Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

For simple image undeletions, try {{ImageUndeleteRequest}}
For articles deleted via proposed deletion, post a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
"WP:DELREV" redirects here. For Revision Delete, see Wikipedia:REVDEL.
Administrator instructions
Shortcuts:
Wikipedia:DRV
Wikipedia:DELREV
link=#Active_discussions Skip to: Active discussions · Recent discussions · Archive
Deletion discussions
Wikipedia editors may find articles, images, or other pages that they believe should be deleted, and raise these concerns in various deletion forums. Administrators determine consensus and examine policy to determine if there is sufficient justification for their removal from Wikipedia.

Wikipedia:Deletion review considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions and speedy deletions. This includes appeals to restore deleted pages and appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.

If a short stub was deleted for lack of content, and you wish to create a useful article on the same subject, you can be bold and do so. It is not necessary to have the original stub undeleted. If, however, the new stub is also deleted, you may list it here for a discussion. If you are proposing that an existing page be reconsidered for deletion, please place the template {{Delrev}} on that page to inform editors who may wish to join the discussion here (administrators may replace with {{TempUndelete}} where appropriate).

Before posting a deletion review request, please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy and the list of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Perennial requests.

Contents

What is this page for?

Please consider the options below, and then follow instructions to add your request to the main part of the page.

Principal purpose – challenging deletion decisions

Deletion Review is the process to be used to challenge the outcome of a deletion debate or to review a speedy deletion.
  1. Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look.
  2. Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly, or if the speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria established for such deletions.
  3. Deletion Review may also be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article.
  4. In the most exceptional cases, posting a message to Wikipedia:AN/I may be more appropriate instead. Rapid corrective action can then be taken if the ensuing discussion makes clear it should be.

This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome for reasons previously presented but instead if you think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate. Equally, this process should not be used to point out other pages that have not been deleted where your page has — each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits. This page exists to correct closure errors in the deletion process and speedy deletions, both of which may also involve reviewing content in some cases. Purely procedural errors may be substantive and result in an overturn (such as failing to tag a page for its XfD discussion) or irrelevant (such as closing 1 minute early).

Deletion review is explicitly a drama-free zone. Listings which attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias, or where nominators do any of these things in the debate, may be speedily closed.

The main purpose of the page is to review the outcome of deletion discussions, as described above. There are some ancillary cases where editors wish to have pages restored. These are also handled in the main part of the page—please consider the usual reasons below and state clearly the basis for your request.

Temporary review

Request this if you want to use the content elsewhere (such as in other articles), you suspect the article has been wrongly deleted but are unable to tell without seeing what exactly was deleted, or if the full article history is needed to complete a transwiki properly. Please state whether you would like:
  1. The article temporarily restored for all to examine during a review.
  2. The article restored to your userspace so you can work on it to attempt to address the problems that led to deletion.
  3. The source of the article emailed to you to review 'off-Wiki'.
Only uncontroversial revisions will be restored. Content that is moved back to the encyclopedia without being improved may be subject to speedy deletion, and content held in userspace without evidence of intent to work on it may also be nominated for deletion.

How do I do all this?

All requests go in the main part of the page below. Please state clearly your reason for requesting undeletion. If you want to review the debate or the cause of deletion, then these ancillary options are not appropriate, and you should request a full review.

Under no circumstances will revisions that are copyright violations, libelous or contain otherwise prohibited content be restored.

Instructions

Before listing a review request:
  1. discuss the matter with the deleting administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion review. See #What is this page for? (above).
  2. please check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.

Commenting in a deletion review

In the deletion review discussion, users should opt to:
  • Endorse the original closing decision; or
  • Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
  • List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
  • Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear.
Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.

The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum.

Temporary undeletion

Admins participating in deletion reviews are requested to routinely restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{tempundelete}} template, leaving the history for review by non-admins. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.

Closing reviews

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion process#Wikipedia:Deletion review discussions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented. If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate. Deletion review discussions may also be extended by relisting them to the newest DRV log page, if the closing admin thinks that consensus may yet be achieved by more discussion.

Steps to list a new deletion review

alt= Before listing a review request, please attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page (or otherwise made the decision) as this could resolve the matter faster. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the admin the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, please note in the DRV listing that you first tried discussing the matter with the admin who deleted the page.
 
