Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 26

26 July 2007

Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians

Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Recently, Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians and its subcategories were listed for deletion. The debate was balanced but inconclusive, disregarding some last-minute "me too" and "I don't like it" arguments. Especially in light of the recent decision to keep the entire Category:Wikipedians by religion user category, I think that After Midnight's decision to delete these user categories was misguided. I therefore request that the deleted categories be restored.   — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 09:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Here follows some relevant information. If you've already decided how to vote, best to just skip it.

Stakes

Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians and its subcategories Category:Cthulhu Cultist Wikipedians, Category:Discordian Wikipedians, Category:Flying Spaghetti Monsterist Wikipedians, Category:Invisible Pink Unicorn Wikipedians, and Category:SubGenius Wikipedians

Players

• Horologium nominated the categories for deletion in part "because no collaboration is possible". Horologium also voted to delete Wikipedians by religion, and all subcategories, specificaly because they were used for collaboration.
• After Midnight closed the discussion as delete. After Midnight also voted to delete Wikipedians by religion because categories are "divisive".
• Black Falcon voted delete here. Black Falcon previously nominated Wikipedians by religion for deletion, and ranted extensively in that discussion. Black Falcon deletes a lot of things.
• Octane has a gorgeous user page, but I digress. Octane voted to delete these categories, arguing on the premise that each subject only has one article. This premise is false. Some of those user categories have many associated articles; some have entire associated subject categories.
• I voted keep. I think my argument was reasonable, but then, I'm obviously biased in favor of my own arguments.
• WaltCip voted keep, on the grounds of avoiding discrimination.
• As previously mentioned, there were a couple other "me too" and "do not want" voters.

Events

• Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/June 2007#Category:Wikipedians by religion, the precedent discussion; closed as delete, but overturned as keep in review
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 25 (second entry on the page), the deletion review for Wikipedians by religion; conclusion was keep
• Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/July 2007#Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians, the discussion in review here

Discuss

• Note: The nominator, User:Bigwyrm, has canvassed for votes among former members of this category. --ST47Talk·Desk 11:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, as nom.   — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 09:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. Process was followed. Consensus was clear. I see no reason to disregard the comments that you characterize as "me too". When someone sees what they believe to be a well written nomination and they say "per nom", it is perfectly valid. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 10:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse consensus to delete. --Kbdank71 10:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• (canvassed vote - 1st Wikipedia space contrib in 8 months) Overturn or add Category:Discordian Wikipedians and others to Category:Wikipedians by religion. I don't see why I and other Erisians should be excluded from categorization. --Storkk 11:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn until and unless Category:Wikipedians by religion is deleted. I consider all religion a joke, to be quite frank, but Discordianism and Pastafarianism has every bit as much right to expression as Christianity or Islam. Either get rid of 'em all (which is the solution I'd prefer) or allow 'em all, but in this case, there really is no in between. It's not our place or business to decide what's a "real" religion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• (canvassed vote - 1st Wikipedia space contrib in 2 months) Overturn per nom. There are people who can clearly identify theirselfs with for example Discordianism so I think all those religions should be merged into Category:Wikipedians by religion. --helohe (talk) 11:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Provisionally overturn -- as long as Category:Wikipedians by religion is available. There's no obvious reason to discriminate among religions according to their apparent silliness. I wouldn't be upset if Category:Wikipedians by religion (etc) went, though: I'm puzzled by the desire for userboxes. (My page does sport one, but I'll spare you the reason for it and anyway it's religion-irrelevant.) -- Hoary 11:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• (canvassed vote - 1st Wikipedia space contrib in 9 months) Overturn - Unless we're allowed to move these subcats straight to Category:Wikipedians by religion, which I'm not saying is neccessarily a good idea, I don't see how the deletion of this cat is anything but discrimination. Saying, for instance, that Discordianism is not a religion is no better than saying Wicca or Paganism are not religions. I realize not everyone was making that argument, but some were. I know there is issue in general with the polemic user cats, but I think it's useful for everyone to know what lens (or grid, if you will) authors are writing from so we can better understand various points of view expressed on both talk pages and article pages. If someone is editing the article about Historical Jesus, I for one would like to know whether they belong to Category:Born again Christian wikipedians, or Category:Wikipedians who worship IPU. Just an example, but I hope you see my point. I don't believe collaboration is the only purpose for these categories. B.Mearns^*, KSC 12:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note - Those arguing that the first vote was sufficient should be aware that members of this category were not notified that such a vote was taking place. Seeing as how this was a discussion over a user cat, I think it was somewhat inappropriate to hold the discussion without notifying users who were in that category. B.Mearns^*, KSC 12:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Provisionally overturn unless "fictional" relgions such as Flying Spaghetti Monsterism and Discordianism are allowed into the "regular" Category:Wikipedians by religion — Xoder|✆ 13:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Girls by the pool.jpg

Image:Girls by the pool.jpg (edit | [[Talk:Image:Girls by the pool.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This file was deleted by User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson for the reason of "18 USC Section 2257". I'm unaware of which speedy deletion criteria that falls under. That law requires producers of porn to maintain records verifying the identities of models used. Since the image was produced outside the US and is not porn but simple nudity, which is exempted from that law, I can't really see how it would apply here. In addition, I don't think that would make this a proper speedy deletion even if it did apply. -Nard 08:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It is unencyclopedic, unremarkable, and may be agianst the law. There is no benefit to keeping the image, especially if the subjects are minors (a distinct possibility), and if they didn't know they were photographed (also a possibility). I stand by this deletion. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 08:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any reasoning that doesn't involve citing a law I've demonstrated doesn't apply? -Nard 08:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn unless there is any speedy deletion criteria than can be demonstrated does apply. Viridae^Talk 11:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment 18 USC Section 2257 is fairly specific in that it applies to actual sexually explicit conduct, further defined in 2256. As this is simple (public) nudity and not sexual conduct of any kind, 2257 really does not apply. EFF FAQ. I am not a lawyer, but I don't see the legal justification here. --Dhartung | Talk 13:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

2the Max

2the Max (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The company and its product is notable. Its motherboard and power supply is very notable in Hong Kong and China. Its motherboard is one of a few major brand comparing to Intel and ASUSTek[1]. It has 17500 entries in Google. It is unreasonable that the article was deleted within a few hours after its creation, without notifying any major authors and I have no chance to put a hang-on tag. — HenryLi (Talk) 03:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Please read our speedy deletion guidelines - an assertion of notability is required for articles about corporations, or else they may be speedily deleted. The "hangon" tag is just a courtesy - admins are not obligated to allow users time to contest the speedy deletions (that is what DRV is for after all). In fact, admins can speedy delete articles even if they are not tagged for deletion, based on their own judgment. ugen64 10:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)