Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 29

29 June 2007

Joey Jett

Joey Jett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was deleted under WP:CSD#A7, and salted to prevent recreation. The article, as it was before deletion, asserts that "Joey skates in local and national competitions and has been invited to skate at the AST Dew Tour in both 2006 and 2007. In 2006 he became the youngest skateboarder in the world to perform a 540 at the Dew tour." and "Joey skates at competitions around the United States". The article as it was written would require both cleanup and sourcing to pass an AfD, but it seems to me that those are pretty clear "claims of significance" -- sporting competition in any sport at a national level is a pretty good indication of significance, and if sourced, will normally pas WP:BIO. Therefore i don't think A7 applied. Overturn. DES ^(talk) 21:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn I have not the least idea of the criteria for skateboarders, but since it asserts notability AfD is the place to find out. DGG 23:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. He was featured in a Washington Post article! Not bad for an 8 year old. In any event, not A7 and definitely should not be protected from re-creation. -- DS1953 ^talk 23:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and List at AFD per DGG. Not sure that the article will survive AfD, but it deserves a chance. A7 is not justified. EdJohnston 04:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I am the person who created this page. I also do his PR and his website. He has gotten massive press locally, regionally, at LAT34 (the extreme sports network news outlet), and has had interest from national TV morning shows, and even Ellen DeGeneres.

My plan was to just make an entry and later add supporting details but I never had the opportunity to do that because it was immediately deleted (within minutes).

I would be happy to do a detailed page and submit it. Is there an area to submit to for approval? This is all very new to me. Thank you!

How do we get it unprotected so I can do that? What is Afd?

Also....there are videos on YouTube from two of the stations that interviewed him, along with pro skater Bucky Lasek (also from Maryland)- WBAL TV and 98 Rock Radio

Oakley Lehman

Oakley Lehman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was deleted under WP:CSD#A7. The article was about a stunt performer. It said "Oakley has doubled for many of today's top actors including Paul Walker, Josh Lucas, Chris Evans, and Josh Duhamel." And the IMDB lists over 30 stunt roles for Lehman, some in quite notable films such as Snakes on a Plane, Mr. & Mrs. Smith, Timeline, and The Fast and the Furious. I think that working as a stunt double for multiple notable actors is at least a claim of notability. Overturn and send to AfD DES ^(talk) 20:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn - notability is asserted, passing a7. The Evil Spartan 20:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Abhash Kumar

Abhash Kumar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was deleted under WP:CSD#A7. I think that "He shot to fame for putting down caste based riots in southern Tamil Nadu with iron hands" and "He was awarded with the 'Communal Harmony Award' by the Governor for his efforts." and "The Periyar University, Salem in Tamil Nadu has appointed him as the Honorary Visiting Faculty" are at least assertions of significance or importance. it might well be that this article would have PoV problems -- it might even be that it would be deleted at an AfD, but no one can be sure of that in advance. A good article might result. Overturn speedy deletion. DES ^(talk) 20:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion; copyvio from http://yousurp.com/abhash-kumar. Chick Bowen 05:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC) Not a copyvio, sorry. However, I see nothing here that is remotely verifiable; the odds of a keep at AfD are minimal. Neutral at best. Chick Bowen 05:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • See This article in The Hindu newspaper, A 2nd article in The Hindu, 3rd articel from The Hindu, Thanjavur this Times of India article this rference to a New India Press article. All that is from a quick google search. DES ^(talk) 20:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:MissUSA2007Crowned.jpg

[[::Image:MissUSA2007Crowned.jpg]] (edit | [[Talk::Image:MissUSA2007Crowned.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|IfD)

