounds that nobody would know the difference? -- Zsero ( talk) 01:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC) reply

  It was not a really great analogy the first time you tried it out and I don't find that fine-tuning is helping. The subject here is a big inanimate steel thing. If it is analogies you want think cars, not people. Do we insist on picturing every possible trim level and engine variant in an article? Every little detail change? Or do we say "here's a three-door VW Golf Mk2" and "here's a four-door Ford Escort Mk1"? You're asking for a picture of the "three-door VW Golf Mk2 1.6 GLi automatic with the optional five-spoke alloy wheels and metallic paint". Even the Volkswagen Golf Mk2 article, dealing with a subject where there are enormous numbers of free pictures available, doesn't depict that level of detail. It settles for representativeness. So too can the article where this image was used. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC) reply

  The article isn't about the type of ship, it's about the ship itself. If we say "here's a picture of the car Kennedy was shot in", we don't put up a picture of one just like it if we can get one of the car itself. We don't put a picture of Apollo-12 in an article about Apollo-11, just because they looked alike (if they did). -- Zsero ( talk) 02:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC) reply

  Aside from the argument that it is a completely different ship none of the Type 21 had exactly the same build standard, there were differences between members of the class. HMS Antelope for example was never fitted with Exocet. Justin talk 09:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC) reply

• Overturn argument for fair use negates possibility of speedy deletion. Alansohn ( talk) 22:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC) reply

File:RebShimon.jpg ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)

File:RavYosefLeibBloch.jpg ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)

The images are very probably in the public domain, but just in case they're not I added a fair use rationale, and noted this in the discussion, calling for it to be closed as a keep, either way. Instead, and to my horror, User:Fastily deleted them! I have attempted to reason with him, but he takes the absurd position that if a file is definitely PD it may be kept, and if it's definitely copyright but fair use then it may also be kept, but if we're unsure which one it is it must be deleted! Deleting these files did nothing to improve the encyclopaedia, and I request that they be undeleted. For now they should be treated as fair use, just as a precaution; eventually enough time will have passed that we can confidently call them PD and use them more freely. Zsero ( talk) 17:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment. This seems to be essentially the same issue as discussed here Wikipedia:Deletion_review#File:Hiram_Bithorn.JPG, where the consensus right now seems to be to be to allow the image as fair use. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 17:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply

  Overturn with relist possible. Similar DRV just concluded, rejected general deletion of such cases. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 15:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC) reply

• overturn and relist if desired was not found to be in the PD, but no argument was made in the FfD why it doesn't meet our requirements as non-free content (which it was listed as at the time of deletion). I've no clue if it does or doesn't as I've not seen the image or context for it. Hobit ( talk) 16:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply

  Comment But this wasn't a FfD debate; it was a WP:PUF listing. The issue at hand was that someone had to prove the image was free, or otherwise satisfy WP:NFCC. Over the course of the two-month listing, no one did that. This, therefore, was a perfectly reasonable way to close a listing at PUF. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 18:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply

  I was unable to prove beyond doubt that the photos were PD, since my attempts to contact the author of the article from which they were copied (in order to find out where he copied them from) failed. But for that very reason I added a fair use rationale as a backup, and therefore the PUF should have immediately been closed as a keep. Instead they were deleted. -- Zsero ( talk) 20:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply

  I did miss where the discussion occurred, but I still think that this shouldn't be deleted simply for not being a free image once there is a fair use rational. No issue with listing at FfD if it is felt that NFCC isn't met. I certainly disagree with "A Stop at Willoughby" that just because you don't know who (if anyone) owns the image you can't meet NFCC#2. If we want that requirement added to NFCC, it should be explicit. Hobit ( talk) 06:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply

• overturn and relist - there is absolutely no legal problem with saying "this is probably PD, but if it's not here is the fair use rationale". Thparkth ( talk) 17:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion On Wikipedia, we assume that images aren't public-domain until proven otherwise. Therefore, because Zsero failed to prove that this was public domain during the two months this was listed at WP:PUF, we must assume that this is non-free content. So the question is whether this meets WP:NFCC. That policy states that non-free content "may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met" (emphasis mine). Here's the deal: If you don't know who the copyright holder is, your image cannot meet WP:NFCC#2. You may argue all you like that #2 would be met easily if you knew who the copyright holder was, but the fact of the matter is that you cannot be sure. And WP:NFCC requires that all 10 (not "most of the") criteria are (not "may be") met. Therefore, this was a perfectly reasonable deletion/ WP:PUF closure. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 18:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Do not agree that "If you don't know who the copyright holder is, your image cannot meet WP:NFCC#2." All #2 requires is that the content is not "not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media". This can usually be easily assessed even without knowing who the copyright holder is. Thparkth ( talk) 18:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Not true. How do you know what the original market role without knowing the copyright holder? A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 18:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Quick. Who owns the copyright on the 1976 London Philharmonic recording of the Blue Danube? Who knows. What is the market role of that recording? That's easy - it's a commercial soundrecording sold in its complete form in retail, and licensed commercially for use in film, radio and television. How does, say, a five second sample of that recording "replace the original market role"? Answer: it doesn't. There you go, an absolutely correct and complete assessment of WP:NFCC#2 without ever knowing who owns the copyright. It may sometimes be necessary to know who the copyright holder is to assess the impact of a non-free-use but it's not a universal requirement, and it is not the intention behind WP:NFCC#2. Thparkth ( talk) 18:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Surely (and despite the wording of the policy) what matters is not the original market role but the current one. Remember that the purpose of #2 is to avoid taking business away from the copyright holder, which can only happen now, not 70 or 80 years ago. And in this case the answer to "what is the current market role of these photos" is "none". Nobody is selling them. Nobody knows who might have the right to sell them. It is very likely that nobody has this right. They are not generating any revenue for anyone, and it is nearly certain that they never will.

But if we must consider the original market role, then that is simple and obvious. The photos could only have been taken for a limited number of purposes: 1. For the private use of the subjects; if so, #2 is irrelevant. 2. To sell newspapers; if so, the issues in which they appeared were sold, used to wrap fish, and thrown away the better part of a century ago, and the newspapers themselves no longer exist. 3. For a fundraising brochure for the subjects' employer; if so, reproducing them on WP will not prevent them from doing so again should they want to. So whichever way you look at it, #2 is satisfied. -- Zsero ( talk) 20:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and list at FfD. If it is uncertain whether it is in the public domain or not, it should be treated as fair-use and that's it. To delete an image based on a problem that could be fixed by removal of the PD tag makes scant sense to me. The NFCC issues were never aired during the PUF listing, and I'm frankly uncertain whether they warrant deletion. I am certain, however, that the error here was not harmless, and a discussion at the appropriate venue—FfD—is required. Timotheus Canens ( talk) 16:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure. Until the {{ di-no author}} template is deleted or deprecated a failure to provide author information will be one reason for deletion under WP:CSD#F4. The uploader is normally to be allowed a two-day grace period to remedy this defect in the case of non-free content. In this case the interval was rather closer to two months than two days and still there was no progress. No other outcome was possible. On the other hand I have no particular objection to relisting at FFD although I do question the usefulness of doing so. But perhaps the horse will learn to sing in the next two weeks or so. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • • Thread duly opened at WT:CSD to confirm the proper usage of such tags. Jheald ( talk) 15:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • "Unknown" is a perfectly valid answer for "author". It is impossible to find out who took these photos, and it doesn't matter, since we're being conservative and using them only where fair use would be allowed, even though they're very likely to be PD. -- Zsero ( talk) 00:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. This is craziness. These images are either legitimate fair use, or they are PD. Either way they are no legal risk either to us, or our downstream reusers. The only thing achieved by this deletion is to reduce our readers' understanding of the topics, squarely against the purpose of WP:NFC. Jheald ( talk) 15:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. I can only assume Fastily suffered from a moment of temporary insanity here. It is quite reasonable to say, in words, that an image is likely to public domain while backing that up with a fair use rationale to mitigate against any lingering uncertainty. A public domain tag would have been inappropriate, but that doesn't seem to have been present on the deleted images. If someone wants to challenge the fair use rationale then that is fine thing to discuss, and could motivate relisting, but the closer was in error to delete these without any attempt to consider whether NFCC was satisfied. The closer is also wrong in his subsequent discussion to imply that NFCC can't be satisfied simply because the author is currently unknown. Dragons flight ( talk) 03:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Template:Xavier bowl games ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This was a standard navigational template for American football bowl games; in this case, those which the now-defunct Xavier Musketeers football team played in. The template was nominated for deletion on the reasonable grounds that it contained one redlink and was orphaned. During the discussion I wrote the Xavier Musketeers football article and adding the template, so it was no longer orphaned. Only one other editor participated in the discussion, and s/he opined that the navbox wasn't "useful." Usefulness as such as an editorial question and not a reason for deletion. The template was deleted by Ruslik0 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) on these same usefulness grounds. I have asked him to reverse himself, and he has declined, so I'm bringing the matter here for wider attention. I would ask that the deletion be overturned so that the way is clear for restoring the navigational template to the article. Mackensen (talk) 15:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• I presume that you are referring to Ruslik0 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)? I think the close itself was reasonable; it makes little sense to have a navbox with only one link in it. However, if the number of links can be expanded, there should be no barrier to recreation. So endorse close but permit recreation of a navbox with a larger number of links. Timotheus Canens ( talk) 17:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment of the deleting administrator. I deleted the template because it made little sense to keep a navigational template with just one link in it, which, by the way, is a redlink ( 1950 Salad Bowl). I agree with Timotheus Canens that this navbox can be recreated if sufficient number of articles are written. Ruslik_ Zero 19:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • It's no longer a red link, and I still don't see how this would be a rationale for deletion in the first place. Wikipedia:Templates for discussion lists four reasons to delete a template, and this isn't one of them. Of course a template may be deleted if there's consensus to do so, but when the only two editors commenting disagree on the merits surely there isn't consensus to do so. Mackensen (talk) 02:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment. Well, let me ask this. If I take the {{ Navbox}} template and use it directly on the article to create a link, I assume no one would view that as overturning this outcome since it's strictly an editorial decision. That being the case, why is it a problem to take that and place it within its own template? No actual guideline is being violated (and I'll write an article on the bowl in question, once this is overwith). Mackensen (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure I see nothing wrong with the closing administrator's actions. While participation in the discussion was low, the argument that the navigational template was of no use because it contained just one redlink was the stronger one. In that respect, I think those seeking deletion won the debate. That said, Mackensen is correct that no guidelines were actually violated by the template, as WP:NAV is an essay and the relevant guideline, WP:CLN, does not appear to prohibit templates with very few links. That does not mean the delete arguments were invalid, however; it simply means that they were based on common sense. I have no problem with Mackensen creating a new template with multiple blue links (such as 1950 Salad Bowl) in it. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 18:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment. Since I !voted "Delete" in the TFD, I won't bother saying "Endorse" here. However, I would like to point out that it is common practice at TFD to delete navigation templates that have very few working links, so whether the link was functional or not had little impact on its fate. I've never seen a navbox with just one or two links survive a TFD; generally any navbox with less than five working links is at high risk. There is no established guideline on how many links are required, but the pattern is well-established in practice. But at the same time, I don't know of any serious objection to such templates being recreated if a robust number of relevant links can be provided. -- RL0919 ( talk) 20:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Students for Economic Justice ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

I saw this page was deleted, and am a bit confused as to why it is. The group itself is linked on other wiki pages. A google search for "students for economic justice" michigan state university pulls 88,000 articles, many from non-student news sources (that is, excluding the Michigan Daily and State News - articles were published in the Lansing City Pulse, Lansing State Journal, Democracy Now, Media Mouse, Southern Poverty Law Center, ACLU, etc., among others. A Lexis search pulls up Associated Press articles, the Tampa Tribune, the Washington Times, Grand Rapids Press, South Bend Tribune, and, of course, the Univeresity Wire (MSU and U of M). It's a bit confusing because it appears the editors recommending deletion seem not to have checked Lexis, given that 44 of the articles on Lexis about Students for Economic Justice were published prior to the deletion recommendation. Since deletion, the articles published include the Tampa Tribune and Washington Times.

Sorry, as an update, I also found this page, which contains additional reasons for deletion, all of which I think are answered above: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SEJ

As well as several entries on google books, including http://books.google.com/books?id=aWkvLXn48YYC&pg=PT193&dq=students+for+economic+justice+michigan&cd=3#v=onepage&q=students%20for%20economic%20justice&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.247.133.240 ( talk • contribs) 13:54, December 30, 2009

• Comment - Those deletion reviews are from 2006 and 2005 (respectively). I can't see the actual article contents, but from the AfD discussions it sounds like there wasn't much sourced material to go on. I suggest that the nominator create a new article, sourced per WP:RS. — The Hand That Feeds You: ^Bite 14:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Show us a draft, otherwise there's nothing we can do here. Timotheus Canens ( talk) 17:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Bottom line: student clubs at a single school are virtually never notable enough for an article. If you really think this one is that one-in-a-million exception to the rule, then prove it by producing an impeccably-sourced draft in your user space that unquestionably passes WP:ORG. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure - I think that the appellant is unclear about the role of DRV. It is not for us to re-run the AfD or evaluate search results; rather we are here simply to judge whether the close should be overturned. I accept that the AfD could have been closed as 'no consensus', and a fuller closure statement would have helped, but it was within the closing admin's discretion to support the deletion arguments that the sources shown failed to meet WP:ORG. The way forward, as suggested above, is for a new draft to be produced in user space and then come back here with a request for it to be moved back into main space. TerriersFan ( talk) 05:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Largely agree, but I think given that there is plenty of sources, the topic is notable and editing in mainspace is appropriate. Hobit ( talk) 06:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Thanks When I looked at the page, it said that I had to write here before editing the page, so I did that. I'll do it in on a separate page and try to get it moved back - thanks for all your help!
• allow recreation Not on just one campus at this point. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. The sources aren't all great (school papers, local smaller papers) but I don't see the need for a userspace article first. Looks like the topic meets WP:N. Hobit ( talk) 17:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure Three participants in the AfD sought deletion – two on the basis that they were unable to find sufficient sources, and one on the basis that they believed the article was promotional. Another participant voted to keep only if sufficient sourcing could be found. A fifth participant voted "weak keep," noting the necessity of better sourcing. All things considered, I think there was a consensus to delete here. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 18:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I think all agree that the debate from more than 2 years ago was correctly closed. But restoration now there there are sources (or more accurately, now that sources are easier to find) seems reasonable. Hobit ( talk) 06:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply

• There's not much worth restoring, why not write a properly sourced userspace draft demonstrating significance - and incidentally don't do this if you're associated with the group. Guy ( Help!) 13:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply

• Why not let the editor use whatever there was there as a starting point? There is no reason to hide it behind a curtain. Hobit ( talk) 20:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply

• "Hide it behind a curtain"? What? Nothing is being "hidden." And why not let the editor start the article with a clean slate?

