Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Skip to: Active discussions | Recent discussions | Archive

Shortcuts: WP:DRV WP:DELREV

Deletion discussions

Deletion today AfD yesterday Articles (by category) Templates Files Categories (active) Stub types Redirects Miscellany Deletion review
Deletion policy
Process – Log – Tools Guide – Images – Admins

For simple image undeletions, try {{ImageUndeleteRequest}}

Wikipedia editors may find articles, images, or other pages that they believe should be deleted, and raise these concerns in various deletion forums. Administrators determine consensus and examine policy to determine if there is sufficient justification for their removal from Wikipedia.

Wikipedia:Deletion review considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions and speedy deletions. This includes appeals to restore deleted pages and appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.

If a short stub was deleted for lack of content, and you wish to create a useful article on the same subject, you can be bold and do so. It is not necessary to have the original stub undeleted. If, however, the new stub is also deleted, you may list it here for a discussion. If you are proposing that an existing page be reconsidered for deletion, please place the template {{Delrev}} on that page to inform editors who may wish to join the discussion here (administrators may replace with {{TempUndelete}} where appropriate).

Before posting a deletion review request, please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy.

[edit] What is this page for?

Please consider the options below, and then follow instructions to add your request to the main part of the page.

[edit] Principal purpose – challenging deletion decisions

Deletion Review is the process to be used to challenge the outcome of a deletion debate or to review a speedy deletion.

Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look.
Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly, or if the speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria established for such deletions.
Deletion Review also is to be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article.
In the most exceptional cases, posting a message to WP:AN/I may be more appropriate instead. Rapid corrective action can then be taken if the ensuing discussion makes clear it should be.

Shortcut: WP:DRV

This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome for reasons previously presented but instead if you think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate. This page exists to correct closure errors in the deletion process and speedy deletions, both of which may also involve reviewing content in some cases. Purely procedural errors may be substantive and result in an overturn (such as failing to tag a page for its XfD discussion) or irrelevant (such as closing 1 minute early).

The main purpose of the page is to review the outcome of deletion discussions, as described above. There are some ancillary cases where editors wish to have pages restored. These are also handled in main part of the page—please consider the usual reasons below and state clearly the basis for your request.

[edit] Temporary review

Request this if you want to use the content elsewhere (such as in other articles), you suspect the article has been wrongly deleted but are unable to tell without seeing what exactly was deleted, or if the full article history is needed to complete a transwiki properly. Please state whether you would like:

The article temporarily restored for all to examine during a review.
The article restored to your userspace so you can work on it to attempt to address the problems that led to deletion.
The source of the article emailed to you to review 'off-Wiki'.

Only uncontroversial revisions will be restored. Content that is moved back to the encyclopedia without being improved may be subject to speedy deletion, and content held in userspace without evidence of intent to work on it may also be nominated for deletion.

[edit] History-only undeletion

Request this to have the history of a deleted article restored behind a new, improved version of the article. The old, deleted revisions will sit harmlessly in the history of the page. 'History-only' undeletions can be performed without needing extended discussion on this page.

[edit] Contesting 'proposed deletions'

Request this if the article was dealt with as a 'proposed deletion'. A 'PROD'-deleted article can be restored by any admin upon reasonable request. Such an article may still be deleted at articles for deletion or under the criteria for speedy deletion.

Administrators restoring deleted articles should also restore the associated talk page if it exists and place {{oldprod}} on it. {{ProdContested}} (shortcut {{subst:PC|articlename}}) is available for notifying the original nominator that the article has been restored.

[edit] How do I do all this?

All requests go in the main part of the page below. Please state clearly your reason for requesting undeletion. If you want to review the debate or the cause of deletion, then these ancillary options are not appropriate, and you should request a full review.

Under no circumstances will revisions that are copyright violations, libelous or contain otherwise prohibited content be restored.

[edit] Instructions

Before listing a review request:

discuss the matter with the deleting administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion review. See #What is this page for? (above).
please check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.

[edit] Commenting in a deletion review

In the deletion review discussion, users should opt to:

Endorse the original closing decision; or
Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear.

Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.

The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum.

[edit] Temporary undeletion

Admins participating in deletion reviews are requested to routinely restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{tempundelete}} template, leaving the history for review by non-admins. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.

[edit] Closing reviews

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion process#Wikipedia:Deletion review discussions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented. If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate. Deletion review discussions may also be extended by relisting them to the newest DRV log page, if the closing admin thinks that consensus may yet be achieved by more discussion.

[edit] Steps to list a new deletion review

Before listing a review request, please attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page (or otherwise made the decision) as this could resolve the matter faster. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the admin the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, please note in the DRV listing that you first tried discussing the matter with the admin who deleted the page.


1.	Copy this template skeleton for most pages: {{subst:drv2 \|page= \|xfd_page= \|reason= }} ~~~~ Copy this template skeleton for files: {{subst:drv2 \|page= \|xfd_page= \|article= \|reason= }} ~~~~
2.	Follow this link to today's log and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in `page` with the name of the deleted page, `xfd_page` with the name of the deletion discussion page, and `reason` with the reason why the page should be undeleted. For media files, `article` is the name of the article where the file was used. For example: {{subst:drv2 \|page=File:Foo.png \|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png \|article=Foo \|reason=Deletion was entirely unreasonable. }} ~~~~
3.	Inform the administrator who deleted the page by adding the following on their user talk page: `{{subst:DRVNote\|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~`
4.	Nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept should also attach a `{{subst:Delrev}}` tag to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.

[edit] Active discussions

[edit] 4 July 2009

[edit] 3 July 2009

[edit] Common End, Colkirk

Requesting the outcome be changed from delete to merge (with the edit history retained). The consensus seemed to favor merging better than deleting. Sebwite (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Overturn to no consensus. Two deletes, two keeps and four merges is not a delete consensus, and in the absence of socking, it's considerably outside admin discretion to interpret it as one. Sorry, Fritzpoll, but as I've said before at DRV: implement the consensus, and if you don't like the consensus, then !vote. Don't close.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Overturn to no consensus per that being the consensus. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 2 July 2009

[edit] IBS Treatment Center (closed)

[edit] 1 July 2009

[edit] Scott Campbell (blogger)

Around 20 new sources listed on this page, as well as articles/appearances for my startup Net News Daily in The Guardian Online, BBC News Online, BBC Radio 2, BBC Radio 5 Live, The Independent, The Scotsman, Original 106, Real Radio and Northsound 1. I also now write for TechCrunch/CrunchGear. I would count this as notable. Scott (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you ask an editor without a WP:COI to create a userspace draft which can be brought to DRV. I think it very likely that the sources you have are sufficient to establish notability, but experience with DRV tells me the conflict of interest and the lack of a userspace draft may be significant obstacles.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I stand by what I said in the last DRV. The AfD closure was appropriate, given the situation then. Now, more sources are present, and so I support allowing re-creation in principle. However, I think that we would be best served by re-creating as a redirect to the Net News Daily article (which I note was just re-created without any DRV) because the subject's notability is tied pretty much only to the site. ÷seresin 02:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Those sources are pretty much standard trivial sources, they aren't about the person, they are about the "experiment", the WP:GNG requires "sources address the subject directly in detail", these don't. Just listing up any mention of a person is not useful for an encyclopedia article. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I would recommend a userspace draft. See WP:SUBPAGE. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Endorse deletion, suggest non-COI user draft - per the reasons given above. Otto4711 (talk) 19:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Bonnie Doon Shopping Centre

Was just deleted after AfD. The closing administrator closed it simply by saying "the result was delete" with no further explanation. But several participants said keep with some good reasons favoring keeping. There seemed to be reliable sources on the subject (though I am not familiar with it myself), and it was far from clear that the consensus was to delete. Sebwite (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion by default due to nominator's failure to respond to a reasonable query. Stifle (talk) 20:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to Stifle for alerting me of this. AfD isn't a vote, and going by the strength of the arguments, there's a clear consensus to delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Endorse it would have helped if the closing had been a little more specific--I suggest to Julian he might have also been more explicit here about what parts of the argument he considered strong. I am basically endorsing the result: Small malls are almost never notable, and there really wasn't enough to indicate otherwise. I did not join the original discuss and say that at the AfD because I thought it would obviously be deleted.DGG (talk) 01:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Endorse as, as far as I can tell, people merely asserted reliable sources existed (or probably existed) but didn't actually point to any concrete examples. WP:V and WP:N demand more than just vague assertions. --Chiliad22 (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment There are sources that can be found here and most easily accesible

here. These describe notable details, including the center's history and uses. Sebwite (talk) 03:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

