Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2007 December 7
2007 December 9 >

8 December 2007[edit]

  • Gerald Gustafson – article recreated and taken to AFD, history later restored underneath given the trend consensus here was heading – GRBerry 20:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Gerald Gustafson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This editor by the name of "Tom" keeps deleting this article about one of the few surviving Air Force Cross winners from Vietnam, because he feels it is irrelevant. I disagree and know that a lot of time and effort was put into the page before "Tom" policed the article and squashed the information that may be useful and informative to many users, especially those pilots who served in Vietnam in the late 60's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.197.186.119 (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Keeps deleting"? As far as I can see, only once. Endorse as valid A7. >Radiant< 22:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn if it was speedied for being non-notable that is not within the speedy deletion criterion. A7 is only for those articles that don't indicate the signifigance of the subject at hand, and that appears not to be the case here. RMHED (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Too many admins are speedy deleting new articles that don't fall within the speedy criterion. They are either not fully conversant with said criterion, in which case they probably shouldn't be admins. Or they are wilfully ignoring the criterion, in which case they definitely shouldn't be admins. RMHED (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (as deleter). Now RMHED, before we hop on the hordes-of-incompetent-admins-that-need-to-be-stopped bandwagon, let me clarify a few things:
  • Any problem with my deletion summary is more or less semantics, so let's just forget about that for the moment.
  • Read through the article and show me where the importance or significance has been asserted. There isn't any mention of why he is notable, just that he won the Air Force Cross. :Why is this important? What does this mean in the context of this person? I wouldn't know that it is anything out of the ordinary for servicemen from reading the article.
  • The link to his article was placed on several pages out of context, which lead me to believe the author may be a family member with a personal interest. My suspicions were verified when the author (who I assume is the anon IP who opened this DRV) posted a message on my talk page asking why his grandfather's article was deleted.
People post biographies of their relatives who served in wars all the time, and this still doesn't seem to be any different. I feel it was deleted properly. --Tom (talk - email) 04:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn From Air Force Cross (United States): "The Air Force Cross is the second highest military decoration that can be awarded to a member of the United States Air Force" ... "As of December 2006, there have been 191 awards of the Air Force Cross." Having been awarded the air force cross is an assertion of notability, and in and of itself sufficient reason to not speedy delete. GRBerry 05:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Being awarded the Air Force Cross is enough of an indication of importance to not meet the speedy criteria. Davewild (talk) 09:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Of course winning an award for "extraordinary heroism" is more than enough of an indication of importance. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 15:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Article has a claim of notability which is enough to defeat an A7 speedy deletion. The option will be open to use a normal AFD. Stifle (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the Air Force Cross claim is enough to satisfy A7. 17:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hut 8.5 (talk • contribs)
  • comment when this happens, of course people should try to clear it up with the admin in question first, which deals with 90% of the erroneous deletions--almost all admins will undelete something borderline if requested. But if not, this is the place to clarify for them the difference between notability and assertion of notability. DGG (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Article claims notability and as others have note, Air Force Cross winners are probably notable. --A. B. (talk) 00:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - AFC recipients are notable, the article only needs a minor edit to move the subject's notability up to the lead paragraph, BUT the article isn't sourced and Google turns up nothing but mirrors. If an editor can source article properly, then I'd be happy to change my vote. Rklawton (talk) 02:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the speedy-deletion (which at this point, means restore the page's history). While winning the Air Force Cross is not automatic proof of notability, it is a sufficient claim that this should never have been speedy-deleted. List to AFD if you think it's worth testing. Rossami (talk) 16:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Since this article was recreated before the DRV finished, I've decided to go ahead and nominate it for deletion. The discussion is here. --Tom (talk - email) 17:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Image:1947 Indo Pak War.jpg – Deletion endorsed. We need a 100% certain source (i.e., publication source/copyright holder, NOT just a date and place) to evaluate its status. – Chick Bowen 03:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:1947 Indo Pak War.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Deletion reason is "Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 July 25". The only commenter on the deletion was myself, who made an adequate case the image should be PD in either Pakistan or India. The WP:PUI listing was definitely not reason to delete this image. -Nard 21:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse own deletion - See for full discussion here and also Image talk:1947 Indo Pak War.jpg. Garion96 (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. It was not deleted according to process. I think everyone agrees that it was either created in Pakistan or in India in 1947. It appears it would be PD either way. No one has given a reason why it would be under copyright under any situation. – Quadell (talk) (random) 04:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course it was deleted per proces. Just restore the image on 31 december 2007, only then it is for sure PD either way. See the discussions I linked to. Garion96 (talk) 10:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I read that discussion, and it didn't look like there was (a) consensus to delete, or (b) clear evidence that it was copyrighted. That's what I meant by "out of process". It wasn't listed on WP:IFD, there wasn't consensus at WP:PUI, etc. :::Regarding the substance (is this PD?), if it was published in Pakistan then it's obviously PD. If it was taken in India, then it'll almost certainly be PD on the first of next month. Doesn't seem like a pressing issue, either way.
