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

I was hoping someone could email me the contents of this page so I may post it elsewhere. I put a lot of work into it, and although it has not been deemed appropriate for wikipedia (which I am fine with), I would still like the have the content I wrote. Thanks. VenomSnake (talk) 00:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfen (Star Fox series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I request undeletion of this article beucase i feel that it is notable for being a prominent part of the Star Fox series of video games. It is not as prominent as its "good-guy" counterpart, the Arwing (which is also under deletion review), but it is in every single game from Star Fox 64 onwards, and i think that since it is well-known, that it should have an article telling what it is, on wikipedia. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 21:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: DRV is not AfD redux. This is not the place to re-argue the AfD, but to explain how the (unanimous, by the way) deletion discussion and closure were not done properly. Corvus cornix_talk 22:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The impression i got from the introduction and explanation of the Deletion Review was that it was a place to challenge a deletion. in fact, that's what it clearly stated. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 22:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the portion which says This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome but instead if you think the debate itself was interpreted incorrectly by the closer or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate.? Corvus cornix_talk 22:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion - the AfD was correctly closed. Incidentally, the article was unsourced, in-universe with no real world context and I see no prospect of an encyclopaedic version being produced. BlueValour (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I did, but new information has come up, and i thought the article could be recovered and expanded upon. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 23:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, the AfD discussion didn't have particularly many commenters, but there have been many similar nominations of video game characters recently and the consensus is solidly there that articles entirely consisting of in-universe details with no real-world sources establishing notability should be deleted. --Stormie (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. I don't see that there is any new information brought up here. The AfD was closed properly, as stated above. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DW Fear Her.jpg (edit|[[Talk:Image:DW Fear Her.jpg|talk]]|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|ifD)

