Wikipedia:Deletion review
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Find this page confusing? Just put a note on your talk page with {{Help me}} (including the curly brackets) above it and someone will assist you.
This page deals with the Deletion discussion process. For articles deleted via the "PROposed Deletion" ("PROD") process, or simple image undeletions, please post a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
"WP:DELREV" redirects here. For Revision Delete, see WP:REVDEL.
 |
| Deletion discussions |
|---|
|
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.
Deletion review (DRV) 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 (administrators may replace with {{TempUndelete}} where appropriate).
Before posting a deletion review request, please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy and the list of perennial requests.
Contents |
[edit] 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.
[edit] Principal purpose – challenging deletion decisions
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 may also 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 corrective action can then be taken if the ensuing discussion makes clear it should be.
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. Equally, this process should not be used to point out other pages that have not been deleted where your page has — each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits. 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).
Listings which attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias, or where nominators do any of these things in the debate, may be speedily closed.
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 the main part of the page—please consider the usual reasons below and state clearly the basis for your request.
[edit] 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:
- The article temporarily restored for all to examine during a review.
- The article restored to your userspace so you can work on it to attempt to address the problems that led to deletion.
- The source of the article emailed to you to review 'off-Wiki'.
The latter two may be requested here. 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.
[edit] 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.
[edit] Contesting 'proposed deletions'
For these uncontroversially deleted articles, you can make a quick request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion.
[edit] 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.
[edit] Instructions
Before listing a review request:
- discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion review. See #What is this page for?.
- 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.
[edit] 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.
[edit] Temporary undeletion
Admins participating in deletion reviews are requested to routinely restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by non-admins. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.
[edit] Closing reviews
A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion process#Wikipedia:Deletion review discussions. 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. If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate. Deletion review discussions may also be extended by relisting them to the newest DRV log page, if the closing admin thinks that consensus may yet be achieved by more discussion.
[edit] Steps to list a new deletion review
 |
If your request is completely non-controversial (e.g., restoring an article deleted with a prod, restoring an image deleted for lack of adequate licensing information, asking that the history be emailed to you, etc), please use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. |
| 1. |
Before listing a review request please attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page as this could resolve the matter more quickly. 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. If things don't work out, please note in the DRV listing that you first tried discussing the matter with the admin who deleted the page. |
| 2. |
Copy this template skeleton for most pages:
{{subst:drv2
|page=
|xfd_page=
|reason=
}} ~~~~
Copy this template skeleton for files:
{{subst:drv2
|page=
|xfd_page=
|article=
|reason=
}} ~~~~
|
| 3. |
Follow this link to today's log and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the deleted page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page, and reason with the reason why the page should be undeleted. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used. For example:
{{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~
|
| 4. |
Inform the administrator who deleted the page by adding the following on their user talk page:
|
| 5. |
Nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept should also attach a |
| 6. |
Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion. Use the following template: |
Click to create a log page for tomorrow (10 February 2012)
[edit] Active discussions
[edit] 9 February 2012
[edit] Martin Musatov
There is zero proof I created this page so the idea of self-promotion is not applicable. Also, the removal process was spearheaded by people who for their own personal reasons dislike my activities in the realm of computer science, something completely different> 66.173.8.54 (talk) 04:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)`
- See also Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Martin.musatov --62.254.139.60 (talk) 07:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Endorse. The self-promotion may not be proven, but per the sockpuppet investigation it is probable. The fact that this review is sought by an IP claiming to be Musatov can only reinforce that case.
Even if the self-promotion aspect was set aside, the article would clearly have been deleted on notability grounds. As noted at AFD, the only reliable source which could be considered against WP:GNG is a brief article in Variety magazine, which namechecks Musatov once. The lead author Dan Myrick gets multiple mentions, but there is no way that article counts as "significant coverage" of Musatov. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] 8 February 2012
[edit] Taiwanese archipelago
Votes and comments after the article was significant expanded (i.e. from 01:00, 27 January onwards) show a slight inclination towards keeping the article. Further, most of the votes and comments were cast/left before the article was renamed, and some supported the deletion only because the article was improperly titled. The AfD should be relisted/extended, with the article restored for the time being. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Relist I don't think the closer is at fault here, as that AFD is a total mess. Leaving out the IP votes as obvious wp:Meatpuppets there is a large numerical majority for delete/redirect. However, all of the delete votes rest on the basis that Taiwan island group is original research as it is not used in reliable sources. Searching for Taiwanese Archipelago I immediately found two reliable sources discussing the islands ( [1][2]) and a few more mentioning the term. It is still quite meagre, but it is clear that there are reliable sources making a distinction between the geographical Taiwan archipelago and List of islands of the Republic of China, so this needs more discussion. Yoenit (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Endorse as nom. Of the 10 "votes" that did not support outright deletion, 6 were IP voters who did not provide a detailed rationale. Of the remaining 4:
-
- Two (Huayu-Huayu, Deryck C.) said that the archipelago / island group exists as a notable concept.
- One (Dmcq) suggested merger because they think it is an identifiable topic, just lacking in sources.
- One (Peterkingiron) suggested merger as he considers the scope of the article to be the same as that of List of islands of the Republic of China because recent discussions suggest that ROC's common name is Taiwan.
- In the last case, the "vote" does not amount to an endorsement of the article—which makes a distinction between the islands controlled by the ROC, and the islands in the "Taiwanese archipelago". Aside from that one, the question of whether the keep votes were valid thus rests on whether reliable sources talk about a Taiwanese archipelago. The list of references in the deleted article and searching on Google both suggest that while there are a few, there is almost no direct discussion in sources dedicated to geography, and the number of sources is very low for what one would expect to be a more major concept. Therefore, my assertion is that there are not enough sources to support the existence of such a concept, and the deletion should be endorsed.