But what if (notice that the possibilities are getting remoter here) it was created in India, and there's some reason the copyright won't expire at the end of this month? According to Indian law, images "are protected for 60 years from the end of the year in which the work is made available to the public with the consent of the owner of the copyright or publisher, or, failing such an event, for 60 years from the end of the year in which the work is made." No, we don't technically know when this was "published" (although I'll point out that this technicality is true for the majority of free images on Wikipedia). This photo was either published that year by a journalist (or for propaganda value by a government), or it was someone's private collection, never officially "made available to the public with the consent of the owner". In either case, it would be PD at the end of the year. The only way it wouldn't be PD on the first is if (a) it was officially taken in India, not Pakistan, (b) it was not published that year, (c) it was officially "published" with consent of the author in a year following. This is approaching copyright paranoia. I could make a similar argument for nearly any image on Wikipedia. So if we were debating whether the image should be kept or deleted, I would argue that we should either keep it, or delete it now and restore it on the first.
But we're not debating whether we should delete it. We're debating whether it was deleted according to process. And so far as I can see, it wasn't. The WP:IFD process? WP:CSD#I9 process? Doesn't look to me like it should have been deleted without consensus or clear evidence of a violation. (I'm sure Garion96 was acting in good faith, however.) – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, the WP:PUI process. The nominater thought it perhaps should be deleted. One response of Nard which also included the option to delete. I, as the closing admin, looked at the evidence and decided to delete. Garion96 (talk) 15:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • On reflection, I can see both sides pretty well here. I'm not sure whether the image is in violation or not, and I'm not sure whether PUI is a valid deletion process or not. So I'm abstaining. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If taken in India, it enters the public domain no later than 31 December 2007, if taken in Pakistan, it is already in the public domain. Undelete on Dec. 31 as being in the public domain - or go ahead and do it now if nobody wants to put it in a tickler file. GRBerry 05:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC) In India, photos enter the public domain 60 years after first publication. There is no evidence presented, or in the deleted history of the date of first publication or where that occurred. Thus we can't conclude this is in the public domain. Keep deleted. GRBerry 13:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it shows an event of the war, how can it possibly be later than the event it depicts?~~
The difference between date of being made (during the war) and when it was published (unknown). Garion96 (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion From WP:PD: "Proper attribution to the author or source of a work, even if it is in the public domain, is still required to avoid plagiarism." I don't see any of that here other than speculation that it might come from a government source. Missing a source the 60 year discussion is moot. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 16:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
See You Next Tuesday (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD1/2)

Hi everyone, me again. My latest case is this metal band, whose article was AfD'ed for the second time late in November. The consensus doesn't seem terribly clear to me, and the final deletion appears to be based more on the current status of the article rather than the inherent notability of the subject, which one !voter attempted to show by pointing out several concert and album reviews.