• Because the editor working on the article should get to use the old article as a starting point if they wish. I don't see why we shouldn't allow that, and no one has provided any reason that I can see. If the old article is horrible, fine. But even then it might have well formatted references or something else. I don't understand this desire to make others do extra work with no reason given. Hobit ( talk) 17:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Had you considered that poor wording/sourcing would make it harder to create a good article? (ie. sorting through all the cruft, rather than starting fresh from the new author's own wording & sourcing) That said, it's standard for AfD's closed so long ago to simply start over from scratch with a userfied version. — The Hand That Feeds You: ^Bite 21:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Sure, but I trust that the editor working on the article is better off making that decision than us making that decision. This isn't 1st grade and we aren't the teachers. Adults don't need others to hide stuff from them on the off chance it will make their work worse. Hobit ( talk) 14:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Adults also don't need vague accusations of "hiding" things thrown around. — The Hand That Feeds You: ^Bite 21:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply

• Endorse, nothing wrong with the process here and it looks a lot like a case of WP:NFT. Guy ( Help!) 13:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Erb? A group that has some 50+ Gnews hits is "made up"? Could you explain what you are referring to? Hobit ( talk) 00:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• incubate new article if there is new material. NBeale ( talk) 18:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Malvern_Instruments ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Unfair deletion. No chance to review content. Steven.redgewell ( talk) 12:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment by deleting admin: As per this long, long discussion on my talk page, the article is a cut-and-paste of a press release by the company, and Mr Redgewell is a current or former employee (current employee when claiming the right to release the press release under CC-BY-SA, former employee when reminded of our policy on conflicts of interest). The article was therefore an unambiguous and admitted copyright violation, an advertisement ("...one of the world’s leading materials characterization companies, highly respected for its innovation and leadership in particle characterization..." and "They provide essential information that supports the understanding, improvement and optimization of many industrial processes...") and a flagrant conflict of interest. ⇦ REDVERS ⇨ 12:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, copyvio, advertising, COI... there are a cornucopia of reasons why this should have been deleted, and the correct call was made by the deleting admin. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 13:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC). reply
• Endorse and Speedy Close - Copyvios are non-negotiable. — The Hand That Feeds You: ^Bite 15:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, speedy close. Copyvios should go ASAP. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 15:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment by author: As a new user to Wikipedia I don't feel I was given the chance to amend the content. Malvern Instruments' competitors have Wikipedia pages and these have been allowed. From my 24 hours of Wikipedia experience, my first impressions are of an organisation that doesn't nuture new users. I would gladly amend the content to prevent copyright violation, even though it is publically available anyway. Steven.redgewell ( talk) 15:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• For the fifth (I believe) time, I will point this out to you again: you have a serious conflict of interest with this subject and should not be writing about it anyway. ⇦ REDVERS ⇨ 15:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• I acknowledge the conflict of interest, however this was not the original reason for you to delete the article. I am trying to point out that I wasn't given a fair chance to make necessary changes to the article, your original actions were extreme and you could have dealt with the article better. I know the COI makes all of this irrelevant now and applaud you in your knowledge of Wikipedia policies. Steven.redgewell ( talk) 16:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • For legal reasons, we cannot keep copyright violations on the site for any length of time, once they've been discovered. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 02:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC). reply
• Endorse. Obvious copyvio is obvious. You are free to work on the article offline. Timotheus Canens ( talk) 16:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse if the company passes WP:CORP, then in time someone will create an article on it who isn't an employee of the company. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Whoa, hold your horses everyone: what we're providing to this new editor isn't FairProcess. The message we've sent, collectively, is "you may not write this article". And I'm rather disappointed that we haven't then gone on to say, "... but you can request that someone else should write it, via the AfC process", or ask about sources, or in fact do anything at all that's actually helpful for the new user or indicates any desire to engage them in the encyclopaedia-building process.

  I think we need to be aware of this. "You can't do this" is often an appropriate response at DRV, but it need to be tempered with "... but what you can do is this."— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 08:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Except, in the long conversation on my talk page before this DRV, Mr Redgewell admitted that the company doesn't pass WP:CORP and isn't notable: "Due to the nature of the business, there is nobody unrelated to the company that would have anything to do with them." On that basis, inviting him to write the article again elsewhere would be a waste of everyone's time as it couldn't possibly survive. ⇦ REDVERS ⇨ 10:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• And that's not in dispute. The point I'm making is around appropriate ways to handle new users who come to DRV, and it's aimed at DRV participants in general rather than you personally.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 15:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply

User:Cyclopia/List of dichotomies ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

John Vandenberg ( talk · contribs) speedily deleted this subpage of mine with the justification that it met CSD G5 criteria (see discussion at my talk page. Problem is, it doesn't meet G5 for the simple reason that it underwent substantial edits by other users (yours truly). Even if they amounted to trimming and refactoring, fact is that the deleted version of that page was no more only the work of the banned user. I am ok with the deletion of the revisions of the banned users, but I am much less ok with deletion of my own revisions, especially if they belong to a userfied page that was kept for further work. At the very minimum, I would appreciate if the wikicode can be sent to me by email, so that I can use it as a start for refactoring (being a list, the listed items would be the necessary material). Thanks. Cyclopia ^talk 14:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC) - Withdrawn. Explanations on my talk page were enough to understand the issue at stake. I would be nevertheless happy if in the future some more explanation, even if private and partial, can be made when having to delete stuff in this way, for respect towards editors. -- Cyclopia ^talk 16:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Cyclopia rearranged the content a little, but did not author any content on this page. I have recommended that they talk to Arbcom before initiating this DRV. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 15:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • G5 talks of "substantial edits", not of "authoring content". In any case, I trimmed the thing down heavily and reorganized it. The structure of an article is part of its content, obviously: "Dog bites postman" is different from "Postman bites dog", even if the words are the same. About ArbCom, I am sure User:John Vandenberg will be more than glad to explain here, without omission of detail, why and how I should contact ArbCom: unfortunately in my discussion with him on my talk page and later by email, he asked me to contact it but explained basically nothing. -- Cyclopia ^talk 15:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC) reply
    • You need to take John's advice. There is good reason for not posting a lot of detail publicly, so when you're told to contact privately, do that. This DRV needs speedy closure, and you need to listen better. ++ Lar: t/ c 15:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC) reply
      • This is obviously unacceptable. "We know better" cannot be a reason for any admin action -it can never be a reason. Refusing to give any explanation, even privately, for action which (at least) border on being out of process cannot be accepted. It only shows contempt not only for me, but for the whole editors' community. -- Cyclopia ^talk 15:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC) reply
        • False. Editors elected by the community to bear special responsibility (such as John) or entrusted by ArbCom with special responsibility sometimes are aware of things that cannot or should not be made public. That's just the way it is. You can accept it, or not, but you can't change it, and if you cause too much disruption about it, defeating the purpose of keeping the matter quiet in the first place, you may be sanctioned. You don't have the facts in the matter, and you're not going to get all of them. If you choose not to accept that, you may wish to find another project to participate in. Sorry to be blunt but it's apparent that a softer approach was tried and you didn't respond appropriately. You need to listen better. ++ Lar: t/ c 15:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC) reply
          • I don't need all the facts. It's not a matter of trust in you, but of respect of us. Editors are not dumb sheeps. I only demand enough facts to understand why this is the way it is, and have this settled. At least in private, if public discussion concerns you so much. It also seems I am not the only one to feel that a different behaviour from admins -at least, a bit more respect to editors- would be very much appreciated. Expressions like "respond appropriately" or "you need to listen better" are utterly uncivil when dealing with adult and good-intentioned editors. -- Cyclopia ^talk 15:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC) reply
            • My read of this is that you were encouraged to contact ArbCom privately before starting this DrV, and you didn't. I'm glad that you're going to try a different tack here, now. No one wants anything unpleasant to happen. It's just that this is an important issue that is difficult to deal with effectively in full public glare. I'd reiterate, the people handling this do have a special level of trust and should be allowed some latitude if they say "trust us, please". I'm sorry for being blunt but it didn't seem like softer touches were working. Can this DRV be withdrawn now, please? ++ Lar: t/ c 16:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC) reply
              • After your explanation, yes. It would have been that easy if it was explained to me from the start. Next time however please use different tones when dealing with editors. Not softer, simply try not to just assume that anyone will accept that "you know better." and try instead to treat them like sentient people. That's all I asked, after all, from start. -- Cyclopia ^talk 16:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Bill Church (Tang Soo Do) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Bit of a strange situation. I've left a message about it for Jayjg, the closing admin, but he hasn't gotten back to me, so DRV seemed the next best step. Basically, the AfD discussion was not fully closed. The AfD involved two articles: a type of martial art called Tang Soo Do Kyohoe, and the inventor of said martial art, Bill Church (Tang Soo Do). Both were nominated for AfD and discussed together in the one discussion. As the closing admin, Jayjg properly stated that the consensus was for delete, but only deleted Tang Soo Do Kyohoe, leaving Bill Church (Tang Soo Do) without any determination. Essentially, one of four things should happen with the latter article: 1) keep (although this shouldn't happen as there is definitely no consensus for that), 2) delete, 3) re-listed for further discussion (or, alternatively, re-nominated in its own AfD), or 4) closed with no consensus (again, I think the !votes were definitely towards delete, so I don't believe this is a real option either). Singularity42 ( talk) 17:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete Tagged with {{ db-afd}} Triplestop x3 18:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Climategate scandal ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

There were a significant number of opinions expressed in support of keeping the article and after reviewing the arguments the issue seemed far from settled. Further, a close on a disputed AfD less than 12 hours after it was opened when it doesn't meet speedy conditions seems very premature. jhe_iv ( talk) 11:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 December 28/Climategate scandal

The nominator of this review has acceded to an agreement between the original creator and the sysop who closed the deletion discussion (see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 December 28/Climategate scandal#Closure). The author will work on it in his userspace at User:Wikidemon/Climategate_scandal, and thanks all for the positive feedback on this subject.

File:Angry students turning over police cars.jpg ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)

quote:Reason=As other pictures in the article, this one conveys the situation and overall atmosphere of the scene much better than words can and also proves that what is said in the sentence is true (assuming, of course, the photo was really taken there and then, which is not being challenged, though). I say keep until a free image showing the same (or a reasonably similar) scene is available. Jimmy Fleischer. Arilang ^talk 09:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Restore and Relist, at the risk of sounding unpopular, the image had a fair use rationale, and nobody argued for keep delete other than the nominator. Closing as "Delete" under those circumstances without a further rationale is bizarre. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 12:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC). reply
• Awaiting comment from the closer before registering my !vote. My preliminary view at the moment is that the comment quoted above seems to be arguing that the use satisfies WP:NFCC#8; since that's the FfD nominator's only point here, I'm uncertain how one can gauge a consensus from this debate. Timotheus Canens ( talk) 12:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply

My comment, as requested. Two arguments that this image satisfies NFCC were put forth: 1/ that it conveys the situation and overall atmosphere of the scene much better than words can and 2/ that it proves that what is said in the sentence is true. The former is deficient, as the image adds nothing to understanding that words would not, as the subject is not striking and easily understood with words: students tipped over a vehicle. Lack of a FU image must be significantly detrimental to understanding; none of those supporting keep provided any actual evidence that understanding of the riots would be significantly hampered by loss of this image. The second argument, that it "proves what is said in the sentence is true" is a nonstarter, as we use reliable sources for that, not ambiguous images. Badagnani's argument was summarily ignored as baseless.

As a minor note not touched on in the FFD, it is probably deletable because of invalid source information, since the source provided— this flicker page—releases it under CC-BY-SA, while other images in that stream also marked as CC are probably not owned by the user, since they are screenshots from My Chief and My Regiment, a Chinese television show. So the flickr user probably does not own the image in the first place, therefore the source information is invalid, which makes it deletable anyway. The image also contains the text "www. boxun.com", which further clouds source information. ÷ seresin 02:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I request that the closing administrator bear a few things in mind when closing this DRV. First, that consensus is not determined by numbers; neither here nor in an FfD. Consensus comes from policy-based, effective and relevant arguments. Arguments which have no bearing when determining consensus include ones which to do not address the issue at hand (like Badagnani's in the FfD, as all ten NFCC must be met, not only one), or ones which do not address substantive issues of closure (like Colonel Warden's here, as the timestamps on the closure and deletion give no indication as to how much time was spent reading the debate, if that even mattered). Given that consensus does not derive from numbers, comments like Cyclopia's are meaningless, as a consensus to delete can exist if only the nominator supports deletion. As consensus requires policy-based, effective and relevant arguments, if none were provided (as I contend here) then there is a consensus to delete (remember that the nominator's arguments are not excluded from interpretation of the debate). The closer should examine the arguments presented in the FfD and consider whether they actually explain why this image is necessary to understand the article in question (NFCC 8), or whether text is sufficient to explain to the reader what the image conveys: people overturned a vehicle. If you find Jimmy Fleischer's argument more convincing than Ricky81682's, and more convincing than my discussion about it above, then I suppose closing this as faulting my closure is forthcoming. I do, though, wish to draw your attention to my note above about source information, and consider that in the effective result of your closure here, irrespective of your finding about my closure. ÷ seresin 21:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC) reply

**Overturn and relist per my comment above. There is a fairly strong argument that the photo meets WP:NFCC#8, which has not been rebutted. Timotheus Canens ( talk) 00:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC) changed to endorse; see below. Timotheus Canens ( talk) 05:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure about the NFCC#8 claim—I still think there is no consensus either way, and if anything, the keep seems to be more well-argued. Nonetheless, you are correct about the source information issue. On that ground and that ground alone, and since we are not a bureaucracy, endorse deletion, but not the rationale. Timotheus Canens ( talk) 05:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to keep Two keep comments out of two, and a delete outcome? Really? Come on. -- Cyclopia ^talk 14:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Relist, I didn't see the image, I might say keep or I might say delete once I see it. Clearly there is no consensus to delete. If this qualifies for speedy deletion then re-close as a speedy delete, citing the reason. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 16:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse The image was nominated for deletion for failing WP:NFCC#8. One of the keep comments was basically WP:ILIKEIT ("Strong keep this irreplaceable image") and the other was not focused on this image ("As other pictures in the article...much better than words..."). Since neither keep was a direct comment on the merits of this picture, I support the closer giving them less weight. Celestra ( talk) 17:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply

  Comment Had Jimmy Fleischer left off his introductory phrase and said simply "This picture conveys the situation and overall atmosphere of the scene much better than words can ...." would your endorsement stand as strongly? The fact that he thinks the other pictures in the article also convey the situation much better than words should not prejudice this image one way or the other. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 17:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply

  Yes, because the introductory phrase merely highlights the fact that the keep argument does not argue the merits of this photo. A persuasive argument would have explained how this photo "significantly increase readers' understanding" of students overturning cars. That is the standard, not "much better than words". Celestra ( talk) 07:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse what is the point of restoring an image that can never be used because it fails nfcc#8, and therefore can be speedy deleted under CSD:F5 anyway. Talk about process wonkery!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.126.27 ( talk) 17:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Restore and relist - Images simply cannot be deleted at a whim, against clear consensus to keep. Violating our project's consensus-based norms is simply wrong and we cannot ever allow, condone, or encourage such behavior, as some above commenters seem to be doing. Badagnani ( talk) 18:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn, relist if so desired. This clearly should not have been closed as "delete," as only the nominator supported deletion and his arguments were not especially strong. Some of the "keep" arguments weren't especially strong either, but Jimmy Fleischer made a strong case for why the image met WP:NFCC#8. This close was improper. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 22:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn The timestamps on this and other contemporaneous closures by the same admin indicate that the discussion was not properly read. Colonel Warden ( talk) 13:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn A) The only consensus that existed was to keep. B) If you are going to close contrary to the !vote consensus you should _really_ have a closing statement and C) per Colonel Warden for now. I'm unclear on how the closer could have evaluated so many of these so quickly while reading the details of each. Is there a batch process or some such where you can queue up these deletions and then delete them all in one go? Hobit ( talk) 20:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • The close itself was done by a bot a couple hours after the image has been deleted. I don't know what the closer did, but it would make sense to read through the page, click the "delete" link on the ones you want to delete, then actually delete them all when you are done reading. Timotheus Canens ( talk) 00:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Thanks. The deletion timestamps are pretty close together, but not as close as the bot made it seem. Hobit ( talk) 03:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply

A closing process that lets one close and delete without providing a rationale is defective. Some of the addons/bots can operate so as to not effectively give the opportunity, but should not be used that way. DGG ( talk ) 19:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply

So, the question is, what is going to be done about this (it was done no fewer than four times, for four different images), and, specifically, what are you going to do about it? If there is no censure or ramifications for the admin who abused his/her powers, such abuse will go on and on. There must be an end to this, and I'm looking forward to the response of what you personally are going to do to see that it does not happen again, specifically in the case of the admin who did it in this case. Badagnani ( talk) 23:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion. We should not link to a source that is obviously violating copyright. Chick Bowen 16:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Could you expand on that? I'm not sure what you're referring to. Hobit ( talk) 20:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply
    • I suspect that the issue was that the original image had "www.boxun.com" in large red letters across the bottom. Our version was uploaded here from Flickr. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
      • On Flickr it is listed with a license that is unlikely to be accurate, thus it is a copyright violation there. Whether boxun.com actually owns it is a different question. Having looked into it a little bit more, it seems likely that neither site owns it, in which case, in my view, we shouldn't include either URL. Chick Bowen 03:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist. Procedurally defective - the closing admin deleted the image despite an apparent policy-based consensus to keep. Absent any explanation the only thing to assume is that the admin placed his/her personal interpretation of policy over the consensus. I have no opinion on the underlying question of whether the non-free use rationale is strong enough to support the use in that article, although I do note that there were arguments in the delete discussion that it does. Like most listed images this one did not generate enough discussion to really have a meaningful result, although some of the comments here could perhaps be taken into account and/or those commenting here would take the time to weigh in if it is relisted. Looking through the admin's other recent activity I see quite a number of problematic deletes, some (as in a picture of a defunct rock band) that pretty clearly go against the guideline, which specifically mentions defunct groups. The level of opposition and concern here should be a sign to the admin to start leaving rationales for any decision likely to be disputed, and try not to go so far out on a limb that so many of the deletions are overturned. Sourcing is a side issue here. If someone wants to nominate it on that basis then it should run through the proper course on that, which would give people time to track down the source, presumably via boxun.com - Wikidemon ( talk) 23:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. In response to the above, I cannot say that sourcing is a side issue; it is the central issue. Many of the points made about process are entirely appropriate, and I understand the relist type arguments. In fact, this may be considered as favoring relist if it will help obtain consensus. My strongest feeling, however, after looking at the image (with "www.boxum.com" in large red letters), is that we only can say this isn't a probable copyright violation with a wink and a nod. I'm just don't favor being willfully oblivious when the non-free rationale is so tenuous. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply

