Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 December 10

Jay Chapman – Moot, non-attack page created so this is now done. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Surely the creator of lethal injection, the most commonly used method of execution, is notable. 75.33.217.192 (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted that page per {{db-attack}} not {{db-bio}}, as it was a negative unsourced wp:BLP. That doesn't preclude anyone writing a neutral, sourced encyclopaedic article on a notable person of that name. But I would suggest starting afresh rather than by restoring the page I deleted. Ϣere SpielChequers 22:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Miraculously it is still in the Google cache. This is a clear attack page. Tim Song (talk) 22:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, an unsourced and disparaging article properly deleted per WP:BLP. Andrea105 (talk) 22:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse delete obviously some death penalty opponent attempting to attack the personWildHorsesPulled (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, obvious attack page. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deleting this page. Couldn't be a more blatant G10. There could be enough for a real article, but this one was absolutely not acceptable. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 12:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Per above. Could see the article in Google cache. An article may be waranted, but that's not it.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Snow endorse~~ that article was an attack, pure and simple. Topic may well be notable, but that one had to go. Hobit (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Article has been recreated and looks fine. Speedy close as moot Hobit (talk) 05:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Chicago Spire.jpg – Ridiculous deletion, you can't speedy something that has been kept after a discussion and there seems to be a lone voice arguing against the fair use claim. The FUR needs improving but I'm going to short-circuit this because we need another long row about image policy like we need a hole in the head and the outcome is evident – Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

In 2007 a user (User:CBM) proposed to delete File:Chicago Spire.jpg. After a discussion 2 users (myself and User:Wikidemo) and an administrator (User:Quadell) gained consensus saying the image should be kept and was not a copyright violation (the user proposing deletion (User:CBM) was the only user disagreeing). I was anticipating replacing the image once some measurable progress had been made on the structure.

A few days ago, the admin User:Rama ignored that previous consensus and abruptly (speedily) deleted the image without discussion. I briefly introduced points where I disagreed with his assessment (on Rama's talk page) and pointed out that others disagreed as well. I thought it would be best to restore the image and propose it for deletion so that a proper discussion could take place and another administrator could determine consensus.

User:Rama refuses to do any of this; he has ignored previous consensus on keeping the file and refuses to gain new consensus, stating that he is the only one who is right and everyone else is wrong - User:Rama stated "I do not care whether people disagree with me or not, this is not a democracy. If you want to vote reality out of existence, do that in a sandbox. I am very obviously right, and no matter of how many people are wrong and disagree with me, they are still wrong." He then stated that pointing out others who disagreed with him was a "waste of time" and that this discussion was "futile". Another administrator (User:Xeno) stated to Rama that "the 2007 discussion was closed as "fair use permitted" so it's probably unwise to unilaterally reverse that decision with a speedy delete".

Admin User:Xeno recommended I add a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to discuss this. Users and administrators seem to agree that a speedy delete of this image, considering the previous nomination was keep, was too hasty. User:Xeno stated "Rama appears to have also bypassed the procedure outlined at WP:CSD#F7 (i.e. add Template:Rfu and wait 2 days)." An admin (User:Jayron32) summarized the whole issue well and stated re: Rama's delete - "Still a bad delete, if he wants to have an opinion that's cool, but he should then pass off to another admin to enact the decision. Admins should not be participants AND enactors of a consensus discussion. I know I kind of rambled a bit there, but the basic point is that the BEST solution would be clearer guidance from the Foundation on this issue; absent that guidance we must default to community consensus, and in this case I cannot see consensus to support Rama's move here, either in the general sense of interpreting WP:NFC or in the specific sense on how to deal with this image."

In my opinion and many of the users/admins on the ANI is that the image should not have been deleted. The fair use rationale, copyright tag, and permission tag all were sufficient and followed all requirements.

Finally the "free" images Rama uploaded on Commons have been nominated by for deletion [1] because he simply recreated a copyrighted work.

If anyone disagrees that this copyrighted image can be used here, I would be happy to discuss - good points were brought up on the ANI. DR04 (talk) 01:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also forgot to mention there is no XFD page because Rama performed a speedy delete on the image. The original 2007 discussion still exists on the image talk page, however File talk:Chicago_Spire.jpg. DR04 (talk) 01:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn as out of process, but without prejudice to FFD. I believe fair use is permitted here and the "user created" version is actually a copyright violation. See also comments at the related ANI thread [2]. –xeno^talk 01:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

10 December 2009[edit]