Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 16

< May 15	Deletion review archives: 2008 May	May 17 >

16 May 2008

Head coach articles – AFD is probably a better place for these – Stifle (talk) 21:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

An administrator speedy deleted the following articles of head college football coaches from Prairie View A&M University. These articles are a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject College football where the historical consensus has been to keep such articles. A similar discussion can be viewed here for another coach.

The administrator deleted 22 articles in 6 minutes (obviously not enough time to review them) without allowing for discussion. The administrator also incorrectly stated that the source cited was the school's home page when it was the College Football Data Warehouse. The administrator then stated that the College Football Data Warehouse is not a reliable source, even though our project has thoroughly reviewed the source and recommends it as qualified and reliable.

Person is notable, NCAA Division I FCS School head coach, sources are cited, Wikipedia:WikiProject College football consensus is to keep similar articles.

Let the discussion begin!--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason given for deletion was A7, which states:

"An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content 
that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from 
questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability;
to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just 
give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable. A7 applies only to articles about web 
content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums,
software and so on. Other article types are not eligible for deletion by this criterion. If 
controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead"

Endorse own deletions, none of the articles contained assertions of notability or cited any reliable sources. WikiProjects do not have the authority to decide what is a reliable source, nor can they impose a consensus on the community. WP:OWNership in play too. Stifle (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not exactly sure how WP:OWN comes in to play here, except I did enjoy the part discussion on Wikipedia:Assume good faith that states "Consider using talk pages to clearly explain yourself, and give others the opportunity to do the same." -- A step that the deleting administrator did not take. If there is any ownership in play, I suggest that it is on the part of the administrator making the deletion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious overturn all - This is a case of a bad judgment call. Each article said the person was a head coach of a college football team, which alone makes none of the articles speedy deletable as A7. Additionally, the College Football Data Warehouse is certainly reliable and is widely used accross Wikipedia, I have used it in each of the 50+ player articles I have written. Furthermore, the school's own website is the exact definition of a reliable source for who their coach is. It is a primary source so does not count as 3rd party coverage, but it is certainly reliable and relevant as an external link. VegaDark (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn all, borderline speedy overturn all. Maybe you could get away with prodding them, but speedying all of them is, honestly, ridiculous. Wizardman 21:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturnall articles. Speedy doesn't seem appropriate with past community (AFD) consensus to keep such articles. Notability is established and although all are stub articles, they have source(s). No problem to list at AFD. MECU≈talk 21:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn all Way too quick on the delete trigger without giving a chance for discussion. Geologik (talk) 21:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No surprise that we get a flood of "overturn all"s after canvassing. But I suppose AFD is a better venue for this. Stifle (talk) 21:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Adil Najam – While there may not be a clear consensus to overturn the latest speedy deletion, there is agreement that the version now in userspace addresses the concerns of the original AfD at least partially and would thus not be a candidate for CSD G4 but should rather be discussed another time at AfD once moved to article space. – Tikiwont (talk) 08:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Not a reproduction.And Person IS Notable Pashute (talk) 12:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn (The deleter asked that I post the discussion here, after argument in Conflict of Interest).
I don't understand how my article can be a reproduction, when I never heard of the man before, until reading about Negotiation on wikipedia, and created the article from scratch from the first 100 or so google posts that I found about him, Including the links which are from neutral non controversial sources. I felt its a cultural war to eliminate this person, since my post was very short, and well sourced, with media of all sorts and locations showing credibility to the person AND notability. Still don't understand how it can be NN. In the deleter's talk page, and above I wrote the full scope of notability I found. This article was deleted three times. Once because written by the man himself, and seemed to be self promotion. Second time for NN (non notability). I was not able to see any of the deleted articles - would like to. But according to user:Equazcion the second was deleted because it was a reproduction! My short entry CANNOT be a recreation of the first entry. A few minutes after entering it, it was deleted. I then started searching to understand if there is any controvercy around the person or his sayings. I found that there definitely is, but could not bring any of it to Wikipedia, because it was quickly erased. I proved the man is notable! Over 100 entries on the web from various sources, including books, sayings in his name, by extremely notable sources. Pashute (talk) 12:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The G4 deleted article, like the AFD'ed article, contained no sources. It also mentioned no new claims of notability. In my opinion a sourced article would be significantly different, but an unsourced article is not viable here. GRBerry 13:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It had sources for each and every sentence originally there, because I got all my information from online source. Ragib is claiming that the sources about prizes etc are all self created. But his presence in the media and on the web is undisputable, and followed and remarked of, by many people. Pashute (talk) 08:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn It is indeed not a re-creation, nor was it written by the subject, for it leaves out a number of the things that might in fact prove notability. It was rather written quickly from the web, just as Pashute says, & needs some additional work. At the time of creation of the original article, he was Associate Professor of International Negotiation and Diplomacy at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, This is a really important place, though it was just Associate Professor. Since then he has become Director of the Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future [1], also an important place. I thinks its a plausible claim to notability and a decent article could be written. The original AfD was before I joined WP. The arguments there were not substantive--it was judged vanity, and not considered whether or not he might actually be notable. I dont think it would be deleted now, even without the subsequent promotion. WorldCat shows that he seems to be editor or co-author of at least 10 books, including ones published by Harvard University Press & Palgrave Macmillan & Yale. They had not all been published back in 2006. Restore, & I'll help Pashute improve it. DGG (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relist. I think that it would benefit from a broader consensus; in addition, according to the instructions (above), "The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action)." 69.140.152.55 (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous Relist entries are worthless, Please tell us who you are! Pashute (talk) 08:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's hard to judge G4s without the benefit of seeing the deleted versions, so I won't try to. However, I would suggest that the nom work on a draft version in his userspace (at, say, User:Pashute/Adil Najam) so we can judge it by its own merits. The AfD was closed delete due to lack of sources, so the addition of some inline citations would invalidate it. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist on AFD. Stifle (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. I have temporarily restored User:Pashute's version at User:EdJohnston/Adil Najam, for reference during this discussion. I don't believe that this version overcomes the objections made in the last AfD. Najam himself I think may be notable, but I won't support restoration of the article until Pashute can present better sources than the ones mentioned here. Only the Globe article has much credibility as a third-party view, and it is more of a human-interest article. A second DRV after proper sources are found might be in order. EdJohnston (talk) 00:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Thanks, please take a look at last thread on bottom.