- - But between those three books in your second link there are only four sentences combined about this topic... it's not really seeming like nontrivial coverage to me. --Chiliad22 (talk) 12:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Youth United

Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_March_10 I, being a different individual seek to recreate the article of this organization with all the Wikipedia policies to be taken into consideration, so unprotection of the page Youth United is sought to create this page again as per Wikipedia policies. Regards Maihunggogoi (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC) -->

Comment the latest version seems to still be at User:Extolmonica/Youth United. It has no references beyond its own web site. Unless some 3rd party references can be found, there is no real possibility of having an article, and we should consider deleting the one in userspace also. DGG (talk) 05:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Concur with DGG. The mainspace article does not need to be unprotected before you write an article in your sandbox. We need some evidence that a viable page will actually be written (otherwise all evidence is that only nonviable pages will be recreated). Once there is an article ready-to-go, it can then go to mainspace. That is, exactly same thing you heard at WP:RFPP. Please don't forum-shop. DMacks (talk) 06:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Concur with DGG and DMacks. When a userspace draft with serious third-party references is added, it will be considered. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Concur with above on Mainspace article But I don't think the userpage one should be deleted, they should be taught how to impove the article, and add real sources. --MahaPanta (talk) 10:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- comment - WP:NOBLECAUSE and all that. Unless there's a raftload of new sources out there, the original decision still should stand, despite forumshopping by the initial poster, etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed to the Admins First of all, the latest version of article is yet to be written. The article at User:Extolmonica/Youth United is written by some other individual and I don't take the liability for the same. I am obviously going to write in much different manner providing substantial third party sources. Please guide me as how to write the article in my user space. Regards Maihunggogoi (talk) 21:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You can create a draft in your userspace here: User:Maihunggoi/Sandbox. If this will be your first article, I suggest reading WP:YFA before beginning. It also helps to be familiar with Wikipedia guidelines on notability and policy on reliable sources and verifiability.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Created a test article Dear admins I have created a test article for Youth United at User:Maihunggoi/Sandbox. I would request the admins to please move this article to main space Youth United and Unprotect it for further modifications. Regards Maihunggogoi (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that one's worse than the last one, with not even a pretense of an indication of notability. If this organization is notable, where are the links to substantial coverage of its activities in reliable sources? --Orange Mike | Talk 01:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know what do you mean by reliable sources. Couldn't you see the sources mentioned, which were primarily the National newspapers in India? If you were looking for our articles in Time Magazine or so then I would request to to be a little rational in deciding over anything. Look over the websites of National Newspapers like Times of India, Hindustan Times, Indian Express and Tribune India and see what notability you are looking for now. I request all admins to be rational and flexible to deal with this case. Regards Maihunggogoi (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it might be OK now, with a little more work. I clarified some of the references, to show at least which ones were coming from Reliable 3rd party sources, but they still need proper expansion. Not all of them are significant mentions, but some of them are , especially [1], and they are from major Indian newspapers. If you finish formatting them correctly using the cite templates, they will be much more impressive, and reasonably so. I think it can go back to mainspace, and if anyone wants to list it for AfD, they can do so.DGG (talk) 01:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wal-Mart (disambiguation)

I had created this page a while back, and it was speedy deleted. I did not know it was previously created and deleted, and I know little about the previous version. The page that I created, I feel, meets Wikipedia:Disambiguation guidelines, and therefore, should be included. In this and this list are at least several titles that have a substantially different meaning from the title "Wal-Mart" itself. Tatterfly (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Endorse valid CSD G4 — There is Category:Wal-Mart which l covers everything that a dab would. Since all of these Wal-Mart pages are, in fact, related to Wal-Mart the business, there isn't actually any ambiguity in need of dab. This was all said in AfD#2. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Restore and relist — valid CSD G4 redeleting the page in line with a badly flawed AfD#2. A third AfD can better decide what to do about lists, cats, dabs, &c than DRV can. See my comment below. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Endorse, nothing unclear about the destination of the main Wal-Mart page or about the result of the AfD. All these pages belong in some way to the WalMart family and as such their links should be inlined into the content of the Wal-Mart page. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 09:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I think there's more to it than that, because of WP:CLN. The underlying point here is to think of ways to group Wal-Mart-related articles to help encyclopaedia users to find them.
A category is not, by itself, adequate as a navigation aid. Oh, sure, experienced Wikipedians who can use categories proficiently don't struggle with it, but we're writing an encyclopaedia for an audience of the general public here.

A navbox for moving between the articles, a disambiguation page, and/or a List of Wal-Mart articles (which is presently a redirect, for reasons I find very perplexing) are all options to consider.

I think if we decide we can't have a Wal-Mart (disambiguation), we need to consider what provision we should have in its place.

Personally I'm not inclined towards the navbox idea. Wal-Mart already has navboxes, and there are too many articles in the category to conveniently group in another navbox.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Very good points. The history of the list is worth looking at. It's certainly a valid CSD G4 given the conclusions of AfD#2, but it looks to me as if we should revisit the AfD since it did not consider constructive alternatives such as the obvious-to-me-now remedy of moving the page back to List of Wal-Mart articles. I'm considering changing my !vote to restore and relist; the reason for another AfD is so that the article isn't CSD G4 anymore. A third AfD, how lovely. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Undelete - after looking at some of the other pages starting with the title "Wal-Mart," I found several to be distinct enough from the Wal-Mart corporation itself that they would not belong solely in a List of Wal-Mart articles. The purpose of a disambiguation page is for navigation, and one who was looking more a more obscure meaning of "Walmart" (or similar) would visit a disambiguation page to find it, not "list of Wal-Mart articles." Sebwite (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
The article that was G4 deleted did not address the reasons AfD #2 deleted it. Namely the "partial title matches" section here—it was still a list comprising things that were not the same title, they merely included the word. Valid G4. ÷seresin 07:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure it was, Seresin, but with this very good-faith case, we're trying to be a little more helpful than that. If we can't have this page, then what system shall we use to group these articles for the benefit of end-users?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with this? ÷seresin 07:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It's incomplete. There are 26 entries in Category:Wal-Mart and a dozen more in Category:Wal-Mart people.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Most missing entries seem to be noted in the main article earlier, but if something's missing, add it. But most of the things in those categories absolutely do not belong in a disambiguation pages, whose purpose is to disambiguate things with very similar names, not list related topics. ÷seresin 08:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, and I'm not arguing for retaining this disambiguation page. As explained above, my position is that this content belongs in the List of Wal-Mart articles, the history of which article is highly relevant to this DRV.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

As for all the above arguments, It does seem that one in particular, Walmarting (with the redirect Walmart (neologism)), is the similar enough to the common title "Wal-Mart" to be disambiguated, but it would not make sense to put it on a hatnote either. It also does not belong in the see also section, because a see also section is supposed to list articles that one who reads that article may also be interested in reading, and it is not relevant enough to the Wal-Mart corporation to list in a see also section. Other titles include Walmart First Tee Open at Pebble Beach, a tournament that uses the name "Wal-Mart" (derived from and sponsored by the company, but otherwise unrelated, and therefore inappropriate for a see also section), and Wal-Mart camel, formerly an article, but now merged with the title redirecting, and given that name only because of the location where it was found. There is no standard on Wikipedia to substitute disambiguation pages with pages titled List of _____ articles. That would be like replacing Honolulu (disambiguation) with List of Honolulu articles on the basis that everything listed there is somehow tied to the city of Honolulu, and therefore should not be disambiguated. Sebwite (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It's easy to come up with things we can't do, and reasons why we can't do them. It's a little more challenging to come up with things that Wikipedia policy does let us do to group articles with similar themes so users can find them. I'd like to invite you to think of something constructive.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 30 June 2009

[edit] Broken Cyde (closed)

[edit] Image:ARRahman2.jpg

No indication that the nominator even attempted to determine the image's copyright before listing it for deletion. Ricky28618 (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Note the original image nominator was User:Ricky81682 the nominator here who is brand new self confessed alternate account seems to be a violation of the username policy as clearly intended to be confused with the existing user. Regards the deletion, there is no requirement for the nominator to search down copyright status, the onus is on the uploader to correctly specify an demonstrate it. No issue to review here. If the image can be shown to be properly under a suitable license, simply reupload it, or show the details to the deleting admin and request it's undeletion. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

What confusion? My name has nothing to do with the nominator. -- Ricky28618 (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

So a an account consisting of a name and 5 digits where the difference between the two is just those last 5 digits in reverse. And the first edit is to ask for a review of a deletion nominated by the other account. And of course mere coincidence and no confusion possible, whatever. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 09:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The image was deleted in November. Also, seeing what happened below to the last editor who questioned that admin's actions, it's clear he has many friends around here. I suspect the same fate may come to me. -- Ricky28618 (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not a great reason. If you aren't courteous enough to ask the deleter for more information or to reconsider, I'm not sure I'm interested in restoring the image.

