Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 24

Piotr Blass – Article unsalted, draft moved to mainspace and relisted at AfD – 07:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Closing notes: I closed this DRV as the discussion is now moot. There was overwhelming concensus to unsalt and move the new draft to articlespace, which Trialanderrors acknowledged and proceeded to unsalt the articlespace location. As such, the request for unsalting, which this was, has been fufilled, and this discussion need not continue on the merits of the new draft. I moved the new draft to the article location (Piotr Blass), and immediately relisted it at AfD per the general feeling below. I ask you read my nomination, especially the "Further notes" part, where I clarify my reasons for relisting rather than alternatively simply leaving the article to sit there, as one or two of the below users suggested. I write this extended reasoning as I'm a non-administrator, however I felt that even so, this discussion will achieve nothing further open. Any general discussion about whether the draft-which-is-now-the-article should be deleted or kept should take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piotr Blass (third nomination), not here, and hence there is no reason to continue this. Daniel.Bryant 09:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Piotr Blass (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`AfD1`\|`AfD2`)` The Piotr Blass article was deleated after AfD#1 and AfD#2, largely because of lack of Wikipedia:Notability. Significant new information has come to light since the deletion. I took the new information and created a draft article here, which I would like to be included as the Piotr Blass article. The article talk page requests that this article be discussed prior to recreating it. Please review the draft article and take the steps necessary to have it included as the Piotr Blass article (relisting, overturn, etc.). Thank you. -- Jreferee 23:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] ~~Relist~~Unsalt There seems to be adequate evidence of notability here, and at least some of the substantial problems of the first AFD have been solved. As for the second, it was closed as speedily deleted under G4, so the first AFD is more important. Maintaining it in an NPOV state may be difficult given the prior history. I'm hoping the proposer here will help watch over it. GRBerry 00:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC) Actually, advertising it via AFD probably won't help avoid the past problems, so I've reconsidered and am willing to just let it move in. GRBerry 04:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Question Can anyone think of any way this article can be maintained, and not turned into a vanity piece to the greater glory of Piotr Blass, once it hits article space and he creates a new sockpuppet? Anyone want to spend eternity patrolling, reverting and protecting it? I'm reminded of myg0t or GNAA. Seriously, is having an article on this guy worth the trouble? Fan-1967 01:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Re-list Since the current state is not what was discussed in AfD, so it should be discussed again. I note that even in the recreation, it contains the NPOV phrase, "despite his qualifications" in section 1.2 , the section on family law 1st para is irrelevant, and the other paras written with a POV slant. And the final section has has POV and irrelevancies. I strongly urge Jreferee to improve it substantially before the AfD discussion.DGG 01:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Relist - far far better than the original and now appears to meet WP:BIO, good work Jreferee! RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Unsalt. I do not want to think of the precedent we'd set if we refused a well-referenced article on a notable thing because it might be turned into a vanity piece. I don't know why it's necessary to relist; it's really much better. -Amark moo! 02:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Relist but wouldn't object much to a simple unsalting. I still would prefer this to be relisted because since even hough this version is much better it still isn't clear to me if he is notable. In particular, it isn't clear to me if he meets WP:PROF or WP:BIO (by nature, pieces that are purely interviews are not terribly useful) and I have slight concerns about there being OR in the new draft, especially regarding his children. JoshuaZ 02:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Nominating for AfD is perfectly within anybody's editorial discretion. In fact, I would prefer that this gets nominated editorially. ~ trialsanderrors 03:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] I unsalted it. I don't see a speedy criterion that could possibly apply now. ~ trialsanderrors 03:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Saul Kaiserman – no consensus to overturn – GRBerry 02:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'd ask that you undelete that bio/article. In support of my request, and in response to the criticisms made of the bio/article's noteworthiness, I am attaching some of my notes and relevant links below.

Saul Kaiserman is a recognized leader in the field of Jewish education, and an opinion leader in the scholarship re: birkat hamazon

Kaiserman's thesis has been reprinted on an independent website: lookstein.org
Curriculum has been written based upon ideas gleaned from Kaiserman's writings on birkat. lookstein.org
Kaiserman was an invited/featured speaker at the Limmud 2007 conference on birkat and other topics in Jewish education: limmudny.org
On the subject of treatment of eating disorders in the Jewish community: atid.org
Of course, there's also the self-published scholarship: newjewisheducation.blogspot.com
On other topics: shma.com, my.mli.org.il, bjeny.org
And he has influenced other scholars: urj.org

