< August 1	Deletion review archives: 2008 August	August 3 >

2 August 2008

Tekton Apologetics Ministries – requested data provided, come back if the history is needed for GFDL at a future date – GRBerry 00:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Tekton Apologetics Ministries (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` This deletion took place almost two years ago. It seems that three articles were deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Turkel, although only one was listed. The article Robert Turkel itself was deleted as a redirect to a nonexistent page, and the article James Patrick Holding was the only one deleted as a result of that AfD, even though it (the article) never got mentioned in the discussion. This looks like a mess, and I would like to know which one of 1, 2, or 3 was the actual article; what did the article contain. This is important because Holding's views are often cited as sources by various editors on articles related to Christian apologetics, but almost universally reverted immediately, but never on the grounds of WP:NPOV or WP:OR. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JP Holding -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] At the time of it's deletion, Tekton Apologetics Ministries was simply a redirect to Robert Turkel, and the last version before it was turned into a redirect was just a couple of brief paragraphs. James Patrick Holding was the article which contained actual content. This Wikipedia mirror still has the article, content looks to be the same as the deleted version. --Stormie (talk) 00:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] Thank you. I bookmarked that mirror site. It is becoming clear to me now why the article was deleted, though I think it should have gone through a thorough cleanup instead. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Tekton Apologetics Ministries – requested data provided, come back if the history is needed for GFDL at a future date – GRBerry 00:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This deletion took place almost two years ago. It seems that three articles were deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Turkel, although only one was listed. The article Robert Turkel itself was deleted as a redirect to a nonexistent page, and the article James Patrick Holding was the only one deleted as a result of that AfD, even though it (the article) never got mentioned in the discussion. This looks like a mess, and I would like to know

which one of 1, 2, or 3 was the actual article;
what did the article contain.

This is important because Holding's views are often cited as sources by various editors on articles related to Christian apologetics, but almost universally reverted immediately, but never on the grounds of WP:NPOV or WP:OR. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JP Holding -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of it's deletion, Tekton Apologetics Ministries was simply a redirect to Robert Turkel, and the last version before it was turned into a redirect was just a couple of brief paragraphs. James Patrick Holding was the article which contained actual content. This Wikipedia mirror still has the article, content looks to be the same as the deleted version. --Stormie (talk) 00:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. I bookmarked that mirror site. It is becoming clear to me now why the article was deleted, though I think it should have gone through a thorough cleanup instead. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Security-As-A-Service – Overturned. – Chick Bowen 14:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Security-As-A-Service (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`RfD`)` First off, "The XFD gave me a headache" is never a good reason to delete anything. Second, it's pretty apparent the deleting admin didn't even read the RFD in question (here. This redirect was nominated for deletion, but the link in the RFD discussion pointed to a page that didn't exist yet (the one referenced above). It was unanimously decided that not only should the redirect be kept, but that the accidentally linked page should also redirect to the target page (Security as a service). I created the redirect, fixed some double redirects, and things seemed fine...when the deleting admin comes along, improperly deletes the redirect I created as an R3, closes the RFD as delete against a unanimous consensus, and doesn't even touch the nominated redirect. In short, I ask for an Overturn of the RFD closure and speedy deletion. Note: I would have gone to the admin first, but the attitude of their deletion comments and the notice on the talk page that they do "not help resolve disputes" made me feel that course of action would be moot. --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] Does seem to be some confusion here, since the page with the RFD notice on wasn't touched even to remove the notice. This is the kind of one which to me would seem ripe for resolving with discussion with the deleting admin, which doesn't appear to have happened. The note about not resolving disputes seems quite clearly about resolving disputes between other editors rather than disputes with themself. I can't see how you can perceive any significant attitude from the deletion comments. It would take < 1 day to try to talk to them. Is this really that critical to the deadline that it wasn't worth