All that aside, do you have any proof that the image is available under a free license? The copyright process here, de facto at least, is that text and images are presumed to be OK, but once questioned, the uploader/adder must provide proof of the free licensing. Otherwise, they're deleted. Stifle (talk) 08:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep deleted per Usrnme h8er below. Stifle (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Endorse, no evidence provided to back up the Free license claim. If such evidence is available and can be posted with the image, no DRV is needed for the image to be reuploaded. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 14:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Speedy close - since the nominating account hasn't presented any evidence of copyright permission and has now been blocked, despite their protestations about no confusion with the account who nominated this for deletion, posts to the other users talk page like this suggest otherwise. Similary nomination for deletion of articles created by the other editor --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Disney Villains

The page was deleted under the reasoning that fictional characters must not be categorized as villains per WP:POV and OR. However, The Walt Disney Company has released a franchise named "Disney Villains", which is more than just characters who are antagonists, witches, etc. There are direct-to-video films, video games and other merchandise by the franchise that can be categorized under "Category:Disney Villains", other than just characters in the official line-up. Therefore, the category would be named after an existing franchise and not as a way to label characters as villains only because they are "bad guys". --LoЯd ۞pεth 18:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

A category for Disney Villains seems like it'd be fine. Certainly doesn't go against the TfD. It should be located at the capitalized title (Category:Disney Villains rather than Category:Disney villains), though. You don't need permission here to create this, so go ahead. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thing is that the page is protected. I asked for unprotection but my request was declined because the admin told me to make this deletion review to have consensus for a recreation first. --LoЯd ۞pεth 21:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Endorse deletion - consensus is clear that we do not categorize fictional characters by characteristics like "hero" and "villain" because they are mutable. No indication that the original close was in error and no indication that the well-established consensus against such categories has changed in any way. Otto4711 (talk) 00:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- You have clearly not read the reasons for recreating this. "Category:Disney Villains" will not be for listing characters as villains, but to include merchandise from a franchise named Disney Villains. This category would include direct-to-video films, video games, etc. --LoЯd ۞pεth 01:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  - It must be wonderful to have the power to look through the eyes of others to be able to know what they have and haven't read. I hope you use this power responsibly. Otto4711 (talk) 12:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Endorse deletion. Just using "Disney Villains" as the category name is too ambiguous, and there is strong consensus against categorizing characters as "villains," and this category could be confused with a generic category for villains that appear in Disney media. If the proposed category is for the franchise, then why not name it Category:Disney Villains franchise or Category:Disney Villains (franchise)? There is already Category:Characters in the Disney Villains franchise, which would be a logical subcategory. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- But videogames and films are not "Characters (in the Disney Villains franchise) right? However, Category:Disney Villains (franchise) seems like a good idea. --LoЯd ۞pεth 06:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  - Yes, that's why I said why not create Category:Disney Villains franchise or Category:Disney Villains (franchise), for the things that aren't characters. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Endorse deletion per WP:NPOV. Stifle (talk) 09:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Endorse deletion — I agree that the category is not straightforwardly POV, but no reason has been given to prefer recreation of this confusion-risking category over creation of one of the clearly titled categories suggested by GoodOl. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Endorse deletion. No objections to recreation with "franchise" or "(franchise)" appended. --Kbdank71 15:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 29 June 2009

[edit] Septoid2 (closed)

[edit] Terrible Trouble (closed)

[edit] Quadrosoft (closed)

[edit] File:Smallz.JPG (closed)

[edit] Eddie_Mitchell (closed)

[edit] Mungery (closed)

[edit] Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie (closed)

[edit] James P. Barker

The at Afd listed article was incorrectly been speedy deleted per A7 and BLP1E. A7 and BLP1E are not valid reasons for a speedy deletion. The deletion was clearly incorrect and the deleting admin concedes he acted hastily. Proposed solution. Relist at Articles for deletion. Iqinn (talk) 10:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Could an admin please restore the original article so I can see for myself?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Restore & Relist No valid reasons existed for a speedy deletion. It may be unlikely that the article will remain as a separate article, however a full AFD discussion will allow the community to determine if a full deletion is the correct, or if there is info that should be merged or remain in the history of the redirect.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

How can you tell there were no valid reasons?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I read the discussions at WP:ANI as well as the article that it's currently redirected to. I suppose to be 100% technically correct I could say that no valid reason for speedy deletion is apparent or has been offered on the later noticeboard discussion. This is further bolstered by the statements of the admin who deleted it as linked in the noms statement.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment — Most in the AN/I discussion seemed to be of the opinion that relisting on AfD would be WP:SNOW. But BLP1E says If the event is significant, and/or if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources. It seems to me that this means that application of this criteria is the kind of thing that should be sorted out at AfD. — Charles Stewart (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Endorse, entirely reasonable BLP1E. Stifle (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Endorse, fully valid, both within the letter and the intent of BLP1E. Relatively low attendance at the AfD but nothing indicative of an incorrect decision. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 16:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- I believe the low attendance is due to the fact that it was open for just over 4 hours, instead of seven days. Question to both you and Stifle, Where in either WP:BLP1E or WP:CSD does it say that BLP1E is a reason for speedy deletion?--Cube lurker (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  - Fine, then note explicitly that this was out of process and then still endorse as being a valid delete all the same. BLP1E applies, even if the CSD was incorrect. I see no point in reopening this just to be a slave to process. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 11:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    - To repeat a post I made further down the page: It goes beyond procedure for it's own sake. BLP1E's may be deleted. That's true. They may also be merged. They may be redirected with the history in place. They may be deleted and then a bare redirect created. Having the proper discussion would allow for arguments to be made for the options short of full deletion.--Cube lurker (talk) 11:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
      - I don't mind a redirect being placed where an article was deleted, nor do I mind another article being fleshed out with information from the deleted article. Nor do I think any of the participating admins would mind emailing you the content of the deleted article so you could accomplish this. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 07:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Endorse per spirit of BLP1E. As I recall, there was no encyclopedic content outside of the 1E.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Relist at AfD. Closing admin agrees that it was not within the clearly defined criteria for a speedy so it seems procedural to me, regardless of its chances of surviving at AfD.--Talain (talk) 17:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment I just double-checked the deleted version, and there's very little there that isn't covered in the article about the incident, and nothing I can see that's specific to this person except the birthyear and guilty plea. It was a 3-paragraph article. As WP:SNOW says, don't go through procedure when there's a snowball's chance in hell that carrying the procedure to its end will change the results... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Although I agree with Sarek about WP:SNOW, equally there are good reasons why we show editors that their contributions are not deleted without either (a) valid speedy grounds or (b) a proper consensus.
I would like to repeat my request for a history undeletion.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- I have worries that the history includes BLP-vios. Stifle (talk) 08:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Relist as someone who managed to get a delete vote in per WP:BLP1E, I was a bit surprised to find it speedy deleted. Although, WP:BLP1E is a valid reason for deletion, it's not a valid speedy. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 00:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Endorse per SarekOfVulcan. This article didn't even make an attempt at being a biography. It was designed, whether deliberately or by accident, to ensure that the only thing you will ever know about this individual is the crime they were convicted of. I'd support WP:SNOW as a valid rational for an article that was going to be deleted/redirected to the existing article on the incident per WP:BLP1E. Reso lute 01:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment. How about we just pretend that we relisted it, that more people commented requesting a merge per WP:BLP1E, and that it was closed after a more reasonable length of time? The close was too speedy, there was no valid speedy deletion rationale, the closing admin should be admonished to be more careful next time, and yet the correct decision was reached. Continuing to discuss it is just pointless bureaucracy. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- That would be a good idea. Stifle (talk) 07:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Of course, this common sense approach works, too. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 09:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Strong support (!voted above) for the Hammerstein and Kern option. :-)
Overturn and list at AfD on the assumption that the nominator's complaints are valid, since I'm not permitted to see this for myself.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Emailed latest (and longest?) version to S Marshall. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  - Thank you, Sarek. I agree that this was a textbook case of BLP1E, but I would just note that BLP1E is not a CSD criterion. Further, every single allegation in the version of the article I saw was sourced to reliable sources.
    I'm going to take this as further evidence to back my position that except in cases of copyvios, extreme BLP issues, or other cases of potential harm to Wikipedia, it should take two pairs of eyes to speedy something. From the evidence I saw, this wasn't tagged. It was deleted out-of-hand as an act of sysop fiat.
    