Devincohen 19:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment linked in AFD2, which had the delete result. GRBerry 19:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn: This is blatant antisemitism. Kaiserman has accomplished a tremendous amount in the field of Jewish education, a fact that was made abundantly clear in the entry (and above). The only way one could disregard the level and magnitude of achievements as being unworthy of inclusion in Wikipedia is to begin with an a priori hostility to the field itself. —The preceding Wolfpowers (talk • contribs) 19:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment Calm down. People of all sorts of racial/ethnic/religious/cultural/whatever backgrounds get deleted. This decision has nothing to do with anti-semitism (furthermore, as a piece of advice, Wikipedians are unlike to look favorably upon claims of anti-semitism without a wikipolicy based reason for overturning).
Endorse deletion The AfD was procedurally correct and seems to have reached the correct conclusion. He does not meet the notability criterion for an individual. Now if we had multiple, independent non-trivial reliable sources about him we could have an article. But we don't. JoshuaZ 20:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse valid AfD, no reliable sources from which to fix the article. Also, this appears to be Devincohen's fourth edit. Devin, do you normally contribute anonymously? Wolfpowers also seems to have very few edits. Both have a long period of absence from the project and have suddenly re-appeared now. Lovely to see you again, both. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Overturn~~ (Duplicate removed) Fair question, Guy. Read lots, Try only to edit when I have something new and substantive to add. In this case, while it may be mostly to a niche interest area, I believe that Saul Kaiserman has made significant contributions. Further, he has held some high profile jobs in the area, and is currently a fellow in a well-regarded institute for mid-career educators. Finally, I hope that I will not be judged for trying to write smarter, rather than merely more.Devincohen 21:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Valid afd and I'm not seeing anything reliable/substantive in the new sources which would suggest an overturn for consideration under WP:PROF Bwithh 21:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn/Restore I realize "independent research" may include personal experiences, but I have worked with Saul Kaiserman in my capacity as a Reform Rabbi. He is the foremost up-and-coming Jewish educator in this area (greater NYC and perhaps the whole East Coast). I don't have websites that say that, but I know that from individual experience. He is has begun to revolutionize Jewish education in religious schools. This isn't a big field and likely doesn't have lots of websites about it, but it is a field that affects the entire Jewish community/future. It you know little about the field of contemporary progressive Jewish supplemental education, I imagine this doesn't seem important to you. But millions of jewish kids go to Sunday School. Kaiserman is changing the whole model. I strongly endore overturning the deletion and allowing additional information to be found/added. JerseyRabbi 23:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Acount created 1/24/07[reply]
Endorse deletion, zero independent sources. If you can come up with the Jerusalem Post article and some New York Times, Post, Newsday, etc., articles which have him as the prime focus and discuss how he is changing education, then rewrite. But the latest version was lots of puffery with no reliable sources. Dang, those Wikipedia policies on verifiability must be anti-Semitic. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Straighforward, proper and clear AfD discussion and result. None of the links provided above convince me that the result was incorrect. Agent 86 23:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion I see no faults in the AfD. Charon X/talk 01:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
relist on the basis that some of the sources cited by the nominator here are in fact independent sources, & of considerable importance, and that the inclusion of his work there testifies to his notability. Eg lookstein.org, which somewhat to my surprise i found an impt. organization with diverse support. I do not know what his bio looked like, but an adequate one could be written. DGG 01:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak relist per above. I'm not entirely sure that the sources are good enough, and he's at best marginally notable. -Amark moo! 02:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn / Restore Additional independent, verifiable sources demonstrating his leadership: Saul Kaiserman serves on the Board of the Jewish Partisan Educational Foundation http://www.jewishpartisans.org/t_switch.php?pageName=board+of+directors# (click on 'advisory board'). Mr. Kaiserman serves on the Board of Directors of the Isabella Freedman Jewish Retreat Center http://www.isabellafreedman.org/about_us/board.shtml Saul Kaiserman is on the speaker's bureau of the Coalition of the Environment and Jewish Life, whose website lists additional credentials and areas of expertise: http://www.coejl.org/speakers/kaiserman_s.php Mr. Kaiserman is a Jerusalem fellow of the Mandel Leadership Institute: http://mandel.mli.org.il/MandelCMS/English/ProgramsEn/JerusalemFellows/Fellows/ Bobmedford 19:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC) — Bobmedford (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
~~undelete and relist~~ I think there will be a real effort for better sources and detail made if more people have a chance at it again. If the article were visible I would try it now. DGG 05:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reason, that's a wish. (double vote struck) --Calton | Talk 07:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: This is Saul Kaiserman here. I just wanted to say that while I always was amused that there was a wikipedia entry about me, I don't necessarily consider myself to be "encyclopedia-worthy." On the other hand, I'd say a substantial percentage of what I am glad is included in the Wikipedia would probably be considered as being of dubious merit. Further, I suspect that most people who google me have appreciated finding the information that was in my entry. Regarding this current conversation, I doubt seriously that most of the people commenting here are in any way qualified to know what credentials would make one appropriate to be considered a "cutting-edge Jewish educator." I also suspect that few of you have actually done any serious research into the links that were provided - saying "I haven't found anything to overturn the AfD" is like saying "I haven't found any evidence that he isn't a pig-f**ker, so he must be." A lot of people think that "superfluous entries" mar the credibility of the Wikipedia, but from my perspective, it is the amount of time people waste on arguments like this one that truly demonstrates the limitations of its volunteer-driven character. One would think that any of you commenting here would find the Wikipedia better served by working to improve and edit the truly substantial entries, not decrying the superfluous and ultimately irrelevant ones. Think Fred 14:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

saying "I haven't found anything to overturn the AfD" is like saying "I haven't found any evidence that he isn't a pig-f**ker, so he must be." Not even close, User:Saulkaiserman. To repeat what's said frequently, this is an examination of process, not AFD Round 2: the burden is on you to show any flaws.
I doubt seriously that most of the people commenting here are in any way qualified to know what credentials would make one appropriate to be considered a "cutting-edge Jewish educator." Your appeal to authority aside, your obvious conflict of interest means that you're not not really qualified to assert your importance.
One would think that any of you commenting here would find the Wikipedia better served by working to improve and edit the truly substantial entries, not decrying the superfluous and ultimately irrelevant ones. Removing the superfluous, inappropriate, and irrelevant indeed raises the overall quality level here, and it's certainly a false dichotomy to claim one comes at the expense of the other. --Calton | Talk 04:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

