Problem Frames Approach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Deleted as a blatant advert when it clearly isn't Secretlondon 21:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC) In March 2007, the page devoted to the "Problem Frames Approach" was deleted for "blatant advert". This was a legitimate page that was not a blatant advert ... unless someone hacked it. In which case, the hack should have been rolled back; the page shouldn't have been deleted. How can we get the page back (along with the images that it used)? If so, I will be happy to review it for content. StephenFerg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Secretlondon (talk • contribs) 21:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. Overturn. There's no way this should have been deleted. Michael Jackson has created several useful and significant software development techniques over the last thirty years, the best known of which is probably Jackson Structured Programming. The Problem Frames Approach is merely the most recent. We have articles on his other methods so why was this one singled out for deletion ? It seemed instructive and reasonably complete in its description of the process. It is in no way an advert. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and allow someone to try and sort this out. I would agree that it sounds rather promotional in tone - it reads like something that comes out of a brochure - but it's not really spam. Assuming someone can and is willing to clean this up to sound less promotional/more neutral - as well as provide proper sourcing - I see no reason not to restore the content and give them that opportunity. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list, not a blatant advert, but promotional enough that this should definitely be discussed on AFD. --Coredesat 23:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from deleting admin: While I still think it was a blatant advert for the book (or books) listed at the beginning of the article (given the constant references to "see chapter x" or "as described in chapter x of the book"), I'm fine with it being taken to AfD. In order to be kept, however, it will need serious retooling to drop the "advertiness" existing in the most recent version before deletion. Other references in addition to the book it's advertising will be needed as well. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't be a problem finding references other than MJ's original book. Indeed Google shows conferences, workshops, and papers all over the world. This should have been marked for clean-up rather than deletion. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list (and list Michael A. Jackson as well). - Problem Frames Approach has some google hits, but still may not meet WP:N. The only mention I found was Blaine, J. David. (March 1, 2002) Software Quality Professional Problems Frames : Analyzing and Structuring Software Development Problems. Volume 4; Issue 2. However, this reference goes to the WP:N of the book, not the Problem Frames Approach technique. This situation appears to be one of those "someone came up with this idea (problem frames approach) and have been trying to get publicity for it. Wikipedia may help get publicity for Problem Frames Approach and Michael A. Jackson, so I'll create those article." There was enough information in the problem frames approach article to keep it from being a blatant advertising. However, the article may be WP:OR or WP:NPOV and may include some copyright violations. Restore,m delete the advertising material, delete the unsourced material that looks like a copyright violation, and list at AfD. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 16:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Using my Admin powers to look at the history of this page, it was created back in 2004 (by StephenFerg, FWIW) & attracted a decent amount of edits until its Speedy Delete. I'm surprised that an article with much attention all of a sudden becomes a clear candidate for CSD -- but I've been wrong before. -- llywrch 19:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article was deleten and then protect with the reason "no significane" given. Ouvriere 17:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC) heysan! has been written up twice in newsweek and numerous other blogs including Cnet, Macromours etc: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18628572/site/newsweek/?pg=4#nwk_070510_CompanyBrill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_Combinator http://hyperisland.blogspot.com/2007/05/sign-up-for-heysan.htm http://appleuniverse.mypodcast.com/2007/09/Apple_Universe_Episode_51_Mobile_Messaging_with_Heysan-41490.html http://www.imessengr.com/2007/07/heysan-another-iphone-compatible-mobile.html http://www.iphoneatlas.com/2007/07/13/heysan-a-lightweight-approach-to-iphone-im/ http://www.download.com/Heysan-AIM-MSN-ICQ/3000-13592_4-10710926.html http://www.everythingiphone.com/iphone-application-directory/communications/heysan!-aim,-msn,-icq/details/ http://www.modmyiphone.com/apps/heysan/ Please unprotect this page and restore the previous content so i can keep edit it. --Ouvriere 17:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Refactored - Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Actually the cited newsweek article is only tangentially about this product and the other sources are not reliable enough. We don't write articles based on blogs. Do you have any other real world media about this product that we can refer to? Oh, and this was deleted as g4 when its never been to AFD so the deletion is technically invalid but lets see how we get on with sources first. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, Yes http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18628572/site/newsweek/?pg=4#nwk_070510_CompanyBrill is an note and a photo of the company in newsweek. Reliable? Are you serious when you say that you don't write articles based on blogs? There are tons of blogs with lots more crediibility that newspapers. I don't know what G4 means, i'm sorry. --Ouvriere 04:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The article does not mention Heysan at all. There is a poll and maybe a photo (I just took your word for that) but this does not an article make. And yes, we don't do
• I think you have to read again:

"Par Lindhe, Gustaf Alstromer, Marie Brattberg and Michael Ossareh (Heysan!) A mobile-oriented start-up building instant messaging for phones that works on all carriers with (no SMS fees!)" --Ouvriere 05:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

blogs for reliable sources. Please review WP:RS. You need to provide some reliable real world sources for this to exist. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have provided real world sources. Cnet and Newsweek can't seriously be considered blogs? --Ouvriere 05:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion as this would never hold up on AfD, especially if that's all there is to source it--should have been a G11 rather than a G4 though, but at this point it barely matters. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Apologies. I was using the pop-up and must have caught the scroll button and gone from G12 or A7 to G4. If people feel I should undelete it then let me know. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion - CSD A7 and CSD G11 apply. Comment There seems to be a misunderstand of Wikipedia's requirements. Heysan! does not deserve a Wikipedia article because it may be important or is mentioned by important news sources. Rather, Wikipedia articles are to be composed only of material summarized from reliable sources. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 15:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion A7, G11 and Jreferee said it well. Carlossuarez46 04:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  What did he say so well? What of the wikipedia requirement does heysan! not live up to???

1. heysan is a funded company with product used by many thousands of users

2. heysan has been covered in reliable and large news-sources, like Newsweek, Cnet and Macrumors.

3. heysan! is part of Y_Combinator and we're which is statup-program and a community of startups in san francisco and boston, every year hundreds of people a

4. what does heysan do? it is one of the leading iphone-based instant messaging services

--Ouvriere 05:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is notable debugger for parallel programming a5b 14:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC) It was speedy deleted as spam. `a5b 14:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC) User, who marked this article for db-spam was a vandal. There is his contibutions page [1]. A lot of his db-spam's was reverted (eg LynxOS‎ was marked as spam), but this article was deleted. May be other articles marked by this vandal was deleted. `a5b 15:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I deleted the article because it seemed not important to me. If you say it's notable, I have no objections in restoring it. --Tone 15:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you ever try to debug programm on cluster or multicore systems? It is the best debugger for that purposes. It is widely used on clusters, and installed on IBM's top supercomputers, LLNL clusters and many many other. E.g. [2] `a5b 15:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I don't do debugging on daily basis, actually not at all... :-) And as for your concern, I checked the deleted edits of the user in question. Indeed, he tagged some articles for SD, believe it or not, some about debuggers as well! So if you want to check whether some good were deleted, I can provide you a list of the edits. --Tone 16:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Persuade me If its notable I presume you can provide multiple independent sources? Aside from that the article has been pretty much its final form for over 2 years. I really don't see this as a speedy and would prefer to have seen this handled at AFD. That said, if we don't have sources there is no point engaging in process for process sake. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse speedy delete - CSD A7 No assertion of importance/significance in the deleted article. No objection to recreating the article from reliable source material, which you may do in your user space and return here, to DRV, to request restoration of the article using your draft as the new contents. Comment - The article should have been titled Etnus TotalView debugger to distinguish it from the Etnus company and the TotalView company, both of which are often referred to as the Etnus TotalView company or some other variation. To make things more confusing, this company has referred to its debugger in press releases as Etnus TotalView, Etnus TotalView 6, Etnus TotalView 6.0, "Etnus TotalView Debugger, version 6", TotalView 6.2, and some other variations. The company also has called itself various things taken from the name of the debugger (or named the debugger after the company - I don't know which). Great way to confuse your clients and potentially ruin your Etnus TotalView trademark. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 16:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion A7, very close to G11 - no sourcing but for the company but nothing here asserts notability: not all software is notable no matter how good it is. Carlossuarez46 04:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article can be renamed after it will be restored. Some sources (from Google):