1. Copy this template skeleton for most pages:

{{subst:drv2
|page=
|xfd_page=
|reason=
}} ~~~~

Copy this template skeleton for files: 

{{subst:drv2
|page=
|xfd_page=
|article=
|reason=
}} ~~~~
2. Follow this link to today's log and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the deleted page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page, and reason with the reason why the page should be undeleted. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used. For example:

{{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~
3. Inform the administrator who deleted the page by adding the following on their user talk page:

[[Template:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME]] ~~~~
4. Nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept should also attach a Template:Delrev tag to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
 
 

Active discussions

10 March 2010

O Acaso do Erro

O Acaso do Erro (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)
Keep votes failed to address in any way how the article meets Wikipedia:SONGS. delete votes demonstrated a lack of significant third party coverage. discussion with closing admin did not seem to acknowledge this. LibStar (talk) 03:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Closing admin - Consensus was not present in this debate. Arguments for retention were indeed weak; however, support of the nomination was not overwhelming enough to justify entirely discounting them. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • weak overturn. Julian's close was certainly within the bounds of reasonable judgment in terms of evaluating the AFD, which makes overturning it at DRV shaky. I think describing the arguments for retention as "weak" gives them too much credit, though. FranklinG simply votes "keep" on all Fresno articles, saying "The article meets all the specifications of Wikipedia and is part of the life history of Fresno in the same band."
Given that FranklinG created these articles, making the same (generally false) assertion about each and every one is too weak to count at all. Poltair's argument was refuted effectively by Ginsengbomb, so I would give it zero weight in the final analysis. I stay at "weak" overturn because I dislike using DRV as a second bite at the apple. As I said, Julian's analysis is not out of bounds.—Kww(talk) 03:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse. A delete close was certainly on the cards here. The delete !votes outnumbered the keeps in numbers (barely) and strength of argument (fairly convincingly, as explained above). Having said that, DRV is about whether the close was reasonable (an objective test), not whether it was the best possible close (a subjective test that is inherently difficult to apply). Here, "no consensus" was also open to be made, having regard to the general thinness of the discussion and uncertainties about sources. A no consensus close in these cases is an appropriately conservative course of action; it allows for the article to be renominated in the not too distant future, where hopefully a consensus will be reached. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Um, got any sources for that article? Spartaz Humbug! 04:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
      • There were sources presented in the AfD (including in LibStar's delete !vote). I have no idea whether they amount to significant coverage in reliable sources; the debate didn't address the issue in detail, which is another reason the no consensus close is an appropriately conservative call. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
        • Actually, no-one presented any specific sources for consideration as RSs. Do you have or are we now accepting Wikipedia:GOOGLEHITS as evidence of notability these days? Spartaz Humbug! 12:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Overturn There no sources were provided so the policy based argument was delete. Closing as no-consensus fails to properly weigh the discussion against policy Spartaz Humbug! 04:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak overturn, without implying anything really procedurally wrong with the close. I'm pretty sure I would have called that a consensus to delete, given the complete absence of any basis in policy for the keep votes. I can totally see where Juliancolton is coming from calling this no consensus, but there's definitely precedent for disregarding keep and delete votes that don't address the relevant policies - and this seems to me to be a case of where that probably should be done. ~ mazca talk 09:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Overturn. There were two "keep" !votes, Franklin G's can be summarised as "It's notable" but doesn't give any evidence to back up the assertion and so can just be discounted. Poltair's is effectively "it gets a lot of google hits, so it is likely that at least some that meet Wikipedia criteria for giving notability", but Ginsengbomb and LibStar's comments refute this - the coverage in reliable sources that Poltair speculates exists doesn't. Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Overturn as a procedural error, though an understandable one. Alternatively relist for further discussion. Guy (Help!) 12:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

John Kiriakou

John Kiriakou (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)
I don't remember reading our original article on John Kiriakou, and didn't participate in the deletion discussion. I know his initial claim to fame was that he could verify that Abu Zubaydah broke within 35 seconds of being waterboarded. I do know he continued to be frequently used by news shows as an expert they could interview. I know his claim was subjected to increasing skepticism as further details of the CIA's waterboarding program became public. I know he appeared on the Colbert Report after his book was published. And I know that in his book, published earlier this year, he acknowledged that he wasn't present where Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded, and he had no idea how long it took to break him. I don't think there is any question that Kiriakou merits his own article now. (I didn't consult the closing admin first, because his or her User page says they have basically retired from the project.) I request full undeletion of the article, its full revision history, and talk page. Geo Swan (talk) 03:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

