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

Should not have been deleted as spam, I was not the one to create the page but I've just come back from Kibera where I visited this organization which is a valid non-profit registered community base organization in the Kibera slum. If I had been on Wikipedia I would have place a hangon tag on the article to dispute the deletion. The reason was spam, but if the article needs improvement with external references, etc. I'd be happy to provide them. If you are not willing to restore the article in mainspace, please restore it in my userspace and I will improve it. Thanks Brian 13:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse speedy deletion - Specifically and on the whole, the article did not indicate why its subject is important or significant. For example, the article did not specify any membership number for this newly form, year and a half old organization or any specific involvement or impact on the community. There was nothing in the article from which to determine an important or significant about the topic. Speedy delete was appropriate under WP:CSD#A7. -- Jreferee t/c 14:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, that as written, it's not a great article. If an admin will kindly move a copy of it to my userspace, I'll improve it. I can add references that support the importance, notability and verifiability and it will be easy for me to get membership numbers and examples of specific projects that have made a difference in Kibera. Thanks Brian 14:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)btball[reply]

File:Itmfa-flag.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was speedy deleted because of I9, copyright infringement. I don't remember, but I thought I had quoted the creator on the image page as saying "And to the folks who want me to create and sell bumper stickers: Please. The button and lapel pin business is killing me. I'm not adding any more crap to my line of ITMFA merch. But, hey, feel free to create your own ITMFA merch. Much to the consternation of my business-minded pals (Democrats, one and all), I didn't copyright “ITMFA.†I'm not in this to profit, I'm just in it to spread the meme." The creator of the image specifically disclaims copyright and encourages distribution. Is that not explicit enough? SchmuckyTheCat 08:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete - Indeed. Here is the post on Don Savage's (the ITMFA creator) blog specifically disavowing copyright. Is it possible to see what license was placed on the image before it got deleted? Jeffpw 08:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The license on the image was PD. Don Savage has not released the image into the public domain. Despite what he said, he did copyright the image, automatically, at the time of creation. Schmucky was not the copyright holder, and barring an explicit statement from Savage saying "this is PD", he has no grounds to release it into PD. I'm more than happy to undelete if there is a statement of permissions from the author; simply saying "you guys can use this image to make stuff with it" is not sufficient for Wikipedia. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 10:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please note that the blog linked to above says "I did not copyright ITMFA". Savage is saying that he did not copyright the statement ITMFA.(probably meaning trademarking) He says nothing about the image ITMFA-flag.png. Even without this, there is no license for usage on Wikipedia, but this further shows that there was no explicit license. As I said before, I'm happy to help Mr. Savage and Schmucky through the permissions process for this. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 10:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So the creator saying he wants the image spread, and that he did not copyright it, is not enough for you? I'm sorry, but I think this was a bad faith deletion, expressly done in retribution for a critical comment I left on your page. I would hope other administrators look at this and other administrative actions you have made lately. Jeffpw 10:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith. No that is not enough. Schmucky does not get to put the image in the public domain. Only the copyright holder can, and his statement is actually not enough. Releases into the public domain have to be an explicit and irrevocable release of all rights. Jeffpw, you need to take your vendetta against me elsewhere. This was a valid deletion. Please, show me on the blog link where Savage says "I hereby release irrevocably all rights to this image." You won't find it because it's not there. His statement does not meet the bar of a valid public domain release. Therefore, Schmucky could not validly upload the image under PD, and the deletion was correct. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 10:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vendetta against you???? Swat, you continue to tell me to assume good faith while simultaneously assuming bad faith on my part. Please be consistent. When you engage in a series of controversial admin actions you should expect that there will be a response and questions as to both the action and motivation behind it. That's the Wikipedia way. If you don't like it you may relinquish the tools at any time. Nobody is forcing you to be an administrator. In any event, I disagree with this action, and would hope another (uninvolved) admin would weigh in on the matter. You've already made your position clear. Jeffpw 11:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn -- the statements by the creator of the image are sufficient to establish that the image has been released into the public domain and/or released under an unrestricted free license. The creator of the image can hardly state that "I didn't copyright “ITMFA.”", then contradictorily assert that the presence of the image on our servers is a copyright infringement. The law values substance over form, as do our policies (see Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_bureaucracy). Swatjester's assertion that the image isn't public domain because the creator didn't state "I hereby release irrevocably all rights to this image" verbatim is WikiLawyering. John254 13:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - Speedy deletion does not apply. The image was copied from the impeachthemotherfuckeralready.com website. Besides the ((PD-release)) image tag, the uploader (SchmuckyTheCat) posted

