Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 August 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2011 August 1
2011 August 3 >

2 August 2011[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Sword of Moonlight: King's Field Making Tool (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Admin deletor did not wish to discuss deletion. Suggested DRV, which is something I might add that does not appear in the prod/AfD/deleted page templates at all. Would be very helpful to newcomers and admins alike if it did!!

I (page creator) was not at all expecting a deletion, after the discussion. So I was shocked/disgusted when it occurred. I've taken a lot of time to read over the subject of notability and Wikipedia infighting. However I still believe that the delete was done without an understanding of the debate. Since all of the issues raised in the debate were addressed before closing. Even though the admin would've had to pay attention to the debate and look at the page itself and to give a damn to see this.

I consider the page well written by the Wikipedia standards I'm familiar with. Referenced, neutral, substantial but not overdrawn, worthy of the subject matter. The topic itself I refuse to believe is unworthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. I am a huge advocate of Wikipedia, and consider it a modern "wonder of the world" and the thought that this page would be deleted totally shook me. I read Wikipedia almost every day, several articles a day, making helpful anonymous edits whenever the need arises, but I've never had a reason to make a page, indeed the variety of pages on Wikipedia is impressive. Sometimes I don't however find a page for what I'm looking for. It would shake me to know that the page is not there, not because no one has endeavored to start it, but because someone had taken it upon themselves to delete it. Due to notability, triviality, or whatever. Anyway, the basis for deletion was notability. A) The very nature of the topic should allow the page to stand notable or otherwise... but there was a source from a RS which itself was sourced from the number one publication on the subject matter in Japan. And B) I am positive if you fly to Japan and rummage around in peoples basements for decade old magazines and such you will find the kinds of sources that Wikipedia so prizes in its current guidelines configuration according to some zealous editors. But C) this is way to high of a barrier of entry and just flies in the face of common sense.

The deletion in this case seems perverse to the extreme. If I was not so utterly convinced of the value of Wikipedia I might dismiss it, and encourage others to do the same, and certainly not donate money to the cause. But instead I'd prefer to use this as a prime example of how Wikipedia can run afoul and get more involved in seeing that this doesn't happen in the future.

I believe there needs to be an addition to the deletion templates that advertise A) the DRV process itself. And B) there should be a project to keep track of well written pages with undeniably interesting content with universal appeal that are deleted purely on the basis of the leanings of the parties involved. Eg. not considered important, or references are too difficult to come by, etc. An anti ignorance project more or less, to see if a cost benefit analysis could be had of all this deletion activity. Because I'm sure it turns a lot of people off, and just wastes a lot of peoples time, and generates a lot of unnecessary meta content that Wikipedia must keep track of in its databases.

