Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 23 Deletion review archives: 2008 May May 25 >

24 May 2008[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of British Females who reached number one on the Hot 100 (United States) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Reopen AfD I was actually in the process of clarifying my deletion nomination of this list when the admin closed it as speedy keep a few minutes after it was created. I'd like this to be reopened as I do not possibly see anyone looking for this list on an incredibly minor and trivial topic even per WP:LIST. I think it's at least worthy of discussion. Ave Caesar (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reopen AfD per nom. The AfD discussion was only left open for 13 minutes. I think that assuming good faith should have led the closing administrator to leave it open for a longer period of time. There are several problems with the list that the nominator may wish to note, which may not be insurmountable problems, but are at least worthy of consideration. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reopen AfD. Request made in good faith and I can't think of any reason not to allow it. As stated above, AfD was only open 13 minutes. I would suggest that the nom do the clarification stuff when originally nom'ing the article at AfD, in order to avoid these problems in the future, but that's a separate thing. I'm going ahead and reopening it. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've also added a note asking that it not be speedyily closed again for at least one day, so Ave should have some time to clarify. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The DRV has to conclude with a consensus to reopen before you can do so. I don't expect that this DRV will be closed until there's more opinions than the two above, and I would hope it'd wait long enough for Blueboy96 to have a chance to reply and explain his rationale. If this deletion review does get closed by an administrator as reopen, the comments added post-close can be restored. Daniel (talk) 23:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fine. You missed the AfD header on the article, though. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For a list to be deleted, it has to be indiscriminate and unmaintainable. This list is neither ... it has a specific criteria for inclusion in the list and in my view, can be reasonably maintained--hence, my decision to close as a "speedy keep." I say this as someone who's !voted to delete several godawful lists in my time. Blueboy96 03:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC) (closing admin)[reply]
  • Reopen AfD. The close was entirely inappropriate. Corvus cornixtalk 04:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reopen AfD. Speedy keep close was clearly against policy; Blueboy's argument may be a valid keep argument but doesn't bring the AfD within a mile of speediable territory. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reopen AfD closure was entirely inappropriate as a user giving their opinion rather than evaluating consensus. Guest9999 (talk) 09:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. No reason at WP:SK justified the speedy keep. Stifle (talk) 10:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ambivalent I'm grateful that Ave Caesar accepted my invitation to expand the delete rationale, and I have no problem with reopening so the discussion can run its course. Hooray for process. (I've already replied to Caesar's expanded rationale, while the AfD was temporarily reopened, and I'm happy to make this here my last comment on the matter.) Townlake (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reopen AfD closing an AfD discussion as speedy keep within 13 minutes of the nomination should only be done with obvious bad-faith nominations. Hut 8.5 09:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Image:Tbagfamily.PNG – deletion endorsed, failure to notify not endorsed but nobody thinks time would have made a difference – GRBerry 01:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Tbagfamily.PNG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was deleted because "an image with an invalid fair use rationale and the uploader was notified more than 48 hours ago" when in fact the image itself had a fair use rationale, and had been uploaded the same day it was deleted.

There are roughly 60 other images all deleted on the same day. I won't list them all for obvious reasons, but they were all Prison Break episode articles, so if you go to Category:Prison_Break_episodes the images are available in the histories of each article. You can also see them in the removing admin's logs.

Anyway, these are two links that I reccommend you read.

To put a long story short, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, an admin, mass-deleted every single image for the Prison Break episode articles because they didn't "support analytical commentary". Most of the articles just had one image, and that one image depicted a significant part of the episode. The admin didn't bother to notify any of the uploaders, but rather just posted a single message on the talk page for List of Prison Break episodes: "Since this is a bulk case, I'll spare myself the trouble of individually tagging and making notifications in every single case; I assume that people interested in the series are watching this page." I don't know if anyone saw their message, but no one replied until after they were all deleted.