  "<http://www.impeachthemotherfuckeralready.com/2006/04/from_the_mailbag.html> Savage specifically encourages free use."

  Thus, the uploader did assert (other than through image tags) that it is public domain, freely licensed, fair use, or used with permission. The uploader might be wrong in the assertion, but the image licensing assertion was reasonable which is all WP:CSD#I9 requires. Whether a reasonable assertion is correct needs to be judge by consensus, not through speedy deletion. WP:CSD#I9 and other speedy delete reasons do not apply. -- Jreferee t/c 14:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, list at IfD Blatantly false deletion rationale, speedy deletion is for unambiguous cases, which this one is obviously not. ~ trialsanderrors 15:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• For what it's worth, the image was also in the SavageLove article, illustrating a section specifically about the image. It seems that it would have been usable in that article, at least, under fair use rules. Jeffpw 16:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I wouldn't be so hard on the speedy deleter. Since the source website alread is selling products using its copyright material, it doesn't seem likely that the source website will give out a free license. In otherwords, it doesn't seem likely that anyone at Wikipedia can successfully follow When permission is confirmed to have a valid ((PD-release)) image tag. Had the image been tagged differently, it probably would have been deleted anyways. -- Jreferee t/c 16:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Still would have been usable under fair use, since it illustrated a section of an article. Jeffpw 16:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That seems possible. I think the image deleters do get tired of seeing one misapplied free use tag after another. It is a difficult task and it is made more difficult by being jumped on. The uploader did not seem to put much thought into the assertion listed on the image page. Images licensing review takes time, so the more cooperation the uploader provides, the easier it will be for those who review the image licenses. Hopefully, this DRV discussion will help everyone move towards cooperation. -- Jreferee t/c 17:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and add that blog link to the image page. With that done, I can't see IFD deleting this, so I'm not sure it is worth an IFD listing. GRBerry 15:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HobbyZone Millennium PTU (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Deleted as non-notable and/or an advertisement. I was in the middle of adding external links since I'd done this at another wiki when it was deleted. I maintain that this is a notable product given the fact that it is the first model of this type to utilize two extremely sophisticated technologies. Furthermore, it's manufactured and distributed by the second-largest hobby company in the world. Other examples of R/C models I did under a previous username include:

• E-flite P-47D Thunderbolt 400
• ParkZone J-3 Cub which yielded a photo used on a number of userboxes
• Interactive Toy Concepts Micro Mosquito
• E-flite Blade CP
• ParkZone P-51D Mustang