LoHo – Deletion endorsed, redirect set editorially – trialsanderrors 05:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I believe that the administrator allowed people's personal bias to interfere with the rational approach to this debate. The fact that people disagree with the tactics that caused the name LoHo to come into play 10 years ago do not take away the fact that it indeed has come into play. Juda S. Engelmayer 15:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn The decision was biased and did not account for the name's real use and notoriety.Juda S. Engelmayer 15:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC) (Duplicate removed)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Valid AfD; consensus was that the name is not notable. Saying "Yes it is!" isn't grounds to overturn it. If you have sources establishing notability that were not mentioned, it's fine, but you do not. -Amark moo! 15:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I fail to understand why an entry is rejected because its origins can be traced to a commercial source. The term LoHo has been in use well before LoHo Realty existed, it is part of the names of several establishments and it is a legitimate reference to a distinct geographic area. By deleting it the editors of this service are saying it isn't there; indeed they are endeavoring to make it not be there. Does not compute. YyanoverYyanover
- It implies no such thing. The mere fact of existing doesn't warrant a Wikipedia article; third-party articles in reliable sources do. ColourBurst 21:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Close was in accordance with the guideline WP:NEO, which requires secondary sources about the term before we cover it. It was also within reasonable admin discretion even if that guideline didn't govern the outcome. GRBerry 16:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as closer - won't endorse myself, but the consensus was clear. Proto::► 16:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as Originator I did not realize it was a consensus vote. I thought if you showed that it was in use (in 20 articles), it demonstrated viability. Were the references ignored and only the consensus adhered to? Juda S. Engelmayer 16:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. If the "20 articles" were from reliable sources and documented the name as being in wide use, rather than minor passing mentions and blog postings and one article mentioning this as a neologism, and if anything demonstrated that the term has been influential in anything except naming one agency, then the references would have overruled any number of "delete" votes that didn't give a valid policy reason. The consensus of the commenting editors and the closing admin was that those references were not sufficient for WP policy, and I agree. They weren't ignored, they were found not to establish notability. Barno 18:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion. I see no evidence that the closing admin was swayed by anyone's bias. The admin gave a clear and cogent reason as to why he chose to delete it. Nothing in that reasoning seems to be "irrational". Agent 86 18:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse perfectly reasonable assessment of the debate. I'm struggling to see how Proto "allowed" anything here, all he did was weigh up the arguments, which seem to me to be pretty clearly on the side of deletion. What am I missing here? Guy (Help!) 20:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since I was involved in the AfD debate I won't endorse, but I'm not at all clear what abuse of process User:Judae1 is alleging. It's not that people ignored his wall of footnotes, it's that we didn't agree with him that they supported notability, and he seems to be taking it personally. --Polonius 00:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
reverse for further discussion I did vote to keep in the AfD, on the grounds that neighborhoods with a distinctive name used in newspapers about other than real estate (I don't consider such pages necessarily a RS in these matter) were notable, & this has been. I think it may have been preconceived notions. DGG 01:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment as Afd initiator - I won't endorse one way or the other, but given that WP:NEO is explicit about requiring multiple independent, reliable sources that are about, and not simply mention, the subject, which of the sources listed at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/LoHo verify that LoHo a widely recognized name and/or the topic isn't redundant with Lower East Side, Manhattan? The Miami Herald/KC Star piece seems to come the closest, but the others either aren't RS or mention LoHo in passing (and one doesn't mention the neighborhood at all, referring instead to Lindsay Lohan and a club in MePa). Mosmof 03:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC) MePa?[reply]

Lotus in on Clinton St at Attorney. 207.237.54.86 03:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're thinking of the Lotus Lounge at Clinton and Stanton (Clinton and Attorney don't intersect). The blog post in question is talking about Lotus, Lindsay Lohan's (or "Lindsay LoHo-Ho-Ho-Han") hangout on 14th. Mosmof 03:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be valid to redirect to Lower East Side, Manhattan? --NE2 08:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm curious about that - a part of me thinks, since it's a duplicative topic, it makes sense and it can't do any harm. But I also have to ask, if the LoHo term fails WP:NEO, wouldn't you not use the term, and wouldn't this legitimize the term as much as an article space would? Ytny 13:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to Ytny "wouldn't you not use the term, and wouldn't this legitimize the term...?" The term is already in use, article space or not. Your question can be interpreted as yielding to those opposed to the term itself for whatever reason. While not on the same scale, it is like taking a poll of those who like the name "Hell's Kitchen" and deciding that it does not merit mention, even though well established and used, because people don't like it. Or, to be more political, and also to a considerably lesser degree, it is tantamount to American voters who do not like the current admininistration and therefore say, "he's not my president." Well, yes he is. Same here. I would think mention of the name on the Lower East Side page would be a decent compromise, and would acknowledge, that while some of the references may not be from what Wiki considers reliable sources, they are not shills set up for this article, and they are a representation of how the many among the New Lower East Siders feel.Juda S. Engelmayer 14:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you misunderstand my point. I guess "legitimize" was the wrong term, but it's too early in the day for me to think of a better term. Anyway, there would be no issue with "Hell's Kitchen", or even its new dastardly new moniker, "Clinton", because both names have been the subject of multiple books and articles from reliable sources. And multiple, non-trivial sources have established that George W. Bush is in fact my president.
  It may be true that "LoHo" is widely used, but remember that Wikipedia isn't interested in the truth; its only interest is verifiability. President Bush and Hell's Kitchen (and Clinton) meet the tests for notability, LoHo doesn't.
  
  As for the mentions, I don't want to be draconian about WP, but the WP:NEO has been established for a good reason and I think it applies in this case. The vast majority of the mentions aren't RS, and given the amount of press and blogospheric coverage the neighborhood receives every day, I'm not sure if the cited sources amount to much more than a drip in the bucket. If you're going to go against a well established policy, there should be a very compelling reason, and I have yet to hear one.
  
  Also, I don't think a mention in the Lower East Side article wouldn't be a terrible idea, but it'll depend on the context. What you're suggesting seems to resort to original research. Again, what is the compelling reason to go against policy? Ytny 15:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Thank you. That was clear and probably the most informative reply I have seen on this.Juda S. Engelmayer 17:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion This was in process and sources were discussed and determined to be insufficient to meet the guidelines. People did get a little upset about the spamminess of the article, but that does not change the fact that the reasoning for deletion was sound. Plus, you cannot start a food fight and try to stick WP with the dry cleaning bill. JChap2007 00:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tried a Google News search of the term LoHo, and there was a relevant hit 3 days ago from The New York Observer, an actual newspaper, but... it was documenting Wikipedia's recent deletion of the LoHo article! I thought this was an interesting case of a technical RS that obviously doesn't count, but for all I know there's already a definitive policy on such circular referencing. --gwc 21:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like that wouldn't count as a source about LoHo under the notability policy because the source is about the article and not about LoHo itself. JChap2007 03:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - Also, it's from the NYO Real Estate blog, not NYO proper. It's more reputable than the average blog, but it still takes the "Take what I say with a grain of salt" approach that most blogs take. Plus, since they operate by relaying reader tips and news in other media outlets, they're only reliable as their sources are. I've written for a site within a fairly notable blog network, and the primary concerns are drawing traffic and meeting the daily quota, journalistic standards be damned. Ytny 07:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment **The Village Voice, not sure if it is a Reliable Source, had a story called LES is more, and it talks about the "boutiquification" of Loho. See this link Village Voice, LES Is More, by Sarah Ferguson, March 22 - 28, 2000. It states,

"He limits his study to the area south of 14th Street and north of Houston, ignoring the recent boutiquification of the old Jewish quarter south of Houston, dubbed "Loho," where an Orchard Street condo just sold for $1.1 million."