My point is that sourcing is not relevant to this DR because it was not considered in the deletion discussion. If an article is inappropriately deleted for one reason, I don't think it's a good argument to say that the deletion should stand because there is another undiscussed reason why it could have been deleted. We should try to find a good source. But note, the real issue is that we don't know the source - the fact that it was copied from a copyvio page doesn't affect our NFC analysis or our right to use it. The fact that we don't know the source, though, makes it harder to be sure about some of the points. For example, if it is a news service photo then I think the general agreement is that we can't use it even if it satisfies all the other criteria, because we're interfering with their business of taking photos to illustrate historic events. If it does get relisted, I think we should make a point of discussing the sourcing problem, and if that doesn't get resolved while the listing is open then the image has to be deleted after all. I hope that makes sense. - Wikidemon ( talk) 02:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Whether it makes sense to undelete something if process has not been followed but it is likely to be eventually deleted anyway has been much debated and is as yet unresolved. But that argument doesn't apply to copyright issues: we are obligated by WMF policy to err on the side of caution when it comes to copyright. In this case, clearly an image uploaded with a valid source would not be a G4, but I don't see how an admin in good conscience can undelete this image given the problems with both the markings on the image and the listed source on the image description page. Chick Bowen 03:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply

"Likely to be deleted anyway" doesn't really work because that's what deletion discussions are for, there isn't a foregone conclusion unless you're suggesting this is an WP:IAR scenario. Sourcing isn't a copyright problem though - whether the flickr user stole the image isn't relevant to whether our use is or is not a copyright violation. Anyway, like I said, if the image source isn't complete someone ought to make an attempt to find the actual source, right? Would relisting the article mean we have to undelete it in the meanwhile? I don't see why that's really necessary. The deletion discussion links to the flickr page so anyone participating int he discussion can find it. Then it would stay deleted if there's a consensus that it doesn't meet the 10 criteria OR if nobody comes up with a source by then. - Wikidemon ( talk) 03:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Yes, the discussion can be continued at FFD, including further attempts to track down the provenance of this image or to find another one that will serve the same function, without undeleting it. Similarly, much unnecessary drama could be avoided if consensus were gathered at Talk:2008 Weng'an riot before an image were uploaded, with the understanding that, when it comes to non-free images, the burden lies on establishing their necessity rather than the other way around. I certainly don't think an "endorse" outcome here would mean the end of the conversation. Chick Bowen 03:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Good, thanks. Sure, if we delete the image they can always re-add this or another image if they come up with a source and a better rationale, and agree on it over there. So no harm done. - Wikidemon ( talk) 04:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply

File:Zhou Shuguang(Zola) and Li Shufen's family.jpg ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)

Zhou Shuguang(Zoula) was the first Chinese citizen reporter who showed support for Li Shufen's family when all the main stream Chinese media refused to take up the story. Zhou Shuguang(Zoula) used his mobile phone and internet cafe to file his report, and has since became famous among Chinese netizens. Arilang ^talk 09:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse, I'm not seeing anything in the debate that suggests WP:NFCC are satisfied in this case—one comment saying that it was irreplaceable (NFCC#1) and another saying that the subject is important. Neither says anything about the other NFCC—NFCC#8 in particular. Timotheus Canens ( talk) 09:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Restore and relist - Images simply cannot be deleted at a whim, against clear consensus to keep. Violating our project's consensus-based norms is simply wrong and we cannot ever allow, condone, or encourage such behavior, as some above commenters seem to be doing. Badagnani ( talk) 18:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment There was no "clear consensus to keep." Consensus may have existed if the "keep" voters had rebutted the nominator's concerns, but they failed to even address them. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 22:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion as inevitable, but there's no consensus either way in the debate. The two "keep" voters' arguments did not address the nominator's concern, which was that the image did not meet WP:NFCC#8. Seresin should have argued for deletion in the debate, which would have allowed another admin to close and prevented this DRV. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 22:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply

File:PresidentRamonMagsaysay.jpg ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Not sure if this is the proper place for this but it seems it might be appropriate so I'll ask here. I've skipped the step of informing the admin who deleted the file because it's more of a policy question and perhaps due to a technicality in this particular case deletion could be justified although I'm unsure because the page has already been deleted. I suspect, however, this topic will come up over and over again in the future, so I'd like to request guidance on proper procedure when it does so that a more permanent solution may be developed.

The picture is of the 7th President of the Philippines Ramon Magsaysay. He died in 1957. According to Philippine law, as described in the license template {{ PD-Philippines}}, pictures after 50 years enter the public domain. Because of this I'm uncertain why the picture of President Magsaysay was deleted. It is now 2009, 52 years after his death. One rationale I can see is that Wikipedia states that it has a benchmark of 80 years to conform with U.S. law. If this is the reason for deletion then the {{ PD-Philippines}} template is useless and is misleading to anyone using it. A side issue this raises is of systemic bias since then it would increase the likelihood that pictures from the United States government or foreign governments will be relied upon. It would seem as if a Philippine government picture of a Philippine president even if conforming with Philippine law is not eligible for use on Wikipedia. I must also note the Philippine government is not particularly diligent in labeling pictures so the 50 year limitation is pretty important in keeping things simple. Anyway, I guess my question is this: If someone wished to upload a picture of a long since deceased president of the Philippines what rationales are acceptable? Must one rely upon non-free rationales? Lambanog 2 edits. ( talk) 04:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• This isn't really DRV fare, but you're essentially correct that all images must first and foremost be acceptable under US copyright law. The various country-specific templates are only there to give information on potential ramifications to using images elsewhere. In this case, a fair use tag for uses in the US, plus a Philippine public domain tag would indicate that the image is not PD in the United States, but it is in the Philippines, and people in that country can freely use it. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 05:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC). reply

So many such country tags are purely for information purposes and on their own do not contain any information that might prevent the deletion of a picture? That should be made far clearer. The image uploading process is messy for anyone not willing to spend considerable time trying to sort through the pages dealing with the restrictions. I get the feeling those patrolling images would do themselves a favor by reorganizing the information pages. The page that says a rationale must be provided with an information template for example is not as obvious as it should be. Thank you for the response. Lambanog ( talk) 05:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply

So is this resolved? Timotheus Canens ( talk) 06:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Leave it up for a while longer. No solution has been proposed. A solution is in the interest of all parties. One can only wonder how much time has been wasted by such photos being uploaded then deleted then uploaded then deleted with people going around in circles because the fundamental issue has not been adequately addressed. Lambanog ( talk) 14:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Proposed resolution: If the image was used in an article and a plausible fair-use claim can be made, restore it and tag it properly. If it can be used in an article in a fair-use way, and someone wants to do so, restore it or allow it to be re-uploaded, but make sure it is tagged properly. Otherwise, treat it as an orphan fair-use image and let it stay deleted. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 16:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse speedy deletion per WP:CSD#F6. If the image is re-uploaded with a fair-use claim in addition to the Philippines PD tag, I don't think there would be any reason to delete (assuming it isn't orphaned). A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 22:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse and strongly recommend against uploading here. This is not PD in the US. It will be better to upload this on Commons and take a chance with the URAA. The correct tags on Commons would be {{ PD-Philippines}} and {{ Not-PD-US-URAA}}. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Alfredo_Corvino ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

This is a brief biography of an outstanding teacher in the field of ballet and his association with The Juilliard School, which is included in Wikipedia. The editor(s) accuse me of "copy and paste" when, in fact, the article has been re-written several times in my own words. There may certainly be similarities between my article and the various sources used to obtain and validate information. If, for example, I list ballet companies that Alfredo Corvino was associated with and I provide this information in chronological order, which would seem to be the most reasonable and rational way of presenting this information, then it may indeed appear similar to existing references that provide the same information. Sometimes there is only one way to express something - for example: "... died on August 5, 2005...". Can you suggest an alternate way to express this same fact that is both reasonable and rational? Indeed, in my attempt to "rewrite" common phrases numerous times, it is quite possible that an "already used wording" could spring to the mind. That is, after all, a part of how the human cognitive process works.

(Here is a challenge to you - how many really different ways could you write and rewrite you own resume? And how many of those versions would be reasonable, logical and rational?)

My article on Alfredo Corvino contains basically three parts - (1) his training/development (2) his career as both dancer and ballet instructor and (3) his philosophy and knowledge that made him one of the outstanding ballet teachers of the 20th century. The editor(s) seems fixated on the obituary from the New York Times and looking for similarities.

I read on the Wikipedia site that the Editors should "ASSIST" rather than merely "DELETE". You can certainly tell by my membership, that I am a new/novice contributor to Wikipedia. It seems that "DELETE" may be used just to clear someone's desk. I signed on to Wikipedia to find that my article is already deleted without the opportunity to address the issues with the editor.

I recognize that I was in error with my very first attempt at contributing to Wikipedia when I presented a copy of an obituary from the New York Times (newspaper) but in fairness, I had fully documented the article with complete credit to the author, the publication, the date published and even the internet address (http://). (I documented the material in the very same way that I would have done in my thesis or doctoral dissertation.) Instead, I am accused of "vandalizing" Wikipedia!

If there is something specific in my article on Alfredo Corvino that offends the editors, I will be more than happy to attempt another revision. I would appreciate the opportunity to revise rather than have the editor use "copyright violations" and "repeated submisson" to merely push my article out of his or her way.

Thank you. Seamanjg ( talk) 22:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• How about making a draft in your own space (i.e. User:Seamanjg/Alfredo Corvino)? Otherwise, I have to endorse said pretty much all deletions as they look like clear copypasta from whichever sources given. Remember that you can use external sources as a source of content but not as a source for your sentences. It's just like in school where plagiarism is very much forbidden. – MuZemike 00:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G12. Seamanjg, I recommend reading through WP:CFAQ, which is very useful when it comes to understanding Wikipedia copyright policy. This passage, in particular, may help you:

Facts cannot be copyrighted. It is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia, although the structure, presentation, and phrasing of the information should be your own original creation. ... You can use the facts, but unless they are presented without creativity (such as an alphabetical phone directory), you may need to reorganize as well as restate them to avoid substantial similarity infringement. It can be helpful in this respect to utilize multiple sources, which can provide a greater selection of facts from which to draw.

Drafting in userspace may be the best path forward. Good luck. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 01:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Copyvio speedy does not prevent recreation of article on subject, so long as the writing of the recreation is original; each of your variations appear to have been "derivative works" rather than original texts. So get to it, as the previous editor describes. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 02:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Plain and pure copyvio. No prejudice to creating a non-violating version, of course. Timotheus Canens ( talk) 06:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Copyright violations are not allowed- no matter how notable the subject. There's absolutely no barrier to you writing an article- in your own words; using suitable references- and placing it back. Bradjamesbrown ( talk) 06:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you very much for your review and feedback. I believe, based on reading through the responses, that the current problem with the article on Alfredo Corvino is that the revisions I made are still more like "derivations" of existing phrases... similarity infringement... in other words, while I changed words, the structure of the phrases in my article was still too similar to the original material.

How do I address a situation where I may wish to use a direct quote? Is this possible? For example, if I wanted to include a segment of an actual conversation by an individual... such as a direct quote by Alfredo Corvino... can this be done? Sometimes, things are said or written so precisely... so perfectly... that they can not be rewritten and have the same impact.

Although it may not seem like it to you, I really am trying to learn and to do things in a correct manner. What really frustrated me yesterday was that my article was blocked and I could no longer make any modification or revisions... and all the messages from editors accusing me of vandalizing wikipedia! (They did seem a bit harsh.)

I will also explore the second suggestion... drafting in userspace ... I am not sure what this exactly means but I will certainly investigate. I am quite sure that new/novice contributors like me, are a constant source of annoyance and irritation to editors, like you... and I do apologize for any inconvenience I have caused.

Thank you for your time! Seamanjg ( talk) 01:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Polite Sleeper ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I believe the band has more than enough notoriety to meet the notability criteria in WP:BAND. Some notable reviews for their latest album are here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and several others. Their latest album reached #177 on the U.S. national College Music Journal charts. All three of their albums were released on Sabotage Records, which has existed since 2002 and has released albums by Japanther, Team Robespierre, and Autistic Youth. Mcurtes ( talk) 01:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Overturn: The reviews show that the band meets WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill ( talk) 03:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist This should be treated as a contested PROD, as the AfD was closed with only two users expressing an opinion – hardly enough for a definitive consensus, particularly given the sources identified above, which were never mentioned in the debate. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 05:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, Userify, Work on, Restore, and (if anyone feels like it) Relist I'm not seeing any other way Coffee could have read that debate- strictly be the numbers it is 2 for delete to no other opinions- and this is after 14 days of listing. Since the lister here is the original author of the article, and some of these sources were published before this article ever went to AfD, why wern't they included in the original article? Bottom lining this, the close is not erroneous. Move it to Mcurtes userspace, let him add the sources identified above, and rework the article to clearly establish notability, and then it can be moved back into mainspace. If this is done, when it returns to mainspace, I doubt anyone will bother going back to AfD. Bradjamesbrown ( talk) 07:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Close, since it went two weeks and nobody spoke up to say they were notable. It's hardly unreasonable to close as delete under those circumstances. That said, I think this could benefit from being Recreated if an acceptable draft can be presented. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 08:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC). reply
• overturn close to no consensus as there wasn't any. Further, the band likely meets our inclusion guidelines at this point. Hobit ( talk) 21:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, but allow recreation - It's the norm for AFDs like this to be closed as delete (as I'm sure any administrator would agree), as they're basically expired PRODs when there's no discussion for the inclusion. However, this does not mean that the article can not be recreated, and I'm fine with that being the outcome. -- Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • PROD deletions are, and should be, undeleted on request. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply
    • True, don't get me wrong I don't have any problem with this getting relisted or anything, I just closed it per typical procedure. -- Coffee // have a cup // ark // 22:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Two questions: #1 if you feel this should be treated as a contested PROD, why haven't you undeleted it at this point? Secondly, can you point me to a policy, guideline or generally accepted essay that says we should delete things as PRODs in this case? At the least shouldn't your closing statement provide guidance explaining your logic (and that you are willing to undelete upon request)? Hobit ( talk) 22:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply
        • Just looked at your talk page. You send the person to DrV even though you felt it was a PROD? Could you explain that? Hobit ( talk) 22:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply
          • When I say "like a PROD" I don't literally mean a PROD, it's still an AFD and the editor should go through the proper venues to get it undeleted. As far as where the consensus for closes like this is: there was a discussion on WP:AN a few weeks ago that discussed AFD relisting, and from what a lot of the people said there, when closing AFDs with no !votes for inclusion that have been relisted, they should be deleted. If you look at AFD, a lot of AFDs have been closed like this recently. I'm not trying to be a "rouge admin" or anything, just trying to follow common procedure. -- Coffee // have a cup // ark // 23:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply
            • hummm, the one discussion I saw on WP:AN was about relisting. I'm guessing there was an older one. Could you point me at that one? If we are going to have that big of a change, I'm going to probably start an RfC to get wider input. In any case, I certainly object to "treating it like a PROD" but not restoring like a PROD. But I may be in a small minority. Hobit ( talk) 15:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
              • Recent discussion: WT:Articles for deletion#AfDs without replies. Flatscan ( talk) 07:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close per the other endorse !voters' rationale. Userfy, improve, restore. I had a quick look at the sources given by Mcurtes, and they ought to pass muster IMO. ReverendWayne ( talk) 21:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist per A Stop at Willoughby. -- Cyclopia ^talk 22:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Undelete. Fair close, but Mcurtes ( talk · contribs) appears to have missed the discussion period. He seems to be new, so let's make sure he is made to feel welcome. Undelete for Mcurtes to edit and improve. It looks like he can readily bring the article up to standard. If he can't do it in a short time, userfy (move to User:Mcurtes/Polite Sleeper), or relist at AfD. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Userfy to allow the DRV requester to improve the article. Otherwise, I don't see much a reason to either continue the AFD or to find error on the closing admin on the close. – MuZemike 00:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Restore. Close is reasonable, but since it would never be deleted had the sources been presented, it should be restored. I disagree with requiring userfication – the editor is entitled to work on it in mainspace, as the deletion was in error. A second AfD at editorial discretion. Timotheus Canens ( talk) 06:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• As SmokeyJoe suggested, I am a new editor so everyone's patience is appreciated. It looks as thought the article has been relisted Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Polite_Sleeper but I don't see any of the original article. It's not clear to me whether I should begin recreating the article now or wait for further discussion here, as it sounds like there are some people who believe that the article should be restored without me having to recreate it. Any guidance is appreciated. Mcurtes ( talk) 16:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, but restore. Incubation or userfication would allow Mcurtes to work without drive-by tagging. I've watched the page and will help with minor cleanup. Flatscan ( talk) 07:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Like [6]? Wish to chew the drive-by tagger out? – MuZemike 17:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC) reply
    • I prefer the term new page patroller, thank you very much. Oh, also Endorse, but restore. If it can be improved with the sources above, great, otherwise, AfD again. Bonewah ( talk) 18:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Since Mcurtes recreated in article space without waiting for restoration, I don't blame Bonewah, although it would have been nice if the DRV tag on the AfD had been seen. Flatscan ( talk) 06:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply
    • I've added more references to "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable", more information on their album "appearing on any country's national music chart", and more details on "two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).", per the Wikipedia:Notability_(music). Mcurtes ( talk) 22:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Comparison between Roman and Han Empires ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)