-- PMDrive1061 07:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you have any secondary sources for it? There's no point in restoring if it'll just get deleted more slowly through AFD.--chaser - t 08:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - WP:CSD#G11 Blatant advertising applies. The article presented marketing phrases such as "first low-cost helicopter", "A great many other inexpensive indoor helicopters depend", "Another unique feature", "which may be ordered through any hobby dealer", "As with all HobbyZone products, the Millennium PTU is sold as a fully assembled, ready-to-go package which includes four heavy-duty carbon zinc "AA" batteries for the transmitter/charger." "Suggested retail price: US$59.99" Comment - Providing examples of other unsourced articles you did under another Wikipedia name is a reason to expect that this article also will be unsourced and not meet Wikipedia's article standards. Also, no reliable source independent of the product's manufacturer has ever written in their publication that the HobbyZone Millennium is first model of this type to utilize two extremely sophisticated technologies. Fantasies of notability do not make something Wikipedia notable. -- Jreferee t/c 14:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• First of all, kindly do not accuse me of having "fantasies of notability." This is a major commercial product by a major manufacturer. Three original articles of mine under my previous screen name were built into featured articles and I have a total of six features to my credit. Second, I made it clear that it had been written on another wiki. Actually, I added it to Wikia's own Radio Control wiki along with Helipedia.com and Eflighwiki.com before bringing it here. Third, it was blown out of the water so fast that I didn't have the slightest chance of cleaning it up. It was late when I wrote it and I was planning to return this morning to make it more formal and to add the third party sources. When I was an administrator (de-adminned by my own request), I extended the benefit of the doubt to a lot of users, especially the established ones. I speedied quite a few stubs for lack of content without first seeing who the heck wrote the thing. In every instance, I restored the stub without question. At this point, please don't bother to restore the thing. It isn't worth this hassle. More energy is being spent discussing this than is worth expending.  :( --PMDrive1061 16:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I apologize for my flip comment, which did not help the discussion. Also, there was no reason for me to address Wikipedia notable in this discussion, since it's not relevant to speedy deletion. I think the topic was sufficiently important enough to overcome WP:CSD#G7, but the wording of the article did not overcome WP:CSD#G11 blatant advertising. I have no prejudice against recreating a sourced article minus the blatant advertising. I think that can be done even during this DRV, so long as the recreated article does not meet any of the speedy delete criteria. -- Jreferee t/c 16:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely - the very best option would be for the editor or others to fix these articles that have problems with notability and advertising wherever possible, and then remove any of them that they're unable to satisfy the proper criteria. Arthur 17:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. The article was created at 06:41, 28 October 2007, tagged for deletion at 06:42, 28 October 2007, and deleted at 06:43, 28 October 2007. Reading the deleted article, I fail to see how G11 applies; there may be some unfortunate "brochure phrasing" but it was by no means a blatant advertisement. In the 2 minutes from creation to deletion, PMDrive1061 was not given a chance to place ((hangon)) or explain why the article should be kept. Overturn, userfy if necessary, and move on. Let's give our editors the benefit of the doubt. - auburnpilot talk 16:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't that PMDrive1061 didn't have time to add his external links, as he suggests. Looking at the other samples he gives, it's clear that notability will not be established. He maintains that the text he wrote itself establishes notability. Simply adding external links to hobbyist sites and forums wouldn't have helped. The editor seems not to understand that verifiability accompanies notabililty. Of the other samples given, only Interactive Toy Concepts Micro Mosquito seems to have the possibililty of being notable, and it isn't properly referenced for example where it claims it was covered in the New York Times, making it difficult to verify the claims. Arthur 21:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurrh (talk • contribs)

I disagree. New page patrol should not be approached with the same "shoot to kill" attitude that vandal reverting requires. With the exception of pure vandalism, utter nonsense, and test pages, editors should be allowed some appearance of an ability to write an article. Had I reviewed this request, I would have declined the speedy and swapped the template for ((underconstruction)). When an article goes from creation to deletion in two minutes, we have a problem. The correct course of action here would have been for the deleting admin to restore the article, userfy it, and allow the author to improve it to Wikipedia standards. I'd do it myself, but I'm sure somebody would cry "abuse" since I've commented here. - auburnpilot talk 03:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But to reitereate, if the sources he would add would establish notability, that would be fine. However from his statements and example articles, it's not clear that this would happen. Note that his original comments were that the notability was already inherent to the article. Also note that his further work he didn't do was NOT to establish references, but to add external links. I agree he didn't have time to do this, but it's pretty clear that they wouldn't have made a difference. You can overturn the deletion, and then we'll just take it and the rest of the unsourced non-notable articles and run them through afd, but in some sense it's just prolonging the inevitable. I'd be much more comfortable if he was making efforts to establish notability and reliable sources rather than arguing they are already there, when clearly they are not. This article and most of the examples given are not in line with WP:RS, WP:VER and have serious issues with advertising like quality per WP:NOT and WP:POV. There are NO sources in any of the articles, only external references. The external references tend to be sales links, hobbyist groups, and forums, none of which really qualify as reliable sources, let alone establish notability. How will "under construction" help when the editor shows no willingness to establish notability, and previous articles appear to be prime candidates for deletion, and no other editors step in to clean-up the article? Arthur 04:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurrh (talk • contribs)

