Damian_Smith – Deletion endorsed. – Xoloz 14:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Damian_Smith (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` Work_In_Progress PatA51 19:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC) An editor has asked for a deletion review of Carlossuarez46 (Talk . Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. PatA51 19:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion; valid A1, preceded by a valid G12 (copyvio) the day before. Nothing to restore. Heather 01:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion; nothing but a wedge of plot summary with no context. ELIMINATORJR 16:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse my deletion Note: the initiator didn't notify me of the DRV. Carlossuarez46 23:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Damian_Smith – Deletion endorsed. – Xoloz 14:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Work_In_Progress PatA51 19:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC) An editor has asked for a deletion review of Carlossuarez46 (Talk . Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. PatA51 19:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion; valid A1, preceded by a valid G12 (copyvio) the day before. Nothing to restore. Heather 01:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion; nothing but a wedge of plot summary with no context. ELIMINATORJR 16:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse my deletion Note: the initiator didn't notify me of the DRV. Carlossuarez46 23:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Oneill.jpg – Restored. Public domain; unanimous Keep in Ifd; per Drv – KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Image:Oneill.jpg (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`Original IfD proceeding`)` (1) This image has been in the public domain in the United States since 1962-63 because its copyright expired 28 years after its original publication date (1934), and thus is available for use by anyone including Wikipedia. (2) This image has been in the public domain in the European Union since 2004, because the copyright expired 70 years after its original publication date (1934). (3) The virtually unanimous consensus was to KEEP this image, and it was arbitrarily deleted by the closing administrator without regard to any evidence presented supporting its public domain status. The Image-for-deletion proceeding was closed with the words "Deleted, evidently not a free image." It is not a "free-licensed" image, but rather, a public domain image, to which no person or organization presently holds rights to control under copyright law in the US and the EU. Kenosis 18:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion and reupload as fair use. It's likely not in public domain, there is no proof that the copyright wasn't renewed in the image, and the image was created after 1923. Also it's 70 years after the photographer death date, not 70 years after publication for the European Union, and there is no proof of that nither. A good fair use rationale can be used for the image though as the subject is long dead. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] I'm afraid not. Even if 70yrs.p.m.a. were the correct standard, this image is public domain in the US for over 40 years now. But, photographer's actual identity must be publicly disclosed according to EU law, otherwise it's 70 years after publication. You can't keep an "author", the natural person who took the photo, secret from the public, but rather it must be disclosed, so it's 70 yrs. after publication. The source of the now-deleted images, with the long obsolete copyright in the USA and recently obsolete copyright in the European Union, is: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1936/oneill-autobio.html ... Kenosis 18:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] It' a shame that the comprehension of copyright law and the capacity for logical deduction are so scarce on WP. Jim62sch 19:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] I agree it's unfortunate there are so many misconceptions and myths about the basics of copyright and public domain, etc., that work their way around the wiki. But this can change quite readily, given adequate focus and some additional time. At present, public-domain material (read that: "free material available for use by anybody who wants to in whatever way they want") is often squeezed out quite unnecessarily, while "free-license" is oft-mistaken and oft-misrepresented, and also very commonly has more restrictions on it than either public domain material or "fair-use" of copyrighted material. IMO that's the shame at present. Logical deduction, on the other hand, depends on the information input (I'm reminded of the old saw about "garbage in -- garbage out" that was oft-quoted in information technology circles for quite a number of years). Here, I think it's mainly only a matter of straightening out the facts and copyright rules so more WP users are aware, especially as regards the requirement that US copyright renewals of the 1923-1963 publications be registered in order to extend copyright beyond 28 years from date of original publication -- today those records are online for most everything important to us in WP for that time period as regards still-photography images. And, as a practical matter, virtually no one renewed copyright to individual photographs back in those days, because the emphasis was more on who owned the photographic "negative", unlike today. As to the 70yrs.p.m.a. mistake w.r.t. non-attributed and corporate works-for-hire where there's no publicly disclosed natural person as the author, I suppose I'd say "D'oh"-- I'll readily admit I've been at least equally well fooled many times in the past, at least until I was familiar with the appropriate information in order to correct the situation. Myself, helping to correct the situation is about all I aim to do here. ... Kenosis 02:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn as obviously in the public domain unless credible evidence of renewal can be found, and flagrant disregard for consensus by the closing admin. Evouga 18:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn deletion Per EU regulations, as a pseudonymous or anonymous work (i.e., a work of what in the U.S. is called "corporate authorship," in which the actual individual executor of the work was not disclosed), prima facie the work has been public domain in the EU since January 2007. More significant, given the location of Wikipedia servers, is its status in the U.S. Per the evidence of the Nobel organization's own site, as confirmed by a search of copyright renewal records (see original IfD proceeding), the weight of evidence clearly indicates that the original 1936 copyright was not renewed, meaning the work has been in the public domain in the U.S. since January 1965.—DCGeist 18:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] overturn This is clearly in the public domain under both US and EU law. JoshuaZ Overturn As I've pointed out elsewhere there is absolutely no evidence (as in none, nada, zilch) that the image is not PD; in fact all evidence supports the fact that it is PD. There is clearly a need on WP for some training in copyright law. Jim62sch 19:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn. There's something to be said for assuming the worst case scenario in matters of copyright law, but if nobody can find evidence that copyright was renewed... -Amarkov moo! 20:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn, as nominator. The standard of proof being asked, in order to satisfy at least some WP users that it is in the public domain, is stricter than the standard that applies to convicting and executing an accused murderer. Plenty of evidence was offered in support of its public domain status, and no evidence was offered in support of a continued copyright beyond 28-years in the United States (i.e., 1963 expiration of copyright in the US) or beyond 70-years in the European Union (late-2006 expiration of copyright in the EU). ... Kenosis 21:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Ah, you correctly recognised the beyond an unreasonable doubt mentality. Jim62sch 22:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn both on procedural grounds (although involved in the deletion debate, Quadell closed the debate and deleted the image despite there being a clear consensus to keep) and on the factual grounds raised by Kenosis and others - we don't use "absolute and complete certainty" as grounds for any decision (certainly not in the case of allegedly GFDL images uploaded by pseudonymous editors). An excellent case has been made that this image (and others like it) are PD. Guettarda 06:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Oh wow, I hadn't noticed that Quadell had been involved in the discussion. Sigh. JoshuaZ 14:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Image:Oneill.jpg – Restored. Public domain; unanimous Keep in Ifd; per Drv – KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

(1) This image has been in the public domain in the United States since 1962-63 because its copyright expired 28 years after its original publication date (1934), and thus is available for use by anyone including Wikipedia.

(2) This image has been in the public domain in the European Union since 2004, because the copyright expired 70 years after its original publication date (1934).

