File:BGE ART 02.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Deleted per CSD I9, but, again, it all comes down to an incorrect, easy correctable, license tag, and as far as I know, that is not a reason for deletion. MrStalker ^(talk) 23:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[[:]] (edit | [[Talk:|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Deleted per CSD I1, but there is no other image it's redundant to. Deleting admin also talks about the license tag, but as far as I know an incorrect, easy correctable, license tag is not a reason for deletion. MrStalker ^(talk) 23:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: False fair use claims are very definitely causes for deletion. Corvus cornix_talk 04:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Wikipedia NFCC requires fair use images to be promotional images. This was a screen shot and is incapable of meeting the NFCC. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC) See below Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What?!? Where the hell have you hidden that parapraph? I've never heard of it before. There are loads and loads of fair use images that are not promotional. --MrStalker ^(talk) 09:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Per this this image was being used in user space so were blatent copyvios. We may as well close this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC) See below[reply]

• Ubisoft has granted permission for use of shots of their work for any usage. --MrStalker ^(talk) 09:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Link? Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Avatar/Ubisoft --MrStalker ^(talk) 13:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Overturn Deletion based on above link. May I suggest that you correct the licensing tags when this has happened? Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm well aware of the Ubisoft permission, but this image was not a screenshot - it was promotional artwork. A stupid technicality that led to an even more asinine discussion that could be avoided if we just found a screenshot of the game. :-D east.718 at 21:47, January 28, 2008

  That's just irritating. I think we should follow the spirit of the permission rather then the hard cold word of it. It is in most aspects a screenshot, I don't think it should matter if Ubisoft themselves made it or not. --MrStalker ^(talk) 19:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Desson Thomson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Movie reviewer for top paper in USA, the Washington Post, he has over 20 internal links in Wikipedia. It was deleted without discussion Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn the article was a bit vague, but it seemed to imply he's been a critic with the Post for 20+ years... that's a reasonable claim of importance. You don't seem to have discussed this with the deleting admin though, it could have just been an oversight. --W.marsh 19:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Clear claim of importance. Should be speedily undeleted.DGG (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caïman Fu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was db-authored in April of last year. I just came along to start an article on this band and saw that it had been previously deleted - can I get it restored please so I can check out if it had any useful sources etc? Thanks. CordeliaHenrietta (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Request Granted, see User:CordeliaHenrietta/CaimanFu. JERRY ^talk _contribs 19:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Superflat Monogram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This page was tagged for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7, but I declined that speedy deletion because it is an article about an advertising campaign by Louis Vuitton directed by Takashi Murakami. Even if ad campaigns fell under CSD A7, which they don't, being by a notable company and a notable artist are clear claims of importance. It also cited a book reference. There was no basis in policy for the speedy deletion. I have discussed it with the admin in question, with no useful results. W.marsh 17:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've overturned my decision and have listed this article at AfD to avoid any further drama. Would an uninvolved admin be so kind as to close this DRV? Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn & List at AFD Natch. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Wow. Talk about the standard case of assuming bad faith. Geez. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedily Overturn with Trout A speedy declined by one admin is no longer an uncontroversial deletion. I'm all for A7-ing #wikipedia-en-admins though. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion CSD (and for that matter, all WP policy) is open to the spirit, rather than the letter of the policy. It is for articles that would unquestionably be deleted if met with review by the full community. The article in question met that standard; it was a non-notable ad campaign that was poorly sourced. In fact, I debated whether to delete it under G11, before deciding that A7 would suffice. There is a "web content" clause of A7 that I imagine would include this type of content, though the article was written so poorly and without context that I'm unsure where this ad even appeared. This debate seems to focus much more on means rather than on ends. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • CSD has never been about guessing what the results of an AFD would be, assuming the article was not improved during the AFD (which is often untrue). If predicting the results of an AFD was the point of speedy deletion policy, that's all CSD would say. Instead, it says to send it to AFD it the speedy deletion is controversial. --W.marsh 18:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm... curious. I don't remember saying that CSD was a guessing game. But I will say that CSD, especially A7, has always been applied through an admin's judgment as to whether to article is would pass / fail AfD, or if the article needs further review from the community. This article did not. Also, I would ask you kindly to remove any unsourced accusations from the intro paragraph, particularly anything that would not assume good faith. Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • By "intro paragraph" do you mean my DRV nomination? The only conclusion I made was that your deletion was contradicted by policy. Anyway, an admin did apply a judgment on this article, and I said further review from the community was needed. Then you reversed me. CSD A7 has always been about whether a reasonable assertion of importance is there or not... not about guessing whether it would "pass / fail AfD" as you say. --W.marsh 18:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn & list at AFD. No assumption of bad faith here, but this made at least a tenuous claim of potential notability, enough of a gray area to remove it from the jurisdiction of CSD. --Dhartung | Talk 19:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Critics of Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