    I also endorse everything DGG says below.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Overturn and relist at AfD. There are violations of BLP that I accept as justifying speedies, such as potentially defamatory remarks. This does not seem to be one of those cases, according to anything said here. Further points:
- I don't understand Stifle's argument against restoring the deletion history: either there are specific concerns, which can be outlined without violating BLP here, or there aren't, in which case the history can be restored.
- DRV has a quite different audience and purpose than AfD, so a DRV discussion is not the same as another AfD. After all, if it did, we would not need a relist option on DRVs.
- The AN/I discussion mentions that one of the other participants, Steven Dale Green, is judged to pass BLP1E despite being notable only for this event. WP:SNOW applies only to hopeless cases, which this does not appear to be. Barker was the first case brought, and he testified against the other participants, potentially adding cogency to the article.

I've held back, hoping that the more of the endorse case would emerge, but it has not. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Overturn and Relist. It is normally futile bringing an article here if it is unlikely to stand, but in this case it should be relisted and procedure followed properly. This is not covered by any CSD rule, SNOW is not the least obvious, and it is important to establish the principle that BLP 1E is not a reason for speedy. Though "any aspect" is specified in the arb com ruling, I doubt they had matters like this in mind where there is no doubt about the facts and no possible harm to anyone. Since most such cases are in fact disputed in good faith, I doubt there would be consensus for including it as one, because speedy should be for articles where we would all agree are unsuitable. As for any BLP considerations except 1E, they hardly apply to an article on a confessed and convicted murderer & rapist in a crime that had world wide attention for political reasons. In any case, it is not accepted that arb com can make policy about article inclusion, no matter whether they think they can; their ruling has been generally accepted because for the most part it does express very clear consensus of the community as a whole, and has been generally applied in a reasonable fashion that is supported. This is not reasonable, for there is simply no case for drastic unilateral action. Not restoring the history is unreasonable also, for no version of it is defamatory. DGG (talk) 13:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- I can't speak to the article content, not being an admin, but if admins who can see the old article agree it satisfies criteria for deletion under 1E, then we shouldn't overturn and relist. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and we shouldn't engage in procedure for its own sake. Ray^Talk 15:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It goes beyond procedure for it's own sake. BLP1E's may be deleted. That's true. They may also be merged. They may be redirected with the history in place. They may be deleted and then a bare redirect created. Having the proper discussion would allow for arguements to be made for the options short of full deletion.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Overturn and relist. I fully accept the proposition that there may be occasions that justify the use of speedy deletion for BLP purposes. However, as mentioned above, a case in which the worst of the facts have been confirmed by a criminal conviction reported in reliable sources is a poor candidate for such a deletion. Our normal procedures are sufficient for dealing with this matter. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Endorse: A7 and BLP1E are reasons for deletion. Well, A7 is more of a criterion, but that's just splitting hairs... Sceptre ^(talk) 21:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- To summarise what is being discussed: these are valid grounds for deletion, but what is disputed is whether they validate a speedy. The deleted article was not A7, but Manning, who speedied the article, thought there was precedent to extend the scope of A7 on the grounds of BLP1E (cf. AN/I, RfAr). Should we take it that your endorsement means that you agree with Manning's reasoning? — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Watchmen

Deleted due to having few articles to link to - but there seems to be enough now (comic book, the movie, video game, the main characters article and the seven protagonists, soundtrack albums, and possibly two parodies), and Template:V for Vendetta shows a proper way to build it. igordebraga ≠ 18:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that the additional articles added since the February TfD merit discussion rather than a G4 deletion. So, I'd have to go with permit recreation, though of course it can be nominated for TfD again. I'd also like to note that the middle version (the first G4 deletion) used yellow for the background of the title and group titles, which seems slightly appropriate. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Allow recreation per Lifebaka, reasons for the original TfD seem to be moot now. Kusma (talk) 08:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 28 June 2009

[edit] Fantastico_De_Luxe

"Fantastico (web hosting)" already exist separately. Surely it would make sense to redirect from "Fantastico De Luxe", and yet this article has an ugly history.

My interest in Fantastico De Luxe derives from cPanel, which is used by Webhostingpad.com. I'd like to figure out whether I should be using CGI, Perl, PHP, Ruby, RVSiteBuilder, or Fantastico De Luxe. So I've been checking each one at Wikipedia.

With all due respect, the reason that any modestly, useful information ever has to be deleted escapes me, but this seems to be the protocol. For my part, I have done my best to meet that protocol. This is the result. C-U RPCV (talk) 03:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 16:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- The closing admin is on wikibreak until August, so that might be hard, at least short term. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 16:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
The AfD was closed 3 years ago, be bold and create the redirect, which seems reasonable. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 16:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Though Fantastico (web hosting) itself is possiblty a G4 speedy, I can't see the original deleted article, but this article suffers the same problems which led to the original deletion. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, though that would be at the discression of an admin acting on a db-g4 tag on the main page. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 09:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Jewish_surnames