trying but was instead worth running straight here and excusing it by making comments which could be read as smears against the deleting admin? --82.7.39.174 (talk) 09:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] I have nothing against the admin in question, I just feel the actions taken here were highly improper, and that discussion would have gotten me nowhere. Please don't read any more into it than that. --UsaSatsui (talk) 14:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] Without trying you made a judgement that discussion with them would get you no where. You misrepresent the admins talk page note that they don't get involved in disputes between editors to indicate that they aren't interested in resolving disputes. I don't need to read anything into that it's quite clear. It seems quite clear that the person actually unwillinging to enter in constructive debate to resolve a dispute is you, since you prefer to make broad brush assumptions about others. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 14:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] Yeah, because DRV isn't the place for constructive debate at all. And obviously I'm trying to avoid it so much, I notified the deleting admin of the discussion. You can second-guess my motives and intentions all you want, it doesn't accomplish anything. --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] You mean the same way you can second guess that discussion with the admin wasn't going to achieve anything? If you belive that taking something to DRV whilst stating, based on very little, that the admin in question is unlikely to entertain reasonable discussion and so you'll skip that courtesy is constructive, then I'll give up now. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] Again, I was just explaining why I went "out of process" up front, because somebody is going to ask, and that's the answer. But you know what? My actions are not under review here. This is Deletion Review, and there was a deletion I felt was improper, so I started a discussion here. Would you care to offer an opinion on the actual deletion, or just slam me some more because you don't agree with my reasons? And if the deleting admin thinks my reasons for skipping straight here are unfounded, or that I'm making unfair comments, they can defend themselves without your help, I'm sure. --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] While it's not directly pertinent, it's not the job of the individual to defend themselves on a wiki. See meatball:DefendEachOther. Note that when you perform an action on a wiki (like, say, this one) it's rather likely that someone will examine your actions in relation to that subject. Now, to show how this works: My dear IP friend, while I do appreciate your concern regarding UsaSatsui's viewing my (admittedly spartan and currently sterile) user talkpage as rather hostile, I'm afraid it does have the look of being less than welcoming to users at the moment. I would, however, suggest that anyone who's still worth being an admin (or an editor in general, but we tend to tolerate heavy-handedness less from those who have the extra buttons!) should be able to reply civilly to any visitor questioning them on their actions. If I screw up and you let me know, that's fine. I won't go into Evil Rouge God-Admin Mode and start blocking people for merely asking pertinent questions! :) Kylu (talk) 22:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] Overturn. There's no consensus in the discussion for deleting anything (in fact the deletion discussion resulted in the creation of a missing redirect). It appears that the deleting admin misread or misunderstood the discussion, and hence should not have closed it. It would perhaps, have been better to start with a note to them before bringing it here, but since it's here, it should be corrected. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] Overturn I see no reason n delete. Many users will prefer to bring things here--for some reason they tend to be scared of asking admins directly, especially when the admin has a talk page notice that says "Do not ask me to help resolve disputes (see the dispute resolution process). Administrators are for immediate technical help only." and another "If you're here to request an admin action, consider using the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard instead." These somehow do not seem designed to be encouraging. Now, in practice Kyle is very willing to discuss in detail what he does, but since he archives his talk page almost immediately, it's not all that obvious.,DGG (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] Insanely wordy response Hiya. Wow, a ton of assumptions up front that rather fail WP:AGF, but I'll ignore that for now (Oh, and kindly IP editor? You're my new best friend. You nailed the rationale for the talkpage notice on the head!) and just work on the redirects. Neither "Security As A Service" nor "Security-As-A-Service" are useful redirects, they're both implausible under the meaning of CSD R3: Redirects are useful solely to point plausible typos to the correct article. A valid redirect using hyphenation would be "Security-as-a-service" with all lower case (except for the enforced first upper case character), if any. While Help:Redirect allows for alternative case situations to result in additional redirects, this is only useful for situations where we're dealing with a target