RTS Community (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Unjust Deletion The administrator Jimfbleak gave no reason for the deletion of this new article and has a running track record of unfairly deleting pages. I request that this page be reinstated so that it can atleast be debated on whether it should be deleted or not. Damned Zombie 21:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "running track record of unfairly deleting pages"? That's a serious accusation (which itself is probably a violation of WP:AGF)... do you have any proof? Anyways, it was speedily deleted under A7, which means that it had no assertion of notability. The best way to satisfy this would be to use third-party reliable sources to write the article. ColourBurst 21:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • The running track record I am referring to is the list of claims on his talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimfbleak/Why_was_my_article_deleted%3F) that pages were deleted within minutes of being created and other such claims/complaints. I admit, though, that I didn't word my original comment so well... Damned Zombie 22:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion No claim of notability in the deleted article. WP:WEB is the guideline for web-content notability, and claims of notability should be independently established. First get the site fully launched, then get independent coverage, then get a Wikipedia article. See Wikipedia:The World Will Not End Tomorrow. GRBerry 22:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Nomination is a severe breach of WP:AGF, and the article was just pitiful. A website still in "alpha mode", and an article listing all the forum members? Come on. Valid A7, and not a chance in heck this would ever pass an AfD under any circumstances. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Anyone who deletes people's random vanity pages will get people complaining about unfair deletes. That doesn't make it true. And no other reason is given to overturn. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion as a non-notable network of websites, WP:WEB refers. (aeropagitica) 17:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse deletion non notable, does not meet WP:WEB. --mathewguiver 20:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FA Premier League 2006-07 goalscorers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

This article and other of the same kind were deleted under unconcrete arguments proposed by administrators which are not editors of articles of the same kind(football) and simply have opted for deleting them under arguments of excessive detail under WP:NOT, which this article does not fall into that. This information is not published as here elsewhere and this kind of articles help people in different ways, professionally or personally. This article is informative and can help in any form of football research. For example, a sports journalist could write an article on an FA Premier League player who is not a top scorer but wants to know how many goals he scored in a particular season, and how he has evolved. This kind of article provides just that. It may be unnecessary to some, but helpful and necessary to others. Maybe these goalscorer football articles should only be kept for top-level European leagues, such as the Spanish, Italian, Dutch, English, Scotish and French and German if the articles are created. I agree that second level league goalscorers are excessive detail and some top-level leagues such as the Libyan or Danish one. I have contributed a lot to these articles (my ISP changes my IP continously, and I use a different IP all the time) and I hate to see these articles going simply because some administrators think that they are unnecessary. Administrators and others have argued that this is a list of facts and trivia, but there are other lists that are worth keeping which are not deleted and are similar to these articles, but on a different topic. An example could be Deaths in 2006 (there are 12 subarticles for this one) Thank you 190.40.185.235 14:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, undelete - First of all I say that I totally agree with the arguments made above. I was considering this deletion review myself as well, but decided to talk to the moderator in question first to ask him why and get some clarification. I quote the moderator from the AfD: "In this case, wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor a sports reporting center, nor a complete collection of all of history so we can look at wikipedia in the future for everything that has happened in the past. I like it and "we've worked really hard" are also not reasons for keeping an article." Reading that I think the moderator is right and I agree that Wikipedia is indeed not all that what he described. But to me (I can't talk for others) this kind of information is there to describe an event, to inform others what has happened in a certain event that they are interested in. It's not an overkill of information, but just a split-off from the original competition articles to reduce the size of these pages. The information like this can be found nowhere else on the internet, at least not in this form. There was not just the "it's useful and I like it" arguments to keep this up and running. Like the user above me already said, articles like Deaths in 2006 and other years are a good example of this type of articles that do work pretty well. From what I know all of these goalscorers articles were up-to-date as of today, which shows that at least the people work on the articles consider it important enough to be included in an encyclopedia and keep this up-to-date. SportsAddicted | discuss 15:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, restore I would also like to flag attention to the arguments for keeping this article, pointed out by numerous users in the appropriate AfD. Clearly in this case the information is neither overkill nor inappropriate. By contrast, it is relevant, informative and useful for research for many people. That is clear by the commenting on the AfD. If this information is not on it's own page, it would be on the appropriate competition pages, and, judging by the size of those and the size of this page, that clearly is not appropriate. I'd like to quote: "Why make Wikipedia less informative just for the sake of it? I know this article is of great use to sport journalists (which I am) and is not 'freely' available elsewhere. There is all sorts of 'Almanac'-style information in many encyclopaedias such as Encarta or Britannica.". The fact that it's notable and of use to people, as many other list articles (deaths) are, coupled with the 'keep' support and argument the AfD received surely means this needs a review. Whilding87 17:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I wouldn't like to say what I'd do in this situation as a closing admin - its one of those awkward situations where the majority have given one opinion but that this is an opinion that appears to contradict most interpretations of WP:NOT. So my only comment in this review, as the original deleting nominator, would be to note that contrary to what 190.40.185.235, and others have claimed, this article has not been nomianted for deletion by non-footballing, uninterested admins. Many of us who have voiced that we should delete these articles have been heavily involved in improving Wikipedia's footballing and sporting coverage. --Robdurbar 16:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd also like to remind all on this 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...and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate I.E. comment on the debate (as SportsAddicted) not the article's mertis --Robdurbar 17:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not totally sure what you are trying to say here, but I am disputing the fact that these articles are deleted saying there was reached a consensus to delete them, which is not the case, in fact most opinion releasers in the AfD (not voters as it's not a voting) had arguments for keeping these documents. In my opinion this decision to delete the articles has been een error in the process like you name it and I'm here to correct this. SportsAddicted | discuss 22:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No sorry, I mean that you had done this correctly; but that some of the other contributions had been more like re-voicing of AfD opinions - my reference to you was merely pointing out how an argument ought to be phrased! --Robdurbar 08:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, no problem :) SportsAddicted | discuss 10:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Endorse deletion then, as I think the closing admin took a tough call but one that reflects the philosophy of a 'discussion not vote' and one that reflects the long term interests of Wikiepdia. --Robdurbar 10:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, restore Along with the two editors above, I agree that these pages should be reinstated to wikipedia. I personally believe that pages are encyclopedic, are useful to users of wikipedia especially due to a similar resource not existing elsewhere on the internet, not to mention being a well maintained and well laid out article in wikipedia. I also think that eleminating these pages reduces the overall quality of each leagues 2006/07 article. Niall123 17:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, undelete - The article passes the fundamental question of "is Wikipedia a better encyclopedia because of it." There is a lot of useful information, that as mentioned above, is not easily available elsewhere. Gisele Hsieh 19:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, restore This is one of those cases where one side says: "Look, this thing clearly violates WP:NOT" and the other side says "no, it doesn't". We've had plenty of those before (schools spring to mind), and they promote a lot of factionalism and 50-50 splits. Both sides carried valid arguments in the debate, with Mjefm and SportsAddicted etc. outlining why the article is of use, and Robdurbar, Oldelpaso, Dsreyn etc. arguing that . In the end, it thus comes down to what way you interpret indiscriminate collection of information. But using only that as an argument, you could virtually delete anything on Wikipedia, since everything here is a collection of information and it's just a matter of calling it indiscriminate or not, assuming you got the closing admins or enough editors to listen to you. That's fine. Most times you don't, of course, since editors have a clear sense of what is notable and what is not, but in such borderline cases it's best to leave it to a public debate rather than judge the arguments and then make a decision where some kind of personal decision has been thrown in. In this case, the debate seemed to have reached little consensus, with a lot of people not seeing the merits of the arguments held by the delete side, and the closing admin should have taken that into account.