Another problematic close from the same admin who brought us the problematic close of Surnames by country. The decision by User:Good Olfactory to upmerge this into Category:Surnames tosses hundreds of surnames with thoroughly-documented Jewish connections into a useless catchall category with more than 14,000 entries. While the closing admin acknowledges that "This category may have to be re-created in some form depending on what scheme is developed", the decision to delete and upmerge was made in the face of clear consensus to keep. The nomination offered rather muddled reasons for deletion, and the only participant supporting deletion voted based it on the claim that "names are not and cannot be bounded by religion or ethnicity in any meaningful sense", which is rebutted by the rather obvious observation that the use of names by different religions is rather easily handled by using multiple categories for each name/religion combination that can be documented by reliable and verifiable sources. Furthermore, a dozen published books on the background and history of Jewish surnames makes it clear that this is a well-defined field of study that constitutes a strong defining characteristic of such names. It appears that the closing administrator has a rather strong bias towards deletion of such categories, even in the face of clear consensus to the contrary. In classic We had to destroy the village to save it style, we are now left with the Sisyphean task of rebuilding a rather clear category and plucking the appropriate names from among the 14,000 in Category:Surnames because one admin decided he doesn't like it. Alansohn (talk) 05:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Opinion (closer). What to do depends largely upon what results from the other DRV and depends on the consensus at Category talk:Surnames, since this was essentially an appended decision to the main one. Could have probably been useful to wait for the result there, but whatever. The names are not lost and you don't have to pick through 14,000 to find them. They are readily available from Cydebot's contribution history and I can provide a list to anyone in fairly short order. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- "Jewish" is not a country, and appears to have no relation to any other structure other than the inclusion of the word "surnames". The rather clear disruption caused by the needless deletion is not mitigated by the fact that the names are not irrevocably lost, but any wasted time and effort could have been avoided by closing this as no consensus, at worst. The dozen books listed in the CfD should have amply justified that the category is defining, regardless of any of the nominator's preconceived prejudices on the subject. Alansohn (talk) 06:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Speedy close and deal with at Category talk:Surnames (closer). On second thought, this doesn't even require a DRV. The close stated that the could be re-created if agreed to by consensus. All you need to is say you are going to re-create it at User talk:Surnames. If you get agreement by positive responses or silence, then just re-create it. That should have probably been what you should have done, and then if your re-creation proposal was opposed there, then you could have considered coming to DRV here. I'd note that the user didn't approach me at all about this close, which would have provided me the opportunity to give this advice, and even the list of articles that were in the category. DRV is a last resort, not the first stop for those who disagree with a close. (By the way, if getting the list of names from Cydebot's contribution history is a "Sisyphean task", the standards of how that phrase is used is clearly slipping. I could probably do this in 5 minutes ...) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- This is simple disruption by the closing admin, perpetuating the disruptive WP:POINT made in the close. "Jewish" is still not a country and has nothing to do with the restructuring of Surnames by country demanded by the closing admin in complete disregard of consensus there. Whether we are treating this as overturning the improper close of this CfD, or recreating it based on the Surnames by country as demanded, this is where the discussion should take place. There has been enough disruption already, and the Wikilawyering demands that this must wait for a discussion of an entirely unrelated category only perpetuates the abuse of process. Alansohn (talk) 06:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  - Um, thanks for assuming good faith. I treated it as part of the previous nomination because that seemed to be the intent of the nominator. May have been correct; may not have been. Give me a break, though—you didn't even approach me about this! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
    - You have no idea if it was the nominator's intent, but you deleted the category regardless of consensus? Give Wikipedia a break. "The nominator may have wanted it deleted so I tossed into the delete pile" is a rather poor justification for deletion. You have already been approached about this and other vaguely related categories, and your mind appeared to have been made up, with no evidence that it could have been swayed, cutting down on needlessly wasted time dealing with this improper close. Alansohn (talk) 06:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
      - No, I have an idea, and I have little doubt about the nominator's intent. ("Missed in yesterday's nomination as it's missing from the regular part of the tree." is relatively clear, IMO.) I was suggesting that maybe my assumption would be "wrong" in the view of a WP consensus, or that even if correct, that it wasn't correct to give credence to the intent. But you can't have it both ways. Either it's parceled with the other CfD and we wait for the result at that DRV; or, if we treat it as separate, you probably should have approached me about it first and not assumed that my response would have treated it as being parceled with the first one. You can't say, "it's separate" and in the same breath say "you already refused to reconsider because it was parceled with the other". Anyway, it's all relatively moot. As usual, your behaviour is tiring in general, Alansohn. All I can say is go ahead and discuss this to your heart's content. But it's a waste of time, because you can just re-create the category and get the list from me, or look up the list yourself. There's no real need for a DRV if you're strongly craving re-creation. You could save yourself a lot of time by just being less confrontational. (Of course, maybe you don't want to, which we must keep in mind.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Recreate and repopulate. I was in favour of upmerging the 'surnames by country' categories but not the non-countries (such as Category:Flemish surnames) which the nom (WAS) tosed recklessly into the mass nom. The cfd for Category:Jewish surnames was separate from the bulk nom and was not a 'delete by consensus' (there are only 2 in the Jewish surnames cfd suggesting 'delete', the nom + Otto, and the others are keep or rename). Alansohn does have a point here, albeit over-stated; I think Good Olfactory should do the recreating and repopulating.Occuli (talk) 13:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Why don't we just re-create it? As I've said above, this was clearly anticipated by the close. Honestly, I can't see the benefits of a discussion here. I probably won't be checking back here so if someone will notify me if this is speedily closed as re-create, then I could assist as needed or wanted. I would just go ahead and re-create it now, but as long as the discussion is ongoing I probably shouldn't. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Endorse - a difficult CFD, brought to a correct conclusion through appropriate deliberation by the closing admin. Otto4711 (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Speedy close - This appears to be a definite vendetta between Alansohn and Good Olfactory. Further DRV actions should be taken by an uninvolved party - see ~~WP:COI~~WP:TEA.--WaltCip (talk) 04:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Agree with WaltCip. --Kbdank71 12:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Recreate and repopulate. Countries (whether the user conceives of these as territories or states) rarely produce surnames. Surnames are produced by national or ethnic groups. Thus, there are Flemish surnames and Walloon surnames but no such thing as a Belgian surname because Belgium is political construct cobbled together for the convenience of, variousy, the British, Germans and French - not a nation with a culture, language or ethnicity. Certainly there are Jewish surnames, although it is probably more accurate to write of the jews of Ashkenazi, Kurdish, Romaniot, Sephardic, etc. heritage.Historicist (talk) 23:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Follow-up comment (closer). Re-creation has now been raised (by an editor not yet involved here) at Category talk:Surnames#Jewish surnames. As mentioned above, I see this (combined with perhaps an inquiry on my talk page) as one of the possible steps that could/should have been taken before considering getting a DRV off the ground. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Endorse deletion (nominator) -- Jewish surnames was just added to the nearly empty Category:Surnames by culture by Mayumashu, removing more pertinent categories such as Judaism. As explained by the (insufficiently referenced) article itself, most of the surnames are not unique to Jewish culture, but rather were assigned during the diaspora.

... he showed, from examples taken from all periods, that the Jews had freely adopted the current and popular names of their neighbors in all parts of the globe.

As noted in the category description:

Please note: even though surnames such as Harris, Lewis, Green, Black, Miller, Brooks, Gordon, and others are common Jewish surnames in some Western countries, they are also quite common amongst non-Jews as well. Also many names that are common in the Jewish community are really just ordinary German or Slavic surnames. Just as Smith, Thompson, Jones, Evans, Jackson, and Washington are common names in the African American community, one would not just assume they are exclusive to that culture. Most people named Schwartz, Klein, Roth, Hoffman, Schneider, Meyer, etc., are non-Jews despite common use of the names in the Jewish community.

Just a slippery slope. Over and over we've seen Jewish categories tried as a "nation", resurrected as an "ethnicity", and resurrected again as a "culture". For those of Hebrew (sometimes called "Biblical") origin, a nicely referenced Hebrew-language surnames category would be preferable.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Endorse deletion this was clearcut because no one could OBJECTIVELY state criteria for inclusion or exclusion from this category, which makes the category unsustainable. Any Jew with the surname merits inclusion makes the category useless and only Jews have the surname would be hard to demonstrate and also probably useless as most Jews' surnames won't be in there - any where along that continuum is purely arbitrary and SUBJECTIVE, so useless. Also, there is no accounting for national differences among Jewish communities unless someone can provide some WP:RSes that Jews in Mexico have the same surnames as those in Russia or Iran or China, and they with each other, this is pure WP:OR and WP:ILIKEIT at work. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Recreate No consensus to delete and unfair to those working on category to make them deal with it at broader category. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up comment (closer). Category has been re-created by a user not involved in this discussion, further rendering this discussion moot. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Not so fast:William Allen Simpson has already tagged the re-created category for speedy deletion, and apparently depopulated it again.[4] And just so we are all clear about the level at which we are dealing here, WAS has also just deleted Cohen (!) from both Category:Hebrew-language surnames and Category:Jewish surnames.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Strongest possible recreate and repopulate - There is an active, vocal minority of extremist WP editors (including some admins) that have been intent for several years on diluting our encyclopedia's coverage of Jewish-related issues, including the elimination of very many categories. Their reasoning in this case is that Jewish surnames cannot be verified as typically Jewish. This is entirely inaccurate and unreasonable as there are numerous sources we rely on for the history and documentation of historically Jewish names. Let's abide by reasonableness rather than extremism and recreate and repopulate the category. The legwork for this should be done by the same editors who insisted on this category's deletion. Badagnani (talk) 05:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Arthur Kade