This image is in violation of the fair use criteria 3A, it is used in the article for decorative reasons only. The original nomination was closed as a malicious complaint of disruption was made, and a memeber of the relevant wikiproject closed prematurely closed the ifd on these grounds. The groundless alegation has since been withdrawn, and the individual involved told me to submit the image here. Fasach Nua (talk) 20:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse keep - the image is informative in the article and I see no grounds for it failing fair-use criteria. BlueValour (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse keep. To be more specific, the original nomination was closed based on the fact that your nomination was a WP:POINT nomination, as is this deletion review. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 23:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the uploader, I told him to bring it here, so no WP:POINT here. — Edokter • Talk • 00:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse keep - to delete a fair use image illustrating a television episode would be an extremely far-reaching precedent which should be preceded by genuine policy discussion, not a WP:IFD nomination. Also, what is this "decorative reasons" criteria you are referencing? WP:FU criteria 3A says "Minimal usage. As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary." You could certainly argue that this one image is not "necessary", but again, that's a matter for a policy discussion not a deletion nomination. --Stormie (talk) 00:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer: There is no "decorative reasons" criteria, the only reason for a fair use image is neccessity any usage reason other than neccessity (including decorative) is invalid as a fair use criteria Fasach Nua (talk) 15:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Keep - It's a fairuse image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eskimospy (talk • contribs) 02:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • question - Is it neccessitated? Was the article invalid before it's inclusion? What does this image convey that cannot be conveyed in uncopyrighted text "The Doctor and the Tardis in a child's picture"? Fasach Nua (talk) 13:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest possible overturn and delete. This image or equivalents of it were already deleted not once but twice after valid IfDs. An admin with a vested interest in the use of the image then undeleted the image in blatant violation of due process, and then re-uploaded it under a different name to evade the IfD. He also bullied the nominator, to the point of making bogus block threats against them. Gross case of admin abuse. -- As for the content, the NFCC concerns against this image are very real; unlike what Stormie above implies there is no blanket allowal for one image per television episode; every image must in itself be necessary to illustrate a specific point of analysis. This one isn't, just like its predecessors. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is this supposed to be sarcasm? Before you start yelling "gross admin abuse", you better get your facts straight. The original image was deleted only once, then once again under G4, then admittedly restored and re-deleted by me. Then I uploaded a completely different image, so there is no "re-uploading" involved here. This deletion review only concerns the closing of this IfD. Concerns regarding my actions on the other image should be addressed elsewhere. — Edokter • Talk • 10:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, this is not sarcasm, I'm dead serious. And I did say "this image or equivalents of it"; anything that applied to the former ones applies to this one, including the valid deletion decisions and the fact that the new uploads were in violation of them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The closer of the original IfD had a deletion in the same scope overturned before he closed the IfD. There wasn't any consensus for the deletion of the first either - just one anon listing it on IfD along with other images with no attempt to note this on either the talk page or the article or the WikiProject. Saying that's consensus is laughable. Will ^(talk) 15:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as closer. Will ^(talk) 15:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Aside - What is this discussion about? Lots of people have suggested that the image be kept without explanation, however we know that WP is not a WP:DEMOCRACY, and the only consensus that needs be found is wether this image is nessiccary or not. I have seen nothing to suggest that anyone thinks that the article neccessitates this image Fasach Nua (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion is not intended to discuss the reason for deletion, only if the IfD was closed properly. You can vote for a "relist" to try and have the IfD relisted. — Edokter • Talk • 17:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would seem that there is enough of a spectrum of opinion to suggest that the original ifd submission had some merit, was improperly closed, as it did not fall under WP:POINT or WP:DISRUPT, and that the member of wikiproject in which the image is used shoudl not have closed the ifd without discussion Fasach Nua (talk) 12:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not referenced in the text, fails "Significantly increases a reader's understanding, or its omission is a significant detriment". I am also unhappy with the process here from what I see - seems fishy.--Doc^g 16:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is Deletion Review, not Images for Deletion. — Edokter • Talk • 17:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, overturn and delete - happy now?--Doc^g 22:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist at IFD or FUR. This is not the right forum to discuss whether the significance of this image is enough to justify its use; the IFD or a fair use review would give editors more ability to discuss the nuances of the image policy than this DRV. The use of images like this is a common topic of discussion at WT:NONFREE, and there is unlikely to be a clear answer in policy. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete: While the trend might be to include one episode image per article, fair use policy doesn't support it unless there is critical commentary on the image (see WP:NFC#Acceptable_images). The article's plot summary is substantial (probably too much so; see WP:PLOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information) and a reader can understand the term "drawing" without having to have a fair use image to depict it. Further, the image can be replaced by a user drawing an image of a person in a child like manner. So, it's replaceable and not needed. Thus, it fails WP:NFCC #1. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Inquiry. Generally, DRV is for contesting an out of process deletion (or not deletion as the case may be), but reading this discussion I can't tell whether we're debating the merits of the image itself and its legitimacy or the closure process itself. If I could get feedback on exactly what discussion is going on, I'd be glad to give my input. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 03:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are deciding whether to uphold the ifd and keep the thing, or overturn it and delete it. The philosophical niceties matter less than the result.--Doc^g 08:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we're effectively having the IfD anew here, then I don't see how this image meets the muster of WP:NFCC#8, requiring that the image significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and have its omission be detrimental to that understanding. This is a drawing of the Doctor and his TARDIS, and while pertinent to the plot, certainly not necessary to understand the prose provided. Overturn closure and delete. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 14:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, we're not have the IfD anew here. The only thing that should be being discussed here is the closure. If 'delete' would be the outcome, it would mean the image would be deleted out of IfD or CSD... and I'm not willing to let that happen. 'relist' or 'endorse' are the only possible outcomes in this case. Any other outcome would establish a vary dangerous precedent where fair use images can be deleted out of process, and this particular images is only picked as an example. Otherwise, all TV screenshots would have to be nominated. This is a very dangerous trend here; before you know it, there is going to be a barrage of deletions under the guise of the "necessity" rule. That term that open should never have been allowed in the policy, as it is now being abused by deletionists trying to get as many fair use images off of Wikipedia. I intend to start an RfC if I am proven right; Fair use policy should be strictly defined within the policy framework. The only other option is to disallow fair use of images alltogether. — Edokter • Talk • 14:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • If we're specifically discussing the closure as appropriate, I find it out-of-process. Regardless of whether or not Fasach Nua (talk · contribs) was being disruptive or not (a discussion and determination I won't involve myself), the nomination itself certainly seemed valid and not subject to speedy closure. I lean more towards overturn and relist as opposed to o+d, namely because the IfD still needs to run its course--moreso than the 5.2 hours afforded. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete - No valid reason was given to keep the image in the ifd, no consensus to keep the image in the ifd Fasach Nua (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse keep as uploader. There was no consensus to delete either... And we need no reasons to keep, only to delete. But since discussion was cut short, if the close was done unproper, relist is the only alternative. — Edokter • Talk • 20:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse keep. Self-evidently supports the commentary. Closing admin was correct to close this as a malicious nomination. Jheald (talk) 17:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

point of information' - The closer was not an admin, as you state, but a member of the wikiproject which uses the image Fasach Nua (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clandestine HUMINT asset recruiting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

