Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 December 30

File:HMS Ambuscade (F172).jpg – Overturn; replaceability needs further discussion. I will list it at FFD; see WP:FFD#File:HMS Ambuscade (F172).jpg – Chick Bowen 02:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Was speedily deleted by User:SchuminWeb on the basis of (F7: Violates non-free use policy: Not different enough that the idea could not be conveyed by a current free image). The criteria has not been correctly applied in this case as it is no longer possible to create a free image of the vessel in its Royal Navy form. The vessel was sold to the Pakistan Navy and has been extensively modified by that service. The Pakistan Navy uses a different colour scheme, the quadruple Exocet launcher in B position was removed, a Harpoon launcher replaces it, the Sea Cat launcher has been removed and the hangar modified to take a larger helicopter. It is not possible to replace the none free image with a free equivalent. Justin talk 22:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - Because the ship looks different is not a good enough reason to toss the decision aside. — The Hand That Feeds You^Bite 04:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What? The image cannot be recreated so we should ignore the free use justification and use some utterly unrelated image just 'cos its free. Sorry that argument is utterly illogical. Justin talk 13:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except that, as you point out in the nom, it's not "an unrlated image," it's the same ship with modifications. We can use a free image of the current version of the ship. You said it was sold to the Pakistan Navy and has been extensively modified by that service. So it is the same ship, it just looks different. Your argument is akin to saying we can't use a modern picture of an actress because now she's 80 and had three face-lifts, so she doesn't look the same as her Oscar-award winning performance 60 years ago. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Err no, the article is about HMS Ambuscade in Royal Navy service, on ship articles where ships have seen service in several navies, each service has its own article. e.g. ARA General Belgrano and USS Phoenix (CL-46). So your analogy doesn't reflect the situation here. Hence, my comment about the logic in your argument; it doesn't reflect the situation here. Justin talk

Just because it's got articles on each separate service doesn't invalidate our image rules. The boat still exists, so a free image can be made. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a question of invalidating image rules, it is perfectly permissible within the image rules. And no a free image is not possible in this case and your suggestion that an unrelated image will do is utterly specious. Justin talk 22:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have never said "an unrelated image will do," so I don't know where you're getting off calling my argument "specious."If your argument is that the boat currently doesn't look like it did when it was designated HMS Ambuscade, I don't think you'll satisfy the image rules. The ship still exists. We can still make a free image of it. Therefore, a non-free image is not necessary. The fact that it has been modified doesn't change that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its specious because it is an unrelated image. The article is about HMS Ambuscade, the image is to illustrate her in the service of the Royal Navy. There cannot be a free image as HMS Ambuscade no longer exists. To shove in an image of the ship in Pakistan Navy service is to use an unrelated image. A non-free image is impossible because HMS Ambuscade no longer exists. Justin talk 22:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relist - If you'll look through the admin's talk pages, there are quite a few similar instances - quick skim through his contributions over the last few weeks there's several "oops I was too quicksI over stepped" - itchy delete finger? --71.54.72.13 (talk) 09:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - As the lister says, no free image can now be made, so it's explicitly allowed under the non-free content guideline, just like a person who is dead or a hermit, or a band that no longer exists. The closing admin's suggestion of using a picture of some other ship is ludicrous; if we adopted that line of reasoning we could get rid of all free-use pictures of people by using a free picture of somebody else! -- Zsero (talk) 13:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, list at FFD. Closer's summary ("not different enough") and Justin's argument indicate enough of a substantial content issue is involved to require community discussion rather than summary action. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and list at FfD. Not clear-cut enough for a speedy. Timotheus Canens (talk) 15:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
overturn Not a speedy case as it isn't clearly replaceable. Hobit (talk) 16:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