I try to spend as little time as possible at AfD, so how did I hear about this? Barely a week after its deletion, up pops a request at WP:RA for an article on the band - and I scratch my head and say to myself, we've already got one, don't we? Well, not anymore, and I'd like to change that. An admin has generously provided me with a copy of the deleted article, which I patched up a bit; here is the article beefed up with media sources. The article isn't protected but I brought it here so as to avoid getting slapped with a G4. Can I have the new writeup moved to mainspace? Chubbles (talk) 21:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I really don't see the notability claims, that's my only problem. -RiverHockey (talk) 21:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems to meet WP:BAND for their touring and press coverage of their debut album. RMHED (talk) 00:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I opined a weak keep in the most recent AFD because there was a fair amount of press coverage and felt it, combined with national touring, would work to meet WP:MUSIC. The rewrite looks good, and I'd suggest it be moved to mainspace. Tony Fox (arf!) 07:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems to just about scrape past WP:MUSIC. If the draft article were up today and were on AFD, I would be saying "weak keep". Happy to allow recreation. Stifle (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my deletion the article, having been deleted once before, still had notability failings. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The prior deletion happened in May of 2006, before the group signed to Ferret Records, released a well-covered album, and toured repeatedly through the United States and Canada. Several points of WP:MUSIC are covered. Also, did anyone notice that even the Portuguese have taken notice of the band? (Their Wiki tends to have better coverage of American metal than ours does, which we should regard as embarrassing.) Chubbles (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my deletion Sorry but it still seems non-notable. -RiverHockey (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Rigging_extempore_gear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Sorry guys, I don't have the time to understand all this complicated stuff how to object to a deletion. All I want to say is that I object to the deletion of my article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rigging_extempore_gear Janno (talk) 02:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This nom was misplaced, I moved it from here --W.marsh 17:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, unanimous AFD, no reason given to change it. This is a place to point out how the deletion process was not followed, not a second bite at the cherry to get a different result. Stifle (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Stifle. Nothing new, no reason for objecting given. --W.marsh 19:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The book wasn't an encyclopaedia. It was a bad idea to copy the chapter heading in the book as the article's subject, and a bad approach to writing an encyclopaedia article. Wikipedia should have articles about the things that were being discussed. It already had derrick, and now has articles on the others at gyn, sheers, and ropeway. There is no need to resurrect the deleted content. Uncle G (talk) 22:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - unanimous AfD, no valid reason to resurrect or overturn provided. SkierRMH (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Encyclopedia Dramatica – Not going to happen unless a viable userspace draft can somehow be written in line with the ArbCom rulings on the matter – Coredesat 06:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Encyclopedia Dramatica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The reason for putting in the "Perennial requests" section (which I cannot seem to find mention of under WP:DEL policy) says that it was deleted because it was unverifiable. My intention was to rewrite an article (or rather, a stub) using verifiable sources, but the namespace is locked. I would like it to be unlocked. SamuelRiv (talk) 03:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could write such a thing in your user space... unprotection of article title is unlikely. Even if you could theoretically get people to agree to an article on this topic, you'd need a darned good draft first showing some solid sources exist. I don't think anyone's going to just allow recreation in the article space and hope a good, well-sourced article appears. --W.marsh 03:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So we need a GA, or even a B-class, on the first try? Also, people who write protected articles on their userpages tend to get those pages deleted (see User_talk:Stephen_Deken#User:Stephen_Deken.2FThe_Game_.28game.29, for example. But I'll give it a shot. Meanwhile, my request still stands. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you need something that shows credible sources exist. There are some people who'd probably want to delete an article on this particular website even with those sources. I'm just explaining the situation. --W.marsh 04:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of the situation, and there's even an article on it. Cyber bullying exists for Wikipedians, too. Have you read Wikitruth lately? I love Wikipedia, but not everything about it - this seems a little ridiculous. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
TomTom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This is an objection to the process that led to a SPEEDY KEEP for the TomTom article. The objection is based on three grounds:
1. The conditions of WP:SK were NOT satisfied. Specifically, I did not agree to withdraw the AfD request.
2. From beginning to end, the process took less than an hour - there was no time for reasoning, no time for opposition to take form.
