Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 12

Transition Video Magazine – Prodded article restored on request – 14:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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

proposed deletion This article was deleted with the following reason - 05:17, 16 November 2006 Crzrussian (Talk | contribs) deleted "Transition Video Magazine" (Category:Proposed deletion as of 10 November 2006). I propose reinstatement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.118.44.65 (talk • contribs)

Endorse deletion. Series of documentary videos that doesn't assert notability and is riddled with external links. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy undelete as a contested prod. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Restored. Mentions some notable groups, I think this avoids A7. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sorin Cerin – Speedy deletion overturned, AfD optional – 06:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Sorin Cerin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — {AfD}

This article was deleted on December 3 with conclusion: "Deletion endorse among established editors" because the article was very poor in information.After that time we recreate another article,with more information and now we beleive that article is good to be in Wikipedia.The new article was deleted on December 11 with conclusion:"the article must to go first through deletion review again"Alinaro 08:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn deletion. A forced DRV only applies if someone wants to repost deleted content. The new version of the article (before it was redeleted by Jmabel) asserts notability by national news coverage, which the originally deleted version didn't. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per MgM and cleanup. Zocky | picture popups 11:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per above. Said it perfectly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn You can't delete an article with the same reasoning if it's substantially different. Xiner 17:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Armeniapedia – Deletion endorsed – 06:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Article was definitely not a candidate for speedy deletion. If the deleting admin believed there was no assertion of notability as stated in the deletion log, then he or she should have listed it immediately through AfD, which is standard and proper procedure, rather than delete unilaterally without discussion or notification. metaspheres 08:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: WP:CSD A7 is for exactly this: articles that do not even assert notability can be speedied without AfD. And I didn't "believe" there was no assertion of notability; I saw there was no such assertion, I don't need AfD to tell me that much. BTW, as a courtesy to interested editors I even notified the Armenian noticeboard in advance, which I wouldn't have been required to do. But anyway, I'll be happy to provide you with a copy of the deleted material if you want to work on it and improve it (although I'm skeptical). Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Fut. Perf. is quite right. There was no notability asserted. It did however have 3 links to the same domain where one would've sufficed. Sounds like spam. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Please read WP:CSD A7 again. Then read it a third time. Dragging an utterly non-notable wiki to DRV after a perfectly valid speedy is ill advised. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 15:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'd advise you to assume good faith and not attempt to look cool by treating other editors as children by telling them to read something again and again. Deletion review exists precisely for these reasons, and if you believe otherwise, that's tough. If you have any other problems with me, take it to the proper channel. metaspheres 10:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment would somebody please delete Urdu Wikipedia as well? There is no assertion of notability there as well. Tizio 17:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion There is nothing that asserted notability in the article's previous incarnation, but if notability becomes asserted at a later date, then recreating it is OK. --SunStar Net^talk 11:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Freedom Imaging Systems – Deletion endorsed – 06:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

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

This article was removed under the rule CSD A7 by Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh On 19 November 2006. The reasons for this were it not being notable. Comments included its lack on mention on websites such as Forbes. What is required to prove notability, and who decides?

See also: [1]

Endorse deletion, read WP:ORG and WP:WEB please. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion I found at least one third-party non-company reliable source, see "Ex-files" which means this entry has the potential to satisfy WP:CORP. Deletion was definitely a hasty a decision and the user should have received notification of the standards needed for the article to pass muster. Endless blue 21:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Then just write a new article. A7 doesn't care if something is notable, it cares if the article asserts such. If it does not, it gets deleted. There's no prejudice against creating a new article that does assert notability. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I hear you, but I'm not the author, and the author requested more than restatement of policy that does not apply in this article's case. I'll put something on their talk page. Endless blue 22:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 07:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse because the deleted version was awfully like an ad. It was promotional in tone and wording, with how many products now offered, etc. In other words, undeletion of this article would be to reinstate an article that violates the deletion policy pretty clearly both in terms of lack of reliable sources and for being an ad. The fact that the company could be covered just puts us back to the "article needed" stage. I do not think this is a cleanup case: this is a rewrite from scratch case. Geogre 10:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Circle Square Ranch – Restored by deleter – 06:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Not a commercial page, only meant to inform viewers about the company. It's a non profit organization, they don not advertize on wiki. I was a volunteer there onece just thought i would make a page, cause i love wikipedia. If I broke a rule please explain it to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.1.163.100 (talk • contribs)

Informing people about a company is exactly the same as advertising even if you don't call it that. To be listed on Wikipedia it has to be notable (i.e. covered by independant third party reliable sources). Being famous for something is not required but helps. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse if AfD: This isn't a speedy deletion candidate, but it is an article that violates the deletion policy. "No advertising" is one of our most important principles at Wikipedia. We can't promote even the things that a majority support, and so we can't be used to announce or promote awareness of even non-profit and humanitarian organizations. Instead, we report on things already reported on by multiple others. Geogre 10:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Just Dial Communications – Deletion endorsed – 23:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

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

This article has been deleted for spamming. The article was providing information about corporation's history. Please review the talk page for the deleted version. Thanks for the comments, I will rewrite the article with references explaining why the company is not just another communication company, but an organization which should be included in wikipedia pages.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 07:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Try reading WP:ORG and WP:EL. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the page was recreated (no reason to assume anything but good faith). I redeleted it and left a note on the user's talk page explaining what's going on. Zocky | picture popups 11:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion - A classic CSD A7 example. 0 hits on Google news. I'm in the GVRD and I've never heard of them, it seems rather unlikely that they'd meet WP:CORP -- Tawker 21:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Wikipedia is not a business directory, and there was nothing that showed they met WP:CORP criteria. --SunStar Net^talk 11:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Bob rae posed 2006 campaign.JPG – Deletion endorsed – 06:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Attempts to replace this with original content have been made, all failing. Because a random Wikinewsie applied to attend a Liberal event early the campaign, and didn't show up, we ended up banned from this weekend's leadership vote. None of the flickr photos of Rae are CC-BY, I've yet to hear back from anyone I contacted, urging relicensing.