This article, I feel, was wrongly closed by User:Spartaz. The discussion on the AFD was clearly a no consensus, so the close should have been, by wiki standards, a no consensus closure with encouragement to discuss and improve the article (which has been vastly improved during the AFD, largely ridding it of the concerns that caused the nomination in the first place). Instead, the article was blanked, protected, and moved to a new "article" Comparison between Roman and Han Empires/Draft. This arrangement is a de facto delete/userification, and will only inconvenience the reader, so I propose an overturn to No consensus. I previously contacted the user to explain my concerns, but as they have not been addressed I feel DRV is the only proper course. Teeninvestor ( talk) 18:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment from closing admin Technically I can't see that DRV has any scope here as I haven't deleted the article and the content remains in the article history so this was a technical keep close. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• comment I suppose I could agree with Spartaz that this isn't strictly speaking a matter for DRV. But I think it would be reasonable to say something about what the right forum is in which this use of admin discretion could be assessed. The nom here clearly has a concern, and if this isn't the right place for it, fine -- but Spartaz perhaps you could start your own thread on AN or AN/I to get feedback on whether this method of closing an AfD and dealing with a content dispute is appropriate. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 21:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Xfd. Do not relist for two months. But what the hell has been done with the mainspace page. A hat noted mainspace blank page? That is not OK. We don't do blank pages. Restore a reasonable version. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC) reply

User:SmokeyJoe and User:Nomoskedasticity, you have stated exactly what I thought; the way this AFD is closed is absurd. I believe that is the consensus here. The dispute here is not whether the article should be kept or deleted (it is clearly keep), but whether a reasonable version should be restored or the current arrangement should continue. I thought DRV was the best place to put this as DRV says it is the place to discuss all disputed "Deletion-related" discussions. (Quote from DRV "Wikipedia:Deletion review considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions and speedy deletions. This includes appeals to restore deleted pages and appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.") If not appropriate, I will put my concerns elsewhere. Teeninvestor ( talk) 01:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment: the problem with this article is that it's dreadfully borderline. It's something (I think) that we would all agree is a potentially interesting topic, and something that has a tiny smattering of academic sources, but there's a ton of room for OR given the undeveloped state of the topic in academia. That itself would not normally be a problem, except that Teeninvestor is really very adamant about his version of the article (despite all the fuss and bother it has generated) and will doubtless - as we can see from this DRV - reinstate it as soon as he is given the opportunity. I've read over his 'new' draft, and while it it has removed a lot of the more obvious synthesis there is still a lot of questionable material (as well as erroneous material and copy edit issues) that need to be addressed. On the other hand, as SmokeyJoe points out, we can't really leave it in a blanked, locked state. I'd suggest the following (sorry, best I can do given the peculiar status of the article):
  1. write a quick generic introduction, and add that into the blanked article along with a stub tag
  2. get Teeninvestor to formally agree not to edit the article directly until the article reaches a stable, non-stubbed state (though he can edit it indirectly through other editors, such as the Article Rescue Squadron people).
     • If he agrees, unlock the article and let normal editing create a new version - let him make change suggestions and leave other editors to evaluate their scholarly merits
     • if he refuses to agree, leave the article locked and only allow changes through {{ editprotected}} requests
  3. revisit the article in six months and see if anything useful has come of it. -- Ludwigs2 02:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The current version of the article is relatively well sourced and although not perfect, errors can be pointed out and edited out using the normal wikipedia process. Banning the main contributor from editing the article is not exactly the best process to improve the wikipedia. It is wikipedia policy only to blank article content that is harmful, such as copyright violation, hoaxes, etc.. The current article is clearly nothing of the sort. The version of the article that caused fuss and controversy is not the current version (which has in fact received the support of many ex-delete voters). Teeninvestor ( talk) 02:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC) reply
    • it may not be the best process, but when the "main editor" (assuming that can be said in a non-article-ownership sort of way) has demonstrated a broad disregard for wp:OR and a tendentious attitude about including questionable material, then some sort of moderation is required. If you won't agree to self-moderate, then the moderation will have to be done by others. Either way, I don't think it would be appropriate to allow you to blindly reinstate material that is still viewed with skepticism by a good-sized number of editors. -- Ludwigs2 03:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Ludwigs2, please give me one example of OR and Synthesis in the article. Teeninvestor ( talk) 19:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment from nominator. I nominated because there were long-standing concerns from several editors on the talk page; but I feel that the present state, while meeting some concerns, has other fatal problems and said so at length, quite late in the process. Teeninvestor saw and responded to this; he knows my concerns were not met.

This solution is innovative and may well work; DRV has every right to review it, but it is functionally equivalent to Userify which would have been a perfectly routine closure to such a discussion.

Please note that this DRV is immediately preceded on the draft talk page by an inquiry by Teeninvestor whether anybody objected to simply restoring the article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Uh huh, Pmanderson, it's fatal problems appear to be that it doesn't fit your views; you didn't write a single piece of actionable advice in that diff, instead resorting to personal attacks. This solution is definitely not a routine close to the discussion, which would be No consensus. Work was already being done on the article by several editors, some of which had formerly voted delete, until it was disrupted. Teeninvestor ( talk) 19:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment Would it be feasible to place this article in the WP:INCUBATOR and temporarily salt the title in the mainspace, so it can be worked on easily without having that unsightly notice out in the front of the house? (This would retain the current requirement of at least one admin reviewing it and judging the new version ready to "go live") Quite frankly, I think a few red links scattered around is better than having this "stub" out there. Bradjamesbrown ( talk) 03:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I had no idea that possibility existed, and I think I'd support it. -- Ludwigs2 03:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse closure as "stubify and rework" but overturn turning the article into this, which is really not acceptable in the mainspace, as SmokeyJoe wrote above. This is also unacceptable; as WP:SUB states, subpages in the article namespace are not permitted. In fact, one of the explicitly disallowed uses of subpages is "writing drafts of major article revisions, e.g., [[Example Article/Temp]] in the main namespace." I suggest userfying or moving to the article incubator as an alternative. I think "stubify and rework" was a fair read of the consensus, but I also think the closing admin's subsequent actions must be reversed, and soon. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 05:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• I have moved the draft to Wikipedia:Article Incubator:Comparison between Roman and Han Empires and properly stubbified the page. I trust that this meets the above objections. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Thank you. That stub is much better than the earlier version. Bradjamesbrown ( talk) 06:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse removing the draft from article space, either WP:Userfication or WP:Article Incubator is fine. I prefer moving the page rather than making a copy, but that's a minor preference. A simple "no consensus, default to keep" would not be appropriate. Flatscan ( talk) 06:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Unless the article is rewritten entirely from sources, the prior history must be kept and should be histmerged, per WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Flatscan ( talk) 07:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. I do not see an issue with the close. Tim Song ( talk) 10:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the current status quo (genuine stub, article moved to the incubator). Some of the concerns above about handling of pages in transition are valid, but I think they've now been adequately addressed. Chick Bowen 17:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment: Sounds all quite technical and surely highly relevant, but I fail to see the point in it. Now the same old contents which were voted for delete, are just copied and pasted by the main author into the incubator only to appear again in the main space. What was the long discussion at the AfD for then? Does the term " article laundry" ring a bell?. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 13:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Just to clarify, it doesn't go back up until the problems are resolved and my original intention was to start with a blank canvas. Teeninvestor jumped the gun by starting the draft from his own preferred version but there is nothing lost if a majority of you working on it decide to scrap what is there and start again. The main point is that until both sides of the dispute are happy with the content it can't go back up. That's why I fully protected the page. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply
    • The editors didn't vote to delete, Gun Powder Ma. The majority of editors voted to keep, and the way this AFD has been closed makes wiki guidelines a scrap of paper. They was No consensus to delete (in fact, a small consensus to keep), so it should have defaulted to keep. As it stands, it is a backdoor delete. Teeninvestor ( talk) 15:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Please read WP:CONSENSUS; it is not about simple majorities. Nev1 ( talk) 15:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply
        • It isn't, but the arguments from the keep side at least overwhelmed the arguments from the delete side on the AFD, as well. You can tell there's a consensus to keep when several strong deletes are switching to keep and starting a section on the AFD called Salvaging and restructuring. And there's no inherent way that both sides can be happy with the outcome; see Gun Powder Ma's comments on the talk page, where he wants to delete the article because it doesn't let him include his original research about how the Romans invented Yin and Yang and had superior roads see this link when Gun Poweder Ma argued that not being able to insert his pro roman POV was a reason to delete the article. Teeninvestor ( talk) 15:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I actually took a look at the link (and read Gun Powder Ma's post) and I was simply unable to found anything along these lines. Gun Powder Ma points out that many statements of Sinologist (historians who have studied ancient China) are faulty (perhaps because the scholars in question know alot about ancient China but precious little about ancient Rome). Gun Powder Ma didn't write that he was unable to insert a pro-Roman POV (or anything similar). He correctly points out that historians who have dedicated themselves to only one of the two empires will be ignored in this article because they don't make a comparision between the two. In other words: You (Teeninvestor) are seeing things where there are none. Flamarande ( talk) 22:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - I am not seeing an issue with the closing admin's actions. -- Coffee // have a cup // ark // 22:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I am not at all a specialist of this subject, and I am also not at all a specialist of conflict resolution in wikipedia. I also don't know the whole story of this so maybe I miss something. I am just looking due to the request for comments.
  • My feeling is that the solutions found are too complex. In my simple knowledge of wikipedia, I thought that:
    • deleting a page needs some good reason for that. This is obviously not the case here, since everybody recognizes that the subject is notable.
    • if there is consensus to believe that this page has a right to exist, then what is happening should be seen an edit conflict and treated like all edit conflicts: those who criticize the version of Teeninvestor should just bring some edit of their own until a final better version is found.
  • The solution that has been found seems to me:
    • a bit unusual
    • a bit one-sided: those who criticize a version should not simply request the guy who had made the work to redo it. They should bring their own modifications.
  • On the wikipedia page about wikipedia, it is written that the growth of the number of pages is slowing and also that "A 2009 study suggested there was "evidence of growing resistance from the Wikipedia community to new content." ^[1]". When there is such risk I would err on the side of accepting the content. Voui ( talk) 23:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close In effect, saying "stubbify and rewrite" has the same effect as saying "non-consensus"--in both cases, it means, it needs improvements, or it will be nominated again. In this case, it goes a little further to recommend that pretty drastic improvements are needed--but I think that was the consensus of those who wanted to keep it--the basic argument was that the topic was notable, not that the article was satisfactory. DGG ( talk )

File:Hiram Bithorn.JPG ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The closing Admin acknowledgedly counted raw votes instead of considering the strength of the arguments in the face of our police. The votes to keep didn't really addressed the problems raised in the nomination. -- Damiens.rf 09:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• There were 3 votes to keep the image:
  1. The first (by the uploader) just stated the nomination was wrong.
  2. The second completely ignored the nomination's concerns and mentioned unrelated policy criteria.
  3. The third argued without evidence the image was PD.
• There was one vote to delete, that reaffirmed the nomination's concerns, and explained why we can't affirm the image is PD. -- Damiens.rf 10:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• There was no consensus to delete in that discussion. I endorse the close, because if there's no consensus to delete, then the closer shouldn't have to take any shit from DRV for not deleting. But I do think the discussion itself was unsatisfactory. Damians.rf's concerns were not properly addressed at all. I suggest that DRV should refer this to the copyright noticeboard, in the hope of getting a view from people who understand the issues more clearly.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 15:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - I also endorse the close per S Marshall's reasoning and believe that an opinion of the copyright noticeboard would be most helpful in this situation. Tony the Marine ( talk) 20:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Do you suggest we ignore the fact we have no source information other than a home made website that copied the image from somewhere and posted it? -- Damiens.rf 21:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to delete FfD is a debate, not a vote. Yes, there were more "keep" voters than "delete" voters, but the nominator and the other "delete" voter had the stronger reasoning by far. One "keep" voter did not address the policy issues in detail. The second "keep" voter failed to explain how the image could meet WP:NFCC#2 when the copyright holder is unknown. And a third "keep" voter asserted that the image was in the public domain because it was published without a copyright notice – but provided no evidence that that was the case. On the other hand, the arguments for deletion were strong. The nominator and the other "delete" voter both raised valid concerns about the unknown copyright status, copyright holder, and source of the image. The burden was on the keep voters here to show either that the image was in the public domain or that the image met all the nonfree content criteria; they did not, their arguments were weaker, and because the headcount was 3-2, it's not fair at all to say there was a consensus to keep the image. However, while I disagree with Od Mishehu's closure, I commend him for taking on the unsavory task of interpreting consensus at such a challenging debate. Someone's gotta do it. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 22:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse outcome as accurate reflection of the deletion debate, more or less in line with SMarshall. The debate wasn't very helpful, but I think this falls on the acceptable nonfree use side because the image quality is so low and because much better images are available through Getty Images, indicating market value is essentially nil. Also agree that discussion elsewhere would be more helpful. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 02:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close was within admin discretion. Hobit ( talk) 03:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• XfD, and especially FfD, is not a votecount. The reasons supporting keep were not based in what our policies require, while those supporting delete were. So the result should have been delete. ÷ seresin 22:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Theoretical, qualified overturn and comment. This is a major hole in our policy. Theoretically we require the original source--i.e., the copyright holder--while practically we have generally accepted the most immediate source--the place where the uploader got the image--even when that source is pretty clearly violating copyright itself. We are actually violating two policies when we do this: we are linking to a copyright-violator, which is specifically banned at WP:External links, and we are also not attributing the image to its proper owner, which is both ethically and legally what we should do. We should do this also because it is in keeping with our general respect for attribution; one of the great ironies of this site is that we are much more careful about attribution for free content then we are for non-free content! However, I recognize that the problem goes way beyond this one image, and I'm not certain that a single debate over a single image is the way to get us to shape up, when there are surely thousands of images affected in exactly the same way (but the kicking and screaming if those images are deleted en masse will be huge, I'm sure). I don't know the way forward here, I confess, only that the status quo is untenable. Chick Bowen 01:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply

  "Theoretically we require the original source". Since when? WP:CITE#IMAGE explicitly says to supply the source where the uploader found it, not the original source. -- Zsero ( talk) 20:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• I think that Chick Bowen has largely covered my point of view. I think the correct close was to delete the image , though I am aware that there is not unanimity in the interpretation of how to close such debates. Most, if not all, of the sources I have seen this image at are rather dodgy on copyright—sourcing from them is somewhat dubious. In the case of this image, I believe that it can be sourced (libraries are the key), and is probably (but not definitely) free due to lack of copyright renewal. If sourced then perhaps the new (free) version will be not such poor quality ?. The largest problem here, and with many images, is that the standards have changed. On this point I note that my first upload here File:1829.jpg was dodgy on many counts and yet was uploaded in the belief that it met the criteria of the time - Peripitus (Talk) 10:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, could have gone either way; the close seems reasonable given the arguments that have been raised though. Also, DRV is not FFD part two. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 11:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC). reply
  • Actually, if we interpret image policies strictly this is deletable as WP:CSD#F4, no source, and the FFD is moot. The debate here is necessary; it is not FFD round 2. Chick Bowen 15:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply

    Huh? It has a source. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. -- Zsero ( talk) 20:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - I am not seeing the issue with the admin's closure. -- Coffee // have a cup // ark // 18:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per S Marshall, mostly. There is, at best, no consensus in the discussion. Tim Song ( talk) 18:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Do you understand policy-ignorant statements should be ignored while pondering consensus? -- Damiens.rf 20:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
    • "policy-ignorant" and "different from nominator (or closer)'s understanding of policy" are quite different things. Tim Song ( talk) 21:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
      • No "different understanding" was ever stated on the discussion. They don't even tried to argue against what was raised on the ffd. That's why they were police-ignorant. -- Damiens.rf 01:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• I have raised what I see as the principal issue here at WP:AN. As I say there, I don't think it is appropriate to determine it just in relation to this image, and I am not trying to canvas this debate--in fact I think this close should probably be endorsed for now, even though I am hoping we come to our senses and delete all such images in the future (after, of course, giving adequate time to determine authorship). Chick Bowen 23:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • . . . and just remembered it's some sort of holiday in the goyishe world. So perhaps this discussion will be better held a bit later. Chick Bowen 01:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse keep. Based on the !votes from Tony and Jmundo in the original discussion, which in my view identify the key policy issue re the NFCC, and note that this use is absolutely on-track with our accepted community standards. I also think Hullabaloo Wolfowitz's analysis above here of the NFCC#2 issue is accurate and decisive. Regarding Peripitus's !vote in the original discussion, his comment seems more directed to whether the image was free or not, rather than whether it was legitimate fair use or not. Closer was therefore correct to go with the weighted balance of the arguments presented. Jheald ( talk) 15:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • What do you mean by "identify the key policy issue re the NFCC"? What do you think about articles using non-free content copied from copyrights lenient websites (that's what the whole issue is about)? -- Damiens.rf 16:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
    • I think it's irrelevant. The issue is whether we (and our downstream reusers) can reasonably use the image legally, not its use on some other completely different website. Giving this immediate source is useful, because it establishes that the image has already been somewhat widely available.

      Policy in this area is set at WT:NFC. The issue of sourcing was discussed at length there in March, here and here, as a result of which the words if possible were re-inserted into policy, to establish that, while deeper sourcing information is a nice thing to have, it is not a requirement.

      Standing advice to XfD closers is to down-weight contributions which are not based on a correct understanding of policy. That appears to be the case with your intervention here. Jheald ( talk) 10:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and delete. Closer apparently did not give due weight to policy and may have been misled by the bold bad advice in Wikipedia:deletion guidelines for administrators. (No "in doubt, don't delete" provision can or should apply at FFD or PUF when dealing with non-free content, as we shall see). Wikipedia:non-free content criteria, the policy which ultimately governs our use of non-free content, states that non-free material may only be used when "properly attributed or cited to its original source or author". Nitpickers may argue that this is in relation to non-free text, but if there's a reasonable argument for images being credited in a less strict fashion I don't see it. One need only compare the disparity in the way we treat freely licensed text contributions (difficult to see who wrote what with multiple clicks) and the freely licensed image contributions (attribution prominently displayed just one click away) to see that it can never have been the intention that we should not credit the copyright owner and/or author of non-free images, whatever the badly worded text here may currently seem to say. NFCC closes by reminding us that "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale", so reversing the burden of proof which DGFA presumes to exist ("if in doubt, do delete"). While there must of course be an element of subjectivity when considering the ten non-free content criteria, and especially points 1 and 8, there can be none when it comes to providing a source since the policy is very clear indeed in the only statement it makes as to what constitutes a source. The only reasonable outcome here was and is to delete the file in question as it fails to meet the requirements of the non-free content criteria. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Images are not text. You can't quote the policy about text and then say it applies to images because you don't like the fact that the actual policy for images, specifically adopted (as noted above) after extensive discussion and consideration, says the opposite. You might like to reflect on the thought that what adds value to a quote, making it non-replaceable (rather than replacing it with our own paraphrase), is the authority of the person to whom the quote can be attributed. There are other things which make images non-replaceable. Jheald ( talk) 11:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse This DRV is not the best place to have a meta-discussion about our Non-free policy. I do not see an issue with the close. BTW, the description page does include two sources as require by policy: "Identification of the source of the material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder" )

Im also asking Damiens to stop nominating the image as speedy delete, and wait for the outcome of this discussion. I'm reverting one more time, but Im not starting an edit war over this, so maybe someone should watchlist the file. -- Jmundo ( talk) 03:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse It's fair use, so what difference does it make if we don't know who the copyright holder is, or even whether one exists? We don't need permission to use it. If we knew that there was a copyright holder, and who it was, it would be wrong not to acknowledge them; but not being able to do so is no reason to delete the image! -- Zsero ( talk) 20:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • "It's fair use, so what difference does it make if we don't know who the copyright holder is" - If you don't know who the copyright holder is, how can you tell your use is not replacing the original market role for the material? I agree that "fair use" sounds a lot like "blanket permission for ignoring copyrights", but in reality, they are not the same. -- Damiens.rf 22:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Surely you jest. How can this low-quality image scanned from an old newspaper possibly damage the owner, assuming there is one? The "original market role" was to appear in the daily paper; it did so, and fulfilled its role. Assuming there was an owner who was still making money from it, he would be doing so with the original negative, not with this. And assuming he existed and was doing so, we would surely be able to easily find him; how can you do business if nobody can find you? Your question cannot be taken seriously. -- Zsero ( talk) 00:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply
      • They original market role was to illustrate Mr. Bithorn in some text about Mr. Bithorn. Old images like this usually belong to commercial image banks like Wired, that make money from licensing this image for illustrating texts about Mr. Bithorn. -- Damiens.rf 15:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply

TestLink ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

I expect that the article was deleted by people who know nearly nothing about software testing or on request of some SW company. I added explanation there: [7] Havlatm ( talk) 14:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Speedy close - No reason was given to suspect the closer's rationale was improper. Havlatam is simply assuming bad faith. — The Hand That Feeds You: ^Bite 16:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn, despite inappropriate comments by the editor who opened this review. The !votes split evenly, making this presumptively a "no consensus" case, and few of the !voters on each side made nongeneric comments, again indicating no consensus. I see the IBM developer link cited by Downsize43 as sufficient justification for keeping the article, absent a consensus otherwise. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 17:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse and speedy close There is no rationale to overturn the AfD, which was obviously closed correctly. SPA accounts were ignored, ILIKEIT votes were ignored, and sources provided were evaluated by other editors who still said delete. Leaving this open is a waste of time. It is a waste of time leave process open for accounts that want to remain willfully ignorant about basic Wikipedia guidelines. Miami33139 ( talk) 01:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure The closing admin correctly discarded "keep" votes based on WP:GHITS and WP:ILIKEIT. Another "keep" voter's argument was promptly discredited. The "delete" voters had the stronger arguments, and it looks like reliable sources were not added to the article before it was deleted. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 01:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure Nominator is not assuming good faith and has not presented a valid reason to overturn. There are also conflict of interest concerns based on their comment in the request they link to. -- Cybercobra (talk) 02:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse own close According to the notification on my talk page I took money to delete this article. IN fact the opposing side made highly detailed contributions that demonstrated thorough attempts to find sources and the keep arguments were neither policy based not anywhere near good enough to rebut the well founded policy arguments made by the delete side. Consensus is not nose counting, its assessing arguments against policy and by that basis I had absolutely no basis on which to close this in any other way. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Hajime Sorayama v. Robert Bane and Tamara Bane Gallery ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

On his talk page, Mr. Malik Shabazz, has made it quite clear that he won't brook any differences about a page he has deleted. So although one is encouraged to dialogue with the administrator, I am appealing his decision directly because he has convinced me that I would be wasting my time with him.

The page that I wrote (Hajime Sorayama v. Robert Bane and Tamara Bane Gallery) faithfully reports, with ample footnotes, a federal court case that is of public interest. It is not an attack page any more than the wikipedia page about Bernard Madoff is an attack page. You cannot define something as an "attack" page simply because the page describes criminal or tortious acts that are ruled on by a court of law.

I make no disparaging comments about Mr. Bane personally or his businesses. The ONLY statements about Mr. Bane's behavior are direct quotes (footnoted) from two federal courts.

Nor does the page I created here resemble the Tamara Bane Gallery page which was deleted over a week ago. That page (as I have noted elsewhere) contained contentious material and disparaging remarks. It also did not follow precisely what the federal courts ruled. Mine does.

One reason to delete this page is NOT that it's an 'attack' page, because that's simply not true. Nor can this page be deleted because the information is not verifiable. All statements are verfied. So what is the reason, in that case? Ton-Metallicon ( talk) 01:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment Before commenting on this debate, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamara Bane Gallery and the correspondence at User talk:Ton-Metallicon. Personally, I think this user needs told forcibly that, whatever the notability of this case, he is simply not welcome to contrite to articles relating to this subject.-- Scott Mac (Doc) 02:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment I was the one who originally tagged the article as an attack page. When I skimmed over it, it read read like a page making disparaging comments about one of the parties. I will also point out that this article came to my attention do to an on Manga which referenced one of the litigants in this case. It should also be noted that the OC and the person starting this DRV, admitted to being paid to write this " report" on Wikipedia by an undisclosed party, quite possibly one of the litigants, and therefore has a conflict of interest. — Farix ( t |  c) 02:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Romania – Sri Lanka relations ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

First, this discussion was previously wrongly closed early (it was closed before 7 days had passed by User:Sandstein) so this discussion didn't get a full seven days to be discussed before it was closed. Second, there was clearly a disagreement about whether it should have been kept. (There was 1 Strong Keep vote, 2 Keep votes, 5 Delete votes in addition to the nomination, and 1 Week Delete vote). Of course, deletion of an article is not just a vote, and in the event that there is a doubt about consensus, the article should be kept. (See number 4 at Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Deciding_whether_to_delete.) Third, it was clear that 3 of the delete votes based their opinion on the idea that no 3rd party independent sources existed, something that was clearly not true at the time. (See also further improvements I have made to the article since deletion at User:Cdogsimmons/Romania – Sri Lanka relations.) Fourth, the nominator, User:LibStar, as much as admitted that he had not done a thorough search for sources, despite the fact that the absence of sources was the reason he nominated the article for deletion. He disputed that he needed to do so, despite the fact that WP:GNG clearly says a good faith search for sources is necessary before nomination. Finally, as a matter of policy, the deletion of the information in this article does not serve Wikipedia's general goal of being a summary of all human knowledge. Notability in this situation should really be secondary to the fact that this information is clearly encyclopedic. The deleting administrator, User:X!, did not address the failure to find consensus regarding the "significance" of third party coverage when given a chance to reevaluate the delete . [8] All in all, the result should have been no consensus at the very least. Cdogsimmons ( talk) 20:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to no-consensus which seems the best I can make from the discussion. It would have helped if the closing admin had given a reason for the verdict. On his talk page he says that he personally doesn't think the subject was notable, which is irrelevant, as he is supposed to be judging consensus. If he judged the topic so, he would have done better towards deleting the article to give a reasoned argument to that effect in the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 22:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist. Most of the "delete" votes came in at a time when the sources were not provided, so it is best to allow them an opportunity to re-evaluate those sources. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse By simple vote counting, with 7 deletes (including the nom) and 3 keeps, there's consensus for deletion. Taking into account the weakness of the !keeps, that consensus is only clearer: two of the three keep votes don't address notability at all, they simply state that the relations exist; these should be ignored. The idea that early votes should be discounted is, IMHO, ridiculous, as it assumes that those voters weren't following subsequent developments. Maybe they weren't, or maybe we were, but WP:AGF requires that we assume the later. Finally, despite Cdog's good intentions and thorough efforts, none of the sources he dug up at the 11th hour actually qualify as " direct detailed" coverage of the topic of these county's bilateral relations. Notability remains unproven, as argued by a supermajority of the debate's participants. Yilloslime ^T _C 22:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Supposed early final close was, at worst, a trifling 12 minutes early. Closer's determination appears to be withn administrative discretion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 23:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse (as closing admin) - I stand by my decision. I would also like to dispute the comments that I brought my personal opinion into this debate &emdash; I have not. If I made it sound that way, I did not mean it. I deleted it because the sources that were brought up did not satisfy a claim of notability. The notability outlines for foreign relations wikiproject give these 6 guidelines as to notability:

1. They have been engaged in a war.
2. They engage in significant trade.
3. They have been/are in an alliance.
4. They share a border.
5. They have been engaged in a significant diplomatic conflict.
6. They have been engaged in a significant trade dispute.