overturn - whatever else may be decided, this was an inappropriate speedy delete Thparkth (talk) 17:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy deletion and list at FfD if desired. WP:CSD states that "administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." This is clearly not an obvious case, given the strong contention that no free equivalent can be created. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly it was and is replaceable by other (non-free) images such as File:HMS Amazon (F169).jpg. Why waste anyone's time at FFD? Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? How can it be replaced by a picture of a different ship?! Would you also say that a picture of a deceased person may be replaced by that of somebody else of the same sex, age, race, and general build? -- Zsero (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, but ships aren't people. These ships were all built to one plan and - so far as I can recall - all underwent the same visible changes. Apart from the pennant number, which is all but illegible in these shots, they were visibly identical. Only a total anorak could possibly tell the difference and anyone that obsessive should have pictures of these which they took at some Navy Day which they can release under a free license. We can't lose. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So if a famous dead person had an identical twin who was still alive, and someone wanted to upload a photo for fair use, you would suggest taking a photo of the twin instead, on the grounds that nobody would know the difference? -- Zsero (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was not a really great analogy the first time you tried it out and I don't find that fine-tuning is helping. The subject here is a big inanimate steel thing. If it is analogies you want think cars, not people. Do we insist on picturing every possible trim level and engine variant in an article? Every little detail change? Or do we say "here's a three-door VW Golf Mk2" and "here's a four-door Ford Escort Mk1"? You're asking for a picture of the "three-door VW Golf Mk2 1.6 GLi automatic with the optional five-spoke alloy wheels and metallic paint". Even the Volkswagen Golf Mk2 article, dealing with a subject where there are enormous numbers of free pictures available, doesn't depict that level of detail. It settles for representativeness. So too can the article where this image was used. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article isn't about the type of ship, it's about the ship itself. If we say "here's a picture of the car Kennedy was shot in", we don't put up a picture of one just like it if we can get one of the car itself. We don't put a picture of Apollo-12 in an article about Apollo-11, just because they looked alike (if they did). -- Zsero (talk) 02:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the argument that it is a completely different ship none of the Type 21 had exactly the same build standard, there were differences between members of the class. HMS Antelope for example was never fitted with Exocet. Justin talk 09:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn argument for fair use negates possibility of speedy deletion. Alansohn (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:RebShimon.jpg & File:RavYosefLeibBloch.jpg – overturned. Relisting these for deletion is optional and if any editor choosed to do so they may, but there is not enough mandate here to force the issue; however there is sufficient consensus here that the claimed fair use rationale was not considered correctly in the previous decision to delete. – Shereth 22:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The images are very probably in the public domain, but just in case they're not I added a fair use rationale, and noted this in the discussion, calling for it to be closed as a keep, either way. Instead, and to my horror, User:Fastily deleted them! I have attempted to reason with him, but he takes the absurd position that if a file is definitely PD it may be kept, and if it's definitely copyright but fair use then it may also be kept, but if we're unsure which one it is it must be deleted! Deleting these files did nothing to improve the encyclopaedia, and I request that they be undeleted. For now they should be treated as fair use, just as a precaution; eventually enough time will have passed that we can confidently call them PD and use them more freely. Zsero (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This seems to be essentially the same issue as discussed here Wikipedia:Deletion_review#File:Hiram_Bithorn.JPG, where the consensus right now seems to be to be to allow the image as fair use. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn with relist possible. Similar DRV just concluded, rejected general deletion of such cases. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
overturn and relist if desired was not found to be in the PD, but no argument was made in the FfD why it doesn't meet our requirements as non-free content (which it was listed as at the time of deletion). I've no clue if it does or doesn't as I've not seen the image or context for it. Hobit (talk) 16:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But this wasn't a FfD debate; it was a WP:PUF listing. The issue at hand was that someone had to prove the image was free, or otherwise satisfy WP:NFCC. Over the course of the two-month listing, no one did that. This, therefore, was a perfectly reasonable way to close a listing at PUF. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was unable to prove beyond doubt that the photos were PD, since my attempts to contact the author of the article from which they were copied (in order to find out where he copied them from) failed. But for that very reason I added a fair use rationale as a backup, and therefore the PUF should have immediately been closed as a keep. Instead they were deleted. -- Zsero (talk) 20:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did miss where the discussion occurred, but I still think that this shouldn't be deleted simply for not being a free image once there is a fair use rational. No issue with listing at FfD if it is felt that NFCC isn't met. I certainly disagree with "A Stop at Willoughby" that just because you don't know who (if anyone) owns the image you can't meet NFCC#2. If we want that requirement added to NFCC, it should be explicit. Hobit (talk) 06:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
