Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 18

18 June 2008

CONNECTICUT_GAY_MEN'S_CHORUS

CONNECTICUT_GAY_MEN'S_CHORUS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

UNDELETE_REASON This article was speedily deleted, but I believe it has significance because 1) the Chorus is the first (and still the only) performing-arts organization in the State of Connecticut comprised of openly gay men; 2) the Chorus has been mentioned in several publications over the course of its existence as having changed cultural attitudes to the GLBT community; 3) the historical value of the Chorus consists primarily in its having been in existence for over 20 years; 4) the performance style of the Chorus has influenced many other choruses to change from a "stand-and-sing" style to a fully-staged performance style. This page was NOT posted as a source of publicity for the Chorus, but as an actual encyclopedia article.

Mic Spencer

Mic Spencer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article Mic Spencer has been deleted by a bot (I've no idea what that is). I can't find anything that explains why this action was taken. I am a professional colleague of Mic Spencer. Surely someone should be accountable for deleting the article. Alas, it seems that someone with the highly appropriate name of "Android Mouse" has done this. Mic Spencer is a young composer of enviable reputation. Perhaps someone has envied his reputation too much, and this may be malicious.Derekbscott (talk) 17:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• The article was deleted because it was a copyvio. It will not be undeleted but you are welcome to start a new page. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The delete was not likely malicious. I don't know anything about the article or person in question, but deletions usually do not occur because of envy. A bot in Wikipedia is an automatic program or "robotic" program. In this case, it is likely something that "sniffs out" pages that, under a certain set of logical rules, would consider the page or article to be a candidate for deletion. That's a guess...
• If the article is about Mic Spencer as described at University of Leeds School of Music, then the article may indeed be one that Wikipedia should include--or it may not, as I am not an expert in that topic area (but I personally would be in favor of a well-written article on the topic).
  However, Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. If the original article was a copyright violation, that would certainly be cause for deletion. As stated above, feel free to re-start the article using non-copyright violation material.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• The page was deleted as a confirmed copyright violation of http://www.scottishmusiccentre.com/directory/r493/ It was tagged as a copyvio by user:Miremare and deleted by user:Anthony.bradbury. Neither of them are bots. (Android Mouse Bot 2 merely adds a courtesy notification of the tagging to the original contributor's Talk page). As others have already said, the copyright infringing content may not be restored. But if the person meets Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria for musicians, a replacement article may be created using new content. Rossami (talk) 20:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Pen y Bryn

Pen y Bryn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Please restore the article to User:Geaugagrrl/sandbox so I can work on it to attempt to address the problems that led to deletion. Many thanks ∞☼Geaugagrrl^(T)/_(C) 12:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Always in favor of restoring an article to a sandbox for further development.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• This was deleted as a copyright violation of http://www.llywelyn.co.uk The original contributor asserted in the edit summary that he/she had copyright release but provided no evidence. Unless copyright release is confirmed using the process at WP:CP, this can not be restored even to the userspace. (There were no non-infringing versions in the pagehistory.) Rossami (talk) 13:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment agreed. But it can still be put in the sandbox as a starting point for the editor to get up to quality, right?--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
    • No, it can not. To repost the copyvio content would contaminate the new version and perpetuate the problem. Better to start over with clean content. (If you just want to see what that content was, you can always go back to the source - linked above.) Rossami (talk)
  • How can I see the page history? What evidence of copyright is needed? Who was the original contributor? Thanks. ∞☼Geaugagrrl^(T)/_(C) 13:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• I have read WP:CP and understand what needs to be done to address the copyright issue. Now all that is needed is the page to edit. Thanks. ∞☼Geaugagrrl^(T)/_(C) 14:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The original contributor and only significant editor to the page was user:BrynLlywelyn. If you can secure evidence of copyright release, the page can be restored by any admin. Of course, I'll also note that the page is not locked. You could just restart the page today with new content that is not at risk of copyvio concerns. Rossami (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

National Express West Midlands route 283

National Express West Midlands route 283 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I was going to be working on the articles. If the second city of the UK(Birmingham and the surrounding areas) are not alowed to have transport articles, than why should London??? Or any other area. the articles in question also include National Express West Midlands route 82 and 87 Dudleybus^{please talkwith the UK Transport Wiki} 11:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support my own decision. This is one of a myriad articles about non-notable company bus routes. This is the kind of trainspotting fancruft that should be in the UK Transport Wiki, not in Wikipedia. If anything, there should probably be a mass AfD for the entire mess of them; I only deleted the first couple I ran across. It would be absurd to say there shouldn't be an article about transport in Brum; but there shouldn't be an article about route 283, for the same reason there shouldn't be an article about bus route 19 in Milwaukee; all such articles are speediable under A7, to my way of thinking. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep dunno how it works in the UK, but in Kansas we have gotten some good value out of our road projects, such as K-9 (Kansas highway) -- also, the Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • This is nothing to do with a road, it refers to a bus route. It would be equivalent to having a standalone article on Kansas City Metro #129-I-29 Express (which is currently a redirect) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Oh, Okay! The KC Metro bus route redirect example goes to "KC Metro Area" which isn't very helpful, but I don't think anyone has written a KC Metro Bus System article. In this case it might be best to merge the article in question with one on the overall bus routes or systems for the area. That said, it's still not a speedy.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn. I've got no opinion on the value of the article in question, but I'm pretty sure that bus routes aren't speedy-able under A7, as they are not persons, web content, or organizations themselves ({{db-org}} specifically states that while companies are speedy-able, software and products produced by them are not). If Orange Mike would like to see these deleted, I suggest PROD or AfD. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 13:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn Does not meet any of the A7 speedy categories so should be taken to AFD not speedy deleted. The A7 criteria specifically says "Other article types are not eligible for deletion by this criterion". Davewild (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn It's a bus route not a company. The A7 deletion was incorrect. RMHED (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

various cure album covers

I've noticed that several cure albums are missing cover images. Apparently, the fair use rationals weren't filled out, and it was easier to just delete than to correct the problem. However, the rationales should be fairly obvious (just like every other album), some of these are limited editions which would be difficult to replace, and the replacements would be identical anyway. So I'd like to request these images be undeleted to fix this hole in our coverage:

• 
• File:Happilyever cov.jpg
• 
• 
• File:Half octopuss cov1.jpg
• File:Lostwishes.jpg
• File:Five1.jpg

-Steve Sanbeg (talk) 02:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Steve can you confirm that you will fix the FU rationals if I undelete them? Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)