• Romania and Sri Lanka are clearly not in a war, and they clearly do not share a border. There is no significant conflict or trade dispute between them. There has been no formal declaration of an alliance, or at least, none that is covered by sources. This brings us to the last point, which is that they are engaged in significant trade. From what has been presented, there does not appear to be enough significant trade between the two countries to make this article notable. Yes, it's a wikiproject, it's non-binding, and exceptions do exist. However, there did not, and still does not appear to be enough to make this article noteworthy. I am asserting that this close was well within my discretion. ( X! ·  talk)  ·  @140  ·  02:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - I'm not seeing a problem with the admin's closure. This decision was well within his discretion. -- Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 02:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse for two reasons. First, because by the number of votes and strength of the arguments, the "delete" side clearly won the argument. Second, because Cdogsimmons' additions to the article in no way demonstrate notability. For those who aren't familiar with this user, he is one of those people who crams articles of this sort with every conceivable form of trivia in order to "rescue" them at AfD. It's odd that, 1506 days into his Wikipedia career, he still understands so little about our notability policy. These comments are a perfect illustration of what I mean. If he truly believes that a direct link to the "PAYMENTS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF CEYLON AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE RUMANIAN PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC", which (obviously) isn't discussed in any secondary source (given that no one outside Wikipedia has even noticed this "topic" exists) constitutes the "significant coverage" demanded by WP:GNG (to say nothing of the inherent WP:PSTS problem there) — well, then I don't know what to say. What I do know is that our articles should revolve around topics the notability of which is immediately apparent through multiple substantial mentions in independent sources, not pieces of yellowing paper sitting in UN archives that haven't seen the light of day in a half century. He may wish to ponder that before he goes on his next expansion spree. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse clear and accurate reading of the discussion, in which the policy arguments for delete were stronger. Bali ultimate ( talk) 03:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Well within the closing admins discretion. It is difficult to see how this could have been closed any other way. Kevin ( talk) 04:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. I'm not seeing clear error here; I think a relist along the lines proposed by King of Hearts is perfectly reasonable, but I do not see how the closer exceeded their discretion by not relisting. Tim Song ( talk) 06:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Permit recreation at least. The weighting of arguments by closing admin is questionable, given that the keep !votes correctly pointed at the existence of sources, but is indeed within discretion. The article as it is now in userspace however presents plenty of sources and worthwile information, and deserves to come back. -- Cyclopia ^talk 11:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Trout slap the closing admin for not giving a closing rationale, which could have averted the need for DRV. Endorse closure, as the keep !voters didn't adequately demonstrate the existence of significant coverage, and none of the guidelines for notability of relations were met. Scraping together an article from one press article, single sentences in books and some government websites isn't the way to go. Fences& Windows 14:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• I see nothing that necessitates a closing statement. I guess he could have rehashed the standard "Consensus is that the topic is not notable enough for inclusion" etc., but the AfD is clear enough that it should be obvious. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 21:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• There's no such thing as obvious when there's a contested AfD, especially for these bilateral deletion discussions. Not giving a rationale is practically inviting a deletion review in this kind of case, and to not give one when there are non-SPAs hotly contesting your close just seems bloody minded and high handed. What's wrong or so difficult with explaining your actions as an admin? My trout remains. Fences& Windows 00:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• It might be easy to leave one, but it's never been required, and consensus is that it isn't required. -- Coffee // have a cup // ark // 08:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• As I read it, it was consensus that an admin should leave a closing statement in a disputed AfD, but that they need not. Violations of should can result in people calling for the fish. As well they should (or something like that...). In this case it would have been helpful. Hobit ( talk) 03:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• No it was never found to be consensus that we "should", only that it's nice. Frankly, I'm not to much into "nice" getting in the way of simply closing a discussion. As I see it, a lot of the time a huge drama war can be avoided, by not leaving a closing statement. Because people love to read into admin's closures, and find a way to take it to DRV. So there should, IMO, never even be a should clause to adding a statement, as it's decided on a case by case basis. And I'm pretty sure we can handle that ourselves quite fine, thank you. Regards, -- Coffee // have a cup // ark // 18:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Ah, the old "I don't have to explain myself" option. And if I do, people just get mad. I've worked for bosses like that. Oddly people near them seem to get highly annoyed. Hobit ( talk) 01:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• They're only annoyed till they have to fill the position. -- Coffee // have a cup // ark // 19:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Strong Endorse the so called "faulty" source finding of my nomination is no reason to overturn. the WP community has 7 days in any AfD to find evidence of notability (ie significant third party coverage). At best, Cdogsimmons found verification of a few agreements not treaties. there is no evidence in the AfD discussion of typical things we have seen in bilateral AfDs that makes things notable such as many state visits, military or economic assistance, significant migration, diplomatic incidents and so on. The article's information better sits in a Foreign relations article in anyway. "the deletion of the information in this article does not serve Wikipedia's general goal of being a summary of all human knowledge" is not a reason for an overturn in deletion review. secondly WP clearly does not cover all human knowledge, see WP:NOT and only entities that are notable. It should also be noted that besides Cdogsimmons the other keep votes had pretty weak arguments with no evidence. LibStar ( talk) 23:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• I do think that before we can endorse an AfD's decision, we need to be satisfied that the AfD properly considered all the sources. If not all the sources were considered, then there's reasonable doubt about the outcome. I agree with King of Hearts that we cannot be sure in this case, so I see "relist" as the appropriate outcome.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 11:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• weak endorse I think it's not unreasonable to say that the sources were addressed and found wanting in the AfD. That said, I really can't tell what the closer was thinking and wish there had been a meaningful closing statement as it might have saved us from this DrV. Hobit ( talk) 03:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse There was no showing that the relations are significant enough to meet the GNG's threshold of multiple reliable sources. Reading this AfD, I'd have been fine with either a 'Delete' or a 'No Consensus' closure within admin discretion. Bradjamesbrown ( talk) 04:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, "Keep" arguments were weak. I'd echo the calls to the closing administrator to pre-emptively explain the reasoning applied when closing any XFD that is likely to be even remotely controversial. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 11:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC). reply
• Endorse - Closing statement would have indeed been nice, but not crucial. However I think it's an accurate decision. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 05:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Odette Krempin ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Krempin is honorary consul of the Democratic Republic of the Congo in Germany, an official diplomat and listed as such on the website of the German Foreign Service, 2) the article cited significant coverage in reliable published indepedent sources ( Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and Frankfurter Rundschau, in both of which she was profiled, Deutsche Presse-Agentur, Hessischer Rundfunk), 3) the article followed the BLP policy after being entirely rewritten. Hekerui ( talk) 15:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to no consensus. Although I favoured (weakly) deletion, I must note that the first four deletion !votes asserted a lack of sources, but by the time the article was deleted coverage in mainly German-language sources had been demonstrated and included in the article, and the contents of the article had been verified by German-speaking editors. So these initial !votes don't hold much water. Delete #5 by No5oo was incomprehensible. The only other delete argument was from me arguing for deletion on grounds of BLP1E, and that rationale was hotly contested and possibly refuted by several !voters. I think Coffee didn't fully see the evolution of the discussion from an initial run of delete voters changing to a significant run of keeps. What Coffee saw as canvassing wasn't canvassing: the article was raised as a test case at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Non English sources by Off2riorob (who !voted delete) for whether articles can be written using mostly or all non-English sources. That's not canvassing. Fences& Windows 16:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Apparently you weren't looking at the right places for the canvassing. There was an IP going around posting the debate at various people's talk pages. That is canvassing, and some of the keeps actually came from those canvassing links. It's within my discretion to discount those !votes, especially when they say something like this: "BLP doesn't come into this, since there is not a single unsourced negative statement about her in the article." Yeah that's a really rock hard argument for it's inclusion. Aside from the canvassing you had keeps like this one: "Weak keep, add {{current}} and wait for more coverage." Oh yeah I just can't wait to see us do that for every article now. -- Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 02:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Well, it'd help if you'd use diffs for proving canvassing as editors don't read minds... Here's the supposed canvassing: [9] An IP editor contacted various German-speaking editors with a notice about the AfD: "Issue w/German sources. Hi. You may be able to help out w/the deletion discussion at this page. Many thanks.-- 68.173.96.196 ( talk) 17 December 2009". If you read WP:CANVASS, you'll see that "Neutrally worded notifications sent to a few editors are considered "friendly notices" if they appear intended to improve rather than to influence a discussion". This was a "friendly notice" to some editors who might be able to help with the German-language sources about Krempin. Fences& Windows 03:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Diffs wouldn't have helped. There was no canvassing, as I had already indicated below. German-speaking does not here mean a propensity to vote keep. (and not all did). Does closer have any proper fact or policy-based reason for the close? None have been offered.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 04:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
      • The "canvassing" itself looked innocent (and perhaps was), but the !votes that came from it were not very high in knowledge of our deletion policies. Therefore I didn't think they were viable for the inclusion of the article, as they didn't cite anything strong enough for the nomination and original problems to be overrided. -- Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 05:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
        • It wasn't canvassing. Even "canvassing". It was, as you say, innocent. It did not reflect reaching out to people on one side of the issue. It was classic non-canvassing. As to the knowledge of deletion policies of the German translators; theirs was far higher than the German-phobe (conflating "Nazi" w/"German") and the I-misread-core-policies keep voters. Not even close.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 05:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
          • True, but at any rate, the delete's opinions were much more rooted in policy. Therefore they have the consensus. -- Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 05:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
            • That wasn't the rationale that you gave in your close. And it isn't what all 10 people commenting here believe (including me). You certainly are not impressing me with your ability to respect consensus in this discussion. Instead, you are saying that all 10 of us are wrong, and you are right. Especially as an admin, I would expect you to set an example for others as to respect for consensus here.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 05:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
              • Please, I beg you to not read into my comments here. What I am simply saying is that even though it does seem that this close will be overturned, I still believe that my decision was within my discretion. I am not saying that you all are wrong, quite the opposite. Regards, -- Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 05:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to no consensus. I'm not impressed with the closure, which should be keep, as there is surely no consensus for deletion. At lot of less significant stuff is tolerated on en-WP, so one wonders why this colorful bio draws so much flak? The first five !votes up to Dec 12 are all delete, as the article was badly sourced then. Since, new sources were added to the article, which is reflected by the final five !votes, all keep. Also, I'm puzzled by the emotions of some editors, especially the one who broke Godwins Law. That person should have been banned from the discussion for being way off topic (if not blocked for incivility). Also, it remains a secret why exactly the article was deleted. Lack of notability? Hardly. No English sources? Apparently - and that is quite a slippery slope. Well, to sum it up: Wikipedia is just not important enough (or anymore) to waste time with it. --  Matthead   Discuß   18:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC) --  Matthead   Discuß   18:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to no consensuskeep. The worst closure I've seen in many weeks. Well said by the others. The only "canvassing" wasn't that at all -- it was various editors being contacted who listed themselves as having a high level of facility with the German language (after some editors indicated that they had trouble because sources were in German). None of the editors contacted, to my knowledge, indicated a prior propensity to vote keep on this issue or delete. The delete voters here were rife with inaccurate understanding of wikipedia's core content policy, and POV. And even with that, there was no consensus to delete--I was wondering if a thoughtful closer would close as keep (given that delete voters based their views on such peculiar thoughts as suggestions that articles written in German should be discounted because of the World War 2 concentration camps, or based on complete misunderstandings of wikipedia core policies), and thini that is how it should have been closed . No basis for this closure.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 20:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn as no consensus When the closing statement acknowledges that there was no clear consensus, as is the case here, there is no reason to delve into "better" arguments, when the close of no consensus is the obvious option. Simply put, when there is no clear consensus, close as no consensus without interjecting personal biases to judge policy. Alansohn ( talk) 20:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn as the close obviously goes against consensus. The only deletion argument offerred after sources were presented was that those sources are not in English, which is a silly, dumbing-down, reason for deletion. Let's get the real issue out into the open here. This is one of a series of disruptive deletions by one of a small group of editors/admins who think that if someone screams "BLP" it means that all rational arguments should be discarded and that anyone who argues for keeping an article is the spawn of the devil. This behaviour needs to be nipped in the bud as it is preventing the building of an encyclopedia, which is what we are supposed to be doing here. Phil Bridger ( talk) 21:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to keep- notability arguments should have been discarded out of hand. Notability was proven and then some. As for BLP1E, it was argued but refuted. Since there were no viable delete arguments, there was no possible reason to close as delete. Umbralcorax ( talk) 22:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn -- this is "no consensus, default to delete" in all but name. Congratulations to the deleting admin for not actually trying to use that rationale this time, but the result can't be allowed to stand all the same, given that there was no consensus at the AfD for deletion. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 22:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. Clearly no consensus, defaulting to keep, and in the absence of any substantive explanation from the closer the default, reflecting the numerical !voting results, the default result should stand. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 23:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn An astonishing close. Have Godwin's law and wikipedia's content policies been repealed and replaced by their opposites? John Z ( talk) 23:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Closing admin's statement - Woah I thought that AFD wasn't a vote? This decision is well within my discretion. The majority of the keep votes were total crap, some of them saying that just because of only one event that she was notable, 1 even said that they didn't know a lot about what is notable. The delete votes actually cited good policy as a reason for the deletion. I'm frankly starting to get sick of the "AFD is a vote" attitude going around here at DRV. -- Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 01:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply

**I'm starting to think you can't be trusted with closing AfDs. Fences& Windows 03:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Struck Fences& Windows 14:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• • • Second that. Closing an AfD poorly is one thing. When every commenter (ten 12 here so far; including delete voters) has indicated that the closer has closed the AfD against consensus, for him/her to argue the propriety of his close confirms to me that the wrong end of the mop is being used.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 04:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
    • @F&W That's more than a little ridiculous. Considering that only about 1% of my AFD closes have been taken to DRV, I think I'm doing quite well. -- Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 04:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Admittedly, I've not had prior experience w/you that I can recall off-hand, and am basing my broad conclusion only on two things -- this close, and your reaction to the 10 people who have indicated (without any opposition) that this close was not appropriate. Didn't mean to suggest that my conclusion was based on anything more, but I do think these are fairly emphatic mis-steps; especially the second--the digging in of the heels in the face of unanimous reaction, even from delete voters, suggests to me a problem in listening to others. It's just the sort of thing that would lead people to vote against a sysop-to-be at an RfA. One side point--I think it would be great if we did have stats that showed us how many closes of a closer were brought here, and how many (what percentage) were overturned. As a first step to a review of closing rights.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 05:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
        • Well you bring up an even better point. I think I've had only 1 or 2 actually get overturned here. In all honesty, that has got to be the lowest rate for any admin at AFD. I'm not being controversial, I made I close that I saw fit according to policy. I'm actually saddened that Fences & Windows is trying to turn this into more than he knows it to be. I've been more than civil with him, but his constant calls on my conduct are starting to wain on my patience. -- Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 05:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
          • Actually I just checked, this is the only deletion I've had overturned, and it wasn't even because of how I closed it, it was because the person who the article was about, became more notable. This shows that I'm not near as controversial as Fences & Windows is trying to make me sound. Just because he has disagreed with some of my recent AFD closes, he has usually been in the minority, this is the only time that it appears that a DRV, on one of my closes, that he has !voted overturn in, might actually close that way. Please stop drama mongering F&W, I don't appreciate it. -- Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 06:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. I was the nominator. If the discussion would have maintained the course it started on, I would have easily closed it as a delete. However, sources were added that the group seemed to accept as being reliable. Notability is still a grey area to me, but I'd rather err on the side of keeping. She seems to be somewhat of an international figure and errant diplomat who makes the news where she surfaces. I see that the closing statement mentions canvassing, which I have not had a chance to investigate. -- Spike Wilbury ( talk) 04:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• There is a fine line between appropriately discounting comments that are contrary to policies and guidelines, and inappropriately substituting one's judgment for that of the community by picking one side over the other in a legitimate difference of opinion on how policies and guidelines should be applied. The fact that XfDs are not votes does not mean that closers can discount comments simply because they do not agree with them. In this particular AfD here, the initial flurry of deletes argued that there are no sources, but then sources were presented, so the basis for these deletes have vanished. Of the editors who participated after the sources were presented, a clear majority supported keeping on the ground that notability has been established. While AfD is not a vote, and several editors (F&W, for example) supported deletion despite the sources, both sides presented reasonable, cogent arguments that basically involves a legitimate disagreement over the proper interpretation of the notability guidelines. All things considered, this is, in my view, in the middle between a "no consensus" and a "keep". Since it is at the very best a "no consensus", there is no admin discretion to delete. Therefore, overturn to no consensus, at a minimum. Tim Song ( talk) 07:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to keep. Clear evidence of notability was brought during the AfD, and it is baffling how the closing admin has discarded them. The closing rationale makes no sense in light of the AfD discussion. -- Cyclopia ^talk 10:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Flagged revisions petition ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

As the closing admin noted himself, the closure was a partisan action. The member should have simply commented like everyone else. Reopen the discussion (overturn speedy keep) and allow the MFD to reach a normal conclusion.
— V = I * R ( talk to Ω) 01:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse as closure. The closure was purely pragmatic. Everyone except the nominator and a banned sockpuppet was !voting for a speedy keep. If I hadn't done it, someone else would have done it by now. Sceptre ^{( talk)} 01:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply

  You know, if this had occurred tomorrow I probably wouldn't have bothered objecting, let alone bringing this here. Considering the fact that the discussion was open for less then an hour I don't know how you can assert that "everyone was !voting speedy keep" (and mentioning the sock is a bit underhanded; I certainly didn't precipitate the participation of a disruptive sockpuppet into this). Aside from all of that, you really should have allowed someone else to do it anyway.
  — V = I * R ( talk to Ω) 02:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse per WP:COMMON. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 02:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply

  huh? How is that supposed to be interpreted?
  — V = I * R ( talk to Ω) 02:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply

  Common sense indicates that there was no chance of that MfD being closed as anything other than "Keep", which is why I endorse. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 03:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply

  I'm not sure how that can be justified, considering that the discussion wasn't even given a chance to occur (either on the project page, or the MFD). Oh well. The best way to deal with trolls is to ignore them anyway. I'm just going to ignore the whole thing. I can at least say that I tried to help. *shrug*
  — V = I * R ( talk to Ω) 03:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply

  Err, wait, you're saying everyone involved in the FR Petition are trolls? – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 03:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. MFD should not be used to cut off discussion of a proposal after one day. Appallingly disruptive. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 03:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Tony Wang ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Zelysion ( talk) 00:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC) reply

The article was previously deleted due to lack of notability and a lack of established sources. The article has been updated to match those criteria. See the current version of the page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zelysion/Tony_Wang

• Eh The Seventeen source looks new since the deletion. The school paper is large enough it might count as a RS. I'd say restore as clearly not a speedy candidate for recreation as the sourcing appears to be new (from what I can tell from the AfD). But I suspect it won't survive AfD2 without further improvement. Hobit ( talk) 03:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Deletion – Seventeen article is not in-depth discussion. ttonyb ( talk) 00:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment there is no need for s reference to be an in depth discussion. The standard in the GNG is less, significant coverage, and it is that. I am a little more concerned about whether it is actually independent. But I would not be willing to restore this article until it was rewritten free of promotionalism--regardless of notability, I consider the latest version a clear G11 as promotional. DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• It's not independent coverage if the author and the subject are friends with each other, especially when the editorial control appears to be relatively lax, as it seems to be the case. Not to mention that the proposed draft is, as DGG says, promotional. Keep deleted. Tim Song ( talk) 07:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted due to definite lack of independence in the sources and text reads as advertorial. It doesn't help that the requester and sole author is a single-purpose account. Guy ( Help!) 09:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G4. The new reference did not change the article substantially enough to prevent such a deletion, and even if it did, G11 would probably still apply. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 01:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Do not recreate If that user-page article was in mainspace, it would be sent to AfD, if not tagged as a G11 in a New York minute. The 'Seventeen' sources are, in this instance, a woman named "Katie"'s blog, and video of "her friend"'s fashion show. Not independent, not by any stretch of the word, and hence not enough to overturn. Bradjamesbrown ( talk) 04:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Masis Voskanian ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Hovhannesk ( talk) 00:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC) reply