3. A far as I can determine, the editor closing the process was NOT an administrator.
Please (re-)consider my AfD request using the proper process. Iterator12n Talk 01:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This seems like a purely procedural objection... the article now cites sources from the AP and the Wall Street Journal about this company. Notability is glaringly obvious... and AFD at this point seems pointless. --W.marsh 02:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree this was an out-of-process keep, as I had already noted earlier to the closing non-admin. All 3 points Iterator12n makes are correct. However, as W.marsh noted, this is a massively notable Dutch company and I think another AfD would be a waste of time. The article states that TomTom trades on the Euronext exchange; normally companies that trade on a major exchange are considered inherently notable. A Google News search turns up >1800 press mentions in just the last 30 days. Searching the Google News archives turns up 12,000 more press mentions. --A. B. (talk) 02:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (aec) Overturn and reopen or relist I cannot imagine that any further discussion should result in a different disposition—I imagine that most will construe the present version of the article as plainly meeting WP:CORP—but as a PIIer, I'm a bit displeased with the procedural posture here, and, since a reopening or relisting should present no real harm (because absent any further discussion the AfD will be closed as "keep", no editor, save for the closing admin, will need devote any time to the issue) and might bear out more clearly the consensus of the community (the nominator might, one supposes, offer more argumentation on the issue of WP:CORP and the new sources, and we might then see whether there exists support for his proposition, even as we might expect that there won't be), it seems that that is the superior course here. Joe 02:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we then remove the notice for deletion that is currently tagged in the article? --Chrisdab (talk) 03:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


This is in response to the four reactions above. First, I would not have appealed if mine was a "purely procedural objection." Second, and related, an article such as TomTom is not encyclopedic material. The company may be notable as a business, its products may be successful, but in the larger scheme of things the company is not iconic of anything - at least, there is nothing in the article that points to some iconic qualities. It would be very disturbing if Wikipedia has come to a point where the number of press releases is used as justification of an article. To put it differently, Wikipedia is NOT a business directory. Re. a matter of style, there should be no place for something like "I'm a bit displeased with the procedural posture here" - everybody should take it at good faith that the AfD request was issued because of a concern about the quality of Wikipedia, about the direction ("a business directory") that Wikipedia seems to be taking. Finally, I have considered the issue of there being hundreds of articles like TomTom - why object to TomTom and not to the many other, similar articles? My answer to that is that one has to start somewhere. Thanks for your consideration. Iterator12n Talk 04:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re. Joe's supposition, obviously, when there is some assurance that the AfD request will not dismissed out of hand, I will provide more argumentation based on WP:CORP. -- Iterator12n Talk 05:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upon re-reading Joe’s reaction, I think I misunderstood what the “I'm a bit displeased with the procedural posture here” was directed at. Sorry for that, won’t happen again. Iterator12n Talk 05:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But WP:CORP doesn't require a company be "iconic" to get an article, just that it "is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources", and the article clearly established that. Also the 1,800+ news results aren't press releases, but independent news articles. --W.marsh 05:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but there is nothing in the WP guidelines preventing the use of more severe norms. To put it differently, WP guidelines do not establish a "right" for a company, meeting certain business criteria, to have an article. Now, it MAY be that you are ok with WP (in part) being some kind of business directory - if so? our positions will be hard to bridge. In summary, notability is (I think) a concept wide open to interpretation. -- Iterator12n Talk 06:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A business directory just contains information like contact information, maybe prices. That's what a directory is... it's like a phonebook. It doesn't contain long sections of prose about a company... that's what an encyclopedia article would contain. Notability for corporations is pretty clear cut... either sufficient non-trivial coverage by reliable sources exists, or it doesn't. In this case, the coverage exists. You can set the bar higher than that... but it's harmful and pointless to do so. We aren't a paper encyclopedia. --W.marsh 06:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. If there are still problems with the tone of the article, fix it; the company is big and renowned enough that we shouldn't delete its article. Valid application of WP:SNOW. >Radiant< 09:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_December_8&oldid=1146641724"