• Of course, there is a limit to what kind of goalscoring detail is notable. In the extreme case, finding no third-party sources publishing goalscoring information should be the decider. Sam Vimes | Address me 19:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The goalscoring of these leagues can be found at third-party sources, but are not displayed the way they were in these articles, what made the documents unique material. SportsAddicted | discuss 22:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. I won't repeat any arguments here, but if anyone is interrested, I just posted this to the football project talk: "Final decision on league by month results and league goalscorers". – Elisson • T • C • 20:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - on the grounds that this high level of detail is best suited to other, specialist, sites. The information IS overkill, and the process was fairly and equitably carried out. Top 10 or 20 goalscorers I can see as having encyclopaedic merit. Every single goalscorer - no. - fchd 21:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • fchd, the thing is, there are no other sites that provide this kind of information. This information is here because many members that contribute to this kind of article keep an eye on this and contribute to keep the article up to date for it to be useful. This information which is not almanac style helps people in different things. What makes me mad is that this articles are getting deleted and not articles alike such as deaths per month and airlines destinations (there are other type of articles such as lists by GDP, etc.)190.40.185.235 23:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there are no sites that provide this kind of information, then where is it from? I sincerely doubt that there isn't a single site out there that has a statistics on the goalscorers in the most popular national football competition in the world. Not completely unrelated, I know that the Swedish FA has such info for the top Swedish league available online. – Elisson • T • C • 23:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Ellison, This information has been collected from people that watch the matches and from articles like League Results by month. Also, there are sites and many news articles which say who scored in a match, and based on that this article is created. I have in fact searched for it and found none. There is no site that Wikipedia users are aware of. I know some of you who want this article deleted want a summary of the top goalscorers. But how are we supposed to know who the league top scorers are if we can't keep count on the player's goals? I mean, the player with the lowest amount of goals listed in FA Premier League 2006-07 has 8 goals, and how will we know which players have 7 goals so that when they make it to 8 we add them there? There is a reason for subarticles.190.40.185.235 13:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Err, because there are sites that list the top goalscorers? Swedish State Television has such a list on teletext here. Just to settle this argument, the official site of the FA Premier League has a list of all goalscorers of the season. Click "Actim Stats" in the left column at the site, launch the Actim Station, then sort the players list by top scorers. Done. Can we disregard all the "oh this is found nowhere else"-comments now? – Elisson • T • C • 14:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment edit history restored and article protected for the run of this review. ~ trialsanderrors 22:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, and I fully support Elisson's remarks. Wikipedia is not the place for such things. With the remit of Wikisource having being reduced so that statistical information is no longer included there, perhaps it is instead worth creating a "Wikistats" wiki to cater for this kind of numerical source information? I can see it being useful not just for sports results but election results, census data, etc. Qwghlm 22:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and undelete. This was procedurally a wrong close. Whatever the views of the closer there was no overwhelming balance of arguments or 'votes' to justify deletion. The article meets WP:5 as almanac and specialist encyclopaedic information. This is not indiscriminate information; it is verifiable, organised and finite. BlueValour 03:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak endorse deletion. The argument that the information can not be found elsewhere is a pretty sure sign you have original research, and the rest of the keeps seemed to be variations on WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IWORKEDONITHARDYOUDELETIONIST. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Like I already said above, the information can be found on other websites and thus is verifiable and does not count as original research. The only thing that is different just like all other articles on wikipedia is that these verifiable information from several websites or website subpages is bundled together into one article and shown in a different, but user friendly accessible in a decent lay-out. Free to find for anyone interested without having to browse several websites or multiple pages within the same website elsewhere on the net or Wikipedia. SportsAddicted | discuss 04:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm not sure what you mean by "other websites". I assume you mean the league websites themselves (and not fan websites which are not reliable sources), but as of the last revision before deletion none of them were cited. I'm also not sure that, while admittedly useful (but so are definitions and how-to manuals, both specifically not allowed on WP), that there isn't a better home for them. Qwghlm's suggestion of a "wikistats" Wiki seems great, actually. ColourBurst 05:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Here for instance you can choose a team in several European leagues. Pick for instance Feyenoord and then statistieken and you will see the goals scored by Feyenoord players in this season. This works the same for other teams in the same and other competitions. So the information (at least in some leagues and probably more on other websites on the net) is available but people has to click through tons of different pages on the same website to get the results that was available in Wikipedia on just one article about the goalscorers of a league. Also, I'm pretty sure that as soon as this years leagues are over this information will be gone on that website and replaced by the goalscorers of next season, meaning the information would be harder to find in the future. SportsAddicted | discuss 07:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Closer correctly pointed out that (quite aside from the lack of third-party sources) there was no context explaining the encyclopedic significance of the data. For plot summaries we require that "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot." There is no assertion in the review request here that we should now require less of sporting events. Dekimasu 06:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Right, so where do these articles not meet your criteria then? What part of these lists does not make real world context? As you can see above they can be sourced, offering detail is available as these lists are complete. Being written in detail is not necessary in this situation, or are we also going to delete all lists on wikipedia without written detail? These goals are scored by notible figures playing for notible teams in notible leagues, which have affect on the results (final rankings) of these teams, which shows the historical value of these goals. They're not just a summary, they are a list like there are many lists on Wikipedia and they are an expansion on the articles about a certain season of the league. SportsAddicted | discuss 07:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I want to know the signficance of the goals, and I want that to be based on outside sources. As always, notability is conferred by coverage about the topic, not tangential references to the topic. Data without interpretation is not encyclopedic. At any rate, it seems to me you are continuing a deletion debate here, but that's not what the page is for. The page is for discussing whether there was a procedural error in the closing. Dekimasu 08:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, like I said before somewhere above this message inbetween some of the many replies I do believe there was a procedural error in the closing as there was no consensus reached yet at the AfD and thus these articles were deleted too early in my opinion. That was the main issue here in the first place, but as others are continuing debating about this as well instead of giving their opinion on whether the moderator in question made an error by deleting these I simply have to react and defend my point of view. You want the significance of the goals based on outside sources? Does that mean you want proof for the goals to be not accidently scored but by a player's skill? I don't think I really understand what you're trying to say here. SportsAddicted | discuss 10:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm trying to say that I would like to see a distinction between data and knowledge. If there is no background information explaining why the number of goals scored by each individual is important - say, important (i.e. Wikipedia-notable) awards given to the player with the most goals - it is just information. It is the distinction between data and knowledge that separates "indiscriminate" information from important information. Dekimasu 16:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, restore - There is certainly no consensus (see the AfD discussion), there is definitely no precedent as many lists exist on WP of far more obscure subjects without challenge (list of palindromes, anybody?). Maybe Libyan and Danish leagues are not sufficiently noteworthy but I am not challenging those deletions - England, Scotland, Spain, Italy and the other major leagues must stay. WP is here for a purpose; to be informative, useful, detailed and definitive. Those who delete articles like the major league goalscorers lists are making WP worse just for the sake of it. WP doesn't exist just so that we can all sit around smugly and say "Look at this in-no-way-Almanacky encyclopædia we made that is useless if you're a sports journalist trying to do some research." The articles must be restored and updated quickly if WP is to remain an authentic, definitive encyclopædia. Mjefm 13:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment - There was clearly an error in deletion procedure. Consensus was cited on deleting the articles for being too obscure, but a glance at the discussion on AfD shows this is spectacularly not the case; if anything, there is an obvious majority favouring keeping the articles. There are also inaccurate and subjective assertions in the reasons given