• [3] TotalView runs on 98 of the top 100 supercomputers (see www.top500.org) in the world
• [4] The best debugging option for MPICH is the Totalview debugger ... that is one of the best parallel debuggers available.
• [5] Without question, the most popular HPC debugger to date. `a5b 15:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Origins and architecture of the Taj Mahal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Good article released under GFDL. I believe that WP:IAR and common sense should apply here. The article should be undeleted. Navou ^banter 12:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted, restore in userspace as appropriate. The sole contributor of all the content requested deletion, feeling unhappy with the article as it currently stood, wishing to rework in userspace. I believe we should cede to his wishes as part of the courtesy we extend to all our fine contributors. The GDFL is an irrelevant red herring in this case. Moreschi ^Talk 12:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Author requested deletion under WP:SPEEDY criteria G7, which specifically states "page's only substantial content was added by its author." That's absolutely the case here. CSD is official policy. Nowhere does it say he has to be the "sole author" of the article. We must respect the author's wish here. Joopercoopers is a fine editor, one I'm sorry to see go and one I hope will come back at some point. WP:COMMON should apply here and being courteous to each other. G7 is a courtesy, which we should respect. Making a drama out of this deletion only lessens the likelihood that Joopercoopers will come back. Unfortunate indeed. --Aude (talk) 12:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Deletion per CSD G7 is a courtesy, not an obligation. In the intro, WP:CSD states that "Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead." As a consequence, CSD G7 could use some rewording in that sense. What we have here is a comprehensive, referenced and possibly overlong article, which other editors could improve during the course of time. The sole main contributor, User:Joopercoopers stated his desire to leave Wikipedia; we don't normally allow revocation of GFDL if it isn't done in mutual consent of the author and Wikipedia, or according to the WP:DP. Duja► 12:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps this will address some concerns. Moreschi ^Talk 12:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And there's also the WP:ANI#GFDL Revocation Duja► 13:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep deletedUndelete see below- CSD G7 is policy as well as a courtesy, at least I was lead to believe so when writing the article, (grinning at the idea of introducing wikilawyer estoppel into drv.) Come on people be sensible about this, I don't want this article and another better one somewhere else, I think rather better of wikipedia than that. --Joopercoopers 13:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • There is a notice the message on the edit page that states "By submitting content, you agree to release your contributions under the GNU Free Documentation License." Even if this article remains deleted, as long as you are attributed as a contributor, anyone can take the content from the deleted version and use it to start a different Wikipedia article. Requesting that the page be deleted doesn't prevent us from using the text you wrote, because that text is already released to the world under GFDL. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok that's fine - they can do so at the usual risk - god knows, the Taj article could do with rewriting - perhaps you should also undelete User:Joopercoopers/Taj Mahal/restructure to this end? All I'm saying is it is my preference this article is deleted for now, if it is I'll improve it at a later date, otherwise - you're welcome to do what you will with it. --Joopercoopers 13:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I proposed idea of DRV more because I see this as a good venue to discuss the wider issue of GFDL and G7, not because I distrust your motives (on the contrary). I certainly do believe you that the article will eventually end up in Wikipedia. So, please don't take this personally (although, after the block and the wikidrama, I quite sympathize that you do, at least to an extent). Personally, I don't think I'll wage a crusade about it. <sick humor>And you might get struck by a car in the meantime, leaving us without the precious work</sick humor>. Duja► 13:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah I know Duja, I wasn't hurt. But if peeing on the off-side wheel of my car is suddenly made unlawful, I'm not usually at risk of prosecution for all the times 'before' the law came into effect - CSD seemed quite explicit - change the policy by all means, but I had a reasonable expectation that despite whatever GFDL might say, CSD would also be enforced. --Joopercoopers 13:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Authors' contributions to Wikipedia are permanent. As Duja says, criteria G7 is a courtesy. Its proper use is when a page is created by mistake, or when the article for which deletion is requested would likely fail AFD anyway (for example, a joke or hoax page). It is also very useful for templates that a user creates but never puts into use, and other things that never get off the ground.
    But if an author writes a good quality article that would likely be kept at AFD, such as this one, it should not be deleted per G7 just because the author decides it has flaws. Every wikipedia article has flaws! That's why several admins, acting correctly in my opinion, declined the speedy deletion request originally. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. The criteria for speedy deletion are occasions when administrators may delete a page without ascertaining community consensus (my emphasis). That does not mean that a page fitting within one of the criteria, or even several of them, must be deleted. Other factors have to be considered as well. If it is contended that there is an unofficial rule that "may" in fact means "will", then in my view it is a proper application of ignoring rules to disregard that rule in this circumstance. Joopercoopers can nominate the article for deletion if he wants to. Sam Blacketer 13:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete. G7 is a CSD that predates the PROD system, but I have always understood it to exist because deletion where the only contributor requests it is usually uncontroversial. Thus, like a PROD, I think that in the face of objection, G7 does not hold as an immutable criterion. I would especially note that application of G7 in this way is not a valid reason to speedy close a debate, simply because it is a somewhat unusual extension of G7 beyond what it was originally intended for. Phil Sandifer 14:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Deleted. This user is the primary author and has requested deletion in good faith. It doesn't matter whether we think it should stay or go, as common courtesy, we should respect his wishes and delete it. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Not a valid G7, G7 was never designed to allow contributors who wish to leave to delete their half-finished work. As Wikipedia is a wiki, we usually keep half-finished articles because somebody else might finish them, and this one is better than many articles that we do delete. Improvement of the article should be possible to others even if Joopercoopers does not return. However, our time would be better spent analyzing why we are losing a great editor like him than wheel-warring about this. Joopercoopers, we would like to keep your article visible to non-admins also during the time you are away; can't you just agree to let us do so instead of watching us kill each other over the interpretation of courtesy versus policy? Happy wikibreak, Kusma (talk) 14:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok - please close. --Joopercoopers 14:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per WP:OWN.  Grue  14:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

