Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 28

< April 27	Deletion review archives: 2008 April	April 29 >

28 April 2008

Dean of Llandaff – speedy deletion for lack of context/content overturned. Editors believing that it merits merging or deletion are encouraged to use the appropriate process. – GRBerry 17:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deletion of 'Dean of Llandaff' contested----Clive Sweeting. (Deleter cannot be contacted)

Comment - reformatted Clive's request so the header worked. I think this looks like a fairly viable little stub after some cleanup and have restored with a DRV flag over it so non-admins can review. Neıl ☎ 14:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The references are a tad suspicious without ISBNs or links. Corvus cornix_talk 16:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restore No possible valid reason for speedy deletion. Deleted as A1, but even at that time it had content. The article describes the office, and lists several holders, including 3 with WP articles, at least one very notable & sourced in 11th EB, which is reliable enough for old-fashioned topics like this. The books are real, per OCLC. DGG (talk) 17:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at AfD. No speedy criterion validly applies. Powers ^T 23:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why AFD? Neıl ☎ 09:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Deletion review#Commenting in a deletion review: "List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria, so that it can be debated at the appropriate forum;" Powers ^T 18:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

we often close here with "relist optional" if we think that enough notability has been shown in the discussion here that the nominator may not want to pursue the deletion. I think this such a case. DGG (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect to Llandaff Cathedral. Most cathedrals have lots of jobs with high and/or ancient sounding names but alas, they're just jobs - merge with the artcile or we'll have for each cathedral articles on its deans, deacons, choirmasters, song masters, sextons, vergers, sacristans, lay ministers, altar servers, rectors, and sub- all of these. Not notable independent of the cathedral itself, hence merge & redirect. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:13, 2 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:Northeastern West Village H.jpg – image restored after OTRS confirmation of valid license – GRBerry 15:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This image is a victim of license shifting. The author has personally confirmed that the photo was previously CC but she has since changed the posted license terms to (C). Despite my insistence that this is an invalid act, she insists she is "has every right to change [the] license". This is the same photographer who took Image:Behrakis Health Sciences Center.jpg and did the same thing there. I have email convo for confirmation. Keith D. Tyler ¶ 23:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - reformatted Keith's request so the header worked. I am inclined to suggest we let it go and try and obtain a fully free and uncontroversial replacement. Neıl ☎ 14:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think bending to an authors' illegitimate license shifting will lead to constant image changing as rogue authors play musical chairs with their works' licenses. Oops, that image is not CC anymore, get a new one... oops, that one's not cc anymore either, get yet another one... - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 17:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then we stop them uploading any images. We have a rule that GFDL images cannot have their licence shifted once submitted (see Wikipedia:Revocation of GFDL), but I'm not sure if that applies to CC images, also. Neıl ☎ 17:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fear the logical conclusion of what you are saying is that we will no longer be able to take advantage of existing CC work and must only accept contributor-created content. The picture in question isn't mine -- if it was, it wouldn't have shifted, because I know better. Keith D. Tyler ¶ 17:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This might be better being asked at somewhere like Wikipedia talk:Image use policy to establish what precedent exists, if any. I have asked here for input on this question. Neıl ☎ 10:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a discussion about this at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#When CC is revoked. Let's try to keep it in one place. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I've commented on the more general issue at the Village pump, but I think this is a situation that should be considered on a case-by-case basis (just as a court would, if a dispute like this ever got that far). In this case, seeing that both images in question appear to be of existing buildings, and therefore presumably easily replaceable, I see no reason not to "let them go" as Neil writes above. Let's save the hostile and legally murky "you can't make me stop, nyah nyah" approach for cases where we can demonstrate some actual harm to the encyclopedia or bad faith on part of the author. So, make this a weak endorse from me. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As been mention, the photo should be easily replaceable, so I would suggest to the initial uploader to consider finding alternative photos of such in the future. Having said that, the photos was uploaded, with appropriate license as originally granted by the copyright holder, and then deleted in error as a copyright violation, so overturn deletion. KTC (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My final argument: The image was CSD'd because it was deemed to be non-free. However, this was an incorrect assessment, based on the wording of the CC-BY legal license (see aforementioned village pump discussion) and the fact (confirmed by the content creator) that it was previously released under that license. By virtue of the CC-BY license, the image uploaded to WP was appropriately free, not just for WP, but for others who get it from WP. Therefore the CSD was improper, and should be overturned. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 15:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a technical matter, if Keith's correct and the image was actually CC licensed at one point, he's correct. But I find it very disappointing that Wikipedia would be laying claim to an image on such purely technical grounds. The image is not something particularly unique or unreplaceable. The original reason for deletion may have been technically incorrect (again, assuming that Keith is correct about past licensing, which I'm not sure how one would confirm); but a better reason for deletion would be don't bite the newcomers. Sometimes people click a button they don't fully understand, and want to back out. Sure, they should read before clicking, but it's not Wikipedia's job to "teach them a lesson." -Pete (talk) 15:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have an email from the content creator herself confirming that she previously with intent posted the pictures with CC-BY, but then more recently when she began pursuing for-profit options for her work, she intentionally removed CC-BY and replaced it with (C). I'd post the email but I don't know where to put it (in this discussion?). So... the "didn't mean to click that" defense, while otherwise a valid consideration, isn't the case here. She didn't say "I didn't mean to do that", she indicated that she purposefully changed her mind on how she wanted to distribute the work. As I said above, if we give in to people like that, we can never accept CC work because there will always be the possibility that the creator will try to rescind the license, and we will continually have to find replacements each time that happens. (Until whatever it is ceases to exist, that is.) Bad precedent IMO, more damaging to the encyclopedia IMO than keeping a picture under the terms of its license despite later acts of the creator. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 19:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a little different then, if she understood the license to begin with. I suppose the correct thing to do is to forward that email to OTRS, so that someone can review it and post the ticket number on the image. I don't see any likelihood of this setting significant precedent though, or of photographers doing this sort of thing very often. -Pete (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did as Pete suggested, and OTRS subsequently undeleted the image. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 22:06, 7 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.