- I should note that some editors may consider the dispute political in nature, and I would concede that had I not been Taiwanese, I might have stayed out of such a contentious issue. However, even disregarding my own political views, I still don't think the subject is recognised in reliable sources beyond unintentional mentions and fringe views, to the extent that Wikipedia should have an article about it. As the existence of the concept is not well supported by sources, we run the risk of creating or publicising a fringe geographical entity should the article be kept. wctaiwan (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Procedural note: both the DRV nominator (218.250.159.25) and the article creater (Huayu-Huayu) are sock puppets of different sock masters. Neither has standing to start a DRV or have their thought counted in an AfD. There isn't any reason to continue this discussion unless Deryck wants it and I think that's unlikely. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
[edit] TamoGraph Site Survey
The article was deleted by Fastily; the reason was G11. The article text was factual and, in my understanding, contained no "unambiguous advertising". Adequate outside sources were quoted, including Lisa Phifer, a leading networking professional. The article described a software tool by a reputable software company, the products of which are featured in vendor-neutral WLAN books, study guides, training courses (see, for example http://books.google.com/books?id=CBPnytQp7q8C&pg=PA378&lpg=PA378&dq=cwna+tamosoft&source=bl&ots=&sig=u1hhN_JB5L3l45N6INmrwLFPBfE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mHcyT4O8LZTb4QT_yMmsBQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false) and magazines. I tried to resolve this issue on the Fastily's talk page, but Fastily simply restated the G11 reason without any explanations. WiFiEngineer (talk) 13:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Endorse. G11 seems to have been appropriate here. WP:NOTADVERTISING states, "All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources." Half the article touted the survey's features without referencing a single reliable source, while the other half discussed functionality with support from two sources, only one of which is reliable (Blogger is user generated). If you think these issues can be addressed, request that an admin move the deleted text to your user space, so you can work on it before creating the article again. —Eustress talk 19:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Endorse per Fastily. I also spent some time checking the deleted article and its sources, and support Fastily's description. If the nom takes up the suggestion of requesting a move to user space, then I suggest that the nom also takes some care to check that the resulting article clearly demonstrates notability per WP:NSOFT, and particularly per WP:GNG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Permit restoration Oddly , I was the one who marked it for speedy G11 in the first place, But looking it over, I was wrong. The sources are [3]. [4] [5], and I think they are reliable enough and sufficient to support an article. DGG ( talk ) 03:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- Thank you, DGG, that was unexpected and is much appreciated. If it is relisted, I will add more sources. BTW, just found another one that will probably be considered reliable and independent: TamoGraph Site Survey receives the PC Magazine/RE - Best Software 2010 Award. WiFiEngineer (talk) 11:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Abdolreza Razmjoo
Please re-check the sources new I think delete this is not right deleting admin Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farkoh (talk • contribs) 04:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Endorse - The AFD looks like a straightforward close, and the discussion on the closer's talk page confirmed the decision. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 05:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Endorse There was clear consensus to delete the article. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 12:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Question - Can you show us (or at least quote) some of the new material from Chelcheragh and Nezafati's book that you tried to cite? — C M B J 13:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- You can look there, how the article looked before deletion. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 13:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- There appears to have been more added to the article since Google cached it; a live mirror can still be found here. I'm particularly interested in 'Weekly magazine Chelcheragh,iran(February 2002)' and 'Nezafati,Iraj. Kermanshah music, Taq Bostan Publications, Kermanshah, 1998, ISBN 964-5551-11.' -- these could substantially alter the discussion if they're meaningful enough. — C M B J 13:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Completely agree with you. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 13:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- There appears to have been more added to the article since Google cached it; a live mirror can still be found here. I'm particularly interested in 'Weekly magazine Chelcheragh,iran(February 2002)' and 'Nezafati,Iraj. Kermanshah music, Taq Bostan Publications, Kermanshah, 1998, ISBN 964-5551-11.' -- these could substantially alter the discussion if they're meaningful enough. — C M B J 13:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- You can look there, how the article looked before deletion. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 13:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Please see my comments on these new sources here.Farhikht (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Comment As part of the post-AFD discussion, User:Farhikht (a native speaker of Farsi) wrote:
Based on his statement, "Chelcheragh can't be considered a reliable source for music articles," I don't believe it should affect the close. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 22:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)I verified the new sources in the "Further reading" section. The first one is from Chelcheragh, a tabloid weakly which its primary target group is young higher educated people. I can't verify the depth of coverage but I think that Chelcheragh can't be considered a reliable source for music articles. The second is probably a history of music in Kermanshah, published by a local book publisher and written by a local journalist born in 1976 according to his bio here. The writer claimed in his biography that he is head of the "current event" service in Kayhan newspaper which do not make him an expert on the topic. So I think that the article still fails WP:MUSIC.
— User:Farhikht 03:48, 31 January 2012- Chelcheragh is described as a "reformist periodical" that is "popular among youth for its articles on culture, art, and sports, and its cartoons and satire" by Payvand, and we're more or less relying on conjecture to evaluate "Kermanshah Music" because no one else has actually seen the book. Farhikht may very well be right on both counts, but I'm still willing to hear Farkoh out if he's able to produce that material for our viewing or otherwise substantiate it. — C M B J 22:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- (edit conflict)Endorse as deleting admin. I have tempundeleted the article so that versions can be compared. The one deleted at AfD is here. The article author pointed out on my talk page that he had added references after the two delete !votes were cast; I therefore told the nominator and the two delete !voters about the new refs, and asked whether they would alter their opinions. The additional references they considered included 'Weekly magazine Chelcheragh,iran(February 2002)' and 'Nezafati,Iraj. Kermanshah music, Taq Bostan Publications, Kermanshah, 1998' and user Farhikht (talk), whose user page shows he speaks Farsi, explicitly commented on them here. The other two also said that their opinions were not altered: WikiDan61, Spada2.