I keep a copy of the page at deletion time here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Truth_Glass/Sword_of_Moonlight:_King%27s_Field_Making_Tool) just to be sure we are referring to the same content (since deleted pages are hidden behind a veil of secrecy) and for posterity/reference sake. Truth Glass (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment You said: (since deleted pages are hidden behind a veil of secrecy)
For the purposes of an AfD, they can be (temporarily) restored. You don't need to point fingers; you can just request that this be made available for the purpose of a WP:DRV. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion The AfD demonstrated that no sources could be provided to support WP:N. I even attempted to find some, both in English and in Japanese (and I have plenty of experience doing such searches), and I was unsuccessful at locating sources that provided in-depth content of the game. Let's go through your nomination:
  • Since all of the issues raised in the debate were addressed before closing.
How were the issues addressed? Please show us the sources that fulfilled WP:GNG.
Sources were found / inline cited. Language was cleaned up (ON DEMAND) and "notability" was even established! --Truth Glass (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I was not so utterly convinced of the value of Wikipedia I might dismiss it, and encourage others to do the same, and certainly not donate money to the cause.
Arguments that involve threats are not going to help your case.
What threats? There is probably a bias here, because if there is really a deletionist/inclusionist divide, I wonder which side would be manning the deletion project pages?? --Truth Glass (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...I'd prefer to use this as a prime example of how Wikipedia can run afoul and get more involved in seeing that this doesn't happen in the future.
See WP:POINT.
What does that have to do with raising awareness? --Truth Glass (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am positive if you fly to Japan and rummage around in peoples basements for decade old magazines and such you will find the kinds of sources that Wikipedia so prizes in its current guidelines configuration according to some zealous editors.
Assuming that "sources exist" somewhere in Japan is a stretch. And this really doesn't fall under any kind of WP:COMMONSENSE.
They are guaranteed to exist. No high profile software is released by a high profile company, for a high profile game series, without any periodical sources!! No retail game gets released without establishment coverage. --Truth Glass (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The very nature of the topic should allow the page to stand notable or otherwise
See WP:ITSIMPORTANT.
The topic is encyclopedic because its part of series of topic which can be categorized, which all have their own pages already, and its informational, meaning something people want to be able to find out information about. If Wikipedia cannot fulfill that role then its failing as an information source. Maybe its succeeding as a bizarre social experiment, but I prefer the former. This is just a glaring common sense call IMO --Truth Glass (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...but there was a source from a RS which itself was sourced from the number one publication on the subject matter in Japan.
Are you talking about Famitsu? This article? Yeah, and this didn't contain any subtantial content. You'll notice it talks more about Eternal Ring and only mentions the game at the very end. This isn't WP:INDEPTH.
It talks exactly 50/50. The fact that a more traditional "game" got top billing is regardless. Either way it sources Famitsu for the information. What more can you possibly demand? We're not writing Wikipedia for the "leaders of the game industry" we are writing it for the people / the editors... in case you've forgotten. This is really scummy. I don't have the stomach to engage in this kind of discussion. And please don't comment on my remarks unrelated to the article. Go outside and get some fresh air instead. --Truth Glass (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe there needs to be an addition to the deletion templates that advertise...
This doesn't belong on DRV. Check out the village pump instead.
But people who SHOULD care about it area already gathered here!! This is not meant to be a discussion of that. --Truth Glass (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, the administrator made a proper decision in my opinion because the keep arguments did not address the notability issues that the article suffered from. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Advertising the deletion review process more clearly is a reasonable idea, and I don't see any reason why that can't be done. As for the rest of it—well, this is deletion review, not deletion rubber stamping, and part of our job is to provide FairProcess on demand. The nominator needs to feel that they've had a fair hearing, so with a nominator who's new to our processes I think we always need to inspect the debate and the close carefully. I'd begin by asking Spartaz: I understand why the debate seems to have found that the game wasn't notable, but many of the recommendations showed ignorance of the alternatives to deletion, so the fact that they said "delete" in bold is not to be taken at face value. Why did you reject Marasmusine's view?—S Marshall T/C 09:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I rejected it because no-one else supported it and even this vote acknowledged that there wasn't enough sourcing for a standalone article. To support the redirect argument over the delete votes would have been to discard well founded policy based argument around sourcing and that would have been a breathtaking supervote if I had done this. I have no objection to someone adding the redirect as an editorial judgement but I certainly saw no consensus for a redirect over deletion and my role as the closing admin is to read the consensus not substitute an alternative outcome unless there is a strong meta consensus to allow this (i.e redirecting elementary/primary schools to the education board/LEA). Spartaz Humbug! 12:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note for those uninterested in trawling through my talk page archives just posting a link to the discussion of the deletion [1]. That's if you call threatening to ignore the AFD and recreating the page as a discussion of course. Spartaz Humbug! 13:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, that suggests a possible resolution to this. The finding was that Sword of Moonlight: King's Field Making Tool was insufficiently notable for a standalone article. I don't see why the nominator shouldn't create a new section of From Software called Sword of Moonlight: King's Field Making Tool. That would bring the outcome into accordance with WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD, which the debate participants, for the most part, were quite wrong to disregard.

          Of course, any unsourced content in the new section would be subject to removal, so I'd suggest keeping the new section short and factual.—S Marshall T/C 14:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

