Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 July 25

< July 24	Deletion review archives: 2008 July	July 26 >

25 July 2008[edit]

Broad homeland hypothesis – Deletion endorsed. I'd be willing to userfy for somebody who wants to work on an alternative as discussed. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I closed this AfD but one of the people who contributed has asked me to list this here for further discussion. He said on my talkpage:

Before requesting a review, I ask you to reconsider the following:

Six votes in favor of keeping
Of the ones that voiced their concerns, FIVE (Merzow, Mathsci, DBachmann, PhilKnight aka Addoc and Doug Weller) have a history of escalated clashes with the main contributor of the article (me) involving severe current as well as reluctantly resolved (apparently) content disputes (4X), mediation disputes (2X) and personal attacks (4X).
Of the ones that voiced their concerns, only TWO are active on archeological articles. Only ONE is aware of the PIE homeland-related literature at issue. My kind explicit and long standing request to this most violent and influential attacker to supply the requested diffs to back up claims of WP:SYNTH and take things from there [1] has been ignored and thus should be seen as rhetoric and personal attack.
Two voters for keeping qualified the nomination as "content dispute"; additionally one voter for keeping criticized the obvious clash on what would be the "best" theory, and with me this makes four.
Seven against six is no indisputable headcount consensus for deletion: rough consensus?
The topic, describing the common linguistic ancestry theory that involves a "broader homeland", has been defined and described extensively in reliable sources. Nobody openly doubted the reliability of names like Lothar Kilian, Häusler and especially Mallory. Thus, there is no lack of sources that define this topic and comply to WP:V.
Sources have been compiled, not synthesised, within the scope and definition of the topic: the theory of common linguistic ancestry of archeological cultures delimited by the broader homeland according to Lothar Kilian. To contest this, is a matter of content dispute that can best be resolved by expert review and third party "neutral" verification of sources.

I suggest the article is deleted because of a content dispute and personal agony, using wrong arguments that compromise objectivity and fact, and that it should be restored. Any true doubt on the content should be resolved by expert review and constructive discussion on TALK. Thank you. Rokus01 (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listed for review. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Article has evidently had a lot of fair scrutiny, consensus to delete was reached after very carefuly checking of sources by some of our most competent editors, in whose judgment I have full trust. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Future Perfect at Sunrise. I consider several of those who voted for deletion to be Wikipedia's best experts in the field. They have my full trust, also.--Berig (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I object to the counsil of Berig: he has been involved in personal attacks, stalking and alliances ever since I criticized his use of out of date books and maps that favor antics on a Germanic homeland in Scandinavia by proposing an obsolete deluge theory. His mentioning of "best experts on the field" (archeology) is in contradiction to my statement above and does not specify. Rokus01 (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a court of law, you don't get to object to people. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure (keep deleted). The debate was, in some ways, obscured by a content dispute but underneath that, the core issue raised by those arguing for deletion was never successfully addressed. No reliable, independent sources were ever produced demonstrating that the topic actually exists outside Wikipedia. This decision was well-within responsible admin discretion for closure. Rossami (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the obvious confusion between topic and title should be addressed. I addressed the validity of the topic, even to the extend that the theory was notably qualified as one widely accepted theory by a reliable source. The suggestion to discuss the title by one of the voters has not taken into consideration.Rokus01 (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion (I was the AfD nom). I looked long and hard, and so did several respected editors active in science WikiProjects, and none of us could find any reference to the "broad homeland hypothesis" in any academic source. It is a creation of Rokus01, a synthesis spun together out of speculations by academics regarding alternatives to the Kurgan hypothesis. However, most of these alternatives are not yet named, it seems, and certainly none are named the "broad homeland hypothesis". This is original research at its most sneaky, particularly because on its face the article looks encyclopedic. - Merzbow (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Sneaky", this is suggestive to the atmosphere created and fail to substantiate the main accusation: that the theory would lack any academic source. I really don't understand how people that uphold an outstanding reputation dare to put this at stake, unless they are confident that nobody would ever verify their insinuation. So why did I mention a respected and much cited book like "In Search of the Indo-Europeans - J.P.Mallory, Thames and Hudson 1989, ISBN 0-500-27616-1", where all can read about it? Or "The Oxford Companion to Archaeology - Edited by Brian M. Fagan, Oxford University Press, 1996, p348 - J.P. Mallory, ISBN 0-19-507618-4"? I can't accept that this contradiction is settled by the word of one against the other. The theory is mentioned there, extensively, and thus an existing topic. To make a false statement on this is a very serious offense. Rokus01 (talk) 22:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've been asked many times to produce quotes from academics that define a theory called the "broad homeland hypothesis". Neither of those books above do so. - Merzbow (talk) 23:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know very well it was Lothar Kilian's theory, and also that it was the theory that tied together Corded Ware with Kurgan culture into one "common linguistic ancestry theory" that brought both cultures together into one single "broader homeland". Knowing this, you should come up with the proper question: "How the academic world refers to this theory?" Because it does, else it would not be "widely accepted". It was the "widely accepted" thing that triggered your nomination and now your offense is that you deny the existence of notable sources referring to this theory, even when they are explicitly quoted. You should have been honest and nominate this article for not complying to WP:NAME and nothing else. I could have proposed "Kilian's theory", but just like the actual Steppe theory doesn't "belong" anymore to Gimbutas (except for those too ignorant to be cited) due to countless contributions of others including partial refutals; just like this example, in my opinion the name Kilian is immaterial to the course this theory took afterwards and nowadays. Still, the theory rather deserves an unfit name than deletion. You should have proposed a better one, since you are the criticaster to the one I proposed. Rokus01 (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mallory says that some theory for which he provides a description but no name is widely accepted. He also describes several other theories with notable support. Again, the theory is not named - you gave it a name and decided on one definition. We do not know if other scholars who are talking about something that appears similar means they are talking about the same theory. I would suggest a new article called "Alternatives to the Kurgan Hypothesis" and have sections named after each notable scholar, listing their descriptions of the alternative theories. The Anatolian hypothesis seems to be the only such alternative that has a name and a definition, so that can be in its own section. But you cannot cite multiple scholars in support of an unnamed undefined theory, which is what you did in this article. - Merzbow (talk) 02:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like an extremely sensible solution/compromise. Renata (talk) 00:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. I nearly closed this debate with the same result, and obviously I agree with the close. I don't see any procedural issues with it. Shereth 22:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn since even its possible over-enthousiastic compiliation does not justify the complete obliteration of a topic that is sourced, valid and that treats an existing theory, even cited as widely accepted. Rokus01 (talk) 23:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I should have gone back to work on it, but among the possible sources are Colin Renfrew,Archeology and Language: the Puzzle of Indo-European Origins Cambridge Univ. P, 1987, which discusses the earlier history of the field. The discussion at the afd was based on a total misunderstanding--this is an older and now rejected theory, now being espoused again without any sound basis. The article was POV as if the theory was correct, but that needs editing, not rrfejection of the article, because as an older theory, it was still notable. DGG (talk) 04:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, debate was correctly interpreted, concerns of WP:NPOV and WP:SYN were not successfully addressed by keep advocates. Guy (Help!) 09:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. AFD process was followed correctly; the article was pure OR. —An gr 10:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Only two homeland theories, the Steppeland theory of Mallory and the Anatolian theory of Renfrew, seem to have been presented extensively in the literature. Lothar Kilian's theory, which this article is about, has not attracted a following amongst other scholars and has been criticized in the academic literature for its lack of scholarship. The rejection of Mallory and Adams' 2006 book as a source was also problematic. Chapter 26 of that book was devoted to discussing the problem of determining a homeland from various points of view, but it took a completely different tack to the article under discussion, which was an extremely narrow synthesis with some misrepresentation of sources such as Mallory and Häusler. Note: I have absolutely no expertise in this area, but do have access to the academic literature. Mathsci (talk) 09:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
endorse deletion, but as a courtesy undelete and blank-protect so as to make the edit-history accessible. Even though the article topic was dubious, the article body did contain valid material. --dab (𒁳) 09:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Seems unchallenged that sources exist, and the subject is real. There were editorial concerns that are not reasons for deletion. AfD to me looked like "no concensus". At worst, I guess that editorial judgement would conclude with merge and redirect to Proto-Indo-European Urheimat hypotheses. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
there were no "editorial concerns", there were concerns that the topic of the article is a non-entity (as in, zero google hits). "The subject is real" isn't an argument, I don't get to write an article on my toenails, which I assure you are real too. That said, I would be satisfied with a "redirect" outcome instead of deletion per my note above. --dab (𒁳) 10:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There were sources, but no ghits? Are you ignoring Wikipedia:GHITS? Agree that a redirect is a satisfactory outcome. It seems to be a verifiable theory, but verifiably wrong, and without special commentary, it should at best be a section. As a valid academic subject, a redirect hould exist. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no, I am not "ignoring GHITS". You clearly haven't been following the discussion. Rokus01 in the AfD was trying to argue that this was "an important theory", which somehow miraculously escaped being referred to by any single name, but rather leads a kind of ghost-like existence under "descriptive names" like "Maximum geographic extend theory", "Common linguistic ancestry theory" or "One widely accepted IE homeland theory". Of course, we will need to rely on Rokus' skills of synthesis to find out which "descriptive names" do in fact refer to this "important theory". dab (𒁳) 07:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - with no prejudice to work out another solution (like one that Merzbow proposed). Edit history might be needed for some other alternative. But I oppose right away recreation as the article needs to be re-written from scratch and it's better to have a clean and fresh start. Renata (talk) 00:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The most I see as viable is an additional note in Proto-Indo-European Urheimat hypotheses. That would require a good source for the existence of this hypothesis as a hypothesis, which was lacking in the AFD and article. If we had multiple such sources with significant coverage of the hypothesis then it would be time for the article. But it sure looks to me like original research at this time. GRBerry 14:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse seems to lack a real name, which makes it questionable for us to be writing an article about it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - correctly closed, the central problem was WP:SYNTH, which can't be resolved by editing. PhilKnight (talk) 12:37, 29 July 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 Ratskeller in Bremen – Speedy deletion overturned, consensus is that significance was indeed asserted. – Stormie (talk) 23:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page was deleted 22:37, 22 July 2008 by User:Craigy144, though I started the translation of the German version. See the year 1405 in the List of oldest companies and the links Bremen, Town Hall of Bremen, Wilhelm Hauff etc.