While it is stil not the feature on the name, it is about the neighborhood and mentions "dubbed Loho" Juda S. Engelmayer 18:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, Loho will still remain the name of a place, if only a fictional colony in the fantasy world of Wayard. For now, while easily accesible by the "F" Train, it will have to be thought of as place on the continent of Anagra's west coast that can only be accessed by ship. I do appreciate the effort and time here, and do believe that you'll see it again arise as a place that doesn't only exist in fantasy or for real in the Barangay of Lagonoy, Camarines Sur, province in the Philippines. New York awaitsJuda S. Engelmayer 19:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You still seem confused about Wikipedia's basic principles. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. That something exists or is true is not enough of a reason to include it in Wikipedia.

For example, my girlfriend exists (really!), and that she doesn't have her own Wikipedia article doesn't change the fact. But if she does get a profile in NY Times and Bob Woodward pens her bio, then she's probably going to get herself a Wikipedia article. In fact, even if my girlfriend didn't exist (but she does, I swear!), she'd actually get herself a Wiki article if the Economist and Time wrote feature articles about my imaginary girlfriend. Why? Because my imaginary girlfriend is notable enough for reliable journalists, people whose job depends on knowing what is and isn't notable, to waste their precious time and energy writing about her.

The point I'm making with this admittedly far fetched example is that existence or truthfulness is irrelevant. The key is notability. When something is notable, notable media will talk about it. And this is why Narnia (world), a land of make believe, has an article, and LoHo, a real life location, doesn't. It doesn't matter that one is more real or important than others.

As for your specific example, I don't see how the Village Voice article helps your case. Notice that the writer left "LoHo" in quotes, which I interpreted to mean that she doesn't really think the name is established. You might disagree, but that's precisely the point - if it's open to interpretation, then it's not verifiable. And the phrase "dubbed 'LoHo'" can easily be read to mean, "dubbed 'LoHo' by realtors, but not too many others". Again, you might disagree, which is why Wikipedia demands multiple independent sources talking about the subject, so there's no room for interpretation. Ytny 00:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Funny Farm (comic) – Speedy deletion overturned and relisted at AfD – Daniel.Bryant 07:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Overturn: Another big webcomic deleted in Naconkantari (talk · contribs) spree in the beginning of this month. The comic is hosted on Keenspot and published in print by them as well, meeting WP:WEB. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 13:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, probably list at AfD. Meets WP:WEB, but should get a full hearing at worst. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Requestor gave us the disambiguation page, not the webcomic article, which clearly is the one wanted from the text of the appeal. I've updated the links. GRBerry 14:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist on the basis of new information. I can't see what the claim of notability made in the article is. We've determined recently that just being hosted at Keenspot isn't adequate, even if it took two AFDs and two DRVs on a single article to get there, so the Keenspot bit is not a reason to list. However, in the article, the bit about the book (quoted in full: "Funny Farm vol. 1") is preceeded by a call to {{future book}}, so the article was only claiming that it might be published in print in the future. Yet we have Image:Funny Farm volume 1.jpeg, which purports to be the cover of said book, so I can believe it was published in print although the article didn't make the claim. Those wanting the article should be prepared to verify that it is indeed in print, probably by finding the ISBN number. If it survives AFD, the article will need cleanup; it fails Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) by having in universe content and spoilers dominate the article. GRBerry 14:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- When did we determine that Keenspot wasn't adequate? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, that was Dayfree Press, not Keenspot, in the Able and Baker mess earlier this month. The issue is identical however. GRBerry 15:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. How I miss actually endorsing A7 deletions... -Amark moo! 15:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I suppose, since the nomination implies that being on Keenspot amounts to an assertion of notability. If you didn't know that (I didn't) then it would look a lot like a valid A7. Needs to be AfD'd though because it reads as 100% original research with not one source outside of the comic itself. Guy (Help!) 20:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and undelete per the commenters above. Yamaguchi先生 23:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of literary works with eponymous heroines – Deletion endorsed, sent to project space – trialsanderrors 05:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

follow-up deletion, no thorough discussion <KF> 11:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At first there was no request for deletion at all. Rather, a contributor was hoping that the companion article, List of literary works with eponymous heroes (that one still very much work in progress), would be improved. As no deletion was requested, "speedy close" of discussion was suggested. However, at that point someone who had never contributed to either page (User:Apostrophe) suddenly requested deletion. In the wake of the ensuing debate (about the definition of "hero", whether it could ever be NPOV, where participants misinterpreted the literary term as a moral judgement), attention was also paid to the corresponding "female" list. Its deletion was only requested by four contributors (who had never contributed to it), and one of the major reasons cited was that now, after the deletion of its "male" counterpart, the list was "orphaned". In fact it had existed since 2003, had always been carefully maintained (not just by myself but also by other contributors who also seem to have been unaware of the deletion process) and is linked to by more than 20 pages.

I request undeletion as this list serves at least two purposes: to show all those involved in the WikiProject Novels which articles are still missing, and mainly because it serves as a survey of works of literature with eponymous female protagonists. Minor problems—what should be included, what not, etc.—could be easily discussed, and resolved, on the talk page.