for deletion - that the information is not available elsewhere (it is, we just make it tidier, easier to comprehend and all together in one place), that the subject is not noteworthy (on what grounds?). Additionally, fair arguments are ignored - Is WP better because of these articles? Certainly. Mjefm 13:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and re-delete, proper closing, Wikipedia is not a data dump. >Radiant< 14:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• So that people do not miss it, I'll write what I wrote up there somewhere down here as well: Just to settle this argument, the official site of the FA Premier League has a list of all goalscorers of the season. Click "Actim Stats" in the left column at the site, launch the Actim Station, then sort the players list by top scorers. Done. Can we disregard all the "oh this is found nowhere else"-comments now? – Elisson • T • C • 14:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Looks promising, but whatever I do while inside the Actim Station, it unfortunately doesn't give me any results, so I can not see whether you are right or not, but from what they pretend to be offering (these and other stats) that looks promising. For the Dutch leagues the information is available too, but shown in a different way as they were used on Wikipedia. SportsAddicted | discuss 15:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Actim list fo goalscorers does not provide the same information that is provided in Wikipedia. In Wikipedia, the goalscorer articles gave the amount of goals scored by each player per team and the nationality of the player. The Actim list of the FA premier league site is only a ranking and if someone looking for information want so know which team does the player belongs to, it has to actually search more for it, possibly here. Plus, you can't find this information for other top level leagues. SportsAddicted apparently knows about the Dutch one, but you can't find one for the Italian, Scotish or Spanish. I say we just keep the following articles: Serie A goalscorers, La Liga goalscorers, Eredivisie Goalscorers, FA Premier League goalscorers and Scotish Premier League goalscorers.190.40.185.235 16:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further Comment The list of goalscorers is on Flash there and it takes quite some time to scroll down by the way. And I support SportsAddicted remarks that the information will be deleted next season. You may find the Dutch ones, but when this season is over they will be deleted.This articles involve one per year per league. I'm talking of 5 leagues so lets just make it 5 articles per year. Compare the to the 12 per year on the Deaths in 2006 list. These articles are useful.190.40.185.235 16:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Would you care to speculate on why they will be deleted next season? Is it because they aren't very notable and/or are more newsworthy than permanently informative? Dekimasu 16:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment, and would you care to explain why only those five leagues should have such articles, if such articles should exist? And as noted on top of this discussion, we are not here to debate if the articles should be kept of not, we are here to debate if the closing admin did anything wrong, and I still wait to see such evidence put forward. – Elisson • T • C • 19:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Dekimasu, that site is a site that covers football per season, and it is not an encyclopaedia. The sites of football teams don't keep with the results of every single season the club has been playing but they do keep the current ones and some sites the ones of last season. However, this is an encyclopaedia, and the article provides important information to some adn it does not go into excessive detail to qualify as an indiscriminate collection of information. If the article would say the exact date, time and location alongside each player and there would be articles like, for example, FA Premier League 2006/07 goalscorers by Stadium, by minute, etc., then I would call those an indiscriminate collection of information.
        • Ellison, I'd keep all the existing one, at least the ones that are regularly updated. But under the given circumstances, those are the ones that are the most important because they are the top-level leagues in Europe, the most widely seen and the ones that are more probable to help someone. I'd be happy to keep all. I say that the deletition of this articles was wrong because there was absolutely no consensus reached in the AfD. Simply, the administrator that deleted the article took side with the deletition proposers because they were fellow admins and because admins are saying so then it's because they're right. There was no consensus reached therefore no clear reason for the deletition.190.40.185.235 21:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Why was there no consensus reached in the AfD? Claiming that there was a cabal of administrators (which, I guess, would include me) that wanted the articles deleted is not helping your case, but instead only strenghtens the view of you as one of the WP:IWORKEDONITHARDYOUDELETIONIST people, as Amarkov so eloquently expressed it above. I think that the closing admin made it pretty clear that keep !votes such as "I like it", "it is useful" and "it is interresting" does not help build a consensus and can pretty much be ignored as they don't bring the discussion forward. As a sidenote, my name is "Elisson", not "Ellison". – Elisson • T • C • 22:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment Excuse me, Ellisson. The administrator deleted the article under the excessive detail under WP:NOT argument. But these articles do not qualify in the section: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", and admin Robdurbar went to WP:NOT added a section on Wikipedia not being an almanac wihtout reaching any consensus before as it is explicitly said at the top of that page to make the article qualify because he thinks it is almanac-style information. Afterwards, I proved that there is a lot of almanac-style information in Wikipedia that is not nominated for deletition, such as lists of countries by categories, airline destinations, deaths per year, etc. 190.40.164.57 15:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Wow wow wow, that's all a little misleading. Upon seeing these articles I proposed that almanac - thinking only of sports alamancs, though it was then pointed out that other almanacs contain much more details besides sports- be added as a clarification of 'not a collection of indiscriminate information'. After around a day or so there were only comments supporting this move, so I thought I'd add it in order to promote more discussion - I never claimed that it couldn't be removed, but I thought a consensus was emerging on the talk - and I later took it off when it was pointed out to me that it could be seen as conflict of interests with the ongoing afd's; the section could not have been on WP:NOT for more than 24 hours and has had contributors supporting a re-phrased repositng of the point. I thought - and from their comments, all the users voicing for deletion of the article thought - that the article qualified as an indiscriminate collection anyway; the intention of adding to the policy is to clarify this. Robdurbar 15:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • I appreciate it being taken off, but it was only placed there at the time to be used to support the deletition of these articles. As Mjefm has said repeatedly, encyclopaedias contain almanac-style information in its nature, be it sports facts or lists of historical dates. For example, I have found many other sports articles that could qualify as an indiscriminate collection of information under your arguments, and have never been proposed to be deleted. Take a look, for example at Liverpool F.C. seasons and Liverpool F.C. statistics. The latter even has the word "statistics" in its title, which is the very thing you're against! I'm not saying that these articles aren't useful. but I think that there should be no exceptions made. I don't see the encessity of these articles being deleted. These aren't articles being used to vandalize Wikipedia or make fun or something, and it does not violate WP:NOT. As I said before, I think they would qualify as an indiscriminate collection of information if there were many goalscorer articles per league per year, with goals by player's nationality, time, stadium, month, etc.190.40.164.57 16:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I for one, did not know that the "almanac paragraph" had been added, and I doubt a lot of the users at the AfD did know that. And not a single of the delete !votes referred to any almanac paragraph. Robdurbar mentioned an almanac discussion on the talk page, and a keep !voter, Mjefm, mentioned it, but other than that, I see no-one specifically saying that "Wikipedia is not an almanac". You consider the articles to not fall under "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". I, along with several other users, including several administrators, consider it to fall under both that, and "Wikipedia is not a directory". Regarding the two Liverpool examples you give, the difference is that those two articles summaries various statistics of a club's history spanning more than 100 years. The articles we discuss here summaried a single statistic of a single season. BTW, my name is "Elisson", "E-L-I-S-S-O-N", not "Ellison" or "Ellisson". Swedish. Not American or British or Australian or something like that. Not very important, but hey, I prefer to correct it instead of happily ignore that people spelling my name wrong. Do note, you are not alone. Not even most Swedes get it right, often spelling or saying "Eliasson" (note the a), which is a much more common surname. – Elisson • T • C • 20:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Excuse me again, Elisson. I'm from South America and not a first language English speaker either. Well, I did notice what was added to WP:NOT Someone pointed out that under WP:NOT the article was eligible for deletition and I read that section, I checked the page's history, and it turns out that it had been recently added by Robdurbar, after the deletition was proposed. I removed it (under another IP) because it was there to favour the deletitionist side and there had been no consensus reached to add it. I agree that Wikipedia is not a directory, and I wouldn't like to see phone numbers or facts of regular people around, but these articles contain basic information available for any kind of researcht that helps people in different ways. Plus, this article is a sub-article. Wikipedia articles have a lot of subarticle. Practically ever general article I read has a lot of subarticles! In this case, the FA Premier League 2006-07 article has the top scorers summary and a link to the goalscorers articles for more information. Where are people supposed to look to find out how many goals has