The Artichles, Uruha, Kai (drummer), Reita, and Yune – Deletion endorsed – Stifle (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am having a fustrating time with trying to wright and keep, articles up. I wrote articles on Uruha, Kai, Reita, and Yune, of the band the GazettE. However they have been deleted by yje User: Nakon, reasoning that, "Biographical article that does not assert significance". I explained to he/she that,

"The articles on Yune, Reita, Kai, and Uruha were deleted saying that "Biographical article that does not assert significance". I believe that they did state there significance. Each of those pages were dedicated to the members of the band the GazettE. It was also referenced to the best of my knowledge and I do not think that they should have been deleted and should be restored. If there can be pages dedicated to the members of the band Rammstein as well as other bands, why can't there be pages dedicated to the members of the band the GazettE?"

Nakon replied to me stating, "Members of notable bands are not given individual articles unless they have demonstrated notability for activity independent of the band." Nakon.

There are a lot of people who have not done anything else outside of there specified area, yet have a page dedicated to them, such as Brandon Kroeger, of the Band Nickleback. What I'm trying to say is that it seems ilogical to not have a page dedicated to the biography of a person of a famous band simply because they have not done anything else other than be in that famous band.

All I ask is that my articles on the 3 members, Uruha, Reita, and Kai, and 1 ex-member, Yune, be restored. And that my hopefully future articles on the other to members of this band, Ruki, and Aoi, not be deleted when they are put up, based on the same reasoning. Please and Thankyou.

P.S. If you require References, just request them. Again, Thankyou. GazettEFan (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article dedicated to Brandon Kroeger was deleted by someone upon my posting of this. GazettEFan (talk) 23:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. I'm affraid that the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguement won't get you far, especially given the deletion. Nakon hit the nail spot on in explaining this; just being a member of a notable band doesn't confer notability. I'd suggest putting a little about each on the GazettE. I believe there's a precedent allowing a "members of band" or some such section. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 10:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore to userspace. Deletion while an editor is trying to work on articles, without providing alternatives, is a bit unfriendly. Gazettefan can then improve the articles, solicit feedback if desired, and move to main articles space if and when he/she believes they are more worthy of inclusion. -Pete (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I know the articles have been already deleted, but I feel further assessment of the situation is in order. Additional information to The Gazette (band) is really unnecessary, as the only information the user intends to add are "fun facts" and various points of trivia (taken care of by WP:TRIVIA). The article is fine as it is, and each member has no significance other than their participation in the band. --Jacob ^Talk 01:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse You need to assert separate notability for the band members if you want them to have their own article. That means meeting WP:PEOPLE standards. You can still add them to the band article --Enric Naval (talk) 02:55, 5 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.