It doesn't much matter now, as it seems this was the final straw in a long line of disappointments for the author of this article. S/he has since retired. [1] - auburnpilot talk 15:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

S/he unretired in the past.[2] -- Jreferee t/c 16:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion with no prejudice against recreation with a total rewrite if notability can be proven. Unless "first low-cost helicopter of its type to utilize both 2.4 GHz radio technology as well as lithium polymer battery technology" is an assertion of notability, it fails A7. And the tone of the article is overly promotional, it could say that same thing with 5 about fewer words, just "lithium batteries" will suffice for "lithium polymer battery technology," even the edit summary of the first edit: The most fun you can have for forty bucks. New article on new model helicopter. Mr.Z-man 18:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, Needs links to a few third-party reviews/sources, but a decent stub verging on start class article. Taking this to AfD or prodding it for sources would have been reasonable, but to speedy delete it so quickly was rude.-gadfium 18:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Arthurrh tagged the article for speedy deletion. To address this, I placed a note on Arthurrh's talk page regarding taging articles for deletion so close to creation. The actual speedy deletion was done under the believe that the article had been created an hour before he looked at it (see below). WP:CSD#G11 was a valid reason to delete the article and a note on the talk page is a way to address the tagging so close to creation. -- Jreferee t/c 16:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn per gadfium and AuburnPilot 203.221.238.195 02:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC) — 203.221.238.195 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment from speedy deleter. It was me who deleted the article, picked more-or-less at random from those tagged for speedy per A7. At the time, I didn't see anything in it to claim or demonstrate any notability for that particular product over and above any others of its type, or that such products are individually notable in and of themselves. The edit summary provided was not helpful to signal any future intentions there may have been for the article, and together with the 'copywriting' format it seemed therefore eligible for CSD.
  In retrospect, it probably was a little harsh to have done so, and considering it for AfD might have been more appropriate than speedy. Unfortunately since I had neglected to update the time display in my user preferences after the switch to daylight savings time locally here the night before, it appeared as if the article had been created an hour before I looked at it, rather than two minutes before.
  I did neglect to review the creator's prior editing history in any detail, and considered only the article's merits; no slight was or is intended. PMDrive1061 did leave a message on my talk page asking me to reconsider the deletion, but this was after I had clocked off for the day and by the time I saw it, this DRV was already in progress. Would be happy for the article's creator (or anyone else) to have another go at establishing the article, if undeleted through this process. In looking for any independent, informative commentary on this product, I was unable to find anything outside of sales notices, generic product reviews, and the like. These didn't seem to be promising or appropriate materials to build a valid article from; but perhaps there's other material out there which was missed, or in some other form. --cjllw ʘ TALK 13:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Pure brochurespeak. ~ trialsanderrors 06:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion as advert. There could be an article at that title, but this isn't it. Stifle (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Best of and one.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Was removed for no FUR, I can give one Keith D. Tyler ¶ 00:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• For use where? GRBerry 02:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Presumably The Best of And One, which still links the image. I see no problem undeleting the January 2006 version of this image, given an adequate fair use rationale (one was present on the image page at time of deletion, but was grossly inadequate), but the March 2007 version, at 935x935, should be kept deleted. —Cryptic 02:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]