article requiring capitalization for proper nouns ("Microsoft Windows" for instance), in which case the only neccessary redirect is all lower case. For an active example, type "BUFFALO" in the search bar and hit go, you'll end up at the Buffalo disambiguation page without requiring a redirect. While overturning the deletion makes sense from a process point of view, I don't see how it's furthering the encyclopedia. I'd suggest, instead, creating the hyphenated redirect only and not creating alternative-case variants, since the target article is itself minimally capitalized. <- Closing admin: this is my suggested action. Consensus doesn't mean "outcome of a vote" and isn't limited to the discussion in one section of a page: On Wikipedia, we have to weigh the desires of the entire community in each action, which includes the previously stated consensus as expressed in extant policy pages. See Wikipedia:Consensus, focusing on the phrase "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, can not over-ride community consensus on a wider scale." (Don't take my quoting a policy page personally. If you've managed to read every bloody policy page on this site, I'd be quite impressed.) Oh, and feel free to talk to me first next time, even if it's not something I'm directly involved with. As long as the discussion isn't a verbal attack, I'm happy to discuss policies, my actions (admin or otherwise), or just the weather if you'd like. Sadly, I use preview often, so I have to resort to the occasional chatter to keep my editcount up. :D Mr. Goodman? Kylu's not a he. :) Kylu (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] With all due respect, Kylu, while it's true that consensus is a majority vote, it's also true that consensus is a product of the discussion, not something tacked onto it at the end. If you had something to contribute to the discussion, that's what you should have done - contributed to the discussion - and, as a consequence, not closed it. Tacking your opinion onto the end of the discussion without the opportunity for counterpoint is not a proper close. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] I apparently interpreted humor as hostility. I didn't mean to, and thanks for clearing things up a bit...I honestly thought you were being a serious grouch. --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] Oh no, I'm not scheduled to be a grouch until 9am Monday. Oddly enough it corresponds with mornings and staff meetings, go figure... Kylu (talk) 04:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] Overturn closure (undelete). The RfD discussion does not support the closer's decision either as articulated in the close or as explained here. The comment above implies that there is a wider consensus (such as a policy page) that was not raised during the RfD discussion which specifically concludes that redirects like this are inappropriate. I am aware of no such policy or decision. (We tend to discourage the creation of unnecessary redirects but once they are created, it's cheaper to ignore them than to add even the few extra lines to the database to delete them. Redirects really are that cheap.) Absent evidence of a wider consensus or policy decision, deference should be given to the consensus formed in the deletion discussion. This closure was outside the normal discretion granted to admins during closure. Rossami (talk) 04:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] Addendum: I am concerned about the closer's first point above that "[r]edirects are useful solely to point plausible typos to the correct article." That comment appears to represent a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose and value of redirects at Wikipedia. That is one of their uses. They also help preserve and document the history of pagemoves, consolidate similar topics, support disambiguation, etc. The current search engine now normalizes for capitalization variants and the en. settings for wikilinks normalizes for capitalization of the first character but those are not the only two ways that our readers navigate. Capitalization variants support some of those other techniques. Redirects have value far beyond their ability to help users of the search engine who don't know how to spell. Perhaps I am reading too much into the comment above but I am concerned when I see statements like that from administrators. Rossami (talk) For: Security-As-A-Service (now undeleted for your perusal): Page log & revision history: (diff) 04:22, 28 July 2008 . . UsaSatsui (Talk \| contribs \| block) (35 bytes) (← Redirected page to Security as a service) The lone revision: #REDIRECT [[Security as a service]] For: Security As A Service, page history with all revisions are visible. Miscreated redirect, then fixed, then selected for deletion. No significant page history and only one incoming non-Wikipedia space link (which actually should be fixed, but I'll let one of you do it instead for reasons that should be blatantly obvious). Neither redirect contains significant history documenting pagemoves or support disambiguation. Capitalization variant redirects should not be used to correct overcapitalized words: Instead, proper procedure would be to fix the outgoing link. Assuming that one statement (which is correct in this case, IMO) is applicable to all redirects, everywhere, is in fact reading a bit too much into it. I'd like to note that five days and 51 edits have gone into discussion of two