9 March 2010

File:Yonge Street plaque.jpg

File:Yonge Street plaque.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (article|XfD|restore)
Will add licencing information on behalf of original uploader. Subject of the file is of legitimate importance to the article in question. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • What is the licensing information you have to add? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Jason Upton (closed)

8 March 2010

MUME

MUME (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)
The page for MUME was deleted before the articles for deletion page had come to consensus. References were being found at the time of deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.138.187.192 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 9 March 2010

  • Endorse closure There was a rough consensus to delete, and keeping the debate open longer probably wouldn't have been fruitful due to Hobit's difficulties in obtaining the book that was cited as a possible source. However, someone should userfy or incubate this to allow Hobit more time to locate the book. Honestly, there's not much DRV can or should do here. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • endorse sources are weak at the moment. I think a no consensus close wouldn't have been unreasonable, but a delete is also reasonable. If and when I get the source I'm waiting for I may bring it to the closing admin if it seems strong enough. Hobit (talk) 03:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • It was into its third week; any suggestion that the closure was early is absurd. Endorse per A Stop at Willoughby, with liberty to userfy. Stifle (talk) 11:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Userfy and allow recreation on location of sources. Sourcing from real books is to be encouraged. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Awesome (window manager)

Awesome (window manager) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)
The article in question was deleted per lack of third-party sources and/or notability. Since the deletion discussion an additional (reliable) source covering Awesome was found in LinuxUser magazine [1]. This source was not mentioned during the discussion and as far as I can tell is absent in the article itself.

I talked to the admin who closed the discussion (Jayjg) and he suggested to take it to the deletion review.

In short, do you think the new source is sufficient to restore the article?

-- MagV (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment It would better to find an English link.—Sandahl (♀) 19:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, there's a translation by Google Translate, but no separate English article I'm aware of. MagV (talk) 20:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I couldn't find it in the English Linuxuser Magazine [2], you maybe able to. I know of it as window manager for X intended for power users and developers but I don't know that it's that notable.—Sandahl (♀) 20:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I can't seem to find English articles as well. And oh, English counterpart of German LinuxUser is not linuxuser.co.uk (which is Linux User and Developer), but linux-magazine.com. Confusing, I know. MagV (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • allow recreation There's no requirement for sources to be in English. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • allow re-creation References in any language will do. I can't imagine why the deleting admin didn't simply restore it. DGG (talk) 02:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I am neutral and I know there's no absolute rule sources have to be in English and I didn't say there was just said it was better to have English ones. The discussion isn't about that one link it's about the lack of 3rd party sources at the time it was deleted.—Sandahl (♀) 02:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Permit re-creation and relist at editorial discretion. The availability of a new reliable source in any language means that the concerns in the original AfD may have been resolved. I do endorse the recent speedy deletion per Wikipedia:CSD#G4, however, as that version of the article (a) did not contain the new source and (b) accused the AfD's closing admin of trying to attack the "open source community." A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse the speedy for the same reason as A Stop at Willoughby. Noted accusation too. I'm very much an advocate of open source but I can't find much other than blogs and forums [3], maybe someone else can. I see it got carried off to LINUX.ORG.RU also.—Sandahl (♀) 03:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

IronE Singleton

IronE Singleton (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)
Initially when the article was deleted a few months back, it was cited that IMDb did not have IronE Singleton in the credits. Now he has been added to the credits on IMDb and has a great deal of references from various media sources also. Please review his credits [4] and review his performance in the trailer of The Blind Side at [5] which begins at the 1:40 mark. Please overturn his article and add it back to wikipedia. Thanks! FilmnMusiCritic



—Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmnmusicritic (talk • contribs) 05:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC) --Filmnmusicritic (talk) 05:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Restore The ajc and iae links would appear to meet WP:N. Hobit (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Responding to those below: the "blog" would appear to meet our requirements of WP:RS per [A Stop at Willoughby]. I agree that iaemagazine is significantly less reliable than I thought when I looked at it (nice job btw). So I'm going to claim only one RS at the moment and thus not enough for WP:N. I personally might !vote to keep given the other (weaker) sources, but it's not enough to overturn. Hobit (talk) 03:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Lets have a look at the sources...
      • - IronE Singleton's Website
        • Primary source, not independant, not secondary, worthless with regard to establishing notability
      • - at the Internet Movie Database
        • Not a RS. lacks adequate independance and peer review and essentially is user generated content with a little moderation.
      • Pre-Oscars, here's a local "Blind Side" tale | The Buzz
        • The blog in the URL is a bit of a giveaway. Not RS
      • The Blind Side's IronE is Making All The Right Moves | I Am Entertainment (IAE) Magazine
        • Hmm, more interesting but this is an online magazine that is less then a year old - only 3rd edition. Very promotional tone from the interview and two major danger signs, no by-line for the author and the credits for the mag have reference to article submissions so its odds on that this is a promotional puff piece submitted to the article to raise the subject's profile. I certainly cant accept this is independent and its a far from clear this is a RS. and lo and behold there is a page on how to submit yourself for an interview and the googlesearch for the website is all facebook and twitter chatter so this isn't going anywhere.
      • Box Office Mojo - The Blind Side
        • This doesn't mention the subject
    • So the sum total of these sources is .. er .. nothing encyclopaedic that would establish notability under wikipedia polices. Sorry but this simply doesn't fly and I suggest, since we have been here before, that you simply wait until the subject of this article has done something noteable to be picked up by real world print media, in detail and without puffery. Endorse deletion Spartaz Humbug! 18:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure Sorry, but I don't think the sources presented here are sufficient to overturn the deletion, which was because of a lack of reliable sourcing. I largely agree with Spartaz's analysis of the sources listed above, except that I personally think the piece on The Buzz would be a valid reliable source.Wikipedia:RS states, "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." The Buzz is hosted on the website of the Atlanta Journal Constitution and appears to fit the criteria of the aforementioned guideline. Therefore, I would not have qualms about its use as a source. I also have some mixed feelings about the IAE article, although like Spartaz, I ultimately tend to see it as promotional and a questionable source. I agree in full with the remainder of Spartaz's analysis and concur with his opinion that Singleton does not meet Wikipedia's threshold of notability yet.

    Also, it should be noted that there was a clear consensus to delete in the AfD, with only Singleton's wife opposing deletion. The Imdb bit was mentioned in the nomination, but that changing does not make the consensus reached in December invalid. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

7 March 2010

6 March 2010

User:JPatrickBedell (closed)

Rodney Watson

Rodney Watson (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)
This AFD was relisted today then closed. This is too fast. It should remain open. I was researching whether it was notable or not. I see that other head coaches have articles. I see that this is a sport that college teams do have articles. Yet I can't see the article because it was deleted just as I was evaluating it. Part of the problem may be because controversial editor Kmweber created it months ago and was just indef. blocked for commenting on the AFD. Recommend overturning the AFD because of inadequate listing time and because it casts a bad cloud for Wikipedia. One could conclude that it was closed because of a grudge against Kmweber. A regular timetable, not so fast closure, is the right thing to do. Ipromise (talk) 04:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll be happy to restore and move to your userspace or perhaps better the Incubator if you want to work on this, and would be willing to come back to DRV with a draft when/if you have one you think is ready for mainspace. DES (talk) 05:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Restored to userspace at User:Ipromise/Rodney Watson as requested. DES (talk) 05:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse This had already run for a full week, and with the striking of Kmweber's comments, no one was arguing for keeping. Indeed I'm not sure why this was relisted. DES (talk) 05:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse; this one didn't need to be relisted to begin with; the delete arguments are far stronger than the one keep argument; who seems perfectly fine with keeping a marginally (at best) notable; completely unsourced BLP. It was up for a week, and no one came up with a policy-based reason to keep it around, and relisting a debate does not guarantee it stays open for another full week. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse indeed. The debate has run for the full 7 days. Relisted debates can be closed once the consensus gets clear, as it is. To be fair, Kmweber's comment was not struck until after the relist. Tim Song (talk) 06:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. The original discussion was aptly closed. It should not have been relisted in the first place, discussion should have come to DRV if there was any question, and here we are. JBsupreme (talk) 08:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Wikipedia:RELIST specifically notes that a relist need not last a full week once a consensus is present. Stifle (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse, but feel free to come back to DRV when and if the article is sufficiently sourced to merit mainspace inclusion. Jclemens (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse. The striking of Kmweber's comments appears to be against consensus, but I don't think a reopen would help since yeah, the article's pretty obviously doomed per lack of sources and failure of Wikipedia:NOTABILITY. It ought to be reopened just so Kurt's comments can be unstruck, then closed as delete again. Şłџğģő 15:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse, Kurt's input would not have changed the outcome. Guy (Help!) 12:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