Endorse Deletion: Article still failes WP:N, and previous objections to the article as described in the last AFD still applies. --Ragib (talk) 02:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, per DGG, original AfD was flawed in that the close was based on WP:VAN without attempting to verify WP:BIO. There were reasons to clean up, but not to delete. MrPrada (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn deletion he appears to be somewhat notable, I found the original Boston Globe article and I added a bunch of stuff to the article. It still needs a lot of copy editing and sources for stuff like speaking in front of the UN. I'd have it marked as a stub. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enric means he added more info to the temporary restored copy at User:EdJohnston/Adil Najam. EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(this thread was meant to be under EdJohnstons Comment, sorry) Thanks EdJohnston, but why is a video showing him talk at the UN, not enough. Anyways, Ragib, I understand that Adil Najam's resume at MIT could be vanity, but how about Najam on UN website? Are his reader lists and book sales and quotes not enough. How about MIT report about Najam Nobel prize as first name on the list?. Does that not make Najam CV creditable, and does it not make him notable. I must mention that personally after reading what he says, I DONT agree to a lot of it, and I think he is controversial, but thats not a reason to erase him from Wikipedia. Pashute (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need to find third parties that have commented on his work. The Boston Globe article is good. If we could find even a single additional in-depth article on him, that might tip the balance for me. His speech at the UN is a work authored by him, and that's not sufficient to show notability. You could search for *reviews* of his books to see if they are well-regarded by others. EdJohnston (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Indian(!) news - or maybe thats the problem..., Here's his book in a Bradley University course sylabus!Pashute (talk) 06:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does the interview mean anything? I myself have been interviewed several times by several newspapers ... does that alone make myself notable? Being in the class readings is also trivial ... several of my colleagues and myself have written papers or articles taught at 1 or more class lectures in several universities. Such random links does not prove anyone's notability. --Ragib (talk) 06:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you receive a Nobel Prize, and has a report written by you been endorsed by the Bush administration and written about in the Boston Globe? He obviously does excelent PR for himself, but thats what all academics do to save them from obscurity, and make them Notable. Pashute (talk) 06:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a fallacy to claim that Najam received the "Nobel peace prize". To give an example, in 2006, Grameen Bank and Muhammad Yunus received the nobel peace prize. Now, if someone claims that, all executives, officers, and owners of Grameen Bank are therefore Nobel prize winners, that will be entirely a misstatement. I was commenting on the "interview" and the "class lecture" you mentioned above, so please stick to that when you are replying to that particular comment. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 06:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the "MIT report" cited above is actually a flyer for a talk put together by "Pakistanis@MIT" and "MIT South Asian Alumni association". Not really any official "MIT" endorsement. --Ragib (talk) 07:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ragib, First of all thanks, I'm finding it real interesting. He was interviewed on CNN twice at prime time. He is mentioned in well established newspapers more than 10 times. In the entry I wrote: "He has earned a share of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore and other scientists on an international climate change council". In various newspapers he is depicted as a prominent member of the IPCC (especially in the various institutes where he teaches). You got me looking again at MIT. Your right, and I'll change that in the ref note, but still at MIT World site, the IPCC was invited to a panel, with Adil Najam as panelist (third on list) depicted as the Boston University Pardee Center director, discussing the future of IPCC, where he took the stance of actively perscribing solutions. Pashute (talk) 08:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston: Here's a book review from Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/review/R2Z5FVKSO4GPGS. Ragib, I added "Controversy" to the page. Please take a look there. (fantastically, an Anti Muslim site claims he is pushing himself into talk shows without being a true expert). He is at least notable on the WEB, leaves a strong imPRESSion... to that you agree, no? Pashute (talk) 08:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A reader review of a book on Amazon is considered to be self-published material, and can't be cited in an article. Please continue to look for reliable sources. EdJohnston (talk) 15:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Image:Jersey £1.jpg images restored so a better fair use rationale can be written – GRBerry 13:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This is a test case (one of many similar images, none of them uploaded by me). This image, of a Jersey coin, was deleted with the note "CSD I7: Bad justification given for fair use and the uploader was notified more than 48 hours ago". It seems to me that either we do allow images of coins in copyright, or we don't. The justification will essentially be identical for all of them. Assuming we do allow coin images, it is in my view unhelpful to delete them just because the uploader didn't happen to get the exact form of wording that would satisfy a copyright lawyer. Since the deleter knew that that justification was inadequate, presumably he or she also knows the correct form of wording to use. It would be much more helpful, and just as quick (probably quicker), for that person to retain the image and simply copy and paste a standard form of wording into the rationale. I propose therefore that this image (and others similar, which I will identify) are reinstated, and that a standard form of wording is copied and pasted as justification for use. Matt 11:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC).