Player X scored in that season. This article has benefited in a personal way and has in fact increased my knowledge of English football, which I admire, and it has also contributed to some users professionally, as Mjefm said. And the Liverpool articles wouldn't qualify in the "Wikipedia is not a Directory" section of policy? I think that the articles are in fact useful, but they are very similar to the gaoslcorer articles and would qualify in the same article category. I'll give you another example then: American Airlines destinations190.40.164.57 21:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Remove indentation] I withhold my claim that the article fails WP:NOT, with or without the almanac paragraph. I see no reason to believe that the closing admin used that paragraph when closing the discussion. And that is what this DRV is about. Just because an article can have subarticles, does not mean it should have subarticles. The number of goals a player has scored in a specific season is a perfectly fine statistic to include in the player's article. And once again, "I like it" is not a good argument. I see no reason to comment on the AA destinations list, as it has no connection whatsoever with this DRV, and using the argument "why shouldn't this be kept if we have an article on that" is no good either. – Elisson • T • C • 22:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The big question still is, how does this article falls under WP:NOT? It is not a birectory, and it is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If it had excessive detail, such as time, location and the way it was scored, then I would agree it being an indiscriminate collection of information. In the player's articles, the number of goals scored by each player is not season wise but carreer-wise per club, and it only includes domestic league goals. And, those are not regularly updated, therefore unreliable and it is hard to keep the actual count of how many goals the player has scored in his professional carreer. And having this article is the only way to keep up with the summary in the league pages. How would we know which players have 7 goals and score one to move to 8 so that he is added to the summary?190.40.164.57 03:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed." Wiktionary defines directory as (1) "A list of names, addresses etc., of specific classes of people or organizations, often in alphabetical order or in some classification." Pretty clear to me. There are of course various types of directories, some more useful than others (for example FIFA World Cup hat-tricks, a featured list). "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." Everything that is true is of course useful for at least someone. That does not mean it should be included. There is nothing that stops you from adding a career table to a player article. Both featured articles on footballers, Denis Law and Gilberto Silva, along with two of the good articles, Adam Boyd and Pelé, has career tables of various kinds. Your last comment has already been answered. Either you go to the Swedish State Television teletext page found here, or you check the stats at the official Premier League site (or any other such site). – Elisson • T • C • 14:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • These articles don't fall anywhere close under the section "WIkipedia is not a directory". It doesn't even come close to the examples written there. It is not a list of ordinary people that have done nothing of notoriety, or something with entries relation with the future (TV/Radio guides as mentioned there, odds of scoring again in this case). I guess Deaths in 2006 and American Airlines destinations are also direcories, therefore they violate policy. What makes you think that a list of hat-tricks is more useful than a list of goalscorers on important football leagues? Yes, in fact, some articles have a list of the goals scored, but that doesn't occur with other players such as Nwankwo Kanu Thierry Henry, and with almost all players in Wikipedia. You may find the goalscorers list in the Swedish League site, yes, on the English one, probably not. I had never seen it before actually, and you showed it to me for the first time. It is quite hidden and it is on flash. It is also hardly scrollable and you can't see which player actually is which. I scrolled down the list (which I took a long time) and I found two Coles. Which is which? I know about at least 3 Coles in the FA Premier League 2006-07. The list in the Premier site isn't quite reliable. By the way, it is me, 190.40.164.57. As I said, my IP changes every now and then.190.41.53.97 03:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • You say potato, I say potato, the closing admin said potato. Apparently, many users believed that the articles fell under WP:NOT, and if many users believe that, then that's probably how WP:NOT should be interpreted. Again, I won't comment on other lists and directories not related to this DRV. "What makes you think that a list of hat-tricks is more useful than a list of goalscorers on important football leagues?" Perhaps the fact that one is a featured list, and the others have been deleted? You say not all players have a career table, I can only answer ((sofixit))... The external links. You haven't even clicked on them have you? The Swedish Television teletext site has the top scorers of the FA PL (>=7 goals currently), Serie A (>= 6 goals), La Liga (>= 5 goals), Bundesliga (>= 6 goals), Ligue 1 (>= 7 goals). Isn't that enough for you? You call the official FA Premier League site unreliable? Great, if that's your view on what a reliable source is, I don't think there is any point in me discussion this with you anymore. – Elisson • T • C • 17:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wikipedia is not a democracy. The fact that many users believed it doesn't make it fall under WP:NOT. Many users in the AfD also believed it should be kept. Why shouldn't this article be on a featured list too? Why is the other one a featured list anyway? Other than because of some reason that article became a featured list, why is it better than this one? You also don't comment on those articles because they clearly violate policy if this one does too. Those articles are very much alike and only differ on the subject. I hadn't clicked on the Swedish site because from all I read, I understood that it contained only Swedish goalscorers. The Premier Site is not exactly unreliable, but it lacks information. As I said, in some occasions, you can't tell which player is which, and in all occasions you can't know which team does a player belongs to if you don't have any previous knowledge. 190.41.53.97 17:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and restore. The opening sentence at WP:5 explicitly states that Wikipedia includes elements of specialized encyclopedias and almanacs. Assuming that such a thing as a world soccer, er football, encyclopedia exists, it is not unreasonable to expect that a list of goals for each major competition would be listed. Wikipedia can enhance that by providing more detail, since Wikipedia is also not a paper encyclopedia. Wikipedia is also not a newspaper, but, a historical summary of goal scorers is not a newpaper article either. The single scores are news, but, the collection is not. Another argument made against these articles was that it could result in thousands of articles. To this, I only point to an archived message by Jimbo, that was linked in another recent AFD: [1]. -- Neier 00:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were, by the way, no valid sources in any of these articles (the ones that I saw, anyway) that were valid for Wikipedia purposes; there was only a link to the league's website. That makes them quite different from Jimbo's example of the good article in the message you posted and more similar to the one-liners. Dekimasu 12:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dekimasu, there is no particular source for the article but what contributors read from hews articles. For example, whenever I contributed, I used livescore.co.uk to see some goalscorers for the day and added them ASAP. However, the goalscorers there are match-wise and they are removed one or two days after the match usually.190.40.164.57 21:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Question: There were twelve other articles deleted with this AFD. Should all of them be restored/protected like the first article has been, for the time being?? Neier 01:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since they in no important way differed from the undeleted one (except for having other clubs with other players that scored other amounts of goals), I don't think that is necessary. They all looked alike. – Elisson • T • C • 21:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Closer's comment I consider this a bundled nomination, per the request on my talk page. ~ trialsanderrors 23:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Wikipedia is not ESPN soccernet. --Howard the Duck 13:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion and redelete - carefully noting that a lot of the participants in this debate are treating it as a second AfD, fundamentally wrong. WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IWORKEDHARDONTHATNOWIMGOINGTOLEAVEYOUDELETIONISTB**T**D are not valid reasons for keeping/undeletion, neither in the AfD or in the DRV. Martinp23 16:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, seems fair and square. Punkmorten 16:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magging (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Informative, legitimate article, similar to TPing and egging, etc. If the article on TPing is going to be allowed, then Magging should be allowed to. It is a recent event that has swept across Southern California. Jalad.azadi 14:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse delete as one of the several admins who deleted this article. This is a prank that, according to the author, was "invented on January 3, 2007." Not sure how it could have swept across Southern California before it was invented... NawlinWiki 14:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse delete - as above and as one of the other Admins involved pointed out WP:NFT ! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 15:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion obvious case, not really worthy of further debate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, no information, WP:INN, WP:NFT. --Coredesat 18:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - Just "invented," fails WP:NFT per NawlinWiki Gisele Hsieh 19:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - Fails WP:NFT per Brookie and NawlinWiki. Brad Guzman 20:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - Perfectly within the bounds of procedure - DRV not warranted (and WP:NFT!). Martinp23 16:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Coat of arms (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|TfD)