(3) The virtually unanimous consensus was to KEEP this image, and it was arbitrarily deleted by the closing administrator without regard to any evidence presented supporting its public domain status. The Image-for-deletion proceeding was closed with the words "Deleted, evidently not a free image." It is not a "free-licensed" image, but rather, a public domain image, to which no person or organization presently holds rights to control under copyright law in the US and the EU. Kenosis 18:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion and reupload as fair use. It's likely not in public domain, there is no proof that the copyright wasn't renewed in the image, and the image was created after 1923. Also it's 70 years after the photographer death date, not 70 years after publication for the European Union, and there is no proof of that nither. A good fair use rationale can be used for the image though as the subject is long dead. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid not. Even if 70yrs.p.m.a. were the correct standard, this image is public domain in the US for over 40 years now. But, photographer's actual identity must be publicly disclosed according to EU law, otherwise it's 70 years after publication. You can't keep an "author", the natural person who took the photo, secret from the public, but rather it must be disclosed, so it's 70 yrs. after publication. The source of the now-deleted images, with the long obsolete copyright in the USA and recently obsolete copyright in the European Union, is: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1936/oneill-autobio.html ... Kenosis 18:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It' a shame that the comprehension of copyright law and the capacity for logical deduction are so scarce on WP. Jim62sch 19:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's unfortunate there are so many misconceptions and myths about the basics of copyright and public domain, etc., that work their way around the wiki. But this can change quite readily, given adequate focus and some additional time. At present, public-domain material (read that: "free material available for use by anybody who wants to in whatever way they want") is often squeezed out quite unnecessarily, while "free-license" is oft-mistaken and oft-misrepresented, and also very commonly has more restrictions on it than either public domain material or "fair-use" of copyrighted material. IMO that's the shame at present. Logical deduction, on the other hand, depends on the information input (I'm reminded of the old saw about "garbage in -- garbage out" that was oft-quoted in information technology circles for quite a number of years). Here, I think it's mainly only a matter of straightening out the facts and copyright rules so more WP users are aware, especially as regards the requirement that US copyright renewals of the 1923-1963 publications be registered in order to extend copyright beyond 28 years from date of original publication -- today those records are online for most everything important to us in WP for that time period as regards still-photography images. And, as a practical matter, virtually no one renewed copyright to individual photographs back in those days, because the emphasis was more on who owned the photographic "negative", unlike today. As to the 70yrs.p.m.a. mistake w.r.t. non-attributed and corporate works-for-hire where there's no publicly disclosed natural person as the author, I suppose I'd say "D'oh"-- I'll readily admit I've been at least equally well fooled many times in the past, at least until I was familiar with the appropriate information in order to correct the situation. Myself, helping to correct the situation is about all I aim to do here. ... Kenosis 02:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn as obviously in the public domain unless credible evidence of renewal can be found, and flagrant disregard for consensus by the closing admin. Evouga 18:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion Per EU regulations, as a pseudonymous or anonymous work (i.e., a work of what in the U.S. is called "corporate authorship," in which the actual individual executor of the work was not disclosed), prima facie the work has been public domain in the EU since January 2007. More significant, given the location of Wikipedia servers, is its status in the U.S. Per the evidence of the Nobel organization's own site, as confirmed by a search of copyright renewal records (see original IfD proceeding), the weight of evidence clearly indicates that the original 1936 copyright was not renewed, meaning the work has been in the public domain in the U.S. since January 1965.—DCGeist 18:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
overturn This is clearly in the public domain under both US and EU law. JoshuaZ
Overturn As I've pointed out elsewhere there is absolutely no evidence (as in none, nada, zilch) that the image is not PD; in fact all evidence supports the fact that it is PD. There is clearly a need on WP for some training in copyright law. Jim62sch 19:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. There's something to be said for assuming the worst case scenario in matters of copyright law, but if nobody can find evidence that copyright was renewed... -Amarkov moo! 20:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, as nominator. The standard of proof being asked, in order to satisfy at least some WP users that it is in the public domain, is stricter than the standard that applies to convicting and executing an accused murderer. Plenty of evidence was offered in support of its public domain status, and no evidence was offered in support of a continued copyright beyond 28-years in the United States (i.e., 1963 expiration of copyright in the US) or beyond 70-years in the European Union (late-2006 expiration of copyright in the EU). ... Kenosis 21:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you correctly recognised the beyond an unreasonable doubt mentality. Jim62sch 22:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn both on procedural grounds (although involved in the deletion debate, Quadell closed the debate and deleted the image despite there being a clear consensus to keep) and on the factual grounds raised by Kenosis and others - we don't use "absolute and complete certainty" as grounds for any decision (certainly not in the case of allegedly GFDL images uploaded by pseudonymous editors). An excellent case has been made that this image (and others like it) are PD. Guettarda 06:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh wow, I hadn't noticed that Quadell had been involved in the discussion. Sigh. JoshuaZ 14:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Inkulab – Deletion overturned. The first AfD (in which commenters admitted confusion) based its decision on a mistaken assumption regarding the author's alternative names; therefore, this is a case of clear error. Relisting at AfD is by editorial option. – Xoloz 14:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Inkulab (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` Misunderstanding of the alternate spelling of this Tamil writer's name. The article itself said that his name is also spelt as Inquilab and Ingulab, but the people who discussed on it seemed to be missed this point. The references contained published journal article and many news articles. Unfortunately I am not able to get into the article to get the sources and list it here. But what is heartachening is that if a journal can accept a paper on commentary of Inkulab's play how come he be considered as not so notable? ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε^†αLҝ 13:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Deletion That's just one link and I do not think it gives "significant coverage" to give notability to undelete this article. While it does review his play, I just dont feel like that's giving "significant coverage" to him Corpx 15:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] This was one of the links. The original entry had a few news articles too. I do not have access to view them. Moreover in the discussion page it was indeed mentioned by someone that Tamil language is not well represented in the English media. When Inkulab/Inquilab is mentioned in the English news, he is never given an introduction on who he is or anything and JUST GETS mentioned. It is pretty obvious given that he needs no introduction that he is well known. His works often make to the English media too[1], [2] and a few more mentioned in the earlier wikipedia entry. I would ask for reasoning here that if he is not prominent would his opinion actually matter in showing clemency to assasins of a former Prime Minister of India. His opinions are often mentioned in the English media without being introduced formally on who he is. [3]. Cheers! ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε^†αLҝ 17:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn for the above mentioned reasons ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε^†αLҝ 09:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] I think your position is already clear as the nominator :) Corpx 14:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn the reasons mentioned above are legitimate.Wiki Raja 18:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Inkulab – Deletion overturned. The first AfD (in which commenters admitted confusion) based its decision on a mistaken assumption regarding the author's alternative names; therefore, this is a case of clear error. Relisting at AfD is by editorial option. – Xoloz 14:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Misunderstanding of the alternate spelling of this Tamil writer's name. The article itself said that his name is also spelt as Inquilab and Ingulab, but the people who discussed on it seemed to be missed this point. The references contained published journal article and many news articles. Unfortunately I am not able to get into the article to get the sources and list it here. But what is heartachening is that if a journal can accept a paper on commentary of Inkulab's play how come he be considered as not so notable? ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε^†αLҝ 13:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion That's just one link and I do not think it gives "significant coverage" to give notability to undelete this article. While it does review his play, I just dont feel like that's giving "significant coverage" to him Corpx 15:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was one of the links. The original entry had a few news articles too. I do not have access to view them. Moreover in the discussion page it was indeed mentioned by someone that Tamil language is not well represented in the English media. When Inkulab/Inquilab is mentioned in the English news, he is never given an introduction on who he is or anything and JUST GETS mentioned. It is pretty obvious given that he needs no introduction that he is well known. His works often make to the English media too[1], [2] and a few more mentioned in the earlier wikipedia entry. I would ask for reasoning here that if he is not prominent would his opinion actually matter in showing clemency to assasins of a former Prime Minister of India. His opinions are often mentioned in the English media without being introduced formally on who he is. [3]. Cheers! ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε^†αLҝ 17:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn for the above mentioned reasons ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε^†αLҝ 09:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think your position is already clear as the nominator :) Corpx 14:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn the reasons mentioned above are legitimate.Wiki Raja 18:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Propellerhead Software – Overturned, rewritten articles that address the original reason for deletion are ineligible for CSD G4 – Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Propellerhead Software (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` I am placing this here because I am getting nowhere with it, and wanted to bring it to the attention of a larger group of people. Over the past week or so I have been working on Propellerhead Software. This page has repeatedly been created and deleted, but as far as I can tell, in the past it HAS been a rather poor article. However, on August 12th I recreated this article and worked hard on it over the next few days. I created what I believed was a relatively good article. However, on 23rd August it was speedily deleted, which I believe was unfair, because this could only happen because it had been speedily deleted before. Reason G4 was given, but this states that articles which are substantially identical to the original can be considered for speedy deletion. I requested that the page be restored to give me a chance to add some references. It was and I did this, making what I thought was an excellent article. The reasons given for the deletion were lack of notability, lack of sources, and advertising. However, I addressed all of these points: Notability - the company is very well respected and their software won a major award as I referenced in the article. The company developed software with Abbey Road studios, and this was also referenced in the article. Their software features a regular user technique section in Sound on Sound magazine, and again, I referenced this in the article. One user said "check Google" on the deletion log, and when doing so, Propellerhead Software come up in the first six searches, and in nine out of the first ten. No sources - as mentioned, I thoroughly referenced the article. Advertising - I do not work for or have any association with Propellerhead software, other than I buy their products and enjoy using them. I considered the article to be well written, non biased and informative. However, on 24th August the article was deleted again and salted - despite adding these references. I just now found a second deletion nomination (which was cleverly hidden from the article and therefore I couldn't see it). The references I had cited were, apparantly, trivial and not reliable. I do not understand how references from: a major award[4]; arguably the world's most famous recording studio[5]; and Europe's largest selling music recording magazine[6] can be classed as trivial and non reliable. I have tried to get the article restored but nobody seems to be listening to me (not even taking notice, let alone arguing with me). What really makes me upset is that this article has only been deleted because it was deleted BEFORE. If an article of this standard which hadn't been deleted before was created now it would simply not be deleted. There are thousands of articles on here that do not cite references and are left well alone. The Steinberg and Digidesign articles are poor and have no references, and Ableton only references offical website and even forums. There has never been any question that these articles be deleted. The article I made was well referenced and well written, the company are well respected and make excellent software. I believe the article deserves a place on Wikipedia. I request that a few admin look at the article I made just before it was deleted, check its quality and references and restore it, and tag it so it cannot be speedily deleted again. At the very least, I would appreciate an admin copying the article code into my userpage so I can work on the article until it's agreed it can go back on. Thanks--Mrtombullen 10:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Support keep We have way less notable companies in wikipedia. This company is a leader of its sector, and everyone who works with electronic music knows about their products or uses them. They created the first true GUI analog synth emulator, "ReBirth RB-338" (article exists since February 2004), which alones guarantees them notability. Reason (software) is dominant player in its market. I see no reason why this highly notable company is not kept. Thanks! --Cerejota 17:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS notwithstanding, I can't see how this is by any stretch of the imagination blatant advertising. It's possible that it's not notable, but that's a matter for a non-speedied AfD. See the cached version. David Mestel^(Talk) 17:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and list on AfD. You can't substantiate any of the "popularity through internet forums" without referencing the forums themselves unless you had a third-party article explicitly saying so. In fact I'd just reduce that to a sentence or two. But I don't think it's G11 material, so let it run through the process. The Sounds on sounds article seems to be a good source. ColourBurst 00:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and relist. I salted the deleted article, on claims on the most recent AfD for it that represented the re-creation of a deleted article. Upon reviewing the text itself, it did not seem irremediably awful in style. There is a question about the independence of some of the given references, but not all of them. That "other crap exists" is in fact a good argument to keep an article, given that the application of precedent through analogy is what "consensus" is all about, and the point that this is the business that makes software that has had an article since the early days of Wikipedia suggests that it too belongs, and that perhaps these several articles might be profitably merged. - Smerdis of Tlön 04:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Is this the same Propellerhead of ReBirth RB-338, Reason (software) among others? If so, Overturn strongly. Well known software company. -81.178.126.124 15:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Yes it is. Overturn ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Propellerhead Software – Overturned, rewritten articles that address the original reason for deletion are ineligible for CSD G4 – Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am placing this here because I am getting nowhere with it, and wanted to bring it to the attention of a larger group of people.

Over the past week or so I have been working on Propellerhead Software. This page has repeatedly been created and deleted, but as far as I can tell, in the past it HAS been a rather poor article.

However, on August 12th I recreated this article and worked hard on it over the next few days. I created what I believed was a relatively good article. However, on 23rd August it was speedily deleted, which I believe was unfair, because this could only happen because it had been speedily deleted before. Reason G4 was given, but this states that articles which are substantially identical to the original can be considered for speedy deletion. I requested that the page be restored to give me a chance to add some references. It was and I did this, making what I thought was an excellent article.

The reasons given for the deletion were lack of notability, lack of sources, and advertising. However, I addressed all of these points:

Notability - the company is very well respected and their software won a major award as I referenced in the article. The company developed software with Abbey Road studios, and this was also referenced in the article. Their software features a regular user technique section in Sound on Sound magazine, and again, I referenced this in the article. One user said "check Google" on the deletion log, and when doing so, Propellerhead Software come up in the first six searches, and in nine out of the first ten.
No sources - as mentioned, I thoroughly referenced the article.
Advertising - I do not work for or have any association with Propellerhead software, other than I buy their products and enjoy using them. I considered the article to be well written, non biased and informative.