If this is the new consensus for episode guides, that would be one thing, but I noticed there are several television shows which still have their episode guide photos intact. Either way, I don't think the photos should have been deleted without a consensus or proper notification, especially since a number of them had the proper fair use rationales and didn't violate fair use. CyberGhostface (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. It isn't a specific element about episode guides, it's the general policy about fair use images: they cannot be decorative. They must be used to illustrate something that would be difficult for the user to understand with just the text. These appear to have been decorative. Kww (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, would you reccommend I nominate the image at Pilot_(The_Sopranos) for deletion as an image of Tony standing there doesn't "illustrate something that would be difficult for the user to understand with just the text"?--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Without hesitation. Kww (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I normally favor an image or two in an article about an episode, but that particular Sopranos example might not be so good. At the very least, the image should be unique to the episode in some way (as in, when you see the image you could reasonably distinguish which episode it came from). -- Ned Scott 05:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - no excuse for this fair-use violation. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even see the images to begin with?--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Without seeing the images it's hard for me to say, but if someone is challenging something like this then I normally favor taking it to IfD. Is there a copy of this image off-wiki? -- Ned Scott 05:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleting admin's comment: About my motives in not doing individual notifications, see my discussion with Ned Scott on the Talk:List_of_Prison_Break_episodes page; I have nothing to add to that now. About the matter itself: this is, in my eyes, an open-and-shut case, bringing it to IfD would be SNOWish. There's no way any of these were legitimate fair use. Ned, if you say you "normally favor an image or two" but "at the very least, the image should be unique" etc.: I couldn't disagree more; that criterion is far below any reasonable threshold justifiable under our NFC policies. Actual (but routinely ignored) policy has always been there must be critical/analytical commentary. Being from a key scene is not enough; having a caption saying from which scene it is is even further from being enough. Analytical commentary means, you might use an image to illustrate something critics have said about the filming technique (characteristic styles of lighting, camera angles etc.), or about development in the visual appearance of a character etcetera etcetera; these analytical issues need to be explicit in the text, explicitly connected to the presentation of the image, and sourced. Encouraging people that they can routinely have one image per episode is dead wrong. First let them write something that actually contains analytical commentary, only then, if and when that commentary turns out to require image support, should you even begin thinking about images. (Logical side effect of this is that any article that fails PLOT will also automatically fail image fair use, as was the case here.) I also do not follow the argument that you couldn't judge without seeing the actual image. You see the text. Does the text contain commentary that requires image support? You tell me. (But I can of course undelete the image for an hour or two if people really want to have a parting glance.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course, to actually be kept I think an image should be far more than I described. My point was that if it wasn't even unique to the episode then.. like.. there's not really a chance of it being kept. That picture is just of Tony standing around. It's a reaaaaally bad picture.. -- Ned Scott 07:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah okay, sorry I misunderstood you. (On the other hand, the point I made in response probably was worth repeating anyway.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So could someone show me an episode guide that fits this criteria? Because I've noticed even featured articles like Homer's Enemy and Homer's Phobia would fail Fut.Perf's strict criteria.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Most TV screenshots are poorly used. The vast majority of them, in my view. I find the image in Welcome_to_the_Hellmouth is a positive example (where it is used down in the text, not the instance of the same image in the infobox). It doesn't just show a scene, it illustrates something characteristic about the scene, and the important thing is, the caption says what that interesting something is. This is one of the rare moments where I (who never watch American TV series) come away from an article feeling I've actually learned something about its subject. Death Has a Shadow#Original pilot also strikes me as okay, as it illustrates something analysed in the text, about changes in appearance of characters. But these positive examples are few and far between. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. The Sopranos pilot picture is a prime example of an inappropriate non-free image, but both images in the former FAC Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who) (Image:Angelic Doctor.jpg & Image:Voyage of the Damned - Titanic.jpg) are excellent examples of when fair use should be used. I have not seen the Prison Break images in question, but I bet that some were merely decorative, while others actually contributed critical commentary; thus, some probably should not have been deleted. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Your last sentence seems to be incomplete; I can't really understand what argument you are trying to make. What's the purpose of your comparison with those other images? Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, sorry, that incomplete sentence doesn't make sense. I have edited it. –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse valid deletion, there are far too many non-free pictures used for decoration in violation of WP:NFCC. Stifle (talk) 10:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I would have encouraged a notification of the uploader of each image, tedious as it may be. Stifle (talk) 10:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment using a script such as User talk:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js it wouldn't have taken much longer to notify and list at ifd. The Tbagfamily image shows T-bag standing next to the Hollanders in a dilapidated house. It doesn't meaningfully add to the reader's understanding of the article, so relisting won't achieve much. PhilKnight (talk) 11:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Louisville medical associates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