overturn and relist - there is absolutely no legal problem with saying "this is probably PD, but if it's not here is the fair use rationale". Thparkth (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion On Wikipedia, we assume that images aren't public-domain until proven otherwise. Therefore, because Zsero failed to prove that this was public domain during the two months this was listed at WP:PUF, we must assume that this is non-free content. So the question is whether this meets WP:NFCC. That policy states that non-free content "may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met" (emphasis mine). Here's the deal: If you don't know who the copyright holder is, your image cannot meet WP:NFCC#2. You may argue all you like that #2 would be met easily if you knew who the copyright holder was, but the fact of the matter is that you cannot be sure. And WP:NFCC requires that all 10 (not "most of the") criteria are (not "may be") met. Therefore, this was a perfectly reasonable deletion/WP:PUF closure. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not agree that "If you don't know who the copyright holder is, your image cannot meet WP:NFCC#2." All #2 requires is that the content is not "not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media". This can usually be easily assessed even without knowing who the copyright holder is. Thparkth (talk) 18:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. How do you know what the original market role without knowing the copyright holder? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick. Who owns the copyright on the 1976 London Philharmonic recording of the Blue Danube? Who knows. What is the market role of that recording? That's easy - it's a commercial soundrecording sold in its complete form in retail, and licensed commercially for use in film, radio and television. How does, say, a five second sample of that recording "replace the original market role"? Answer: it doesn't. There you go, an absolutely correct and complete assessment of WP:NFCC#2 without ever knowing who owns the copyright. It may sometimes be necessary to know who the copyright holder is to assess the impact of a non-free-use but it's not a universal requirement, and it is not the intention behind WP:NFCC#2. Thparkth (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely (and despite the wording of the policy) what matters is not the original market role but the current one. Remember that the purpose of #2 is to avoid taking business away from the copyright holder, which can only happen now, not 70 or 80 years ago. And in this case the answer to "what is the current market role of these photos" is "none". Nobody is selling them. Nobody knows who might have the right to sell them. It is very likely that nobody has this right. They are not generating any revenue for anyone, and it is nearly certain that they never will.

But if we must consider the original market role, then that is simple and obvious. The photos could only have been taken for a limited number of purposes: 1. For the private use of the subjects; if so, #2 is irrelevant. 2. To sell newspapers; if so, the issues in which they appeared were sold, used to wrap fish, and thrown away the better part of a century ago, and the newspapers themselves no longer exist. 3. For a fundraising brochure for the subjects' employer; if so, reproducing them on WP will not prevent them from doing so again should they want to. So whichever way you look at it, #2 is satisfied. -- Zsero (talk) 20:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and list at FfD. If it is uncertain whether it is in the public domain or not, it should be treated as fair-use and that's it. To delete an image based on a problem that could be fixed by removal of the PD tag makes scant sense to me. The NFCC issues were never aired during the PUF listing, and I'm frankly uncertain whether they warrant deletion. I am certain, however, that the error here was not harmless, and a discussion at the appropriate venue—FfD—is required. Timotheus Canens (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. Until the {{di-no author}} template is deleted or deprecated a failure to provide author information will be one reason for deletion under WP:CSD#F4. The uploader is normally to be allowed a two-day grace period to remedy this defect in the case of non-free content. In this case the interval was rather closer to two months than two days and still there was no progress. No other outcome was possible. On the other hand I have no particular objection to relisting at FFD although I do question the usefulness of doing so. But perhaps the horse will learn to sing in the next two weeks or so. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - Thread duly opened at WT:CSD to confirm the proper usage of such tags. Jheald (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Unknown" is a perfectly valid answer for "author". It is impossible to find out who took these photos, and it doesn't matter, since we're being conservative and using them only where fair use would be allowed, even though they're very likely to be PD. -- Zsero (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. This is craziness. These images are either legitimate fair use, or they are PD. Either way they are no legal risk either to us, or our downstream reusers. The only thing achieved by this deletion is to reduce our readers' understanding of the topics, squarely against the purpose of WP:NFC. Jheald (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I can only assume Fastily suffered from a moment of temporary insanity here. It is quite reasonable to say, in words, that an image is likely to public domain while backing that up with a fair use rationale to mitigate against any lingering uncertainty. A public domain tag would have been inappropriate, but that doesn't seem to have been present on the deleted images. If someone wants to challenge the fair use rationale then that is fine thing to