However, on 24th August the article was deleted again and salted - despite adding these references. I just now found a second deletion nomination (which was cleverly hidden from the article and therefore I couldn't see it). The references I had cited were, apparantly, trivial and not reliable. I do not understand how references from: a major award[4]; arguably the world's most famous recording studio[5]; and Europe's largest selling music recording magazine[6] can be classed as trivial and non reliable.

I have tried to get the article restored but nobody seems to be listening to me (not even taking notice, let alone arguing with me).

What really makes me upset is that this article has only been deleted because it was deleted BEFORE. If an article of this standard which hadn't been deleted before was created now it would simply not be deleted. There are thousands of articles on here that do not cite references and are left well alone. The Steinberg and Digidesign articles are poor and have no references, and Ableton only references offical website and even forums. There has never been any question that these articles be deleted.

The article I made was well referenced and well written, the company are well respected and make excellent software. I believe the article deserves a place on Wikipedia.

I request that a few admin look at the article I made just before it was deleted, check its quality and references and restore it, and tag it so it cannot be speedily deleted again. At the very least, I would appreciate an admin copying the article code into my userpage so I can work on the article until it's agreed it can go back on.

Thanks--Mrtombullen 10:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support keep We have way less notable companies in wikipedia. This company is a leader of its sector, and everyone who works with electronic music knows about their products or uses them. They created the first true GUI analog synth emulator, "ReBirth RB-338" (article exists since February 2004), which alones guarantees them notability. Reason (software) is dominant player in its market. I see no reason why this highly notable company is not kept. Thanks! --Cerejota 17:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS notwithstanding, I can't see how this is by any stretch of the imagination blatant advertising. It's possible that it's not notable, but that's a matter for a non-speedied AfD. See the cached version. David Mestel^(Talk) 17:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list on AfD. You can't substantiate any of the "popularity through internet forums" without referencing the forums themselves unless you had a third-party article explicitly saying so. In fact I'd just reduce that to a sentence or two. But I don't think it's G11 material, so let it run through the process. The Sounds on sounds article seems to be a good source. ColourBurst 00:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. I salted the deleted article, on claims on the most recent AfD for it that represented the re-creation of a deleted article. Upon reviewing the text itself, it did not seem irremediably awful in style. There is a question about the independence of some of the given references, but not all of them. That "other crap exists" is in fact a good argument to keep an article, given that the application of precedent through analogy is what "consensus" is all about, and the point that this is the business that makes software that has had an article since the early days of Wikipedia suggests that it too belongs, and that perhaps these several articles might be profitably merged. - Smerdis of Tlön 04:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the same Propellerhead of ReBirth RB-338, Reason (software) among others? If so, Overturn strongly. Well known software company. -81.178.126.124 15:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it is. Overturn ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of British Chinese people – Both closures overturned; resubmitted to AfD. Personally, I commend Sandstein for his boldness, but it is not clear that admin-overturning of non-admin closures once they have come to DRV is something contemplated by deletion policy. As it is, this has created a little confusion, and neither closure is endorsed by consensus below. More discussion is the best option, for the sake of clarity. All non-admins are reminded to make only simple, non-controversial keep closures. – Xoloz 14:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of British Chinese people (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` Article was closed by a non-admin, essentially citing WP is not paper, while I believe the consensus was to delete this list Corpx 06:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] I have speedily overturned the closure per WP:DPR#NAC, which provides that non-admin closures "are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator", and re-closed the discussion as delete. See my rationale in the discussion. Now, feel free to review this... Sandstein 06:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Sandstein's deletion. This was clearly out of bounds for a non-admin closure. (I do them, but primarily speedy deletions that have left an orphan AFD.) --Dhartung \| Talk 07:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion, improper non-admin closure of a contentious AFD citing a part of WP:NOT that isn't a reason to keep an article (otherwise nothing could be deleted). --Core desat 07:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment I agree it is improper non-admin closure. But do not agree the article should be deleted. Chineseartlover 18:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn deletion - There was no consensus on deletion, and the arguments for deletion were, for the most part not valid: content issues not related to notability of the topic. I think those who voted keep clearly had a stronger argument: the Chinese-origin population of Britain is notable on its own. This is not a vote. Thanks!--Cerejota 17:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse/categorify per above, and the fact that a category serves all the same functions as a list, and is far, far more elegant. David Mestel^(Talk) 17:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comments from original discussion Lists can do a lot more than what Categories can do. Lists can organise these people by occupation, and make short mention of why the people are notable. We can also have red links in lists. Categories cannot do any of the above Chineseartlover 18:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Subcategories. And redlinks in lists aren't terribly useful, since all they really say is "there exists a person called x. He is a British Chinese person." David Mestel^(Talk) 21:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Catergories and Lists both have their function. Wiki's Policies accept that not all list should be converted to Categories. Eg: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minor_characters_in_Pirates_of_the_Caribbean should not be converted to Categories. Red Link has a clear function in Wiki, it invites other people to add to the article when the original contributor do not have the full resourse to do so. Chineseartlover 00:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] So instead of putting people in Category:American actors and Category:English Americans they would be in Category:English-American actors? Kappa 09:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] We should probably get started on this categorization. This guy Michael Chan, Baron Chan was a "Singaporean-British physician and politician, of Chinese descent." so we need Category:Singaporean-British politicians and Category:Singaporean-British physicians for him, right? Do you think we should subcategorize by Chinese descent as well, since not all Singaporeans are ethnically Chinese? Kappa 09:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn deletion - There was no consensus on deletion, Previous AFD of similar pages have resulted in "no consensus", see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Chinese Americans, Also a simlar AFD for the Bristish Asians came to the same conclusion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Asian people. It is therefore something we need further debate rather than DELETION. Furthermore, there are many similar list of people in differnt countries according to the nation origin. In the US alone, there are 58 pages: See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_American_people_by_ethnic_or_national_origin , showing there is a clear need of such pages. Chineseartlover 18:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion The mere fact that a group is notable does not automatically mean that a list of members is encyclopedic. With regards to process, consensus was not sufficiently clear for a non-admin closure and delete is within discretion given the weight of arguments. Eluchil404 21:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn deletion Very useful. Thankyoubaby 21:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] WP:USEFUL --Core desat 22:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] You mean the bit of WP:USEFUL which says 'For example, "This list brings together related topics in X and is useful for navigating that subject."'? Kappa 09:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn Deletion absolutely no consensus on deletion, and no particular policy-based reason for deletion here (though categorization is an alternative). ELIMINATORJR 00:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn deletion; retain as no consensus. Sandstein's preferencing of arguments seems rather partial to me. WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#INFO are perhaps two of the most generic policies cited in AfD debates (excluding articles which fall under the specific examples of what Wikipedia is not). Wikipedia is not a distributor of all information, but that does not mean that Wikipedia cannot contain information. The closing arguments Sandstein noted are essentially useless without being supplemented by article-specific ones. Valid WP:OCAT concerns were voiced in the AfD, but whether a list constitutes overcategorization is strictly a judgment call and should be left for the community to decide. — xDanielx ^T/_C 10:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn deletion - Closing editor seems to have cited both WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#IINFO as reasons to close as delete, but I fail to see how this list fits the description of either, or how it is like any of the examples given in either policy. This is not a catalog or a phone or address directory, it's not a travel guide, it's not an indiscriminate list of information, etc etc. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Re-list at AfD. I agree that the non-admin closure was improper, but I also don't believe there was a consensus to delete, based on both this DRV and the AfD. I suggest the closing admin on this DRV overturns the deletion and re-lists the article at AfD to get broader consensus. Walton^One 16:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Care to elaborate why it was improper? Thanks!--Cerejota 04:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] As a rule, non-admin closures should only take place when there is an overwhelming and clear consensus to Keep, or when one of the speedy keep criteria applies. This AfD did not have a clear consensus - far from it - and should have been left to an admin. Having said that, there certainly wasn't a consensus to delete, so Sandstein's speedy reversal of the decision was equally inappropriate IMO. Walton^One 17:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] I appreciate that I will have it in mind in the future, and apologize. However, I must strongly agree the deletion was very bad, as seems to be the opinion of a number of editors. Thanks!--Cerejota 01:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn deletion There was clearly no consensus to delete, nor is there any consensus that this list violates WP:NOT#DIR or WP:NOT#IINFO. Simply asserting that something is a "directory" or an "indiscriminate collection of information" does not make it a violation of policy (any more than simply citing the policy that "Wikipedia is not paper" means that an article must be kept). DHowell 04:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

List of British Chinese people – Both closures overturned; resubmitted to AfD. Personally, I commend Sandstein for his boldness, but it is not clear that admin-overturning of non-admin closures once they have come to DRV is something contemplated by deletion policy. As it is, this has created a little confusion, and neither closure is endorsed by consensus below. More discussion is the best option, for the sake of clarity. All non-admins are reminded to make only simple, non-controversial keep closures. – Xoloz 14:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article was closed by a non-admin, essentially citing WP is not paper, while I believe the consensus was to delete this list Corpx 06:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have speedily overturned the closure per WP:DPR#NAC, which provides that non-admin closures "are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator", and re-closed the discussion as delete. See my rationale in the discussion. Now, feel free to review this... Sandstein 06:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Sandstein's deletion. This was clearly out of bounds for a non-admin closure. (I do them, but primarily speedy deletions that have left an orphan AFD.) --Dhartung | Talk 07:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, improper non-admin closure of a contentious AFD citing a part of WP:NOT that isn't a reason to keep an article (otherwise nothing could be deleted). --Coredesat 07:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree it is improper non-admin closure. But do not agree the article should be deleted. Chineseartlover 18:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion - There was no consensus on deletion, and the arguments for deletion were, for the most part not valid: content issues not related to notability of the topic. I think those who voted keep clearly had a stronger argument: the Chinese-origin population of Britain is notable on its own. This is not a vote. Thanks!--Cerejota 17:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse/categorify per above, and the fact that a category serves all the same functions as a list, and is far, far more elegant. David Mestel^(Talk) 17:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from original discussion Lists can do a lot more than what Categories can do. Lists can organise these people by occupation, and make short mention of why the people are notable. We can also have red links in lists. Categories cannot do any of the above Chineseartlover 18:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Subcategories. And redlinks in lists aren't terribly useful, since all they really say is "there exists a person called x. He is a British Chinese person." David Mestel^(Talk) 21:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Catergories and Lists both have their function. Wiki's Policies accept that not all list should be converted to Categories. Eg: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minor_characters_in_Pirates_of_the_Caribbean should not be converted to Categories. Red Link has a clear function in Wiki, it invites other people to add to the article when the original contributor do not have the full resourse to do so. Chineseartlover 00:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - So instead of putting people in Category:American actors and Category:English Americans they would be in Category:English-American actors? Kappa 09:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - We should probably get started on this categorization. This guy Michael Chan, Baron Chan was a "Singaporean-British physician and politician, of Chinese descent." so we need Category:Singaporean-British politicians and Category:Singaporean-British physicians for him, right? Do you think we should subcategorize by Chinese descent as well, since not all Singaporeans are ethnically Chinese? Kappa 09:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion - There was no consensus on deletion, Previous AFD of similar pages have resulted in "no consensus", see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Chinese Americans, Also a simlar AFD for the Bristish Asians came to the same conclusion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Asian people. It is therefore something we need further debate rather than DELETION. Furthermore, there are many similar list of people in differnt countries according to the nation origin. In the US alone, there are 58 pages: See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_American_people_by_ethnic_or_national_origin , showing there is a clear need of such pages. Chineseartlover 18:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion The mere fact that a group is notable does not automatically mean that a list of members is encyclopedic. With regards to process, consensus was not sufficiently clear for a non-admin closure and delete is within discretion given the weight of arguments. Eluchil404 21:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion Very useful. Thankyoubaby 21:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:USEFUL --Coredesat 22:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You mean the bit of WP:USEFUL which says 'For example, "This list brings together related topics in X and is useful for navigating that subject."'? Kappa 09:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Deletion absolutely no consensus on deletion, and no particular policy-based reason for deletion here (though categorization is an alternative). ELIMINATORJR 00:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion; retain as no consensus. Sandstein's preferencing of arguments seems rather partial to me. WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#INFO are perhaps two of the most generic policies cited in AfD debates (excluding articles which fall under the specific examples of what Wikipedia is not). Wikipedia is not a distributor of all information, but that does not mean that Wikipedia cannot contain information. The closing arguments Sandstein noted are essentially useless without being supplemented by article-specific ones. Valid WP:OCAT concerns were voiced in the AfD, but whether a list constitutes overcategorization is strictly a judgment call and should be left for the community to decide. — xDanielx ^T/_C 10:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion - Closing editor seems to have cited both WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#IINFO as reasons to close as delete, but I fail to see how this list fits the description of either, or how it is like any of the examples given in either policy. This is not a catalog or a phone or address directory, it's not a travel guide, it's not an indiscriminate list of information, etc etc. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re-list at AfD. I agree that the non-admin closure was improper, but I also don't believe there was a consensus to delete, based on both this DRV and the AfD. I suggest the closing admin on this DRV overturns the deletion and re-lists the article at AfD to get broader consensus. Walton^One 16:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Care to elaborate why it was improper? Thanks!--Cerejota 04:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a rule, non-admin closures should only take place when there is an overwhelming and clear consensus to Keep, or when one of the speedy keep criteria applies. This AfD did not have a clear consensus - far from it - and should have been left to an admin. Having said that, there certainly wasn't a consensus to delete, so Sandstein's speedy reversal of the decision was equally inappropriate IMO. Walton^One 17:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that I will have it in mind in the future, and apologize. However, I must strongly agree the deletion was very bad, as seems to be the opinion of a number of editors. Thanks!