If you want to create a list of missing novels in project space as part of your WikiProject, go right ahead. Consensus was pretty clear here and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of literary works with eponymous heroes that these lists are not suitable for mainspace due to their arbitrary nature. Guy (Help!) 11:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Such a list can be of interest not just to members of this particular WikiProject but to all students of literature. There is nothing whatsoever arbitrary about individual authors deciding to call their novel after the female protagonist (for example, you can notice a marked increase in the second half of the 19th century, what with "fallen women" becoming "heroines" etc.). Also, this list also included/includes all literary genres (drama and poetry). Finally, you are referring to the wrong deletion discussion. There is no mention of what you are referring to at the "female" counterpart. <KF> 11:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please see WP:USEFUL. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restore - Hero or Heroine is a well known literary term and should be seen as such. These debates are often small minded and often without specialist knowledge of the field envolved. Both articles should be reinstated, however work to cite and reference items included should be added. More examples of the binning of perfectly good (albeit incomplete work). :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse consensus was clear (especially if the two AfD's are looked at in tandem). A list of missing novels belongs in the project space. Eluchil404 12:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it belongs in the project space, it should've been moved instead of deleted.- Mgm|^(talk) 12:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But this wasn't that list. This was a list with poorly defined and indescriminant criteria for membership. My point was that the "redlinks are useful" argument applies to projectspace not mainspace. Eluchil404 12:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. There was a clear consensus, and your reasons for overturning it are a bunch of arguments about how it's useful (which is not a criterion for inclusion), how you worked on it (again, not a criterion), and a bunch of blasting of the people who recommended deletion. Nothing convincing. -Amark moo! 15:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion as above Bwithh 16:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Consensus was clear in the AFD. The very nature of a wiki is that no editor or group of editors owns any content, and any editor can begin adding or removing material at any time. GRBerry 16:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Clear consensus in both AfDs. I see no procedural error and cannot think of anything that could be said differently about this article that could not be said about the companion article. I also see no reason why the opinion of those who did not contribute to the article ought to be discounted. Agent 86 18:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy restore although I can feel that if people who have hardly any idea about the subject-matter can vote on this there is no hope. "Consensus was clear"? What does that mean? What would an "unclear consensus" be? Why do only the "endorse deletion" arguments count but not the "restore" arguments? If, as GRBerry says above, "any editor can begin adding or removing material at any time", how can I add the material that has been deleted? Whycreateanaccount 18:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I really don't appreciate being turned into a target and implied to be akin to a "destructive" Cro-Magnon with no appreciation for the finer arts because I don't contribute to your cherished articles. Wikipedia isn't a personal playground for for you; there are other kids, and they do get a say. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 19:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was just nasty. Especially since there seems to be some sympathy towards moving the list into project space, so no work would be lost. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restore. Yes, I agree with Guy that it was indeed nasty to delete the list. A noteworthy collection of titles whose unifying criterion is that the heroine gives the book its title. The criteria are in no way indiscriminate (that's what you mean by "indescriminant", right?). For example, DuMaurier's Rebecca was excluded because the character of Rebecca actually never appears in the novel etc. The list would have been the basis of more extensive work of the typology sort, like creating various types of heroines etc. Where can I get hold of that list? I jsut dont believe someone had it deleted. Wikikiwi 10:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS. If you look up my user contributions now it may seem I hardly ever contribute, but many of my edits were this list.

- It's indiscriminate because there's no actual connection between the novels. "creating various types of heroines"? Are you sure that isn't original research? Furthermore, the "nasty" is referring to my name being dragged through the mud. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 16:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore The lists were useful and as said above the term "hero" or "heroine" is a valid term in literature. Even if this is still part of the argument against the list, why not change the name of the list to "List of books with female eponymous protagonists" and the same for the male counterparts? Tartan 13:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:USEFUL. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 16:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - See Wikipedia:Lists#Purpose_of_lists, where the word "useful" is used in an official Wikipedia guideline ("useful for development purposes"). <KF> 13:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore I'm editing now for the first time, but I have been using this list as a point of reference for I suppose more than 3 years. I don't know if I'm doing the right thing here, I found this page via the What links here button on the talk page. Sorry if I have made a mistake, if so please delete this again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.65.173.162 (talk) 14:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Endorse deletion per consensus here. >Radiant< 15:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Let me point out again that the consensus you are referring to concerns a different article, not the one under consideration here. <KF> 16:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- PS The main objection brought forward against this list is its arbitrariness ("an indiscriminate collection of titles", "there's no actual connection between the novels"), i e the lack of a criterion by which you can tell whether an item fits into the list or not. Now if that is true, I suppose a list such as the List of unusual deaths—"unique causes or extremely rare circumstances throughout history", as it says in the introductory sentence—will even more so violate Wikipedia's official policy against arbitrariness.
- The reasons are clear. Not only are book titles verifiable (no problem at all, any publisher's or library catalogue will do) whereas death "by having a red-hot iron inserted into one's anus" (Edward II of England, 1327) may be "apocryphal," it is also highly subjective and POV whether you consider a certain death "unusual". Any lifelong militant non-smoker dying of lung cancer plus their family and friends will tell you they think their imminent death is not just unfair but also "unusual" although we know that 13.4 per cent of lung cancer deaths are not attributable to smoking and are thus not "unusual" at all. As far as lists of works of literature are concerned, while the content of a particular book may be controversial, a book title hardly ever is. You couldn't possibly say, "I don't think Mrs Dalloway is the title of the book and at the same time the name of the female protagonist, do you?" On the other hand, what, pray, is so "unusual" about suffering a fatal heart attack during a discussion, which happened to Alexander Woolcott in 1943?
- Consequently, one might think, the List of unusual deaths will already have met its maker, maybe even have been speedy-deleted. However, this page reveals that the list has even been a Featured list candidate.
- Don't get me wrong here. This is the first time I've come across that list, and I thoroughly enjoyed browsing through it, so under no circumstances would I want to see it deleted either. The whole point of knowledge is that isolated items of knowledge are cross-referenced, grouped and regrouped under a broad variety of titles and categories so that new insights can be gained. In that context someone even pre-emptively resorted to Wikipedia's "no original research" argument just because someone who would like to see the list restored pointed out that they were planning—privately, I suppose—to use the list as the starting point of some further categorisation.
- So rather than having some more "Endorse deletion per consensus" or "Endorse deletion per above" votes by experienced voters or critical comments saying that unusual deaths are not the issue here (I know that very well), could someone actually explain to me what makes that other list—a random choice by the way—so much more eligible for inclusion than the female protagonists? <KF> 18:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - As you so kindly reminded us, "Let me point out again that the consensus you are referring to concerns a different article, not the one under consideration here." Either precedent counts or it doesn't. You're also assuming that we approve of that article when you have no basis for believing as such. I know I don't. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 18:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Regardless, featured list candidacy proves absolutely nothing. Anybody can do such to any list, and for you to use this for your support is deceptive, implying that only exemplary or consensus-approved lists get this. Especially with the fact that there was absolutely no support for it becoming a featured list. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 19:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Deceptive" is a strong word, and I don't like being called a deceiver. This I'm afraid is no basis for a discussion. Whom should I want to deceive anyway if all I'm doing is asking for an explanation not why the List of unusual deaths has, or has not, or has almost been, awarded Featured List status but why it has survived two Votes for Deletion although, by all standards of objectivity, it is far more "arbitrary" than the Female Protagonists ever could become. I've never understood what makes individuals so set upon having something removed which they could easily ignore while at the same time others would benefit from it. This deletion has already driven away one (more or less potential) contributor to the literature articles, and I can well imagine that Wikikiwi might also stop contributing if what they say—that they mainly contributed to this list—is true (which I can no longer verify because the edits have been eradicated from their user contributions). Have it your way. There is no point in carrying on once it gets personal. And no, I'm not feeling chatty any more. <KF> 20:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore Looking at the debate, it was clear that there certainly had been no consensus that lists in general were not suitable for article space. There may possibly have been some consensus about this particular list in the state it was in at the time, but it will take more than a single AfD to get a consensus on where lists can go--in fact, I do not think we will ever have a consensus about what to do with lists, though sometimes people (not represented here) have tried to remove individual ones on the basis of various pretended policies.