Some people like Geert Wilders and Ayaan Hirsi Ali are notable mainly or only because of being a critic of Islam. I cannot think of any other better category for them. Andries (talk) 14:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: My deletion was following this CfD, which was unanimously to delete. the wub "?!" 15:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I understand the potential problem with this category, mainly that it is not a defining category for most people who ever made a critical comment about Islam, but for some it is. I propose that only people should be included who are famous or notable mainly because of their criticisms of Islam. Andries (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Closed correctly. --Kbdank71 16:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, this is something I do not dispute. I am only missing the correct category for people like Geert Wilders and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. What is the alternative that you propose category:anti-Islam activists? Andries (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well I suggest the DRV is closed, this isn't an editing advice service. Have you considered that if the consensus was that such a category was "unrequired", then there is no requirement to put these people in such a category? They already appear in various categories. I guess it's a matter of perspective as to what they are mainly notable for, making blanket assertions of such is not really helpful. In reality their notability (as indeed hopefully for anyone/anything) on wikipedia is rooted in the fact that the rest of the world find them interesting enough that multiple reliable sources have chosen to write about them. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the comments, but I disagree with everything you write. For example, there can be no doubt that Geert Wilders is mainly notable for his criticism of Islam or attacks on Islam. There are several people like him and hence a category is required. Andries (talk) 19:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You disagree with everything I write? So you believe that DRV is an editing advice service? You believe that notability isn't rooted in the broader world considering them important enough to write about them in multiple reliable sources? (I guess you've not read WP:N then?) As for disagreeing about the need for the category, this isn't xFD round 2, the consensus was that it isn't need/required/suitable, if you merely want to reargue that DRV isn't the place. But even that isn't disagreeing with me, since you've already agreed that the consensus was to delete it. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • • I believe that people who reject a category title for a clearly required category should also take the effort to think of another category title. Andries (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Again you are making broad assertions "clearly required category", sticking "clearly" infront of something doesn't make it a universally accepted truth. The CFD disagreed that it was clearly required, indeed it decided it clearly wasn't/isn't required. You are just rearguing the deletion debate, which DRV very explicitly isn't for. Even if a agreed that the CFD only saw the title as being a problem (it didn't issue of original research, being far too broad etc were bought up) DRV isn't the place to enforce some policy change that they should be "required" to suggest an alternate title. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 22:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm going to go ahead and agree with the anon in regards to raising a DRV to get advice. Have you tried asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam? --Kbdank71 15:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Kbdank71, I asked the question there, as per your request. Kbdankl71 and other who endorse deletion can propose alternatives there. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#Category_name_requested_for_people_like_Geert_Wilders_and_Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali Andries (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist The arguments at the DREV were not even raised at the CfD--possibly the CfD was not noticed. It might well give a different result with a better discussion. DGG (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was already CFD'ed twice in 2007. How many times should we relist a "delete" decision before the desired outcome is achieved? --Kbdank71 15:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well such detail hasn't stopped the nominator creating category:anti-Islam activists which I can't see addresses the issue raised in the CFD, I can see one of the two individuals listed has already been removed from that category and a brief discussion (two comments) here suggesting Category:Criticism of Islam to be more appropriate. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • 81.104.39.63, category:anti-Islam activists addresses some of the issues of the CFD i.e. that it is less vague, but it may not be as neutral as critics of Islam and has a different, though overlapping meaning. Andries (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - the logic of the nomination was impeccable, the discussion was unanimous in favor of deletion and the closing admin correctly interpreted a unanimous discussion to delete as consensus to delete. There's nothing new here, no compelling argument to overturn that unanimous consensus. "I can't think of another name" is not a valid reason to overturn. Otto4711 (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Montblanc America's Signatures for Freedom pens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was a deletion of a block of pages that I had created quite a long time ago. I was on vacation when the debate happened and did not get a chance to participate. Some were PRODs and some were AfDs. I'd like to pull it back up and have a chance to defend them.