House1630 (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, bad A7. Article contains many assertions of importance, such as being the oldest wine cellar in Germany and housing the oldest wine barrel in Germany. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 18:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Clearly not a speedy deletion candidate with several assertions of significance such as "With its history over 600 years the Ratskeller of Bremen is the oldest wine cellar of Germany". Davewild (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Buildings do not qualify for A7 speedy deletion. Stifle (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Misapplication of A7; the speedy deletion criteria are intentionally narrow in scope, and widening the net even slightly is inappropriate. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn A7 does not apply to buildings and it asserted notability anyway. Hut 8.5 09:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Bad or contested CSD#A7. List at AfD if necessary. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:16, 27 July 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:Indiana Jones and the Cross of Coronado.jpg – Keep closure endorsed. There are valid points as well as a significant amount of bluster on both sides. Individual images are judged on a case-by-case basis whether they fit the WP:NFCC and WP:NFC by community consensus. I see no compelling case that this is an egregious violation where the community consensus can be ignored (although it may be on some articles inappropriately). The nominator admits that there is at least one article where the image could be validly included. – IronGargoyle (talk) 05:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Misjudged "keep" closure of a non-free screenshot image. The closing admin failed to assess the validity of the keep arguments on the basis of policy. All keep votes (to the degree that they contained a tangible argument at all) argued essentially only that the a certain fact (Indiana Jones appearing as a scout in a movie) was important. None of these arguments, however, addressed the crucial issue of NFCC#8: in what way is the image important in order to understand this important but simple fact? According to NFCC8, the image itself (not simply the fact it illustrates) must make a crucial contribution to the understanding of the article. This in conjunction with NFCC#1, which explicitly states that facts that can be made understood with text alone cannot be used to justify an image for illustration. Some keep votes simply asserted that it made such a contribution; none of them explained how it did so.

The admin closed the debate with a blanket statement that it "[m]eets Wikipedia:NFC requirements" without explaining how such a finding resulted from the debate.