I do not believe the closing admin followed policy in deleting this image. His closing comments indicated that he deleted the image based not on the consensus of the people who commented below, but on his own opinion that the image violated WP:NFCC #8. In the discussion below, 3 Wikipedians (Abu, Howcheng, and Ilse) stated that they believed the image to violate NFCC #8, while 8 Wikipedians (me, Pageant, nadav, Mecu, Angelo, Videmus Omnia, TCC, and Andrew c) stated that they believed the image passed NFCC #8. (In addition, Knulclunk voted to keep the image, but did not say why, and Iamunknown thought the image should be deleted, but gave no opinion of whether the image passed NFCC #8 or not, since his argument was based on other criteria.) I can't see any way to interpret 3 to 8 against as being consensus for deletion based on NFCC #8. In the instructions for administrators page, it says "Before deleting an image, make sure. . . No objections to its deletion have been raised, or a consensus to delete has been reached." This was not followed. There were disagreements as to whether this image passed both NFCC #2 and NFCC #8, but I can't see how anyone could in good faith come to the conclusion that there was consensus to delete. I informed the closing admin of this, but he does not appear willing to revisit his decision. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• I deleted the image because the arguments that the image didn't meet WP:FUC, particularly #8 and #2, were particularly compelling, and the arguments that it did not were not. WP:IFD's standard that Quadell is quoting are for typical editorial actions, not fair-use issues. Fair-use issues are, broadly: do not allow an image unless and until an image can just justified as fair-use. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply: If an image clearly violates policy, we can't keep it, even if a lot of people vote "Keep" just because they like it. In this case, however, the contention that the image violates NFCC#8 (that it doesn't "contribute significantly to an article") is a matter for the community to decide. A closing admin should follow consensus, not his own personal opinion on how important an image is. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
    • If a lot of people contend an image is useful, but that isn't a standard that meets WP:FUC #8, then the force of their numbers counts for nothing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
      • It sounds to me like you're saying that your interpretation of how NFCC#8 applies to this image is a valid view, but that the views of other people (some of whom are admins, some of whom have been working with non-free images longer than you have, some of whom know a great deal about the nature of beauty pageants) are not valid and should not be considered when determining consensus. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 04:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I evaluated the arguments and the standards advanced on the IFD, not my own preconcieved decision. I am personally ambivalent on the image. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn consensus was not followed. PageantUpdater 20:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  Disclaimer - the vote above was from the image's uploader. --Abu badali ^(talk) 22:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  Disclaimer - the disclaimer above was from the image's deletion nominator. ;-) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn I am a bit shocked of how the clear, reasonable consensus in keeping the image was not followed at all. A discussion was made on if the image would violate NFCC #8, and a wide consensus was found in support of the fact that this picture is significant for the beauty pageant article, probably even the only one to be really significant in it. --Angelo 03:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. One admin should not decide that an image fails #8. The fact that many more people disagreed with him in that did not matter, it seems. Have a legitimate discussion about it instead of simply wiping the image based on your opinion and nothing else. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• There seems to be some sort of misconception that I decided this by myself and ignored the arguments. Rather, I examined the arguments, looked for what arguments weren't refuted and which were, and decided based on that. Since when are copyright issues decided with a nose count? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

  They're not decided with a nose-count, but they are decided with consensus. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 06:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

  It's being claimed, here, that I just forced my own opinion through. Instead, I examined a discussion and derived its conclusion. That's what closing admins are supposed to be doing when they determine consensus, no matter what the context. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Detailed discussion, administrator discretion in interpreting the weight of the arguments -- and the "Keep" arguments didn't hold much water -- not the unilateral and arbitrary decision some people above seem to be trying to imply. Calton | Talk 16:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Policy trumps snoutcounting, especially our policies in the realm of how Wikipedia interacts with copyright. (ESkog)^(Talk) 04:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• I am of the opinion, as can be seen in the original discussion, that the image is simply not a fair use. It is a recently (as in, this year) photograph that I argue is still marketable. Wikipedia, as a top-ten website, can seriously affect the market of non-free images. Our use of every non-free image must be with discretion, not simply by seeing a non-free image and saying, "Oh, that image is not free ... well, then, its fair use!" I am also of the opinion that the "keep" comments were not particularly weighty. That said, I did make several assumptions in my own argument, and it could be said that my own argument was flimsy. I wish we had had more time to discuss. If this decision to delete this image is overturned, our use of the image will need to be discussed, on the image talk page / article or at another IFD (but please, no procedural listings, that's simply a waste of time and it drags the drama out longer). --Iamunknown 20:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Regardless of your views on this image, do you think consensus was followed in its deletion? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I offer no comment, for there is, or so I observe, a disparity between the popular concept of "consensus" and the marginalized concept of "reasonable interpretation of law", and I do not wish at this time to become embroiled in it. My previous post was more of a rambling about copyright issues, which unfortunately were not well addressed in the original deletion discussion because of (what I consider to be) a premature closure. (I do not begrudge the closing administrator; IFDs are, generally, promptly closed after five days, barring backlogs. I do wish, however, that we had more time to discuss.) --Iamunknown 20:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
      • The IFD was closed after more then ten days, although it might have been wise for the closing admnin to wait until discussion had stalled. I agree with Quadell's comment here, your opinion on the matter is not the issue, what is the issue is whether consensus was followed. PageantUpdater 21:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, thanks to both of you for regarding my opinion as irrelelvant. How we can actually engage in a productive discussion while summarily considering another's opinion as irrelevant is beyond me. I think you are both asking the wrong question; copyright is not consensual. Our interpretation of what is a "fair use" is, to some extent, consensual, and it should be informed at least by the fair use factors and relevant case law, at most by our mission to be a free encyclopedia. Relevant case law is all about marketability. [1] [2] That wasn't even addressed in the IFD prior to my comment. Most of what was talked about was the significance of the image to the article (though these type of discussions are necessary in order to reconcile our mission to be a free encyclopedia with our use of non-free content). There was, however, no consensus to be followed concerning the marketability (i.e. what really matters as determined by recent cases in actual courts), because no one talked about it. --Iamunknown 23:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Consider an overturn if use of the image is reworked The original reason for nomination for deletion was correct and I believe the closing admin acted properly. The image was being used solely to illustrate the information that she was crowned. However, the image itself is unique and presents an emotional response that cannot be conveyed in words. If the image was used properly in the article, I believe it would meet NFCC #8. This means providing commentary on the image and what the image conveys. The website the image came from specifically states that images are provided at no charge so I don't see a conflict with NFCC #2. Beyond Wikipedia policies, I believe the image would also pass muster for a claim of fair use under U.S. Copyright law. -Nv8200p talk 04:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