          I should probably point out that the topic is already covered in micro form on the King's Field (series) page. Which based on my experience seems like a much more appropriate place to be covered as such than on the From Software page. That's fine for a snippet/summary, main article template I think, but the subject matter is wholly inappropriate in other than summary form on either page IMO --Truth Glass (talk) 00:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just keep this meta crap coming guys
I as a person with stuff to do can't really trawl thru/address all of this. But I think it splendidly highlights the wrong-headedness of the entire notability-alone paradigm. Neither does it address the fact that the topic is clearly notable, it just happens to be a decade old, and from Japan, and surprise surprise has few modern day online sources (even though it does have plenty... I'm not sure why 2 or 3 are not enough) from the corporate product angle. I think this is more interesting as a hot button issue example at this point. I'm not sure how many articles that fail notability are so clearly totally topical / relevant to the general public, but this is a prime example of just such a page. And I intend to organize around this in order to repair what I see as a major liability in terms of Wikipedia's usefulness to the general public.
There needs to be a cost benefit analysis of why all of this hot air is so helpful to Wikipedia or anyone. And why is Wikipedia so antithetical to basic information being available to the public. The harder the information is to come by, all there more reason there should be a basic record in the public commons. And if no one disagrees with the content then there should be no need to event trouble from thin air. Neither does it make sense to abuse the From Software page by putting this content on that page. No other From Software products are given an in depth (or otherwise) treatment on that page. There are already tons of meta pages now surrounding this product, so saying there can't be one actual page for the project itself is just perverse to the extreme. Seriously the world is really going to think Wikipedia is infested with perverts once this is fully publicized. Great job. --Truth Glass (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I'm somewhat disappointed because this process seems to have just attracted all of the same characters from the deletion process, where it should be a simple review where leveler (more senior) heads without a vested interest in the subject matter (and more of a vested interest in Wikipedia) can prevail. There's really no point to two AfDs! Just more meta pages. --Truth Glass (talk) 16:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules out of my great respect for Wikipedia. I will take this case up in the village pump or whatever however things go next thing. Because I think this is a really useful example of where the guidelines could use a lot of work, and how ideological extremists can easily take things too far. Kind of like the US gov't is looking really dysfunctional right now, I worry very much about the same kind of necrosis of Wikipedia bureaucracy.--Truth Glass (talk) 22:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also WP:OBTOP and WP:Obscure. I think these actually apply in this case at this point in time in some way. This seems to be anyway the grounds on which the deletion proponents are arguing. Because otherwise their arguments don't hold water. I frankly see this as deletion as sport. --Truth Glass (talk) 23:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Actually, I think this an excellent example of the way Wikipedia guidelines are supposed to work. The only actual 3rd party source is the brief note in www.rpgamer.com, & a reference like that is not usually enough. However, I do not think the original AfD closing would prohibit a redirect to the article on the publisher, without undeleting the article contents. . The contributor's basic argument is not notability, but that " many articles that fail notability are so clearly totally topical / relevant to the general public, but this is a prime example of just such a page. And I intend to organize around this in order to repair what I see as a major liability in terms of Wikipedia's usefulness to the general public."
There are two ways in which Wikipedia might be useful to the general public: one is an encyclopedia, the other is as a directory. We chose one route; there is nothing wrong with the other, but we do not do it. The argument is furthermore wrong as to benefit to the public, at least for this sort of subject. . Material about the program is easily reachable from the publishers website, and is fully indexed on Google. Even using the general search term "Sword of Midnight" it's the 5th reference. Google is a directory, and a very good one. It does all a directory should do, which is lead to information. The added benefit of having an article in Wikipedia could be twofold: one is the greater accuracy of our articles than what is typically found on the subject's own websites, and the other is the greater publicity. The first would be entirely compromised if we had an article, since the contents of the article would need to be almost totally dependent on the publisher's website. As for the second, being