Person is not notable. Seriously, I don't see how this afd was not closed as Delete. Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 00:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Endorse. While I'd probably have voted delete on the original AfD, neither side of the argument was sufficiently overwhelming in argument or numbers nor any errors of policy to justify overturning a decision of no consensus.--Talain (talk) 01:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there was no consensus in that discussion, but I think it blatantly obvious that this should be deleted.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 02:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Uh, ~~endorse~~ overturn and delete – yeah, person is not notable. Consensus for deletion backs that clearly. Rough consensus is not equivalent to unanimity. MuZemike 08:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Overturn and delete. It's a judgment call as to whether the subject's media appearances convey notability, but the overall trend of the discussion was that the subject had not yet achieved notability sufficient to justify an article. The article has plenty of references but hardly any actual content. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Weak overturn and delete per Metropolitan90. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Closer statement. I don't mind particularly if this stays or not. If it's decided here that the article should have been deleted then fine, let's delete it. I disagree though that any consensus was there to be teased out of the discussion. By the numbers it was 6/3 in favour of deletion, but I feel JorgeMacD and Drawn Some's comments were adequately countered by subsequent comments, so discounted those; the nominator, Met90, and Orange Mike all assert that he's not notable, but seem to be measuring by some arbitrary standard that's stricter than wp:n and none of them explains at what point he would subjectively cross the threshold, and none of them explain why the Philadelphia magazine coverage fails to put him over the bar; and DGG's delete doesn't seem to be grounded in any particular policy, perhaps wp:notwebhost? but I don't see how that's relevant here. The onus is on the deleters to explain why he doesn't meet our standards for inclusion and I don't think they've achieved that here. Flowerparty^☀ 19:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
endorse close No consensus or keeping both seem to be reasonable closes. If we're going to override this close we need a good reason to do so and right now the primary one seems to simply be disagreeing with the result. (Disclaimer, I've argued for keeping in the discussion). JoshuaZ (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The only reason I can give is lack of notability. I think the argument for deletion was stronger then that of the argument to keep.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 10:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I endorse Flowerparty's accurate reading of the consensus, and would remind all concerned that this is not AfD round 2.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Endorse Flowerparty's statement makes a very reasonable explanation at to why the closure was no-consensus. I see no process error here that would require overturning here at DRV.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The closing admin has already commented on this DRV.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 21:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question, I'm afraid. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Endorse closure of no-consensus. Stifle (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Endorse, close but within admin discretion. I would have preferred if Flowerparty's explanation had been provided at closing. Flatscan (talk) 03:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Endorse as per flowerparty.Historicist (talk) 19:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment this is not AFD 2.0; the closer got it wrong but not so horribly wrong as to overturn. A no-consensus close can be renominated later without any pre-conceived outcome expected. Since some people think that this article shows sufficient level of notability, I guess our WP:GNG should be amended to reflect that as this surely doesn't meet it (but that's an AFD not a DRV argument). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 27 June 2009

[edit] Andrew Hsu

Why has this page been deleted? Please provide a legitimate reason. I have repeatedly provided three reliable sources to prove that Andrew Hsu is a real person and one who has contributed significantly both as a scientist and as a philanthropist, being the first to sequence the Homo Sapiens and Mus Musculus COL20A1 Gene and founding the World Children's Organization which has provided thousands of children with books and water filters.

Seattle Times: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003752165_andrewhsu18m.html

NBC Today Show: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OntiXRsuOY

San Jose News: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iwh-_87a6_A

I have not been given a legitimate reason for why this page has been repeatedly deleted. Att159 (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps list at AFD as there seems to be one reliable source at least in the first one listed. Remember that existence is not the same as notability (before you go rattling off other unreliable sources right away, please take the time and read our reliable source guideline. Thank you, MuZemike 08:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- This was already listed at AFD. Stifle (talk) 16:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment I deleted this article (slightly different name, essentially the same thing) under G4, which I pointed out on my talk page where this user asked me. Ged UK 12:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Lou Gehrig stamp.png

I submit that this should be overturned, because:

There was insufficient consensus to delete. Only one other Wikipedian besides the nominator (Ww2censor) supported deletion, certainly insufficient to conclude there's community consensus on a contested delete. In cases of no consensus, the default is Keep, not Delete.
The deletion nom was based on the WP:NFCC guideline, therefore the argument that an exception to guideline was warranted in this specific instance, for the reasons given, should have been considered.
After the sole Delete !vote by Quadell, additional prose was added to the article where Fair Use was made of this image, discussing the stamp's specific design elements as they relate to Gehrig. This was not given any further consideration or discussion, as should have been the case after the initial objection was mentioned. JGHowes ^talk 22:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment from closing admin: I believe that my closure of this discussion was correct because the delete !votes were stronger than the keep !vote. Even after the one-sentence addition to the article after Quadell's comment, the only information about the stamp in the article is "A Lou Gehrig 25-cent USA Postage Stamp was issued by the U.S. Postal Service on the 50th anniversary of his retirement from baseball, depicting him both in profile and at bat (Scott number 2417)". Per WP:NFCC#8, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." In this case, the fact that the stamp exists is enough. There is no critical commentary on the stamp's visual appearance to justify the need for a non-free image to depict it; the prose alone describes the impact of the stamp, and the removal of the image is not detrimental to the reader's understanding. In my opinion, the sole delete !vote does not seem to contain many arguments which are valid in this specific information.

"The stamp's use is part of a significant portion of the article discussing Gehrig's lasting impact on U.S. culture and the continued recognition his memory evokes." This does not require the the stamp be shown; discussing it is enough to convey this.

"The heroic pose depicted by the stamp's artwork cannot be adequately conveyed by mere prose alone to the reader." The one-sentence discussion of the stamp in the article contains no commentary on the stamp's design which this image would be needed to depict.

"Because of the extraordinary interest in Gehrig (voted by American baseball fans as their favorite player, 60 years after he last played), my view is that this falls within the 'occasional exception' of the NFC guidelines." Interest in a person is not an indicator that additional fair-use images can be used. Exceptions to the NFCC policy are very rare, and I do not feel that this is an instance where it is appropriate.

In addition, the image's fair-use rationale was poorly formed. It did not contain a specific rationale as to why the use of the image in this specific article is needed. The article also contains many images of Gehrig already, so the image also seems unnessecary to me (from a non-policy based point of view) because the subject is already depicted so many times.

I don't mean to be difficult or combatative here; I simply closed the discussion to the best of my abilities based on the three !votes present. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Endorse deletion; local consensus cannot override foundation-level policy. Stifle (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I think that fair use is project-level (e.g., the English Wikipedia sets its own NFCC), not foundation-level. Not sure if that's what you meant or if it changes anything, but thought I'd mention it. [Drilnoth, 12:11, 29 June 2009]

Stifle, that is a straw man. No one is calling for overriding policy, WMF or otherwise. The interpretation of NFC by the guideline calls for discretionary judgment in its application in each case. What is "minimal" in the instance of a lengthy article about the most popular U.S. ballplayer of all time is not necessarily the same as a stub article about an obscure garage band, for example. There are many facets to his life. That is why consensus is important to ascertain whether fair use of this stamp is minimal and justifiable to serve a legitimate encyclopedic purpose, given the particular circumstances. My contention is that it does meet the guideline, because the U.S. stamp's issuance on the 50th anniversary of his retirement and the manner in which he is depicted are important to the reader's understanding of his impact on American life. How can the reader possibly visualize a stamp or painting without seeing it?

With all due respect to Drilnoth, his reasoning is perfectly valid for a delete !vote, but not to close an XfD lacking consensus based on the admin's self-described point of view. JGHowes ^talk 19:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

My question is, why does the reader need to be able to visualize the stamp? The text contains nothing about its appearance, just the fact that it exists. The fact that something exists does not mean that it automatically needs to be pictured alongside the associated text if the only image is fair use. And the stamp's being issued on the 50th anniversary of his retirement doesn't require a picture to illustrate it. How is the manner in which he is depicted important to the understanding, other than simply to show that the stamp exists? Please understand that in general I support the use of fair-use images on Wikipedia in limited quantities, but this just seems unnecessary.