discuss, and could motivate relisting, but the closer was in error to delete these without any attempt to consider whether NFCC was satisfied. The closer is also wrong in his subsequent discussion to imply that NFCC can't be satisfied simply because the author is currently unknown. Dragons flight (talk) 03:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Xavier bowl games – endorsed. – Shereth 22:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This was a standard navigational template for American football bowl games; in this case, those which the now-defunct Xavier Musketeers football team played in. The template was nominated for deletion on the reasonable grounds that it contained one redlink and was orphaned. During the discussion I wrote the Xavier Musketeers football article and adding the template, so it was no longer orphaned. Only one other editor participated in the discussion, and s/he opined that the navbox wasn't "useful." Usefulness as such as an editorial question and not a reason for deletion. The template was deleted by Ruslik0 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) on these same usefulness grounds. I have asked him to reverse himself, and he has declined, so I'm bringing the matter here for wider attention. I would ask that the deletion be overturned so that the way is clear for restoring the navigational template to the article. Mackensen (talk) 15:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I presume that you are referring to Ruslik0 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)? I think the close itself was reasonable; it makes little sense to have a navbox with only one link in it. However, if the number of links can be expanded, there should be no barrier to recreation. So endorse close but permit recreation of a navbox with a larger number of links. Timotheus Canens (talk) 17:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment of the deleting administrator. I deleted the template because it made little sense to keep a navigational template with just one link in it, which, by the way, is a redlink (1950 Salad Bowl). I agree with Timotheus Canens that this navbox can be recreated if sufficient number of articles are written. Ruslik_Zero 19:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's no longer a red link, and I still don't see how this would be a rationale for deletion in the first place. Wikipedia:Templates for discussion lists four reasons to delete a template, and this isn't one of them. Of course a template may be deleted if there's consensus to do so, but when the only two editors commenting disagree on the merits surely there isn't consensus to do so. Mackensen (talk) 02:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Well, let me ask this. If I take the {{Navbox}} template and use it directly on the article to create a link, I assume no one would view that as overturning this outcome since it's strictly an editorial decision. That being the case, why is it a problem to take that and place it within its own template? No actual guideline is being violated (and I'll write an article on the bowl in question, once this is overwith). Mackensen (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure I see nothing wrong with the closing administrator's actions. While participation in the discussion was low, the argument that the navigational template was of no use because it contained just one redlink was the stronger one. In that respect, I think those seeking deletion won the debate. That said, Mackensen is correct that no guidelines were actually violated by the template, as WP:NAV is an essay and the relevant guideline, WP:CLN, does not appear to prohibit templates with very few links. That does not mean the delete arguments were invalid, however; it simply means that they were based on common sense. I have no problem with Mackensen creating a new template with multiple blue links (such as 1950 Salad Bowl) in it. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since I !voted "Delete" in the TFD, I won't bother saying "Endorse" here. However, I would like to point out that it is common practice at TFD to delete navigation templates that have very few working links, so whether the link was functional or not had little impact on its fate. I've never seen a navbox with just one or two links survive a TFD; generally any navbox with less than five working links is at high risk. There is no established guideline on how many links are required, but the pattern is well-established in practice. But at the same time, I don't know of any serious objection to such templates being recreated if a robust number of relevant links can be provided. --RL0919 (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Students for Economic Justice – endorsed with no prejudice against the recreation of a valid, sourced article. – Shereth 22:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I saw this page was deleted, and am a bit confused as to why it is. The group itself is linked on other wiki pages. A google search for "students for economic justice" michigan state university pulls 88,000 articles, many from non-student news sources (that is, excluding the Michigan Daily and State News - articles were published in the Lansing City Pulse, Lansing State Journal, Democracy Now, Media Mouse, Southern Poverty Law Center, ACLU, etc., among others. A Lexis search pulls up Associated Press articles, the Tampa Tribune, the Washington Times, Grand Rapids Press, South Bend Tribune, and, of course, the Univeresity Wire (MSU and U of M). It's a bit confusing because it appears the editors recommending deletion seem not to have checked Lexis, given that 44 of the articles on Lexis about Students for Economic Justice were published prior to the deletion recommendation. Since deletion, the articles published include the Tampa Tribune and Washington Times.