Whether this should have been deleted or not may be open to question, but the problem is that the Heraldry and Vexillology Project team was not informed, and hundreds of images are now being deleted by OrphanBot despite the fact that almost all of them should not be. Please restore the template immediately to prevent OrphanBot from destroying lots of good work. If indeed this template should be deleted, then it is imperative that the Wiki community give the H&V people the chance to protect images that may be affected by that deletion. -- Evertype·✆ 11:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete as nominator. Please see the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Heraldry_and_vexillology#URGENT_WARNING.21_License_has_been_removed_from_dozens_of_coats_of_arms_images.21 for discussion. -- Evertype·✆ 11:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• OrphanBot doesn't delete images - only administrators can. This page lists the edits by MartinBotIII which removed the images, but perhaps it would be better for WP:HV to just watch Orphanbot's contribs, and fix the images which need a license tag - not all of the images which MartinBotIII removed the tag from relyed upon it as their only license tag, hence orphanbot was called in to find those which do, and fix them. The undeletion of the template would in no way serve your goals of finding those images which used it, as it would also require the reversion of some 3000 edits (rough guess) - it's really not worth it when one can look through contribs. Finally, as the closer of the debate, I had no idea that WP:HV existed, and so wouldn't have known to have contacted them, though I'd expect one of their members to notice the TfD notices replicated on ((Coatofarms)) or MartinBotIII's edits in removing instances of the template, rather than launching a deletion review (a review which has aims which are impossible, and which is against the purpose of DRV) half a month after the event, when OrphanBot started its work. Martinp23 11:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Martin closed the TFD, yes and his bot removed the template, WP:HV didn't notice either and OrphanBot is removing images. Don't waste time on paperwork or who's-to-blame. Spend that time on trying to fix as many images as possible before somebody actually deletes them completely. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 12:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that if the template were restsored (even temporarily) it might help you in finding the images in your race against computer deletion. I do not myself have time hunt for images, sorry. -- Evertype·✆ 12:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The template has been removed from the images from the image pages themselves - the template has been orphaned, and resurrecting it would not provide anyone with any indication of where the template was previously transcluded. Remember, OrphanBot will be alerting the uploaders of the images, so the problems may well sort themselves out (largey). Martinp23 12:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't the template -- or a new one -- be added back to all of those many many many pages automatically? -- Evertype·✆ 19:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is a situation that I see coming up; let's say one of the images previously tagged with this template was deleted. If we find out that a copyright status is public domain or something free. If we mention it here, or to the deleting admin, could we restore/undelete that image? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But as for the template itself, I say keep deleted. It might be true that, because of federal law of a country, a coat of arms image can be in the public domain. But for those that are not, we cannot just claim something is fair use because it is X. We need to justify why this is fair use based on our usage of the image, not because of what it is. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is not the template but how much time there'll be to sort through the images. According to the image description pages, we have not one week but two days, i.e. a deadline on Friday. The most obvious cases where such images are PD (Germany, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, and Finland) have pretty much been salvaged now. So has the British 18th century images. I haven't checked but I'm pretty sure that the material from the Czech Republic and Romania (both PD) has been salvaged as well.