5 March 2010

Tony Wang

Tony Wang (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)
Updated to meet notability standards

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zelysion/Tony_Wang

I think the page should be unprotected and the article put on the mainspace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zelysion (talk • contribs)

  • Keep deleted and salted. No substantial change since the last DRV. this is not significant coverage. Tim Song (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted and salted per Tim Song. Still no significant coverage in reliable sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Offer sympathy. Page is not woefully unsuitable, but it is too promotional. Thin end of the wedge issues. To much about now without historical perspective. Refer to Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

4 March 2010

File:Millau-Viaduct-France-2-20070909.JPG

File:Millau-Viaduct-France-2-20070909.JPG (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (restore)
This picture was uploaded here; en en:, on 21 October 2007 at 22:30 by Scole01. It was then transferred to Commons as commons:File:Millau-Viaduct-France-20070909.jpg and deleted here according to Wikipedia:CSD F8. Now the picture must be deleted on Commons because France doesn't recognize freedom of panorama.

I ask for the undeletion of this picture here, so that en: can still use it. I could upload it back from Commons, but file history would be lost and the status of the picture would be very difficult to check afterwards. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

  • If the file is deleted on Commons because of a freedom of panorama issue, ought not that same issue preclude the file's presence on en-wiki? --Mkativerata (talk) 20:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
    • No. Commons only allows free images, which is why it will soon be deleted from Commons. However, Wikipedia permits non-free images if they meet these criteria. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Thanks for that; I had no idea Commons precluded non-free fair-use images. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • On en-wiki we allow non-free photos if they meet the Wikipedia:NFC criteria. Since there has never been a discussion as to whether this picture qualifies under those rules, I recommend undeletion and discussion at FfD to determine whether we should keep the image or not. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Moreover, on en-wiki we in at least some cases treat as free images that are PD under US copyright law, but are not free in their source countries, while commons generally does not (with the exception of images of 2-D art that is out of copyright). That rule may apply in at least some FOP cases. DES (talk) 05:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Undelete when and only when it is figured out how the image should be tagged here. Stifle (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with the proposal to undelete the image. However, France does not have FoP for permanently installed architectural works as the United States does, so this should be treated as non-free content under Wikipedia policy and include a fair-use rationale. The architectural work in question is not merely incidental in the photograph, so this cannot be considered free. That doesn't mean we can't have it on Wikipedia, though. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Restore and list at FfD if desired. No longer meets any speedy criteria. Hobit (talk) 18:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Restore without prejudice to sending it straight to FfD if a fair use claim is disputed. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

MASSIVEGOOD (closed)