it was also clear that the debate there was really a personal fight which quickly diverged into unrelated issues. i don't think any decision made in that atmosphere should stand. I know I didnt participate because of the way it was going.

In fact, the same thing is happening again here. Some of the debate above is about other lists entirely. Some of it is about tobacco-related deaths. At least it isn't over-personal. DGG 05:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm not seeing the relevance of your arguments. Lists aren't at debate here. An arbitrary list is. I'm also not seeing a "personal fight" in the AfD. Are you sure you're in the right debate? ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 06:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Choices and actions are considered to be arbitrary when they are done not by means of any underlying principle or logic, but by whim or some decidedly illogical formula." Thus, rather than the list itself, its being singled out for deletion is arbitrary. <KF> 13:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Do you have any sort of argument beyond WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and that I'm not spending my entire life nominating articles for deletion? I'm sorry I'm not a superhuman capable of nominating every article I don't like in Wikipedia. Not only do you have to find all of them, you'd have to exert yourself arguing against inclusionists. I'm not exactly in the mood to redo this same debate a thousand times over, you see. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 17:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - First of all, your not being "capable of nominating every article I don't like in Wikipedia" reveals the interesting insight that you are using a highly personal rather than an objective yardstick when it comes to assessing Wikipedia articles. You shouldn't do this while at the same time hiding behind various official guidelines such as "USEFUL" or "OTHERCRAP". Secondly, I have explained all my arguments above, and others have done so as well, but if each argument in favour of keeping/restoring this list is automatically met with disapproval of its validity, honestly, there is nothing to be added here. I have said so already, and I do not consider myself a loser for it. It's a sad thing that casual users accessing an article about an individual novel will from now on be denied the larger picture, that they will no longer be referred to the fact that there are many more works of literature with eponymous heroines they might want to consider, but that's the way it is. <KF> 00:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You're grasping at straws. My dislike of Wikipedia articles is based on policy, whether you agree with my interpretation or not. The fact that I "don't like" things doesn't indicate a "highly personal yardstick". I also perplex at your hypocrisy; you are somehow allowed to dispute endorse opinions, but I am not allowed to do so in return? Please stop applying standards to your opponents that you cannot follow yourself. Furthermore, disallowing the opposing side to refute your points entirely defeats the purpose of debate. It's rather clear that you're letting this get too personal, as indicated by this (some of which can be taken as a personal attack). May I suggest a breather? ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 02:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        As I said, there is nothing to be added to this deletion review. If you feel you can personally profit from that sort of thing, consider yourself the winner of this debate. All the best, <KF> 03:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. I don't see any process problems with the deletion discussion nor do I see any way the closer could have interpreted the discussion any differently. The only person who commented at all favorably during the deletion discussion qualified his/her opinion with "Ultra weak keep". The companion discussion was also nearly unanimous. No new evidence has been presented above which convinces me that we should overturn the deletion decision. Rossami (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There were certainly no "process problems" in the deletion discussion. The only "process problem" I can think of (are there any others?) is the deletion of an article although a majority voted "keep", and this was certainly not the case. However, if one looks at the deletion process with the spirit rather than the letter of the law in mind, one will see that only four individuals took part in it—a very small number indeed— and that none of the regular contributors to this list took part (their own fault, according to the letter of the law, I know, but they might have been notified just like every uploader of an image is when it is put up for deletion). By the way, the novel entitled Esther of course fits the criterion/criteria for inclusion: Almost every novel has "A Novel" as its subtitle; in that particular case it served as a disambiguation from the Esther page.
- I am not sure what would count as "new evidence". I can only say again that what all the novels in the list have in common is that they have a female protagonist who at the same time gives the novel its title. The casual user/browser is led from an individual novel page to the list and there gets a survey of works of literature (not just novels) with the same or similar themes and motifs. It is from there that he/she can continue his/her reading/research.
- Such a point of reference is important because it visualizes the interrelatedness of seemingly isolated pieces of knowledge (our Wikipedia categories serve exactly that purpose). <KF> 23:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That seems like a classic case of original research, doesn't it? Ytny 00:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - We had the "original research" argument before in this deletion discussion (see above). Please be precise and state what your "that" refers to. It can't be "original research" if a reader draws their own conclusions or starts seeing things in a different light, can it? So what do you mean? <KF> 00:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I admit, I can't really be arsed to wade through the wall of comments. But what I got from browsing just now is not that there was much of a "discussion" about original research, but rather a case of someone pointing it out and you brushing it aside. What I'm talking about specifically is this:

# Such a point of reference is important because it visualizes the interrelatedness of seemingly isolated pieces of knowledge (our Wikipedia categories serve exactly that purpose).

