Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2007 December 1
2007 December 3 >

2 December 2007[edit]

  • Image:Emily Sander.jpg – Deletion endorsed per WP:SNOWBALL as there is significant support for the deletion, and no support for restoration by anyone except the uploader. The image, the url of which is available for review in the upload log, is completely crass, tasteless, and unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a pornographic website; please take material of this nature to a more appropriate forum. Additionally, I find that further scrutiny towards the uploader, Eso si que es (talk · contribs), is warranted, as his username sounds suspiciously like S O C K S, and may be a word play on the term sockpuppet. – John254 02:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Emily Sander.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This image was speedily deleted with the following summary: "WP:BLP concerns, not fair use appropriate". This deletion is unjustified, as WP:BLP does not apply to deceased subjects, and no specific WP:BLP concerns were articulated in any event. WP:NOT#CENSORED. Eso si que es 19:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do we justify fair use for this picture? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To restate the fair use rationale that I provided in the deleted image:
This image constitutes fair use in Emily Sander as it
(1) Is necessary to illustrate Emily Sander's participation in the adult entertainment industry.
(2) Cannot be replaced with freely licensed content, as the subject is deceased.
(3) Will not reduce the commercial value of the image, as the image was posted publicly for promotional purposes, and since Emily Sander's adult content is not being marketed commercially at this time.
Eso si que es 19:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't we add a reference to the site that the picture appeared in in order to illustrate her participation in porn? We do we need to have the actual photograoh on Wikipedia? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accepting that argument, we wouldn't need to have any fair use images that appeared on public websites, as we could simply reference the websites in which the images appeared. Our fair use policies may be strict, but they aren't that strict. Clearly, having some fair use images from websites adds value for readers. Eso si que es 19:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Comment from deleting admin: I deleted this image, which was a pornographic image of Emily Sander, a female college student who was murdered within recent weeks. The Emily Sander article already contains an image of its subject, and I do not believe a pornographic image adds to a reader's understanding, failing a fair use requirement. Additionally, I deleted the image per WP:BLP concerns. Sander may be dead, but I do not believe it is appropriate to sensationalize her biography simply because she is dead (note the article is nominated for deletion). I'm not one to cite WP:IAR, but deleting a pornographic image of a recently deceased female college student seems fitting. If the discussion concludes the deletion should be reversed, so be it, but I do not intend to restore the image myself. - auburnpilot talk 19:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is "deleting a pornographic image of a recently deceased female college student... fitting"? Our articles often describe the accomplishments of deceased subjects. The explanation for the deletion of this image, as I understand it, seems to be predicated upon the notion that visual erotica is bad, and, as a result, that activities in the adult entertainment industry are not to be understood as achievements, but rather as failings and sources of scandal. Since Wikipedia is to be written from a neutral point of view, however, we cannot justify the deletion of images based on the assumption that erotica is bad. Eso si que es 19:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
She appears to have felt that it was bad. Our article states:
"Sander apparently kept her career mostly to herself, and only close friends knew about what she did for a living. They claim that when informed about her modeling, her boyfriend broke up with her."
So it would appear that for here, it already was the source of scandal. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the Emily Sander article expressly states, in relavent part, that "According to her close friend Nikki Watson, Sander enjoyed the work and needed the money." That " Sander apparently kept her career mostly to herself" does not imply that she regarded it as shameful. Eso si que es 20:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I think it probably does. Anyway, we now need to think of her living relatives. BLP states "do no harm" . Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, if I don't go around telling everyone my Social Security number, does that mean that I regard my Social Security number as shameful? Of course not. Non-disclosure doesn't imply shame. Furthermore, if we were to delete all content from Wikipedia articles that might offend living relatives of the articles' subjects, this is what we would have left to read. Eso si que es 20:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Equating a Social Security number and participation in the porn industry is nonsensical. —Kurykh 22:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. No compelling rationale has been offered for fair use, nor any reason why the article is benefitted by inclusion of this picture. That Wikipedia is not censored does not mean that we can't practice editorial discretion. Chick Bowen 20:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, WP:BLP does apply to recently deceased subjects, which this one is. WP:NOT#CENSORED does not apply, and there is no valid fair use rationale. --Coredesat 21:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just thought of this - is there a possibility the subject was 17 when the image was taken? I am not a lawyer, but there could be 2257 issues at hand here, as well, and if she was 17, the image is technically child pornography (which should not be restored). --Coredesat 00:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • A significant problem is that this image was taken not from Sander's website, which of course is shut down, but from a third-party site. Thus nothing about it can be verified, not its authorship and copyright status, not (as you say) the age of the model when it was taken, not (as Theresa says) the subject's intentions about this photo or other similar ones, etc. etc. Chick Bowen 00:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Future Pilot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Admin NawlinWiki speedily deleted article "Future Pilot" stating that assertion of significance was not valid. I beg to disagree. Because Future Pilot was a finalist at the New Mexico Music Awards, the premiere awards in the state of New Mexico, they have clearly met criteria #9 at WP:MUSIC: Has won or placed in a major music competition. If the New Mexico Music Awards is not a major music competition, then I suppose New Mexico itself is not a major state? That's what the Iowans and New Hampshirians would have us all believe anyway, right? My article has now been deleted twice... the first time for not asserting significance. The second time, it was deleted for the same reason, though I asserted significance. Should not my article have been subjected to a review? As I understand the Wikipedia rules, articles that at least assert significance merit review and are spared from speedy deletion. Dusty42682 03:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion (as speedy deleter). Here is a directly quoted section of the article:

Notoriety

Although Future Pilot is not well-known on the commercial scene, they have enjoyed a certain level of recognition and success on the social networking website MySpace. Their devoted fan following on MySpace is in great part due to the band's avid communication with their fans.

