Welcome to the MedLibrary.org Wikipedia Supplement on Wikipedia:Deletion review -- Please Click to Return to Front Page

Administrator instructions

Skip to: Active discussions | Recent discussions | Archive

Shortcuts: WP:DRV WP:DELREV

Deletion discussions
Deletion today Deletion yesterday Articles (by category) Templates Images & media Categories (active) User categories Stub types Redirects Miscellany Deletion review
Deletion policy
Process - log - tools Guide - Admin guide

Wikipedia editors may find articles, images, or other pages that they believe should be deleted, and raise these concerns in various deletion forums. Administrators determine consensus and examine policy to determine if there is sufficient justification for their removal from Wikipedia.

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 a short stub was deleted for lack of content, and you wish to create a useful article on the same subject, you can be bold and do so. It is not necessary to have the original stub undeleted. If, however, the new stub is also deleted, you may list it here for a discussion. If you are proposing that an existing page be reconsidered for deletion, please place the template {{Delrev}} on that page to inform editors who may wish to join the discussion here.

Before posting a deletion review request, please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy.

Contents 1 What is this page for? 1.1 Principal purpose — challenging deletion debates 1.2 Temporary review 1.3 History-only undeletion 1.4 Contesting 'proposed deletions' 1.5 How do I do all this? 2 Instructions 2.1 Commenting in a deletion review 2.2 Closing reviews 2.3 Steps to list a new deletion review 3 Active discussions 3.1 19 July 2008 3.2 18 July 2008 3.2.1 Image:LastoftheTimeLords.jpg 3.2.2 The Days (band) 3.2.3 Burning Up Tour 3.2.4 List of Fraternities and Sororities at Southern Miss 3.3 17 July 2008 3.3.1 The George Nethercutt Foundation (closed) 3.3.2 Training ground (closed) 3.3.3 Template:Support 3.4 16 July 2008 3.4.1 Fail Whale (closed) 3.4.2 Image:1986OpenLogo.jpg 3.4.3 Los Alamitos Curve 3.4.4 Korean war crimes 3.4.5 The_Young_Werewolves 3.4.6 User:C.m.jones/Wikipedia:I bid you adieu (closed) 3.4.7 Sean Ellis 3.4.8 Image:BobHeadshot.jpg 3.4.9 Christian Vincenz 3.5 15 July 2008 3.5.1 My_Tank_Is_Fight! 3.5.2 Flight Training Europe (closed) 3.6 14 July 2008 3.6.1 Cowsay (closed) 3.6.2 Paul Diamond (lawyer) 3.6.3 Richard Fawkes 3.6.4 Talk:Glendora Curve (closed) 3.6.5 William Curry (Oceanographer) (closed) 3.6.6 Wasp Factory Recordings 3.6.7 List of drum corps 3.6.8 Kington Town F.C. (closed) 3.6.9 Belal Hajeid (closed) 4 Recent discussions 4.1 13 July 2008 4.2 12 July 2008 4.2.1 Shwayze (closed) 4.2.2 West Parish Elementary School (closed) 4.2.3 Murder of Joseph Didier 4.3 11 July 2008 4.4 10 July 2008 4.5 9 July 2008 4.6 8 July 2008 4.7 7 July 2008 5 Archive

What is this page for?

Please consider the options below, and then follow instructions to add your request to the main part of the page.

Principal purpose — challenging deletion debates

Deletion Review is the process to be used to challenge the outcome of a deletion debate or to review a speedy deletion. Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first - courteously invite the admin to take a second look. Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly, or if the speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria established for such deletions. Deletion Review also is to be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article. In the most exceptional cases, posting a message to WP:AN/I may be more appropriate instead. Rapid correctional action can then be taken if the ensuing discussion makes clear it should be.

Shortcut: WP:DRV

This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome for reasons previously presented but instead if you think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate. This page exists to correct closure errors in the deletion process and speedy deletions, both of which may also involve reviewing content in some cases. Purely procedural errors may be substantive and result in an overturn (such as failing to tag a page for its XfD discussion) or irrelevant (such as closing 1 minute early).

The main purpose of the page is to review the outcome of deletion discussions, as described above. There are some ancillary cases where editors wish to have pages restored. These are also handled in main part of the page — please consider the usual reasons below and state clearly the basis for your request.

