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

CSD misapplied. -IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse A7 deletion; the article as it stood was a one-liner that had nothing resembling a claim of notability in it. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability? CSD#A7 states that it is for:

An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability; to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable. A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on. Other article types are not eligible for deletion by this criterion. If controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead.

It's certainly controversial; if it wasn't obvious enough from the page, the talk page made it more so, as does BlueHippo. --IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had < 9 hours to object to the CSD. That's a reasonable time frame? --IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

more time than usual, unfortunately. It might have been 9 minutes. But there is no objection to reinserting an article that more clearly explains the notability; to keep it from regular deletion as well, there are probably some articles in the relevant trade or consumer press. Though I tend to be very reluctant to use A7 on companies, the information presented did not my opinion amount to an indication or claim of notability or importance or significance. DGG (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I won't argue about what's usual. I'm arguing that it wasn't reasonable, IMO. Nor was the deleter's refusal to restore upon my reasonable request. I jumped through hoops instead; fortunately google had a partial cache. I've created a draft in Userspace.--IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the "original deletor", I won't comment on the merits of this article but leave it for others to decide. I should like to point out that Speedy deletion is the entire point of the Speedy deletion procedure. Objections to it should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Also there is no right to instant undeletion upon a reasonable request; that is what this undeletion discussion page is for. Although I would have moved a copy of the deleted page to the user's page had they asked for one. Rmhermen (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hereby requested. Reasonableness is not predicated upon rights. --IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 20:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't request it to be restored, you left him an irrelevant, borderline offensive template message that's normally left for new users who remove bad language or offensive photos from articles. There's a difference. Stifle (talk) 14:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

False. I believe I wrote: "If you could please restore, thanks." The record shows I did. Or are you just trying to bait me? I changed your indentation to follow convention, BTW.--IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 01:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not false at all. Here's the diff. You tagged on a message at the end asking him to restore the article, but the main body of the message was a newbie warning. Stifle (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

False. I wrote: "If you could please restore, thanks." The record shows I did. --IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 05:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you did. You also left him a newbie warning. The "if you could please restore" was fine, the newbie warning was not. Stifle (talk) 09:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "Controversial" in a CSD is to be read as "the deletion is controversial", not "the subject is controversial". The snippet on the talk page merely indicates that one aspect of the subject's business practice might be controversial in an internet forum somewhere. That isn't relevant to the deletion being controversial. Google's cache isn't partial; that is all that was ever put in the article. I also see no claim of importance or significance here, so I endorse the deletion. If an article is going to be viable in the long run, it will be because independent and reliable sources exist on the subject. Don't look for forums; look for media coverage that is not just a press release reprint or business directory data. Then write the article according to the guidance at Wikipedia:Amnesia test. GRBerry 19:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't know what you're talking about. Google's cache is partial. s/<ref/ in it should turn up a match. --IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google's cached version of the article is all that you ever put in it. I just compared it to your deleted contribs. That's all there was, there was never more. Can I suggest that you keep working on this userfied version and ensure that it includes substantial reliable sources, then either post it again or (a better choice) ask someone for input before it's reposted? Tony Fox (arf!) 20:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... and pigs can fly. Again, Google's cache is partial. s/<ref/ in it should turn up a match but it does not. In other words, the reference(s) are missing. Can you suggest I do what I demonstrated - and said - I'm doing? Again, I've created a draft in Userspace, where it will stay (hopefully) 'till I can make it strongly defensible against an AfD. How 'bout you do what I suggested you do? (s/<ref/) Sheesh.--IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, yeah, the thing that you say is missing in the google cache is in the edit source, just not in the visible version of the article, which is what I review. It was a <ref> tag citing a non-reliable source (some yahoo group page) that you shouldn't be using anyway. Don't worry about it. GRBerry 20:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this GSB meeting announcement? "I can almost guarantee an interesting discussion next week, as our speaker will be Bruce Mattare, the founder and CEO of Tronix Country (www.tronixcountry.com). Tronix Country is a fast-growing direct response company. They run radio and (I think) television ads, and they take inbound calls to sell computers and other electronics. Most of their clients fall into the “subprime” category, so the company will take a couple of payments, ship out the computer, and then continue to take payments, all while reporting the good news to the credit bureaus so that the clients’ damaged credit reports will get a little better. Bruce is a veteran of a similar company that did everything wrong, so he has lots of war stories, and even while he now tries to do everything right he has issues that many business will never have to deal with. Come out and help him think through a couple of them next week." Removing "Founder and CEO" from his list of titles seems ... pedantic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IReceivedDeathThreats (talk • contribs) 20:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something posted on a Yahoo group is not a reliable source, as noted above. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the ref is not showing up in Google because the deleted version did not contain a ((reflist)) section to actually display the footnotes. The content was: "Speaker Invitation. URL:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/UofC-DC/message/419. Accessed: 2008-07-08. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/5ZAtEPu8b)". btw I'm not sure that a posting to a Yahoo group is really what Wikipedia would regard as a Reliable Source. --Stormie (talk) 22:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, spammy single-line article with no viable assertion of notability, references, or sources. Stifle (talk) 14:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment on sources [1] might be usable though not sufficient--though a press release, its one from a third party listing this company among some very notable companies whose ads they handle. But given that, it should be possible to find better. There certainly should be stories in local newspapers where they operate. The way to make progress is to find them, not argue here. DGG (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken however the article did "give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable", and yet it was still marked for speedy and speedied. Seems y'all continue to say that notability is the bar for speedying. Doesn't make it so. Whoever marked for speedy and speedied, screwed up. Other discussion might be helpful, but it's also OT. I'm not claiming the article was great as it was. I'm saying whoever marked for speedy and speedied, screwed up. --IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 01:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deleting administrator correctly pointed out that "this is not a vote," but seems to have glossed over the specific state of consensus in this AfD. There was consensus that the article meets WP:N, but consensus had not been reached as to whether it also meets WP:NAD and WP:NOT. Deleting administrator also correctly pointed out that some "keep" arguments--one of my own included--were not astoundingly strong, but seems to have neglected ones that seemed stronger, such as the argument that, due to demonstrable notability, this article is better-suited for expansion per WP:ATD than for deletion per WP:AFD. Sources demonstrate that "nucular" is more than a word, and that it is instead a lexical phenomenon that has garnered significant academic and public attention. Evidence of this is both qualitative, as demonstrated by this source, and quantitative, as shown here. Indeed, the latter source states that "[nucular] was the crime against English mentioned by the greatest number of respondents" in a newspaper-conducted poll. Although one editor took issue with enthusiasm over the first source, no one voiced any objection whatsoever to the latter. The deleting administrator's overall conclusion that the "keep" arguments were relatively ungrounded in policy is therefore questionable, because a strong case exists here for WP:ATD. Additionally, the reason does not take account of the direct quotation that was cited from the WP:NOT policy: "Articles that contain nothing more than a definition should be expanded with additional encyclopedic content, if possible. In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic topic, such as old school, Macedonia (terminology), or truthiness." Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment One of the alternatives to deletion listed is to cover the matter at one of our sister projects and this has been done in this case: see nucular. We also have at least one article which covers this material: see Epenthesis. This deletion therefore does not do much more than tidy up some redundancy. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am am absolutely baffled by this claim. The article DID have a very full history of the word, many sources, I could go on. But yet somehow you're pointing to this Wikitionary with three partial sentences saying that somehow the subject is covered with that?!?! No, simply no. The article has not been transwikied, the information is not repeated anywhere that I can find, and I can't make any sense of this claim. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The complaint above rambles all over the place but its main point seems to be that WP:ATD was not considered. My point is that it was and that the essential content is adequately covered both in Wiktionary and here. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you give me a link to where this is covered or was transwikied? I don't see it. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: "Essential content"--i.e., the basic phonetics/syntax/semantics--is what Wiktionary is for. The whole point of an encyclopedia is to go beyond these "essentials" and to explain where a concept exists amidst human knowledge as a whole (rather than to show where a word exists within the English lexicon). In other words, WP:NAD was misapplied in the AfD, and WP:ATD was not adequately considered. Cosmic Latte (talk) 05:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, there's certainly no consensus there to keep, and I'm waffling over there is one to delete. I think I'll have to say overturn to no consensus just to be on the safe side. What I am seeing clearly is that the delete !voters don't believe we should have an article on the subject and the keep !voters are saying that the content is fine. This would tend to lead me to believe a merge would be the best option, but I have no idea where to. If anyone has any suggestions as to a target, I believe this would be a workable compromise. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 11:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Reading the deletion discussion, I do not see how the conclusion was delete. To say why it shouldn't have been deleted would be to just repeat things from that page. Furthermore, accusing the keep side of ILIKEIT and "Pokemon argument" seemed out of line, when at the same time the delete side can say "delete per nom". WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a dictionary itself outlines the exceptions to the rule. None of the delete arguments sufficiently explained why this did not fit in those exceptions while the keep arguments did expound on this. In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic topic - that is in Wikipedia policy. This fits that criteria because it has had sufficient second party and academic attention, as well as being a bit of cultural institution. There is plenty of precedent on Wikipedia for this, the rules say clearly enough that we should keep it, and the deletion discussion did not have a consensus. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). The majority of the opinions expressed to keep this page were based on obvious misinterpretations of standing Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The notability of a word is not relevant to the decision. Neither are sources or the etymology (read "history") of the word. The only pertinent question in this discussion was whether the content had the potential to expand past mere dicdef status. The closer's weighting of the opinions based on their closeness to policy seems to me to have been within reasonable admin discretion.