The closing admin also failed to address the issue of which articles the alleged keep consensus was valid for. The image has been claimed for as many as five articles: Scouting, Scouting in popular culture, Uniform and insignia of the Boy Scouts of America, River Phoenix, and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. (Of these five, Scouting isn't covered even by a fair use rationale, but nevertheless the image was immediately restored to it after the close of the IfD; rationales for River Phoenix and "Uniform and insignia..." were removed during the IfD.) Even if one were to concede legitimacy of use in Scouting in popular culture, on which most keep arguments focussed, use in Scouting is blatantly unnecessary, as it merely replicates its use in the detail article (hence illegitimate under NFCC#3); while its use in the film article must be assessed totally separately. It's one thing to say that the image is necessary for a discussion of the role of scouting in popular culture; it's an entirely different thing to say it's necessary for understanding a certain plot element in the film (which, quite blatantly, it is not.)

Therefore: Overturn and delete from all three articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Relist~~. There were serious challenges to the fair use rationale. Could use further debate. A proper close requires far more explanation. If there is no consensus that the various fair use rationales are solid, should the image be deleted, or does no consensus mean keep, even in these cases? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Discussion below seems sufficient. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse There was no consensus to delete and so the correct process was followed. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- False. Non-free-content related IfDs have to be closed based on policy, not just on consensus. The closer needs to explain exactly how the image fulfills the requirements and how the challenges posed by the delete voters have been met. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the close, but remove the image from the two articles it clearly does not belong in (the Scouting ones). This isn't IFD part 2, so there's no need to argue the details, but a valid argument exists on both sides and I can justify a keep, at least for the article on the film. In the other articles, though, it's just there to pretty it up, and there are already several other, better images used as examples. On a side note, the copyright is falsely attributed to the Boy Scouts, not to the filmmakers, and used under the idea that the BSA gave permission to depict their uniforms on Wikipedia. This permission wouldn't apply to this picture. This should be fixed. --UsaSatsui (talk) 12:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This just goes to show how poor the result of that IfD was. I would argue to the contrary: If anything, the "Scouting in popular culture" article has a relatively stronger claim to legitimacy. In the context of that article, one could at least argue that the fact of Indiana Jones appearing as a scout had some significance. In the context of the film article, that fact plays absolutely no role at all. That he goes through some adventures as a boy is important for the film; that he does so in a scout uniform seems to be of no significance. The IfD failed to clarify even these basic issues. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and leave wherever a reasonable argument shows it relevant. If it is relevant to show him going through the adventures as a boy, it has to be shown with him wearing what he wore in the film- or it doesnt serve the purpose of providing context. It is perfectly reasonable to conclude in a close that all of the contexts listed made sense. DGG (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that the image shows nothing of the sort. It doesn't show the adventures. Whatever it is that it shows, it doesn't help me to understand the film. If the article had some analytical commentary about the acting or the casting, regarding the actor they chose to play the young Indiana, that might provide an angle for an NFCC case. Just him staring at that object is simply nothing of any significance. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - P.S.: Actually, looking at the article again, I now notice that it does discuss the casting: "Ford personally recommended Phoenix for the part, citing that of all the young actors working at the time, River Phoenix was the one who looked the most like him when he was around that age". Now, if the image could be linked to that bit, I guess I could actually support it here. But remove from the other articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The image does comply with the NFC policy but only on the Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade article. IMO Its use on the other articles really is trying it on. RMHED (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep closure, but the image should really be used only in the one article, per RMHED. Stifle (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and figure out exact limits of non-free use, and delete if no legal use is found. Certainly (and per above) no reason for use in Scouting articles has been given. Kusma (talk) 20:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse This received due process and was discussed for one week. All sides articulated their views thoroughly and Dreadstar rightly concluded that the image's use satisfied NFCC for the two articles where it is presently used and where FUR are provided, namely Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade and Scouting in popular culture. Having said that, however, I have added additional content to the latter article and the associated image FUR to address Fut.Perf.'s concerns, to clarify that this is a notable example of Scouting in film, because the fictional Indiana Jones' career as an adventurer is depicted as having its beginnings as a Boy Scout, wearing an authentic early 20th century uniform. Mere prose alone cannot possibly convey this conceptualization and context adequately to the reader seeking to understand the imagery of Scouting in film. JGHowes ^talk - 23:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Saying so don't make it so. Just making that assertion over and over again won't help. Tell me exactly, what piece of visual information in the image is it that would render the article incomplete? (And no, your recent rewording doesn't help it either.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse - there's a rough consensus for the image to be kept, but I have reservations about the image - mostly, where the supposed cross is. I can't see it full-size. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse my own closure of this IfD. I was asked to provide more detail. This was an IfD, which are focused on whether or not to keep an image on Wikipedia, not which other articles it should be included in. Once the decision has been made to keep the image on Wikipedia for any article, then basing the decision to include in other articles should be on case-by-case talk page discussions, consensus, and policy. But I’ll be happy to address the other main article, because I did weigh both very carefully.
1. The two strongest articles to consider for appropriate fair use of the image are Scouting in popular culture and the article on the film itself, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.
  1. There is no doubt in my mind that the image fully meets all criteria for inclusion in the film it is taken from. The image illustrates a key plot point, a significant event in the life of the title subject of the film. Clearly this is a significant image from the film, depicting major elements of the character’s history and makeup, showing us the beginnings of an iconic fictional film character.
  2. Indiana Jones is clearly an iconic pop culture figure, and the image of him as a Boy Scout during the formation of what later becomes the adventurer-archeologist is a notable and a true poster-child for Scouting in popular culture. In recent years, it’s very difficult to find a pop cult figure of such magnitude, and as pointed out by others, there seem to be very few images of Scouting in film; with virtually all of those copyrighted as well, so the choice is between one fair-use image and another, or having no image. I think the image adds a lot to the article, and is a clearly notable illustration of the Boy Scouts in pop culture.
2. The image meets all ten Wikipedia:NFC#Policy criteria for use of the non-free image. For the film article, as well as the Indiana Jones reference in the Scouting in popular culture article, there is no free equivalent. Indiana Jones is an iconic pop culture figure, and scouting was a major plot point of the film, this image cannot be replaced by a free one that carries the same effect. The film itself was the top grossing film of 1989, The image provides a visual context that text alone cannot convey, so textual representation cannot replace it. The image use is in no way likely to replace the market role of the original.
3. It also meets minimal usage, minimal extent of use, previous publication, and media-specific policy. It meets the one-article minimum, significance (addressed above), restrictions on location, and has an adequate image description page - containing proper attribution to the source and copyright holder.
4. Image use also meets Wikipedia:NFC#Images requirements, 8: Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television. The mage is clearly used for “discussion of the cinema and television” in both the Indiana Jones film and Scouting in popular culture articles.
5. The image also does not fail under any of the WP:NFC Inappropriate use of images criteria.