--Cerejota 01:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn deletion There was clearly no consensus to delete, nor is there any consensus that this list violates WP:NOT#DIR or WP:NOT#IINFO. Simply asserting that something is a "directory" or an "indiscriminate collection of information" does not make it a violation of policy (any more than simply citing the policy that "Wikipedia is not paper" means that an article must be kept). DHowell 04:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Tdimm2.JPG – Deletion endorsed. The deletion guidelines for administrators are guidelines, meaning that they are -- in fact -- subservient to policies, like WP:NFCC. This DRV nomination fails both on strength of numbers, and of argument. – Xoloz 15:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Image:Tdimm2.JPG (edit \| [[Talk:Image:Tdimm2.JPG\|talk]] \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`IfD`)` Did not reach consensus, the image was listed for deletion here and three users clearly said to keep, while only one was for deleting it, yet it was still deleted. A featured article on another pop song ("Hollaback Girl") features four images of the video or performances, and this article can't have one?? The image also had a fair use rationale section. Thankyoubaby 05:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] (From deleting admin) The argument to keep was that there was commentary in the article on the image. There was none. The image caption was ""That Don't Impress Me Much" video" and the only mention of the image was "It depicts Twain walking around in the desert, in her infamous leopard skin outfit." That was adequately conveyed by the words alone and the use of the adjective, "infamous," was an opinion and unsupported by any citations. The way the image was used failed WP:NFCC #8 and was deleted on policy grounds. -Nv8200p talk 12:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion. For clarification, Hollaback Girl contains only one non-free image of the video, and the screencap there is clearly strongly supportive of the accompanying text. I wouldn't object to a different screencap to capture the style of this video in a matter similar to Hollaback Girl's non-free image. This was just a singer closeup. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 17:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] It shows the desert and her costume, which is being discussed, "Hollaback Girl"'s is Gwen Stefani in a car, I can't see how that is more "supportive". Thankyoubaby 17:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn deletion Image was improperly deleted. Deleting admin contravened clear and emphatic language of Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/Instructions for administrators: "Before deleting an image, make sure of the following...No objections to its deletion have been raised, or a consensus to delete has been reached." In this case, two objections to the image's deletion were raised on the basis of its value (a fundamental criterion, per NFCC#8) and there was obviously no consensus to delete. It was claimed neither at the point of nomination nor deletion that the image failed the sort of objectively testable requirement that might reasonably trump administrators' instruction. In deleting, admin improperly valued his/her personal opinion about a subjective matter--the value of the image to the article--over the clear language of the instruction.—DCGeist 16:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] The non-free content criteria policy has to be given priority over the deletion guidelines. -Nv8200p talk 03:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] And, if you'll excuse the inevitable humor of the phrasing, the policy for determining whether the policy has been satisifed is expressed in the administrators' instructions, which have a weight beyond those of guidelines.—DCGeist 04:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] The page you are quoting from was a feeble attempt to condense the Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators. Look at the article history. There are only a few contributors and an insignificant amount of discussion on the page. That page does not have enough weight to circumvent the NFCC policy. -Nv8200p talk 15:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] I did look at the instructions' edit history. Even more significantly, I looked at the prominent manner in which the primary IfD page links to the instructions: Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion#Instructions_for_administrators. Not so feeble.—DCGeist 17:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Again, the Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/Instructions for administrators were poorly derived from a guideline. The reason to delete was based on policy. -Nv8200p talk 20:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn deletion per consensus in IfD. — xDanielx ^T/_C 23:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn - No consensus for such and this represents another example of improper admin behavior and flouting of our own policies. When is this going to end? Badagnani 07:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] It will never end, admins will always make mistakes, admins are human too. Of course assuming that all admins are maliciously ignoring our own community set policies is going a bit overboard. Most likely the admin who did the close thought he/she was doing it per our policies, and doing the action in good faith, remember these discussions are not a vote, admins are charged to figure out the stronger argument, and they don't always get it right... but they close 100-200 articles for deletion debates daily, more then 500 speedy deletion canidates daily and end up with about 5 improper decisions. (as measured by a very unscientific average of what goes through DRV). Thats really not that bad of a hit/miss ratio ;) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 20:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] I'm going to note that I do endorse this deletion, policy trumps, want the policy changed, go to the policy's talk page. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 04:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Correction Neither I nor anyone elsewho has voted to overturn has called for a change in policy. We want the policy enforced. Here's the policy, once again, for your benefit straight from the deletion policy page: "The discussion lasts at least five days; afterwards, pages are deleted by an administrator if there is consensus to do so. If there is no consensus, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging or redirecting as appropriate."—DCGeist 04:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] What you are referring to applies in the case of deletions based on discussions of notability, etc. If the article or image violates U. S. Law or Wikipedia policy, the admin will delete it even if there is no consensus. Based on numerous previous discussions and DRVs, the image failed the current WP:NFCC policy as currently written and also the screenshot tag requirement for critical commentary. -Nv8200p talk 12:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] No, Nv8200p, that's simply wrong. That's not policy. I really have to ask you as an admin who wants to participate in closing deletion discussions and deleting images to refamiliarize yourself with the deletion policy. Please reread in particular Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_discussion. There is absolutely no distinction drawn between "deletions based on discussions of notability" vs. those based on "Wikipedia policy"; admins are not directed to abide by consensus in one case, but essentially make the determination themselves in others. You may have been led to believe it's true; several admins have been acting as if it's true--but it's not. It is quite evidently not part of our deletion policy. (Remember, for the extreme legal case of blatant copyright violations, policy provides for a special process.) Consensus is determinitive in all deletion discussions. Here is the deletion policy: The discussion determines by consensus whether the image adheres to Wikipedia image policy--the discussion may center on an image's notability, on whether an image is obsolete, on whether it has been legitimately tagged, on whether it is of sufficiently high visual quality, or anything else covered in Wikipedia image policy. If no consensus to delete is arrived at in that discussion, the image is not deleted. The admin who chooses to close does not get to determine on his or her own whether the consensus or lack thereof is wise or correct, simply whether consensus to delete exists or not--not by "headcount," not by "vote," but by a common sense reckoning of consensus just like anywhere else on Wikipedia. If there is a discussion and consensus is to keep, obviously the image is kept. If there is a discussion and no consensus, the image is kept. If there is a discussion and there is doubt as to whether there is consensus to delete or not, the image is kept. That is the deletion policy as expressed on the policy page and underscored by the guideline. That a culture of violating the policy has emerged does not legitimate such violations.—DCGeist 15:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure per Nv8200p's rationale and comments here. The use of non-free content is constrained by policy, and IfD cannot override that. The only way to have non-free content kept is to demonstrate that it is being used in accordance with policy. No such case was or has been made for this image. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] What you've written is (like the previous defense statement) simply not true. A case was made in IfD that this image was being used in accordance with policy, clearly responding to nominator's NFCC#8 concern. User:Jheald made it: "Keep. Appropriately illustrative of setting, styling, and odd leopard skin outfit, discussed in the article." Another case was made in IfD that this image was being used in accordance with policy. User:Knulclunk made it: "Used commentary as permitted by WP:NFC#Examples of acceptable use: Film and television screen shots:"For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television." Keep for video commentary only." User:Thankyoubaby also voted to keep, clearly agreeing with the case made by Knulclunk. You may not be impressed by the cases made that the image was being used in accordance in policy; you may disagree with them. But please don't misrepresent the facts by saying they weren't made. The consensus, based on the arguments made in discussion, was clearly to keep the image. Closing admin thus violated Wikipedia policy by deleting.