- The new version Farkoh has produced is here. It actually has fewer references than the one deleted at AfD. The only new one is this, given as a reference for "Yar" instead of this. I do not think any case has been made to overturn the result of the AfD. JohnCD (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] 7 February 2012
[edit] File:Supermushroom.png
The file was deleted and the discussion was closed without giving any reason. When asked, the closing admin gave a reason that amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The photo is verifiable and notable, and was sourced as the most prominent example of its class, thus making it not replaceable with a free image with the same encyclopedic purpose; I want to take the image to an RfC to gather wider consensus for its intended use at Power-up, and also reuse it at Mario_(series)#Recurring_gameplay_elements where the Supermushroom is covered. For that I'd need to retrieve the fair use rationale that was in the deleted file page. Diego (talk) 13:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- I've been reviewing the process to close a FfD, and none of the criteria listed to build a rough consensus was met (no bad faith !votes, no sock puppets, no addressing of policy in the reason for deletion, no copyright violation since there was a fair use rationale). So, given that:
- There was no consensus for deletion
- The reason given for the discussion closure was one of personal opinion
- The discussion was closed without attention to procedure. First the file was deleted without notice, then I asked at the deletion discussion why the file had been deleted (see my comment at the bottom) and asked the administrator to undelete it, and only after that would
the administratora bot close the discussion without giving a deletion summary; he couldn't be bothered to close the discussion himself.
Diego (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
For these reasons I think the deletion process was invalid. The administrator has shown muchh less than the needed attention that a contested deletion requires. There's an open administrator noticeboard discussion showing that this behavior is usual for this administrator. Diego (talk) 09:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Endorse – Being a longtime fan of Nintendo myself (full disclosure), the deletion was valid. Notability does not override the non-free content policy. --MuZemike 02:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- Notability alone doesn't, but having a non-replaceable encyclopedic content does meet the non-free content policy, which was the case here.
- In any way, that's irrelevant to this DRV since its purpose is not to reassess the arguments in the discussion but to examine the behavior of the closing admin. What's relevant is that the admin deleted the image without being aware of the discussion that was going on, and that he wouldn't provide a valid reason when asked for it, which is against the spirit if not the letter of the deletion process. Diego (talk) 07:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- If he wasn't aware of the discussion, how did he manage to link to it in his deletion summary? 74.74.150.139 (talk) 07:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Relist - Notability may not override the non-free content policy, but there was insufficient participation in this discussion to substantiate its reading. The deleting administrator's rationale explicitly stated that the uploader failed to make a convincing case, which is tantamount to a supervote because that view was never expressed by anyone other than the nominator. — C M B J 13:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- Thanks! If it is relisted I will drop a note at WikiProject Video games to get wider feedback. Diego (talk) 14:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment (as nominator)—I've noticed at FfD that there is a trend of administrators deleting images at the conclusion of a deletion discussion (with a log entry referencing the discussion)and leaving it to AnomieBOT to close the discussions. When the deletion is uncontroversial or the rationale is straightforward, this is understandable. However, with regards to this deletion discussion (where only two users participated), the administrator should have closed the debate manually with a specific analysis of the arguments brought forth. While this is moot now (because Fastily has now provided a rationale for deletion), I do agree with Diego that Fastily should have manually closed the discussion before deleting the file with the rationale provided. RJaguar3 | u | t 18:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Endorse Being the "most prominent example of its class" does not make an image non-replaceable. NFCC does not specify that a free replacement must be at the same quality of the non-free image. If the education value can be portrayed by another free equivalent, then this deletion is valid.--v/r - TP 03:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] File:JaxNatlCemeterySite.JPG (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
A photo of a PD-Gov map at a national cemetery. The photo was released by uploader as CC-0. Shouldn't have been any problem with the image. GrapedApe (talk) 12:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 6 February 2012
[edit] 5 February 2012
[edit] File:Popcorn deelites.jpg
Speedy deleted under CSD F7 as replacable with a free image, which I disputed, as the subject's residence in not a public place, and therefore a free alternative cannot be obtained. — Edokter (talk) — 13:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Unless I'm missing something the subject's residence claim to offer 2-5 tours daily, can't see that as a bar to getting a replacement image. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- You missed something: "He now resides at the Linn Farm in Virginia." — Edokter (talk) — 16:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well I think you are misreading that, our article and the bio on Old Friends refers to "Rich In Dallas" residing at Linn Farm, not this horse. The full quote being "Another Seabiscuit star, 10-year-old Rich in Dallas, was also retired through the combined efforts of Old Friends, Robbi Meisel of Flashpoint Photography, and The Exceller Fund. He now resides at the Linn Farm in Virginia and still makes public appearances to raise money for The Exceller Fund.." - even if it's badly worded and really trying stating that Popcorn Deelites is at the Linn Farm it's very clear that "and still makes public appearances..." which would still mean replacement is quite possible. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 17:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- In that case, until someone actually does a picture, no alternative is available. — Edokter (talk) — 17:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- And the criteria is not that such a picture exists right now, it's that one can be created, which clearly it can. "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." --62.254.139.60 (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- That part directly contradicts with the rest of NFC #1, which states that non-free content must be replaced "if one of acceptable quality is available". — Edokter (talk) — 17:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- The application of NFC#1 has been quite consistent for years. Your opening to this DRV was clearly meant to be based on the idea that a free alternative couldn't be created, now that's been pointed out to be false, you're trying to simply dispute something which as a long term contributor and admin, you will have encountered many times with the same application, that is disingenuous to say the least. To be clear NFC#1 is part of the EDP as required by the foundation the resolution on this is quite clear "An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals.". If you want to make NFC#1 something else, DRV is not the place to do it. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- That part directly contradicts with the rest of NFC #1, which states that non-free content must be replaced "if one of acceptable quality is available". — Edokter (talk) — 17:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- And the criteria is not that such a picture exists right now, it's that one can be created, which clearly it can. "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." --62.254.139.60 (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- In that case, until someone actually does a picture, no alternative is available. — Edokter (talk) — 17:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well I think you are misreading that, our article and the bio on Old Friends refers to "Rich In Dallas" residing at Linn Farm, not this horse. The full quote being "Another Seabiscuit star, 10-year-old Rich in Dallas, was also retired through the combined efforts of Old Friends, Robbi Meisel of Flashpoint Photography, and The Exceller Fund. He now resides at the Linn Farm in Virginia and still makes public appearances to raise money for The Exceller Fund.." - even if it's badly worded and really trying stating that Popcorn Deelites is at the Linn Farm it's very clear that "and still makes public appearances..." which would still mean replacement is quite possible. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 17:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- You missed something: "He now resides at the Linn Farm in Virginia." — Edokter (talk) — 16:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, tell you what... be a dear and drive over to the stables and shoot a picture, will you? Because I can't afford the 1000 bucks right now to fly over to the US and do it myself. The point is, "could" does carry a burden of reasonability. So as long as there is no free alternative, and no one is expected to actually go over and create one, fair use is fair game. — Edokter (talk) — 20:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ah strawman arguments now, we're seeing it all here. This lot has been rehash 1000's and 1000's of times, again the policy is about "could be created", not has been created, nor that any particular editor could create. At this point I'll bow out of this, since it's quite clear you aren't interested in honest discussion. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Nothing strawman about it; just pure practical interpretation of the policy. But yes... please go, because I am absolutely inlolerant about being called dishonest, so you are no longer welcome in this duscussion. — Edokter (talk) — 00:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- It is an obvious strawman argument. You attack the "free alternative" by saying it highly impractical that you make the picture as it would cost a lot of money. The IP correctly stated that according to NFCC#1 someone has to be able to make a picture. You telling him that he is "no longer welcome in this discussion" is also way out of line. Yoenit (talk) 00:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have no interest in being part of a discussion where another editor acuses me of being dishonest; any such editor automatically loses the right to be part of that discussion. — Edokter (talk) — 15:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Calm down, get off your high horse, and take the time to read WP:NFCC#1. No one is accusing you of anything. Your unfounded accusations directed at others and immature behavior in this discussion is disgusting. Frankly, I am impressed you are still an admin. -FASTILYs (TALK) 22:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- "...since it's quite clear you aren't interested in honest discussion." If that isn't an acusation, I don't know what is. And no admin was ever desysopped for having an opinion. — Edokter (talk) — 01:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think the IP meant "honest discussion" as if you've been dishonest. I think he meant it as "man-to-man" or as a mature discussion. I think you've made a huge mistake in your interpretation of NFCC and you're letting your pride stand in the way of seeing this error.--v/r - TP 03:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- "...since it's quite clear you aren't interested in honest discussion." If that isn't an acusation, I don't know what is. And no admin was ever desysopped for having an opinion. — Edokter (talk) — 01:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Calm down, get off your high horse, and take the time to read WP:NFCC#1. No one is accusing you of anything. Your unfounded accusations directed at others and immature behavior in this discussion is disgusting. Frankly, I am impressed you are still an admin. -FASTILYs (TALK) 22:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have no interest in being part of a discussion where another editor acuses me of being dishonest; any such editor automatically loses the right to be part of that discussion. — Edokter (talk) — 15:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- It is an obvious strawman argument. You attack the "free alternative" by saying it highly impractical that you make the picture as it would cost a lot of money. The IP correctly stated that according to NFCC#1 someone has to be able to make a picture. You telling him that he is "no longer welcome in this discussion" is also way out of line. Yoenit (talk) 00:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Nothing strawman about it; just pure practical interpretation of the policy. But yes... please go, because I am absolutely inlolerant about being called dishonest, so you are no longer welcome in this duscussion. — Edokter (talk) — 00:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Endorse per User:Fastily/E#F7. That's all I have to say. -FASTILYs (TALK) 23:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Endorse per the IP and Fastily. Yoenit (talk) 00:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Endorse. A simple way to replace this would be to ask the subject's owners nicely if they would provide a free image. I'm sure that they would respond positively, especially if the request was accompanied by a small donation. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Endorse Image clearly doesn't meet WP:NFCC#1. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 10:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Endorse. The non-free content criteria are strict and narrow, and "could be created" does not mean that there has to be someone ready, willing, and able to do so. Stifle (talk) 11:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Endorse OP has a huge misunderstanding of NFCC. If it is possible that a free equivalent can be create or exists, then a non-free image cannot be used. Deletion was in accordance with policy.--v/r - TP 03:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] 4 February 2012
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I created two versions of this page, one with the french title and another one with the english title of the movie. Could an administrator delete the article with the french title?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celestialvoyage (talk • contribs) }
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 3 February 2012
[edit] 2 February 2012
[edit] File:ACTA protest by members of the Polish parliament.jpg
- File:ACTA protest by members of the Polish parliament.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (article|XfD|restore)