Dreadstar † 01:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Showing a significant plot point is simply not enough. You claim that "textual representation cannot replace it". Saying so don't make it so. Of course it can. As long as the claimed justification is just the thing about scouting. As I said above, I can see a different angle of justification elsewhere, to support the commentary about casting. Now, that really is an analytical statement that needs visual support to be understood. That's the only reason why I'm prepared to let this DRV rest. But I can't let this misrepresentation of policy pass uncommented. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the criteria used is often of interpretations, different interpretations does never mean misrepresentation of policy. The interpretations by Rlevse, JGHowes and closure rationale by Dreadstar above, convinced me that this image should be used on both Wikipedia articles. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 12:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. While there remains a group of editors that feel that there should be no non-free content on the project, that is not even close to a consensus opinion. The close of this IfD was not controversial, nor was it out of process in any way. This is an easy call to endorse the "keep" closure. S. Dean Jameson 19:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I was trying to think of this word yesterday, that image represents a pivotal moment in the character's history; as he's holding the cross, with the realization that this important artifact of history belongs in a museum and that there are forces that would take it for personal gain. His Scouting background is obviously in play here, not only by giving him the positive moral view to rise above selfishness, but also the tools and training to actually do something about it. It's really a pivotal moment in an iconic character's life. And the point brought up by Fut Perf fits right in, that image is exactly what Spielberg wanted to convey, how he looked as a youth and what motivating forces he saw behind the iconic character of Indiana Jones. It's also a symbol of what drives him to seek the holy grail. The movie starts off with the cross and ends up with the grail. Dreadstar † 20:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And do you have reliable sources to back that up, or is it just your opinion? --82.7.39.174 (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a good point. There aren't any reliable sources to back up the claim that this is "the most famous instance of scouting in film" at all. In fact, Indy being a Boy Scout is almost completely irrelevant to the plot. --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse No clear error in IfD closing. Folks have to deal with the fact the some of the NFCC rules are subjective and opinions (headcount) does play a role. There are good arguments on both sides, but closing as keep seemed reasonable. Hobit (talk) 01:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I stand by my original position that this image meets Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. The image clearly has an appropriate use. If it is inappropriately displayed in another article/user page, it needs to be removed from that page, not Wikipedia altogether. If other discussions erupt, they should be contained to that talk page and then work their way through WP:DR as needed; this page isn't the place. I also disagree with the assertion that anyone who nominates keep needs to explain how every other delete argument is wrong and they must state how it satisfies every criteria. That is not in accordance with policy and will only serve to significantly lengthen a discussion for every image which has a keep !vote. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. Future Perfect has now removed it from Scouting, (and threatened a block in his edit summary if anyone restored it), erroneously claiming that it's an obvious violation of NFCC #3 in doing so. Not only is it not an "obvious violation", it's not even a technical violation of NFCC #3 to have it in Scouting, as I outlined at the talk page of the image. S. Dean Jameson 17:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Would both of you please take a deep breath and work this out on the article's Talk page rather than via edit-warring? While there is room to reasonably debate whether the use of this image in the Scouting article would qualify under fair use, over-the-top allegations that it's "the most famous image of scouting in film" show problems with the fallacy of recency and don't materially advance the debate. It may be popular and it certainly is recent and that may or may not be sufficient to meet fair use for a section titled "In film and the arts", but it is nowhere close to "the most famous image of scouting". (If I had to guess, I'd suspect one of the Norman Rockwell paintings.) At the same time, it is inappropriate to threaten blocking while the question is worked out. I can't find any consensus to either add or remove the image from the page. In fact, I can't find any evidence of discussion at all on Talk:Scouting. Please make your respective cases and work out your differences there. This is not the place to work out a content dispute. Rossami (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was gonna say something, but you EC'd me right out of it because I agree with you 100%. In any event, I don't think anyone (even the nom) supports deletion of the image anymore, it's just a matter of where it's used. This is now a content dispute. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - On Scouting, there is no mention in the article even of the film, let alone of the specific scene, let alone analytical commentary involving it. Moreover, at the time I removed it, the image didn't even have a caption identifying what it was. Plus, it was supposedly doing the same thing there as in the detail article Scouting in popular culture. You don't get to use the same image twice in two articles for the same purpose. Non-free image use has to be "minimal". Doing the same thing twice is not minimal under any understanding of that word. There's no way the image can be tolerated on that article. No room even for debate here. As an administrator on this project, I will do what needs to be done to prevent this obvious case of abuse, period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak overturn I'm swayed by the arguments above that NFCC 8 was not met. the fact that river pheonix was cast as a boy scout and that he held the cross of coronado (a throwaway plot point, BTW) can be explained without loss by text. If, perhaps, we had some image of Harrison Ford at that age and listed the two side by side along with the sourced point that Phoenix was chosen specifically by ford because he bore some strong resemblance to him, I could see it meeting NFCC 8. the fact that some hypothetical non infringing use exists mean that I would only move weakly to overturn the keep closure. the image in current form and applied in the current articles does not convey any understanding that can't be conveyed textually. the cross of coronado is a gilded cross. Indy was a boy scout. he once held the cross. these are things expressed by the article but easily expressed by text as well. Even if removal of the image somehow prevented us from discussing the plot point at hand (assuming that the image conveyed some quality inexpressible in text), the plot point the image describes is vanishingly minor. On balance I don't see good arguments to keep this image. Protonk (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the IfD. It's a rather strange DRV regarding an IfD closed as "keep." The only question before us is whether the closing admin was wrong to close it as such. If the "keep" close is endorsed, then open a new IfD after a while and make your above argument there. It has nothing to do with whether or not the IfD was closed properly. S. Dean Jameson 20:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realize my statements can be broadly taken as a rehashing of an IfD, but it seems appropriate to this DRV. In this case, consensus pointed to keep and the nominator's (of the DRV) interpretation of policy pointed to delete. Insofar as policy might trump consensus (and it ought to for FU images), making a clear interpretation of policy is important to endorsing or overturning the close. So, to clarify. In my opinion, application of WP:NFCC trumps anything but a resounding consensus and the proper application of NFCC is to treat the image as not meeting #8. Protonk (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing: a few people (are you one?) feel that NFCC is cut-and-dried, and that this image clearly fails #8. The fact that so MANY people disagree with that view of the policy means it's NOT cut-and-dried. Therefore, our opinions on the merits of the image itself have no place--none--in this discussion. The only thing up for debate is whether or not the closing admin made a mistake in determining consensus.S. Dean Jameson 03:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. NFCC 8 isn't cut and dry, but the application of it as it may be understood is. If the admin weighed consensus against a violated fair use criteria and determined that anything less than overwhelming consensus moved to keep the article, the close was wrong. Part of the review of the deletion comes from hashing out some definition of the policy at hand. IF this were an article and we were reviewing a deletion per WP:N and the closer misread WP:N, we would have cause to point that out. In this case there is more to be said at the DRV than "3 people moved to delete citing NFCC 8". Again, if the image violates policy, then the question becomes "did the admin make a mistake weighing policy against consensus", not just "weighing consensus". Protonk (talk) 12:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But significance is a matter of opinion, and so we look for consensus. There can't be an objective violation of #8 as it is currently described. It is a matter of opinion and degree. So the closing admin shouldn't be overriding consensus. At least that's my take.