—DCGeist 17:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Again, none of the numerous one line comments discussed why the presence of the image would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding or why the image could not be replaced by text that serves a similar function as required by NFCC policy, item 8. -Nv8200p talk 20:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Query OK, I think we're at least talking in the same room here. If I'm interpreting your point correctly, you're saying that in judging whether consensus to delete existed, you discounted Jheald's and Knulclunk's statements because they did not address nominator's NFCC#8 concerns. Now let's take each statement, applying common sense. I'll just examine Jheald's in this query. When Jheald writes, "Appropriately illustrative of setting, styling, and odd leopard skin outfit," isn't it common sense to conclude that s/he is arguing that the image significantly increases readers' understanding of that setting, that styling, and that leopard skin outfit? When Jheald points out, "as discussed in the article," isn't it common sense to conclude that s/he is pointing out that the text underscores the significance of these matters to the topic? Isn't it reasonable to conclude that Jheald believes that omitting this material would be detrimental to readers' understanding of the topic? As another way of phrasing my query, would you not have discounted Jheald's comment if it had been phrased thus: ""Appropriately illustrative of setting, styling, and odd leopard skin outfit that significantly increases readers' understanding of these matters. The significance of these matters to an understanding of the topic is discussed in the text. Omitting the image would be detrimental to understanding these particular matters. While the text of the article can explain the significance of these matters, it cannot make the reader fully understand them in the absence of the image. Use of the image thus adheres to the requirements of relevant Wikipedia image policy for non-free content--item 8"? Or would you still have discounted Jheald's position in deciding whether consensus to delete existed?—DCGeist 20:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] We'll, it's better, but you can throw in as many "significants" as you want, but that don't make it so. Look at this article. Paragraph 7 provides cited critical commentary about the image on the right and the caption of the image ties the image back to the text. -Nv8200p talk 03:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Yes, that's a superior article. (Though it does have a photo captioned "Iconic publicity photo of Anthony Perkins" without a reliable source. Shall we IfD that?) But the point here is what your job is when you elect to close an IfD discussion. Policy makes it clear that's it not to decide who's right and who's wrong, it's to decide what the consensus, if any, was. Because consensus is not based on a simple headcount or vote, you may be called upon in certain cases to weigh arguments a bit more or less heavily, but in general, one participant's voice is no more or less valuable than any other's. I simply cannot see how you could reasonably conclude that Videmus Omnia's lone argument in support of deletion clearly outweighed Jheald's and Knulclunk's more substantial ones for retention (I am entirely discounting Thankyoubaby's keep vote). I have to say, in other words, that I believe you did not base your deletion on a reasonable assessment of the discussion and the consensus it reached. I believe the evidence--including the wording of your rationale and even your response to my query here (and I do appreciate you responding)--demonstrates that you based your deletion on your own assessment of the image's adherence to NFCC, in violation of deletion discussion policy.—DCGeist 03:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Yes, the "iconic" image of Anthony Perkins should go to IFD. Please nominate if you want to, I did not take the time yet. -Nv8200p talk 13:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Image:Tdimm2.JPG – Deletion endorsed. The deletion guidelines for administrators are guidelines, meaning that they are -- in fact -- subservient to policies, like WP:NFCC. This DRV nomination fails both on strength of numbers, and of argument. – Xoloz 15:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Did not reach consensus, the image was listed for deletion here and three users clearly said to keep, while only one was for deleting it, yet it was still deleted. A featured article on another pop song ("Hollaback Girl") features four images of the video or performances, and this article can't have one?? The image also had a fair use rationale section. Thankyoubaby 05:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(From deleting admin) The argument to keep was that there was commentary in the article on the image. There was none. The image caption was ""That Don't Impress Me Much" video" and the only mention of the image was "It depicts Twain walking around in the desert, in her infamous leopard skin outfit." That was adequately conveyed by the words alone and the use of the adjective, "infamous," was an opinion and unsupported by any citations. The way the image was used failed WP:NFCC #8 and was deleted on policy grounds. -Nv8200p talk 12:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. For clarification, Hollaback Girl contains only one non-free image of the video, and the screencap there is clearly strongly supportive of the accompanying text. I wouldn't object to a different screencap to capture the style of this video in a matter similar to Hollaback Girl's non-free image. This was just a singer closeup. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 17:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It shows the desert and her costume, which is being discussed, "Hollaback Girl"'s is Gwen Stefani in a car, I can't see how that is more "supportive". Thankyoubaby 17:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn deletion Image was improperly deleted. Deleting admin contravened clear and emphatic language of Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/Instructions for administrators: "Before deleting an image, make sure of the following...No objections to its deletion have been raised, or a consensus to delete has been reached." In this case, two objections to the image's deletion were raised on the basis of its value (a fundamental criterion, per NFCC#8) and there was obviously no consensus to delete. It was claimed neither at the point of nomination nor deletion that the image failed the sort of objectively testable requirement that might reasonably trump administrators' instruction. In deleting, admin improperly valued his/her personal opinion about a subjective matter--the value of the image to the article--over the clear language of the instruction.—DCGeist 16:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The non-free content criteria policy has to be given priority over the deletion guidelines. -Nv8200p talk 03:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, if you'll excuse the inevitable humor of the phrasing, the policy for determining whether the policy has been satisifed is expressed in the administrators' instructions, which have a weight beyond those of guidelines.—DCGeist 04:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page you are quoting from was a feeble attempt to condense the Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators. Look at the article history. There are only a few contributors and an insignificant amount of discussion on the page. That page does not have enough weight to circumvent the NFCC policy. -Nv8200p talk 15:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at the instructions' edit history. Even more significantly, I looked at the prominent manner in which the primary IfD page links to the instructions: Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion#Instructions_for_administrators. Not so feeble.—DCGeist 17:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/Instructions for administrators were poorly derived from a guideline. The reason to delete was based on policy. -Nv8200p talk 20:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn deletion per consensus in IfD. — xDanielx ^T/_C 23:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - No consensus for such and this represents another example of improper admin behavior and flouting of our own policies. When is this going to end? Badagnani 07:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It will never end, admins will always make mistakes, admins are human too. Of course assuming that all admins are maliciously ignoring our own community set policies is going a bit overboard. Most likely the admin who did the close thought he/she was doing it per our policies, and doing the action in good faith, remember these discussions are not a vote, admins are charged to figure out the stronger argument, and they don't always get it right... but they close 100-200 articles for deletion debates daily, more then 500 speedy deletion canidates daily and end up with about 5 improper decisions. (as measured by a very unscientific average of what goes through DRV). Thats really not that bad of a hit/miss ratio ;) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 20:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to note that I do endorse this deletion, policy trumps, want the policy changed, go to the policy's talk page. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 04:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Correction Neither I nor anyone elsewho has voted to overturn has called for a change in policy. We want the policy enforced. Here's the policy, once again, for your benefit straight from the deletion policy page: "The discussion lasts at least five days; afterwards, pages are deleted by an administrator if there is consensus to do so. If there is no consensus, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging or redirecting as appropriate."—DCGeist 04:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - What you are referring to applies in the case of deletions based on discussions of notability, etc. If the article or image violates U. S. Law or Wikipedia policy, the admin will delete it even if there is no consensus. Based on numerous previous discussions and DRVs, the image failed the current WP:NFCC policy as currently written and also the screenshot tag requirement for critical commentary. -Nv8200p talk 12:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, Nv8200p, that's simply wrong. That's not policy. I really have to ask you as an admin who wants to participate in closing deletion discussions and deleting images to refamiliarize yourself with the deletion policy. Please reread in particular Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_discussion. There is absolutely no distinction drawn between "deletions based on discussions of notability" vs. those based on "Wikipedia policy"; admins are not directed to abide by consensus in one case, but essentially make the determination themselves in others. You may have been led to believe it's true; several admins have been acting as if it's true--but it's not. It is quite evidently not part of our deletion policy. (Remember, for the extreme legal case of blatant copyright violations, policy provides for a special process.) Consensus is determinitive in all deletion discussions.