The article was previously deleted due to lack of notability and a lack of established sources. The article has been updated to match those criteria. He has debuted and played games now. Hovhannesk ( talk) 05:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Without showing us a userspace draft or at least some sources, I'm not sure what we can do here. The article is not salted, so you can go ahead and recreate it; but DRV cannot, and should not, preempt a G4 speedy without a draft. Tim Song ( talk) 07:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion but no objection to creation of a new article with reliable sources that establish notability under WP:BIO. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 01:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion - at the time of the AfD, the article clearly failed the general notability guideline and Voskanian had not yet played in a fully-pro league. I can find no evidence that this has changed, but if someone can show that Voskanian has played in a fully-pro competition (or otherwise satisfies the notability guideline), I wouldn't object to creation of new article. Jogurney ( talk) 05:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Show us a draft Like Tim Song said, there's nothing DRV can do without seeing the proposed article. In cases like this DRV can be closer to Articles for Creation by committee. The delete close in that AfD was clearly correct at the time it was made. Of course, you can be bold and just place the new article in mainspace, where it will be dealt with by the usual practices, which might be a G4 speedy. Bradjamesbrown ( talk) 04:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Provisional Endorse deletion. Decision was correct at the time, but if circumstances can now be shown to have changed so that the subject of the article meets the notability criteria, then the article can and should be recreated. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 11:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC). reply

Yu-Gi-Oh!_The_Abridged_Series ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I think this now counts as notable as the series recently won the Mashable Open Web Awards in the "Funniest Youtube Channel" category —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradox295 ( talk • contribs) 23:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Permit recreation with the creation of a viable draft: I think winning an OWA (technically, LittleKuriboh did, but that's splitting hairs) gives it enough notability to pass WP:WEB. Sceptre ^{( talk)} 04:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Question Unless this win resulted in some reliable coverage, I can't see how this can possibly lead to a verifiable article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply

You have a point. *sigh* technically, it is notable, but there are verifiability problems. Changing vote. Sceptre ^{( talk)} 07:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Endorse. While the author may now be notable, the series is not, and there are verifiability issues in regards to both; no amount of editing will overcome this. Furthermore, the debate was not interpreted erroneously; there was a clear, valid consensus for deletion in each relevant discussion, and so DRV is not the correct place for this particular discussion. I have no prejudice against a later recreation, but due to the number of previous such recreations of this article, I will ask that if, in the future, an article on this topic is created, and said article fails to meet the criteria for inclusion, that it be salted upon deletion. Heavyweight Gamer ( talk) 10:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC) _{(edited by Heavyweight Gamer ( talk) 13:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC))} reply

Its already salted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Endorse. Award is not notable, and has been won by canvassers. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 18:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep deleted and salted. I remain unconvinced. At a minimum, show us a userspace draft first. Tim Song ( talk) 07:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted. Mashable Open Web Awards my left foot. There is no shortage of awards like this, and they are absolutely not a guarantee of notability. Where are the reliable independent secondary sources primarily about the subject? Guy ( Help!) 09:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse both deletion and salting. Is the award a well-known, independent award independent award? That's what WP:WEB requires, and there's no indication yet that this meets those criteria. If a draft that passes WP:OR and WP:WEB can be created in userspace or at WP:AfC, then by all means please create it. But until then, there's no reason to permit re-creation. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 01:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, for the second time, and keep it salted This AfD has already been taken to DRV before, and endorsed. Anyone can hand out internet awards- they're utterly meaningless until written about by a reliable source. Bradjamesbrown ( talk) 05:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, basically per JzG above. I see no indication that winning what appears to be a very minor award tips this series over into notability. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 11:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC). reply
• Keep deleted Frankly, I'm calling this out on verifiability grounds as a check on the winners show that CardGamesFTW was chose as the "Funniest YouTube Channel". [10] On top of that, this award doesn't appear to be well known, as required by WP:WEB. And given that this is nothing more than a popularity contest, I wouldn't give the award much credibility to begin either. — Farix ( t |  c) 20:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse salting. Completely irrelevant award as far as notability goes. Dandy Sephy ( talk) 21:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse salting. Everyone can start a New Internet prize tomorrow. Why this one worth notice and more important how much "weight" should it be given to this award recipients? Knowing the colorful history of this article, i think the most circumspection is required and will not support recreation unless "unquestionable" evidences of notability are provide. Right now this isn't the case. -- KrebMarkt 22:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Mike Corley ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The article was deleted ages ago and has now been re-created by someone else(eventualism at work); I think there was more in the original than the current version so can someone please review it for WP:BLP compliance (I believe it predates the policy) and restore the history if appropriate. Thanks. Guy ( Help!) 19:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Seeing as there were no sources other than Corley's web site, I have deleted this as a negative unsourced BLP. If someone wants to recreate it they will have to do a lot better on the sourcing first. Kevin ( talk) 05:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Laurance W. Marvin ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Hello, The Page of Laurance W. Marvin was deleted without reason by strange user....[ Jayjg].I have already tried resolving the issue with said user. No acceptable reason can be given for said users actions. All in formation on the page was factually accurate and up to date. I wish to file a complaint against this user [ Jayjg]. And for the page Laurance W. Marvin to be restored. If you need additional information I can put you in contact with Mr. Marvin. the majority of his history is on actual paper not on the net which was stated on the page to start with. Also any issues with the page should have come up on the discussion section for this page and said user did not even go to the trouble to try and resolve any issue nor were the issues stated by said user. Please contact me.I wish to get this issue resolved as soon as possible..Thankyou.-- Yoko-Litner ( talk) 01:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment: malformed DRV fixed. Tim Song ( talk) 02:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Moved from December 16's log. Tim Song ( talk) 04:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as consensus in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurance W. Marvin was quite clear, though I really don't see a need to close the discussion 22 hours early; and speedy close per nominator's attacks on the closing admin. I would AGF, but this tirade at User talk:Jayjg makes it unmistakable. Tim Song ( talk) 02:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse – there was no other way the AFD could be closed. If User:Yoko-Litner was so bent on having the article kept, then she could have made that point in the AFD instead of whining, complaining, and harassing others after the fact. MuZemike 02:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse no other way to close it, no good reason provided to review that close. Hobit ( talk) 05:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Close accurately reflects AFD discussions. Even if the nominator here had correctly placed his comments on the AFD page rather than the AFD talk page (which might justify relisting in other circumstances), the determination of consensus here would have been unchanged. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 17:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure. This is a poor soul who does not yet understand WP and simply tried to do an article for whatever reasons. This is obvious per the "no acceptable reason" and "I wish to file a complaint" comments. I found the "was deleted without reason by strange user" very funny (this is an highly experienced admin with numerous contributions). It reminds me of my beginnings on WP not too long ago. Regardless, this user's conduct is inexcusable and they should be blocked for comments made on closers talk page. Turqoise127 ( talk) 22:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure There's no other way that AfD could have been closed- none. Calling the closing admin a "coward", and saying that "ignorance and bias are your only major skills" to them makes AGF impossible. I don't think a block is warranted, but a very stern warning should be given to Yoko-Litner that he can be blocked if their behaviour is this uncivil in the future. Bradjamesbrown ( talk) 01:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, quite obviously. Word-by-word per Turqoise127. -- Cyclopia ^talk 02:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion Consensus couldn't be much clearer here. Alansohn ( talk) 02:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, as the nominator for AfD. It's all been said above, of course. -- Glenfarclas ( talk) 08:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC) reply

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst: spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst: canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst: csm|username}} or {{subst: csp|username}}.

Coccinella (software) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Why you remove all articles ? It is a good client which exist since 2002, still in development and one of first (or the first) with the Whiteboard.

• It is in the official XMPP clients page : http://xmpp.org/software/clients.shtml
• an article on Linux.com : http://www.linux.com/archive/articles/58326
• It is on Linux distribution, Mac OS, Windows, and other OS...
• It is not a program used by 2 people.
• You can search on the Web ... — Neustradamus ( ✉) 08:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• WP:ENN. I'm not commenting on the sources at the moment since I haven't evaluated them. Tim Song ( talk) 08:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse – proper read of consensus of close. Reasons for deletion far outweigh the reasons for retention (mostly based on WP:ITSNOTABLE and ad hominem attacks). MuZemike 17:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse This is not AfD round 2. This spent several weeks between PROD and AfD and in that time nobody rescued it. We delete things for reasons: they don't meet our criteria. I suggest Neustradamus read WP:V, WP:RS and WP:N before nominating more articles for Deletion Review, or he will spend his time beating a lot of dead horses. Once he understands our inclusion criteria he can go find the sources and re-write the article in his userspace. Undeleting articles for people that do not understand our inclusion criteria that didn't meet the criteria the first time is unhelpful to people trying to re-write them because they copy the same mistakes. Miami33139 ( talk) 22:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, I would have closed this AFD the same way that the closer did. Clear delete consensus based in policy. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 07:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC). reply
• Overturn – I personally use Coccinella and think it's very notable as an alternative to Skype with plugin. This is another case of WikiAdmins gone wild. This page should exist and everyone who wishes to hamper the growth of Wikipedia should step aside. Jacobonwikib ( talk) 03:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • For information : http://coccinella.im/node/405 — Neustradamus ( ✉) 10:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• • • and more ... — Neustradamus ( ✉) 10:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply
      • blah blah blah, don't bombard people with random google links. show two or three undeniable sources or gtfo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.183.188 ( talk) 17:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply
        • it is sources, not "blah blah blah" — Neustradamus ( ✉) 18:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply
          • You want sources, you have sources. But have you look the sources ? xmpp.org, linux.com, lifehacker.com, ghack.net, linuxpedia.fr, brothersoft.com, libellules.ch, drupal.org, Parinux conference ( http://www.slideshare.net/Nyco/xmpp-jabber-et-jingle), isode.com, 01net.com ( http://www.kiosque01.com/magazine/default.asp) all links are good, you must time for read ! ... — Neustradamus ( ✉) 19:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply
            • Please explain how each of these sources meets RS for secondary sources? Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply
              • You can see different reviews about Coccinella, the number of download on different website (official and other), Coccinella is cited on conference for examples, ...
                • For the second time, please can you explain how the sites provided meet RS? Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply
                  • Found new sources specially for you ! In the XEP-0113 by XMPP Standards Foundation and in the book : Synchrone Kommunikationsmedien auf E Learning-Plattformen am Beispiel einer Entwicklung von Chat & Whiteboard für das eStudy-Portal der FH Gießen-Friedberg' and you do not forget Coccinella on XMPP Software: Clients — Neustradamus ( ✉) 17:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply

← Neustradamus, you're still not getting it. All those links do is show that the software exists. They do nothing to satisfy WP:N. — The Hand That Feeds You: ^Bite 17:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• On August 12, 2008 Coccinella was mentioned on Ehrensenf, a German Internet television station which is notable enough being mentioned on the notable German Wikipedia which claims there are a notable 30,000 people watching this station. The notable University of Wisconsin–Madison, ranking very high in the world (see section about rankings in the Wikipedia article), recommends Coccinella to its more than 30,000 students and staff members. In fact, they even thought it is notable enough to write a tutorial. Speaking about natability, there once was a Coccinella screencast on Genbeta. This is a popular Spanish website that seems to be more notable in Spain compared to the website of the Spanish government. Anyway, as a former Wikipedia contributor, I don't care whether the Coccinella article is being deleted or not. If stpeter didn't posted the thread Wikipedia deletions, I would not have cared to spend my precious time on posting this message here ( Neustradamus asked me to speak here after this reply). My questions to the Wikipedians are simple: did you people actually objectively analyze your own statistics? Why is there a declining trend in the number of edits per day since 2007? Why are the number of active wikipedians and the number of very active wikipedians going down more drastically? Did you analyze why other large open-source projects like Linux and Wine are still experiencing rapid growths in the number of contributors and contributions? Did you analyzed whether your current deletions policies hurt the motivation of new and existing contributors? Shouldn't it be easier to *improve* content instead of deleting contributions? Personally, the key reason why I stopped investing my time in the Wikipedia project is because I preferred investing this time in other open-source projects (like Coccinella) for the simple reason that my contributions to these other projects would not be deleted. Wikipedia really should change its deletion policies if it wants to survive in the long term. PS: if you want feedback, please comment on the Coccinella website or ask Neustradamus to ping me because I won't follow this page). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.194.100.241 ( talk) 20:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Don't see anything out of process here. And why exactly are we keeping this open given the clear offsite canvassing? Tim Song ( talk) 17:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure Nothing wrong with this closure. Take away the invalid "keep" arguments based on WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:ILIKEIT, and you're left with a strong, policy-grounded consensus to delete. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 22:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Quite frankly, existing is quite different from notability. This discussion has proven, beyond any doubt, that this software in fact exists. It may even be a quality piece of code. Bombarding us with dozens of unreliable sources doesn't equal a show of notability. And, to 84.194.100.241, if Wikipedia is so prone to delete stuff, why has the number of articles on Wikipedia increased constantly, and is still increasing? Bradjamesbrown ( talk) 05:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply

AMSN ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Already request keep before deletion on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/AMSN (which removed)