3 March 2010

Boss Audio

Boss Audio (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)
Greetings all! I've briefly talked to User:X! about the closure of this discussion (like a boss), in which we both agreed that bringing it to deletion review might be appropriate. To me personally, it seemed that, based on the discussion, a 'no consensus' closure may have been slightly more fitting. We also both agreed, however, that the community at deletion review would be a better interpreter of that than either of us (or at least than of me). Best regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Find sources: "Boss Audio" – news · books · scholar · images
  • Endorse. I would have !voted delete myself, without any question; hopefully that doesn't colour my assessment of this closure. Right from the outset of the discussion, the reliability of the sources cited by the article was called into question, as was the significance of the coverage. RadioFan and Gavin Collins had strong arguments here grounded firmly in policy. In response to that, there were four keeps:
    • The first (relying on the business directory) was refuted.
    • The second (from User:Daniel Christensen), with respect, was not grounded in policy.
    • The third (from DGG (which the fourth relied on)) was explicitly "weak" and was in my view effectively refuted by Gavin Collins pointing to the policy that precludes business directories establishing the notability of an organisation (in addition to RadioFan's earlier reasons).
At the end of the discussion, I can't find any sound reason to keep: the sources cited had been debunked as insufficient to establish notability, so the close was appropriate. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse. I'm not going to claim that it could not be closed any other way, but I think a delete close is the better choice here. Tim Song (talk) 03:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse per Tim Song. I am not seeing an abuse of discretion here. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse proper close due to identified lack of independent sources. Guy (Help!) 12:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Overturn to no consensus and shame on endorse voters above. The AfD actually should have been a Keep, considering the number of votes, but due to not very strong arguments by keep voters I would see it a decent thing to do to say no consensus, but not delete. Notice I said "not so strong" for keep voters, and not irrelevant; keep votes did explain, especially DGG. Obvious abuse of discretion. We must always keep in mind that, if there are 10 keep votes that are weakly argued and one very well argued delete; decision MUST be keep, because it reflects community wishes. This is the basic principle of WP. Turqoise127 (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Overturn to NC First of all there are plenty (100+) news hits. Some are PR releases, some are directory bits. But assuming this is the right company [6] is fairly detailed, [7] is in-passing but ABC news seems to think you should know who they are, [8] has a review of their offerings, and there are plenty more. Secondly, there was no consensus to delete. I understand facts are facts, but you need consensus to delete, and it was clearly lacking. Wikipedia:IAR exist for a reason and guidelines are just that. Hobit (talk) 03:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Hobit, those sources you linked are not very good. The My Central Jersey article is a profile of a local installation business, not a manufacturer. Single products in review lists are also weak. Flatscan (talk) 05:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm not arguing that the sources are great. I'm arguing that the sources were enough that consensus shouldn't have been overridden. This is a well known company. I'd never heard of it before this DrV but there are plenty of reviews of products (do you _really_ want those products in their own article? They meet WP:N), and it is highly discussed. If a majority had gone for deletion in the face of that, sure we delete. But a majority went the other way even knowing the sourcing was weak. Admins should respect that. These were not SPAs or something else. They were people who felt that blindly following the guideline was wrong in this case. That's why we have discussions rather than just listing sources--sometimes the guidelines are wrong. The majority felt that way in this case. Hobit (talk) 07:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC) (edit made a few hours later)
        • The numerical split was 4 keeps to 3 deletes, counting the nominator – I would give more consideration to a more pronounced difference. RadioFan refers to Wikipedia:CORP very early in the AfD, but none of the keeps address it directly. One may infer that DGG rejects RadioFan's WP:CORP and business directory arguments, since his keep follows them, but he does not present a substantial reasoning until his comments at this DRV. Flatscan (talk) 05:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
          • I'll admit I forgot to count the nom and 3 to 4 is a lot closer than 2 to 4. But I don't see how one can claim consensus (which is what we are to be evaluating) exists for an action when the majority oppose it. Sure, if the !votes were out in left field, but these weren't. Plus there are sources that are decent. [9] is another reasonable one (might be a respin of a press release, but if not it's in pretty good detail and there is a third-party biline. Hobit (talk) 18:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse – my evaluation is no consensus leaning delete, and this close is within admin discretion. Mkativerata's evaluation is compelling. Flatscan (talk) 05:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Overturn to no consensus A D&B listing gives information . The actual wording of WP:ORG is "Works carrying merely trivial coverage; such as... directions in business directories." A mere listing of an address is not sufficient but D&B gives considerably more than that. But regardless of my own opinion, when there is a real dispute on what argument is relevant, or the strength of the evidence, the closer is not to judge that, but close according to what most people in the discussion say. The way we interpret rules about the adequacy of sources is by consensus, not individual preference. The alternative is even worse chaos than at president, because inconsistent as our group decisions may be, they're inherently more reliable than individual decisions. If the closer has a view on the matter, he should join the argument instead of closing, and try to affect
consensus that way. DGG (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • D&B is a directory and a credit reference agency. That's like saying we keep every article on a company registered with Companies House because the Companies House database provides more than just the name. If we're really reduced to arguing over whether a D&B listing counts as a source then the company is plainly not notable as any notable company will have many more sources than just a credit reference agency. Guy (Help!) 12:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Overturn as no consensus Consensus leaned to keep and there were perfectly valid arguments made for retention that should not have been disregarded by the closing admin. Alansohn (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Overturn to no consensus, as there was none. Stifle (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Overturn to no consensus; while I'd have !voted to delete the article, I'm not seeing a consensus either way in the debate. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 02:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent discussions

2 March 2010

1 March 2010

Jim Diamond (Magician) (closed)

28 February 2010

Ciara Bravo (closed)

Category:Australasia (closed)

Simple Instant Messenger (closed)

27 February 2010

26 February 2010

25 February 2010

24 February 2010

Archive

2010
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December

2009
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December

2008
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December

2007
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December

2006
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December

Personal tools