These were lists of collectable pens and were moved to these pages to clean up the Mont Blanc pen main article. Where the links still exist. These pages were not advertising or spam, but links to the individuals recognized by having a pen made in there honor. For example the Writers Edition list had links to Hemingway, Agatha Christie and Voltaire. Some of the lists were shorter then others but we would expect these to increase each year as a new individual was recognized and received the honor.

I think that the short discussion on this block, shows that many editors only looked at the first page (in alphabetical order) whcih was probably the weakest. Anyway, I'm asking for a reinstatement so we can have the debate and I have a chance to defend the pages. Or an undelete and I can improve them. Perhaps if we combined all the pages into one long list with sections. - BMcCJ (talk) 07:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Were these articles well sourced? Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, although the best source would be the company. I suppose this is similar to a list of popular model names for any brand, like a list of popular or special edition Toyota vechicles. They are useful, and encyclopedic, yet don't belong on the Toyota main article page. - BMcCJ (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse I had a look at the deleted articles, they all had only primary sources so external notability of the subject area has not been established. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment leaning endorse The one linked above has one entry ("George Washington, 2007") and a blog link. Another one I checked has more listing but no sources. Not making any judgement on the merit of including the info somewhere if it can be properly sourced, but I don't see a reason to bring them back in this convoluted form. Also, if this was branched out from the Montblanc article, the info should still be in the edit history. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The First one (alphabetically) was the weakest, as that series just started last year. But for collectors, very useful. The Writer's Edition and Patron of Arts pages were longer and more significant, going back to the early 1980's. What's useful about these is the collection of links to the recognized individuals, all whom are notable, a few of whom did not yet have Wikipedia entries but warranted them and received their own entries because it was thus noted that Wikipedia was lacking (in regards to them). - BMcCJ (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. but Allow creation of a single combined article, per BMcCJ I cannot imagine this having a different result. DGG (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps in the different. single list/page form. - BMcCJ (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Consensus was to delete and nothing that establishes notability presented here Corpx (talk) 07:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur I recall my request and will put together the single referenced notable article, if it ends up being that. Thanks All! - BMcCJ (talk) 16:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Martin Ingram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Unilateral out-of-process deletion, contrary to AFD outcome. Result of AFD was fast keep. Jwray (talk) 06:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn This is quite odd. The AfD was closed as "early keep" (unanimous votes to keep), yet the nominator subsequently speedy deleted it as G10 and a violation of WP:BLP. MKoltnow 06:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was also a former frontpage DYK article. It was embarrassing to Scientology. Jwray (talk) 07:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I note the AFD was closed by a sitting arb. I'm very interested in the explanation of their reasoning from the deleting admin. I'm leaning towards relisting this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You endorsed the deletion last time. Just FYI. :) Mangojuice^talk 13:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That just shows you that a) my memory sucks & b) my approach to deletion is less deletionist then it used to be. If we have alreay done this then there is no misuse of process to worry about so I endorse again. Note that per BLP recreation requires a clear consensus to do so. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I want to wait for Mangojuice's explanation before deciding either way, but I see no BLP violations in the deleted article. There are some assertions that could be considered negative (court cases, for instance), but all are supported by reliable sources. On first glance, an article like this would require careful monitoring, not outright deletion. Aecis^Brievenbus 13:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the later deletion. People should really give me a chance to explain before opening this. My action was already reviewed at DRV, and was thoroughly endorsed. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 20 for the discussion. This was a WP:COATRACK article, and a biography of a private figure where it is impossible to cover the subject neutrally because of a number of anti-scientology sites that dig up dirt on Mr. Ingram. As others in the DRV said, those criticisms of the COFS and Mr. Ingram could be mentioned on pages about the COFS's practices, but a biography we cannot have. The AfD was deeply flawed: it was canvassed at the Scientology WikiProject and closed within a few hours, not giving the community at large the chance to respond. I'd really rather not have that debate all over again: if Jwray had even read the rest of my talk page he would have found the other discussion. Mangojuice^talk 13:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where was it canvassed? A neutral listing at Wikproject Scientology does not fit the Wikipedia definition of canvassing. I cannot find the link. Andries (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I considered it canvassing: see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS which got sorted out somewhat later, indicated a long-term pattern of disruption so serious that all Scientology-related articles had to be put on probation. But this isn't so relevant anyway, because the deletion was not about the AfD. Mangojuice^talk 19:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the term WP:COATRACK, which popped up as a wikipedia-only neologism on 7 AUG 2007, has been gaining increasing useage lately in XfD and DRV, and it is used in a variety of inconsistent ways. By reading the actual essay, one can garner the intended purpose, but it seems to get used as an adjective synonymous to stinky or just really bad. I physically want to vomit everytime I see it. For the benefit of those reviewing this DRV could you actually articulate the offensive nature of this particular article without just referring to the ephemeral coatrack term? JERRY ^talk _contribs 17:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The article is about a police officer who lost his job. It made the local papers once years ago and then was forgotten, but this is the source of all the notability this person has. The article was really about the Church of Scientology and its abusive practices involving private investigators; mainly, the article was trying to lay out every obscure objectionable thing Ingram was connected to. This was not and could never become an appropriate biography, and the points that were being aimed at belong in other articles. Mangojuice^talk 19:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you. That makes great sense.JERRY ^talk _contribs 19:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse speedy deletion actual previous AFD closure is moot. JERRY ^talk _contribs 19:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss Olympiad in Informatics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

See Ukrainian_Olympiad_in_Informatics, Turkish Informatics Olympiad, Indian Computing Olympiad and British Informatics Olympiad. Those topics are about national Informatic Olympiads. Petar Marjanovic 09:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Reopen AfD - probably not notable but with the lack of contributions to the AfD discussion it's effectively like a contested prod; a wider consensus should be sought. Guest9999 (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• PROCEDURAL OBJECTION (as closing administrator) the nominator made no attempt whatsoever to discuss this AFD with me prior to filing a delrev, as is required under WP:DRV. JERRY ^talk _contribs 16:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Delete Closure (as closing administrator) This AfD was listed for the full 5-day period, and there were no participants who raised any objections, concerns, or hesitation to delete. Each delete recommendation included a fully-articulated sensible rationale based solidly on policy and precedent. It was clear to me that relisting this AfD would not change the outcome. A review of nearly any day's log will show that I relist a huge number of AfD's, so closing debates with low participation is not a matter I take lightly. But when policy-based consensus is clear, it is clear. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and AfD is not a plurality vote system. The nominator is not raising any valid concerns with the determination of rough consensus in the AfD, but is rather bringing up a new argument which was never put forth in the AfD; this argument is essentially OSE-based, and is not compelling enough, IMO, to overturn the AfD.JERRY ^talk _contribs 16:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak endorse I !voted for delete; Besides the 4 mentioned there are also Central European Olympiad in Informatics and National Olympiad in Informatics, China. The Turkish and Ukrainian articles are considerably fuller, but none of them really have any independent references for notability. There is however more information for this network of national contests: they actually publish what looks like an academic journal, Olympiads in Informatics] with decent pedagogical articles; there are now 80 participating countries. I can not imagine articles on each of them, unless someone can find references--there might be some in nation journals of computer science or mathematics education. I am not sure but we might have some precedents for considering national level contests at the high school level significant. I'd suggest a section on the national ones in the main article International Olympiad in Informatics to perhaps eventually expand into a separate combination article to go with the one on the international event. But I would have no objections to a renewed discussion. DGG (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion due to lack of reasoning. If I'm understanding the nominator correctly, they're saying "Here's a small handful of other non-notable and poorly-sourced articles that exist, which means my non-notable and poorly-sourced article should exist too!" That's the essence of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, and we just don't work that way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]