Nadeem Razaq – Keep deleted - WP:BLP, and this section specifically, would indicate that this shouldn't be an article. As noted in the discussion below, the crime may be "notable" enough for an article. But not an individual who is notable merely due to being a suspect. – jc37 16:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello please undelete Nadeem Razaq, correct references were given including the name, so the deletion was invalid. filed on the page for the 29th by TomWoodhams moved to proper log by GRBerry at 16:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, this was deleted as an expired PROD, so should be restored on request. However, it was prodded because of WP:BLP concerns, and I myself want a stronger reason than "technically invalid" for restoring it - why should we have this article? GRBerry 16:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- a suspect in multiple murders, with good sources for strong evidence against him. I'd think the crime would be considered sufficiently important to be worth our notice. DGG (talk) 19:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then an article about the crime would be appropriate. -- Kesh (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I prodded it because much of the article, including claims that the suspect's fingerprints were found at one crime scene and that he was seen at another crime, were sourced only to Chinese sources, with no inline sourcing at all. On top of that, the Chinese article, to whom it is arguably much more relevant, doesn't mention the name of the suspect at all, so I don't think we should have an article on him specifically. I'm more open to an article specifically on the slayings, but I'm at best neutral on whether they're worth an article. Ral315 (talk) 23:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Eli b. perlman – Absent verification of the permission claimed by the lister, deletion endorsed as copyvio – Stifle (talk) 14:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Eli B. Perlman was deleted due to erroneous copyright infringement. The page that houses the information protected under copyright is owned by the author of the Wikipedia entry and was placed with full understanding and authority of the copyright owner. Perlmane talk improperly formatted request fixed by GRBerry 16:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright holder must provide evidence that they are, indeed, the copyright holder as per the WP:CP page. Did they do so? Corvus cornix_talk 21:07, 28 April 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:Northeastern West Village H.jpg – query for information answered; substantive discussion in separate section above – GRBerry 02:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

History only undelete pls. Want to see the source URL for this picture so I can review and contact the photographer as I believe this is a case of license-switching. Keith D. Tyler ¶ 15:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you originally uploaded this you credited "Credit: Michelle Callinan, [1] Date: March 31 2006, Source: [2]" as {{cc-by-2.0}} That link still appears to be correct, but no licensing terms are visible now on flickr. GRBerry 16:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Commoncase/Bloodstained_Memoirs – Still needs some work - Please consider the advice of the others in this discussion. (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CITE, etc. And when it comes to WP:CRYSTAL, we need to be especially careful.) – jc37 15:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I believe this artcile should be be put back up on the main Wiki for several reasons. The artcile, as requested, now has more citations. However, a brief Google search alone on the wrestlers attached to this project indicates the project is notible. There is a New York Times No1 Bet Selling author, Playboy Cover Model, World Wrestling Champions and the president of All Japan Pro Wrestling attached to this project - all of which have detailed Wiki pages. The production (as referenced in the wiki article) has been discussed multiple times in multiple written publications (which are sold worldwide) and online articles by respected wrestling specific websites. Commoncase (talk) 13:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Relevant logs appear to be here. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to article space. Proposed version looks good, and I don't believe that films, even future releases, make A7. Notability is still a bit slim, and I'd like to see more references, but if anyone feels these are major issues they should take it to AfD. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lifebaka, would you take care of putting the page back up as an actual Wiki article? Could you please advise which areas you think would need more referencing, and I will research the production some more and attempt to do so. Commoncase (talk) 23:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait - The documentary isn't even released yet, and notability is a little weak. Simply having notable stars doesn't necessarily make the documentary notable. Once the documentary comes out, and reviews/articles about it are released, you'll easily be able to satisfy notability and keep it from being ~~AfD'ed~~ deleted again. -- Kesh (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kesh - I disagree on your comment, "Simply having notable stars doesn't necessarily make the documentary notable." You may have to bare with me and understand the wrestling business somewhat. In 2008 it is STILL like the old Hollywood movie system, with specific companies (RKO etc) effectively owning its stars. I.E. You just simply wouldn't see certain, well known actors, in the same project due to the nature of the busines, and inability to work for rival companies.

A very notable factor of this independent documentary is that it breaks down the wall. For instance you have the Japansese IWGP World Champion Keiji Mutoh in the same production as the first WWE Undisputed Champion Chris Jericho. Its unheard of, and for a wrestling fan (which I believe is who the majoprity viewers of the article would be) this is very notible.

Also, although there are no reviews to be found (due to being unreleased) there are pleanty of articles out there, both on the net, in internet forums and hard print in written publications, as referenced to in the article.

Toy Story 3 has been put up as a Wikipedia article with no problem whatsoever, but the film will not be out untill 2010, and despite claims, very little is known about the film. There have been no screen stills or publicity photos released. Or any official outline of story. Also, if you look at the references, the majority have nothing to do with the actual film as a production.