However, it would be really great if somebody could check the legal situation for some of the U.S. and Canadian material as well as for Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia, Slovenia, Montenegro, Hungary and Bulgaria. I suspect the Serbian material for being PD, see Commons:Image:Flagge Belgrad.PNG. If it turns out that some of this material is indeed PD, please create a template for it (with a link to the relevant copyright law in English!), see the templates for the countries mentioned above for examples, e.g. ((PD-Coa-Lithuania))). Btw, Armenian images are PD according to a template on Commons, but I've not had the time to verify this (which should be pretty easy) so any help with the (tiny) Armenian material would also be welcome. There is a link to the relevant law from Commons:Image:Yerevan_coa.gif (bottom). Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 20:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete- useful template Astrotrain 20:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, TfD was valid and restoring the template will not fix the problem anyway. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Guy. Restoring the template at this point would be of no use. (Incidentally, I note that it has been recreated by Ansonni as a redirect to ((logo)), with one transclusion at Image:Istocno Novo Sarajevo.JPG. I think I'll go orphan and delete it again, and notify the users involved.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. It wasn't a valid fair use tag, so it should have caused deletion of images. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But ((Logo)) and ((Symbol)) are? I remember the texts as close to identical. The two currently remaining templates are used for purely decorative purposes. On the other hand, WP:HV actually has articles about many of the symbols we illustrate, which seems to qualify more for fair use than ((logo)) will ever do. What is the main issue here is that this deletion caused havoc at WP:HV because nobody informed us that this discussion was taking place, so people realized this 2 days before the images would be deleted. Editors on WP:HV normally have some insight into this field as well, so a little note would have been nice. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 07:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Deletion per Guy. There is no rule or process that says that projects need to be informed of everything. Some notice boards do, but not without Wikipedians actually noticing them being there, and notifying. It is not admins jobs to be messengers. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 20:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caldari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Three of the Four major races in Eve-online have pages (Amarr, Gallente and Minmatar). No reason given for deletion. No comment left on my talk page. Page is now protected. I was not given a chance to expand the page to be on par with the other Races. Not happy... Fosnez 05:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted as a recreation of deleted material. Here is the AFD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caldari. It was originally deleted due to Wikipedia not being a Game Guide. If you want to restore it. I would suggest that you try to challenge the original AFD because that was why it was deleted here. --67.71.79.225 06:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete. The original AFD was six months ago and was very questionable whether there was any consensus (one delete or merge, one merge, one keep and expand). As there have been other articles created about this game since that time, the inconsistency that the nominator pointed out doesn't make sense. Thus, undelete. --BigDT 06:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. I deleted the recreation because it was a recreation without discussion, but I do not particularly have a strong opinion on the merits. --Nlu (talk) 07:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete per BigDT. I don't see how this was closed if there was a clear lack of consensus. Gisele Hsieh 09:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete. Normally I'm for the keeping of all the EVE Online material to fewer articles, but the main article was really getting to be a mess, as is the Ships article. It would definitely be effective to split up the material into the racial articles. "Recreation" doesn't really apply as a deletion reason if circumstances have changed (in this case, the other three races were created). — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 11:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete. Either have all 4, or none. yandman 14:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete per Yandman. Brad Guzman 20:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete. The closing admin should have relisted the AfD in this case, there was no consensus (1 !vote does not count), and it's not a clear cut case of violating WP:NOT. ColourBurst 20:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and undelete. There was clearly no consensus in the original AfD. Dekimasu 12:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and undelete and then put on AfD - 5/6 months is long enough to remove the validity of G4 for speedy deletions. Martinp23 16:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• undelete per yandman. --mathewguiver 21:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atlas Strategic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