Anyway, in regards to my closing, my view was similar to that of the two users who !voted for deletion. If I had just !voted, another admin would have had to close it, and there would have been three delete !votes about the image which would probably mean that it would have been deleted anyway. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Recent discussions

[edit] 26 June 2009

[edit] Headshot

I don't think good reasons were given in the discussion (eg, 'rather pointless article'). -Zeus-^u|c 20:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Endorse closure — WP:N was given in the AfD nom, and was properly discussed. The closure was fine, and this DRV request introduces no new reason to reopen the discussion. — Charles Stewart (talk) 21:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that this fails WP:N. It is a real thing, both in video games and in real life, and should definitely be covered in wikipedia. -Zeus-^u|c 21:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And indeed it is covered in Wikipedia, under Head shot. Which was a point well made at the AfD. I endorse MBisanz's accurate reading of the consensus.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

When I said it is used in real life, I was referring to snipers. -Zeus-^u|c 23:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Endorse. A clear consensus was reached. Simply disagreeing with that consensus is not an appropriate reason for DRV to overturn a decision. If you honestly believe the material must be covered by wikipedia, then the solution would be to create a version of the article that was verifiably notable and worthy of inclusion with which to recreate it.--Talain (talk) 21:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I can do that? -Zeus-^u|c 13:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but make sure that you fix the problems raised in the AfD, particularly bridies', else your new article will simply be speedied. You can ask to have the old article userfied, if you want to use that as a starting point. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Closing admin Ran the normal time, good faith comments taken into account, not seeing anything new presented in this request. MBisanz ^talk 02:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you userify the article? -Zeus-^u|c 15:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Endorse Correct consensus. DGG (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Í
Endorse - Closure was accurate. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Endorse, reasonable closure. Stifle (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009

I would like to request that this deletion be reviewed.

I was very interested in the fact that this article was deleted, well astounded might be the correct word. I read with interest the deletion log [5] and I understand that the bill has very little chance of passing. However I must assert that this does not mean that the bill is below the threshold of notability for a Wikipedia article. I did a little research to see exactly how notable this bill is.

I went to http://stats.grok.se/ to look up how often this article was viewed:

Jan 2009 - 577 views
Feb 2009 - 4487 views
Mar 2009 - 3016 views
Apr 2009 - 2321 views
May 2009 - 6826 views
total - 17227 views

Even after it was deleted, in June, the deletion page was viewed 92 times.

To be fair, however, I ran view statistics for 10 random articles to see if the Blair Holt article received more views. Of the 10 I looked up, only two got more hits. This is hardly enough for a true statistical comparison, but it would indicate that the article was getting more hits than the majority of Wikipedia articles. This seems to indicate notability.

Next I went to Google to see how many Web hits I would get if I looked it up. For Blair Holt bill, there were 1,120,000 hits. I went to Google News and discovered there have been thousands of news stories on the bill as well. A recent story of June 20 even indicated that the bill may be responsible for a nationwide bullet shortage. If this is true, enough Americans are aware of the bill to create the shortage.

As a final note, I was at the Utah State Republican convention where it was brought up and discussed by Rep. Jason Chaffetz, which indicates that despite the fact that there is only one sponsor and no cosponsors, the bill is receiving considerable buzz in congress.

The bill is notable for another reason. It delegates powers reserved for the congress in the Constitution (the right to make laws) to one person, namely the Attorney General.

Given all this, I can only conclude that the article, and the bill are indeed notable enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia.

Thanks for your consideration,

J appleseed2 (talk) 16:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I hereby endorse One's accurate reading of the consensus at the AfD.
I would further remark that this is Wikipedia, not Americanpoliticsipedia, and the last thing we need is yet another article about a piece of legislation that's only of interest to one nationality.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Endorse deletion -- A bill that is basically D.O.A. would almost always be not notable, and I see nothing here that would make this case an exception. -- Dougie WII (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Endorse deletion — Before the bill has passed, we'd need to see enough evidence of newsworthiness to justify WP:N. — Charles Stewart (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Endorse deletion as an accurate assessment of consensus. There is nothing substantially different in this than what was brought up and denied at the AfD.--Talain (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Endorse – clear consensus for deletion here. This is not AFD round 2, and, more particularly, the number of hits a page gets is not a reason to keep (or delete for that matter). MuZemike 16:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Overturn Deleted out of policy. The reasons given were that it would never come to a vote, but that is irrelevant to political importance. I consider the argument from number of views is appropriate in judging the basic suitability for an encyclopedia, which is that people will come to an encyclopedic like ours to look for information on a topic. All of the WP:N requirements are essentially an attempt to deal with the ones that nobody reasonable will look for in a work like ours. DGG (talk) 17:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Endorse, valid AFD closure. Stifle (talk) 16:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Crayola.jpg

Not a copyright vio, fair use under United States law and Wikipedia standards. All problems brought up in the deletion nomination were dealt with. Although the article itself is about Crayola, the image is used clearly in reference to the stamp in question in a section about the stamp, not as a primary means of identifying the subject of the stamp. The Wikipedia copyrighted U.S. stamp template clearly states that copyrighted U.S. stamps can be used here "to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamp's design)" under fair use if they are used to illustrate the stamp, not simply to illustrate the subject. Free images of Crayola crayons are in the article before the stamp image, so it's obviously not being used for that purpose, but to illustrate the stamp itself in its historical context.

I would be grateful if the decision to delete this image was reviewed, I feel its deletion was unnecessary, not by consensus, and detrimental to the article and by extension Wikipedia as a whole. Thank you. -- Dougie WII (talk) 04:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The "keep" side had that debate by the numbers, and I don't think the "delete" side's arguments held much water. The basic question here is whether it's appropriate to have a ~~public domain~~ fair use image of a stamp, in a section of the "Crayola" article about that stamp, which (I respectfully submit) is a complete no-brainer.
Overturn to keep.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Question — Is it true, about the broad scope of fair use associated with images of US stamps asserted on the template page? Can we have some authoritative source for this? — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- The Wikisource summary of the relevant law seems to say that stamps are not subject to the general copyright waiver applying to Federal government works. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment -- The question is not whether this image is in the public domain. In the original XFD, some people brought that up, but I have never claimed it. The issue is whether this is a fair use of a copyrighted image. -- Dougie WII (talk) 08:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm generally minded to say that FfD discussions get NFCC#8 right, but, given that Stifle's assertion about the PD-ness is wrong (the stamp is from 1996, it is the crayons that are from 1903), and he otherwise argues against fair use per NFCC#8, I don't see that the balance of the FfD discussion favours saying the image was fair use. Is there something in particular that you think went wrong in that discussion? — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  
  I do not agree that NFCC#8 was broken here -- it's impossible to adequately describe a stamp design in words succinct enough to be in Wikipedia. I could probably photoshop together hundreds of fake stamps showing Crayola crayons. There is critical commentary about the stamp that would not be fully understood without seeing the actual image of the stamp (specimen). The stamp image is being used to illustrate the stamp, in the guidelines of the Wikipedia stamp template, general U.S. copyright law and the guidance given by the U.S. Postal Service itself (educational and philatelic use). Interpretations that this is a copyright violation are so draconian that virtually no image of a modern American stamp could ever be used on Wikipedia. -- Dougie WII (talk) 09:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  
  I'd like to see the informational value of images be more widely appreciated here (cf. Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/galleries) but it's the place of DRV to argue about FfDs that are problematic either because they were incorrectly closed, or because their discussion was carried out in ignorance of obviously cogent information; they are not a forum to continue any FfD discussions just because they didn't go the way you wanted. I think, as I said, the closing was OK. The point about USPS guidance might be the kind of obviously cogent information, but where is this guidance? How does it change the NFCC#8 case? — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  
  I think it was improperly closed because there was no real clear consensus. I am hoping that a posting here will generate a clearer result. Oh, and the USPS fair use guidance is here. -- Dougie WII (talk) 11:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  
  Copyvio is one place where consensus rules don't apply in the normal way — check WP:CON, sect 1.1. If 100 wikipedians said an image was acceptable, but there is one person who showed a clear WPCC#2 violation, then the admin should delete the image. WPCC#8 is a more subjective requirement, and its the kind of thing where the weight of community opinion comes into play, but admins have to be conservative (not paranoid) in their interpretation of the WPCC rules. The absence of consensus is not troubling. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  
  I agree that copyvio, or any other case where there's clear risk of harm to Wikipedia or to a living person from leaving content up, needs to default to delete. But where there is no risk of harm (as in this case), the absence of consensus most certainly does not default to delete. Quite the contrary.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  
  Despite that the stamp was created in 1996, it is a mere copy of a PD image which does not gain a new copyright. Stifle (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly *not* a mere copy. It doesn't meet the Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. criteria, for example, which is the basis for such claim and our rulings here. Could you maybe try to read and understand copyright rulings before making such aggressive declarations? DreamGuy (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Endorse deletion — I think I would have !voted keep in the FfD, but, putting aside the PD claim, this FfD looks to have been closed correctly, and no new information has come up indicating that it should be kept. It might be worth looking at taking another look at the copyvio policy with regards to USPS images, since at present we have a template that seems to suggest they can be used here freely, whilst the NFCC guidelines do not treat them any differently to other fair-use images. But DRV is no place to argue for changes to policy. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Overturn as a close against valid consensus. Of course consensus rules in deciding on copyvio--how else are we to decide if the NFCC is actually violated? To take an individual person;'s word for it? No, the decision like all decisions is to be made according to the established rules by the community. The role of the closer is limited to rejecting arguments that are not based on the established guidelines. If you are the 1 in 100, you may possibly be right, but the overwhelming likelihood is that you are wrong. In this case the consensus was to keep. DGG (talk) 15:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Overturn The thrust of the discussion in the FfD was whether or not the image of the stamp added significance to the article per WP:NFCC#8. The closing admin believed that the Keep votes were not following policy, but the entire focus of the discussion was on how that policy should be applied and in that there was certainly no consensus. While copyright violations can be objective in some cases, significance is rather more subjective, and thus, subject to community consensus. That was the criteria used by the closing admin to delete.--Talain (talk) 17:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Endorse deletion. There were two !votes saying that the image passed NFCC#8, and two saying it did not. Both of those opining that it passed NFCC#8 claimed that because the image was used in a section about the stamp, and was being used to illustrate that stamp, NFCC#8 passes. This is very much against precedent. If an article about a music band has a section on a particular album, we don't illustrate that section with a non-free image of the album, because the article isn't about that album (and the band can be fully understood without seeing it). It's the same here, but more so. The stamp is not particularly important in the history of Crayola. Crayons have been used on album covers too, but we don't show those in the article. If the article on roses had a section about how a rose was on an album cover, we still should not use a non-free image to illustrate that section. The closing admin could not have kept this image without going against years of precedent, and two !votes are not sufficient for that. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If I said that Wikipedia specifically disavows precedent, specifically because it doesn't want current discussions to be bound by previous decisions, and cited WP:OCE as my evidence for this, and added that the closing admin is specifically enjoined to disregard precedent in evaluating the consensus, how would you respond?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