Overturn and delete per every precedent set here at WP:DRV, this image in no way meets WP:NFCC#8. The use of the image in Scouting in popular culture is totally unnecessary to the understanding of the article as it is used to decorate a listing of films. The image is of no significance in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade either. There is no discussion of this particular scene so the omission of the image would not be detrimental to the understanding of the article. -Nv8200p talk 03:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll repeat what I said before: this isn't IfD. These type of arguments are appropriate at an IfD. They're not appropriate here. Your citing of "per every precedent set here at DRV" makes little sense, as DRVs don't overturn "keep" decisions simply because the deletes didn't get their way at IfD. We know you think you're right about NFCC #8. Many other people felt you were wrong in your interpretation. This is NOT the place to rehash the IfD. It's not a "do-over" for the deletes, it's a review of the procedural decision made by the closing admin, period. S. Dean Jameson 03:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the decision of the admin violates Wikipedia policy, then an error was made and the decision needs to be overturned. I contend that he did, based on precedents set in this forum for the way this image is used. -Nv8200p talk 03:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no. Your interpretation of NFCC#8 doesn't matter as to whether the close was procedurally correct or not. That's all DRV is really for. It doesn't matter whether or not you think his close violated your interpretation of WP policy or not. Again, this isn't IfD. S. Dean Jameson 03:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think his close violated the consensus established here at DRV for non-free images being used in this manner so his close cannot be procedurally correct. And it doesn't matter what you think DRV is really for. -Nv8200p talk 03:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse This image is FU eligible, certainly for Scout pop culture and movie articles. This is one of the most iconic Boy Scout images from pop culture so its use in those two articles is precisely what FU is all about. To say it isn't is stretching the FUR to the limits. FUR is not as black and white as that. — Rlevse • Talk • 07:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. If this is such an iconic image, why is there no critical commentary of it anywhere on Wikipedia? The Scouting in popular culture article barely mentions the movie, and the article on the movie barely mentions this scene. The image is purely decorative in both articles. The image completely and utterly fails to comply with Wikipedia policy. The IFD never should have been closed as "keep" since there were (and are still) no coherent arguments from the "keep" voters. —An gr 09:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - decorative image. PhilKnight (talk) 12:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepCritical commentary is not required, it is only one way to meet fair use. The keep closure at IFD was with consensus and policy.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image uses the {{Non-free film screenshot}} template, which requires "critical commentary on the film and its contents". PhilKnight (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The template is setting a guideline/policy? Where is that derived from? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 20:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more content to Scouting in popular culture and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, particularly elaborating on Steven Spielberg's use of lighting and adding critical commentary by Roger Ebert regarding this specific scene; see diffs here and here JGHowes ^talk - 20:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Turners Falls Road Bridge – Overturn all. – lifebaka (talk - contribs) 18:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Closing admin apparently did not check the state of the articles before deleting. While the original articles prior to the AFD were indeed lacking, significant improvements have been made during the AFD that satisfy the requirements of WP:N. --Polaron | Talk 03:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn for all six articles. It seemed to me that the concensus of the discussion was to keep the articles. Agree with above statement that closing admin did not review articles for improvements made since nomination. - PennySpender1983 (talk) 03:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn for all - The consensus was overwhelmingly to keep the articles and as pointed above, the closer didn't seem to notice improvements made to them. --Oakshade (talk) 04:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn all Sources were added to the articles during AFD but unfortunatly nobody seems to have mentioned this on the AFD. Sources added addressed the policy grounds for deletion - WP:V - and provides an arguable case for notability which many of the contributors to the AFD accepted. Could see a reasonable no consensus close but considering the changes to the articles during the AFD, delete does not seem to be appropriate. Davewild (talk) 07:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn all. Certainly improved by the time of closure. Ian¹³ /t 09:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn There was no consensus and the closer seemed to impose his own personal view rather than defaulting to keep. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I can't see a consensus to delete in that discussion (no consensus might have been better), and nobody discussed the improvements made to the articles. --Hut 8.5 13:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn all - per previous comments - Denimadept (talk) 14:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page". This discussion doesn't appear to have happened in this case. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I only notified the admin about the deletion review but have not discussed the matter prior to this review. Is that really an absolute necessity though? The deletion review is by nature a discussion in which the closing admin is specifically invited to participate and also reaches a few more people than a one-on-one discussion. --Polaron | Talk 19:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's customary, at least, to discuss the matter first with the admin as oftentimes they will realise that the deletion was in error and restore the page there and then, without having to go through a five-day listing here. It's also common courtesy, I think. Thanks for your quick reply. Overturn deletion per all above. No consensus to delete (or, for that matter, to do anything else) is discernible from that AFD, and the standard result in that case is a keep. Stifle (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn all; bad close. --NE2 17:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn ALL. Before the articles were nominated, they did not have many reference citations (which was apparently the reason for their nomination). During the course of the AFD debate, for the (3) road bridges in particular which were claimed to be less "notable" than the (3) railroad bridges, citations and references were added to the articles (books and publications about Connecticut and Massachusetts bridges). The "AFD Discussion rules" to keep from deleting should have been posted initially so that the significant majority who had voted to Keep could have posted accordingly. Instead the closing Admin ignored both the significant changes to the articles as well as the comments of the majority who had voted to Keep. Those who voted to Keep probably did not understand what the Admin required in terms of defending Wikipedia:Notability, accordingly one or more good notability examples should have prevented them from being deleted. Wikipedia:Verifiability applies to article content and not article existence, so Notability was the only criteria which needed to be defended against deletion.