Temporary review

Request this if you want to use the content elsewhere (such as in other articles), you suspect the article has been wrongly deleted but are unable to tell without seeing what exactly was deleted, or if the full article history is needed to complete a transwiki properly. Please state whether you would like:

1. The article temporarily restored for all to examine during a review.
2. The article restored to your userspace so you can work on it to attempt to address the problems that led to deletion.
3. The source of the article emailed to you to review 'off-Wiki'.

Only uncontroversial revisions will be restored. Content that is moved back to the encyclopedia without being improved may be subject to speedy deletion, and content held in userspace without evidence of intent to work on it may also be nominated for deletion.

History-only undeletion

Request this to have the history of a deleted article restored behind a new, improved version of the article. The old, deleted revisions will sit harmlessly in the history of the page. 'History-only' undeletions can be performed without needing extended discussion on this page.

Contesting 'proposed deletions'

Request this if the article was dealt with as a 'proposed deletion'. A 'PROD' can be restored by any admin upon reasonable request. Such an article may still be deleted at articles for deletion or under the criteria for speedy deletion.

Administrators restoring deleted articles should also restore the associated talk page if it exists and place {{oldprod}} on it. {{ProdContested}} (shortcut {{subst:PC|articlename}}) is available for notifying the original nominator that the article has been restored.

How do I do all this?

All requests go in the main part of the page below. Please state clearly your reason for requesting undeletion. If you want to review the debate or the cause of deletion, then these ancillary options are not appropriate, and you should request a full review.

Under no circumstances will revisions that are copyright violations, libelous or contain otherwise prohibited content be restored.

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.

Commenting in a deletion review

In the deletion review discussion, users should opt to:

• Endorse the original closing decision; or
• Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
• List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
• Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear.

Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.

The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum.

Closing reviews

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least five days. After five days, an administrator will determine if a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Undeletion policy. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented.

Steps to list a new deletion review

Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page (or otherwise made the decision). There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the admin the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.

1.	Copy the following line (which is also listed for you in the date page below): {{subst:Newdelrev|pg=PAGE_NAME|reason=UNDELETE_REASON}} ~~~~
2.	Follow this link to today's log, paste the line at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page), below the date header box. (This box looks like a few lines of hash in the edit page the link takes you to, but look for the "BELOW THIS LINE" tag after the first paragraph, and paste in your request just below that). Then replace PAGE_NAME and UNDELETE_REASON in your addition with appropriate content. Your whole contribution is this single bracketted tag. The tag will create the proper section for you when you save the page, so you don't need to create a new header or do anything else.
3.	Inform the administrator who deleted the page by adding the following on their user talk page: {{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
4.	Nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept should also attach a {{subst:Delrev}} tag to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.

 

Active discussions

19 July 2008

18 July 2008

Image:LastoftheTimeLords.jpg

Image:LastoftheTimeLords.jpg (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

(restore|cache|IfD)

Misjudged "keep" closure against a fairly clear (4:1) consensus to delete. This was a routine case of a TV episode screenshot nominated for NFCC#8-related reasons. There were two delete votes based on the usual NFCC arguments, pointing to the lack of a crucial function of the image in supporting analytical commentary, and to its replaceability with mere text. There was a single "keep" vote, arguing in effect merely that the image showed a plot element that is important within the plot; this argument, however, failed to address the core issue of NFCC#8, namely, in how far the image is crucial for improving the reader's understanding of that element (when the plot can just as well be described in words and there is no analytical discussion in the text going beyond that mere renarration.) There was a third delete vote based not on NFCC, but conditional on the fact that the image had been orphaned since the beginning of the IfD and that it lacked an explicit FU rationale. While the lack of the FUR had in fact been remedied by the time of closure, the fact of being orphaned had changed only in a superficial, technical sense. The image had been removed from the article at the start of the IfD and remained uncontestedly orphaned for several days, with none of the regular maintainers of the article and its wikiproject either making any attempt at reinstating it, or coming to the IfD to vote keep. It was then provisionally reinstated on purely procedural grounds by a neutral outsider – but that outsider did not also vote keep, so this was not substantial editorial decision in favour of its use.

We are talking about an article maintained by a large, highly active and well-organised wikiproject, with many members who are acutely aware of image debates. The fact that not a single one of the regulars stood up to keep the image in fact constituted silent assent to its deletion. This, in turn, ties in with the fourth and final explicit "delete" vote, which came from one of the most active members of that wikiproject, who has otherwise frequently argued for keeping images, and who argued in this instance that the image had not been thoughtfully chosen, clearly implying that it was not an image of crucial importance for the article and that there was no strong editorial consensus for using it.