redirect pages, created in a total of three days, counting all six revisions. Instead of applying WP:BOLD and WP:IAR to delete the redirects and correct the single incoming link, we will have (by the close of this DRV) created ten times as many edits, I'd estimate 30 to 40 times as much traffic and total characters in the database to support the final outcome, and will have added nil utility to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. I think process is fine when it supports the ultimate goal of this project, but I think we've crossed that line already. I'll respond to talkpage queries (yes, you can discuss disputes where I'm a party with me, ignore the banner for that! :) but I think we're starting to waste time and effort here now. Sorry guys. Kylu (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Security-As-A-Service – Overturned. – Chick Bowen 14:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

First off, "The XFD gave me a headache" is never a good reason to delete anything. Second, it's pretty apparent the deleting admin didn't even read the RFD in question (here. This redirect was nominated for deletion, but the link in the RFD discussion pointed to a page that didn't exist yet (the one referenced above). It was unanimously decided that not only should the redirect be kept, but that the accidentally linked page should also redirect to the target page (Security as a service). I created the redirect, fixed some double redirects, and things seemed fine...when the deleting admin comes along, improperly deletes the redirect I created as an R3, closes the RFD as delete against a unanimous consensus, and doesn't even touch the nominated redirect. In short, I ask for an Overturn of the RFD closure and speedy deletion. Note: I would have gone to the admin first, but the attitude of their deletion comments and the notice on the talk page that they do "not help resolve disputes" made me feel that course of action would be moot. --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does seem to be some confusion here, since the page with the RFD notice on wasn't touched even to remove the notice. This is the kind of one which to me would seem ripe for resolving with discussion with the deleting admin, which doesn't appear to have happened. The note about not resolving disputes seems quite clearly about resolving disputes between other editors rather than disputes with themself. I can't see how you can perceive any significant attitude from the deletion comments. It would take < 1 day to try to talk to them. Is this really that critical to the deadline that it wasn't worth trying but was instead worth running straight here and excusing it by making comments which could be read as smears against the deleting admin? --82.7.39.174 (talk) 09:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have nothing against the admin in question, I just feel the actions taken here were highly improper, and that discussion would have gotten me nowhere. Please don't read any more into it than that. --UsaSatsui (talk) 14:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Without trying you made a judgement that discussion with them would get you no where. You misrepresent the admins talk page note that they don't get involved in disputes between editors to indicate that they aren't interested in resolving disputes. I don't need to read anything into that it's quite clear. It seems quite clear that the person actually unwillinging to enter in constructive debate to resolve a dispute is you, since you prefer to make broad brush assumptions about others. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 14:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, because DRV isn't the place for constructive debate at all. And obviously I'm trying to avoid it so much, I notified the deleting admin of the discussion. You can second-guess my motives and intentions all you want, it doesn't accomplish anything. --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - You mean the same way you can second guess that discussion with the admin wasn't going to achieve anything? If you belive that taking something to DRV whilst stating, based on very little, that the admin in question is unlikely to entertain reasonable discussion and so you'll skip that courtesy is constructive, then I'll give up now. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Again, I was just explaining why I went "out of process" up front, because somebody is going to ask, and that's the answer. But you know what? My actions are not under review here. This is Deletion Review, and there was a deletion I felt was improper, so I started a discussion here. Would you care to offer an opinion on the actual deletion, or just slam me some more because you don't agree with my reasons? And if the deleting admin thinks my reasons for skipping straight here are unfounded, or that I'm making unfair comments, they can defend themselves without your help, I'm sure. --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        While it's not directly pertinent, it's not the job of the individual to defend themselves on a wiki. See meatball:DefendEachOther. Note that when you perform an action on a wiki (like, say, this one) it's rather likely that someone will examine your actions in relation to that subject. Now, to show how this works: My dear IP friend, while I do appreciate your concern regarding UsaSatsui's viewing my (admittedly spartan