article deleted 4 times, recreated 5 times over a several-month period; deletion reasons have been vague/'speedy' and deletion actions have not stopped to consider issues such as 'significance/notability' (#1 in its genre for over a decade should qualify as notable.

Note: I plan to discuss this, but first I'm testing whether this message is showing up on the 'deletion review' page.

Update: This isn't showing up, I'm not sure what the formatting issue is. Help requested.

• Comment: I formatted and fixed this listing. No actual opinion on this DRV. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Image:НД Антонина Алиса.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|IfD)

This image was erroneously speedy deleted by the criterion G10. In fact, its purpose is strictly opposite this criterion. The photo was uploaded to illustrate the article The Novgorod Case, carries strong positive information about the mother and her daughter, is widespread in Runet and is aimed at refuting the allegations in murder attempt. It has been a symbol of the campaign in defence of the mother (e.g., see this LiveJournal community; the banner says "It may happen to anyone! Tonya and Alisa need your help."). Thus, application of G10 was a blatant mistake, IMO. The source of the picture is here, originally it appeared in this post (it can't be seen now because the author, the family's friend, renamed her blog, and image link doesn't work anymore; I asked her to fix it). After its first appearance, it was widespread in Runet. The photo was shot by her husband Kirill Martynov (see the article) a year ago, long before the events. This one and other pictures of the family are already well-known, they appeared on TV, newspapers and other media, some clips from TV broadcasts are available online, e.g. here (this photo appears close to the beginning). The defending media campaign was initiated by Mr. Martynov himself. I personally received his consent by email to place the picture in Wikipedia. The Cyrillic image name should be changed, of course. --Yms 04:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from deleting admin - I'm the admin who deleted it, under the rationale that this shows a picture of a young child who is alleged to be a victim of a serious crime, and I claim no ability to decide whether truly or falsely. I think this goes under do no harm, a concept with a certain amount of disputable applicability. I'm frankly going by my instinct here--I would feel very differently if it were an adult who could give actual or implied permission. Therefore, I have no objection to the adult in the picture. If there was a crime, the interests of the child are opposed to that of the parent, and so I am not willing to assume the parent can make a substituted judgment in the child's behalf. But this is my view, and I may be too sensitive or otherwise out of step. So I give no position on support or oppose, but want the opinions of the community. We're still making consensus here, and I do not know how it will be seen. Under our current rules, this venue is the place where it should be discussed. - DGG (talk) 05:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Anyway, how can G10 be applied in this case? It reads, Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject (attack pages). Even if there was a crime (I personally don't believe it now), how can this picture be considered "negative"? --Yms 05:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• As long as you don't state the image to meet G10, does it meet any CSD at all, or should it undergo the normal deletion discussion process? Shortcirquit 07:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC) By the way, the suspect is not the only parent and official representative of the child featured in the photo being discussed. Thus I'd be satisfied with the substituted judgement and implied permission of the other one, i.e. the suspect's ex-husband. Shortcirquit 09:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oops, it seems that I was wrong with the reason of deletion, it was someone else who attributed it to G10. Still, it is unclear which part of WP:BLP is implied here. --Yms 08:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• presumption in favor of privacy;no specific mention it applies to pictures, tho. DGG (talk) 12:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that the pictures are widespread in the media (TV and newspapers, I can give a dozen of web links with pictures), what privacy is it spoken about? --Yms 13:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC) Some newspaper sites with photos: [6] [7] [8]. Some TV programs (video): [9] [10] [11]. There are also some Web periodicals with photos, e.g. [12] [13]. --Yms 14:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The ru article contains the image. Does ru have a similar BLP policy to en? Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It was me who started to translate BLP into Russian a year ago :), but I left it unfinished, and the rule is still not adopted. But I can't see any violation of BLP here. --Yms 17:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps the question essentially is about Wikipedia:Avoiding harm. Personally, I have sometimes said the argument in that essay is overused and over-extended--and it is precisely because I have taken a position there that I felt it necessary to lean to the other side on this. Again, if the consensus continues to be that the image is OK, I'll restore it . DGG (talk) 19:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The first things I've read on this page are Is the information already widely known? If it has appeared in numerous mainstream reliable sources over an extended period of time, then it is probably suitable to be included in the article and Is the information given due weight in relation to the subject's notability? (the answer is yes, because the campaign in April-May used this picture heavily). So this page definitely states that yes, the image can be included. --Yms 23:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Along the line of avoiding harm, I don't see how it's necessary to have an image of the minor here, and so the presumption of privacy does favor deletion. If the purpose of the photo is to add "strong positive information about the mother and her daughter", that seems to violate WP:NPOV. By all accounts the deletion was done in good faith. This is certainly a borderline case, but the article seems perfectly fine without the image, so I think it's an acceptable use of