• You can see the notability of aMSN here : http://sourceforge.net/top/topalltime.php?type=downloads (number of download).
• The number of pages on Google (+/- 2 510 000).
• It is for all OS system (example Linux distribution, Apple Mac OS, MS Windows, and more... — Neustradamus ( ✉) 05:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment: malformed DRV fixed; deleting admin notified. Tim Song ( talk) 05:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks ;) — Neustradamus ( ✉) 05:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Deleting admin here None of these are accepted reasons for the subject of an article to be considered notable and therefore worthy of inclusion. The traditional way to do this is to provide multiple substantial non-trivial sources from publications that are considered to meet our standards for secondary reliable sources. The AFD was closed as delete because none of the keep arguments addressed this issue adequately and the only policy based arguments were the ones arguing that sourcing was inadequate. The talk page of the AFD lists a number of new sources. The youtube videos I am ignoring but 3 sources in particular were presented:
  • OSNews This is an interview so is primary not secondary and I am not clear whether OSNews is considered to meet our RS guideline.
  • ITAvisen.no For the non-Nordic speakers this means IT news in Norwegian. The article appears to be a review from a named contributor and the publication appears to have an editor and a publishing house behind it so I guess it could meet RS but really needs a Norwegian speaker or someone more familiar with the subject to comment.
  • gmane newsgroup posting News groups are not considered reliable sources for the purposes of considering notability.
• None of the above sources were presented to the AFD and had they been I would have gone with the consensus from the discussion on whether the accept them. To me it looks like we have 1 likely source and two disallowed sources but its not really for me to substitute my opinion on these sources for that of the community. I was approached on my talk page to discuss but did not get round to do so before the DRV was listed. I frankly have no opinion on whether or not we should have this article and, were I an outside observer, might lean towards endorsing the original close as inevitable and relisting if there is a consensus here that these sources are worth discussing further at AFD. Personally I think they are a little thin but further discussion might generate further sources. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. Suggest giving it a chance for improvement, and allow possibility of new AFD if appropriate later. However, I also find no fault with the original close by Spartaz ( talk · contribs). Cirt ( talk) 12:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I have the same problem with 4 articles, ejabberd, Exodus (instant messaging client), Peter Millard and Jabbin. There is a lot of articles in Wikipedia international ? — Neustradamus ( ✉) 13:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• [11] , [12] , [13] , [14] , [15] , [16] , [17] , [18] , [19] , [20] , [21] , [22] ( Translated: [23] ) (aMSN used on a Spanish TV show: Divinos. Includes an official reply from Miquel Olavarria who was responsible for the technology used, confirming that aMSN was in fact used there) , [24] (At -5:31 they mention aMSN). Aiviv ( talk) 14:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• overturn exactly per Cirt. I don't think the AfD could have been closed any other way, but I think this could stand some additional eyes. I _do_ disagree that an interview can't count toward notability. If a 3rd party interviews someone about their work, that still is coverage of the work. But I realize not everyone agrees with that and in any case, I don't see how it could how it could have been closed as keep. Hobit ( talk) 14:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the original close, but let's permit recreation without prejudice to another AFD in light of the new sources. Tim Song ( talk) 14:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • The original article included no sources at all (except from aMSN's own webpage). Without being very familiar with Wikipedia's policies, I do agree that it should be deleted. You suggest "permit recreation", and I think the sources I cited above could be used to prove its notability on a new article. Aiviv ( talk) 14:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion, draft first recreation This article needs to be re-drafted with sources. The first article had no sources at all, so let us see a new article drafted from scratch with the sources presented. I do not think the potential sources presented show notability, these are mostly blogs, download sites, and insignificant reviews. Miami33139 ( talk) 16:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • With the sources, significant or not, the recreated article will not be a G4 - IIRC DRV recently overturned a couple G4s on this very ground. It would be inappropriate for DRV to insist on a userspace draft here. Consideration of the sourcing, if necessary, should be done at a subsequent AfD, not DRV. Tim Song ( talk) 17:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• I simply don't understand what kind of notability you want? aMSN was featured in an egyptian tv show, and in a spanish movie (and we got a request from another movie director for featuring it in his next film).. for it to get this kind of attention from movie directors, does it not show notability, or are those not reliable sources too ? It is one of the most well known clients at least amongst the Mac community (which lacks a proper official client for MSN). I pleaded my cause here if some of you have not read it yet : Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/AMSN. If you also look at the link "Most popular software overall" link at the bottom of http://sourceforge.net you will see that aMSN is the 16th most downloaded software, and the second most popular instant messenging client from sourceforge.net (after pidgin) with a very small gap between the two. If a movie's notability can be defined by number of tickets sold, or a book's notability by the number of sales, why not define notability on a software for the number of downloads? And about Spartaz's "News groups are not considered reliable sources for the purposes of considering notability.", that's not a news group, that's just an archive of an email sent by a Microsoft HR employee from the Windows Live team, who was offering a job to aMSN developers. I think that if Microsoft noticed us and wanted to hire us, that would qualify as notable, no? Or is Microsoft not notable enough either ?
• We gave you lots of links to different articles, and you can google for 'amsn messenger -wikipedia.org -amsn-project.net' and there are over 3.5 million results. I don't think a rewrite from scratch is necessary because we already spent a lot of time writing the original aMSN article, so you should restore it (as well as every modified article as a consequence of that delete) and then we'll improve it and add links to the sources you wanted.
• Also, like I said, aMSN is the first client to implement direct p2p file transfer support, webcam support, voice clips support, audio/video call support. If you accept clients like Emesene and Jabbin simply because it's "contested" and because Jabbin is the first to have VoIP support, then I think it applies to aMSN too. Kakarotoks ( talk) 21:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Permit re-creation Personally I might have closed as non-consensus, but the close was reasonable. It would really have helpedif the closer had given a reason at the time. Perhaps we should actually require it. DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn The close was a clear no consensus. Moreover, this nomination and deletion is a clear case of WP:IDONTKNOWIT: aMSN is one of the most popular Unix chat clients. Sources brought by Aiviv are more than enough. -- Cyclopia ^talk 00:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Userfy or permit recreation – if the abovementioned sources are indeed reliable (including the ones that Eastmain provided in the AFD), then I don't see much a problem recreating or userfying it. MuZemike 02:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• personally I can't see the point keeping this open any longer - we already have a clear consensus. I'm happy for any stray passing admin to restore this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Jabbin ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

• Jabbin is the first XMPP client with VoIP in December 2005.
• The software have VoIP in the first time with TINS protocol and after Jingle protocol (Google Talk compatible).
• You can search on Google the number of pages.
• The software is still in development, you can see the SVN : http://jabbin.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/jabbin/.
• The software exist for Linux distribution, MS Windows and will be on Mac OS X. There is a good article on Linux.com http://www.linux.com/archive/articles/57711
• An article : http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/columns/how_to_make_jabber_calls_using_jabbin
• No virus (Sophos) : http://www.sophos.com/security/analyses/controlled-applications/jabbin.html — Neustradamus ( ✉) 13:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Restore as a contested prod. Tim Song ( talk) 14:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Note It appears to have been deleted for being a copyvio of a previous deleted version. Restoring the previous history is the right way to go. For this article, Restore and list at AfD Triplestop x3 23:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Copyvio ? what is the problem exactly ? — Neustradamus ( ✉) 07:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• What's the deal behind the previous G12? Can someone elaborate that, please? MuZemike 02:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• It seems Nuestradamus re-created the article by wholesale copy and paste (with a few very minor changes) from the deleted version. Nyttend deleted this as he believed it broke the GFDL, as none of the previous authors were attributed in the visible page history. ÷ seresin 15:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Derek Michael Sheldon ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I feel that Circ was unfair in deleting this page. I have updated information. Mr. Sheldon just won the best blogger of 2009 by the largest social media review website. I have contacted Circ several times in efforts to restore this page to no avail. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cirt He referred me to this page.I am not a pro at this and I do NOT understand why this is so difficult!I am requesting that this page get restored to a full page..Thank you. Lovingmusic Lovingmusic ( talk) 22:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. The efforts of the nom are in their own kind amazing, yet the subject seems to fail WP:V pretty badly. The award does not look nearly enough. I am happy to reconsider my !vote if sources come out (tried to look, didn't find), but for now my advice to Lovingmusic is to work on the sandbox and wait for WP:RS to pick up the guy. -- Cyclopia ^talk 01:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. AFD consensus was clear. And if Cyclopia can't find a reason to restore an article, that probably means that there's no reason to be found... Tim Song ( talk) 02:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Didn't know to have become a notability thermometer! You could put me on WP:GNG: If it doesn't passes Cyclopia, it doesn't belong here for sure! -- Cyclopia ^talk 11:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse – Doesn't look like there was any other way to close the AFD. MuZemike 02:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Per Tim :-) Hobit ( talk) 02:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• endorse per Tim. However, the award together with other coverage might be enough. Maybe you could write a draft in user space first and see if that convinces people of notability? JoshuaZ ( talk) 05:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply

There is a draft in her userspace at User:Lovingmusic/Sandbox. Only external sources are about the Mashable.com award. Note also in the talk page of the editor that she admitted to work for the article subject, so there is a strong COI flavour in this all. -- Cyclopia ^talk 11:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Judging by the userspace draft, a PerezHilton wannabe whose greatest skill is making fun of people's names. And if "Taylor Boobless Swift" is an example of his best work, he makes the alcoholic screamer who hangs around my local train station sound like Noel Coward. The AFD consensus was clear, and nothing his employee writes about him makes him seem anything but not notable. And that "award" shouldn't count for much, since there's still a canvassing popup on his website calling for multiple/repeat voting. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 18:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply

File:Sst7.jpg ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| restore)

The image was speedy deleted for non-free use. However, the image is not replaceable. This was stated on the File's talk page in response to the deletion tag placement. There was no reply to my discussion entry prior to deletion. The article is about a band that has released two CDs, taken multiple national tours and does so no longer because members have left. Fair use applies because the image displays the entire seven-piece band and such a free image does not exist. The image was also low resolution. However, if the image is restored and resolution is an issue the image can be made smaller. - Steve3849 ^talk 07:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Support undeletionSend to FfD, as it appears no new photo can be taken of the full band performing, and there's no evidence of a free-use alternative from the Google Image search I just did. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 17:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Changed recomendation per later discussion. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 18:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - the Skerik's Syncopated Taint Septet group still exists, so a free image depicting the current line-up is possible. PhilKnight ( talk) 11:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. PhilKnight ( talk · contribs) is correct, a free-use alternative could be obtained. Cirt ( talk) 12:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Question [25] would seem to indicate the group might not exist any longer. Can someone show it does or doesn't (I'm fine if you all are going off personal knowledge here, I just want to know how you know it does or doesn't still exist.) Thanks! Hobit ( talk) 14:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply

A site specific google search of a Seattle journal such as thestranger.com brings predominate appearances this passed year by "Skerik's Syncopated Horn Quartet". However I do see the mention in a forum of a "very rare show" of all 7 members in 2009. I still think a free image of the entire band is highly unlikely. - Steve3849 ^talk 16:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply

If there was one in 2009, I'd say it's not unlikely a free version can be found later. Send to XfD I don't think this is a clear-cut enough case for a speedy. Hobit ( talk) 20:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• List at FfD per Hobit. As there is a legitimate dispute over whether a free picture of the full band performing can be taken, this should not be a speedy candidate. Let FfD figure out whether this band still exists as such and whether a free replacement is potentially available. Tim Song ( talk) 07:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse for numerous reasons. 1) The uploader did contact the administrator who deleted the image, but just 30 minutes later brought it here to drv, without giving the admin a chance to respond. Nor was I, the person who tagged it with the replaceable fair use tag, notified of this drv. 2) The article states the band is still together and as such a free image could reasonably be found or created. 3) Unlike what the uploader states now, he made no discussion on the image talk page in response to the deletion tag placement, while editing other Wikipedia articles, so he was here in the two-day notification time frame. Aspects ( talk) 18:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I actually did put a discussion entry on the image talk page. That is one of the reasons I came here. My attempt at discussion was speedy deleted without response. - Steve3849 ^talk 00:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC) The edit would have been Dec 12 between 3:45 and 4:00, although I don't see a record of it. There is a possibility I didn't save the edit properly and assumed it was finished. Would the entry be currently visible? A mistaken edit exists here (BTW -- the history of this speedy delete template indicates the directions could be improved) - Steve3849 ^talk 00:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn speedy deletion. As WP:CSD states, "administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." The file was deleted under WP:CSD#F7, for files with invalid fair-use claims. While the deleting admin did not err in doing so (the uploader had sufficient time and opportunity to contest the speedy tag), it is clear that this is no longer an obvious case. The speedy deletion therefore should be overturned; further pursuit of deletion should be through a FfD discussion. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 02:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. The image is quite clearly replaceable. There already is a free image of the bandleader, and one of the full band could be obtained. People have had success with contacting copyright-holders directly--the band themselves may be willing to release an image under a free license, or this Flickr photographer could be asked (since "All rights reserved" is the default on Flickr, many people there don't know about licenses and have never considered the benefits of a free license). There are instructions for how to do this, including sample letters that have worked in the past, at Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. Chick Bowen 16:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • You feel that it's clear enough it qualifies as a speedy? Hobit ( talk) 23:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Yes, though I see and acknowledge your point--speedies by definition need to be clear-cut. I think this one meets the standard; after all, replaceability is a pretty straightforward concept in a case like this--this is not comparable to some of the debates of the past about things like unbuilt buildings or people who are inaccessible to photography. A band is pretty easily photographable by anyone in attendance at a concert. I do not know of a band that has given regular concerts during the Wikipedia era for which we've considered a promo photo to be irreplaceable. Chick Bowen 02:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply

BS.Player ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Though the deletion nominator claimed that the article's external links about the reviews do not guarantee its notability, as all software are eventually reviewed, the software is still highly notable as it is reviewed by at least three reputable software sites (including Download.com and Softonic.com), and the reviews do not only state its history and features and are positive (Download.com rated it five stars). RekishiEJ ( talk) 06:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep deleted Went through AfD, went through DRV, went through undeletion, was moved to main, an admin said nothing changed but an added link to a download site. Nothing has changed for this content. This is not AfD round 5. Miami33139 ( talk) 09:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Speedy close this is becoming disruptive. Went through DRV before where the nom was mightily impressed with the 5 star rating, suggested WP:IAR to ignore the consensus of the deletion discussion, was pointed out how to go about getting notability standards changed etc. Nothing has changed since then. -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 09:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Slip-n-Slide Records ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Although this label is notable, because of a lack of sources an administrator (unfamiliar with the subject of hip hop music?) deleted it assuming that it failed WP:MUSIC. I wrote a draft of this article from scratch; this label has signed several notable rap artists so it should have an article. Andrewlp1991 ( talk) 23:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Looks like an expired prod so should be restorable immediately on request, so this DRV isn't really needed. One point though, a lack of sources is an entirely appropriate reason to delete, verifiability determines that things should be sourceable. If articles meet the verifiability requirement, then familiarity is a non-issue, in fact if the existance relies solely on familiarity, then original reasearch is likely an issue. -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 23:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• I've restored the article. PROD is meant to be uncontroversial, and upon essentially any request, PROD deletions are reversed so a DRV isn't necessary. Andrew, not sure if you knew, but I was simply deleting the article out of process (going through the list of expiring PRODs), and since the nomination looked reasonable, I deleted it. Regards, Jamie S93 00:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Google Watch ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)

• Here we go again, folks. Page was deleted, even though the consensus at the AFD was for a merge. Brandt requested that the redirect be deleted, and User:NuclearWarfare complied. The result of the AFD was a merge, and the deletion of the redirect was not agreed to anywhere in that AFD. The deletion of this redirect seems to me to be a violation of the proper procedure for deleting redirects, which would be to list them at Redirects for Deletion. I ask that the article be undeleted and posted there so that community can discuss the issue and decide whether or not to delete the redirect, as opposed to one admin unilaterally deciding the best course of action. It seems logical to leave redirect at Google Watch to point searchers to the current location of the information at Criticism of Google, so the reason given in NuclearWarfare's edit summary ("No reason to keep this redirect around") is not sufficient to account for this article's deletion.

• Note: I have discussed this with the deleting admin. See User talk:NuclearWarfare#Deletion of Google Watch. He consented to a review of his actions here. Cerebellum ( talk) 20:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Overturn (i.e. allow the redirect to be restored) , per nom. The closer is of course entitled to agree with Brandt, but should go through the proper venues to propose such a deletion. -- Cyclopia ^talk 21:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Oh, for pities sake. Are we to be Daniel Brandt's puppets? Restore the redirect and page history, that deletion was totally without justification. Fences& Windows 21:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Speedy restore come on, really? Hobit ( talk) 22:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • To be clear, admins shouldn't be deleting redirects on their own that don't meet the speedy criteria. Hobit ( talk) 23:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• I do not see why the deletion is necessary, especially since it effectively prevented editorial overturning of the merge, the ground upon which the previous DRV was closed. Given the numerous serious irregularities pointed out during the AfD, I wonder if that debate is safe enough as a basis for taking action. Tim Song ( talk) 22:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Deleting admin: I have already provided a copy of the Wikitext of the article to Cyclopia and will happily do so again to anyone who requests it, provided that they attribute it properly when merging information. The history of the article has been preserved. The redirect was causing an annoyance to the website operator and was not really necessary for us (really, what good does it do?), so I decided to exercise my judgment and delete the article. NW ( Talk) 22:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. This is how I would've closed the debate. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 22:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Ditto. ++ Lar: t/ c 22:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Could the two of you indicate which debate you are referring to? As far as I can tell, the debate was closed as a redirect and then the redirect was later deleted. Could you clarify? Hobit ( talk) 23:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Sorry, I thought it was clear: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Watch (4th nomination). It was originally closed as "redirect" and then changed to "delete." I was saying that, had I been the one to close that debate, I would've just closed as "delete" originally. The votes in favor of outright deletion seem to pretty clearly in the majority. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 23:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Ah, that close still reads as "merge". Hobit ( talk) 00:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Undelete the redirect to Criticism of Google, was deleted for no real reason, is a reasonable search term. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I think this debate is confusing regarding the question of the XfD and the question of the deletion of the redirect (after the history was moved elsewhere). I Endorse the XfD decision, as a fair reading of rough consensus, but !vote overturn on the out-of-process deletion of the history-less redirect. When someone does searches for "google watch", do we want them sent to Criticism of Google, or pointed to "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Watch (n^th nomination)"? Try searching now and see what you see. The deletion of reasonable search-term redirects is stupid. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn deletion of the redirect. The redirect was deleted out of process without a discussion at RfD and without meeting any of the criteria for speedy deletion. NW's reasoning for ignoring the rules and deleting the redirect is, frankly, weak. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 00:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn as out of process since the AfD was foolishly closed as merge instead of delete, which was the supported outcome of the debate, and restart a proper AfD without the foolish canvassing to remove any doubt about the validaty of the outcome. What did I tell you about IAR and this AfD? [26]. I hope you learned something from this. People aren't stupid; you're hurting the cause rather than helping it when you do it this way. Vyvyan Basterd ( talk) 00:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn -- a request by the banned user Daniel Brandt is, by itself, an insufficient justification for any deletion. Andrea105 ( talk) 00:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Please note that this is the banned user John254. NW ( Talk) 04:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Lol. Abductive ( reasoning) 14:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse and stop the drama queenery, since being banned does not prevent one from requesting such a deletion on BLP grounds. Some people here just need to let go. Tarc ( talk) 01:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC) reply