For example, Notable features of Turners Falls Road Bridge:

Carries 3,944,700 vehicles per year (2003) National Bridge Inventory
$2,987,000.00 was the estimated cost to make standard bridge and highway improvements to it in 2006.
135.9 metres (446 ft) long over the Connecticut River composed of (5) piers in the water and (6) spans
survived several Connecticut River floodings, whereas the previous (White Lower Suspension) bridge was destroyed by flooding at the same location
documented in/on several Connecticut and Massachusetts bridge books, lists, publications and sites.

LeheckaG (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my interpretation of the consensus in the AfD. Consensus is not only a head-count. How the arguments are covered by policy is the most important factor. In this instance, there were no arguments that showed how the subjects in question were notable in Wikipedia context, and many arguments that can be disregarded out of hand. There were editors, however, who effectively argued that the articles lacked notability, which is policy- (in this instance, guideline) backed. Therefore, the consensus based on policy-backed arguments was that the articles should be deleted. There were improvements made during the AfD. However, none of the participants in the discussion addressed these as granting notability or not. Perhaps the sources added notability, perhaps they did not. It is not my place to decide, as that puts my own interpretation of the notability guideline above consensus in an AfD. Now, given the improvements, a relist to gather consensus as to whether the improvements addressed the previous concerns would have been a more acceptable course of action, but there no indication that additional sources had been added that could have granted notability was given. I stand by my assessment of consensus as correct. However, in light of the new sources, and therefore the complication it adds in closure, I'm fine with it being overturned. However, I do ask that the closure be overturned and the articles undeleted with no prejudice toward a future AfD should another editor find the sources lacking, and therefore a wider consensus can be gathered based on the new state of the articles. seresin ( ¡? ) 22:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that no one at the AFD mentioned that improvements were made to the articles during the discussion that may have satisfied notability for at least some of the articles. This is not meant in anyway to malign the closing admin as the action was completely proper based on the AFD discussion alone. The deletions, however, should be overturned and articles nominated separately (the bundling of bridges that have widely varying degrees of notability was a problem itself) if some people still think that one or more of the articles are not notable. --Polaron | Talk 01:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse: As the nominator of the AfD, I was gratified to see one of the uncommon instances of a closing nom support policy over consensus. The WP:BRIDGE editors fighting to save these articles included a few factoids, at the eleventh hour, but in no wise explained what made these notable. Let's take the facts that LeheckaG summarizes above. What about a vehicle count of 3,944,700 annually - which breaks down to less than eight cars a minute - is notable? What is either noteworthy or unusual about it receiving $3,000,000 in repairs a few years back? What about its length, its number of spans or its number of piers is unusual or notable? Why is it notable that it's survived floods that weaker bridges built a century or more ago did not ... don't most United States bridges, in fact, not fall down? And so on. WP:V and WP:N require notable, non-trivial mention, and the only facts that anyone could dredge up are trivialities common to tens of thousands of nondescript road bridges; all bridges were built sometime, there's some government or highway department report somewhere that mentions them, they all cost a certain amount of money to build and repair, and they all have a certain length and were built in a particular fashion. It isn't even that the AfD was a hatchet job ... there are 47 crossings of the Connecticut listed, and only six articles AfDed. Finally, while some of the Overturn voters still seem to be stewing over notification issues, I just happened to find out about this Deletion Review by accident because I wanted to see if WP:BRIDGE did indeed have the consensus notability standards members claimed. No one seemed to feel I ought to be informed. RGTraynor 06:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you patently fail to understand is that these so-called "policies" you worship are totally non-prescriptive and non-binding. We don't have to obey them, ever, at all, for any reason. No so-called "policy" ever trumps consensus in a particular case, and no community servant has any legitimate business to act against consensus in a particular case because a so-called "policy" says otherwise. You've got Wikipedia backwards. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 13:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No 1500 foot long bridge is "nondescript", I'm afraid.... but more importantly, you've got things backwards I think. You say: "one of the uncommon instances of a closing nom support policy over consensus" ... Um, I think maybe you're not totally clear on how policy is formed here. Policy follows consensus. If consensus consistently comes out ("uncommon instances" notwithstanding) in contravention of apparent policy, the policy is what has been described wrong, not the consensus, because policy is descriptive of consensus, not prescriptively counter to it. ++Lar: t/c 04:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And if there has been a Wikipedia-wide consensus declaring that WP:N (for instance) was no longer applicable, or that its phrasing had changed, then obviously matters would be different. To quote from WP:CONSENSUS: "Consensus decisions in specific cases are not expected to automatically override consensus on a wider scale - for instance, a local debate on a WikiProject does not override the larger consensus behind a policy or guideline. The WikiProject cannot decide that for the articles within its scope, some policy does not apply, unless they can convince the broader community that doing so is the right course of action." RGTraynor 04:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was one of people adding notability to the subject articles during the AfD process and didn't consider it necessary to repeat the information in AfD discussion since more people were endorsing a keep than a delete. So I will give a sample of the information I found here for just one of the articles.