Sorry, as an update, I also found this page, which contains additional reasons for deletion, all of which I think are answered above: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SEJ

As well as several entries on google books, including http://books.google.com/books?id=aWkvLXn48YYC&pg=PT193&dq=students+for+economic+justice+michigan&cd=3#v=onepage&q=students%20for%20economic%20justice&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.247.133.240 (talk • contribs) 13:54, December 30, 2009

Comment - Those deletion reviews are from 2006 and 2005 (respectively). I can't see the actual article contents, but from the AfD discussions it sounds like there wasn't much sourced material to go on. I suggest that the nominator create a new article, sourced per WP:RS. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Show us a draft, otherwise there's nothing we can do here. Timotheus Canens (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Bottom line: student clubs at a single school are virtually never notable enough for an article. If you really think this one is that one-in-a-million exception to the rule, then prove it by producing an impeccably-sourced draft in your user space that unquestionably passes WP:ORG. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure - I think that the appellant is unclear about the role of DRV. It is not for us to re-run the AfD or evaluate search results; rather we are here simply to judge whether the close should be overturned. I accept that the AfD could have been closed as 'no consensus', and a fuller closure statement would have helped, but it was within the closing admin's discretion to support the deletion arguments that the sources shown failed to meet WP:ORG. The way forward, as suggested above, is for a new draft to be produced in user space and then come back here with a request for it to be moved back into main space. TerriersFan (talk) 05:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Largely agree, but I think given that there is plenty of sources, the topic is notable and editing in mainspace is appropriate. Hobit (talk) 06:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks When I looked at the page, it said that I had to write here before editing the page, so I did that. I'll do it in on a separate page and try to get it moved back - thanks for all your help!
allow recreation Not on just one campus at this point. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. The sources aren't all great (school papers, local smaller papers) but I don't see the need for a userspace article first. Looks like the topic meets WP:N. Hobit (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure Three participants in the AfD sought deletion – two on the basis that they were unable to find sufficient sources, and one on the basis that they believed the article was promotional. Another participant voted to keep only if sufficient sourcing could be found. A fifth participant voted "weak keep," noting the necessity of better sourcing. All things considered, I think there was a consensus to delete here. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think all agree that the debate from more than 2 years ago was correctly closed. But restoration now there there are sources (or more accurately, now that sources are easier to find) seems reasonable. Hobit (talk) 06:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much worth restoring, why not write a properly sourced userspace draft demonstrating significance - and incidentally don't do this if you're associated with the group.Guy (Help!) 13:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not let the editor use whatever there was there as a starting point? There is no reason to hide it behind a curtain. Hobit (talk) 20:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Hide it behind a curtain"? What? Nothing is being "hidden." And why not let the editor start the article with a clean slate?