"Interrelatedness" and "seemingly isolated" are are purely your interpretation, as correct as they may be. That is about as pure a case of original research as you can get, asserting your own views and assuming reader interpretation. Ytny 00:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I'm not quite sure I understand what you are saying here. Just as, say, 1967 in literature gives a whole list of isolated (seemingly isolated, yes, that's my claim) facts and figures, the heroine list lists isolated book titles. Users of Wikipedia cannot be prevented when they read "1967 in literature" from noticing that, for example, in that year more books were published by female authors than, say, in 1867 or 1767, can they? The "original research" clause was introduced because cranks were advancing their personal conspiracy or end of the world theories, not because some readers may be clever enough to think for themselves. <KF> 00:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speartip Alliance – Deletion endorsed – Daniel.Bryant 07:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I request that this article would be fully restored. It was deleted on reasoning that it was a gaming clan, which is true, but also the fact that it is non-nnotable, this however is not true. The 'gaming clan' is a group of Warhammer 40k players who were set up in Game Workshops recent campaign. The group wasn't unnoticed and whose actions were featured in several of the weekly reviews of the Campaign, although the group wasn't mentioned by name, and in the final international conclusion for the race that the group fought for: Medusa V Conclusion (Paragraph 7) The group is also mentioned in another Wikipedia article: The Imperial 12th Army Group which is basically our equivalent but on the 'other' side. The group also intends to have a page on Lexicanum another wiki encyclopedia. Thank you for reviewing our case and the group apologises for any inconvenience. Speartip 08:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted, could have been deleted via speedy deletion, let alone Articles for deletion. Valid A7, no good reason for undeletion. Proto::► 10:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, valid A7 (as was The Imperial 12th Army Group). Self-evident conflict of interest from the requester. Speartip, this is an encyclopaedia, not MySpace or a directory of gaming clans. Guy (Help!) 11:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page was not intended to be about the group, i.e trying to advertise it, but about the actual object the Speartip is, basically it is like other articles on Warhammer 40,000 and not about the group of people who set it up.