I therefore feel that the closing admin was wrong in discounting these two last "delete" votes, because they either expressed, or were based on, the silent consensus of the article maintainers that this was in effect not an important image. While not in itself a compelling deletion criterion under NFCC, this consensus is a valid deletion argument at IfD. There was therefore a solid consensus (4:1) to delete. The closing admin was also wrong in discounting the original NFCC-based argumentation of the other two delete votes. In his rationale, the closer brings forward the old "it's only a single frame of so many in the episode" meme; but the precedent of hundreds of previous image deletions has firmly established that that is not a valid interpretation of the minimality rule imposed by the Foundation, since it would entail that any such article could always have at least one arbitrary image, a practice that by now has been resoundingly rejected in practice. The closer also asserts that the remaining deletion argument was that "there's no critical commentary" and that this argument is "patently false". This, however, blatantly misrepresents the argument. The deletion argument is not that there's no critical commentary in the article at all; the argument is that there is no critical commentary involving this image: i.e., no analytical statements that need the support of this image to be understood. On this ground, the image still does fail NFCC#8, and must be deleted.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Closing Admin. The "count" cannot reasonably be construed as 4:1. User:BQZip01 set explicit conditions for deletion which were no longer met (there was no fair use rationale at the time, one was later added). So 2:1 or 2:2 ... User:Fasach Nua's vote has no justification. User:Sceptre's vote doesn't discuss the image at all.
  Beyond this, policy and precedent very clearly support the general principle that small pieces of copyrighted works can be used where articles contain significant discussion of the copyrighted work (which this does) and the use is minimal (which this is). Album covers are used as pieces of the whole album, movie posters as pieces of the whole movie, book covers as pieces of the whole book, song samples as pieces of the whole song, and stills or short clips from movies and TV shows as pieces of the whole work. Fut.Perf. might reasonably argue that it's closer to "no consensus" than "keep", but the strength of policy argument on the side of keep here was overwhelming, and makes the difference. Cheers, WilyD 17:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: The claim that Fasach Nua's vote had no justification is patently false. And BQZip01's condition (no longer orphaned) had been met perhaps by the letter but not in spirit, as I've just argued, because the article's maintainers had in fact not made an editorial choice of using it again. And your claim that a screenshot image can be used as arbitrarily representing the article content irrespective of whether it's actually used for critical analysis is maybe your personal interpretation of the NFCC, but it's most certainly not in line with wider precedent and also not based on the outcome of the actual discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Most comparable IfDs end this way. BQZip01's talks also about the need for a rationale, which now exists. Perhaps its easiest to ask him, of course. I've made no claim about arbitrariness - perhaps you should review the usage and the discussion and my statements before misrepresenting them. It is used for critical commentary upon the copyright work used - would you suggest that a videoclip would be more in line with policy? Articles don't have owners, someone has made the choice to restore the image - if it's a seperate person from the original uploader, it only speaks to the value that multiple editors see in how the image complements the critical commentary in the article. Again, it would behoove you to examine the situation better, you're simply not representing it correctly. WilyD 17:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I do. The person who reinstated the image very explicitly did not do so because he personally felt the image should be used and kept, but only because he felt it was more correct in terms of process. And the image is quite patently not "used for critical commentary". Where is that critical commentary you are speaking of, and how does it relate to the image? Saying so don't make it so. – The whole thing is particularly ironic, of course, because just previously another image on this same article (Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 June 2) which had relatively a much stronger claim to legitimacy than this one was deleted after much stronger resistance of the article's editors, by an admin who did in fact employ the stringent criteria that this project has come to adopt. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
      • And by the way, if you feel you can discount Sceptre's vote, then you have to discount BQZip01's too, because apart from stating his formal condition, his vote lacked a rationale just as much. He didn't address the substantial deletion argument of NFCC#8 at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Neither bring much of value to the discussion, just numbers. Beyond the nom and Pawnkingthree's statement no new arguments really appear. WilyD 20:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete - consensus works both ways. FutPerf did interpret my vote correctly. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - So the last Dr. Who picture was deleted (and endorsed), but this one was -not- deleted with a similar debate? I think the people involved need to have a discussion over just what kind of images are appropriate in these articles so we don't have more arbitrary results like this. --UsaSatsui (talk) 20:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
• Question: How are the facts surrounding this image different from the last version which was discussed here at DRV on 3 July and closed on the 10th as "deletion endorsed"? Rossami (talk) 21:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Answer: the only difference is that this was the second or third choice. It has, if anything, a much weaker claim to usefulness and much less consensus among the editors of the article to back it up than the previous one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, or relist. The reading of the debate as "keep" was highly dubious. Even "no consensus" would have been a stretch. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete - the requirement isn't the image is mentioned in the text, but adds significantly to reader's understanding, so the only keep 'vote' was flawed. PhilKnight (talk) 00:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The Days (band)

