Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 July 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 12 Deletion review archives: 2008 July July 14 >

13 July 2008[edit]


The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jemima's Witnesses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This page was deleted on the basis of not having any notoriety and that is somewhat understandable. However, I believe that the same reasoning that Jemima's Witnesses is a "group" could be applied to any other religion such as Christianity or Islam. Dentalicious (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted. Perhaps create-protect it as well. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. The fact that it is a group has nothing to do with the deletion. The fact that the "religion" is not a notable group is why it was deleted. Christianity has billions of followers, and thus is notable. The same cannot be said for Jemima's Witnesses. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 19:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. WP:CSD#A7 works. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day isn't a speedy deletion criteria, but does apply. WP:CSD#G3 would be a debatable call, but if it is recreated might be justifiable. GRBerry 22:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, and stop trolling, Dentalicious. --Stormie (talk) 03:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Gonzofan2007. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Wikipedia is not a random collection of stuff you just made up. When you get a decent number of followers you can have an article here. Hut 8.5 09:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and recommend speedy close of this DRV. Stifle (talk) 09:31, 14 July 2008 (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.
Rookie of the Year (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Illegitimate A7 deletion. The group has two albums out on One Eleven Records, a wing of EastWest Records, which qualifies it under WP:MUSIC; their third album for the label is out in less than a month. Here's their Allmusic profile, which also substantiates their having done a national concert tour (the Warped Tour); they're currently touring nationwide with The Graduate, PlayRadioPlay!, and Secondhand Serenade. Would also like the talk page restored and The Goodnight Moon, their second album, which was ineligible for A7 deletion anyway. Chubbles (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn, having an album is probably enough to qualify as an assertion of notability on its own, and this band would probably survive an AFD. Stifle (talk) 15:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I'm not sure if it's enough for WP:MUSIC (meaning I don't like the look of the label's page), but not being sure means it shouldn't have been speedied. It's always good to favor very conservative interpretations of the CSD. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The article lists record releases and rereleases, and also says "Following this [their second album's] release, they toured through North America with ...". Multiple assertions of importance or significance, not speedyable. The claims don't look adequately well sourced for me to predict an AFD outcome, but with Chubbles working on it the odds are pretty good for survival. GRBerry 22:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowballing Overturn. The band might wind up at AfD, however, as noted in the prior two comments. Warped tour to me makes notability not an issue.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 01:55, 14 July 2008 (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.
J.W. Childs Associates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Does not violate WP: CSD#G12 |► ϋ r b a n я e n e w a l ◄| (talk) 13:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The article: J.W. Childs Associates was recently deleted due to alleged "Blatant copyright infringement".

  • First the article was created as part of Private Equity Task Force, which works to improve the quality of content related to private equity in Wikipedia. I and the other members have been working (i) to create verifiable, neutral, verifiable articles on the topic, (ii) to remove spam and (iii) generally improve the quality of content in articles relating to private equity concepts, private equity firms and historical individuals associated with the industry
  • The deleting admin cited the first paragraph as being the offending material, however the first paragraph was a very generic paragraph the pattern of which had been used in several recent articles I have contributed and relates to the PE Firm Article Template developed as part of the PE Task Force. I did include a listing of industries which the firm focuses on. Apparently this list appears on the website and caused the alleged offense, however that list appears in many other places and in any event this is factual content rather than an expression of ideas and as such would likely not violate copyright in this context. This sentence can very easily be reworded if necessary and should certainly not be the basis for deletion of the entire article
  • The article was based on several well referenced sources and uses referenced material from these various sources. As such, it is difficult to claim that the "article was copied"
  • In respect to this article, the Admin failed to adhere to the following steps and conditions proposed by WP:CSD#G12
    • There is no non-infringing content on either the page itself, or in the history, worth saving – there in fact is significant non-infringing content in the page worth saving
    • Notify the page's creator when tagging a page for deletion under this criterion – this was not done
    • After deleting, administrators should recreate the page from earlier noninfringing page content if available – I suppose this is the purpose of this request

I attempted to propose several solutions to the deleting admin, however it was her idea that time would be "well-spent in straightforward community processes" and was not willing to "resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question" as suggested by WP:Deletion review.

In summary, I believe my track record on copyright on Wikipedia is very strong, I believe the material in question is an extremely limited part of the article and can be easily remedied if in fact there is a copyright violation (which I am not even convinced is true). The article overall, I believe relates to a notable company (both on the basis of the firm's founder, who is an early innovator in the industry, as well as the various major companies and brands it has acquired over the last decade or so) and the article was constructed as a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia article that referenced any content from third party sources.

Please let me know if you have any questions

|► ϋ r b a n я e n e w a l ◄| (talk) 13:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn deletion per nomination. I doubt that the small amount of text copied from the firm website is copyrightable as such, and the problem could have been remedied by marking the text as a citation. The article was also not written as an advertisement, it was not created by a single purpose account, and it would likely have survived an AfD.  Sandstein  13:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion, the page was not, for the most part, a copyvio. Trim out the text that's copyrighted at most. m:Avoid copyright paranoia. Stifle (talk) 15:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Salvageable. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The single sentence from the site that was paraphrased does not make it a copyvio; It had been nominated as G11, promotional, but it seems a descriptive article about a major company and would not qualify for that either. DGG (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done (and eight redirect pages as well) as per above. — Athaenara ✉ 18:48, 13 July 2008 (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.
Image:Wikimediafoundationheadquarters.jpg (edit | [[Talk:Image:Wikimediafoundationheadquarters.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

There is no evidence that the WMF considers its headquarters' location to be confidential (Jay Walsh, the head of communications, has publicly stated the name of the street, which is only two blocks long), and it is a matter of public record as it is a non-profit organization. Nobody's privacy is at stake since it is not someone's home address. If it is determined this is an issue, the image could be re-uploaded with any identifying information (such as street signs, address number, etc) airbrushed out and the address omitted from the image description page. --Random832 (contribs) 06:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn. The deletion was not based on a valid speedy deletion criterium. I can't see the problem with this image either, but if the Foundation does not want its a picture of its headquarters hosted here, it can delete it per WP:OFFICE. If someone else has a problem with this image, it needs to go to WP:IfD.  Sandstein  11:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It would be good to have an image of the office, as it would improve the article – however, the WMF do not publish their address, instead providing a P.O. Box address. If they want privacy and safety for employees, they should be granted it. Perhaps the image could be reuploaded without any identifiable information? I'd prefer to make a decision once Cary, Jay or someone from the office comments. They have been contacted (off-wiki). Al Tally talk 14:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, no valid reason provided for deletion. Stifle (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Abdus Ibrahim – Restored the version deleted in February as a contested PROD; it seems that Ibrahim passes WP:BIO standards for athletes now, see [1]. The later version deleted in June was a copyvio, so I have not undeleleted that. – Stormie (talk) 04:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Abdus Ibrahim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Has played in professional match. Toronto FC vs Chicago Fire July 12 2008 - he even scored a goal 208.54.95.14 (talk) 01:59, 13 July 2008 (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/2008_July_13&oldid=1083190316"