discretion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• First, the photo of the family cannot violate WP:NPOV just as any fact cannot violate it. It is not notable facts that violate neutrality, it's their interpretation. On the contrary, concealing such facts may sometimes be deviation from neutrality. Second, the photo illustrates the campaign described in the article, and it is essential material for it. Third, discretion is IMHO irrelevant here, I already adduced several links to various mass media sources with pictures and can give more. I can't see any reason to delete the image except misunderstanding. --Yms 23:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• please--the wide publication birthday-party picture of the two of them is an obvious attempt at an emotional appeal. That's not the function of WP. DGG (talk) 02:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Go to the article, say, Antisemitism around the world, and you will see a lot of pictures of "an obvious attempt at an emotional appeal". This is by no means the reason to delete them. The birthday picture is placed in the section "the version of the defense" in the Russian article. --Yms 05:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't find the comparison with antisemitism particularly strong. In this article, this particular image seems unnecessarily polemic to me. Our role is not to "defend" or "condemn" anyone. I understand why people trying to clear her name would use this photo, because of it's appeal, but I see no reason we should do so. Isn't there any photograph of of just the accused that we can use? — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• A photo of just the accused is unneccessary there, since we are not going to simply let people judge of her by her face. The photo is to show how happy she was with her child, as an argument against the statment of the child being "a hindrance to her mother's private life" issued by prosecution, as it is mentioned in the article. I believe that excluding this photo will upset the balance of viewpoints that exists in the article. Shortcirquit 14:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think Wikipedia is the right place for "showing how happy she was with her child". Outside Wikipedia it's OK, but here it seems to be a kind of "original research". But, since the photo is indeed widely used by the defense side, and it is a real-world fact, I think we can keep it in the article. --Yms 16:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not an OR since the photo is already used by secondary sources in the same way and the article does not comment on this as I do. Shortcirquit 18:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment.... See: WP:WAX. We're not discussing the ru wikipedia, nor, are we discussing unrelated articles/images on this wikipedia, we're discussing this image. That being said, I think, the article is OK without this image, and, I agree with the above, that it's probably best to err on the side of caution, when using pictures of minors, particularly, ones sourced from a blog, that likely would not pass WP:RS, or WP:V. SQL^{(Query Me!)} 07:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It was not sourced from a blog, it was sourced from a periodical, see, for instance, http://novchronic.ru/773.htm, and from the author. Shortcirquit 09:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Gotcha, I thought it came from the LJ mentioned above :) SQL^{(Query Me!)} 09:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Nope, the above LJ was the place where the photo first appeared before it was published by periodicals. Shortcirquit 11:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Just encountered some more media sources with this image: [14] [15]. Though, the blog version has the highest resolution. --Yms 01:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I added them to the article. Thanks. Shortcirquit 07:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn speedy delete and continue with the IfD - While the uses of the image may have violated WP:BLP, the image itself did not and did not meet any speedy delete criteria. There are a variety of legit ways to keep the use of that image from violating WP:BLP while the IfD is pending. Also, the procedures at WP:CSD#Images_and_media can be implemented while the IfD is pending since it is unlikely that this image can be used in any Wikipedia article due to WP:BLP. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 17:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have undeleted as JReferee has suggested--it's a much better place for the discussion. I don't think it will cause much harm in the interim. DGG (talk) 18:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion - the license information is obviously false and the use of this image is purely decorative, in violation of our non-free content policy. The same goes for the other image in this article. --B 21:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No fair use is claimed or needed. Please visit the corresponding IFD page. The images may be lacking some license information, but there are no problems with licenses as such. I believe we can work it out somehow. Shortcirquit 22:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added some image info I believe is correct. Tho it may be not :/ Check twice. Shortcirquit 22:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Permission from the copyright holder to distribute this image under the CC license needs to be sent to m:OTRS ... the English email address is permissions-en@wikimedia.org, so I'm guessing there is a permissions-ru address? Most of us can't read Russian, so we can't verify the licensing information. It needs to be in the OTRS system if, in fact, the copyright holder has agreed to release it under a free license. If that gets taken care of, the image is fine ... there's no BLP issue here. --B 03:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've checked your guess at m:OTRS :)), and as far as I can see there is no permissions-ru address. Still I'm sure there must be a way out. Shortcirquit 06:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Should he write the permission himself? if yes, how can he identify himself? I just can confirm that I received from him permission by email (in Russian, of course). --Yms 07:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Could you please confirm this on the image page as well, thanks? Shortcirquit 07:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]