The Days (band) (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This band asserts notability in the fact that it is both signed and published, and has material available to download or purchase. Product is available on the internet via CDBaby anmd ITunes. Also, the person who created the article had contested, stating that they were working on the page. I was posting a disagreement with the deletion on the talk page, when it got deleted while I was doing so. This article could be rewritten to be encyclopedic and I would welcome the opportunity to assist with this. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment Re - Label: I have been informed that the band are signed to an Indie label - Quoted label shows 126 hits on google. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment I speedied this: being signed and published do not fulfil the Wikipedia:notability (music) criteria, nor does the music being available for purchase. The record label itself seems to be nn, and the sources given as references seem to be the usual ratbag of myspace, youtube etc references. I decline to restore (although I wasn't actually approached before this DR to consider doing so). If the deletion is upheld, I'm happy to sandbox the text for you to work on, if you think its salvageable. jimfbleak (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment This article is in no way a spam and it about a published band, albeit not a big one, but is popular in Chicago and its videos of the bands performance can be seen in youtube at the bottom links of the article... have a good day. Canadian (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse. The version Jimfbleak deleted did not assert importance. At all. Neither did the one I just deleted, which was nearly identical. This was a proper A7 deletion. Also, as a note to Canadian, when you copy-paste recreate a page like that, you might want to take the {{db-spam}} tag off of it. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 15:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Please read WP:BAND. Being available for download isn't a notability criterion. Corvus cornix_talk 18:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse - no indication that the band meets WP:MUSIC, which suggests multiple, non-trivial references in reliable sources, national tours, two albums on notable labels, etc. The article as it was when deleted asserts none of this. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Request - Can an admin please Sandbox this for me then? I will keep a hold of it and try and make something coherent out of it after communicating with Canadian. My personal sandbox is here. Thanks - Thor Malmjursson (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Done, as requested. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Burning Up Tour

Burning Up Tour (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was deleted along with a number of other tour articles for the Jonas Brothers: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonas Brothers Fall 2005 Promo Tour. I was appalled when I noticed this deletion: just look at the Google News results! This is a major, hugely popular tour. I suspect the other tour articles should be undeleted as well, but this one is without question. The importance of this tour may not have been realized by the AfD participants partially because the AfD was titled after a promo tour. Everyking (talk) 08:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Question to the closer: Why was this discussion closed early? Other than that one point, I don't see any process problems in the discussion. Rossami (talk) 14:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Consensus here was overwhelmingly to delete, but it was plain wrong, as anyone can see by a cursory examination of the Google News results. Everyking (talk) 18:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, the google news results are utterly unconvincing to me. The only grounds I see for a potential reversal is the premature closure of the discussion. That's why I asked for an explanation of the timing. Rossami (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. The consensus there was pretty clear. I'm guessing it was closed early as a WP:SNOWball, since the only keep comment was kinda'... Bad. That said, if you'd like to create a new article about the tour with more than just a setlist and tour locations, feel free. It wouldn't make G4. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 16:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse - clearcut. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eusebeus (talk • contribs)
• Would it make more sense if it would be merged with the band's and/or related album's article? At least half of the article looks promotional. Wikipedia is not Pollstar.com or a concert promotional guide. A merge of the essential content could be a good idea but forget the promotional/advertisement stuff though. --JForget 21:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

List of Fraternities and Sororities at Southern Miss

List of Fraternities and Sororities at Southern Miss (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article was organized the in exact manner as the article from The University of Texas at Austin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fraternities_and_sororities_at_University_of_Texas_at_Austin. If the article on the Fraternities and Sororities at The University of Southern Mississippi is deleted, then you must delete the same article from the University of Texas as it serves the same purpose. The deletion is for Doesn't indicate importance or significance of a group/company/etc. This is being improperly deleted by someone that has no knowledge of the given subject. I have no problem with it being deleted, but there is a fairness issue. This article should not be allowed to be deleted while exact carbon copies of the same article for different schools are allowed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Byxeagle (talk • contribs)