valid objective article DonDon101 (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not an objective article, it's a Coatrack article to publicise the lawsuit against them and point people towards the "Beware of Louisville Medical Associates" website. --Stormie (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly endorse deletion of this attack page on a non-notable business. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Stormie. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I deleted this in the first place for being an attack page about a non-notable corporation, and I don't see any reason to change my mind. Accounting4Taste:talk 03:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion If G10 doesn't apply, in my view it was definitely a G11--and a search on Yahoo or Google turned up nothing to change that impression. Blueboy96 15:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse deletion Clear G10, and I was about to remove it as such when Accounting got there first. DGG (talk) 04:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Turaga (Bionicle) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|2)

Per my comments here, not a unaimous delete and marred by the participation of a ban-evading sock account. In this case, because article seems to have been redirected, why not as a compromise keep the redirect, but restore the edit history so that if additional sources are found it will be easier to improve the article accordingly? Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll support history undeletion, but I'll also endorse the close (so, in substance, it'd be more like a redirect close) - I think the closure was correct because I think there is just enough consensus. Sceptre (talk) 18:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. With the banned contributions taken into account, there could have been no consensus to delete. MrPrada (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — For the record, this was the latest AfD. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. Although there is (just) enough consensus to delete, there's a reasonable concern that the effect of the sockpuppetry may have tipped the balance. Relisting will help to resolve any doubt about this. Jakew (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have no qualms in this being relisted, if that's what consensus warrants. I chose not to re-list myself because even without the banned user's comments, it was the other arguments for deletion that were better grounded in policy. Had Le Grand Roi proposed to me in our earlier dialogue what he has proposed above, we could have just skipped this part and restored the history, leaving it as a redirect (and I'm all for doing that :) ). Guess we'll see what this turns up though :). Seraphim♥Whipp 19:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, per the above, if you are willing to undelete the contribution history and redirect, that's cool by me. On a totally random aside, considering the second part of your username, have you seen this? Anyway, they are really good and I recommend them. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since there are varying opinions, it would be inappropriate for me to take unilateral action now. I hail from this side of the pond so I haven't encountered that chocolate bar before but it does sound mighty delicious :). Seraphim♥Whipp 22:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Does it matter then if I'm willing the withdraw the DRV or do we not withdraw these? Anyway, if you're ever on our side, then I encourage you to give this thing a shot! Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Several contributors noted that the article contained no references to reliable sources, failing the core policy WP:V at the very least. The two "keep" contributions, of which one was labeled as "weak" and the other was weakly argued, did not address this issue. The opinion of the banned user was not determinative for the closure. There's no reason to overturn the result, and therefore no reason to undelete the history.  Sandstein  20:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Others noted that sources exist and just needed to be added. The article therefore met our core policy of being consistent with a specialized encyclopedia. The delete contributions were weakly argued and did not provide real reasons for deleting. Plus, four of five editors arguing to delete there hardly reflect the real consensus as if we assume good faith then everyone who worked on that article also must have thought it met our policies and should be kept as did the various editors who argued to keep just over a month ago in the first AfD. Not to mention the 3000+ people who visited that page last month alone. There's no reason to delete this article that benefits our project. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If they had wanted to make their opinions known, they had the opportunity to do so and we cannot presume to know what choice they would make. I've nommed articles for deletion that I've started. Popularity does not equal notability. Seraphim♥Whipp 22:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not if they happened to not be online for the mere five days of the AfD in which only about a half dozen editors commented anyway. I have come across a number of AfDs for articles that I would have argued one way or the other, but closed before I could chime in (for better or worse, of course). For all we know, they may have been editing other articles only to suddenly find this article gone or more recently redirected. And again, there are a number of times where I've searched for an article that is suddenly gone and it turns out it was deleted in an AfD with a half a dozen or less participants meaning that I and who knows who else may have been able to add a new element to the discussion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • relist At minimum the history should be undeleted. The tainting of the AfD and the presence of sources which were not discussed in the AfD lead to a relist being the logical conclusion. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist I'm not at all sure the article should be kept, but it should have another discussion. Looks like all the discussions that User:Graevemoore engaged in will need to be reconsidered. His sockmaster Eyrian was banned and desysopped for admittedly using multiple socks, so it's not suprising that it's continued. DGG (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Consensus gets judged against policy not headcount. The sock's votye added no value to the debate and the issue was a lack of real world sourcing that wasn't addressed by the keeping side. Spartaz Humbug! 22:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus is clear, even without the sock's stricken comment, whether you go by headcount or strength of arguments. Even the "sources" (a google search) provided by LGRdC are rebutted in the afd itself, to which I'll add, there are nine works of fiction, and one passing mention. Endorse. —Cryptic 18:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is that consensus was unclear to delete and any reasons for deletion were rebutted. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Er, what? I don't see any rebuttal of the delete opiners at all. The only attempt to do so was your google search link, which could at best only convince people who couldn't be bothered to click on it. —Cryptic 19:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Considering the participation of but a handful of editors and given that some argued to keep and an earlier AfD had a fairly convincing keep conclusion, how would it not be a good thing to relist and attempt to gain a better consensus? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as proper for AfD2, but supportive of history undeletion. Userfy for Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles if he really believes the article has potential. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. No harm in doing so. If it's meant to be deleted then it will be deleted. Wizardman 01:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of songs with city names in the title (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Per my reasoning here, the discussion was marred by the participation of a ban evading sock account. Moreover, it was not a unaimous delete and even if there are more deletes there, it is not a vote. And the deletes were essentially just repeititious "indiscriminate, trivia, unencyclopedic" non-policy based arguments. As indicated, the article was in fact discriminate, even if anyone claims it's trivia, there are specialized encyclopedias on trivia, and unencyclopedic is an incredibly subjective term per Wikipedia:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. Other comments were more of a cleanup or so fix it nature. In fact, whereas the deletes there cited no policies or guidelines, the keeps cited LISTS and our First pillar. In any event, we absolutely cannot just humor returning banned editors. Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse as deleting admin. The AfD's clear consensus does not change at all if one discounts the banned editor's contribution; there were on the order of 16 delete versus 3 keep opinions. Even though AfD is not a vote, if that many people think this content is too trivial and indiscriminate for us, it probably is. This is a querulous request.  Sandstein  17:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nevertheless, repetitive numbers should be trumped by the policy based arguments and again, given the banned account's participation I see no harm in relisting and perhaps gaining a better consensus. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Consensus to delete per WP:NOT is obviously apparent, and since this was so prior to the involvement of the sockpuppetry, it is equally obvious that this cannot in any way be attributed to the sock. Jakew (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion the fact that one of the many users who thought the article should be deleted was evading a ban is nowhere near enough to overturn the decision. Lists have to do more than being discriminate and having clear inclusion criteria, per WP:NOT and WP:LIST (which states that lists should have value as information sources in their own right, or be useful for navigation or article development - none of these apply here). Hut 8.5 19:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The combination of a user evading a ban endorsing deletion and the numerous other arguments for deletin just being repetitive and subjective claims is enough to overturn the decision. The article had clear inclusion criteria and therefore meets what Wikipedia is. The article provides a valuable navigation tool for developing articles on songs with city names in their titles. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. A consensus to delete was reached. The banned user's contributions were unlikely to have had any bearing on the result. Seraphim♥Whipp 20:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we agree that AfD is not a vote and is a discussion, then what we had in that Afd even without the banned editor was indeed merely a vote. The bulk of it was just a list of "delete as it's trivia" votes rather than interactions with each other or new original opinions offered. Now if we take the AfD as a vote, then okay, more editors wanted it deleted even without the banned editor. But if we approach it as a discussion, then the final comment was from the nominator who suggested, "we could turn this into a category. What do you think?" But it was closed without myself or anyone else actually replying to the nominator's suggestion. What kind of discussion ends in a question? Thus, the actual direction of the discussion was moving in a different direction than the previous initial repetitive deletes suggests and we did not get to see any response to the nominator's suggestion at the bottom of the page. Wikipedia does not have a deadline. If we operate on consensus then there's no urgent or immediate need to kill an active discussion just because five days are up. I for one would have been okay with creating a category and then redirecting this page to the category as the article was clearly created in good faith, was not a hoax, could be obviously verified, was not libelous, etc. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Closing a deletion debate wouldn't have prevented a discussion from occurring. That could have still taken place between any interested parties. You can still implement your suggestion. Seraphim♥Whipp 22:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It seems logical that the discussion would have been better to just continue there rather than start anew elsewhere and if I did just follow the nominator's suggestion and create a category and then as I indicated above create a redirect, the problem is that once a page is deleted, some delete the redirects or whatever too as "recreated material" even when it's not necessarily the case. It'd be one thing if the nominator made the suggestion and asked the question and others just kept adding delete after delete, but we can't really say how the discussion may or many not have gone if given a few more days or what have you. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, consensus was clear that the list was an indiscriminate collection of information (and WP:NOT is official policy), and the "ban evading sock account" in question was the last person to comment, and thus clearly had no influence on the earlier commenters. --Stormie (talk) 07:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, but the last person to comment sometimes has an inordinate effect on the conclusion--and in fact that was Eyrian's favorite technique, as mentioned at the checkuser case. But in this particular case I can't really see that it did affect the close. DGG (talk) 17:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not only is the discriminate article consistent with what Wikipedia is, an official policy, the last comment at the bottom of the discussion was from the nominator who wrote, "we could turn this into a category. What do you think?" A discussion should not end on a question and regardless of whatever people posted before that question, the discussion should have continued to see what direction the AfD would have headed in. Thus, the banned user's comments should be struck out or removed and the AfD should be relisted to actually reach consensus. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, terrible list and clear consensus, irrespective of some irregularities. Stifle (talk) 10:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because it ended on an unanswered question, consensus was not clear. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I completely disagree. I do not think that the resolution of the question would have materially changed the result. Stifle (talk) 09:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Image:JayneMariePlayboy.jpg (edit | [[Talk:Image:JayneMariePlayboy.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The image was deleted for WP:NFCC#8 issues which was not too convincingly established in the discussion. The article on the subject was much improved since, and it is clearly established that the image has been a key event in the subjects life and is and a much reprinted piece of glamor photography by a notable photographer. It was reuploaded with reduced resolution and cropped to leave out nudity, thus conforming to other potential issues. But it was deleted again as G4, which I believe can't be applied here. Recreation is perfectly agreeable when there is significant improvement. I was not notified of the happening as User:NAHID, an user who has been following me around in a not too constructive manner, raised the issue by sending e-mails to User:Angr. I am perfectly willing to defend my case in an WP:IFD, as this appears to be a mighty defendable case. WP:NFCC#8 is a subjective issue and better applied through consensus, as opposed to polling or non-discursive individual judgment, but G4 is objective and I don't think it applies here. I perfectly understand the amount of hardwork and drama endured by image patrolers, but I also appreciate our guidelines, conventions and the subject of the image in discussion. Finally, when discussing, please keep in mind that no work of art is necessary for reproduction to know that it exists. The use of a reproduction is in increasing information value, depicting the likeness of a piece of work that has wide notability and/or circulation. Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • a glamour photograph by a notable photographer that appeared in Playboy would seem exactly the sort of image that is most unlikely to be defensible as fair use content DGG (talk) 15:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is that because there's a prejudice or something? Or is there some other issue I'm failing to notice? A photograph, even if from Playboy, shouldn't be any different from a screenshot, say of a Golden Palm winning film, in status (unless we pull in morality or something) as long there is sufficient evidence that the image is notable enough to warrant an inclusion, and a non-inclusion would probably reduce comprehension. I have also got hold of a reproduction of another image from the pictorial, and it is from the the Brazilian instance. Incidentally it has a bit of non-English copy that asserts the mother-daughter connection and, in a boxed inset image, shows the mother as well. It also is inherently safe for work. Would that be more appropriate? Aditya(talk • contribs) 02:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant differences between a film screenshot and a glamour photo would seem to be the amount of the work used (entire photo vs. one frame from a film) and potential to interfere with commercial use (nobody's making money selling film screenshots). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 08:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. No evidence has been provided that the copyright owner would allow this image to be used as free content. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's the reason fair use is being discussed. Aditya(talk • contribs) 02:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I'm not sure I understand the fair use rationale. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure "the copyright owner would allow this image to be used as free content" is a part of the fair use rationale? May be my experience is misguiding me, since I have never seen that bit anywhere before. Aditya(talk • contribs) 14:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for any confusion. I understand now that you are trying to have this image included as fair use content, and not free content. Thus, the copyright owner's lack of permission is irrelevant. But in the last IfD discussion, it appeared that the consensus was that the image did not qualify as fair use content, and I would need more information about why it might qualify as fair use content in order to endorse its inclusion in Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - I was a bit on the fence about it, seeing there might be a weak, very weak argument for fair use insofar as the article does a tiny little bit of commentary about the style of the photographs (something about "vintage Southern context" etc.), and the image could in fact serve to illustrate that. But then again, it's quite doubtful whether that piece of information is really relevant for the context of the article anyway; it indeed seems like an afterthought tacked onto the article just so as to fulfil some fair use rule. It's an article about the person, not an article of photographic art criticism. The fact that she appeared in Playboy is certainly an important element in her life; how she appeared in Playboy (other than: with few clothes on) really isn't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Am I to understand that commentary necessarily excludes information on circulation and notability factors of a piece of work, and may include commentary on the content alone? Aditya(talk • contribs) 01:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, per Future Perfect, particularly his final sentence. Stifle (talk) 10:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "His final sentence?" I can probably understand most of the argument here. But, "his final sentence" as a criteria for deciding fair use? Isn't that a basic example of simple lawyering? I apologize in advance if I'm wrong on that of course. Aditya(talk • contribs) 01:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am trying to say that the sentence "The fact that she appeared in Playboy is certainly an important element in her life; how she appeared in Playboy (other than: with few clothes on) really isn't" is the sentence which I think sums up the argument against restoration best. I am sorry if you misinterpreted or were offended by that. Stifle (talk) 09:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retracting nom. Grammar notwithstanding, the wrongest thing I wrote was probably "this appears to be a mighty defendable case". It doesn't anymore. Thanks people for participating (I have so often seen IFDs and DRVs lying around for eons!). I retract my DRV nomination happily. The community has spoken, and I can always (well, almost always) agree to that (though often not without a fight). Can someone close it now, please? Aditya(talk • contribs) 14:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Cindy (dolphin) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Userification request. The article was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cindy (dolphin) (after two attempts). I'm not aiming to recreate the article on Cindy, but I'd like to merge the relevant details and sources on his marriage to Human-animal marriage, which currently lacks inline citations. If BLP requires that Cindy's wife's name be removed, that's ok with me. Andjam (talk) 01:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmmm... To do such a merger, I (read as "the GFDL") would be happier with a history restoration and redirection to Human-animal marriage. After that, since the history will be easy enough to get at, you can merge at your leisure. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I agree, the proper course of action would be to restore, make it a redirect to Human-animal marriage, and merge the details and sources into that article. --Stormie (talk) 03:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Tribal Wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Why is the Tribal Wars topic not able to be edited? There's nothing wrong with it; and many other games are on this website. All I intend to do is to write a reference here for existing players to read and understand. It would help both players and educate non-players. I don't plan to advertise the game or say how bad it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flamdrenite (talk • contribs) 00:30, May 24, 2008

  • Note: Fix't DRV entry. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looking at the AfD and the article as they were a year ago, there was a considerable debate whether discussions of the game on game websites combined with the popularity of the game was sufficient. It might be time to have another discussion. Consensus can change, and the way to find out is at AfD., not repeated attempts at re-creation followed by repeated speedies. If it had been kept, there would have been at least 2 or three chances to re-discuss it to see if consensus had changed to delete, and the process should be reciprocal. I don;t know what I myself think on this in terms of a possible article, and Del Rev is not the place to discuss the underlying issue. /
  • Comment. Can the deletion history be clarified, and the proposed version for undeletion be indicated? As I read that last AfD, I would argue for a relist, there definitely was not consensus. But if we're talking about something else (a speedy etc), I would need to know the rationale. If we're just discussing permitting recreation... no problem there. MrPrada (talk) 06:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Previous deletions were valid and based on a lack of non-trivial reliable independent sources. If you'd like to start up a reference, there are plenty of gaming wikis out there that will happily take your information.-Wafulz (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure The closing admin evaluated correctly that established editors didn't see the WP:N being fulfilled at all, and didn't see any sources establishing notability. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment""" Alright then. I'll not argue with that. I'll just work on other projects then. -flamdrenite —Preceding comment was added at 01:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC) [reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_May_24&oldid=1136460251"