Rae will either become the leader of the federal opposition party, and be extremely hard to get a hold of; unless he becomes Prime Minister, there will likely be no free images of him. Or he will lose, and disappear into private retirement. Unless we secretly have Wikipedian who holds membership to elite Canadian country clubs, forget it.

Additionally, this is a politician. It doesn't inflict on sales of anything, because he doesn't sell anything.

Finally, his press relations manager personally encouraged the image's usage. Until Monday, there's no hope in heck I'd be able to converse with them, to ask them to relicense the image, due to the busy last minute campaigning. -- Zanimum 22:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm missing something here. Are you saying that if he becomes leader of the federal opposition, he'll become a recluse? Why will no one be able to take a photo of him in that situation? If he does disappear into private retirment then the issue of availability of free images can be readdressed, now is premature --pgk 22:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, if he becomes the leader of the opposition, he'll be so booked by shadow cabinet meetings, national publications and stations, etc., that he won't have time for the little people. When was the last time you saw Bill Graham at an event? Yes, he's interim, but so what. Can we not just undelete, and then discuss this on Monday? -- Zanimum 02:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People will still be able to take photos, he'll still make "public" appearances, taking a photo doesn't have to be posed or one on one. The image was originally deleted over a month ago, we've had over a month to replace it and no one has bothered, I can't see what difference a couple of days without an image would make. --pgk 07:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you eliminate (a) all the events that are $100 a plate, (b) only for the registered media, (c) only for Liberal members, you're not left with a lot. The only opportunity to see Bob publicly, for free, was in Toronto at 8 am on a Thursday, and on a Friday in Ottawa from 3 to 5 pm, at the Slovenian Canadian Club of Calgary, and in Cupar, Saskatchewan, which is in the middle of no where. He's trying to attract a very limited bunch of people, the Liberal delegates. Thus he has no need to be freely accessible to folks like us. -- Zanimum 15:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He'll still be appearing in places the public can attend and take photos, again it doesn't need to be a posed shot or a one on one. Why you eliminate (a) and (c) I'm not sure anyway, are we saying the being a Liberal member and being able to take a photo for use on wikipedia are mututally exclusive? The policy on replaceable fair use says nothign about replacement images needing to be taken for zero cost. --pgk 15:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That list is to prove that almost all of the events on his tour of Canada were inaccessible to Canadian Wikipedians. They were members-only or expensive. Do you see anyone that's willing to spend $100 dollars for one photo? -- Zanimum 14:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again the criteria says nothing about cost or willingness of any given individual to meet that cost. The person will still be appearing in public and will still be able to have his photo taken, and indeed you can still persue getting an "official" image released under an appropriate license. I assume this individual doesn't get out of cars with a blanket over their head as they get shuffled into buildings with blacked out windows with individuals searched to remove photographic equipment, they aren't a recluse. Your list doesn't "prove" anything regarding unavailability of a photo or ability to take one. As to the general principle is someone willing to pay $100 to get a given photo, if not then I guess the photo simply isn't that important to the article. --pgk 15:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If someone took a picture of a unicorn, but kept it under copyright, you'd say we couldn't use it? Because "oh, we can just send a photographer to Antartica to wander around for five months to take a free alternative". Correct? -- Zanimum 18:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well putting aside that unicorns don't actually exist, then I can't see what this has to do with anything. Bob Rae isn't a recluse hiding out in Antarctica, he is a public figure, he appears in public regularly, I would guess he probably even has a fairly public diary. Go to flickr and people have photos of him, (they aren't licensing them under a suitable license) they undoubtdly have managed to take photos of him, why those people can manage to but you reckon no one else in the world will be able to is beyond me. If your unicorn appeared in public regularly, then yes it would fail replaceable fair use, if it cost $100 to get the picture, it would still fail replaceable fair use. For sports personalities in such situations we say people can go to a game and take a photo, they can indeed cost $100 or more to do. --pgk 19:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 02:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. This is a classic case of replaceable fair use. howch e ng {chat} 20:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist - Rae has "retired" from Canadian politics, future photos may be impossible to gather. Rae has stated he's avoiding the public eye now, as such, photo chances are very minimal -- Tawker 21:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:CRIIRADmap.gif – Deletion endorsed – 06:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Has been deleted on the claims that one Wikipedia could draw the same map. First, this would be a breach of copyright, since the map would be copied from the CRIIRAD's map without even stating it. Second, since this map is relevant to the Chernobyl catastrophe and has thus scientifical implications, clearly it carries no weight if drawn by an anonym user (be him a known Wikipedian). Lapaz 15:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone could have copied the information from that map (the coordinates of the dots) and incorporated that same information into a PD map of France. It looks to me like this deletion was proper. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 02:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure simply copying the coordinates from this map would clear copyright issues. As I understand cartography copyright, we would need a new map constructed from the same data, if it's available in a published source. Zocky | picture popups 11:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Facts aren't copyrightable. A new map constructed from the same data would put the dots in the same location, so what's the point (or what's to stop me from just doing that and saying I reconstructed the whole thing)? howch e ng {chat} 20:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

12 December 2006[edit]