no credible reason to delete the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikqick (talk • contribs)

• Endorse deletion, I don't think that we even need to see the article, with just "no credible reason". Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, no reason given to overturn. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 04:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per speedy deletion rationale, no credible reason to overturn. Yanksox 06:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per above. No reason given to overturn article. Gisele Hsieh 09:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and speedy close. Four deletions by three separate admins looks like perhaps there is a credible reason to delete the page. Note that every single edit other than tagging for deletion was by Mikqick (talk · contribs). Guy (Help!) 09:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that's because its only up for maybe an hour and by the time people go to it its gone and they cant add anything. -mikqick

• Looks like you're the only person who cares. At least one deletion was also for copyright violation. Guy (Help!) 14:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the copyright violation was using information from a site i made, http://www.mvrhs.org:16080/f-period/kendall/atlas-strategic/index.html because i didnt correctly site it. many more people care and im sure there are a ton of people who go to the wolf parade page see atlas strategic and click on it being curious, but it says "no page exists, would you like to make one" by letting the well written page stay it would help answer questions about what this atlas strategic band is. also it's significant because they are planning on a reissue of their very unknown music. i dont see why you have a huge issue with this page. -mikqick

• Endorse deletion as one of the deleting admins. Article on band that fails WP:MUSIC. NawlinWiki 14:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

just read the page on music and atlas strategic fits. The leader of the band, Dan Boeckner is in a much larger band, Wolf Parade which is on the indie label Sub Pop which is the largest indie label along with Merge Records. Atlas Strategic also played shows with Modest Mouse and Ugly Casanova which are major bands. Modest Mouse on both Sub Pop and non-indie label Epic. Dan Boeckner has also played with Modest Mouse at parts of live shows and opened for Modest Mouse in his side project, Handsome Furs, which I agree does not need an article but they are also on the large indie label Sub Pop. Johnny Pollard of Atlas Strategic also played with Wolf Parade for a song on their tour in August, and Steve Simard has been in many other bands including Breakwater and Republic of the Freedom fighters, which I doubt youll find anything on them on the web but they had a few releases. Atlas Strategic should also be counted as being "on" Sub Pop, Issac Brock of Modest Mouse was working to get them signed to Sub Pop but Dan Boeckner left the band and moved to Montreal whih ended any chance of anything really being done. Likely early this year all the Atlas Strategic material will be released on a somewhat large label, maybe Sub Pop. -Mikqick

• to me it doesnt look like any of you are responding ot that so could you please, please replace the article. i've explained why it belongs here so if its copyright issues can you please just explain how to correctly site it? -mikqick

if you're just going to ignore me i take that as meaning that you don't have anything to say, that i've showed that this article is relevant enough and should be approved, correct? -mikqick

• Endorse deletion Deletion review will not overturn deletions for copyright violation, never mind the other issues. If you are indeed the owner of the other content, you need to release it under the GFDL on the site of origin. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission#More. That done, write on a user subpage such as User:mikqick/Draft Article computer the article in away that conforms to the policy against original research and which demonstrates notability through use of sources that are independent and reliable. Once you have it finished, then move or copy it to the main article space. GRBerry 14:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- I see no reason why an article on this group could not be created that isn't a copy of their official website or something, and I think WP:MUSIC notability is probably missing, but it wouldn't hurt to have an AfD debate if a proper article were written first. Mangojuice^talk 16:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion though without prejudice to a properly sourced and WP:MUSIC conforming piece in future (and WP:RS, WP:OR and all that), which can be taken to AfD if neccessary. Martinp23 16:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion as a copyvio. The article requires reliable sources, not just a cut-and-paste job. (aeropagitica) 17:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

one quick question, does it make a difference that nothing on the web site is copyrighted, to save me the time of verifying it and everything? mikqick

Yes, because although the website may not currently claim the copyright, such a claim could be made later. If the website were to be licensed under the GFDL, that would be okay, because it can't be revoked. However, many on here take a very dim view of Wikipedia including content from a promotional website whether or not permission is given. Such circumstances could well be viewed as falling under WP:CSD criterion G11 (the spam criterion). Mangojuice^talk 17:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if one were to go to a GDFL site, and copy and paste a page here, it wouod still need sources and verification to avoid deletion of any kind. Martinp23 17:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:FLPC21112242212.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|IfD)

I've been unable to find any free use images to illustrate 2006 New England Patriots season, thus this and two other(so far) fair use images. Situations like these are what fair use is for: Wikipedia is non-profit, no other images are available, so i'm at a loss here. All I want is for that article to become featured, and I don't think it can happen without pictures. Just H 19:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The picture never existed. Maybe you have the wrong title? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 19:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It did, the "Image:" was missing from the link above. ~ trialsanderrors 20:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak endorse deletion. I can't imagine that there are no freely licensed images that were taken of the Patriots at any time in the 2006 season. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Changed to Overturn deletion, it turns out there are none I can find. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment can you help me find them? I got two other ones from the Patriots website that were also deleted. It said they were from the AP, but I was unsure if that since they were at the website that they'd be promotional. Just H 02:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You do appear to be right. I can't find any on the internet, and it's absurd to expect people to go track down someone who happens to have a picture. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, what exactly would such an image add to an article? Our standards for fair use requires that it adds something substantial and irreproducible, and I'm not sure what a single image can do for the whole season. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, obviously. News media photos cannot be used as fair use unless the photo is iconic. We're trying to move away from the "I can't find anything free so I'm using something from somewhere on the internet" photos. I would suggest asking on a Patriots message board. Surely, there are people on those boards who take their cameras to games and someone might be willing to release a photo under the GFDL. Fair use is for things like logos and screenshots - where there is no such thing as a free version of the work because anything we could create would be a derivative of the copyrighted original work. For something like this, anyone with a camera could (or could have) taken a picture, so there's no compelling reason to ignore our goal of being a free-content encyclopedia. BigDT 06:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 02:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion as per BigDT. Free use photo should not be that hard to find for this subject. Bwithh 03:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - we may need to consider making non-iconic news media photos a WP:CSD. Nothing whatsoever good can come from using news media photos. Unless the photo itself is newsworthy (in which case, you are using it as a fair use image to comment on the photo itself, not on the subject of the photo), it's a blatant copyright violation. You can't just call something fair use in order to avoid paying royalties, which is what we would be trying to do with this image. Whoever took this photo took it for the purpose of selling it to newspapers - that's how they put food on their family's table. If it is "fair use" to use the image without paying for it, why would any newspaper ever pay for a photo? We don't use news media photos and we can't use them ... that's one of the easiest ways for Wikipedia to get into copyright trouble. --BigDT 03:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, not a valid FU claim. I'd reccomend either going to a fan messageboard and asking for someone to release their photos under the GFDL, or else do what I did on the Central Coast Mariners FC article and write and request permission (there's boilerplate permission letters at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission). Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 04:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Globulation 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article (on Globulation 2, an open source real-time strategy game) was deleted on 20 december 2006, please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Globulation_2.

I (one of the main developer but not the creator/editor of the page on Wikipedia) think that wrt to WP:SOFTWARE and compared to other free software around, glob2 has his place on Wikipedia. Two reasons have been given for deletion: 1) alpha software and 2) no evidence of notability.