  I further note that Wiktionary already has an entry for nucular (which means that the standard transwiki process does not apply). The deleted version had additional etymological and usage content that could have been used to improve the wiktionary entry, though. No objection to a temporary undeletion in order to allow the additional material to be moved over to Wiktionary. (In fact, give me a few minutes and I'll do that myself.) Rossami (talk) 13:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article was previously transwikied to wikt:Transwiki:Nucular but it has not yet been integrated into the main entry. Powers ^T 15:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You state, "The only pertinent question in this discussion was whether the content had the potential to expand past mere dicdef status." Exactly. I provided sources in the AfD (and re-cited them in my nomination for review here) to demonstrate that it can be expanded past dicdef status, if it isn't already past that status to begin with. No one took serious issue with any of these sources. In fact, shortly after I cited them in the AfD, one user stated, "Keep - notability established by sources." There was absolutely no consensus that the article violated WP:NAD, could not be expanded beyond a dicdef, or even was a dicdef to begin with. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Can the nominator please explain why he chose to ignore the instruction on this page saying "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page"? Stifle (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The nominator did not "choose to ignore" anything; the nominator simply did not see it, and was tired, rushed, etc. My apologies. Do note, however, that A) the admin stated that he anticipated an appeal; and B) I did notify the admin per the instructions. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point is that you are expected to discuss the matter with the deleting admin before coming to DRV, in an attempt to resolve the situation, unless the deleting admin has already waived that discussion. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Yep, I know. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from deleting admin - As I said in my deletion statement, I expected an immediate review. However, this seems to be turning into AFD Part 2, with the same characters and plot as the original, and I'm not going to participate in that. But I do want to elaborate on why I said the "deletes" were more policy-based. Aside from the ILIKEITS and the "we have X article so this should be okay too" arguments (which made up the majority of "keeps"), the main argument to keep seems to be that "in some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic topic". Nucular, however, is not a word.[2] It's a mispronunciation of "nuclear", for which we do have an article. So that policy does not apply here. The policies that do apply—such as WP:NOT—were cited by those in favor of deletion. Excluding the irrelevant "keep" arguments, there appears to be consensus to delete. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 14:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly, ILIKEIT is not an argument for delete, I point this out because in several places, it seems like you give it as such. Weather or not you think that people are arguing for something because they like it is just as irrelevant as a vote that makes an ILIKEIT argument itself. You paint a picture of the discussion that I don't agree with - refer to the examples of old school, Macedonia (terminology), or truthiness. You've painted a picture of the mention of these as "we have X article so this should be okay too", which is a gross misinterpretation. These were listed in the policy! Arguing about the phrasing of WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a dictionary is not relevant to this discussion, which is what you're doing there. There were keep arguments on the basis of notability, just as there were lackluster delete arguments. These were not the majority as you say. Your justification for deletion here is a strawman.
  • And yes, this shouldn't be made into an AfD #2. So why are you arguing this "isn't a word" now? Where did that come up in the deletion discussion? I don't see it. Did that have anything to do with the deletion? I could address this claim, but we're not supposed to do that here. The thing up for contention is the result of the discussion, which I strongly feel did not result in a consensus after the "Completely idiotic", "per nom", and "notability established" votes. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing anything here - I'm explaining my rationale for the deletion. As I said, I don't intend to participate in your arguments here any more than I did in the AFD. Everything I've said above was part of my reason for closing as delete. With (in my view, as the closer) no valid reasons to keep it, and plenty of well-stated reasons to delete, the relevant consensus was to delete (again, without giving undue weight to invalid arguments and comparisons to other articles). That's really all I have to say about it. Whether the deletion is overturned or not is really none of my concern. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 17:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, insofar as it is AfD2 we would expect the closing admin here to focus on only process issues rather than new evidence, strident recitation of claims, etc. As I note below, this seems to come down to one narrow, thorny question (IMO). I also don't think that answering that question should have been easy, so I really respect your openness toward further review. Protonk (talk) 13:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. I voted keep on this article on the basis that the article did, and had the potential to, contain more information than just a dictionary definition - which satisfies WP:NAD. Hence, I object to the closing admin's statement that the keep votes were not based on policy - the problem here is that the most relevant policy, WP:NAD, is vague and open to subjective interpretation on a topic such as this. The only consensus that I can see that developed from this AfD are that the article does satisfy other important Wikipedia policies such as WP:N and WP:V, with there being no consensus around whether it satisfies WP:NAD. Essentially, I feel this article was deleted based on one specific interpretation of an overly vague policy, and should at least be overturned as 'no consensus to delete'. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 17:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as the closer very sensibly seems to anticipate. When one is unsure how to close, usually that is a recognition that there is no consensus. DGG (talk) 17:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was no uncertainty as far as I'm concerned. It was pretty easy to see which arguments held water and which didn't. I just know that whenever an AFD discussion is that long, some people are always going to pule if it gets deleted. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 17:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: In line with what Theanphibian has been saying here, your assertion that "It was pretty easy to see which arguments held water and which didn't" seems pretty much like the deletion-review equivalent of WP:ILIKEIT. We all know the policies; we've read them; we weren't Wikiborn yesterday. Speaking of policy, one that seems especially relevant here is WP:CONSENSUS, and the bottom line is that there was no conensus in that AfD. Stalemate, deadlock, tie, hung jury. Whatever you want to call it, the people who voted Keep on the AfD--and the people who have voted Overturn right here--surely have some degree of intelligence that doesn't deserve to be insulted with such a blanket dimissal. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Voted" being the operative word. To say "we all know the policies" is patently absurd, particularly in conjunction with most AFDs - lots of people, as shown in this AFD, show up and say "keep per X". Worthless. It was easy for me to see who did understand policy, and how that policy related to the article, and it had nothing to do with what I like or dislike (other than that I don't like the excessive wikilawyering that always comes during and after long deletion discussions). Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 18:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Well, by that reasoning, votes such as "delete per nom" would be equally "worthless." But I don't see how concurring with someone amounts to "voting," anyway. If I believe that Person X has a sound argument, my opinion isn't devalued simply because it's in deference to Person X. Also it strikes me as a tad prejudgmental to assume that those who leave succinct or deferential comments are ignorant of various policies. (Of course, it's a different matter entirely when sock puppetry or meat puppetry is suspected, but there haven't been any accusations like that here.) Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, votes such as "delete per nom" are equally worthless and did not enter into the decision. If you believe that person X has a sound argument, your opinion is not only devalued - it's completely superfluous. Further input is only needed if you think the statement you agree with is lacking something. It's fine to say "keep per X" if you want, but all you're really doing is putting your name to one argument; if 100 people endorse it, it's still just one argument. If that one argument is invalid, 100 people who chose to endorse it have basically said nothing at all. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 19:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It makes sense to pay special attention to the more thorough and well-thought entries, but calling editors' contributions "worthless" raises some serious WP:AGF issues. Additionally, I fail to see the word "worthless" or any of its synonyms in WP:CONSENSUS. Then again, I suppose it would be a bit of a challenge to use such words after statements such as this: "Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together in a civil manner. Developing consensus requires special attention to neutrality - remaining neutral in our actions in an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can agree on." Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I said this "I originally voted keep and made some small, followon comments. I'm not a linguist or a lexicographer, so I found that further contribution to the debate would be repetitive." below. I didn't say much more in the original debate. I guess I should have said more, eh? Protonk (talk) 13:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to nuclear - POV problems, not a dictionary, but may be a plausible search term. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Sceptre, keep in mind that we're commenting on the AfD itself now, and not (directly) on the article. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn as rationale was inadequate, and likely censorship. (Add'l comment: Makes as much sense as deleting abortion, which is a word with a definition, but is also much more than that.)--IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article abortion is about the process, and includes a short, basic definition only as introduction to the material. The article is not about the word "abortion". This is illustrated by the fact that the interwiki links are to articles titled with the proper name of the process in those languages. An article about the English word "abortion" would be titled "Abortion" in every language's Wikipedia. If the nucular article satisfied those criteria, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. Powers ^T 22:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you say "definition only as introduction to the material?" Yes, you did.--IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - There were passionate and compelling arguments made on both sides of this discussion and a quick read-through of the discussion clearly shows no consensus. The closer's rationale for ignoring the "keep" arguments is too judgmental; "keep" arguments should only be disregarded this blatantly when there is obvious misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy, attempts at vote-stacking, or overwhelming WP:ILIKEIT-style arguments, none of which are the case here. The AfD should be overturned to no consensus. --Hnsampat (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as no consensus I originally voted keep and made some small, followon comments. I'm not a linguist or a lexicographer, so I found that further contribution to the debate would be repetitive. As I see it, this debate fell onto two things and two things only, WP:NOT and WP:DICDEF (As a subset of WP:NOT. Specifically, "In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic topic..." in WP:NOT versus the very clear language in WP:DICDEF. If the dicdef section was the only wording on the subject, this debate would be over. As far as I see it, it was the admin's job to compare the consensus and arguments about those two topics and how the letter of one may have suggested an action against the letter of another and if we could either keep or delete and still be in line with the spirit of the policy. That isn't an easy decision. As far as I'm concerned the other policy/guideline issues don't matter (and were dropped early on in the debate). It is clear the content of the article isn't simply a dicdef but not clear that the added information is enough to qualify as what ought to be a rare exception to WP:NOT. The closing admin for this review ought to look at keep/delete comments in light of what the controlling policy was (NOT and DICDEF) when looking for which votes were grounded in policy. Then we can get a good idea of how consensus ought to be read. Of course, my opinion on that reading is slanted, but I think that no consensus is the right answer. Also, we should look at either softening the DICDEF language or clarifying the 'exception' that appears to exist in WP:NOT. Protonk (talk) 22:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been trying to kick start such a conversation at WT:Wikipedia is not a dictionary to little avail. Powers ^T 22:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wander on over there sometime this weekend. Protonk (talk) 13:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Concurring comment - I have to say, what Protonk spelled out above is the most clear and rational explanation for why this deletion ought to be overturned. --Hnsampat (talk) 10:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) Protonk (talk) 13:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, I think what Protonk spelled out above is the most clear and rational explanation for why I deleted the article. Since DICDEF does not apply at all (because "nucular" is not a word) I could only consider the opinions that were grounded in policy. That left NOT (which was used by both sides in the AfD). Again, since nucular isn't a word—that's a fact, not my opinion—the exception noted in WP:NOTDICDEF did not apply here. All that was left was to delete it. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 16:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is unusual at all. I feel that a decision to delete the entry could have looked at the dilemma I proposed and come out with a 'delete' result. However, if you presume that nucular isn't a word and exclude the "main" DICDEF policy then you are left with WP:NOT which provides the exception for articles which branch 'words' and concepts. But either way, it was a hard decision, and I hope that sentiment came across. Protonk (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn for a number of reasons. First, the admin's statement, "Most keeps are a take on ILIKEIT or the Pokemon argument", is an incorrect summarization. It's true that a single editor, Ten Pound Hammer, jokingly began his comment with, "Keep because I say "nucular" too", but immediately followed with, "No, seriously ..." and made his "real" argument. LegoTech characterized this as an ILIKEIT comment, and the admin seized upon this word to characterize the entire discussion. The admin's comments have the appearance of gravitating toward the most inflammatory language without evaluating the merits. Second, the admin's statement that the "Delete" votes were "more grounded in policy" oversimplifies both the policy and the conversation. For example, "Delete" votes consistently cited WP:NOTDICDEF and its title, "Wikipedia is not a dictionary". In contrast, "Keep" votes drilled down into the content of WP:NOTDICDEF to point out that the policy as a whole is not as simplistic as "Wikipedia is not a dictionary". Among other things, WP:NOTDICDEF says, "Articles that contain nothing more than a definition should be expanded with additional encyclopedic content, if possible." If anything, the instructions in WP:NOTDICDEF advocate expansion, not deletion, of articles. As a side note, "Delete" arguments include the irrelevant claim that the article was biased when it originated (five years ago), and the incorrect claim that George W. Bush is singled out for individual criticism in this article (arguments made, by the way, by Colonel Warden, whom the admin specifies as making the most meritorious arguments for deletion). In fact, now that I see that the admin is specifically saying Colonel Warden's arguments are "more grounded in policy" than the "Keep" arguments, I'm a little concerned about the admin's impartiality. Third, the "Keep" comments did a thorough job pointing out the content already in the article that is encyclopedic. Nucular clearly meets WP:NOTDICDEF, notability, WP:V, and other criteria for inclusion. My personal favorite: Cosmic Latte saying to Colonel Warden: "Ironically, this source that you provided (via Google) just confirms what I've been saying all along: "Noo-kyuh-lur was the crime against English mentioned by the greatest number of respondents," it says. (!!!!) Thanks! We should add that to the article. This sort of expansion is the sort of thing that WP:NOT and WP:ATD have in mind." My point: Are the "Keep" arguments more complex than just citing titles? Yes. Does complexity and a more complete reading of Wikipedia policy make the "Keep" arguments invalid? Absolutely not. Fourth, the original discussion resulted in 13 "Keep" votes and 10 "delete" votes including the nominator's. I realize that numbers are not the sole determiner, but Wikipedia:Deletion_policy explicity recognizes consensus as one consideration: "If there is no rough consensus, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging or redirecting as appropriate." The admin's comment "since this is not a vote, the article is deleted" suggests, again, an oversimplified interpretation of Wikipedia policy. To back up his decision, it appears he's using false criteria to invalidate one side's arguments, and an authoritarian distortion of policy to override consensus. Fifth, every article in Wikipedia is evolving. Deletion decisions should consider an article's potential, not just its current state. Even if it were true that the article currently had no encyclopedic content (which, as pointed out, it already does), the deletion decision should partly consider whether it could in the future. In summary, this deletion decision appears to lack due diligence. It results from an oversimplified interpretation of Wikipedia policy and an incorrect