Songs

To date, the band has made public only four songs: "Ghost in my Dream," "Subhuman," "No One Escapes," and "Sinking Ship." However, their upcoming album is expected to contain at least eight and quite possibly nine tracks, though details on the remaining songs have been kept a closely-guarded secret.

Discography

At this time, Future Pilot has yet to release an album or single.


Enough said. NawlinWiki 03:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NawlinWiki, you make a valid point when you say the band has not released an album or single. However, you are ignoring the fact that the band has PLACED IN A MAJOR MUSIC COMPETITION. I understand that you are trying to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia. You, and the previous admin who deleted the article the first time, have attained and do indeed deserve my utmost respect. However, you are ignoring the fact that I have MET criteria to keep this article alive, while citing the fact that I lack OTHER criteria, such as the fact that they have not released an album or single. Do you honestly believe that this has no encyclopedic value? Do you believe that their association with the website MySpace diminishes their import? The fact that the band has been recognized by a major music association in my opinion shows that they at least deserve some recognition. Thanks for your time, and for helping to make Wikipedia the wonderful resource that it is. Dusty42682 04:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I could completely remove the parts of the article you cited in your previous post, yet the section of the article stating the band's significance would remain. Dusty42682 04:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on the assertion of notability via the New Mexico Music Awards, should probably restore and send to AfD. However I'm dubious as to whether it would pass: the examples given at WP:MUSIC for "major music awards" are all nationwide awards (Grammy, Juno, Mercury or Grammis awards are the examples given). A band that has been nominated for a statewide award, but does not meet any of the other notability criteria.. well, that's extremely borderline. --Stormie 06:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion The New Mexico Music Awards yields no Ghits, no Gnews hits, no reliable sources to verify the existence, much less notability of these awards, and, by extension, this band. Nonnotable Myspace band that, at most, won a non-notable award. Keep deleted, and author should talk to WP:MUSIC to get some ideas about what needs to be included to assert notability. --Ssbohio 15:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow those guys really need to work on their search engine optimization - perhaps our feature article on the topic could help? :-) Anyway their website is at: www.newmexicomusicawards.com --Stormie 22:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you look closely, both of those search strings are set to only search Wikipedia. There actually are some Ghits when searching the full web, but I question whether there's enuf that "New Mexico Music Awards" could survive AfD, let alone a 'finalist' in the competition. Ravenna1961 01:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm certainly embarassed, as I thought I had cleared the sitesearch parameter out before doing my Google searching. Apparently I hadn't, but, even so, I don't see a reason this article should be kept. It can be recreated when the band becomes notable. --Ssbohio 16:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse I interpret "no significance" very liberally, but not as far as this--I see nothing which anyone could in good faith think significant. But maybe I'm wrong. DGG (talk) 17:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - without reliable sources to stand up the award, and with no release, this is four square an A7. BlueValour 19:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per others - also: "If the New Mexico Music Awards is not a major music competition, then I suppose New Mexico itself is not a major state?" is a logical fallacy. That's like me stating that the English county in which I live isn't important just because we don't have an article for the Cumbria Sheep Shearing Contest, our annual sheep shearing contest. --Dreaded Walrus t c 02:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. While not strictly speediable by the letter of A7, there's no sense sending it to AFD for the sake of it when the result will come back the same. No singles = don't bother creating a Wikipedia article - this is the exact reason we expanded A7 to nn-bands last year. Stifle (talk) 11:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Thank you all for your input. I'm learning a lot about how this site works; you've all been very patient with me in the creation of my first article, and I will definitely keep it at the ready for when the band achieves notoriety, if it ever does. I now agree the article should stay deleted. 75.173.10.245 (talk) 04:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Respectfully request a moderator close this discussion, as I have withdrawn my argument (above post). Dusty42682 (talk) 20:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Major_Stars – Moot, new article created that asserts notability; AFD is optional – Coredesat 10:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Major_Stars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Not sure why this should have been deleted, why is it not notable, I had links to citations that I thought backed up the notability of the topic, the band Major Stars.

The administrator NawlinWiki speedily deleted the article Major Stars, for asserted lack of "notability." I don't think the admin had time to read the material I linked to, from newspapers etc., or checked the links, which I think gives evidence of the bands notability. They come from the band Magic Hour which shared members of the legendary band Galaxie 500 (see the Wikipedia article), they run a legendary record store Twisted Village, they are now on the legendary indie record label Drag City (see the Wikipedia article), Wayne Rogers and Kate Village have put out many many records in the noise/improv category. Major Stars alone has released around six records. They where chosen by Thurston Moore of the world famous Sonic Youth to play a 2006 world All Tomorrow's Parties (music festival) concert (see the respective Wikipedia articles).[1] They were called the "best rock band in the world" by the esteemed FADER music magazine. [2] The world-famous Chicago Tribune (see Wikipedia article) newspaper agreed that they are the best rock band in the world. [3] They toured with the famous Acid Mothers Temple (see the Wikipedia article) and have played with other famous bands [4]. All Music Guide (see Wikipedia article) describes them as veterans of the Boston music scene. [5] If you look at the links and do the research you will see how notable Major Stars are. I don't see anything on the speedy deletion list of criteria that I think justifies the speedy deletion of the Major Stars article. Let me know how it could be improved, but I don't think it should be deleted. What are other steps I can take to improve the article? Thanks.

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_December_2&oldid=1138429461"