and currently sterile) user talkpage as rather hostile, I'm afraid it does have the look of being less than welcoming to users at the moment. I would, however, suggest that anyone who's still worth being an admin (or an editor in general, but we tend to tolerate heavy-handedness less from those who have the extra buttons!) should be able to reply civilly to any visitor questioning them on their actions. If I screw up and you let me know, that's fine. I won't go into Evil Rouge God-Admin Mode and start blocking people for merely asking pertinent questions! :) Kylu (talk) 22:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. There's no consensus in the discussion for deleting anything (in fact the deletion discussion resulted in the creation of a missing redirect). It appears that the deleting admin misread or misunderstood the discussion, and hence should not have closed it. It would perhaps, have been better to start with a note to them before bringing it here, but since it's here, it should be corrected. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I see no reason n delete. Many users will prefer to bring things here--for some reason they tend to be scared of asking admins directly, especially when the admin has a talk page notice that says "Do not ask me to help resolve disputes (see the dispute resolution process). Administrators are for immediate technical help only." and another "If you're here to request an admin action, consider using the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard instead." These somehow do not seem designed to be encouraging. Now, in practice Kyle is very willing to discuss in detail what he does, but since he archives his talk page almost immediately, it's not all that obvious.,DGG (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Insanely wordy response Hiya. Wow, a ton of assumptions up front that rather fail WP:AGF, but I'll ignore that for now (Oh, and kindly IP editor? You're my new best friend. You nailed the rationale for the talkpage notice on the head!) and just work on the redirects. Neither "Security As A Service" nor "Security-As-A-Service" are useful redirects, they're both implausible under the meaning of CSD R3:
1. Redirects are useful solely to point plausible typos to the correct article. A valid redirect using hyphenation would be "Security-as-a-service" with all lower case (except for the enforced first upper case character), if any.
2. While Help:Redirect allows for alternative case situations to result in additional redirects, this is only useful for situations where we're dealing with a target article requiring capitalization for proper nouns ("Microsoft Windows" for instance), in which case the only neccessary redirect is all lower case. For an active example, type "BUFFALO" in the search bar and hit go, you'll end up at the Buffalo disambiguation page without requiring a redirect.
3. While overturning the deletion makes sense from a process point of view, I don't see how it's furthering the encyclopedia. I'd suggest, instead, creating the hyphenated redirect only and not creating alternative-case variants, since the target article is itself minimally capitalized. <- Closing admin: this is my suggested action.
4. Consensus doesn't mean "outcome of a vote" and isn't limited to the discussion in one section of a page: On Wikipedia, we have to weigh the desires of the entire community in each action, which includes the previously stated consensus as expressed in extant policy pages. See Wikipedia:Consensus, focusing on the phrase "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, can not over-ride community consensus on a wider scale." (Don't take my quoting a policy page personally. If you've managed to read every bloody policy page on this site, I'd be quite impressed.)
5. Oh, and feel free to talk to me first next time, even if it's not something I'm directly involved with. As long as the discussion isn't a verbal attack, I'm happy to discuss policies, my actions (admin or otherwise), or just the weather if you'd like. Sadly, I use preview often, so I have to resort to the occasional chatter to keep my editcount up. :D
6. Mr. Goodman? Kylu's not a he. :) Kylu (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, Kylu, while it's true that consensus is a majority vote, it's also true that consensus is a product of the discussion, not something tacked onto it at the end. If you had something to contribute to the discussion, that's what you should have done - contributed to the discussion - and, as a consequence, not closed it. Tacking your opinion onto the end of the discussion without the opportunity for counterpoint is not a proper close. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I apparently interpreted humor as hostility. I didn't mean to, and thanks for clearing things up a bit...I honestly thought you were being a serious grouch. --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh no, I'm not scheduled to be a grouch until 9am Monday. Oddly enough it corresponds with mornings and staff meetings, go figure... Kylu (talk) 04:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn closure (undelete). The RfD discussion does not support the closer's decision either as articulated in the close or as explained here. The comment above implies that there is a wider consensus (such as a policy page) that was not raised during the RfD discussion which specifically concludes that redirects like this are inappropriate. I am aware of no such policy or decision. (We tend to discourage the creation of unnecessary redirects but once they are created, it's cheaper to ignore them than to add even the few extra lines to the database to delete them. Redirects really are that cheap.) Absent evidence of a wider consensus or policy decision, deference should be given to the consensus formed in the deletion discussion. This closure was outside the normal discretion granted to admins during closure. Rossami (talk) 04:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum: I am concerned about the closer's first point above that "[r]edirects are useful solely to point plausible typos to the correct article." That comment appears to represent a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose and value of redirects at Wikipedia. That is one of their uses. They also help preserve and document the history of pagemoves, consolidate similar topics, support disambiguation, etc. The current search engine now normalizes for capitalization variants and the en. settings for wikilinks normalizes for capitalization of the first character but those are not the only two ways that our readers navigate. Capitalization variants support some of those other techniques. Redirects have value far beyond their ability to help users of the search engine who don't know how to spell. Perhaps I am reading too much into the comment above but I am concerned when I see statements like that from administrators. Rossami (talk)

For: Security-As-A-Service (now undeleted for your perusal):

Page log & revision history: (diff) 04:22, 28 July 2008 . . UsaSatsui (Talk | contribs | block) (35 bytes) (← Redirected page to Security as a service)

The lone revision: #REDIRECT [[Security as a service]]

For: Security As A Service, page history with all revisions are visible. Miscreated redirect, then fixed, then selected for deletion. No significant page history and only one incoming non-Wikipedia space link (which actually should be fixed, but I'll let one of you do it instead for reasons that should be blatantly obvious).

Neither redirect contains significant history documenting pagemoves or support disambiguation. Capitalization variant redirects should not be used to correct overcapitalized words: Instead, proper procedure would be to fix the outgoing link. Assuming that one statement (which is correct in this case, IMO) is applicable to all redirects, everywhere, is in fact reading a bit too much into it.

I'd like to note that five days and 51 edits have gone into discussion of two redirect pages, created in a total of three days, counting all six revisions. Instead of applying WP:BOLD and WP:IAR to delete the redirects and correct the single incoming link, we will have (by the close of this DRV) created ten times as many edits, I'd estimate 30 to 40 times as much traffic and total characters in the database to support the final outcome, and will have added nil utility to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. I think process is fine when it supports the ultimate goal of this project, but I think we've crossed that line already. I'll respond to talkpage queries (yes, you can discuss disputes where I'm a party with me, ignore the banner for that! :) but I think we're starting to waste time and effort here now. Sorry guys. Kylu (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Image:01anthrax2-190.jpg – Kept deleted, as a free alternative now exists. Administrators are reminded, however, that images with a valid fair use rationale that are claimed as replaceable must be given time for proper debate. – Chick Bowen 23:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:01anthrax2-190.jpg (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`IfD `\|` article`)` Image meets every qualification for Wikipedia fair use Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) See: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 August 2 and Talk:Bruce Edwards Ivins (talk) 07:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] ~~Overturn~~ Leave deleted, but trout-slap for an invalid I7 speedy deletion. The only I7 criteria which allows instant deletion is "Non-free images or media with a clearly invalid fair-use tag (such as a `((Non-free logo))` tag on a photograph of a mascot)." This image had a source and a non-free use rationale which was not "clearly invalid". Additionally, the nomination at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 August 2 was ~~factually incorrect~~ extremely poorly worded, stating "uploaded image is not the subject of the article in which it appears," when it was being used to illustrate Bruce Edwards Ivins, and the source ([1]) describes it as "This undated photo provided by the Frederick News Post shows Dr. Bruce E. Ivins, a a biodefense researcher at Fort Detrick, Md." --Stormie (talk) 10:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] No, "uploaded image is not the subject of the article in which it appears" is perfectly correct. The article is not about the image (like Che Guevara (photo) is). The article is about the subject of the image. That makes all the difference between a legitimate fair use and a bogus claim made purely as an excuse to shop around on the Internet. Rama (talk) 22:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] Fair enough, I'll concede that it was just extremely poor wording giving the wrong impression of the nomination, not a factually incorrect