      - Here is the deletion policy: The discussion determines by consensus whether the image adheres to Wikipedia image policy--the discussion may center on an image's notability, on whether an image is obsolete, on whether it has been legitimately tagged, on whether it is of sufficiently high visual quality, or anything else covered in Wikipedia image policy. If no consensus to delete is arrived at in that discussion, the image is not deleted. The admin who chooses to close does not get to determine on his or her own whether the consensus or lack thereof is wise or correct, simply whether consensus to delete exists or not--not by "headcount," not by "vote," but by a common sense reckoning of consensus just like anywhere else on Wikipedia. If there is a discussion and consensus is to keep, obviously the image is kept. If there is a discussion and no consensus, the image is kept. If there is a discussion and there is doubt as to whether there is consensus to delete or not, the image is kept. That is the deletion policy as expressed on the policy page and underscored by the guideline. That a culture of violating the policy has emerged does not legitimate such violations.—DCGeist 15:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure per Nv8200p's rationale and comments here. The use of non-free content is constrained by policy, and IfD cannot override that. The only way to have non-free content kept is to demonstrate that it is being used in accordance with policy. No such case was or has been made for this image. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you've written is (like the previous defense statement) simply not true. A case was made in IfD that this image was being used in accordance with policy, clearly responding to nominator's NFCC#8 concern. User:Jheald made it: "Keep. Appropriately illustrative of setting, styling, and odd leopard skin outfit, discussed in the article." Another case was made in IfD that this image was being used in accordance with policy. User:Knulclunk made it: "Used commentary as permitted by WP:NFC#Examples of acceptable use: Film and television screen shots:"For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television." Keep for video commentary only." User:Thankyoubaby also voted to keep, clearly agreeing with the case made by Knulclunk. You may not be impressed by the cases made that the image was being used in accordance in policy; you may disagree with them. But please don't misrepresent the facts by saying they weren't made. The consensus, based on the arguments made in discussion, was clearly to keep the image. Closing admin thus violated Wikipedia policy by deleting.—DCGeist 17:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, none of the numerous one line comments discussed why the presence of the image would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding or why the image could not be replaced by text that serves a similar function as required by NFCC policy, item 8. -Nv8200p talk 20:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Query OK, I think we're at least talking in the same room here. If I'm interpreting your point correctly, you're saying that in judging whether consensus to delete existed, you discounted Jheald's and Knulclunk's statements because they did not address nominator's NFCC#8 concerns. Now let's take each statement, applying common sense. I'll just examine Jheald's in this query.
When Jheald writes, "Appropriately illustrative of setting, styling, and odd leopard skin outfit," isn't it common sense to conclude that s/he is arguing that the image significantly increases readers' understanding of that setting, that styling, and that leopard skin outfit? When Jheald points out, "as discussed in the article," isn't it common sense to conclude that s/he is pointing out that the text underscores the significance of these matters to the topic? Isn't it reasonable to conclude that Jheald believes that omitting this material would be detrimental to readers' understanding of the topic?
As another way of phrasing my query, would you not have discounted Jheald's comment if it had been phrased thus: ""Appropriately illustrative of setting, styling, and odd leopard skin outfit that significantly increases readers' understanding of these matters. The significance of these matters to an understanding of the topic is discussed in the text. Omitting the image would be detrimental to understanding these particular matters. While the text of the article can explain the significance of these matters, it cannot make the reader fully understand them in the absence of the image. Use of the image thus adheres to the requirements of relevant Wikipedia image policy for non-free content--item 8"? Or would you still have discounted Jheald's position in deciding whether consensus to delete existed?—DCGeist 20:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We'll, it's better, but you can throw in as many "significants" as you want, but that don't make it so. Look at this article. Paragraph 7 provides cited critical commentary about the image on the right and the caption of the image ties the image back to the text. -Nv8200p talk 03:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a superior article. (Though it does have a photo captioned "Iconic publicity photo of Anthony Perkins" without a reliable source. Shall we IfD that?) But the point here is what your job is when you elect to close an IfD discussion. Policy makes it clear that's it not to decide who's right and who's wrong, it's to decide what the consensus, if any, was. Because consensus is not based on a simple headcount or vote, you may be called upon in certain cases to weigh arguments a bit more or less heavily, but in general, one participant's voice is no more or less valuable than any other's. I simply cannot see how you could reasonably conclude that Videmus Omnia's lone argument in support of deletion clearly outweighed Jheald's and Knulclunk's more substantial ones for retention (I am entirely discounting Thankyoubaby's keep vote). I have to say, in other words, that I believe you did not base your deletion on a reasonable assessment of the discussion and the consensus it reached. I believe the evidence--including the wording of your rationale and even your response to my query here (and I do appreciate you responding)--demonstrates that you based your deletion on your own assessment of the image's adherence to NFCC, in violation of deletion discussion policy.—DCGeist 03:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the "iconic" image of Anthony Perkins should go to IFD. Please nominate if you want to, I did not take the time yet. -Nv8200p talk 13:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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