Because the editor working on the article should get to use the old article as a starting point if they wish. I don't see why we shouldn't allow that, and no one has provided any reason that I can see. If the old article is horrible, fine. But even then it might have well formatted references or something else. I don't understand this desire to make others do extra work with no reason given. Hobit (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Had you considered that poor wording/sourcing would make it harder to create a good article? (ie. sorting through all the cruft, rather than starting fresh from the new author's own wording & sourcing) That said, it's standard for AfD's closed so long ago to simply start over from scratch with a userfied version. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but I trust that the editor working on the article is better off making that decision than us making that decision. This isn't 1st grade and we aren't the teachers. Adults don't need others to hide stuff from them on the off chance it will make their work worse. Hobit (talk) 14:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adults also don't need vague accusations of "hiding" things thrown around. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, nothing wrong with the process here and it looks a lot like a case of WP:NFT. Guy (Help!) 13:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Erb? A group that has some 50+ Gnews hits is "made up"? Could you explain what you are referring to? Hobit (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
incubate new article if there is new material. NBeale (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Malvern_Instruments – Deletion Endorsed. Copyvios do not get restored so this is entirely moot – Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unfair deletion. No chance to review content. Steven.redgewell (talk) 12:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by deleting admin: As per this long, long discussion on my talk page, the article is a cut-and-paste of a press release by the company, and Mr Redgewell is a current or former employee (current employee when claiming the right to release the press release under CC-BY-SA, former employee when reminded of our policy on conflicts of interest). The article was therefore an unambiguous and admitted copyright violation, an advertisement ("...one of the world’s leading materials characterization companies, highly respected for its innovation and leadership in particle characterization..." and "They provide essential information that supports the understanding, improvement and optimization of many industrial processes...") and a flagrant conflict of interest. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 12:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, copyvio, advertising, COI... there are a cornucopia of reasons why this should have been deleted, and the correct call was made by the deleting admin. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Endorse and Speedy Close - Copyvios are non-negotiable. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, speedy close. Copyvios should go ASAP. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by author: As a new user to Wikipedia I don't feel I was given the chance to amend the content. Malvern Instruments' competitors have Wikipedia pages and these have been allowed. From my 24 hours of Wikipedia experience, my first impressions are of an organisation that doesn't nuture new users. I would gladly amend the content to prevent copyright violation, even though it is publically available anyway. Steven.redgewell (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the fifth (I believe) time, I will point this out to you again: you have a serious conflict of interest with this subject and should not be writing about it anyway. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 15:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge the conflict of interest, however this was not the original reason for you to delete the article. I am trying to point out that I wasn't given a fair chance to make necessary changes to the article, your original actions were extreme and you could have dealt with the article better. I know the COI makes all of this irrelevant now and applaud you in your knowledge of Wikipedia policies. Steven.redgewell (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For legal reasons, we cannot keep copyright violations on the site for any length of time, once they've been discovered. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Endorse. Obvious copyvio is obvious. You are free to work on the article offline. Timotheus Canens (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse if the company passes WP:CORP, then in time someone will create an article on it who isn't an employee of the company. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, hold your horses everyone: what we're providing to this new editor isn't FairProcess. The message we've sent, collectively, is "you may not write this article". And I'm rather disappointed that we haven't then gone on to say, "... but you can request that someone else should write it, via the AfC process", or ask about sources, or in fact do anything at all that's actually helpful for the new user or indicates any desire to engage them in the encyclopaedia-building process.
I think we need to be aware of this. "You can't do this" is often an appropriate response at DRV, but it need to be tempered with "... but what you can do is this."—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except, in the long conversation on my talk page before this DRV, Mr Redgewell admitted that the company doesn't pass WP:CORP and isn't notable: "Due to the nature of the business, there is nobody unrelated to the company that would have anything to do with them." On that basis, inviting him to write the article again elsewhere would be a waste of everyone's time as it couldn't possibly survive. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 10:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And that's not in dispute. The point I'm making is around appropriate ways to handle new users who come to DRV, and it's aimed at DRV participants in general rather than you personally.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:28, 31 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.

30 December 2009[edit]