  About the re-work... any discussion about "the emotional response" this image conveys should be properly sourced, to avoid original research. I.e., Wikipedia can't be the first publication to talk about the "emotional response" of these kind of images.

  About the image being provided "at no charge"... the whole conditions from the source website says that the images are to be used solely by "news publications", and "for a period of sixty (60) days following your download of the photographs". We would need a strong fair use defense to use these images, since the copyright holder explicitly opposes to our use. --Abu badali ^(talk) 15:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Two good points to consider. -Nv8200p talk 13:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology

Category:University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

Process error. This category was deleted on 25 June following a deletion discussion in which only the nominator himself had commented. This was probably because few people knew about it, as there was no notice on the main article UMIST of the category, as suggested in Wikipedia guidelines for category deletions [3]. I was one of the main contributors to the deleted category, and I only found out about the proposed deletion a few hours after it had taken place. Previously suggestions regarding articles and categories related to UMIST or Manchester University have always attracted vigorous and knowledgable debate on the appropriate talk pages. I therefore request that the category deletion is reversed and relisted, with notification on the UMIST article page so that others can join the discussion. Although I'm asking for a relisting on the grounds of process, I would be equally happy with the categrory deletion simply being overturned, as I feel there is no prospect of reaching a consensus on this deletion. I myself strongly oppose the deletion of this category and there are solid reasons for retaining it. (The nominator has been kind enough to chat with me about those reasons on my user talk page - See [4] ) Dodo64 13:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 19#University_of_Manchester. Chick Bowen 15:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Relist These were names of the 2 precursor institutions to U.Manchester, and there are major relationship problems between the UMIST & the merged university; this is presumably a desire to keep their alumni separate. On the principle, the guideline for notifying people about XfDs other than CfDs is rarely observed, & even resisted. I think it's essential that they be notified, These are obscure processes to most WP editors, as it usually doesn't pay to keep checking them just in case something relevant is on the list. On the fundamental issue of fairness, this needs a wider discussion. Invoking IAR for the sake of elementary fairness is one of the best places to use it. I would propose a policy change, but requiring notice at XfDs has in the past been rejected. DGG 16:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Relist - This probably deserves comments from more than one person. Dr. Submillimeter 22:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• relist per Dodo and DGG. JoshuaZ 01:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• As the closing admin, I have no objections against relisting. Conscious 14:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• relist Lack of awareness of CfD's is a perennial problem. Really what is needed is a bot placing at least talk pages notices on all articles in the categories affected. Johnbod 14:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I would support a bot that notifies WikiProjects that tag the talk pages of relevant categories or that adds a notice to an article listed in a catmore template, but leaving notices at all categorized articles seems too much like Wikispamming. Dr. Submillimeter 15:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Relist - I nominated this category for deletion, and believe that it warrents further discussion. Mike Peel 18:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Relist. Since the original discussion attracted little notice, having a second CfD debate seems harmless. Although the relisting has a slight WP:IAR flavor, none of those involved on either side seem to mind. EdJohnston 17:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)