Well, this particular image was deleted because its fair use rationale didn't provide the name of the article in which fair use was claimed, thus breaching criterion 10c of the fair use rules. It has nothing to do with whether we do or do not allow coin images (as far as I am aware we do). Fair use rationales cannot be boilerplate and must be specific to each use, and it is the responsiblity of the editor claiming fair use to justify it with a rationale, not for those removing invalidly-used images to go and investigate whether there is a possible fair use claim that can be made out. Stifle (talk) 12:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, if images of coins are in general allowed, and the only problem is with the justification of use in a particular article, then there is no reason to delete the image itself, only the use of the image in that article. I understand what you're saying about the rationale being the original editor's responsibility. However, I personally wouldn't have the vaguest idea how to write such a thing, whereas I assume that copyright patrollers understand all this stuff and know what they're doing. If an image of a coin is used in an article that describes the coin (as was the case here), and we have decided that this type of usage is permissible, then I still maintain that it would be better for the copyright patrollers to help out by fixing the rationale (which should be no more than a copy and paste), rather than taking the nuclear option and deleting. Even more so if it's a trivial matter of an article name being missing from the rationale, which seems to be what you're saying was the case here. The sensible course of action is surely to add the article name, not delete the image. Matt 14:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.196.212 (talk)

... but, moving on from debating the rights or wrongs of what happened with the original deletion, let me propose the following.

We satisfy ourselves that the use of the now deleted coin images at Coins of the Jersey pound, Coins of the Guernsey pound and Coins of the Manx pound (those are the ones I spotted) was fair use.
We obtain some suitable text that can be used in justification, to be written by someone who understands what's required, or copied from another coin image.
We reinstate all the deleted images, apply the new text, and repair the relevant articles. Matt 17:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC).

The article in which it, and several others, was used was Coins of the Jersey pound. See this multi-diff (all intermediate revisions by the bot, it did each image separately). GRBerry 13:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restore and someone do the trivial work of adding the missing information. Deleting in a case like this is process-wonkery carried to the extreme. (I don't like that word, and have never used it before, but there's nothing that fits better.) If the type of use is accepted fair use, except that the name of the article is missing, add it and go on. If other elements of the justification are missing, look for them rather than delete. Copyvio is a matter of substance, not of form. This is like deleting an article copied from the PD because the source was spelled wrong. I've avoided working on images because of the excess technicality and rigid approach of the people in that section of WP. The impression I have is that the people who actually real ly oppose fair use altogether are seizing on the least technical defect. DGG (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment I've posted a note to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use to recruit additional editors to join this discussion. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 17:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy restored. Now, go stick it in an article and write a fair-use rationale for it. --Carnildo (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Carnildo. I'll need to go and enlist some help to ensure that the rationale is correct this time. I would like to request that the following similar images are also undeleted, for identical reasons, and with a view to repairing the rationale in the same way. The images appeared on the pages Coins of the Jersey pound, Coins of the Guernsey pound and Coins of the Manx pound.

Matt 81.152.169.18 (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, see Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Help_needed_with_copyright_rationale. Matt 19:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC).

Done. --Carnildo (talk) 06:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Corey_Worthington – Redirect created for both Corey Delaney and Corey Worthington to Big Brother Australia 2008 as presumably uncontroversial (only article on Wikipedia he is mentioned it), notwithstanding an "allow recreation" decision at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 7 which would obviously overrule it. Pages to remain protected. Daniel (talk) 12:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This person was part of a national television program so his name should redirect to the article for which he is famous for (Big_Brother_Australia_2008) JayKeaton (talk) 05:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See also Corey Delaney, infra. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 07:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Shame the talk page for the discussed article has been locked too, I was going to put a note about the current discussion there for anyone else that stumbles across it. Looks like they will have to find it the hard way too. JayKeaton (talk) 08:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, recreate redirect but keep protected. Stifle (talk) 08:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.