used for publicity is destructive of reliability. Nobody trusts an advertisement or a press release. Some people think I'm a rather inclusively-inclined admin, but I've deleted thousands of attempted article like this. DGG ( talk ) 17:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, a traditional Encyclopedia is a directory. It's not organized based on notability. It has a well defined scope, but one topic flows to the next. Secondly Wikipedia is a paperless resource. Thirdly this subject is not a well understood subject, because there are no websites that cover the subject in a comprehensive way. Fourth, essentially it's like a video game. People expect to be able to find information about high profile video games on Wikipedia. If you go around telling people they can't find this kind of information, then people will dismiss the utility of Wikipedia. There should be a cost benefit analysis behind the course of the Wikipedia project. Especially if it requires support from, you know, the human race. Private websites are not sites that anyone can edit. They are the opposite of reliable, because they don't allow for open consensus. The scope of this product has more to do with what people have done with it, and will do with it, then what it itself is. In other words, it is more than the sum of its parts.
It makes games. The games it makes are based on the game which happens to be the first modern 3D video game in the mold we think of them today (as in ever produced) and it's a very well liked game property, considered by many to be the best (as in the best) trilogy of 3D games to this day. It's the number one game associated with the company that developed the software. It was the first and the basis for the company's identity. Like Mario or Donkey Kong is to Nintendo. This makes it probably the most interesting thing the company has ever done, and probably will ever do. And a considerable component of the company's history. The software itself, like its namesake, is also a first on more than one account. All of these factors combine to illustrate by all measures of basic/good/common/whatever sense/decency, this belongs in an Encyclopedia that covers such things at all. And if it does not belong, therefore probably at least 40% of Wikipedia's coverage of pop culture products could/should be deleted, micro claims to a fig leaf of notability aside wherever that exists. I'm sure there are people who would welcome gutting Wikipedia so. But you have to ask yourself to what good is all of this? To me the answer is clear. There is nothing good here to speak of.
Like I say, it is a good argument for why there needs to be something beyond the Notability acid test if it must be applied so stringently and indiscriminately. The guidelines may do much more good than harm, and I agree with the spirit 100%, except anything taken to extreme is detrimental and corrosive and in this case counter productive. If anything quick and easy there should be a recognizing of borderline cases and an erring on the side of inclusion. This is a case study either way as far as I am concerned. If it is a cause for deletion, then its a poster child of exactly what can be, but should not be deleted.--Truth Glass (talk) 00:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Food for thought, sources are only useful where there is a dispute. If a topic can reasonably be shown to have happened / exist, then there is no need for sources at all. In this case you can simply download the software if there is any doubt. There are plenty of markers of its existence throughout the discussions generated so far. If something is non controversial, as a commercial product, then you can bet if fabricated out of whole cloth, a dispute will arise. Otherwise there should be no requirement of verifiability much less notability. That's simply a form of ignorance. --Truth Glass (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps, but it is the inevitable result of Wikipedia's core policy of No Original Research. We need sources because otherwise we'd have to so the research ourselves and that is also a no-no. There is nothing about Wikipedia editors (who could be anybody) that makes them reliable or competent (or even necessarily honest). On the other hand, we can vet sources to see that they are reliable. See our policy on reliable sources. Thus, our basic notability standard of multiple, reliable, independent sources ensures that others have noted a topic and we don't have to so the basic research ourselves. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Seed7 – I'm not going to call this one as "overturn", because nothing in the discussion indicates that the original deletion was flawed. It's all about new sources that have been published in the subsequent years. Creation of a new article based on these sources is entirely acceptable, although subject to nomination at AFD if an editor believes the result still doesn't demonstrate notability. There really shouldn't have been a need to bring this to DRV at all, since the long time since the last deletion and the availability of new source material would mean a new article isn't likely to be a proper WP:CSD#G4 candidate anyway. – RL0919 (talk) 03:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Seed7 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