characterization of the deletion discussion. Thirdbeach (talk) 00:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, deletion discussions should consider an article's potential, but at some point we have to say "this just isn't a topic appropriate to an encyclopedia." Seriously, is there any word in the English language for which we couldn't write an article containing information comparable to what was in Nucular? Powers ^T 01:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Possibly, but that's not the question before us. Thirdbeach (talk) 01:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not directly, but if the answer to the question is "no", then WP:DICDEF means something very different from what it appears to, and that does indeed have an impact upon the decision made here. Powers ^T 01:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • No matter what the answer to your question is, Nucular is in the process of being judged (hopefully) on its own merits, a discussion which is bigger than just WP:DICDEF, and certainly doesn't require (and wouldn't benefit from) a review of every word in the English language. It would be an injustice to this discussion and the many excellent points raised, to oversimplify and divert it into a single question about whether there are other words that are edge cases in one facet of one consideration. Thirdbeach (talk) 04:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Actually, there is no word in the English language for which we could make a comparable article, for the repeatedly-reiterated, completely sourced reason that this word "was the crime against English mentioned by the greatest number of respondents." ("Greatest" is a superlative. When it comes to superlatives, there's only one!) I'm baffled by the pro-deletion folks' unwillingness to challenge the relevance of this finding. The finding does not apply to any other word, and it certainly makes this "word" unique among mispronunciations. Again, what we have here is expansion beyond dicdef; again, what we have is a WP:ATD; and again--and most to the point in a deletion review--what we do not have, and never did have, was consensus to delete the article. Cosmic Latte (talk) 04:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • So what was the "greatest" crime against English before "nucular" was coined? And is there any guarantee it will always be the "greatest"? Powers ^T 12:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't know what the previous "greatest crime against English" was before this poll was conducted. So what? I don't know what the results of any poll would have been, had it been conducted in the past, and I don't know what they'll be if the poll is conducted in the future. Well then, I guess we should ignore all research findings on the grounds that they haven't been discovered by time-travelers?! Come on. Cosmic Latte (talk) 07:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. My point was that the finding you mention doesn't make the pronunciation "unique" because other pronunciations could have had a similar designation in the past and may in the future. That's all; nothing more. Powers ^T 13:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I am concerned that Powers' argument, which is compelling even though I disagree with it, is drifting towards WP:IDONTLIKEIT. (On a totally unrelated note, whoever had the idea of putting the image of the "nucular" explosion above to keep things WP:CIVIL around here...BRILLIANT! :) ) --Hnsampat (talk) 10:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps to some extent, although it's less "I don't like it" and more "I don't think this is an encyclopedic topic." A fine distinction? Perhaps, but I think it's a valid one. Powers ^T 12:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Endorse deletion Easy mistake to make. This word has a place in our lexicon and the information contained in nucular could be worth keeping, or at least be merged into nucular as a subtopic. The material is worth saving and wiktionary is insufficient. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with this comment. A useful measuring stick for me is "if I saw full article on Wikitionary, would I believe it's the right place?" And the answer would be no. [3] is objectively what it should have, to the extent of what I understand about Wikitionary. Since notability was established and value was generally seen in the material existent, and a delete decision basically translates into "transwiki", then the (valid) discussion was weather this was encyclopedic or dictionaric (I know that's not a word). The question at hand is: which of these did the discussion yield? -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Exactly. WP:NAD was thrown around a lot in the AfD, perhaps because the article contained the word "dictionary" or perhaps because the unusual spelling focused people in on the "word" per se. But the sources provided, both in the article and in the AfD, suggested that the article can be expanded to (or was even already at) a length and depth beyond that which would be appropriate for Wiktionary. In any case, there was never anything even remotely close to consensus that A) the article failed WP:NAD, or B) the article failed WP:ATD, especially in light of the sources provided. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand what you're saying, but there's no requirement that Wiktionary articles be short and brief. There is no length or depth that is inappropriate for Wiktionary. Lots of dictionaries include extensive usage notes, etymology, and history. Wiktionary, as a not-paper dictionary, is especially well-suited to such things. That's why WP:DICDEF doesn't say "well if it gets too long, you can leave it here in Wikipedia." The distinguishing characteristic is not the quantity or comprehensiveness of the information, but the nature of the topics themselves. Powers ^T 12:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: A fair point. And I don't know Wiktionary policy, but...sticking with local policy, because WP:NAD doesn't specify in any absolute sense where the fine line between dictionary and encyclopedia must be drawn, then it might be good to think in relativistic terms about articles that seem to straddle the line. Was the WP Nucular article significantly longer than the average dictionary/Wiktionary entry? Well, yes, it was. Did it cite significantly more varied and independent sources than the average dicdef? Again, absolutely. We could get into all sorts of philosophical debate about what constitutes a given category, such as "dictionary definition" or "encyclopedia article" (family resemblance, anyone?); but when the distinctions get this fuzzy, and when the interpretation of policy gets this outrageous, it might be best to look for a more expedient solution. And such a solution, I believe, exists in the sort of inclusionism inherent in WP:ATD. In short, did the article violate WP:NAD? Well, three answers come to mind. First, I, personally, don't think so. Second--more objectively speaking--maybe, maybe not. Third, and most importantly for current purposes, there was no WP:CONSENSUS either way. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, correctly belongs at Wiktionary. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: On what grounds? Or, more to the point, on which grounds explicitly discussed in the AfD? Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What LegoTech said there. Stifle (talk) 12:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ooo, I just hate it when incorrect information takes on a life of its own through repetition. So, for the record, LegoTech's comment, in total, was, "delete the "this is how I say it too" !votes are little more than WP:ILIKEIT It's a dicdef with refs. Wiktionary has entries that are detailed and contain references as well, this doesn't need to be here." As pointed out before, LegoTech's first sentence represents a complete misreading/mischaracterization of Ten Pound Hammer's comment. LegoTech's second sentence has been robustly and repeatedly refuted throughout the subsequent discussion. Thirdbeach (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn -- clear WP:CONSENSUS to keep. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 09:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus. I've been agonizing over this case since yesterday, trying to decide what should happen here. I think, now, that fact itself is indicative that there really was no consensus one way or another what to do with this article. Shereth 15:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus. There was ample argumentation from the "keep"ers that the article was far more than a dicdef. wikt:Tanswiki:Nucular has no hope of being kept at Wiktionary for precisely that reason: it's an encyclopedia entry, not a dicdef, and so has no business in a dictionary. —Angr 16:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Special:Contributions/Kafziel indicates that the admin spent at most 10 minutes reviewing nucular and the AfD, and arriving at the delete decision. Most of his AfD reviews that day took 1 or 2 minutes, but I don't think even 10 minutes constitutes due diligence given the length and depth of the commentary. I'm also troubled by the admin's 13 subsequent "contributions" removing wikilinks in other articles to nucular. Smacks to me of 1984 Ministry of Truth-style rewriting of history, especially since his "close" comment clearly anticipated that it would be appealed. Thirdbeach (talk) 17:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, spare me. Is there ever a deletion review where someone doesn't mention Big Brother? And what does it even mean? Did the Ministry of Truth make close comments that anticipated an appeal? Give it a rest.