statement. I think most readers would interpret "the subject of the article" as Bruce Ivins, and thus "uploaded image is not the subject of the article in which it appears" as "that's not a photo of Bruce Ivins". --Stormie (talk) 01:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] Overturn There was a reason given, and if there was disagreement about it, it needed discussion.DGG (talk) 20:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] Info: the "fair use" excuse for this image includes the notion that no free replacement can be found. One has actually been (Image:Bruce Ivins award ceremony.jpg), which proves in a totally ironclad manner that the image in discussion cannot be claimed as fair use. Restoration will result in this image being immediately deleted again. Rama (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion - irrespective of whether correct process was followed here, the fact that there is now a free alternative settles it that this was ultimately the correct outcome. Incidentally, I note that the image might also have violated NFCC#2, respect for commercial opportunities, as it seems to come from a commercial news source. This alone would have made speedy deletion mandatory. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] Actually according to CSD I7, violating NFCC#2 would make deletion "forty-eight hours after notification of the uploader" acceptable. I do agree that there is no call for this image now that a free replacement has been sourced, but the criteria under which fair use images can be deleted immediately, without giving the uploader a chance to respond, are extremely limited, and this image never fell under any of them. --Stormie (talk) 01:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Image:01anthrax2-190.jpg – Kept deleted, as a free alternative now exists. Administrators are reminded, however, that images with a valid fair use rationale that are claimed as replaceable must be given time for proper debate. – Chick Bowen 23:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image meets every qualification for Wikipedia fair use Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) See: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 August 2 and Talk:Bruce Edwards Ivins (talk) 07:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Overturn~~ Leave deleted, but trout-slap for an invalid I7 speedy deletion. The only I7 criteria which allows instant deletion is "Non-free images or media with a clearly invalid fair-use tag (such as a ((Non-free logo)) tag on a photograph of a mascot)." This image had a source and a non-free use rationale which was not "clearly invalid". Additionally, the nomination at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 August 2 was ~~factually incorrect~~ extremely poorly worded, stating "uploaded image is not the subject of the article in which it appears," when it was being used to illustrate Bruce Edwards Ivins, and the source ([1]) describes it as "This undated photo provided by the Frederick News Post shows Dr. Bruce E. Ivins, a a biodefense researcher at Fort Detrick, Md." --Stormie (talk) 10:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, "uploaded image is not the subject of the article in which it appears" is perfectly correct. The article is not about the image (like Che Guevara (photo) is). The article is about the subject of the image. That makes all the difference between a legitimate fair use and a bogus claim made purely as an excuse to shop around on the Internet. Rama (talk) 22:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I'll concede that it was just extremely poor wording giving the wrong impression of the nomination, not a factually incorrect statement. I think most readers would interpret "the subject of the article" as Bruce Ivins, and thus "uploaded image is not the subject of the article in which it appears" as "that's not a photo of Bruce Ivins". --Stormie (talk) 01:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn There was a reason given, and if there was disagreement about it, it needed discussion.DGG (talk) 20:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Info: the "fair use" excuse for this image includes the notion that no free replacement can be found. One has actually been (Image:Bruce Ivins award ceremony.jpg), which proves in a totally ironclad manner that the image in discussion cannot be claimed as fair use. Restoration will result in this image being immediately deleted again. Rama (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - irrespective of whether correct process was followed here, the fact that there is now a free alternative settles it that this was ultimately the correct outcome. Incidentally, I note that the image might also have violated NFCC#2, respect for commercial opportunities, as it seems to come from a commercial news source. This alone would have made speedy deletion mandatory. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually according to CSD I7, violating NFCC#2 would make deletion "forty-eight hours after notification of the uploader" acceptable. I do agree that there is no call for this image now that a free replacement has been sourced, but the criteria under which fair use images can be deleted immediately, without giving the uploader a chance to respond, are extremely limited, and this image never fell under any of them. --Stormie (talk) 01:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.