The Amtrak/Springfield Terminal Railroad Bridge was built by Alvah Crocker, a U.S. Representative. He operated the Fitchburg Railroad. This rail line would eventually extend to the Hoosac Tunnel, a civil engineering landmark. Mr. Crocker bought land and developed Turners Falls. Because he built the rail line and the bridge, a cutlery factory opened in Turners Falls. I found a biography on him (Life and Times of Alvah Crocker By William Bond Wheelwright) that stated that Turners Falls would not exist as it is today without Mr. Crocker building that "non-descript railroad bridge."

Those of us with a passion for bridges realize that a community will shape a bridge before it is built, but once constructed, a bridge (no matter how small) will shape a community for decades to come. This is often taken for granted as people do not see the effect a bridge has until it is gone. These articles were stubs and probably would have been better suited to be combined together and discussed in an article like Connecticut River Crossings in Franklin County, Massachusetts. That way the impact they have on the community (which I might consider to be their notability) can be discussed as a group. You are very much right that Wikipedia:WikiProject Bridges needs to develop notability criteria.

I guess I must still be a newbie, because the deletion of the articles by the admin felt like a WP:BITE to me (very one-sided). - PennySpender1983 (talk) 20:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a portmanteau article would be appropriate, but just in considering that sample paragraph above, the editor's mixing up his bridges. Turners has, in fact, three bridges crossing it; the one up for deletion is the least notable and least noticeable one of the lot, and I didn't touch the (relatively notable) Gill-Montague Bridge, the main route into Turners, or the (relatively notable) General Pierce Bridge. The Amtrak/Springfield Terminal Railroad Bridge is something like sixty miles south of Turners Falls, is in Connecticut, and nowhere near the Fitchburg Railroad or the Hoosac Tunnel routes. That aside, as stated before, every bridge was built by someone, most bridges involved economic development, and whether a bridge or not has a notable impact on the community after it is gone is speculation which I don't find in WP:V or WP:N. RGTraynor 23:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the railroad bridge being referred to as the Deerfield Springfield Terminal railroad bridge. --Polaron | Talk 00:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added information on three of the six bridges. The Suffield/Enfield railroad bridge was an example in an Engineering textbook that was listed as an external link in the article. It was also mentioned in one of the cited sources as being one of the earliest iron bridges in the United States that was built before the end of the U.S. Civil War. It was built overseas, disassembled, shipped to the U.S., then reassembled. The Northfield road bridge was prominently discussed in a book about the history of the town. It was also the first bridge in the U.S. not to use falsework during construction. The Turner Falls road bridge is also highlighted in one of the added sources as being crucial for the booming of the manufacturing industry in the village in the 19th century because it brought it in direct contact with the county seat. It is also notable for being bypassed by State Route 2 because of concerns of being washed away (the area apparently suffers from its bridges frquently being washed away). WP:N only something requires being discussed in secondary sources. Note that the added sources do discuss the social and economic effects of the bridges and offer some engineering novelty as well. The sources have more information but I only added what stood out to me. These three plus the Deerfield railroad bridge discussed above for sure meet the requirements of WP:N. The other two bridges I have begun searching for sources during the AFD but have not found any that discuss the bridges (rather than merely mention them) unlike the other four. --Polaron | Talk 00:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me too Penny, me too. At this point, I'm more interested in starting a new Wiki for structures past, present, and future than I am in continuing here. I'm trying to determine interest atm. - Denimadept (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn all - articles improved. Also the closing comments smacked me as "I don't like these articles thus I am going to ignore anything the opposers said." Renata (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn all at the very least, they should have ben relisted individually. DGG (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn all a shotgun nom seems not the way to go, individual discussions would be better. The closer should have closed no consensus based on the strength of the arguments in any case. I have merged the content of Joseph E. Muller Bridge, a 1500 foot long bridge, and thus likely notable in its own right anyway, into Joseph E. Muller (who is notable as a Medal of Honor winner), and was about to do the same for others when I realised there was a DRv underway. These articles should all be undeleted to allow for review by participants. That includes undeleteing ALL revisions. Turners Falls Road Bridge for example, has only a notice. The rest of the edits, which would allow non admin participants to judge whether there was substantial change in the article while the AfD was underway, are deleted. That seems incorrect to me. ++Lar: t/c 04:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which arguments supporting keeping had any basis in policy or guideline? seresin ( ¡? ) 04:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um... how about the fact that multiple sources were added during the course of the nom satisfying notability: "It is one of the earliest iron bridges erected in the United States." with a five page writeup in an 1881 engineering text, for example... That was one of the articles you deleted. That you didn't catch that suggests that your review was not as careful as it could have been. There is no shame in a bad close or a bad delete, people get overturned all the time, it happens to me too. Where there is an issue is in not admitting your error but instead digging in. ++Lar: t/c 04:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I don't view it as a closing administrator's place to review modifications to the article and deem them as addressing the AfD concerns or not. In this instance, because of the presence of such modifications, a relist of the AfD would have been more appropriate, and I already admitted that. But, purely based on the AfD, there were no "keep" arguments put forth that were in-line with our policies and guidelines. Length of a bridge does not grant notability based on our notability guideline, and therefore none of those arguments were valid. seresin ( ¡? ) 07:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to process wank, be my guest. Relist the lot at AfD so they can be snowball speedy closed as keep by me, and we'll move on. Or just overturn them all now yourself and admit you erred. OR... dig in and look increasingly like you're more concerned with process than with improving the encyclopedia. How many people telling you this was a bad close do you need? ++Lar: t/c 15:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Policy is what we do. (Yes, that's circular, and rightly so.) If common practice and policy/guidelines do not match, one or the other must change. --NE2 09:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn all. If the closer is correct to delete these articles because of our notability policy, then the policy is seriously flawed. Our policies are supposed to describe our practices, which are determined in forums like AFD. So the notability arguments can get extremely circular. Towards the end of the discussion, I asked what actual harm there is in having articles like these. That should be the focus of our discussion. Nobody is questioning the existence of these bridges, or any of the facts in the articles. There is no problem in maintaining the articles. They are not a target of vandalism. All the information is verifiable.