I deleted the redirects because that's what you're supposed to do to unused redirects. I deleted the links because most of them were "see also" links, which should not be red. It was housekeeping to clean up after the mess I made by deleting it. If I hadn't done that stuff, someone would have complained about that. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 17:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, neither of the other appeals on this page mention Big Brother .... My point is that a lot of people put a lot of time into Wikipedia. An admin who acts too hastily does harm to Wikipedia and undoes a lot of work by a lot of contributors. The wikilinks you removed should have been your second indicator that nucular was more than just a word (your first should have been an impartial and careful reading of the article and AfD). Thirdbeach (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment "Smacks to me of 1984 Ministry of Truth-style rewriting of history" is pretty blatantly meant to evoke the image of Big Brother. Second, the wikilinks are not an indication that this is "more than just a word," as there are often pages wikilinked that don't need to be. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Kafziel's question was immediately beneath and in response to mine, it was clear that he was responding directly to my 1984 comment. There's no question my words evoked Big Brother and indeed that's part of Kafziel's point. The other part -- the part I disagreed with -- is the implication that every deletion review invokes Big Brother. That assertion is not supported even by the other deletion reviews on this page (TronixCountry above, and Image:The Family of Blood.jpg below, the discussion of Nucular). In terms of "pages wikilinked that don't need to be", I don't doubt that's true, but the sheer quantity of links and brief time over which they were removed (13 links in 12 minutes) doesn't suggest that there was much care given, and given that the admin's deletion comments clearly anticipated appeal, doesn't show great judgment. I'm happy to back off the Big Brother language, but still have concerns that the admin's actions throughout have indicated a lack of due diligence, a tendency to oversimplify policy and the discussion, and raise doubts about impartiality. Thirdbeach (talk) 19:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Wikilinks don't make an article notable. They don't even hint at an article's notability. If I had a nickel for every garage band, spammer, and wannabe that showed up, created an article, and then added Wikilinks to it in other articles (usually in "See also" sections, as this was) I'd be a very rich man. But aside from that, notability was not at issue here anyway.

I spent more than enough time reviewing it. I'm not sure how long it takes most people to read two web pages, but I don't need to sound out the big words so it goes by pretty quickly for me. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 18:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I favor overturning the AfD, I believe that Kafziel was acting in good faith. Thirdbeach, I think you need to WP:AGF. --Hnsampat (talk) 13:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by closing admin - For what it's worth, I've uploaded an annotated AFD screenprint to point out how my decision was made. It's not subject to debate - I think I've said all that needs to be said at this point and I won't be commenting further at this DRV - but if you're interested, it's here. I'm going back to writing the encyclopedia. Love and kisses, Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 18:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I certainly appreciate the effort, and I don't doubt that you put considerable thought into the decision. Still, I don't see how the highlighted points demonstrate any misconstrual of policy or guidelines. The "ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT" points (yellow) are not, admittedly, the strongest statements in the AfD. But they were never meant to be. We weren't saying, "Keep, because it's well-written and, besides, my brother says 'nucular' too." The yellow-highlighted sentiments are simply the byproducts of human beings expressing their views with minimal revision. On to the "notable vs. non-notable" arguments (green). The fact that a page is a guideline rather than a policy shouldn't amount to it being "not considered"; rather, it should be considered to the fullest extent possible, unless a policy overrides a specific instance of it. So, on to the policy-related points we go. As for the "more than a DICDEF" arguments--these were some of the strongest "Keep" arguments, but they were "not considered because 'nucular' is not a word." I fail to see the reasoning here. If dicdefs are about words, and if nucular is not a word, then Nucular was not a dicdef--so why bother invoking WP:NAD at all? If it wasn't a dicdef, then what was it? Patent nonsense? Vandalism? Clearly not, as there was consensus that it met that little guideline called WP:N, and there's no evidence that any of the article was created in bad faith. Then again, are dicdefs strictly about words? I've seen plenty of dictionary entries that don't jive with my intuitive sense of what a "word" is. And that brings up the question of what a "word" really is, anyway. Who decides when a little group of phonemes suddenly qualifies as a "word"? Regardless, the nature of words is not brought up in WP:NAD, and it most certainly wasn't brought up in the AfD. Maybe we should have said that the article is more than a dictionary-esque definition. Whatever. The point is that there is neither solid evidence nor consensus that the article violated WP:NAD, and there was a formidable case that the article is encyclopedic, regardless of what sense in which it may or may not be "dictionaric." Now, the "only a mispronunciation/dicdef" arguments (in the fourth colour..."strawberry milk," shall we say?). Once again, it's clear that WP:NAD was thrown around a lot in the AfD. What's not clear--and what's downright opaque in light of what I just said about the pink-highlighted comments--is just how the article qualified as a dicdef in the first place. Still, I see neither evidence nor consensus that it did. Finally, as for the "Pokemon arguments"...WP:POKEMON is not policy. It's not even a guideline. It's an essay. I'd be the first to point out a bona fide argumentum ad populum, but I was pointing to the fact that articles comparable to Nucular were, not simply large-scale WP:ILIKEITs, but rather survivors of prior AfD discussions. In other words, comparable WP:CONSENSUS had been reached before! It wasn't reached with regard to Nucular, but it would seem wholly reasonable tentatively to retain the article per that prior, comparable consensus, even if WP:ATD didn't already encourage inclusionism in these instances. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The screenshot appears to illustrate that the delete decision was based on overgeneralizing fragments of comments, shoe-horning those overgeneralizations into categories they don't necessarily fit, and dismissing the entire comment if any part of it could be overgeneralized. It appears to me to be as strong an argument as any other we have, to overturn the deletion. Thirdbeach (talk) 21:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Many of the comments above show that the policy WP:DICTIONARY is not comprehended by the objectors. The test is not the length of the entry but its nature. If the article concerns a topic then it belongs here but if it concerns a word then it belongs in Wiktionary. Wiktionary makes it clear that it aims to provide comprehensive coverage of words like this: "We aim to include not only the definition of a word, but also enough information to really understand it. Thus etymologies, pronunciations, sample quotations, synonyms, antonyms and translations are included.". It is not sensible for the projects to duplicate each other's work and this segregation is well-establihsed by policy here. The closer seems to understand this line of policy-based argument better than the objectors and so his judgement was reasonable. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "[D]uplicate each other's work"? How much of the article was devoted to definition, pronounciation, translations and so forth? The intent of WP:DICT has always been to increase project focus by decreasing redundancy with other information sources, not to arbitrarily exclude articles because they have one-word titles. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 21:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one's suggesting that; the thing is, there was nothing of importance in this article that wouldn't fit just fine at Wiktionary. Having identical articles in both places makes no sense. Powers ^T 01:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The only content that could be transwikied is a modified/reformatted version of the two sentences in the lead, and a highly abridged version of the lexical commentary; the rest would have to go. You may not consider the rest of the content important, but of course that's not how inclusion is decided... I don't really consider it important myself, nor do I consider Teletubbies important. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 07:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • In lieu of all my rambling, I suppose that I could've simply pointed to comments, like the one above, from xDanielx. Well-said. And consistent, I think, with my own view (quite contrary to accusations of WP:ILIKEIT) that, although "nucular" might not be of earth-shattering importance, it is still encyclopedic enough to merit inclusion in a "compendium of knowledge," especially of a digital nature. Cosmic Latte (talk) 07:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, virtually the entire article was perfectly suited for Wiktionary, given some formatting changes. The actual content, though, is precisely within Wiktionary's scope. I'm amazed that you don't think a discussion of the usage and history of the word is suitable for a dictionary. Powers ^T 13:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm WP:AGF-ing to the best of my ability here, but I can't help but wonder if there is some WP:POINT that User:Colonel Warden is trying to make. For one thing, it is obvious that Nucular included far more than "etymologies, pronunciations, sample quotations, synonyms, antonyms and translations." It included scholarly debate and, as has been reiterated about a thousand times, it can include the results of at least one poll that showed "nucular" to be the highest-ranked "crime against English." Now here's the real kicker. User:Colonel Warden created the articles Singe and Eyesore, both of which are, by far, considerably less informative and more dictionary-like than Nucular was. So why create those articles, and allow them to remain in their current form, even while supporting deletion of Nucular? I don't know. But I find it awfully interesting that User:Colonel Warden's initial objection on the AfD was that the article seemed to be some subtle attack on George Bush; that he ambitiously packed two policies (WP:SOAP and WP:ATTACK) and an essay (WP:COATRACK) into some rhetorical snowball to throw at the Keepers; and that, only two days later, apparently upon realizing that this snowball failed to hit the WP:CONSENSUS mark, did he mention WP:DICT. Again, I'm really AGF-ing as much as possible, and I'm sure that User:Colonel Warden is a fine human being. But something was seriously screwy in that AfD; consensus was never reached, policies were not misconstrued by Keepers, and the deletion was entirely unwarranted. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please don't bring up WP:POINT unless you really mean to imply that someone is disrupting Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with simply making a point; that page says "Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point." Powers ^T 01:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I meant to bring up WP:POINT, and might as well have brought up WP:WL too, because it seems to me that policies are being referenced here in haphazard, selective, and otherwise questionable ways. True, POINT and WL are considerably more accusatory than I'm being. That's why I made sure to emphasize that I'm assuming good faith. It's my nature to assume good faith unelss I have an obvious reason not to do so; I don't expect anyone to be perfect, and I'd hope that people would AGF with me when I mess up. But, although I'm not trying to assign undue blame or to assume any negative intentions, I do find the contradiction-rich bombardment with policies/guidelines/essays to be counterproductive--even disruptive, one might say--to the consensus-building process. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As for Singe and Eyesore, both appear to me to be about the concepts the words describe, rather than about the words themselves. Neither one talks about the development of the word, or its pronunciation, or its part of speech, or its usage by famous people. The "eyesore" article would work just as well at unpleasant view or ugly sight, while the "singe" article would work just as well at slight scorch or superficial burn. The Nucular article, on the other hand, would have completely different content if it was at a different title, because it's about the "word" itself. Powers ^T 01:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: This "the-word-itself" vs. "the-concept" dichotomy appears to be the invention of the AfD disccuants for this article a false one. WP:NAD and WP:NOT make no claim whatsoever that a word is not encyclopedic if it simply happens to be understocked in the semantics department provide us with some family resemblances for dictionaries and encyclopedias, and they do not assert that the categories are mutually exclusive. Indeed, WP:NOT admits that they are not mutually exclusive. There is no reason why a heavily lexical encyclopedia entry and a heavily cultural dictionary entry cannot overlap to a reasonable extent on some fundamental content. WP:NOT does, however once again, state that, "in some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic topic, such as old school, Macedonia (terminology), or truthiness"--a line that was cited in the AfD. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• My understanding of the key principle here comes from WP:NAD which makes the point in exhaustive detail at WP:NAD#The differences between encyclopedia and dictionary articles. If you consult that table, it is quite clear that Nucular belongs in the Wiktionary column because it is about the actual words or idioms in their title, variant spelling, usage and etymology while it has no content about nuclear science, weapons, power or the like. It could hardly be clearer. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You are correct in implying that my previous comment conflicted with WP:NAD, and I've struck revised it through accordingly. Still (and this is a point that should probably be implied just as well in WP:NAD itself as it already is in WP:NOT's summary of WP:NAD), I think that the solidity of the line between the Wikipedia and Wiktionary columns on that page is more a matter of HTML convention than of WP policy. In other words, the boundary gets fuzzy. And I still think that Nucular is happily diffusing back and forth across that fuzzy membrane. (I am not the first person to observe the problems with trying to dichotomize dictionaries and encyclopedias as if their aims and natures were entirely distinct.) And still, I think Nucular is largely consistent with the WP:NAD criterion that "articles are about the people, concepts, places, events, and things that their titles denote." As for people, we have three U.S. presidents, several academics, and even a polled sample of the public. Concepts? We've got metathesis and all of the other technical terms that were mentioned in the AfD. Well, okay, these are still lexical concepts, but Geoffrey Nunberg offers anecdotal evidence that "nucular" does denote "nuclear," as in "nuclear warfare," but not as in "nuclear family." Perhaps a more transparently encyclopedic article could be made about Nunberg's book, or about "thinkos" (Nunberg's term for a thought typo), and the old content of the Nucular article could be merged with it. But first, we'd need to figure out which article along these lines could be independently and reliably sourced. But in the mean time, the article topic definitely denotes enough people and ideas and cultural sentiments that, however suited for Wiktionary it might be, it is also suited, to some non-negligible degree, for Wikipedia. So, although I think your point here was entirely reasonable, Colonel Warden, I still come back to where I first began: There was no unequivocal misconstrual of policy by Keepers in the AfD, and there was no consensus either way in the AfD. Because it is the AfD we are reviewing here, I still maintain that deletion was unwarranted (or at least wholly premature, in the event that there's a good potential article into which the bulk of Nucular's content could be merged), and that Overturn is the best vote here, given what we had there. Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not what "denote" means in that context. The article Octopus is about the eight-armed mollusk; the article is about the animal which the title "Octopus" denotes. This article was about "Nucular", not about the concept(s) that "Nucular" denotes (that being the same as the concept(s) that Nuclear denotes). And I'm still interested in why you chose two articles that are clearly not about words to compare to this one. Powers ^T 13:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was drawing from both WP:NAD, which implies "denote" in the way you mention, and WP:NOT, whose summary of WP:NAD explains that words/numbers of extra cultural significance may qualify as encyclopedic. Perhaps I treated the article and summary in a more unified way than that in which they're currently presented (which might be an interesting issue to bring up on the policy talk pages, if there really is a meaningful contradiction between WP:NAD and the WP:NOT summary of it); but in the sense that WP:NAD clearly uses "denote," it's quite possible to cite Nunberg in opening the article with something to the effect of "Nucular is a common mispronunciation of 'nuclear,' but may denote 'nuclear' only in reference to nuclear weaponry and not in reference to other uses of the word, such as 'nuclear family.'" I agree that the content might jive a bit better with WP:NAD if it were merged into a more transparently "conceptual" article, such as one about Nunberg's book or about his concept of "thinkos"--the actual article name would depend on which concepts, if any, encompass "nucular" and meet other WP inclusion criteria. In any event, there are certainly ways to tag the article for improvement. But wait, why are we going on about this here? This should be a talk page discussion on the restored article, because this review is of the AfD itself, and the AfD produced zero consensus. Anyway, in the earlier entry I chose those two articles for comparison because, as of now, they tell us little more than what a dictionary might tell us about the concepts, and I was a bit perplexed by what appeared to be the haphazard use of WP:NAD here, which could have been used in an equally haphazard way on those two articles. But, as I mention above, Colonel Warden has a good point in his comparison between specific cells in the WP:NAD columns--although I still think that nucular straddles a fuzzy boundary between the concepts. And, most importantly here, it left us with "fuzzy" consensus in the AfD. So, once again, this should be a talk page discussion about how to improve/merge the article. Passionate and thoughtful arguments from both sides failed to reach consensus in the AfD--the end. Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment FWIW, I just found another article which, like epenthesis, covers the issue of nucular. It is List of words of disputed pronunciation. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as "no consensus". --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment While I understand the rationale for its deletion, the phrase from the deleting admin "It's not subject to debate" smacks of arrogance. It certainly is subject to debate. If your reason, or any other admin, is out of line, this can be one venue for remediation. I see no reason that this article couldn't be moved to wiktionary, but the problem of its usage goes beyond the general scope of wiktionary, IMHO. I can see both sides on this and neither side is "right" or "wrong". Either solution is fine as long as the information is retained somewhere in the wiki-project, but that can't be accomplished by anyone outside of an admin until it is undeleted. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article was already transwikied to wikt:Transwiki:Nucular; no undeletion is necessary for that purpose. Powers ^T 02:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the information was not available to do so, then it would be needed. As it is already there, it doesn't need to be here. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wearing my Wiktionarian hat, I have nominated wikt:Transwiki:Nucular for deletion at Wiktionary because it is an encyclopedia article, not a dictionary entry. Wiktionary already has an entry for nucular, but encyclopedia articles don't belong there. —Angr 11:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Isn't that what the Transwiki namespace is for, though? For stuff from other wikis that needs to be wiktionarified? Regardless, I notice you reverted your addition of the deletion discussion to the main deletion page but not the deletion notice on the article; you may want to fix one or the other. Powers ^T 13:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • There's nothing dictionary-worthy in the Transwiki: article that isn't already at wikt:nucular. The rest of the content is encyclopedic and has no place at Wiktionary. I reverted my addition to the main deletion page because it belongs at wikt:Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others (the main deletion page is for main namespace only, /Others is for other namespaces). —Angr 13:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Not just a mispronounced word, but a culturally significant one. Articles about words, like this one, should only be exiled to wiktionary if wiktionary is willing to cover them in as much detail. Every entry I've seen on wiktionary is pretty bare-bones. Wkdewey (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see why we should keep articles outside of our scope just because wiktionary is incomplete. Powers ^T 02:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • We're not. We're keeping an article that is within our scope and outside Wiktionary's. Colonel Warden writes above, "If the article concerns a topic then it belongs here but if it concerns a word then it belongs in Wiktionary." However, this is a false dichotomy, as a word itself can also be a topic of encyclopedic interest. It is not Wiktionary's job to discuss the cultural impact of a word's pronunciation; it's Wikipedia's job. —Angr 06:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "False dichotomy" is a great way to describe it, Angr. In that vein, I'd like to respond to Colonel Warden's statement earlier in the discussion, regarding WP:DICTIONARY, that "The closer seems to understand this line of policy-based argument better than the objectors". I'd caution against the confident assumption that having a different interpretation from one's self constitutes a worse interpretation. As others have said so well, the criteria for Wikipedia vs. Wiktionary have significant overlap, the boundaries are fluid, and in this case, "both/and" is a more appropriate paradigm than "either/or".Thirdbeach (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:The Family of Blood.jpg (edit | [[Talk:Image:The Family of Blood.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|IFD)

There was no consensus to delete. The closer incorrectly stated that "the image does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." and incorrectly dismissed opinions to the contraray as original research (!) Jenny 05:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by original review nominator: I myself have withdrawn from this discussion because I don't think it's in the interests of Wikipedia. In principle I'm in favor of a more aggressive application of the non-free images policy and don't regard the loss of material to which we have no intrinsic rights to be a great one, whereas the shift of emphasis to free content is in line with our aims. --Jenny 09:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. The image is a depiction of the episode the article in question discusses, and therefore is significant in that way. I didn't see a consensus otherwise, either. --UsaSatsui (talk) 05:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• An episode will have tens of thousands of individual images in it. Why is this one image significant and who says it is? -Nv8200p talk 04:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 July 3#Image:Last of the Time Lords.jpg. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The linked review resulted in an endorsement of the deletion; how does that support your "Overturn" recommendation? Powers ^T 15:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note discussion at WP:AN#This I cannot believe. I do think Sceptre could be more clear about his specific reasoning for this case; is he making the same argument as he did there or relying on someone else's opinion there? GRBerry 16:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was supposed to be the former. However, re-reading the IFD (I didn't see Fut.Perf as I was browsing the non-indented bullet points), I'm going to go for endorse deletion but remove the reason - the outcome was correct, but the closing admin has had three DRVs against him for using his boilerplate close reasoning. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The same mistake was made on all three images, why wouldn't I use the same reasoning for close? -Nv8200p talk 04:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn incorrect interpretation of consensus and/or non-free usage policy. Stifle (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Bold statement but no discussion to back it up. I could just as easily say perfectly correct interpretation of consensus and/or non-free usage policy. -Nv8200p talk 04:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn NFCC is policy, and the community decides how to interpret it. The closer used his own reasoning, more strict than the general consensus. The community cannot overturn the foundation policy, but it certainly can decide within its limits what should be acceptable. DGG (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In this case, if you go by strictly by head count, which we don't, but if we did, the decision was this image was not acceptable. -Nv8200p talk 04:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. RegenerateThis (talk · contribs) argues for overturning the deletion as it went against consensus, but by my evil counting, I find four arguments to delete and two to keep. Not an overwhelming number of participants, but 2:1 nonetheless. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 00:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are only three arguments to delete. The fourth "Delete" recommendation isn't an argument, it's a concurrency. Powers ^T 01:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you saying BQZip01 (talk · contribs)'s input is discounted because he made an identical argument (and ergo, had the same to say) as another editor? Does he need to have specifically repeated the same for his words to have constituted legitimate, constructive input? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 03:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I'm saying "I agree with her" isn't an argument, it's a concurrency. See the discussion immediately above this one, where Kafziel says "... if 100 people endorse it, it's still just one argument. If that one argument is invalid, 100 people who chose to endorse it have basically said nothing at all." Powers ^T 12:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (no problem with relisting to getting a larger consensus one way or the other)

  (FULL DISCLOSURE: I WAS CONTACTED BY THOR WITH REGARDS TO THIS DISCUSSION SINCE I WAS ONE OF THE ORIGINAL PARTIES TO THE DELETION)

  Uh, respectfully, anyone's opinion is just as valid as the next person's. I don't need to copy verbatim an argument if someone else has so eloquently already stated what I believe. Concurrence is still a support !vote for whatever position a person takes. It only makes the counter argument simpler as the person can kill two birds with one stone if someone is in error.