An image of some music band may be superfluous to the understanding of one of its songs or albums since the real content is musical, not visual. However, in this case with a particular display of a product in a postage stamp, the meaning is not easily conveyed in anything else but a faithful reproduction of the image itself. Here we are talking about a specific image and what is displayed in that image as a critical part of the article, noting the intricacies of the "Gold Medal" award on the stamp, what it means, and how that is related to the history of Crayola products. This can not be understood without the image. -- Dougie WII (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Endorse deletion - Our image use rules are quite clear on this, and, more importantly, there was nothing at all improper about the close except that some people didn't get what they wanted. And the claim that we need to do whatever the uninformed majority vote wants in legal matters is just absurd. As in all deletion discussion closes, the closing admin has to make a call if the votes and arguments are in line with our policies or not. There's no right to jury nullification here. DreamGuy (talk) 17:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

this is not a legal matter, because it is clear fair use under american law; the NFCC requirements are much stricter than that very liberal policy. So its a question of whether it meets our requirements, for which one need not be an expert. NFCC is policy--just how to interpret it is often open to question. The decision on how restrictively to interpret it is one that the community decides, both on the policy pages and in individual cases. The decision on when to make exceptions altogether is also one for the community, as long as it is not overruled by OFFICE as not meeting the Foundation policy [6] or US law. DGG (talk) 18:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you simply do not know what you are talking about... Fair use is a legal matter, and one you clearly do not understand in the slightest. DreamGuy (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Overturn as the image was published in the USA in 1903, therefore is public domain. If it were fair use, it would be decorative and not permissible. Stifle (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to incorrect information: The stamp was not published in 1903. And the image is a photograph of three dimensional objects, which has a new copyright of whenever the photo was taken, even if some of the art on the box was designed in 1903. Good grief. This is why mob rule shouldn't be used to make decisions on legal matters. DreamGuy (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that the stamp was issued in 1996, and is derived from a work from 1903 work now in the public domain. I would guess that the USPS does have copyright on the stamp on the grounds of transformativeness: the USPS successfully argued transformativeness in Gaylord vs US, part of which argued that artistic enhancement improved the case that the stamp counted as a new work. But IANAL, maybe it would count as a PD derivative work. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The stamp features a three dimensional image (photo) of crayons in a box issued in 1903 or so. If this were just a scan of the image from the front of the box, then it would be public domain... but it's not. The photo is modern and under copyright, as it is of a three dimensional object and requires artistic choices of lighting, etc., so is a new work of art. the legal rationale for copies of public domain works to be public domain only applies to un-artistically altered two dimensional works. DreamGuy (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The image is no different from one that would be obtained by putting the box of crayons on a scanner. I stand by my assessment that it is not sufficiently original to generate a new copyright. Stifle (talk) 09:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's just nonsense. The stamp included more than just the front of a box, it included the full box with crayons, with full artistic composition of the three dimensional elements. Please familiarize yourself with the appropriate legal standards instead of aggressively making such baseless claims. DreamGuy (talk) 11:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at the Gaylord vs US summary, which noted the considerable effort and artistic talents of the photographer in his choice of lighting conditions, angles, exposures, and time of year and day, and observed that the Postal Service enhanced the artistic expression... in support of the courts view that a USPS photo of a sculpture counted as an independent creative work. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The Gaylord case only enhances my argument since it upheld "Fair Use". The court said that the USPS could use a statue in a postage stamp without permission. It said "the stamp caused no harm to the value of Gaylord’s work" and "a stamp is an unlikely commercial substitute for future products sold by Gaylord." The exact same principles apply here — an image of a stamp in Wikipedia is not going to harm the USPS's ability to market a stamp (nor for that matter the ability of Crayola to market boxes of crayons), in fact it might actually stimulate demand for Crayola crayons, plus the stamp even though it's no longer being sold by the USPS itself. -- Dougie WII (talk) 23:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Gaylord vs. US states it was fair use on the grounds that it was a substantially novel artistic expression. In particular, that stamp is copyright USPS. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Endorse as closer - though overturn if Stifle turns out to be correct and this image is PD. Copying my notes to the creator of this DrV from their talk page:
- The nomination was on the basis that the image did not significantly increase reader's understanding (NFCC#8) and also that it fell into one of the "unacceptable use" categories under the non-free content interpretation guideline
- WebHamster responded that the image was used in a section about the stamp and claimed that the in-context it met the guidelines, though they did not state how it met the significance requirement nor why an image that was covered by "unacceptable use" was to be allowed.
- Stifle stated that it was PD as the object depicted was sufficiently old. I note here that the image page did NOT claim that it was public domain.
- Quadell refuted that it was PD and re-iterated that the image failed NFCC#8
- Howcheng and the nominator chimed in that in their opinion it was not a PD image
- Dougie stated largely that the use of the image was to illustrate the stamp, though without addressing the "unacceptable use" problem nor showing how the image significantly increases reader's understanding.

Resulting from this the image is not public domain (so we must meet the criteria), falls into one of the examples of "unacceptable use" and no-one has sufficiently refuted this and lastly the arguments as to it significantly increasing reader's understanding fell short of those saying that it did not.

If the image is PD (which is not a matter I'm knowledgeable enough to decide) then there is no issue, if it is not PD then I see that I closed the discussion correctly in line with consenus/the NFCC policy - Peripitus (Talk) 05:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I entirely agree with that assessment. Stifle (talk) 09:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

~~Overturn~~Comment as nominator -- All "Delete" votes and conversations cited above by the closing admin occurred before major revisions were made to the article to address the issues raised, especially by the original nominator. Yet he still closed the discussion summarily without any chance for other editors to comment on my changes that fixed the problems that had been brought up, in particular NFCC#8 issues. But even without taking that big point into account, there was still no clear consensus to delete, so it should have been left open for further discussion or relisted if possible in xfd as in afd. -- Dougie WII (talk) 08:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You opened this here, so you already made that clear. You wouldn't want anyone to mistakenly think you respresent the opinions of more than one person contributing to this conversation, would we? DreamGuy (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you do the same with above "vote" by the closing admin then? -- Dougie WII (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Huh? The closing admin didn't have a double !vote here. DreamGuy (talk)

Overturn There was no consensus to delete and the closer should not insert his own view of the matter. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Overturn to keep per consensus and policy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)