• I have to say, it doesn't look like any sort of A7 to me. And it is indeed alomost identical in form to List of fraternities and sororities at University of Texas at Austin. --Stormie (talk) 06:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and list at AFD, with the other article as well for good measure. This doesn't fall under the specific A7 criteria, but I highly doubt it would survive an AFD. For the record, "there's another article like it" is a very poor argument to make in these discussions, and this is a good example why: that "other article" should probably be deleted too. --UsaSatsui (talk) 08:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
• You're kidding, right? There is no evidence of notability whatever in the article, and worse still, there is no context. United States readers may be able to figure out what it's about, but there's not much hope for the rest of the world (and this is leaving aside the fact that the article title uses slang). If someone were to create an article called "List of sports teams at University of Nottingham" or "List of subjects taught at University of Hong Kong", I doubt it would last long. But not to worry, if it's recreated I will nominate it for deletion and I have no doubt the nomination will succeed. Deb (talk) 11:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
• List at AfD There is no WP:CSD criteria saying "this ought to be deleted", and non-notable group does not apply to lists of groups, because a list can be proper content even if the items in it are not individually worth articles. Nor is "incomprehensible outside the USA" a reason, nor is "slang". I would not be at all sure it will fail Afd, but that's the place to find out. Though individual fraternity chapters at colleges aren't individually notable, content in a list just has to be relevant. We include university departments in a list, though they are not individually notable either. Admins who invent their own reason for Speedy, are deliberately acting against policy. DGG (talk) 14:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC) DGG (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn. While A7 applies to articles about groups/companies/etc., I would be extremely hesitant to allow it to apply to lists of those same things. It would require a bit more time to make sure that the list should be deleted, rather than the ammount speedies usually take. If Deb would like to list at AfD or PROD, be my guest, but I suggest at least a Gsearch first, just to be sure. Also, if anyone wants to expand A7 to hit lists as well, the proper place to discuss that would be WT:CSD. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 15:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment This DRV is a classic example of how Wikipedia is bigger than the old rules made for a small WP. WP's "other crap exists" is a standard and commonly used phrase. However, as WP gets bigger, there has to be some consistency. Just having the other article up for AFD because the one you have interest in is pointy and not fair either. Creating it again after the AFD is not right. Perhaps, trying to improve it and then (if it can't be improved) re-creating it and then immediately nominating it along with the other similar article might be a solution but it hasn't been subjected to the real life process. Chergles (talk) 22:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

As previously stated, I have no problem with it being deleted but not when other articles that are EXACTLY the same just different schools exist. I feel that it should be restored and undeleted and if there is a question of its notability than it along with all listings that are "Fraternites and Sororites at X University" should AFD with it. I do not feel that the proper protocol was followed and this was a judgment of personal bias by the deleterByxeagle (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

17 July 2008

The George Nethercutt Foundation (closed)

The George Nethercutt Foundation – Restored and AfD'd by deleting admin. – --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 22:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The George Nethercutt Foundation (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD) This organization meets notability requirements and secondary sources were provided on the talk page. George Nethercutt is a well known politician who many have seen as a candidate who is "waiting in the wings" for a future run at high office. The foundation is active and is recruiting students at multiple universities. The likelihood that people will look for it here are high.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Floridan (talk • contribs) 17:58, July 17, 2008 Comment This DRV is not signed. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Now it is. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 19:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Restore and take to AfD. Borderline notability, creator seems to have some sense of what is required on Wikipedia to establish notability. Taking it to AfD will give him a chance to develop and generate discussion/consensus on the topic. Tan ǀ 39 18:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Overturn. While it was written badly enough that it didn't assert its importance, the link at the bottom suggests there may be some notability. And A7 is meant to delete non-notable things, not possibly-notable things. Anyone can feel free to take it to AfD. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 19:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC) I don't believe so. A7 isn't meant to delete non-notable things, it is meant to delete things that do not indicate why they are notable. There's a difference. An article about a clearly notable subject would be A7-eligible if the assertation of notability wasn't included. --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Note: It was deleted under CSD G11, not A7. Tan ǀ 39 20:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC) No, it was deleted as A7, no assertion of importance, with G11 listed as an additional reason. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Ah, yes. Sorry. At any rate, will anyone involved here terribly mind if this went to AfD? Tan ǀ 39 21:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Done. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Training ground (closed)

Training ground – Restored as contested PROD - but it certainly needs some reliable sources added – Stormie (talk) 07:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Training ground (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD) Article was deleted under PROD, even though there only appeared to be content issues. I think it could be developed into a good article, particularly if you bring in the qualities of various facilities of different clubs in different sports. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Overturn as expired prod. This should be automatic (and all you needed to do was notify the deleting admin. Which you should have done anyways.) --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Template:Support