no evidence of third-party coverage

This has changed. There is some third-party coverage now:

There are also peer reviewed documents from Dr. Mertes:

The page Seed7 (Homepage: http://seed7.sourceforge.net) was deleted because third-party coverage was missing, but this has changed. The deleting administrator was User:W.marsh which is a retired username. Georg Peter (talk) 17:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I won't !vote on this, but as a German speaker I do just want to confirm that the diploma thesis is not a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes. The doctoral thesis may be a reliable source, but it does not mention Seed7. It could be used as a source for an article about MASTER. I have no opinion about the English-language sources and I have not read them.—S Marshall T/C 18:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the diploma thesis not a reliable source? Do you have doubts regarding the Vienna University of Technology? :-) The link refers to an abstract, not to the thesis itself. Have you read the diploma thesis? Georg Peter (talk) 19:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have often accepted Master's theses from US universities as reliable sources. -- is a diploma thesis at about the same level? But not even a ph.d. thesis by the author of a program or anything else would indicate any notability to the program or whatever. It's a self-published source, not 3rd party. If we were to accept theses as indicating that the university thought the author notable, every phd in the world would be notable for a Wikipedia article, which by my standards at least is ridiculous. DGG ( talk ) 21:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A Diploma thesis is in between Bachelor and Master's thesis. Diploma, Master's and Ph.D thesis are reviewed and approved by a 3rd party, otherwise they would not be accepted and you would not get an academic degree. I think Diploma and Ph.D thesis should be considered as part of the whole picture. IMHO there is third-party coverage of Seed7 even when the Diploma and Ph.d. thesis of Dr. Mertes are not considered (see the other links). Georg Peter (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The diploma is an advanced degree, higher than a Bachelors and lower than a Master's, but I think for our purposes it can safely be counted as equivalent to a Master's. This is covered in WP:RS, and the relevant section reads: "Masters dissertations and theses are only considered reliable if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." This is why I can say that the diploma is not a reliable source even though I haven't read it. The doctoral thesis is, of course, perfectly reliable and all is as I have already said.—S Marshall T/C 22:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. The theses are only part of the picture. You can see how Dr. Mertes developed his ideas. The other links show that 3rd party persons have explored and used Seed7 and then wrote about it. Maybe you take a look at them. Georg Peter (talk) 22:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you may have possibly be able to show notability for Mertes, if his ideas have been widely adopted, and then a redirect from seed7 would be possible. This seems the best way of going forwards. . DGG ( talk ) 19:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a misunderstanding. This is not about notability of Mertes. This is about third-party coverage of Seed7 which, according to administrator W.marsh, was missing in 2006, but IMHO exists now. The links show that people use Seed7 and write about it. I have selected links from this list. In this articles there is no straight coppying from the Seed7 homepage. I was able to find information about Daniel Zingaro, Jean-Raymond Abrial and Remo Laubacher. Mensanator seems to be the pseudonym of someone who is also active in Wikipedia as Mensanator. When you compare what Dr. Mertes and Mensanator do it is highly improbable that Dr. Mertes hides behind Mensanator. Jean-Raymond Abrial is Professor at ETH Zürich in Switzerland and has a Wikipedia page (The book "Rigorous Methods for Software Construction and Analysis" can be found in his bibliography). There is also a FreeBSD port since 16 Jul 2008, maintained by Pietro Cerutti. All this things together show that there is third-party coverage of Seed7. Georg Peter (talk) 22:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (restore article). Described in a book by a Professor, described in a paper from an university, used and described in blogs, predecessor described in a doctoral thesis. This should be enough to restore the article. Funny: MASTER would be accepted because of the thesis, but Seed7 not? Annoying for Thomas Mertes that he renamed it. :-) BTW: I don't know the old article, but I use Seed7 a little bit. I was searching for information about it, which lead me to this discussion. While googling I found a discussion about the removal of the old article and a second discussion about it. Raise exception (talk) 13:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, some third-party coverage can be found in this discussions. E.g.: After erikd writes: "It may be practical but so are most other languages, what makes it so unique?", he writes his reasoning. He obviously has read about Seed7 and uses his own words to report his opinions. BTW: The AfD discussion of the Romanian Seed7 article (which resulted in keep) links also to the second discussion. Georg Peter (talk) 07:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know that my opinion does not count, but I think Seed7 has features that cannot be found in other languages. Hans Bauer (talk) 09:45, 7 August 2011 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
Multiple signatures of living people
File:Signature of Vishwanathan Anand.svg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
File:Signature of Vijay Mallya.svg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
File:Signature of Venkaiah Naidu.svg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
File:Signature of Sudeep Bandhopadhyay.svg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
File:Signature of Sonia Gandhi.svg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
File:Signature of Somnath Chatterjee.svg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
File:Signature of Ratan Tata.svg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
File:Signature of Kumar Mangalam Birla.svg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
File:Signature of Rajeev Shukla.svg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
File:Signature of Raj Babbar.svg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
File:Signature of Rahul Gandhi.svg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
File:Signature of Priyanka Vadra.svg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
File:Signature of P. T. Usha.svg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