1) It is true that we list glob2 as alpha software on our web site. I personally decided so some years ago with respect to classical software development cycle, where alpha version is a version with not all features, beta version is a full-featured version with some bugs, and final version is (theoretically) perfect software. This model apply less to free software, where they are released often and constantly improved. Glob2's actual state is much more mature than most free software games. In particular, it is fully playable, including on the Internet, and included in most major distributions. I thus think that the objection about alpha software does not hold.

2) There is several evidence of notability, mostly distribution inclusion but journal article and web reference. Distribution inclusions:

• Ubuntu [2] [3] (listed as the real-time strategy game)
• Debian [4]
• FreeBSD [5]
• Gentoo [6]
• Darwin Ports [7]

There is also several RPM packaged by individuals on the net for RPM-based distributions. Glob2 may be included in other distributions, but I think that this sample shows its inclusion is not isolated. Glob2 has also been mentioned in several journals and web sites:

• Linux journal [8]
• The Linux Game Tome [9], 89 comments, 5 stars on 51 votes
• Several web sites [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] ...and more, but I won't copy paste here all google results ;-)

If you want to probe Glob2's notability, feel free to search the web using "glob2" or "globulation 2" keywords.

Thanks, have a nice day--nct 21:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Ghits are nice, but they are overinflated for internet content. Besides, you need reliable sources for the content, not just for existence, and I don't see any. And we list it as alpha on our website... conflict of interest doesn't convince me much. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I would tend to agree with nct (and I contributed only very minor crap to this game so I am completely fair and objective :) ) Rama 21:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Which is why WP:COI should never be used as the sole reason for something to be deleted. You still have to explain where these reliable sources are. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that just my words that Glob2 is usable would not be a receivable argument. Yet there is several way to assert its usability:

• anyone can test the game and judge by himself,
• glob2 has a rating of 5 stars (out of 5) based on 51 user votes on happypenguin. All those user consider the game to be usable, otherwise they wouldn't have given the best mark,
• glob2's feature list is much longer than other games considered as usable on Wikipedia,

In my original request, I explained why there was alpha (the deletion log stated alpha software as one of the reason for deletion) in the name of our releases, and I think this word should not be the decision criteria to choose if the game is usable or not.

For the rest of your arguments, I'm not sure to understand what you mean. What are ghits? Do you oppose any reference? Please be more precise, thanks. --nct 23:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say "usable", I said "notable". You've given little reason to believe it is, and less to believe that you have any reliable sources for the article. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFTWARE policy states that large distribution inclusion of open source software and references in published works are both good reasons to consider a software notable. I know that several paper journals did wrote about Globulation 2 but the only reference I've here is the Linux journal one. There is several web sites (not blogs) that talk about glob2. Being an open source program, it exists mostly on the Internet. But one clear fact is that glob2 has a large distribution inclusion. In addition, there is technical facts (the innovative gameplay for instance) that make glob2 different than, for instance, a clone of some commercial game ; but I understand that those facts do not enter Wikipedia's definition of notability. --nct 00:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability aside, where are your reliable sources for the article? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources ? What do you mean, sources ? It's Free Software, just download the sources and be done with it !CyrilleDunant 08:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how our sourcing policies work. You have to have secondary sources, too. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He provided no less than 15 sources (fifteen)...CyrilleDunant 09:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lack of sources is a valid criticism, but not of the kind that leads to the removal of an article. The remedy is to provide sources in the article. Rama 10:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um... I don't think there ARE any good sources, which means deletion. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse restauration. Rama 10:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse restoration. user:nct has made a good case for restoration. This article's nomination for deletion seems to be another instance when an over-enthusiastic deletionist jumped the gun. -- Geo Swan 14:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 02:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, I closed this. However if good verifiable sources have since been found then certainly undelete it. If not, then keep deleted. The personal attack by Geo Swan is quite unnecessary. I am not a 'deletionist', and find labelling wikipedians unneccessary. --Doc^g 02:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist (first choice) or overturn and undelete (second choice) per all above - a two-person AFD doesn't strike me as a consensus to delete, though I see no cause for criticizing Doc's actions in the matter. --BigDT 03:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tory Mason (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

This debate was closed after twelve deletes and five keeps as a "keep". Whether AfD is a !vote or not, this is clearly a slap in the face to consensus, and I believe the closing admin should be reprimanded. Denni^talk 01:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure. The delete people failed to indicate why he was non-notable, while the keeps gave the ways in which he fulfils WP:BIO. After the first keep, not a single person reccommended deletion. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I strongly disagree with your interpretation. Most of those voting to delete did have a reason. They may not have written an essay, but such is not required. On the other hand, most of the verbiage among the keep comments had not to do with why this person is notable, but rather, how awful it went to AfD so quickly. When delete or keep votes were registered is not a matter of consideration. Overturn and delete. Denni^talk 02:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...this one passes the criteria for WP:BIO in that he has multiple non-trivial articles written about him, as noted in his article (the articles listed are here: Tory Mason Interview and [17])." That's a reason, and more convincing of one than "non-notable". -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. When delete or keep comments were registered is relevant. The initial batch of votes came before the article was finished. After the article was completed, all subsequent votes were to keep. Although the original article did not do a good job of explaining notability, and predictably received mostly deletion votes, the finished version received no deletion votes, and should be allowed to remain. Also of note is that the AfD is not a vote, but an opportunity to come to a consensus: the arguments are what matters, not just the vote count. A good number of the votes violated WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and as the original deletion request was based on the idea that the subject did not fulfill the notability guidelines, which was shown to be incorrect, there is no reason for this article to be delted. -Todd(Talk-Contribs) 03:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure, AfD is not a vote. I agree with Majorly that the delete opinions were very weak, and failed to explain why they interpreted the idea of notability as such in this case (see this essay, there's a secton on it [18]). In contrast, those who gave their opinions as keep explained their interpretation, and in general made a better case. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 04:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure per Amarkov. Passes WP:BIO and WP:RS with flying colors. Gisele Hsieh 09:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure without prejudice to later AfD when people have finished adding what sources exist. Certainly a valid interpretation of the debate. Guy (Help!) 09:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure but as Guy mentions above, it would be worthwhile to have a thorough discussion of the article once it has sufficient sources. Brad Guzman 19:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure both per Guy, and the fact that the Keep arguements were excellent and compelling, whereas the deleted arguements were appalling. I'd refer those who !voted delete to Transhumanist's virual classroom, where there is an excellent explanation of how to "do AfDs". Martinp23 16:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]