Template:Support (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|TfD)

This, and Template:Oppose were deleted, it seems, on the basis that loading a little green tick annoyed someone, and that voting goes against consensus. However, I feel there are places where voting is appropriate - for instance when deciding on an image to use from several possibles, in an RfA, etc - and that these templates provided a useful tool to help people pick out the votes on proposals. Yes there are situations where they are not appropriate, but they should be available for those situations where voting IS appropriate. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think that they can really be restored without a pretty good reason. The TfD discussion here is pretty clear. If you'd really like, you could create some substitutes in your userspace (it's not like the templates were complicated, I could write them in ten seconds each) for your own use, but I think any recreation would be G4'd. So, endorse. I think I'll go write a User:Lifebaka/+ and User:Lifebaka/- now, though, in case anyone wants them. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 01:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • There, done. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 01:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Oops, forgot 'bout User:Lifebaka/=, for neutral or other. Fixin' now. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 01:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• I think these things are kind of tacky, personally. Is it really that much to ask that people actually read a comment and not expect it to be boiled down to a shiny button (or even a bolded word)? --Rividian (talk) 01:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, not in theory, but we can't stop people from using them if they want to. Unless we make it a blockable offense, but that'd just be crazy. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 01:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I just think that in some cases, they have a use. Wikipedia is about consensus I agree, but consensus generally requires compromise, and there are some issues on which there is no middle ground, simply a question of yes or no and in the end tallying up the results. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - keep them deleted and burn them with fire. The templates had the subtle but undeniable effect of misleading new users into believing that we make decisions here at Wikipedia through voting. We have far too many people who make the mistake even without the templates. We don't need to encourage people to make that mistake even more easily. The very few times when such a template might be appropriate are vastly outweighed by the times when they were demonstrably harmful to the discussions. Rossami (talk) 03:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse I quite like these, a taste inherited perhaps from the French wiki which uses them as a matter of course at Pages a Supprimer (their VfD). But consensus on enwiki was indisputable that these should go. Eusebeus (talk) 05:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure - Clear delete consensus for the two templates from template space. As for the practice of using a sytem of and in consensus discussion, I think ending such a practice would require policy adoption, partcularly since the images are in commons. I'm all for ending the practice, but find the irony in presently using the image humorous. GregManninLB (talk) 05:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. having these in userspace is perfectly fine. --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• . Endorse, although I have done what Lifebaka did, and whisked copies away to User:Neil/s and User:Neil/o. Neıl ☄ 08:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you stole mine, which is fine, but you might also want a User:Neil/n for the "neutral"-ish things. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 11:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, hay, there is one! --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 11:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse - Really not necessary, especially when you can use a script to do it automatically for any bolded !votes. Just put:
  

importScript('User:Ais523/votesymbols.js');

... into your monobook.js and that does it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse-Closer measured consensus properly. DRV is not XfD round two.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Correct close, and I'm glad we're rid of them. Personally, I would regard any use of the suggestion above for inserting the symbol in the context of an AfD as POINTy. The argument was that they impeded rational discussion, and that holds for any substitute also. DGG (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• Awesome --NE2 06:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea whether that means you like or dislike the close/deletion/etc. Could you clairify? --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 11:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

16 July 2008

Fail Whale (closed)