File:Signature of Narendra Modi.svg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
File:Signature of Nandan Nilekani.svg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
File:Signature of Manish Tewari.svg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
File:Signature of Leander Paes.svg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
File:Signature of Lata Mangeshkar.svg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
File:Signature of Kumar Mangalam Birla.svg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
File:Signature of Karia Munda.svg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
File:Signature of Kapil Sibal.svg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
File:Signature of Kamal Nath.svg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
File:Signature of K. Kamraj.svg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
File:Signature of Jaya Bachchan.svg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
File:Signature of Gautam Gambhir.svg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
File:Signature of Brinda Karat.svg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
File:Signature of Bharatsinh Solanki.svg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
File:Signature of Bhairon Singh Shekhawat.svg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
File:Signature of B. K. Birla.svg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
File:Signature of Azim Premji.svg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
File:Signature of Arun Jaitely.svg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
File:Signature of Aishwarya Rai Bachchan.svg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
File:Signature of Abhishek Manu Singhvi.svg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
File:Signature of Abhishek Bachchan.svg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
File:Signature of Sting.svg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
File:Signature of Br. L. D. Lobo.svg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
File:Signature of VJ Rannvijay Singh Singha.svg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I'm listing these files, all deleted at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 May 12#Signatures of living persons, per request on my talk page by Avenue X at Cicero (talk · contribs). Regards SoWhy 13:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for sounding harsh, but the consensus was to mark them with the {{Do not move to Commons}} template. First the deletion proposition was on WP:BLPSIGN, a proposed policy, not a policy in effect. Second, there was no discussion after VW said that they can still be uploaded at WP so long as they are appropriately tagged {{Do not move to Commons}}. Now, unless deleting admin was strongly in favour of deleting files, Fastily could have marked them as {{Do not move to Commons}} and kept them. And yes, I wasn't the only one who wanted the files to be kept. A better way was to mark them with the {{Do not move to Commons}} template. Fastily just saw the Delete:Keep ratio and decided action. Also Yoenit said that he supported deletions only if his two conditions were not met. But unfortunately they were met. So now, Yoenit's proposition turns 180, in favour of keeping all files. Sven Manguard said that all files should be deleted as copyvios as common law countries have low bars for what constitutes originality. But VW nullified his proposition saying that they should be marked with the {{Do not move to Commons}} template. So even Sven's proposition turns in favour of keeping all files. Therefore now the Delete:Keep ratio is 1:4. This is the 3rd nomination. I do still believe that the files were wrongly deleted and should have been marked with the {{Do not move to Commons}} template. In the July 4, discussion, m.o.p undeleted the files and siad that the option to relist remains. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 14:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid I don't accept WP:BLPSIGN, sorry. It's a proposed guideline, still under discussion. It's not necessarily ready for the community to rely on. And yes, my position is that there is, at first glance, a serious case for deleting every signature of a living person from Wikipedia because if we host a copy of someone's signature, then we expose them to a risk of fraud. It needs discussion, but yes, a possible consequence is the deletion of every single signature file you mention, and others.—S Marshall T/C 17:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is exactly what I meant. I did want you to reject WP:BLPSIGN just like I did. So, my case was, that since all other issues like the licensing and verifiability were nullified, the only reason why Fastily deleted the sigs were on the basis of WP:BLPSIGN, a proposed policy, so the very proposition was bogus. And if sigs I uploaded were deleted on that basis, the sigs in the afore mentioned articles should be deleted too. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per the principles underlying general BLP policy, if something is already very widely disseminated there is no further harm to be had in including it appropriately in Wikipedia, The signatures of such people as Clinton are those appropriate under BLP, unless we make a specific decision otherwise. I have no idea where they stand with respect to copyright. Whether any of the ones listed above would possibly fall under that principle I cannot determine. DGG ( talk ) 20:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with this, DGG. I feel that even though someone else may be causing harm to a living person, it doesn't excuse us if we do it.—S Marshall T/C 22:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • S Marshall, I agree that if "someone else may be causing harm to a living person, it doesn't excuse us if we do it.", but I suggested that this does not apply when the information is very widely reliably published, and the person a major public figure, and I believe that is current policy, for in such cases any additional harm is extremely minuscule. But the question here is not as much the harm to the person, as the possible fraudulent use for harm to the community in general. I don't think there is any here either -- if it is already widely available. DGG ( talk ) 19:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would an RFC to resolve WP:BLPSIGN be advised here to codify a policy first? Once that is done, the issue of whether the files should be un-deleted or not should be fairly straightforward. I recommend to keep files deleted in the interim. --After Midnight 0001 16:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse interim deletion, but RFC or VPP needs to happen, as After Midnight suggested. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 02:13, 4 August 2011 (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/2011_August_2&oldid=1078423832"