Premature closure, decision inconsistent with preliminary consensus, rationale was WP:CSD#F7b despite available source material with photo-specific commentary for at least one revision. Request for reversal was met with objection under WP:NFCC#2, which is a reasonable argument for anyone to make at XfD, but an inadequate one for urgent unilateral action. — C M B J 12:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Deleting admin comment: This was a standard application of WP:CSD#F7b (commercial news agency picture). Being a mandatory criterion, based on the need for WP:NFCC#2 compliance, this speedy deletion criterion can override consensus at FFD at any time. As such, yes, CSD#F7b does constitute adequate grounds for unilateral action. – As for the uploader's argument that there was "photo-specific commentary": as pointed out to him on my talkpage, this argument falls short of the facts. There were one or two sources that briefly mentioned this image (or some other version of the same scene), but only in the sense of mentioning it in passing, as evidence for some commentary that was invariably directed at the situation depicted in it, not at the image as a creative work as such. No source came anywhere close to engaging in significant discussion of the photograph as an object of interest in its own right (e.g. the photographer's creative choices, its esthetic value, etc.), and neither of course did our article. What we have here is a typical, and unfortunately frequent, case of uploaders confusing the role of an image as a vehicle for illustrating a discussion with that of an object of encyclopedic discussion in its own right. The latter is required as a minimum precondition for overriding NFCC#2 in the case of commercial agency images, and this was simply not the case here. This kind of case is exactly what CSD#F7b was designed to handle. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- For context: The article in question is Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. This [6] is a link to the passage where the image was used, before it was deleted. As anybody can see, there is some comment on the situation depicted in the image, but no trace of comment on the image as a creative work. Moreover, all observations made in that comment are original research, since no reliable source seems to have made a point about them (the footnotes are to sources entirely unrelated to the photograph). Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- The image description and its quality are irrelevant -- reliably sourced commentary on the photo was cited in the article's main text and on the nominator's talk page. Regarding value judgements about the commentary itself, this view is unsubstantiated by WP:CSD and contradicts consensus even in recent XfD discussions. — C M B J 14:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- This is getting bizarre. Of course the image description is not irrelevant. The criterion "object of commentary" in CSD#F7b refers to commentary that exists or doesn't exist in the article – not in some external source or other. Our article wasn't engaging in such commentary, therefore, the criterion kicked in. Simple. And as for the "commentary on the photo" that you keep saying existed in those external sources, I told you three or four times but you keep ignoring it: those passing references to the photo also fail to rise to the level of significant commentary about the image as such. Do you really not get the difference? Here's what "commentary about the image" would look like:
-
- "AP photographer soandso was widely praised for the skillful composition and lighting of his image, and got a Pulitzer prize for it."
- "AP photographer soandso was accused of having forged the image by photoshopping the Guy Fawkes masks into somebody else's photograph"
- "The photograph by AP photographer soandso went viral as an internet meme and was widely parodied and imitated"
- That kind of commentary is what this is all about. Of course, nothing remotely comparable to any of these things happened in this case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- The image description is irrelevant because it is only one possible place in the article where commentary can exist. As for your definition of a creative work and the associated value judgements you're making about the aforementioned sources, this is a matter of opinion that is not appropriate to consider when overriding XfD discussions with CSD. — C M B J 23:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- What on earth do "definition of creative work" or "value judgements" have to do with anything? You have evidently not even begun to understand what I'm saying. Please read it again; I'm tired of explaining this to you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- There is not and never was a misunderstanding about the concept you're trying to explain. — C M B J 05:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- What on earth do "definition of creative work" or "value judgements" have to do with anything? You have evidently not even begun to understand what I'm saying. Please read it again; I'm tired of explaining this to you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- The image description is irrelevant because it is only one possible place in the article where commentary can exist. As for your definition of a creative work and the associated value judgements you're making about the aforementioned sources, this is a matter of opinion that is not appropriate to consider when overriding XfD discussions with CSD. — C M B J 23:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- This is getting bizarre. Of course the image description is not irrelevant. The criterion "object of commentary" in CSD#F7b refers to commentary that exists or doesn't exist in the article – not in some external source or other. Our article wasn't engaging in such commentary, therefore, the criterion kicked in. Simple. And as for the "commentary on the photo" that you keep saying existed in those external sources, I told you three or four times but you keep ignoring it: those passing references to the photo also fail to rise to the level of significant commentary about the image as such. Do you really not get the difference? Here's what "commentary about the image" would look like:
- The image description and its quality are irrelevant -- reliably sourced commentary on the photo was cited in the article's main text and on the nominator's talk page. Regarding value judgements about the commentary itself, this view is unsubstantiated by WP:CSD and contradicts consensus even in recent XfD discussions. — C M B J 14:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- The image was tagged {{Non-free historic image}} (though I don't know whether it was placed there by the uploader or someone else—can we get a temp undelete of the image page, not the image, if so?). The template points out—in boldface, no less—that the image itself must be the subject of commentary, not the event it depicts; and I'm not finding anything in the article history that comments on anything other than the event. Endorse. Though I do want to say, too, that I think the WP:NFCC#8 suggestions in the FFD that it could be replaced by a generic image of a Guy Fawkes mask are ludicrous. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- I'm away from my desk at the moment, but Masnick's commentary was cited in the article and the Forbes source was on the nominator's talk page. Whether either of them satisfies NFCC is a valid debate, but the closer should have expressed that view in the discussion instead of acting defiantly on subjective merit. — C M B J 00:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- There needs to be commentary in our article, not just in a source cited in it. Even a sourced statement like "Mike Masnick of Techdirt commented [something about the image]" would suffice, and there wasn't one. (And I have to ask, are we looking at the same source? Masnick doesn't comment on the image in it; he talks about the event, and doesn't even display the same image as this one!)