Endorse deletion. There is absolutely no chance a minor-ish gaming clan from Warhammer would survive AfD; clans are rarely, if ever, notable. -Amark moo! 15:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. After AfD, the page was repeatedly recreated and then speedied. Non-notable gaming clan; and if it wasn't supposed to be about the group, why was it called 'Speartip Alliance'? Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 15:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is what the subject is, it is in the world of Warhammer 40,000 a group of chaos lords who set up an alliance. Though as it was mentioned on the official warhammer website then surely it has as much right to be here as any of the other articles on things in Warhammer 40k such as the Medusa V article in which the Allaince was recognised in one of the campaign summarys (see original post). Just for complete clarification: what is calssed as a 'Gaming clan', I know what it is but I would be interested to know what the in-depth definition is. Speartip 16:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, let me see if I understand this (I don't play Warhammer 40k). You meant for the article to be about the fictional group, but still possibly containing some data about the real people who represent it? Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not intentional for it to contain information about the people. If this is accepted then I shall make sure the page has no reference to the people and only to the Alliance. You may be interested to see the page on lexicanum: The Speartip Alliance Speartip 17:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Just making sure. And I would like to point out that the article on Lexicanum has been marked as possible "Fan Fluff", which seems to be the same thing as fancruft. And besides, anybody can create an article on a wiki; that's the entire point. So I don't think we can use existence of an article on another wiki as notability evidence. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The notice on Lexicanum does make things look bad but it is mainly to do with the lack of sources which I have now provided, you can see that there is quite a lot of mention of the Alliance. The reason why I pointed out the article on Lexicanum is that it is somewhere where you can see what the article on Wikipedia would basically look like, with any required or requested ommisions. Speartip 17:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. The "weekly reviews of the Campaign" do not meet WP:RS, and neither do the blogs and chatrooms. In general, game clans get featured coverage only from self-published sources, not from anything with fact-checking editorial staffs with real independence from the publisher; so they don't meet the core policy of Wikipedia:Verifiability. Without that, we can't use it, no matter how much interest a few dozen people may have. Barno 18:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is reliable as anything else to do with the Medusa V Campaign, Games Workshop could have not placed the group in the updates, as soon as it did so it became as official as Medusa V. There are no chatrooms on that sources list and if you are implying the group itself I request that you check my previous statesments on how the article will be about the written group and not the group of people. Speartip 19:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it is, to be charitable, non-canon. And that is always going to be a problem. You already have an article on the relevant specialist WIki, I'd leave it at that if I were you. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what any other administrators have to say first, if it isn't restored then i'll stick to the Lexicanum page. Speartip 08:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators or Mods feel free to close this review 15:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Template:SerbiaFairUse, Template:MontenegroFairUse – Deletion endorsed – Core desat 14:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deletion was completely irresponsible. Person who proposed didn't noticed me, even this is not an ordinary template, but a product of specialist expertise. Any work created in Serbia or Montenegro may be used reasonably wherever if author of the work is mentioned. This is not the case for Florida law, but the case for the law of the country where work had been made. I am wandering what is the sense to contribute to English Wikipedia if there is no a minimum of cooperation between contributors. millosh (talk (sr:)) 03:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations merged. ~ trialsanderrors 03:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. These actually aren't really helpful templates for Wikipedia; U.S. law does govern our fair use claims, and having one of these on an image could mislead an editor into believing that they had actually asserted fair use under U.S. law. Maybe a lawyer with expertise in international copyright law as interpreted in the U.S. courts could evaluate whether fair use under foreign law would be fair use under U.S. law - but the templates didn't even claim that the use would be fair under U.S. law, so we can let that issue rest until the Wikimedia Counsel gives us direction. We do ask people to be courteous and notify others of template TfDs and article AfDs, but we've never held that failure to do so is grounds for overturning. The consensus in the TFD was clear, and the close was in line with the discussion and TfD precedent. Thus, I endorse closure. GRBerry 04:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The content of the template was made by Wikimedia Serbia lower. In short, if work is made in Serbia/Montenegro by Serbian/Montenegrin author and some Serbian/Montenegrin Wikipedian put it on Wikipedia (which is the most predictable case)-- all of them will be affected by Serbian/Montenegrin law, not by Florida low. Also, I may see a lot of templates which are not inside of Florida law (Template:Canada-politician-photo, Template:Dutch-politician-photo, Template:India-politician-photo... Template:CrownCopyright -- and the list is generated only from the article Wikipedia:Fair use). So, what is the problem here? --millosh (talk (sr:)) 05:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because Crown Copyright is a specific copyright status, which the works are explicitly under. The impression I'm getting is that these countries simply have laws such that anything is fair use so long as you note the author, not that any work made in the countries explicitly is under a license which allows that. -Amark moo! 05:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - (Edit conflict) All of those assert fair use under U.S. law for a particular type of copyright ownership in a particular situation.. The two templates you have nominated here asserted that foreign law governed and that the marked materials could be used if cited. These two are very different, and were deleted because of they didn't follow U.S. law. GRBerry 05:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am not lower and I am not introduced in this matter; I just put template which our lower prepared. However, there are some reasonable questions related to this -- what about the situation which I described: Image was made in Serbia by Serbian author; image is uploaded by the citizen of Serbia in Serbia. Even if I don't think that we would have any such case -- it is reasonable to suppose that such Wikipedian contributor from Serbia may be sued under Serbian law because (s)he uploaded the image. If the templates (i.e. Serbian/Montenegrin fair use) are against US law, then the only solution is to say that people from Serbia shouldn't upload any fair use image, as well as that Serbian Wikipedia shouldn't use any fair use image. So, please, explain it to me a little bit better, because this is not related only to this template. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 06:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am not a lawyer either, and to the extent I read legal documents for hours a day, those are contracts, not copyright documents. My understanding is that the reason we follow U.S. law is that the party most likely to be sued is the Wikimedia foundation (the typical rule of sue the person with the money), and U.S. law definitely applies thereto, as the foundation is in the U.S., the servers are in the U.S., and the page can be read by anyone anywhere in the world. I suggest you email User:Brad Patrick, the foundation's lawyer, if a more solid explanation is needed. I've invited him to comment here, but it is the middle of the night in the U.S., so hopefully he is asleep (as I should be.) GRBerry 06:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I think that it would be much better to talk here then on internal-l list (because it is public). It seems that we definitely need one EU server for fair use material if we want to keep fair use material inside of WM projects. According to the present situation, no fair use material may be added by any person who is under jurisdiction of continental law (now, I realized why German Wikimedian projects don't allow fair use images). Hypothetically, all of them may be sued because not valid attribution to the author and, unlike in Anglo-Saxon law system, all of them may be sued separately, without relation to the prior cases. This, also, means that WM projects which use fair use material have to say to the people who are under continental law systems that they may be sued for uploading fair use media. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 07:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Copyright status in other countries is irrelevant; what matters is copyright status where the Wikipedia servers are, in Florida. And I'm not sure that "reasonably wherever if the author is mentioned" is okay for Wikipedia anyway. Regardless, you've presented nothing which was not present in the debate, so it would be an endorse anyway. -Amark moo! 04:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentEven if "reasonable use" is permited under Serbian and Montenegro law it would still not qualify as actual free content (unless I missed the part where it said that modifications and commercial use is considered "reasonable use"), wich makes them unfree (we are pretty black and white on that issue). If not free then not even works where the author have given explicit permission for use on Wikipedia is good enough (needs to be free for all)[1]. I suppose it does not hurt to mention that something is "semi free" in some contexts (some re-users might fit the criterea), but you don't rely need a tag for that, and to be usable on Wikipedia such works will still have to jump though all the hoops of the Wikipedia:Fair use criteria, and so they might as well just use the good old {{fair use in}} tag. --Sherool (talk) 09:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Reasonable use" includes commercial use. However, it is not free content, still; as any fair use is not free content, too. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 09:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I created a stubbish article Serbian copyright law few months ago, and there's a link to the Law text in English. My own impresion is that it's more or less a copy/paste/adaptation of various international copyright treaties. Regardless of the outcome of this DRV, I'd appreciate if someone knowledgeable takes a look at it and reports back whether the quote in the deleted template was taken out of context (restored for readers' convenience):
5. Limitations on Copyright
5.1. Common Provision
Article 40
(1) In the cases in which a work of authorship is exploited pursuant to the provisions of this Law dealing with limitations on copyright, the name of that work’s author and the source from which the work was taken (publisher of the work, year and place of publication, periodical, newspaper, television or radio station where the work or a part of it was originally published or directly taken from, and the like), shall be quoted.
(2) In any specific case, the scope of limitation of exclusive rights may not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work nor may unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author".

In any case, the issue seems moot indeed (i.e. deletion endorsed) per Amarkov and Sherool's comment's above—WP:FUC have become far more restrictive in the meantime, and it seems to be an issue of U.S. jurisdiction. Offhand, it doesn't look much looser than U.S. jurisdiction, as per "pursuant to other provisions of this Law" clause—IMO it implies that "you should quote the author if fair use is allowed", not "you're free to fair use anything provided you quote the author". But I'm not a lawyer. Duja► 15:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But, I didn't get any response to my question: Serbian (and other continental, I am sure) fair use requires the name of the author. Different kinds of fair use on en: don't require that. As far as I can see, template is against US/Florida law. This means that no one from Serbia (but not only from Serbia) may not upload any fair use media. Did we come up to this point or not? --millosh (talk (sr:)) 04:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<#include "Im_no_lawyer.h">. WP:FUC, item 10, states (among other things) that "The image or media description page must contain: Proper attribution of the source of the material, and attribution of the copyright holder (if it is different)." I fail to see the hypothetical case where you may fairly use a media under Florida law and Wikipedia policies, but not under Serbian law (or the other way round)? Duja► 07:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per GRBerry. >Radiant< 15:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per GRBerry. Policy is rather clear (to me) in this area, and it's hard for us to verify claims that a work is actually from Serbia - probably one of the reasons we stick to Florida law (and the fact that Wikipedia lives there :)). Mart inp23 22:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

24 January 2007[edit]