Fail Whale – Judging from the discussion, it looks like it will either be endorsed or sent to AfD for an inevitable merge/delete. I'm being bold and merging the content into Twitter. Further editorial decisions can be made there. – Wafulz (talk) 12:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Fail Whale (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD) Dispute lack of notability. I'd appreciate a clarification of whether a source is a person, or a particular forum in which that person expresses themselves. We've had two people delete Fail Whale because the sources – notable people with Wikipedia entries of their own — happened to use Twitter or their blog to mention the Fail Whale rather than, say, a printed local newspaper. If George Bush had a Twitter account, and typed his own tweets, would we be able to point to his “tweets” to certify he said something? I'm trying to distinguish between the source and the medium. If a reliable source — a person — chooses to use a blog, Twitter, or any other web site with permanent URLs to say something, I hope we'd be able to cite them directly without having to wait for someone to re-print them in a different medium. Garthrk (talk) 23:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC) Endorse deletion. I deleted a very early form of this article because it had no reliable sources and asserted no notability; my examination of the latest versions reveals that, although more verbiage has been added, little has changed. I believe the nominator has squarely put his/her finger on what caused the deletion; the sources cited don't qualify as reliable. However, this is not the correct forum to advocate a change in the governing policy about reliable sources. Perhaps in five, ten or twenty years this meme will have attained the widespread awareness and recognition that it does not currently contain; if so, we can revisit it then. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC) Overturn there are enough assertions of significance/importance in the cached version, for it to be an invalid A7. RMHED (talk) 01:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Comment. Someone brought up an NPR source on my talk page. I wouldn't mind sending this to AfD at this point, though personally I think a merge or redirect would work better.-Wafulz (talk) 04:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Overturn and list at AfD. not like it will make it out of there, but if it had some sources then it had some mere shred of assertion of notability. Protonk (talk) 05:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC) This is a start - Another issue resulting from its growing user base has been how often Twitter goes down. Twitter crashes frequently from an overload of traffic due to its popularity.[1] When Twitter crashes, users see "fail whale."[1] Beluga whales are known as 'canaries of the sea' due to their high-pitched twitter[2] and fail whale is a whimsical illustration of red birds hoisting a whale from the ocean with nets.[3] "Too many tweets!" it reads. "Please wait a moment and try again."[3] Fail whale has appeared often enough to be featured on NPR,[1] a national syndicator to public radio stations in the United States. ^ a b c The Bryant Park Project (July 3, 2008) NPR Twitter, What Are You Doing? Co-Founder Tells All. ^ Harris, Patricia; Lyon, David; (April 8, 2007) Boston Globe Enter close quarters: colonial to nuclear subs. Section: Travel; Page 8M. ^ a b Whyte, Murray. (June 1, 2008) Toronto Star Tweet, tweet there's been an earthquake; How an online social network chirpily called Twitter is becoming anything but trivial. Section: Ideas; Page 1. -- GregManninLB (talk) 07:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Endorse - I adore Twitter, but it's a micro-blog. Citing Twitter directly is no different than citing a blog directly. We should only do it on rare occasions, and always prefer a secondary source for such news. Addendum: GregManninLB's bit above would be great for inclusion in Twitter. But I don't see enough to be worth a separate article. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Overturn. From WP:CSD#A7: "to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable". This article passes that test so should be restored. The article may not survive an AfD but it should at least be discussed there rather than be speedily deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Weak overturn. Eh, I suppose there was enough of an assertion of notability to pass A7, although I am reluctant to overturn if only because this looks likely to meet the same fate at AfD. Shereth 15:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Redirect to Twitter. This clearly has no independent significance and we really don't need separate articles on the whisical fault pages of every web service, but a short para in the Twitter article is perfectly acceptable. Guy (Help!) 07:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Image:1986OpenLogo.jpg

Image:1986OpenLogo.jpg (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Images have precedent for existing. As seen by Image:2008OpenLogo.gif or Image:2000USOpenLogo.jpg. I now realize that my images also need the fair use rationale which I'm prepared to get working on but they take time. When I initially uploaded them I didn't realize they needed that. I was informed by another user that they needed them after he tagged them for deletion but I was out of town this last week and couldn't get to them. He hence tagged the images retroactively and they were deleted. But we're dealing with apples and apples here. If the two image examples I provided should exist, then all my images have precedent for existing. I ask that they be reinstated and if you want place a deletion tag for today that will give me 7 days to get the work done or they'll be re-deleted due to lack of proper paper work. Thanks! See the chart below for a full list of deleted articles. Also see Image:1994OpenLogo.jpg or Image:1997OpenLogo.jpg. Those are one that did not get deleted and I just now properly tagged them, so I know what to do. BurpTheBaby (Talk) 17:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

These below are the images in question

Image:1986OpenLogo.jpg Image:1987OpenLogo.jpg Image:1988OpenLogo.jpg Image:1989OpenLogo.jpg Image:1990OpenLogo.jpg Image:1991OpenLogo.jpg Image:1992OpenLogo.jpg Image:1993OpenLogo.jpg Image:1995OpenLogo.jpg Image:1996OpenLogo.jpg Image:1998OpenLogo.jpg Image:1999OpenLogo.jpg Image:2001OpenLogo.jpg Image:2002OpenLogo.jpg Image:2003OpenLogo.jpg Image:2005OpenLogo.jpg Image:2006OpenLogo.jpg Image:2005PGALogo.gif Image:2004PGALogo.jpg Image:2003PGALogo.jpg Image:2002PGALogo.jpg Image:2001PGALogo.jpg Image:2000PGALogo.jpg Image:1999PGALogo.jpg Image:1998PGALogo.jpg Image:1997PGALogo.jpg Image:1996PGALogo.jpg Image:1995PGALogo.jpg Image:1994PGALogo.jpg Image:1993PGALogo.jpg Image:1991PGALogo.jpg Image:1989PGALogo.jpg