I strongly believe that there are good reasons for having a policy about notability. Notability standards help us judge the sources used to verify an article and weigh their reliability and accuracy. That is not an issue here. Notability standards help us keep Wikipedia being unmanageable. This is the only issue that seems relevant to this discussion. I can understand why we might want to put some limitations on the notability of music groups to control the exploitation of Wikipedia for reasons of self-promotion. In cases when there is a problem with contributors exploiting Wikipedia by some means, a notability standard is a useful way to reign in the behavior. The Bridge Wikiproject is a pretty sleepy backwater. We don't have many issues or controversies. We are not being overrun with articles about every overpass every constructed. We have never had a need to create strict notability standards. Again, I ask for someone to explain how articles like these are harmful to Wikipedia. The only harm that I see is from the deletion discussions like this one that may scare away newbies while wasting the efforts of numerous editors on both side of the debate. I think we would all be better off looking for more important problems to solve. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 07:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We're not being overrun? :) (just kidding; that's on the National Register of Historic Places, which probably does confer "inherent notability" because of the existence of nominations that cover the history in detail) --NE2 09:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Improved during afd. Sourced. Part of a set best completely documented rather than half-documented. Subject of much officially held data. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 13:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Seriously? Just looking at the AfD, how was it closed as delete? Avruch^T 13:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - ridiculous to apply notability guidelines in this manner, and there's a notable gap between the arguments and the claimed result. Terrible decision - David Gerard (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn all — misfeasance by closing admin ➥the Epopt (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Wikipedia "POLICY" see Wikipedia:List of policies); Wikipedia:Consensus says "Policies and guidelines document communal consensus rather than creating it." When the majority voted to "Keep" in the AFD discussion, I had thought that the "Consensus" was to "Keep", but apparently the Nominator and the Closing Admin felt differently - repeatedly citing Wikipedia:Notability (which is a Wikipedia "Guideline" and NOT a policy see: Wikipedia:List of guidelines). The "Notability guideline" is primarily intended to curtail "self-publishing" and spamming, and to consolidate some brief articles into fewer articles about the general subject area or topic when there are not enough verifiable details for each one to stand on its own merits. The Notability guideline is meant to be a tool to direct editors to merge non-spam "orphan" content (and administrators to delete content which is CLEARLY "self-promotional spam") which was wrongly applied in the case of historic/older sizable bridges over a significant river. Hopefully this review will more clearly show the difference between: "consensus", "guideline", and "policy" than the original AFD outcome. What SHOULD have happened originally (BEFORE any AFD nomination), was FIRST "flagging/tagging" the articles with regard to being "Stubs" or not having enough citations/references so that the contributors/editors in the relevant projects could have remedied them rather than "fighting" an AFD debate and then this subsequent review of the AFD closure which went against Consensus. Initially, the nominated articles did not have the appropriate WP Bridges and WP Trains project templates on the talk pages - so they were "off the radar" of the relevant projects. Unfortunately some Wikipedians spend more time deleting than contributing or editing (I agree that spam and clearly "erroneous" content should be deleted, but I have seen accurate content get deleted for lack of a reference - which probably goes against a guideline or policy?). I have gotten in the habit of separating "References" into (3) sections: "Notes" for Cnote/Cref elaborations which do not fit in the main text, References for ref/Cite tags/templates, and General references for research materials not yet or not otherwise cited in the text. First adding General references when I can, and then starting to add the content to the article. But sometimes uncited/unreferenced details need to be flushed out first to get some generalities down before one can really find "authoritative/primary" reference citations, in the case of most bridges they are known by several different names and tying the "common" name together with the published ones takes some effort which results in stub articles being there for a while until someone can tie the details together. The "chicken and egg" issue I see is that while some people write entire articles themselves, I am guessing the majority of contributors work on certain aspects of articles - so that collaboration is generally beneficial. What is needed are "collaborative sandboxes" for such articles perhaps in "Project" or "Portal" namespace? so that such stubs can be created and collaboratively drafted without facing the wrath of those who would delete "unfinished/unreferenced articles" rather than actually contributing to them. LeheckaG (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "collaborative sandbox" you ask for is called a "wiki". Unsourced stubs are an essential part of wikis. Unsourced material is only a problem if is unverifiable. That is not the case here. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 18:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Open Web Foundation – New version of the article has been created (and survived speedy request) so deletion review no longer needed, but consensus is that the original version was an appropriate speedy deletion – Davewild (talk) 17:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This can not be considered advertising, the article describes a non-profit non-commercial organization. Similar rational was used at Talk:DataPortability. Significance and notability were asserted, let this article live so it will begin to see improvement. riffic (talk) 01:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Nonprofits advertise, too. Protonk (talk) 03:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should contested speedies be assumed to be entitled to be listed at AfD? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The new (recreated?) version Looks like advertising of "The Open Web Foundation". Needs third party references to demostrate otherwise. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that this is a normal process... Looks like it's on the way to a speedy but has been hung on. As it is, I would say Delete as it seems to fail WP:RS and is not notable. --Pmedema (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse previous speedy, and it looks like the current one needs deleting as well. Not everything is important, I'm afraid. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 12:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Please elaborate on your comment "Not everything is important." I am failing to understand what you mean by that. This topic is notable in multiple recent references, and is made up of significant member organizations. They are also going to be leading the development of leading open protocols such as OpenID and OAuth, which are significant enough to warrant their own wiki entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riffic (talk • contribs) 14:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was announced yesterday, my gut reaction is that it isn't notable yet. Still, I could be wrong and it could be made into a good article. My opinion isn't likely to change on this for at least a few weeks, though it's fine if consensus doesn't swing that way. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 15:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy deletion of the page at time of deletion. The deleted version was far too promotional in tone and speculative in content. It was an appropriate application of criterion G11. The recreated version is at least somewhat more neutral and better sourced. I'm still not sure that it meets Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria for organizations but at this point it's a question for AfD to sort out. As a side note, comments like "going to be" are real red-flags. This is an encyclopedia, not a place for press releases. We document and synopsize things that have happened and have been written about by others; we are not supposed to speculate about the future. Rossami (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, but allow re-creation I too would have speedied the article at the time of deletion, in large part because I fully share Rossami's views about "going to be" and its many equivalents. Once it a while it happens that they are left in from a previous wording or press release and whatever it is has since become important, but almost always it's reasonably conclusive evidence otherwise. I think that all admins closing speedy do similarly. DGG (talk) 15:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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