A perfectly decent starting point for an article which was speedy deleted by ST47. While needing some cleanup of tone, it does not, in my opinion, meet any speedy deletion criterion, and ST47 has refused to explain which actual criterion he deleted it under. Kirill 17:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The cache link above does not show the page. Is there a cached version available elsewhere? --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Cannot see how the article meets any speedy deletion criteria, at the least deserves an AFD discussion. Davewild (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. The speedy-delete summary suggests the criterion was No Context, but there indeed was context. DMacks (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as deleter - page is utterly unnecessary. Reads as a how-to, is too far in-depth. Content should be heavily pruned and merged into the main article, not spun off and expanded ad infinitum. We are not a guidebook. We are an encyclopedia. We document facts. We do not record a person's opinion on how to do something, certainly not ever anywhere but that person's page or pages related to him or her, and only when he or she is an expert. As written, the article was crufty OR. (Lifebaka: If you want the content, email me) --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 19:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Context is right there in the title. And likely, given a little work could survive AFD considering there is a wealth of information about it on the internet. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn None of the reasons given by ST47 amount to reasons for speedy deletion. We do not speedy for "crufty". We don't e4ven delete on that rationale. DGG (talk) 00:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list AfD. The article should most likely have been deleted, but proper process should first be used. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - A copy of the article, pending the result of this DRV, can be found here. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn improper speedy deletion. RMHED (talk) 22:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per DGG, SwatJester et al. Thanks for link. The way WP is going, it may be a popular topic.... Johnbod (talk) 02:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Admins are mantaining a blind-deletion behaviour against our page, they say we are infringing some copyringhts but this is very false since we are the producers, the owners and the only legal holders of those copyrights. Phi Technology page has been locked now, and this may lead to a some damage, please undelete it as soon as possible since it's my duty to have that page online. Paolo.russian (talk) 11:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have directed Paulo to Wikipedia:Request for copyright assistance, but I think further down the line, the subject is going to suffer from WP:COI and WP:OR problems. Marasmusine (talk) 11:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn deletion. It has been shown that the creator of the page was not commiting copyright violation, so I see no reason why it should be kept deleted based on this. However, other problems with the article should be addressed. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse my deletion and title protection. Blatant advertsing in the article's long form. Non-notable product in its stub form. I love that "my duty"! Paolo, you also have a duty to comply with Wikipedia editorial policies. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse delete No explicit release into the GFDL makes it an indisputable copyright violation. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Shouldn't be speedily deleted as copyvio, because it has been released under GFDL, or as recreated page because it hasn't been AfD'd, but does seem to qualify for speedy deletion as spam. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Endorse deletion until proper proof of copyright ownership is provided. Corvus cornix_talk 22:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

• • In addition, please remove cascade protection from the stub so that a proper afd discussion can be begun. Corvus cornix_talk 22:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and List at AfD - correct GFDL permissions have been received, see here, so there are no copyvio grounds for keeping the article deleted. However, the last version had serious problems so it should be listed to enable the Community to make a decision. BlueValour (talk) 22:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on the above, overturn, unprotect and list for afd. Corvus cornix_talk 22:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restrore and send to AfD where it will be probably deleted. Very spammy, but probably better to do it after a discussion. DGG (talk) 00:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and AfD per above. Justin ^chat 19:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sputnikmusic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD, AfD2)

This page about a music review site has a confusing history of creations/deletions/redirections I am not specifically interested in. I am listing it here because of IMO sloppy treatment of the issue. I clicked to see its backlinks and was surprised to see that it is liked from multitudes of albums. Now, you have to decide whether this site notable/reputable or not. If it is notable then the article must be restored. If it is not, then it cannot be a reliable source for wikipedia, and hence all references to it must be deleted. Please comment/process. I am not so bold here because am not an expert in music, only in the suffix -nik :-) `'Míkka>t 06:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Consensus was clearly to delete in the 2nd AfD. However, should sufficient sources become available to create an article on this subject, it should not be disallowed. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. The result of the AfD was quite clear. However, it does seem an influential, highly regarded site. It should be straightforward to produce a new, fully sourced page and this should be permitted. BlueValour (talk) 22:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure? I'm not getting a sense of that myself, e.g. a Google News archive search [1] reveals one lonely reference, a mention from a German news site from January 2007. --Stormie (talk) 00:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I was sure but you have sowed doubts in my mind :-) I think that it all depends whether the argument about notable bands citing the site holds water. I appreciate that band sites are no way WP:RSs but would notable bands compromise their reputation by citing sites that are not well regarded? BTW this is not a rhetorical question but one to which I don't know the answer. BlueValour (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, clear consensus in second AfD. If someone can create a reliably sourced version establishing notability, fair enough, if not, I'm happy to do a pass over the "what links here" and remove the review links. --Stormie (talk) 00:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, I think that it is a fair argument that if the site is not notable then the links should be removed. BlueValour (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Linux Action Show! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article appears to have been speedy'd, as there's no AFD for it! It was about a podcast about Linux and open-source software.

A quick Google search may help to establish its notability... it is referenced frequently by numerous Linux-related publications, websites, and industry events. It has interviewed many significant leaders of the Linux community. If more references are needed in the article, I'll add them. ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 05:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the deleting administrator, and I have restored the article. I think I deleted the article totally on accident with the wrong tab open. I wasn't in a haste or anything, strictly an accident. My sincerest apologies. The addition of those references would be nice, though. Keegan^talk 05:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]