  This image didn't seem to add anything to the article and as it was copyrighted, it needed to go. That's my opinion, but perhaps more clear guidelines could be written to help clarify this. Why don't we see where this discussion leads and then go make some changes to make things clearer! — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak overturn. The application of WP:OR is plainly inappropriate; original research applies no more to the keep rationales in the IfD than to the closure, or this DRV, or just about any other discussion. There's a tendency to confuse original research with discretionary judgement in general (which is inherent to any editorial decision); this closure exemplifies that mismatching quite plainly. Weak overturn because there wasn't a clear consensus in either direction, with some reasonable points on either side. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 09:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. Needs more discussion. As Daniel pointed out, both sides had decent points, and WP:OR isn't relevant to editorial decisions. Powers ^T 12:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• IFD is not an editorial decision, it is a janitorial action based on policy and consensus. Consensus is determined by the strength of the arguments. I am going to be swayed by arguments that are linked to relevant policy, laws, precedents, court decisions, etc. then I am arguments presenting the User's original thought. -Nv8200p talk 04:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see the difference between the "keeps" and the "deletes" in that respect. Both sets of arguments referenced relevant policy (although only the "deletes" actually linked them; surely that isn't your criterion?), and both sets were based on the opinions of the authors (namely, "this contributes significantly"/"this doesn't contribute significantly"). No one referenced laws, precedents, or court decisions. So what was the operative difference you saw? Powers ^T 13:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NFCC 8 states use of a non-free image must significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. Those arguing to keep the image need to provide some objective information that this is so. All that was provided was personal opinion. Without any supported critical commentary specific to the image, the standing community consensus embodied in the non-free content criteria has to be enforced. -Nv8200p talk 17:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why must the keeps provide that information, but the deletes don't? Powers ^T 02:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same reason a fair use rationale has to be provided for non-free images. Justification for going against Wikipedia policy has to be provided by those wanting to use the image. -Nv8200p talk 15:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then I simply disagree with your interpretation of the policy requirements in this case. Powers ^T 02:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, the assessment of whether the image "significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic" is entirely an editorial decision, to be taken on the strength of the arguments and rationales presented. If there are elements of this image which support material in the article -- viz. the presentation of the aliens' personas, the realisation of their scarecrow-like hench-creatures, and the general sense of sinisterness and creepiness brought to the episode as a whole -- then those elements, and the value to the reader of illustrating them, must be assessed; whether or not any external source has singled out this image as exhibiting them. If you disagree, please join the policy discussion at WT:NFC. Jheald (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion (from closing admin). Sorry I'm late to the party but the nominator did not follow DRV process and inform the administrator who deleted the page of the deletion review. WP:NFCC#8 is a valid reason for deletion as it is a policy that embodies Foundation guidance and a community consensus. There were no valid arguments presented that the image contributed significantly to the understanding of the article. Jenny argues that "The use of "horror film" lighting for such scenes is characteristic of this series, as is the employment of skilled actors and makeup technicians who can portray the dark themes of this story well" and "I'm referring above to the cinematography (in the broadest sense) of the episode, which is really rather unique and very good." Who says so? Jenny says so and that is all. There is no professional critic or film history expert cited to support these grand claims. Wolf of Fenric made similar unsupported POV statements. -Nv8200p talk 04:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  You're right that I didn't inform you (which would have been a polite thing to do--and I apologise). I don't think it would be grounds to strike the review, but that's a policy matter and (as I say above) I have withdrawn from participation in the review. --Jenny 13:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is courtesy and convention to notify the admin of the nomination. It isn't "grounds to strike the review" but it could certainly provoke the closing admin to endorse deletion. It seems that his (her?) major point was more the interpretation of NFCC 8 rather than the notification trouble, but I could be putting words in the admin's mouth. Protonk (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, the deletion was within consensus. As to the closer's rationale, that is a different matter. Whether or not the image fails WP:NFCC#8 is purely down to one's interpretation of said criterion. The closer should not attempt to impose their interpretation, of this ridiculously vague policy, on the IfD discussion. RMHED (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Image violated policy; IFD closure didn't. —Angr 06:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion It's hard to overcome seraphimblade's succinct argument - "I see no discussion of this image or its elements in the article. It is a pretty for the infobox, and that does not pass the nonfree content requirements. If there is sourced commentary regarding this specific scene, an image illustrating it may be appropriate." NFCC8 says "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." It's not about a Wikipedian's personal opinion of whether the image would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. If a valid source mentioned or even used the image in connection with their discussion of "The Family of Blood" topic, that would be evidence of a third party opinion that the image significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. The keep reasoning only included Wikipedian's personal opinions ("importance of the image presented is strictly opinion or original research"), not reliable source evidence of understanding increase. GregManninLB (talk) 06:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The test of whether or not an image would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic is an editorial judgement. Such an editorial judgement must weigh the arguments and rationales presented, whether or not they cite any external commentary specifically on this image. It cannot simply dismiss them. An image may well be able to help readers' understanding of elements of the article, whether or not a valid external source has ever mentioned or used the image. If you disagree, please join the policy discussion at WT:NFC. Jheald (talk) 15:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. While the wording of the closing admin's deletion decision ("The importance of the image presented is strictly opinion or original research") is less than satisfactory (of course, editorial decisions about what is "important" are by necessity a matter of opinion, and are not subject to NOR), the debate as such had formed a sufficient consensus for deletion: 4:2 votes, the deletion arguments clearly based in policy and in line with multiple precedent on IfD, demonstrating that the stringent interpretation of NFCC#8 as expressed in, e.g., Seraphimblade's vote is in fact valid project-wide consensus; no legitimate closure could have led to a different result here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, the image does improve the reader's understanding of elements discussed in the article -- viz. illustrating the presentation of the aliens' personas, and the realisation of their scarecrow-like hench-creatures. Since Seraphimblade's comment does not take that into account, it must be ignored. Jheald (talk) 15:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Re-list. This image was the article's only visual reference for a television episode up for the Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form Hugo Award. An image which illustrates the two most prominent alien characters, and the realisation of their scarecrow-like hench-creatures. And which rather well captures the sense of sinisterness and creepiness they brought to the roles, and to the episode as a whole. Removing the image clearly impoverishes the understanding of the topic we bring to readers. Jheald (talk) 15:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The quality of the episode has nothing to do with the justification for the image. Neither has the prominence of the characters in it. As to the discussion of its function in the article (which really doesn't belong here, but since you started it – ) "captures the sense of sinisterness and creepiness they brought to the role"? I can assure you, it does no such thing. It may remind you, as somebody who presumably has watched the episode, of the creepiness you maybe experienced when watching it, but to me who hasn't watched it, it transports nothing. I see two average people in funny clothes making rather silly grimaces, with a guy in a misplaced Halloween costume standing between them, and lit by the most hackneyed of stereotypical cheap-horror-movie-lights from the back. If the creepiness and sinisterness supposedly characteristic of this scene is something representative and noteworthy about the whole episode, by all means, explain it. Analyse it. If there's anything notable to be said about it and you can have a well-integrated, sourced paragraph about these things in the text, then by all means, put the image in to support the analysis. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • But even your determined-to-be-unimpressed comment reveals that your understanding of the episode has been improved by seeing the image. Sure, your assessment of the scarecrows is that they look like "misplaced Halloween costumes", of the two aliens is that they look like "people in funny clothes making rather silly grimaces", and that the expressionistic lighting is "the most hackneyed of stereotypical cheap-horror-movie-lights". But at least you can now make that assessment (which wouldn't be my assessment): you now have the datum to do so. But without the image, a typical reader now has not got that datum, and cannot assess whether they agree with you or not. Jheald (talk) 17:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Except that this impression of mine is irrelevant because it is only based on this one image. It isn't my assessment of the episode. I don't take for granted that the image is representative of what I would have seen had I watched the episode. I don't doubt that the episode may have been great. It's just that the image fails to transport that, without analytical text explaining what it's supposed to transport. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nevertheless, the question is whether your understanding of the episode is better than it otherwise would have been. And it is, because you now have some idea of the realisation of the scarecrow creatures, the alien personas, and the lighting effects used. Jheald (talk) 17:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not enough, as long as the article doesn't reliably tell me why those particular things are important and notable. Otherwise it's a slippery slope thing. We can't put the bar this low. Because that would be essentially incompatible with the minimality-of-use criterion imposed by the foundation and overarching consensus about the project's mission. If this (marginal) amount of usefulness was sufficient, we could then by the same argument justify a hundred images or more for each article. Each of them would help me understand something. But that's clearly out of the question. Therefore, we must tighten our understanding of #8 to such a level where it really only allows some few images that are exceptionally useful. And I still maintain, the only way to demonstrate that special degree of usefulness is through it being handled in the text. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't see any consensus at WT:NFC that non-free images impact the project's mission. Such rhetoric is hotly pushed by some (a vociferous few?), but seems equally to be broadly disputed. Personally, I think it's misguided. If anything, removing images takes us further away from the Foundation's vision of people being able to share in knowledge. Sure, our legitimate use of non-free material is not something that makes Wikipedia distinctive, so it's not core to our mission; but it's not something that takes away from it either. (As argued here) As for "minimal use", that is simply something inherited from U.S. fair-use law. We're not trying to push the legal envelope. Our use must be no more than justified to achieve the purposes identified. But use of an image like this, for the purposes described, is well within U.S. legal fair-use norms. The rationale for our policy is that any image must be legal; it must be useful; and it must in no way inhibit any possible alternative free images. This image passes on all three counts. Jheald (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Plus, note that NFCC #8 does not require images to be "exceptionally" useful, whatever you might personally want it to say. It requires them to be "significantly" useful. Again, I submit that showing how the "monsters" in a DW episode have been realised is significantly useful. Jheald (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]