If you compare both articles, the Bloodstained Memoirs one has more depth, certainty and reliability.

Also, I have now put up more media citations, and after some furthur research, have found that a screener was held in an independent London cinema - I have written about this and referenced the relevant news site.

Commoncase (talk) 08:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your enthusiasm, however: 1) There is only one in the article I'd consider reliable: The article from FSM, and that one only if the actual article is cited. Posting a (tiny) image of the article spread is not citing a source. The rest are either trivial mentions, or not independent of the documentary itself. 2) Other articles exist is not an argument for keeping this one. 3) The location of a screening is irrelevant. I do think this documentary will be notable enough for an article when it comes out, but in the meantime just keep it in your user space. Once it comes out, you can cite other reliable sources and move it to main article space. -- Kesh (talk) 23:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kesh Could you please directly acknowledge the points in my above entry if you are to dismiss this article.

5 of the 6 references are actualy independent. Again, PW Torch being one of the biggest wrestling news websites.

RE the FSM article, it would be against both Wikipedia and copyright laws to scan and put in the whole article - as with any other magazine. If you notice, the magazine scan is from the official website. This cites the reliability of the source. Commoncase (talk) 08:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did address your points. Most of your references are trivial mentions, which does not satisfy WP:V. And yes, it is a copyvio to scan the whole magazine article. That's why we don't: instead, you follow the proper process in WP:CITE to provide a citation to that article. -- Kesh (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take strong exception to you claiming the references are trivial. Look at the layout of the news pages - each subject is allocated roughly the same text. The articles state the film is in production, they state who is in it. They state what the screenign date is. And these are some of the most respected wrestling news sites.

The purpose of citing (to Wiki standards) is to enable the reader of an article to check for reliability. The article lays claim to a FSM magazine interview - the reference - a scan to the official FSM magazine scan of the article proves this. It fufils its purpose.

If you you believe your criticisms of the Bloodstained Memoirs article to be true, why don't you try to delete Toy Story 3? See how far that gets you. (For the above stated reasons) The Bloodstained Memoirs interview has more depth, certainty and reliability. I think there is a prejudice / lack of understanding here because this is a "wrestling" product frankly.

Within the article, relevance is stated. As is notability. As are references to free media. In my opinion it meets all Wiki criteria.

Commoncase (talk) 22:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is an arguement that could be better conducted on the talk page of the article. Neither of you are really going anywhere constructive overall with this, except repeating that you disagree. Commoncase, Kesh does have at least some good points, so I suggest you implement them instead of merely objecting (citing the FSM article with a {{cite}} template shouldn't be difficult, if you've got access to a copy, for instance). And Kesh, it's not always necessary to respond when someone objects to your point of view. Repeating points you've already made gets tiresome to read after a while. Cheers to both of you. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I get peeved when accused of not acknowledging points I did address. :) I think my view has been made clear. -- Kesh (talk) 03:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So where does the article go from here? Commoncase (talk) 09:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usually a DRV lasts around 5 days, after which an admin will close the debate and make a decision. -- Kesh (talk) 19:33, 2 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.

Camp Avoda – Contested prod, restored. – Tony Fox (arf!) 05:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Camp Avoda QuentinV (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting the recovery of the Camp Avoda article. The deletion was proposed by Punkmorten. My argument is this:

While I agree that the information in this article cannot be verified by an outside published source, I believe the significance of this article outweighs its slight flaw. The contents of the article might not be verifiable with an outside published source, but it has been checked repeatedly by users who have been to the camp and worked in the camp, and the probability of their being an inconsistency is low. I also would like to note that the article is very useful. Whether used as a reference for people who hear about the camp and don't know much about it, or for people who want to find information about the camp from an outside, unbiased source, since the only other information available is the camp's own information. It is also useful for people who currently go to the camp or previously have done so, as it lists information on the annual Color War event. This information is not available any where else on the web. This article is unbiased and useful. Please consider recovering this article. Thank you for your time, it is greatly appreciated.

Note - the logs for this page can be found here. BlueValour (talk) 01:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recreate and then speedy close - this was an expired Prod and should be procedurally recreated on this legitimate request. The nominator should note that Wikipedia is not a substitute for the organisation's website and unless reliable, secondary sources are provided that establish notability the article is likely to be nominated at WP:AFD. See WP:ORG and WP:RS. BlueValour (talk) 01:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore as expired prod, but "users who have visited the camp" isn't a viable source. The nom should make sure any article meets WP:N and WP:V, or odds are it'll be deleted again. --UsaSatsui (talk) 02:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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