The Forbes source, again, wasn't in our article, and again is commenting on a different image (the same one as Masnick's), but at least does comment on the image itself. A phrase like "An image depicting the event was widely distributed on the Internet.<ref>[Forbes, etc etc]</ref>" would be enough to keep this from being a speedy, but I don't think it would survive in the article. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 01:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)- The semantics of our article's iteration could have been improved upon, but there actually was a statement to that effect: "Mike Masnick of Techdirt noted that the handmade masks were themselves symbolically 'counterfeit' ...", which was a reflection of the source's commentary in that "[w]e should note that, from the picture, it looks like ..." I take Masnick's assertion at face value and recognize that others may rightfully disagree, but that's why we have XfD.
- There needs to be commentary in our article, not just in a source cited in it. Even a sourced statement like "Mike Masnick of Techdirt commented [something about the image]" would suffice, and there wasn't one. (And I have to ask, are we looking at the same source? Masnick doesn't comment on the image in it; he talks about the event, and doesn't even display the same image as this one!)
- I'm away from my desk at the moment, but Masnick's commentary was cited in the article and the Forbes source was on the nominator's talk page. Whether either of them satisfies NFCC is a valid debate, but the closer should have expressed that view in the discussion instead of acting defiantly on subjective merit. — C M B J 00:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Regarding Forbes' commentary, I personally think that it does have a place in the future of the article. I also realize that it wasn't cited in the article at the time, but it was made known in pertinent discussion and the closing administrator should have taken that into consideration. That's a whole nother can of worms, unfortunately.
-
-
-
-
-
- As for the photo discrepancy, this is because a second version was later uploaded for added encyclopedic value. Perhaps this was temerarious of me. I'll come right out in the open and say that I've been around since 2004 and our attitude toward non-free historical content may have changed since I was inculcated. With that said, the closing administrator still deleted all revisions of the file and subjectively deflected what still appears to be a reasonable case for proper community debate. — C M B J 11:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- Endorse. We have very very narrow tolerance for wire service photos, and far narrower tolerance for recent wire service photos. This is a long-established policy which is essential to the credibility of our general stance on copyright, reuse, and non-competition. Chick Bowen 01:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Relist While the narrower tolerance for wire service photos has consensus, the application of it to any given situation can only be by consensus. If the closer was right that their's was the consensus position, it will be supported in the discussion. Essentially, the validity of any early close relies on the presumed consensus consent of all relevant good faith commentators, and if it is questioned in good faith, the presumption was unjustified and the discussion should be resumed. That's the place to examine the merits, not here. (I will point out that if the cited references had comment on the image itself, such information could easily be added to the article, and this would remove what seems to be the key objection.) DGG ( talk ) 21:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion. I am the deletion nominator of this image, and so far I see very little new argument than what was already in the deletion discussion. Let us get some ground facts:
-
- The image must naturally be held to a higher standard due to its commercial nature. Wikipedia does not include non-free content lightly for a very good reason, and as this image is produced by a commercial news agency on a recent event that may very likely remain in the news for years to come, as more voices are raised to debate the ACTA. Thus, using this image will very likely cause a loss of views (and thus revenue) on the part of the news agency that produced this image, as they lose their exclusivity regarding the use of this particular image. Thus we conclude that, unless there is an extremely pertinent and pressing need to use this image and only this image, we cannot allow its inclusion.
- The image itself was never the subject of commentary. There is no indication as to why this particular image has significance, as opposed to simply as a vector to introduce the event which it portrays. I think we can all agree that, if we were to replace the image with one shot from another angle, at another time (during the event), and/or by another photographer, it would not have made a single difference in the article. Hence, I believe that we can all agree that the image itself was not the subject of commentary. Although my attention was raised to a certain RfC that advocated removing this particular restriction, WP:CSD was never changed as a result, and I am led to believe that the current CSD policy still holds valid.
- The image is not pertinently needed in the article to illustrate an event. Obviously, a picture is worth more than a thousand words, and I do not intend to say that the picture adds nothing whatsoever to the article. However, due to the non-free and commercial nature of the image, we must be able to present a reason as to why it is absolutely essential to the commentary in the article. The only reason Wikipedia's audience may need visual aid is because some of them might not be familiar with Guy Fawkes's mask, but we certainly have many free alternatives in that area. Is it absolutely essential that Wikipedia's audience must see a bunch of people in suits sitting in a parliament chamber? I don't believe so. Simply illustrating the event via textual account is more than enough to make the reader understand what happened in the event. If I say "the Polish MPs protested by sitting in the chamber and wearing Guy Fawkes masks, which look like this", I think it is reasonable to believe that any literate reader would gain as much a view of what had transpired during the protest as they would have by viewing an image of the protest.
- As such, I maintain my view that this image is in breach of Wikipedia's policy and spirit of free content, and it should rightfully remain deleted. ZZArch talk to me 21:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- I see very little (if any) common argument between this nomination and the associated XfD. Regardless, the key arguments that you're making here are reiterations of your views as a proposer. And while I think that you make a perfectly reasonable case in some respects, that merit really is extraneous to the DRV process; it should instead be afforded fair consideration in a proper debate. — C M B J 06:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- You failed to read my argument completely. Cf. WP:CSD:
-
Non-free images or media from a commercial source (e.g., Associated Press, Getty), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary, are considered an invalid claim of fair use and fail the strict requirements of WP:NFCC; and may be deleted immediately.