• Is there a reason they can't just be uploaded again with the proper attribution? --UsaSatsui (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

  Don't have them on my hard drive. It really would be much easier this way. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 21:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• I have now found out that the images I deleted were from this site, cropped down to just the logo from photographs of the tour flags. While an argument could be made for fair use of the logo itself, these copyrighted photographs cannot be used as fair use. Kevin (talk) 22:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm using the logo. They cannot be found anywhere else. And it isn't the photographs which the owner of the flags is selling. He's selling the flags themselves. The photos have absolutely no value to the owner. But in any event, I have E-mailed the owner of the pictures to see if I can crop out the logos. I didn't think this was an issue, however, as the owner of the pictures does not own the logos themselves. And selling them would be illegal. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 22:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

  The photographs have an obvious value to the owner, they are using them to sell a product. And it is the copyright that is at issue here, not the value. Kevin (talk) 23:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

  Outside of the logo, there doesn't seem to be too much creativity in the cropped portion of the photos. Creative works have in common a degree of arbitrariness, such that it is improbable that two people would independently create the same work. Without the logo, I don't think there would be anything to copyright in the portion cropped out by Burp. GregManninLB (talk) 06:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Interesting question comes to mind: Isn't a small piece cut out of a bigger picture no different that quoting a small piece of text out of a larger copyrighted work of text? If the latter is clearly fair use, why not the former? ~Amatulić (talk) 23:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

  You can only use verbatim sections of text to discuss that text, ie quoting a section of a book to discuss writing style etc. In this case there is no discussion of the photograph, and so it is clearly not fair use. See Wikipedia:Non-free content - the relevant part is "A rose, cropped from a record album, to illustrate an article on roses" which is listed as an example of unnacceptable use. In this case we have a logo, cropped from a copyrighted photograph, used to illustrate that logo. Kevin (talk) 23:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

  Kevin, he does not own the logos themselves. That's what I'm using. I sent him an E-mail though to get permission so we don't have to go through a prolonged fight. I do find this similar to if I were to try and sell a taped copy of a Monday Night Football broadcast. That's illegal and if his intent was to sell the logos that would be illegal too. But in any event its the flags he's trying to sell, not the pictures. Pictures of these flags are also on ebay, what's the policy on ebay photos to the open public? --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 02:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

  Both these arguments are not relevant here. The photographs are copyrighted, regardless of their content, and so we cannot use them as fair use. See WP:COPYREQ for info on what he needs to provide in the way of permission. Kevin (talk) 03:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

  The photos seem more like derivative works. It seems unlikely that the person pushing the camera button also owns the copyright in the logo or even in the items shown in the photos. The photographs more likely are fair use. Anyway, if burp uploads a solid matter logo into Wikipedia rather than a photograph of a logo, I'll serve him lunch for a week! GregManninLB (talk) 07:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

  Being visible on ebay to the general public doesn't change any copyright status. As an example say a poster is being used to advertise something, it's been put up on every street corner. A competitor couldn't decide because of the broad public transmission that they'd given up any of their rights under copyright law, and then use the same artwork within their own advertising campaign. We can't tell if the original image is a copyright violation, the author may have permission or may have a claim under fair use (which doesn't necessarily transmit a fair use claim to us), or he may not have permission. In all cases (short of having had a very broad copyright license enabling onward permission to be granted, I think we can safely assume that doesn't exist) multiple copyright claims would be held on the image we'd need appropriate permissioning from all "interested" parties. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 06:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

  Haha, Greg, gonna take you up on that. I wish I could find better images. Frankly, the ones on the flag stink for the most part. Some of the images from my list aren't from tourflags. Just about everything in this decade. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 16:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Restore. After seeing the discussion above, I recommend restoring the deleted images, provided that BB gains permission to use them and publishes that permission on the talk pages of each image (I have seen precedent for this on other images). A photograph of a logo is owned by the photographer, not the logo owner, therefore the photographer needs to give permission. The best solution would be for the photographer to post a notice on his web site that he places the photos in public domain. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • That is incorrect. The photographer may have a copyright interest in the work if it is greater than just a photo of just the logo, however there is still a copyright ownership for the logo itself. As above this would form a derivative and both the photographer and the copyright holder of the log would have an interest, not just th