- I see very little (if any) common argument between this nomination and the associated XfD. Regardless, the key arguments that you're making here are reiterations of your views as a proposer. And while I think that you make a perfectly reasonable case in some respects, that merit really is extraneous to the DRV process; it should instead be afforded fair consideration in a proper debate. — C M B J 06:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- Therefore, unless you could argue convincingly against any part of this rationale, the CSD closure seems appropriate. Do you dispute the validity of this policy? Do you dispute the commercial source of the image? Or do you dispute that the image itself is not, and has never been the subject of commentary? ZZArch talk to me 22:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- I maintain that there are few—if any—parallels between this nomination (i.e., my words) and the associated XfD. As for the substance of your argument, I thoroughly dispute the latter point. The image itself has been the subject of commentary.
and the above IP editor corroborated this assumption.Whether or not sufficient commentary exists is a valid XfD matter. — C M B J 23:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)- I corroborated no such thing. There was never any sourced commentary about the image itself. If there was, you wouldn't have been able to replace it with an alternate one. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 03:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- I inferred from "The Forbes source [...] is commenting on a different image (the same one as Masnick's), but at least does comment on the image itself. [...] A phrase like 'An image depicting the event was widely distributed on the Internet.<ref>[Forbes, etc etc]</ref>' would be enough to keep this from being a speedy" that you concurred with the postulation I made about Forbes' commentary. If such an interpretation does not reflect your view, then I sincerely apologize and retract that portion of my comment. Again, I still think that the image has received commentary and thus there's fairly reasonable cause for a debate to be heard. — C M B J 06:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Forbes' article is not our article. The image itself has not ever been the subject of sourced commentary in our article. That's the bright line criterion the image has to pass to not be speedy deleted, not whether sourced commentary is possible. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 08:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Let's sort this out. ZZArch inquired as to whether or not I agreed that "the image itself is not, and has never been the subject of commentary". I responded by objecting to that claim. It's important to note that this was done in the context of past interactions between the two of us, and at no point did I ever intend to claim that your opinion substantiated anything other than the fact that the image itself has been a subject of third-party commentary. The thought never even crossed my mind to cite you out of context like that.
- Forbes' article is not our article. The image itself has not ever been the subject of sourced commentary in our article. That's the bright line criterion the image has to pass to not be speedy deleted, not whether sourced commentary is possible. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 08:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- I inferred from "The Forbes source [...] is commenting on a different image (the same one as Masnick's), but at least does comment on the image itself. [...] A phrase like 'An image depicting the event was widely distributed on the Internet.<ref>[Forbes, etc etc]</ref>' would be enough to keep this from being a speedy" that you concurred with the postulation I made about Forbes' commentary. If such an interpretation does not reflect your view, then I sincerely apologize and retract that portion of my comment. Again, I still think that the image has received commentary and thus there's fairly reasonable cause for a debate to be heard. — C M B J 06:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- I corroborated no such thing. There was never any sourced commentary about the image itself. If there was, you wouldn't have been able to replace it with an alternate one. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 03:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- I maintain that there are few—if any—parallels between this nomination (i.e., my words) and the associated XfD. As for the substance of your argument, I thoroughly dispute the latter point. The image itself has been the subject of commentary.
- Therefore, unless you could argue convincingly against any part of this rationale, the CSD closure seems appropriate. Do you dispute the validity of this policy? Do you dispute the commercial source of the image? Or do you dispute that the image itself is not, and has never been the subject of commentary? ZZArch talk to me 22:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Regarding the criterion that concerns you, I attempted to address this in the first paragraph of my last response. In summary, I took the position that (1) Masnick's commentary was about the picture, and (2) that it enjoyed representation in the article. In hindsight, I can agree that it was semantically eccentric, and potentially flawed, but it was nonetheless still an attempt. As an addendum, the circumstances surrounding this case may be more germane to the nomination than any individual policy argument. In essence, the reason we're here is because the deleting administrator—for better or worse—overrode consensus, then objected to appeals based on a subjective assessment of both Masnick's and Forbes' respective source material. I took issue with that determination and, rather than directly circumventing it, decided to bring the issue before our community. — C M B J 13:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Endorse – Notability does not override the non-free content policy. Moreover, the arguments for deletion are policy-based as opposed to the arguments for retention. --MuZemike 00:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- Speaking from the perspective of policy with respect to DRV, WP:CSD explicitly says that "speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion." That presumption is contradicted in this case because at least two users have expressed views that ambiguate the appropriate course of action. — C M B J 04:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Main Page discussion header
This template appears to have been inappropriately speedy-deleted. The admin who deleted it hasn't been around for months. I made a request to another admin, and he referred me here. I have a need to provide diffs to changes I made to this template. Here's a link to what the Main page's talk page looked like with the template on the Wayback Machine: http://web.archive.org/web/20051230062852/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page. I need to prove (with diffs) that I'm the one (I was User:Go for it! at the time) who posted the notice in the yellow box with orange borders, and the series of similar notices I placed on that template around that time. Please undelete the template. Thank you. The Transhumanist 05:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Undelete. No idea why he needs to prove what, but this doesn't sound unreasonable. Also, I have previously been very frustrated when reading old versions that are messed up due to deleted templates. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, undelete. The deleter used G6 (non-controversial maintenance) and the mere fact of raising this DRV shows that the deletion wasn't uncontroversial. This exactly parallels a contested prod.—S Marshall T/C 08:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Done. No idea why anybody would want this ages-old obsolete page back, but it's not likely to do much harm for now. Please let us know when you're done, because I guess I'd want to re-delete it at some point if nobody minds. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'll never be done with it, because the page will be the destination for durable links on my user page concerning my participation in Wikipedia's development. This template is part of historical versions of the Main Page's talk page, and it is where some important announcements were posted, including those of the Main page redesign project (which resulted in the current main page design being accepted by the community). To delete the template in turn deletes its edit history (which I need to provide permanent access to via permanent diffs), and it also alters the historical accuracy of the talk page itself. I do not think the template should have been deleted in the first place, and I wish it to remain restored. The Transhumanist 06:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- If you just need to refer to the history, you can move this out of template space (to your userspace for example) and preserve the history there. Chick Bowen 01:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- That won't work for me, since it will be out of its proper historical context. The template is part of Wikipedia's past, and it is in this context that I wish to link to it. It also serves as an example of project management on Wikipedia. If someone wishes to study how the main page was redesigned and how that effort was conducted, they need to be allowed to see how the notices placed on this template played a key role in attracting attention to that project and in recruiting participants. Unfortunately, the notice boxes couldn't be placed at the top of the Main page's talk page at that time, and therefore do not show up in that page's edit history. They had to be placed on this template. Therefore, the Main page's talk page's history isn't complete without this template's history being accessible as well. We shouldn't be deleting the historical record of Wikipedia's development. The evolution and heritage of the Main page are especially important to preserve. Thank you for making this possible. Without DRV, students and teachers of Wikipedia's history would be stuck. Again, thank you. The Transhumanist 06:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Recent discussions
[edit] 1 February 2012
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Completely inappropriate non-admin snow closure despite votes to delete. 86.180.104.250 (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Raised at WP:Village pump (policy) As suggested by Yoenit. --Merlinme (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 31 January 2012
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The article Verismic Software had been approved through Articles for Creation process and then deleted by user:fastily. The editor gave the reason as G11, but everything stated in the article has a reliable outside source and is written in a factual tone. I placed a message on Fastily's talk page but they are out until Feb. 8th. I then placed a message on the admin who originally approved the article and they suggested I post a request here. Not sure what else to explain? Thanks, HeidiSmith (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Secret, Verismic IS mentioned on this page [9], it is the one of the bullets above the fold 'Sparxent's Verismic Software' and I think being named one of InfoWorld's top 15 Green IT projects of 2011 is pretty notable [10]. Not exactly a 'passing mention'. HeidiSmith (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
|
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Two deletes which addressed the reason given for deletion: essay-like how-to content. Closer gave no policy-based rationale about why the "keep" and "merge" votes raised valid objections. Pnm (talk) 04:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I think I'm doing this right... Ultimatum (American band) was deleted following a standard deletion review. I got the deleting admin to restore the page to my sandbox where I and other WPers could improve the article, addressing the lack of references and significance of the labels the band is on. I believe that these improvements (and continuing improvements like adding albums, etc.) have improved this article to the point where it is ready for resubmission to the mainspace. I contacted Mr. Ritzman who instructed me to resubmit the article here, rather than proceeding with a move without consulting anyone. I have informed Mr. Ritzman of this resubmission and await your (hopefully positive) comments. Thank you. Here's the updated page. User:5minutes/Ultimatum (American band) 5minutes (talk) 01:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 30 January 2012
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This file is ineligible for speedy deletion, because I tagged it as do not move to Commons. From WP:CSD#F8, the following condition must be met: The image is not marked as {{do not move to Commons}}. This condition is clearly not met. I would normally just undelete it, but I already did that twice, thinking there was a mistake. However, User:Edokter is clearly willing to wheel-war over the issue, and I don't want to lose my adminship status. The reason I want it to be kept local is this: commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Logos of companies of the United Kingdom (not that I should need to provide this, seeing as policy does not require it for the user wanting the image to be kept. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure you guys get a kick out of communicating in wikispeak. Just sayin'. Dadge (talk) 00:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 29 January 2012
[edit] 28 January 2012
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Page was speedily deleted on 22 January 2012, reason G4, despite being challenged by two editors. However, the previous AfD discussion took place in June 2011, shortly after the first CCL tournament started. CCL is (Jan/Feb 2012) into its second season and the new article clearly stated this, therefore the article was substantially different from the 2011 article. The event is widely and regularly reported in the Times of India and Hindu Times. I put the recent article through AfC, copy-edited it and added additional sources. The speedy deletion tag was placed on the article while I was in the process of reviewing it (a message at the top of the article clearly stated review was in progress). I notice another article of the same name was created and speedily deleted today, so the 'problem' is not going to go away. The deleting admin, Fastily, is away until 8 February. Sionk (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
| :Kristijan Mesaroš (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)
He is notable by gaining access to the main draw of 2012 PBZ Zagreb Indoors. I request undeletion. -Gabinho>:) 18:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Tennis figures are presumed to be notable if they
As per the above I request Undeletion of the article. The player is now notable. (Gabinho>:) 13:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC))
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 27 January 2012
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
There was no consensus to delete this critically important tag. The deleting administrator ignored 34 good-faith and policy-based keep votes. The admin's looong comment said very little in many words. The admin received a barnstar for the deletion. CallawayRox (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 26 January 2012
[edit] Archive
| 2012 | |||
| January | February | March | April |
| May | June | July | August |
| September | October | November | December |
| 2011 | |||
| January | February | March | April |
| May | June | July | August |
| September | October | November | December |
| 2010 | |||
| January | February | March | April |
| May | June | July | August |
| September | October | November | December |
| 2009 | |||
| January | February | March | April |
| May | June | July | August |
| September | October | November | December |
| 2008 | |||
| January | February | March | April |
| May | June | July | August |
| September | October | November | December |
| 2007 | |||
| January | February | March | April |
| May | June | July | August |
| September | October | November | December |
| 2006 | |||
| January | February | March | April |
| May | June | July | August |
| September | October | November | December |
